On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    - —and which already prevailed in Dublin . He ex . pressed a fear that these halls , in connexion with the operation of the clauses abolishing the oath on matriculation and admission to the first degree , would introduce elements of discord fatal to discipline- The noble lord concluded by shadowing forth the nature of the amendments he intended to move in committee . Lord Canning then replied , and the bill was read the second time without further discussion .

    THE RIGHTS OP NEUTItALS . An abortive debate , ending in a count out , took place , on Tuesday , on the rights of neutrals . The debate is chiefly interesting from the fact that Sir William Moles worth delivered a remarkable and exhaustive speech on the subject . Mr . John Piiillimoue moved the following resolution , seconded by Mr . Mitchell : " That it is the opinion of this House , that however , from the peculiar circumstances of this war , a relaxation of the principle that the goods of an enemy in the ship of a friend are lawful prize may be justifiable , to renounce or surrender a right so clearly incorporated with the law of nations , so firmly maintained by us in times of the greatest peril and distress , and so interwoven with our maritime renown , would be inconsistent with the security and honour of the country . "

    Mr . Phuhmore supported his proposition by an elaborate reference to history and the authorities , including Vattel and the " Cbnsolato del Mare . " The principle for which he contended was , that every belligerent power might capture the property of its enemies wherever it was met with on the high seas , and for that purpose should detain and bring into port neutral vessels laden with such property . For that principle he contended , and though he did not object in the present case to what had been done , he wished that that principle should not be entirely abandoned . There were two principles distinctly laid down on the subject , namely , that the goods of an enemy on board the ship of a friend might be taken , and that the goods of a friend on board the ship of an enemy ought to be restored , and those principles had run through the public law of Europe from the earliest times .

    Sir W . Moles worth replied , by going over the whole question . Two questions had been raised by Mr . Pliillirnore , one a theoretical question of international law , the other a practical question of political expediency . The theoretical question was whether a belligerent state should have tlie right of confiscating the goods of an enemy in the ship of a neutral . The practical question was , supposing the right to be admitted , whether it was most politic for this country , in the present war , to insist on or to waive it . With respect to the first question , Mr . Phillimore wished the House to affirm the position , as one so clearly incorporated with the Inw of nations that to renounce or surrender it would be inconsistent

    with the honour and security of the country . With regard to the . practical question , he admitted that from the special circumstances of the present war the principle might be relaxed . Clearly , however , the House could not so much as entertain the motion unless the theory which it upheld were based upon truth . Was this the case ? Mr . Philmmork had endeavoured to prove his case by quoting learned authorities—he had traced the origin of the rule to the ages that followed the downfall of tho Konian empire— -and appealed in support to the well-known Consolato del Marc , which contained the first written statement on the subject . Ho fortified his positionresting so fur on a document of the eleventh century reference

    by to Grotius . But what was tho authority of Grotius ? Only this , that he has described the rights of war as they were deduced from the custom , the sayings , tlio writings of antiquity , so that , of necessity , a great number of these rights have become obsolete , in proportion to the advance of civilisation . And it does not , after till , seem clear in favour of which position tho authority of this writer can bo quoted . Nor could' more bo said for the weight of arguments resting on Vuttel—vho merely mentions tho rule , withoutilufemlhur it , ami is , moreover , very deficient in philosophical precision . On the othor hand , all tho modern publicists of continental Europe have condemned the rule of tho Conso kt to as a relic of barbarism .

    So much for tho books . . 1 Jut it must fce admitted that the practice nmong European states lias been in conformity with tho position laid down by Mr . Phllhmore , I $ ut that doua not warrant tho conclusion that it is in nceorduneo with what ouijla to be tho law of nations . Tho public law of Kuropo inn } ' bo traced to two distinct sourcos , —to the law of nations and to custom . How do wo know that tho laws bnsod only on UBngo and custom do not ivquiro amendment ? Usage and custom nro frequently at vnrimieo with ¦ vrlmt is right and just , and , in thia special instance , tlio /« s belli hua dim-rod In lUucront nulioiiH and in ujlk-rent Bcota und families of nations— . U has Ik . hu varied m tho eaino nation at dilll-rcnt periods in its history . Tho question must bo argued on tho rights of tho ensc . 1 ho uilvocntGB of tho extension of neutral wghtB contend that tho toutlonoy to respect these

    rights has grown with the growth of civilisation , but has hitherto chiefly influenced practice in war by land . For this there can be no reason , and besides the laws of warfare—now appealed to—were established when the rights of neutrals were little cared for or understood—and it is absurd to accept as the public law of Europe what is in point of fact the municipal law of Rome . It is by adopting the principles which were adopted , with full right , by the Imparators of Home that European sovereigns have

    been led into grave errors . And the friends of the extension of neutral rights contend that the old system , thus ill-founded and absurd , should be abolished . They contend that a neutral ship is a floating portion of the territory of a neutral sovereign / and should be treated as such—that while a belligerent power has a full right to prevent a neutral state from succouring the enemy , it ought not to extend its interference . They affirm that the language a neutral state is entitled in reason and justice to say to a belligerent is this : —

