vations. measure to supplement that loss by widening the Concluding obserchannel for the influx of capital into the country. Manufacture of arms, ships, &c., important trades of Eng land. The manufacture of arms and ammunition, and the building of ships, both mercantile and naval, do not merely constitute a most important branch of British industry, but to these, and particularly to the latter, this country owes perhaps more than to anything else her maritime supremacy. Arms, ammunition, and ships of Time of war England's opwar, are not in request in time of peace. It is war portunity. that furnishes the market for these wares; and were England prevented by her own laws from availing herself of her natural and best opportunity, nothing could be more suicidal than such a restriction. straint. What is the consequence, if the argument be followed Effects to the end, particularly in reference to the present posture of affairs? Here is a proclamation avowing in unmistakable language, that "Her Majesty is happily at "peace with all the world." This might happen were all the other nations of the earth at war; and if, under such circumstances, the British subject be precluded from furnishing ships to any nation with whom this country is in amity, he would be shut out from the market of the whole world, when his skill would be most in request and his business most profitable. It would also result in the transfer of this most important branch of British industry from our own shipyards to those of other countries whose subjects are free from the operation of so arbitrary a law. of re Where, then, is the necessity for inverting the natural order of things, or for interpreting the laws of nations by the rule of contrary, to the manifest injury of the trade and commerce of our own country? Is it the dread of Dread of war war that warps the judgment of the advocates of this truckling policy? If such fears are not absolutely without cause chimerical. vations. Concluding obser- groundless, the sacrifice of principle to which they point is utterly inconsistent with the honour, the integrity, and the dignity of a great country. If America bent on war, sions will not avert it. is If America really is bent on war with England, it is illegal conces- utterly absurd to suppose that it will be averted by those unreasonable not to say illegal concessions, by the refusal of which, it is timidly argued, that hostilities will be provoked. The concessions contended for amount to neither more nor less than these arbitrary interference with commercial rights and privileges of the neutral subject-the perversion of the Municipal Laws of this country—the repudiation of the common law of nations-and last, not least, the compulsory interpretation of those laws, whatever the honest opinions of our judges may be, in direct opposition to the ruling of the courts of the United States themselves! Extravagant propositions. Impartiality of These propositions are so startling as to appear almost incredible when thus nakedly exposed; but that they are not overdrawn is abundantly testified by the continual repetition in the public press on both sides of the Atlantic of announcements like these. If the ironclads in Messrs. Laird's yard are allowed to leave this country, the United States will declare war. If the case of the Alexandra is decided in favour of the claimants, it will inevitably lead to hostilities. If England will not violate the acknowledged principles of neutrality, by treating the Confederate States as rebels, and by refusing to them what is allowed to the Federals, war will certainly ensue. Is the boasted impartiality and unbending majesty of English law a mere fiction? Is the England of the nineteenth century to be told that policy demands that she should do violence to the acknowledged rules by which the other nations of the earth are governed, and vations. The laurels which "Historicus" in his palmy days Concluding obserso ably competed for, ere "Phocion "* stepped into the arena to bear away the chaplet from his brow, cannot be divested of the impress of that masterly genius, whose lustre, unobscured by the dust his own hand has raised, still serves to light the pathway of legal truth. America In bringing to a conclusion this humble essay the Complaints appropriate climax to one of his epistles cannot be over- swered looked:-"Belligerents already sufficiently exasperated are mischievously instructed to consider themselves "the victims of imaginary wrongs, arising out of the supposed violations of unreal rights. It is of the last แ "It may happen that no proof may be attainable against the shipbuilder "(which in his case amounts to legal innocence), and yet that abundant proof "as against the foreign government may be acceptable. This will easily "6 appear from the following considerations. The offence against the Foreign "Enlistment Act consists in guilty knowledge and guilty intent. Now, even "assuming it proved that the ship is really destined for the warlike services "of a foreign belligerent Government, it may be difficult, and even impos"sible, to prove that the shipbuilder either knew its destination or partici"pated in the intent of its equipment. But, if the fact of its real destination "is established, no such ambiguity or difficulty of proof can be alleged on "behalf of the foreign Government. Of its knowledge and participation in "the belligerent intent of the