itime wars which took place between the peace of the Pyrenees in 1659 and the peace of Utrecht, 1713. These rules, then, may be considered as forming the general maritime law of Christendom, independent of these exceptions and of others introduced between particular nations by special treaties forming the conventional law between the contracting parties." 1 26. From the Peace of Utrecht to the French Revolution. This period, extending from 1713 to 1789, was marked by the rise of Prussia to a power of the first class, the war of independence on the part of British American colonies and the subsequent recognition of their independence by all nations, the entry of Russia into the family of nations, the first partition of Poland, and the beginning of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic era. The peace of Utrecht, among other matters, sanctioned once more "the legitimacy of the English Revolution of 1688 and guaranteed the Protestant succession to the British crown in the House of Hanover, as it had been settled by Act of Parliament. The cause of the Stuarts was thus finally abandoned by France and with it the principle of hereditary, indefeasible right on which it was grounded. The treaties of Utrecht were constantly renewed and confirmed from this time forth in every successive treaty of peace between the great continental and maritime powers until the peace of Lunéville, in 1800, and that of Amiens, in 1803, when they were, for the first time, omitted." 2 The two maritime wars that were terminated by the treaties of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748, and of Paris, 1763, caused many maritime questions to arise. Each belligerent adhered to its own views of the laws of nations in its conduct toward neutrals. France, by the ordinance of October 21, 1744, exempted from capture neutral vessels with enemy's goods, confiscating the goods of the enemy and restoring the vessel with the rest of 1 Wheaton, "History of the Law of Nations," pp. 106, etc. the cargo, contraband excepted. But two remarkable restrictions upon foreign commerce were revived to the effect that 1. All goods the growth, produce, or manufacture of the enemy's country were made liable to capture and confiscation except in neutral vessels navigating directly from the enemy's port where the goods were laden to a port of their own country. 2. Neutral vessels were prohibited from carrying a cargo from one port to another of the enemy, whatever might be the origin of the goods or to whomever they might belong. From these rules Denmark, Spain, and Sweden were exempt. The English practice, as given by their commissioners in 1754, was "that the law of nations has established that the goods of an enemy on board the ship of a friend may be taken." "That the lawful goods of a friend on board of the ship of an enemy ought to be restored." 1 Another rule laid down by England at this period was known as the Rule of the War of 1756, which forbade, in war time, neutrals to engage in the coasting trade of a belligerent, or in any other trade which was not permitted to them in time of peace. The desirability of this rule, whose correctness was supported by many English and some American jurists, will be discussed later. In 1780 Russia proclaimed the maritime principles of the armed neutrality, which were: (1) That all neutral vessels may freely navigate from port to port and on the coasts of nations at war. (2) That goods belonging to the subjects of powers at war shall be free in neutral vessels except contraband of war. (3) That contraband articles shall be restricted to munitions of war. (4) That the denomination of a blockaded port is to be given only to one which has the enemy vessels stationed sufficiently near to cause an evident danger to the attempt to enter.” 2 1 Wheaton, "History of the Law of Nations,” pp. 210, etc. These principles were approved by France, Austria, and the United States and were incorporated into the conventions of the league of armed neutrality of 1780. 27. From the Outbreak of the French Revolution to the Congress of Vienna. The outbreak of the French Revolution followed closely the end of the American Revolution and the consequent attainment of the independence of the United States, toward which the French nation so largely contributed. The French Revolutionary government in rapid succession adopted declarations and laws against wars of conquest and intervention and enunciating the principles of the Golden Rule and others tending toward the highest ideals. These, however, in due time were set aside both in practice and principle. Entering into an era of conquest, the Revolution was followed by the régime of Napoleon (1804-14) and the wars connected with his name and rule. To meet those wars of aggression and conquest, various European coalitions were formed, headed by Great Britain, which eventually ended in his downfall and the reduction, practically, of France to her original boundaries, while advantageously reducing the number of the German states by various combinations. With respect to the effect of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars upon international law, Wheaton says: "This long-protracted and violent struggle was too often marked in its course by the most flagrant violations of the positive laws of nations, almost always accompanied, however, by a formal recognition of its general maxims, the violations being excused or palliated on the ground of overruling necessity or the example of others justifying a resort to retaliation. This mighty convulsion, on which all the moral elements of European society seemed to be mingled in confusion, at last subsided, leaving behind it fewer traces of its destructive progress than might have been expected, so far as regards a general respect for the rules of justice acknowledged by civilized communities in their mutual intercourse." 1 1 Wheaton, "History of the Law of Nations," p. 422. the cargo, contraband excepted. But two remarkable restrictions upon foreign commerce were revived to the effect that 1. All goods the growth, produce, or manufacture of the enemy's country were made liable to capture and confiscation except in neutral vessels navigating directly from the enemy's port where the goods were laden to a port of their own country. 2. Neutral vessels were prohibited from carrying a cargo from one port to another of the enemy, whatever might be the origin of the goods or to whomever they might belong. From these rules Denmark, Spain, and Sweden were exempt. The English practice, as given by their commissioners in 1754, was "that the law of nations has established that the goods of an enemy on board the ship of a friend may be taken." "That the lawful goods of a friend on board of the ship of an enemy ought to be restored." 1 Another rule laid down by England at this period was known as the Rule of the War of 1756, which forbade, in war time, neutrals to engage in the coasting trade of a belligerent, or in any other trade which was not permitted to them in time of peace. The desirability of this rule, whose correctness was supported by many English and some American jurists, will be discussed later. In 1780 Russia proclaimed the maritime principles of the armed neutrality, which were: (1) That all neutral vessels may freely navigate from port to port and on the coasts of nations at war. (2) That goods belonging to the subjects of powers at war shall be free in neutral vessels except contraband of war. (3) That contraband articles shall be restricted to munitions of war. (4) That the denomination of a blockaded port is to be given only to one which has the enemy vessels stationed sufficiently near to cause an evident danger to the attempt to enter." 1 Wheaton, "History of the Law of Nations," pp. 210, etc. These principles were approved by France, Austria, and the United States and were incorporated into the conventions of the league of armed neutrality of 1780. 27. From the Outbreak of the French Revolution to the Congress of Vienna.-The outbreak of the French Revolution followed closely the end of the American Revolution and the consequent attainment of the independence of the United States, toward which the French nation so largely contributed. The French Revolutionary government in rapid succession adopted declarations and laws against wars of conquest and intervention and enunciating the principles of the Golden Rule and others tending toward the highest ideals. These, however, in due time were set aside both in practice and principle. Entering into an era of conquest, the Revolution was followed by the régime of Napoleon (1804-14) and the wars connected with his name and rule. To meet those wars of aggression and conquest, various European coalitions were formed, headed by Great Britain, which eventually ended in his downfall and the reduction, practically, of France to her original boundaries, while advantageously reducing the number of the German states by various combinations. With respect to the effect of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars upon international law, Wheaton says: "This long-protracted and violent struggle was too often marked in its course by the most flagrant violations of the positive laws of nations, almost always accompanied, however, by a formal recognition of its general maxims, the violations being excused or palliated on the ground of overruling necessity or the example of others justifying a resort to retaliation. This mighty convulsion, on which all the moral elements of European society seemed to be mingled in confusion, at last subsided, leaving behind it fewer traces of its destructive progress than might have been expected, so far as regards a general respect for the rules of justice acknowledged by civilized communities in their mutual intercourse." 1 1 Wheaton, "History of the Law of Nations," p. 422. |