    " * As a neutral I have nothing to do with your quarrel ; you may injure your enemy as much as you like , provided that in so doing you do not injure me ; you may hit your antagonist as hard as you can , but you must act strike me in order to hit liirn ; and if he hurt you , you must not retaliate upon him by hurting me . All that you , as a belligerent , are entitled to demand of me as a neutral is , that I will not take any part against yon ; that I will not directly succour and aid your enemy ; that when you are fighting I will rot furnish him with munitions of war ; that when ' you are blockading his ports , or besieging his towns , I will not interfere , nor supply him with the means of prolonged defence ; but , provided that I abstain from doing these things as a neutral , 1 am entitled to carry on with your enemy a trade as free and unrestricted as he and I may thiuk proper

    to permit ; for ( say ths . friends of the extension of neutral rigiits ) the sea is free—Grotius has proved it—and SelJen wiiti unable to refute him ; therefore no portion of the ocean is the exclusive property of any state , except that portion ofit which is temporarily occupied , by the ship of a state ; over that portion the state whose ship occupies it has for the time sole and exclusive jurisdiction . A neutral ship is a floating portion of the territory of a neutral sovereign ; its inhabitants are Lis subjects ; they are bound to obey his municipal law , and no other law . If they commit crimes on board the ship , they are tried and punished 03 ' bis penal law ; and the ownership of every article of property on board the ship is determined by his civil law . Therefore ( s : * y the friends of the extension of neutral rights , addressing a belligerent Sovereign ) your quarrel , with which the neutral

    Sovereign has nothing to do , and to which , as a neutral , he ought to be perfectly indifferent , cannot destroy his rights on the free ocean , cannot entitle you as a belligerent to interfere with his floating territory more than with his fixed territon-. But it must be admitted that the subjects of ft neutral Sovereign , the inhabitants both of his Moating territory and of his fixed territory , ought not to directly aiU and succour your enemy , for if he were to sanction such conduct , on the part of his subjects he would cease to be a neutral , and would become your enemy ; therefore he ought to prohibit the inhabitants both of his fixed , and of his floating territory from directly aiding and succouring your antagonist ; mul lie ought to authorise you as a belligerent , and you ought tobe authorised by the law of nations , to enforce Unit prohibition by visiting his ships and confiscating

    conperty in question has not been completed , and that its legal ownership is still vested in yonr enemy , you claim the right of confiscating that property . And ( say the friends of * the extension of neutral rights ) you claim the right of causing these powers to be exercised , not only by the commanders of your regular ships of war , over whom you have direct control , and who are gentlemen , and have the honour and interest of their country at heart , but you claim the right of delegating these powers—at all times odious and vexatious , and which may be used to tho great detriment and injury , and even destruction of the trade and commerce of neutral States—to the freebooters , lmecaniers , and foreign cut-throats who man your privateers , over whom you have little or no control , scourges of the ocean , whose object is

    plunder , and who can only be distinguished from pirates by the mark of your license to pillage . Now ( say the friends of the extension of neutral rights ) your stattis as a belligerent gives you no more right to enter a neutral ship to search for your enemy ' s property than to enter a neutral port to search for your enemy ' s ships . As long as you and the neutral Sovereign are at peace you have no right to meddle with any property on board his ship except contraband of war . For he is sole and independent Sovereign on board his ship , and , in virtue of his sovereignty , all property on board his ship belongs in fact to him , for he can dispose of it , and does dispose of it , according to his will and pleasure , as declared iu the rules of his municipal law . Therefore , as long as you and lie are at peace , you Lave no right to ask

    any questions about any property on board his ship—either how he became possessed of it , or upon what conditions he acquired it , whether he paid for it in hard , cash , or pbtainei it on credit ; whether he nolds it for his own use or in . trust for anybody else . To insist upon asking these questions , to insist Upon determining them in yohr courts of law , to exercise any power ov-er a neutral ship which the neutral Sovereign neither eoncedes to you nor admits that you are entitled to . exercise according to what Jie considers ought to be the rules of international law , are acts of violence to which neutrals have submitted only when neutrals have been weak and belligerents strong , and which neutrals have resisted , and will again resist , whenever strong enough to defend their rights . "

    And many European states have agreed m the principle . For a century and a half before the French revolution the invariable rule between the maritime powers of Western Europe was " free ships , free goods ; " it is contained in almost every one of . the treaties of peace and commerce which England concluded with France , Spain , the United Provinces , or Portugal during that time . Still the practice has been at variance with the law . In peace , men ' s minds are calm , and open to the influence of truth and justice . In -war , their passions are aroused , and the best established rules are oftentimes set at defiance . Sir William Molesworth mentioned several instances iu which the law—adopted in all the treaties—was flagrantlv violated ; and it does not

    seem that , in periods of war , this country has shown any greater respect than its neighbours for the rights of neutrals . Still it may be asserted with perfect trutii , that though it has been the custom and usage of nations to act upon the rule of capturing enemies ' goods on board neutral ships , yet that custom and usage have been , and still are held by the groat majority of civilised nations to be at variance with correct notions of what is right and just . Now since the conduct of sovereign states towards each other should be regulated by opinions generally current , and not by any positive command of a superior authority , it follows that Mr . Phillimore's motion is at least not indisputably true , and , therefore , not of a kind which the House should pledge itself to uphold for ever .