equipment there can, of course, be no doubt. "Here there is precisely a case in which, though the legal remedy fails "against the subject for want of proof, the diplomatic remedy against the "foreign Government has its proper application, grounded upon a sound "foundation of truth." Now, all this reads very smoothly, but what of it? If what "Historicus" has so frequently reiterated, with authority in support, be true, viz., that it is lawful for the neutral to sell a ship to either belligerent-the sale being lawful, how can the purchase be unlawful, and wherein does the notable offence of either party consist? It is enough, however, that he now acquits the innocent shipbuilder, and leaves it to the Executive to infer and act upon the inference, when the ship has reached her destination, that the belligerent has done wrong in buying what the shipbuilder was free to sell. The proposition is perfectly innocuous; for he may rest assured, that without better justification than this no government will resort to diplomatic action, nor will our ships ever sweep the seas to make reprisals upon the property of those who have bought our ships in the ordinary and lawful course of trade. That "Historicus" may have no grounds of complaint, the letter in question is given in extenso at the end of this work. * Vide Note on next page. of an "Historicus.' by vations. Concluding obser- "importance to eradicate from the public mind on "both sides of the Atlantic these pernicious errors, on "whatever authority they may be promulgated. The "interests of peace demand that there should be no "doubt upon this question. It is no part of the duty "of a government to prohibit or prevent the trade of "its subjects in contraband of war; and the belligerent "government has no right to consider itself aggrieved "by the non-performance of an obligation to which the "neutral state is not subject. The traffic in contra"band of war within the neutral territory is absolutely "lawful. If the neutral subject engages in the transport "of contraband, the belligerent must be content with "his remedy by capture, and he is entitled to look for no other. If the reassertion of these principles "founded in reason, settled by law, consolidated by "experience, accepted by the unanimous accord of "nations, tends in any degree to remove that irrita"tion which is the unhappy fruit of ignorance inflamed by passion, the object of this letter will have been "accomplished."* 66 66 Having been led by the discussions in the public journals† during the progress of this work to reopen and • further dilate in this chapter upon some of the points which had previously been considered as disposed of, it may be asked to what these further disquisitions lead? At the risk of being somewhat tautological, it * The Times, December 23, 1862. Since the completion of this chapter, the pen of "Phocion" has contributed through the columns of the Times of September 18, 1863, a further letter containing much useful information, historical and argumentative, and which derives additional value from the masterly comments which the same journal has bestowed upon it. In these, and particularly the latter, the broad distinction between the right of the neutral to build and to equip ships is so ably drawn, that no apology need be offered for appending them with the last letter of " Historicus" to this volume. would appear that these pages cannot be more aptly Concluding obserconcluded, than by a brief summary of what the neutral shipbuilder may and may not do under circumstances like the present. It is still an open question where the building of a ship ceases, and where the equipping, furnishing, fitting-out, and arming begins. If, however, the neutral may lawfully build, by contract or for sale, a ship of war, it would follow that he may do all that is necessary to the proper construction of the hull, engines, machinery, masts, rigging, and every thing short of actual armament. In this view of the case he may, for example, put in a powder magazine, but cannot supply the powder. He may make her portholes, and fix her ring-bolts, but not supply the ordnance. He may give the requisite strength to the timbers, and prepare the decks for carrying swivel guns, but cannot supply the guns themselves. He may provide accommodation for a given number of men, but cannot provide the crew. In short, whatever is essential to, and forms part of the actual construction of the ship, and which cannot subsequently be added without disturbing or altering the structure, may lawfully be done. vations. Résumé of what neutral shipbuilders may and may not do. Question where building ceases and equipping begins. Builder may do all, short arming. of He may complete the structure, but not supply munitions war, or crew. of armed ships, question simplified. If, however, to carry this further, it is lawful accord- If he may sell ing to the decisions of the courts of the United States, for a neutral to make and sell an armed ship of war, the question is still more simplified, and the distinctions pointed out in the preceding proposition become needless. How far the courts of this country may, when the Preceding propocase of the Alexandra comes to be argued, affirm either coming arguof the above propositions, remains to be seen. But subject to that, according to all existing authorities of any weight, and the opinions of the majority of those sitions abide ment. G |