ward in these paragraphs appears to be that there is no obligation on neutral individuals who maintain they have been damnified by the naval operations of the belligerents to appeal to the prize courts for redress, because the prize courts are fettered by municipal enactments which are binding upon them, whereas the very question which those individuals wish to raise is the validity of such enactments when tested by the canons of international law.

40. These arguments seem to be founded on a misunderstanding of the situation, and to overlook all that was said in Sir E. Grey's note of the 23rd July on this subject. The extract there quoted from the decisions given by Lord Stowell shows that in Great Britain the prize court has jurisdiction to pronounce a decision on the very point which the United States note indicates, viz., whether an order or instruction to the naval forces issued by His Majesty's Government is inconsistent with those principles of international law which the court is bound to apply in deciding cases between captors and claimants, and is entitled, if satisfied that the order is not consistent with those principles, to decline to enforce it. The jurisdiction of the prize court in Great Britain therefore affords every facility to a United States citizen whose goods are detained and dealt with under the Order in Council of the 11th March to take his case to the prize court and there claim that the order under which the naval authorities have acted is invalid, and that its enforcement entitles him to redress and compensation.

41. In some matters, it is true, that the prize court is bound by the municipal enactments of its own country. It is the territorial sovereign who sets up the court, and who therefore determines the matters which are incidental to its establishment. His Majesty's Government have already pointed out that each country determines for itself the procedure which its prize courts shall adopt; but certainly under the British system-and His Majesty's Government were under the impression that, in this matter, the United States had taken the same course the substantive law which the court applies as between captor and claimant consists of the rules and principles of international law, and not the municipal legislation of the country. If reference is made to the case of the Recovery (6 C. Rob. 341), it will be seen that Lord Stowell refused to enforce in the prize court against a neutral the British Navigation Laws.

42. Sir E. Grey's note of the 23rd July was intended to make this point clear, and so far from having intended to "give the impression that

His Majesty's Government do not rely upon its soundness or strength," His Majesty's Government wish to lay stress on the fact that the principle that no encroachment should be made upon the jurisdiction and the competence of the prize court is one which they regard as vital.

43. Apart from the cases where a question may arise as to the validity of orders or instructions on which naval actions was based, circumstances frequently give rise to claims for compensation on behalf of individuals who consider they have suffered unjustly from the exercise of rights jure belli, as, for instance, from the delay in releasing their ships or so forth. His Majesty's Government desire, therefore, to repeat what was said in Sir E. Grey's note of the 10th February, that the British prize court rules give the court ample jurisdiction to deal with any claims for compensation by a neutral arising from the interference with a ship or goods by the naval forces.

44. His Majesty's Government attach the utmost importance to the maintenance of the rule that, when an effective mode of redress is open to individuals in the courts of a civilized country by which they can obtain adequate satisfaction for any invasion of their rights, recourse must be had to the mode of redress so provided before there is any scope for diplomatic action. This is the course which His Majesty's Government have always themselves endeavored to follow in previous wars in which Great Britain has been neutral, and they have done so because it is the only principle which is correct in theory and which operates with justice and impartiality between the more powerful and the weaker nations. To that principle His Majesty's Government propose to adhere now that they are themselves the belligerent, and that it is against them that the claims are advanced.

45. Enquiry has been made into the four cases of the Magicienne, the Don José, the Labuan, and the Saxon, mentioned in the United States note (paragraph 27) as instances during the American Civil War where His Majesty's Government put forward, through the diplomatic channel, claims for damages for seizure and detention of British ships alleged to have been made without legal justification. In two of these instances it is said at the time the demands were made the cases were before the American prize courts for adjudication. The results of the enquiry are contained in an appendix to this note. The cases have there been dealt with in some detail because they are cited as indicating that it was the practice of Her Majesty's Government during the American Civil War to claim through the diplomatic channel damages for seizures of

British ships alleged to have been made without legal justification. The cases do, in fact, establish the very proposition for which His Majesty's Government are now contending, viz., that in the cases where the prize court has power to grant relief there is no ground for putting forward claims through the diplomatic channel. In two of the cases the United States Government themselves discontinued the prize court proceedings and admitted the right to compensation, and in the others they maintained the jurisdiction of the prize court, and Her Majesty's Government acquiesced.

46. The statements contained in paragraph 31 of the United States note have led to a careful review of the practice which is now followed in the British courts with regard to vessels and cargoes which are released. It has been ascertained that in the case of vessels brought in for examination and allowed to proceed without discharging any part of their cargo no dues are charged. Where part of the cargo is discharged and passes into the jurisdiction of the prize court, the terms of the release are, of course, subject to the control of the court, and His Majesty's Government are therefore hardly in a position to give any definite undertaking with regard to the incidence of the expenses and charges which may have been incurred. In general, however, they realize that, in cases where goods are released and it transpires that there were no sufficient grounds for their seizure, no dues or charges should fall upon the owner. The statement that waivers of the right to put forward claims for compensation are exacted as a condition of release is scarcely accurate, but they are prepared to concede that such waivers would be a hardship to the owners of the goods released. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government will abstain from exacting any such undertakings in future, and will not enforce those which have already been given.

