Untitled - 24grammata.com

486 RISE OF THE CONTINENTALproperty as well ;againas to fetch, as its own property, thegoods which he has bought of these and paid for, but not tooffer them for sale to others as the property of the peopleengaged in the war. As far as practical policy is concerned,it is most important to observe, that the whole question maybe of greateror less importance according to the differentrelations and the position of the belligerent nations ; andthat it is therefore scarcely to be expected, that the conventional policy on the question should be always consistentand universally agreed upon. Let us consider, for example,the case of a people whose wealth and power chiefly dependsupon its maritime commerce, and, above all, upon an activetrade with its colonies ;can it be supposed for a moment,that its opponent, in case it be powerful enough to hinderit, will quietly suffer that commerce now to be carried onin foreign ships instead of in its own ?And, above all, willit quietly suffer this trade not only to be carried on to theextent which was customary in time of peace, but even to astill greater, from the ports of the colonies, which were formerly closed against foreigners, being now thrown open bythe colonists for the conveyance of their products their;ownships being excluded from 1trafficking.Would a navalpower at war with Spain, allow foreign ships to convey toher stores from Peru and Mexico, without which perhapsshe would be obliged to give up the contest ? We are herespeaking only of the general principle and the consequenceswhich flow from it ;far be it from us to vindicate the abuseto which the rejection of it has led. Far be it from us to.justify it, if more than the goods which upon search havebeen found to belong to the enemy, if perhaps even theship itself has been confiscated, with all its cargo.The revival of the project of an armed neutrality was aconsequence of the perfect unanimity into which the regent1 On the British side, the question is best elucidated by Pitt in his speechon the 2nd Feb. 1801. Speeches, iii. p, 220, sq. First, on the ground of international law, because the admission of the right of neutral flags in specifictreaties is only an exception to a right recognised as a rule. Secondly, on theground of convenience, because the greatness and preponderating weight ofEngland as a naval power, and consequently her restsgreatness generally,upon the maintenance of the principle hitherto received; since otherwise herenemies would have uncontrolled supplies of naval stores from the Baltic,Thirdly, on the ground of positive compacts which are opposed to it. Seebelow in the Appendix.