    trabiind of war , and by seizing his vessels in tlie event of their attempting to break through your blockade ; but , though it must bo admitted that the subjects of a neutral Sovereign ought to abstain from doing these things , the evident aim and intention of which are to directly succour and aid your antagonist—ought to abstain ft' 0111 all acts which done by his commands , or by lib ships of war , would justify von in treating him as an ally of your enemy—yet it does not follow that the subjects of a ucutrtil Sovereign lire bound to abstain from d ling those things , which , without directly succonriiig und aiding your antagonist , may tend to benefit rind enrich him , and , by enriching him , may tend to strengthen him , and , by strengthening him , may tend to render it . more ditHcult to overcome your enemy . For you must admit that tho established and universally recognised laws of luiropcan warfare

    As to the practical question , it happens that tho written law of Franco and England varies on thia subject . The French arc bound l > y law and treaties to respect enemies' goods on . board neutral ships , but are entitled to conliscate tho goods of neutrals on board enomies' ships . The English law is exactly the converse of this . And since tho cordial cooperation of the two countries is essential to success , it waa necessary to attain complete harmony of action by agreeing upon a common law for both countries . The compromise ) is this : I ^ ranco waived her right of confiscating neutral property on board Russian ships ; England waived her right of confiscating Russian property on board neutral ships .

    permit tho subject of u neutral Sovereign to do many things uftliis description ; that , according to tho present public Jaw of Europe , Ik ; \ a entitled to trado with your enemy in every description of goods except contraband of war ; he is entitl e d to entei' any one of your enemy'a ports which is not strictly blockaded ; ho is entitled to load liis ships with goods and merchandise of tho produce and manufacture- of your onemy ; ho is entitled to curry off these goods nnd merchandise , and to sell thorn in other ports . You cunnot deny that the subject of a neutral Sovereign is entitled liy the Jaw of nations to do all theso things , but you ailirm that ho must do them subject to this strange and extraordinary condition , that during Iho period that ho is carrying tho goods in question from 0110 port to anothor thoy should legally ceuso to U ' lon ^ f to your uneiny . And (» ay tho J'riojiiln of lho extension ol _ neutral ri ghts ) in order to ascertain whether this extraordinary condition is fullilled , you claim , us a belligerent ,

    Lastly , oven it' Mr . 1 'hillimoru ' s motion wore true , tho lloudo should not agroo to it tuiless it were shown that some great practical good would result . Whereas to follow out tho course recommended by Mr . Phillimoro would be to declare- to other states that ; wo did what was absolutely wrong , for some special reasons , hut that , in future , wo should revoke our act . " In douling with other ( States wo ought to innko up our minds to what U right and just to do , and do il ; but . wo should carefully abstain from throats und boasts of what ivo will do . To do 0110 tiling ""« diiy , uii'I to vapour mid to fume , and to fret , nnd to swear that , we ? will do < iu » to another unworthof

    tlw right of l-topping muitnil HliiiHj on tho liiglivmy of tho fieo ocean , not only fur tho purpose of uncertaining their niitionality , mid whether tiny arc carrying contraband ol war to your oneniy , but for tlio purpose ol searching nnd minutely ini | uirln . rmid examining into tho legal ownership ol oycry hhiglu urtlelo of proporly i > n board a neutral ship ; 11 ml it ' you Hud anything on bonrd tho whip which you fancy bolongtf to jour e . iuiny— any property tho puroliuHO of which from your enemy you wuniioi / t has not boon complntutl according in Iho htriet and technical rules of your law —you ilaini iui u belligerent iho ri ^ hl of detaining tho neutral » hi ]> , imd of compelling it . to chaugo ittt route ami outer one ol _\ our port . s , iu order that your judgoa may inijulro into mul deleriniiio Iho ownership of Ujo properly ill question ; mul if your judged deeiilo tlint , according tn tlio _ technical nilen of that |> oriii > n of your municipal law which you cull your law of nations , the iiurchnso of tho

    protl » W another diiy , would ho conduct y a mighty nation . It would best betlt .. no of Fsilataft / 8 mggc-d rcgimmt . And tho twin * of iho motion irresistibly roinmda nno of tho deeliinitiou of Aulienl PiMol , whilo outing tho look under tho compulsion of Kindlons cudgel , that ho would yet have his roveiiRo . Tlio rule ol ' free nhinrf , frco um 4 * ' ia the look , whieh tho lion , iiiul learned gentldiuan is uiitiiJ ; I '"' ho vows I iu will havo hlu rovongo by future con-Ilije .-ition . I am eoiiviueud , therefore , that tho Hous « ought not to couiwnt to tho lonolution of tho lourncd flcnllomnn . for I have nhowu that it contains a proposition condemned liy tlw lu . ijorlfy vf civilised nations—one of doubtful truth ,

    Untitled Article

    July 8 , 1854 . ] THE LEADER . 627

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), July 8, 1854, page 627, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2046/page/3/