No. XII. Grossbrit. 1856. who has put his goods on board a large fleet in the British Channel, navi14. Juli gated by 7,000 or 8,000 mariners competent to man a fleet against this country. There is no comparison between the two propositions, and therefore I cannot but think that, in point of principle, the declaration of Paris ought to be altered. The whole matter is most unsatisfactory, and most grave in its bearing upon our maritime supremacy. I quite agree that the way in which we have been able to finish wars with great Powers, especially with France, has chiefly been by destroying the enemy's trade. We have brought the Powers with which we have been at war to such a state that their finances have become disordered. They have then been ready to listen to terms of peace, and thereby the wars have been terminated. But now, if we were at war with America or France, they could maintain their trade in full vigour, because manufactured produce throughout the world could be sent in neutral vessels in perfect safety. They would have no reason for making peaee. They would not be distressed. They would not be distressed. We might gain naval victories, but our successes would not produce peace. We might drive all their vessels of war from the seas, but we should not thereby gain the end of all war, which is an honourable peace. The state of this question is to me very alarming, but I do not see that a breach of faith would at all mend our position. Mr. Lindsay said, the noble Lord who had last spoken had misunderstood him. He did not say they should not abide by the declaration, but that, if they did abide by it, the whole carrying trade of this country would pass under a neutral flag. The consequence of that would be that, instead of maintaining our present position, as the first maritime Power in the world, we should become a sixth-rate Power; for there would be no employment for our ships, as the whole trade of the country would pass into neutral ships. He did not wish to throw aside a solemn declaration, but he said the people of this country would not abide by it, and would appeal to the House for its abrogation, and the House would be compelled to listen to, and give effect to that appeal. Having made this explanation, it was not his intention to press the Motion. Sir Charles Napier said, he had expected that some Member of the Government the First Lord of the Admiralty would have addressed the House after the speech of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion, that it was impossible we could remain in the position in which we were at present. The noble Lord said we could not break the engagement. He did not think we could. Diplomacy had drawn us into a very impolitic engagement, and it was for the noble Lord, or some clever diplomatist, to get us out of it. If they were determined to abide by the declaration of the Earl of Clarendon, and a war ensued, we must blockade every port which the enemy possessed. It must be not a mere paper, but an efficient blockade, and in the event of a war with France, such a blockade, with the navy we possessed, could not at the first start be established. Double or treble our navy would not be sufficient to blockade all the ports of France; and Motion, by leave, withdrawn. No. XII. Grossbrit. 14. Juli 1855. No. XIII. VEREINIGTE STAATEN VON AMERIKA. Staatssecretair des Auswärtigen an den Gesandten in Paris (und in Abschrift an die übrigen Gesandtschaften der Vereinigten Staaten in Europa). Ansichten des ameri kanischen Gouvernements über die Rechte der Neutralen. Department of State, Washington, June 27, 1859. Sir: The government of the United States has learned with much No. xIII. Vereinigte concern that a war has broken out in Europe which threatens in its pro- Staaten, gress to involve other powers, and to become one of the most eventful 27. Juni The 1859. contests in which modern nations have found themselves engaged. policy of the United States is essentially pacific, and upon the present occasion, as heretofore, they will faithfully discharge their neutral duties, determined, so far as depends upon themselves, to preserve the most amicable relations with all the powers engaged in hostilities. This determination will be communicated to each of those powers, and you will make it known to the government of his Imperial Majesty, and in doing so you will take care and express the confident expectation of the United States that their rights will be respected by France with equal fidelity. There is reason to apprehend that in the progress of the war questions affecting the rights of neutral nations upon the ocean may present themselves for consideration, and whose peaceable solution may require discretion as well as forbearance. The tendency of modern civilization and improvement is to mitigate the calamities of war, and the progress of opinion has introduced important meliorations into the mode of its prosecution, especially upon land; but unfortunately similar beneficent changes have not been admitted into maritime war, so that the code which regulates these contests yet contains principles of action not adapted to the sentiments of the age in which we live. It is desirable that, by the general consent of independent powers, modifications should be made in these objectionable principles, so as to accommodate them to the existing state of things, and also that the rights of belligerent nations should be restrained within reasonable limits and defined with due precision. This dispatch will make known to you the views of this government concerning these subjects; and it is deemed important that they should be communicated to the powers of Europe principally interested in the weighty Vereinigte Staaten, 27. Juni 1859. Nr. XIII. questions they involve, and that each of those powers should be requested, not only to cooperate in the effort to accomplish this good work, but also zealously to exert its influence with other states to induce them to concur in the proposed measure, which appeals by so many grave considerations to the feelings and judgment of the age. The various representations of the United States to the European nations will, upon all fitting occasions, explain these views to the governments to which they are accredited, and will invoke their aid towards the attainment of the objects indicated, and at the same time they will communicate for their infermation the views entertained by this country of those points of international law presented in this letter, which the United States consider established, and entitled to the support of all other powers. You are desired to carry into effect these instructions at the Imperial Court of France, and to keep this department informed from time to time of the progress and prospects of this attempt to restrict the evils of war, and to enlarge and secure the blessings of peace. It is obvious that the commercial powers of the world regard with no little solicitude the subject of neutral rights; and there is a general apprehension that pretensions may be advanced during the existing war which may imperil them. And it is equally obvious, from the temper of the age, that the present is no safe time to assert and enforce pretensions on the part of belligerent powers, affecting the interest of nations at peace, unless such pretensions are clearly justified by the law of nations. Although some of the provisions of that code have become harsh and unacceptable, yet there is a general sense of the duty of submitting to the obligations it imposes. But those obligations to ensure obedience must depend, not upon doubtful construction, but upon clearly expressed language, defining with reasonable precision the rights and duties of the independent parties in the relations existing between them. It is unfortunate that various claims have been advanced and enforced by belligerent powers in the prosecution of