Principles of the armed neutrality.

I. That all neutral vessels should be allowed to navigate freely from one port to another, along the coasts of the nations at war.

II. That the goods and effects belonging to the belligerent powers should be free and safe in all neutral vessels, excepting contraband goods.

III. That by contraband goods was to be understood such as are specified in the 10th and 11th articles of the treaty of commerce between her and Great-Britain, extending her obligations in this respect to all other powers at war.

IV. By a blockaded port was to be understood only a port so well guarded by the vessels of the belligerent powers, that it is dangerous to enter.

V. That these principles alone ought to serve as a rule of decision on the legality of captures.

The empress, at the same time, made a declaration, that, in order to carry these articles into effect, to protect the honour of her flag, and to secure the commerce and navigation of her subjects, she had equipped the greatest part of her naval forces; that these measures would in no degree impair that neutrality which she was disposed to observe, until she was provoked, or compelled to transcend the limits of just moderation, and perfect impartiality.

Declaration and conduct of England.

18. The cabinet of St. James soon replied, that since the commencement of the war, it had given the most precise instructions to the commanders of ships to respect the Russian flag. In spite of these assurances, the English continued frequently to stop Russian vessels, and to decide on the validity of the captures, in the British admiralty courts. The empress protested against those tribunals. The controversy was about to become serious. The English put an end to it, by releasing the ships. Prussia, Austria, and even Portugal and Naples, joined the other neutral powers. This confederation was a powerful curb on the despotism of the nation which arrogates to itself the sovereignty of the seas.(26) Other states referred this point to their particular treaties, and to the universal law of nations.

19. This armed neutrality, however, is not a new kind of neutrality, different in its nature from the two pointed out in the preceding division: it is only the means of securing the exercise of the rights of neutrality, whichever of the two kinds above defined, the nation has thought proper to adopt.

(36) See the diplomatic papers inserted in the second and fourth volumes of the Collection of Treaties, by M. Martens.

Declaration of neutrality not absolutely necessary.

ARTICLE V.

Of the Declaration of Neutrality.

§ 1. IT follows as a necessary consequence from the spirit of my definition, as well as from the nature of the above division of neutrality, that, to enjoy that state, the nation, desirous to remain neutral, need not to manifest its intention, by any public act, as an edict, or declaration, or in any other form; nor is it bound to stipulate concerning its neutrality, by treaty with the belligerent powers, because, it is not a new state, but merely a continuation of that which existed before the war, with the additional precaution of observing a strict impartiality. It is sufficient, if a neutral power continues to observe the same equal and pacific conduct which it before maintained with the nations who have taken up arms, in order to shew to the world, that there is no change, alteration, nor ambiguity, in its former sentiments. From such conduct it ought to be inferred, that it has adopted a state of neutrality.(27) It would be an act of injustice to violate that state, or to consider it as doubtful, under, the specious pretext of its not having been solemnly declared.

2. The close correspondence maintained between

(27) "Every nation, which really takes no part in the war, is considered neutral, though it should have made no express declaration to that effect." Hubner, de la saisie des bâtimens neutres, chap. 2, 32, page 52.

A treaty of neutrality is useful, though not necessary.

almost all governments at the present day, by means of ministers residing at their respective courts, renders it easy to demand an explanation from the different sovereigns, and to learn their intentions as to the war which has arisen, in order, after positive answers have been received, to ascertain the neutrality which they intend to adopt, even before time and facts could make it known.

3. Though, in order to claim the rights of neutrality, it may not be necessary for friendly powers to enter into a public treaty for that purpose; yet it is not useless to do so, either for the sake of giving more positive assurances to the belligerents of the fact, by an act the most solemn and sacred which mankind have devised to make known their secret intentions, as to peace and moderation; or the more effectually to destroy all suspicions, and, by that means, to possess a more direct title to the peaceful enjoyment of the rights of neutrality.

4. A treaty of neutrality will further serve to fix in a more precise manner, and to limit as may be thought fit, the course of conduct to be observed by the neutral power towards the belligerent. The only means of maintaining peace, and preventing all difficulty and controversy, is, by making, at once, some change or modification of general rules, or the principles of the universal law of nations.(28)

(28) Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. 3, ch. 7, § 108.—Galliani, ch. 5. in the passage cited.

Effects of a treaty of neutrality on the parties and others.

5. When a power, by a treaty with all the belligerents, has engaged to remain neutral, the stipulations of the treaty ought to be the only rule and measure of its obligations. It follows from this principle, that a neutrality contracted with one of the belligerent nations only, does not bind the others, being an act made without their concurrence, and to which they are strangers ;(29) unless the treaty should contain nothing prejudicial or injurious to them, for it would become obligatory, if clauses were added that were useful or advantageous. In that case, they ought to consider it as valid, as if approved by them, though not parties to it, and supposing even that the knowledge of it had not been communicated to them. Beyond this, it would not be obligatory on those who were not parties, because, by entering into articles and stipulations useful to one only of the belligerents, and injurious to the others, the power would cease to be impartial and neutral, and would become the ally of the contracting party, and the enemy of the others.

6. The grand dukes of Tuscany, of the house of Medicis, desirous not to offend the belligerent princes and powers, were in the practice, at the breaking out of war, to assemble before the governor of Leghorn, the consuls of the hostile nations, clothed with the requisite authority on the part of the

(29) Res inter alios acta, aliis non potest prejudicium facere. Leg. 1, Cod. lib. 7, tit. 60.