47. Attached to the United States note are voluminous appendices containing lists of various vessels of all nationalities whose cargoes have been examined by the naval forces of the allies. These lists are a strong testimony to the vigor and effectiveness with which the naval forces are carrying out the measures which the allies have deemed it necessary to take against the commerce of their enemies. Perhaps the most striking conclusion which can be drawn from these lists is the rapidity with which the vessels are released and the very small amount of loss and inconvenience to which they are, as a rule, exposed.

48. Into the facts of each particular case His Majesty's Government

feel sure the Government of the United States will agree that there is no need for them to enter, for the lists comprise only ships dealt with by the British authorities; no corresponding lists are given of those dealt with by the French forces, and a detailed examination of these cases would be of no assistance in explaining the general principles which are being followed and which are common to both the allies. Furthermore, any discussion of the cases in this note might prejudice the chances of the claimants of recovering compensation through the prize court in cases where they consider that they are entitled to redress.

49. Finally His Majesty's Government desire to assure the United States Government that they will continue their efforts to make the exercise of what they conceive to be their belligerent rights as little burdensome to neutrals as possible. Some suggestions have already been referred to in this note which, it is believed, would have that effect, and they are quite ready to consider others. For instance, they have already appointed an impartial and influential commission to examine whether any further steps could be taken to minimize the delays involved in the present methods of dealing with neutral vessels. Again, it has been suggested that it would be a great commercial convenience if neutral shippers knew, before they made arrangements for ship space and for financing their consignments, whether they would be held by up belligerent patrols. A scheme is already in operation which ought to succeed in accomplishing this object. Other suggestions of a like nature might perhaps be made, and the allied governments would be prepared to give favorable consideration to any proposal for the alleviation of the position of neutrals, provided that the substantial effectiveness of the measures now in force against enemy commerce would not be thereby impaired.

50. His Majesty's Government are of opinion that it is to such mitigations that the allies and the neutrals concerned should look for the removal of the difficulties now encountered rather than to abrupt changes either in the theory or application of a policy based upon admitted principles of international law carefully adjusted to the altered conditions of modern warfare. Some of the changes which have been advocated would, indeed, if adopted in their entirety, render it impossible for the allies to persist with effect in their endeavors to deprive the enemy of the resources upon which he depends for the prosecution of operations carried on both by land and sea with complete disregard of the claims of humanity; for instance, the practice of visiting exclusively

at sea, instead of in port, vessels reasonably suspected of carrying supplies to the enemy, or, again, the adoption of the principle that goods notoriously destined for the enemy may not be intercepted if they happen to be carried by a neutral vessel and addressed to a neutral consignee could not fail to have this result.

51. His Majesty's Government have noted with sincere satisfaction the intimation contained in the concluding passages of the United States note of the intention of the United States to undertake the task of championing the integrity of neutral rights. The first act of this war was the unprovoked invasion by the enemy of neutral territory-that of Belgium-which he was solemnly pledged by treaty to protect. The occupation of this territory was accompanied by abominable acts of cruelty and oppression in violation of all the accepted rules of war, atrocities the record of which is available in published documents; the disregard of neutral rights has since been extended to naval warfare by the wanton destruction of neutral merchant ships on the high seas, regardless of the lives of those on board. In every theatre and in each phase of the war has been visible the same shocking disregard by the enemy of the rights of innocent persons and neutral peoples. His Majesty's Government would welcome any combination of neutral nations, under the lead of the United States, which would exert an effective influence to prevent the violation of neutral rights, and they cannot believe that they or their allies have much to fear from any combination for the protection of those rights which takes an impartial and comprehensive view of the conduct of this war and judges it by a reasonable interpretation of the generally accepted provisions of international law and by the rules of humanity that have hitherto been approved by the civilized world.

APPENDIX.

CASES OF THE "MAGICIENNE," THE "DON JOSÉ," THE "LABUAN," AND THE "SAXON."

1. The Magicienne was captured on the 27th January, 1863, about 400 miles from the Cape Verde Islands, while on a voyage to Matamoros. She was taken to Key West and released on the 2nd March, the district attorney of the United States stating that he could see nothing in the depositions, invoices, and other papers on which to base a demand for condemnation or even for a certificate of probable cause of seizure. On the 3rd April Lord Lyons was instructed to ask for com