wars for which it would be vain to seek any sufficient justification in the law of nations, and this consideration adds to the importance of some acceptable arrangement by which this source of apprehension may be removed, and all danger of collision avoided by clearly defining the rights of the parties in all doubtful cases. If the belligerent powers should substitute their own views for the fair provisions of the general law, the most serious consequences may be apprehended. It becomes all prudent governments engaged in hostilities to take into consideration the actual condition of public sentiment whenever measures of doubtful character are proposed, and satisfy themselves not only that they are also practically expedient. There are three principal subjects connected with the rights of belligerent and neutral powers which require the dispassionate consideration of all governments desirous of preventing the most serious complications. These relate to the condition of an enemy's property found on board the vessel of a friend, and to the system of blockades and contraband of war. With respect to the two last, the United States consider it of the utmost impor tance that they should be so regulated and defined by general consent as No. XIII. to leave no doubt respecting the questions they embrace, when these call for practical adjustment. With respect to the protection of the vessel and cargo by the flag which waves over them, the United States look upon that principle as established, and they maintain that belligerent property on board a neutral ship is not liable to capture, and from existing indications they hope to receive the general concurrence of all commercial powers in this position. Whatever difference of opinion may have heretofore prevailed upon this subject, it is certain that the claim forcibly to enter a neutral vessel and to seize the goods found there, upon the allegation of their being the property of an enemy, was first urged at a period when the passions of belligerents were little restrained by the dictates of humanity or religion, and when the question how an enemy could be injured, or rather how his goods could be injured, or rather how his goods should be seized, was a much more acceptable object of research than why a friend should be spared. Almost from the first attempt to incorporate this doctrine into the maritime code of the world, it has been denounced by eminent publicists as fallacious in principle and unjust and dangerous in practice. And the repugnance to it has gone on increasing till its advocates have almost disappeared. I believe that every modern commercial nation has practically repudiated it by entering into treaty stipulations, either temporary or permanent, providing for its abandonment, and some of them, as the Baltic states, by the league known as the armed neutrality, and by forcible resistance. The opposition of Holland to it has been almost unremitted. The principal powers engaged in the Crimean war, Great Britain, France and Russia, by formal public declarations avowed their adherence to the doctrine of immunity and their determination to respect it, France and Russia absolutely and without limitation of time, and Great Britain for the present", but for a reason equally applicable to all times hereafter, and which will at all times call for similar concurrence. This measure is adopted, says the British declaration, „to preserve the commerce of neutrals from all unnecessary obstruction", &c. Experience has well shown the justice of this designation and the wisdom of this precautionary arrangement. No disposition has been manifested by any of the states relinquishing this pretension to resume its exercise, nor is it to be expected that if such an effort were made it would be tamely submitted to. Contested and invidious powers are not to be thus authoritatively abandoned and then again called into service, at the interest or caprice of any nation. The countries engaged in the pending war have adopted a much wiser policy. They hold on to the power of the flag to protect both vessel and cargo from all violation, and have proclaimed by public declarations their determination to respect the principle of exemption so happily established. And well is it in the general interest, that this tribute has been rendered to the opinions of the age. The stopping of neutral vessels upon the high seas, their forcible entrance and the overhauling and examination of their cargoes, the seizure of their freight at the will of a foreign officer, Staaten; 27. Juni 1859. Staaten, 1859. No. XIII. the frequent interruption of their voyages by compelling them to change Vereinigte their destination in order to seek redress, and, above all, the assumption of 27. Juni jurisdiction by a foreign armed party over what has been aptly termed the extension of the territory of an independent state, and with all the abuses which are so prone to accompany the exercise of unlimited power, where responsibility is remote; these are indeed serious obstructions", little likely to be submitted to in the present state of the world without a formidable effort to prevent them. Such pretensions necessarily lead to the establishment of a police upon the great highway of nation, to the transfer of jurisdiction over its own vessels from the country to which it belongs to other powers, who may exercise it for their own purposes. Far better would it be to encourage the freest system of commercial intercourse, both in peace and war, than to encounter the calamities, which would be sure at this day to attend the attempt to revive claim to obstruct the trade of the world. This government is satisfied that no such design is meditated, and under the circumstances the United States feel justified in considering the freedom of neutral vessels from interruption, when carrying belligerent property, an established principle of intercommunication which ought to be respected as such by all commercial nations. But there is another aspect under which this subject presents itself, and which confirms this government in the resolution it has formed and in the expectation that other powers will cordially concur in its views. By the declaration of the Paris conference, in its sitting of April 16, 1856, it was announced on behalf of all the states who might become parties to that act that the neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war." This mutual agreement protects the property of each of those states, when engaged in hostilities, from capture on board a neutral vessel, by an enemy a party to the same act. It is not necessary that a neutral should have announced its adherence to this declaration in order to entitle its vessels to the immunity promised; because the privilege of being protected is guaranteed to belligerents, coparties to that memorable act, and protects their property from capture whenever it is found on board a vessel belonging to a nation not engaged in hostilities. Were it otherwise, a very grave question would arise for the consideration of the government of the United States. The carrying trade is a branch of employment to all neutral commercial powers. It is peculiarly so to this country from the enterprise of its citizens, and from the facility with which they devote themselves to the pursuits of navigation. While conceding the authority of belligerent nations to relax the rigid principles of war, so far as regards their own rights, and to exempt other powers from penalties which might be enforced, but for such concession, whether this is done for a consideration or without it, those neutral nations which are prevented from being parties to such an arrangement have a right to insist that it shall not necessarily work to their injury. This dictate of justice would be palpably violated in the case of the United States, should this protecting clause of the Paris conference not |