Untitled - 24grammata.com

502 APPENDIX.Her enemies are notoriously too weak to do the same, coninterruption.sequently in war their trade is almost annihilated. Had England, then,recognised this principle, the trade of France, Holland, etc., would haveimmediately revived, which England, who naturally regards her commerce as the mainspring of her power, is, for that very reason, anxiousThose countries, it is true, would not have been able, hadto repress.England given way, to carry on their trade in their own bottoms ; but theywould have carried it on in the ships of neutrals, or under neutral flags.The extent, as well as the importance of this principle, being thensufficiently obvious, let us now see what may be determined respectingit ; whether It is founded on the principles of natural law, upon the tacitagreement of civilized nations, or finally, on express stipulations betweenthe now contending powers.The law of nature, as applied to war, or pure military law, recognisesno further principle than "I injure my enemy wherever I can," and inthis is comprised, " I take from him his property wherever I can." Theprinciple of free ship, free cargo, in its full extent, that is, if it means anenemy's goods are to be free in neutral ships, is, therefore, not recognised by pure military law. It would be difficult, therefore, to provefrom the law of nature, that ifEnglishmen and Frenchmen wage warwith each other, they are, notwithstanding, obliged to spare each other'sproperty. This does not, however, imply, that if an Englishman findsthe goods of an enemy in a neutral ship, he is immediately justified intaking possession of the ship, for the mere conveyance of an enemy'swares, obviously involves no act of hostility towards him ;but it cannot,with any truth, be asserted, on the principles of natural law, that he isbound to let the property of an enemy escape free.But why this appeal to the law of nature? It is, happily, now universally understood, that this is no longer admitted as a rale in modernwarfare. It is one of the fairest fruits of civilization, that states onlywar with states, not with private individuals, to which, unhappily, privateering (and that, viewed in the most favourable light, is nothing better than piracy on a limited scale) still forms an exception. It is, therefore, evident, that in determining this question, we must not have recourseto the law of nature, but to conventional law or express compacts.The next question, therefore, is, whether the principle, "free ship,free cargo," has ever been generally observed ? this ever being limitedto what has been introduced among the civilized nations of Europe in thetwo last centuries. In order to determine this, we need only cast aglance over the history of the wars since the treaty of Westphalia, andwe shall find this question answered in the negative thus far : Neutralshave certainly generally laid claim to it, but belligerent powers, duringwar, have never been willing to recogniseit.In the great war which Lewis XIY., in 1688, commenced with almostthe whole of western Europe, the right of neutral flags was expresslydenied on the side of England, while William III. went so far as at onceto forbid all communication with France. It was also in vain that theButch, who were the greatest sufferers, made representations to himrespecting He it. gave the most suitable answer which could be givento these representations "Let this be the canon law."In the eighteenth century, the question respecting the rightsof neutral flags was not agitated till after the close of the war of the Spanish.