In 1709, Great-Britain protested against the attempt to starve Sweden.

in the same manner. Besides, when, afterwards, the king of Denmark, Frederick IV, on account of the war, then carried on by him against Sweden, which, like France, has, at all times, need of foreign provisions, wished to turn the same instrument of famine against his enemy, and to prevent importations into Sweden, in order to compel her to make peace, all the powers, and particularly GREAT-BRITAIN, protested against this claim, and unanimously declared it unprecedented and unwarrantable; and the Danish government, better advised, was obliged to desist from the measure,

ARTICLE III.

Of the Right of Belligerents to limit the passive commerce of Neutrals.

§ 1. AS, according to the system of the natural liberty of nations, it is only by their full and free consent that they can renounce the exercise of their natural rights in whatever may concern their particular interests, and is not prejudicial to others; so, in the system of the universal law of nations, it is only by some agreement, express or implied, that a nation can be under any obligation to refrain from selling its commodities to whom it pleases on its own territory; provided, it preserve as to the sale the same equality and impartiality towards belligerents as before the war, agreeably to the definition which has been given of neutrality.

Exceptions as to contraband, &c. derived only from the conventional law.

2. Thus the exceptions made, in all wars, by belligerents, to the exercise of the rights of neutrals, by prohibiting their commerce in certain articles, though the necessity of their own defence may require it, ought to be regarded as a matter of free and voluntary consent, resulting from the conventional law of Europe, and not, in the least, from the law of nature and nations, which lays no restraint on the commerce of neutrals. It follows, that the goods called contraband of war, such as arms, and other warlike stores, are not contraband by force of the law of neutrality, or in consequence of the universal law of nations, but by virtue of some convention merely, or, at least, of a renunciation of the natural rights of those who are specifically bound, or by virtue of a tacit consent, or acquiescence, in the practice of the majority of nations, on the part of those who have made no convention on the subject. (56)

3. If by the universal law of nations, neutrals who

(56) This theory is supported by Galliani, page 308. "I say, then, that it is not a rigid obligation of justice, for those neutrals who are not bound by any express article of some treaty, to refrain from furnishing articles contraband of war to the belligerents, because, though even one of them should have the full and perfect right to oppose this commerce between two sovereigns equally free and independent, the full right of the one imports no diminution of the right of the other. In regard to neutrals, the renunciation of their rights, with a view to procure a greater advantage to one or more of the belligerents, can be only a duty of equity, and not a strict, absolute duty."

The passive commerce of neutrals with beigerents in lawful.

are in possession of an active commerce with the belligerents, may impartially carry to one of them every kind of merchandise, even contraband of wer; by the same principle of reason, the sale on their own territory ought to be permitted, if there existed be fore the war, a passive commerce with the bellige rents. Thus, all passive commerce, or an impartial sale on its own territory, of merchandise, and manufactured articles of every kind, is always allowed to a neutral nation, whenever its sovereign has made no treaty to the contrary with any of the belligerents whose subjects come to purchase or provide themselves with such articles in the neutral territory, and when he does not interfere with the purchases, sales, and other contracts for the tranfer of property. As long as he does not fill his magazines with warlike stores, nor send vessels to transport them to the territories of the belligerents; as long as he confines himself to protecting the general commerce of his dominions, and securing its subjects, in the same manner, and with the same freedom, as before the war, he merely exercises the undeniable rights which belong to him, and which can be restrained only by conventions express or implied.(57)

(57) Et quia neutrius partis esse debet, et à bello omnind abstinere, neutri etiam suppeditabit quæ directe ad bellum referuntur. Suppeditare hic loci transvehere ad alterutrum hostem significat; nam si qua gens instrumenta bellica, et cætera supra memorata utrisque bellantibus æquo pretio veluti merces vendat, neutralitatem non violat..... Ad hanc necessariam mercaturæ distinctionem

Venice allows salt-petre to be supplied to Spain while at war with France.

4. The allied kings of France and Spain, Louis XII, and Ferdinand the Catholic, seized on the Kingdom of Naples, at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Their different interests prevented their agreeing on the manner of disposing of their conquest. It became necessary to decide their dispute by arms; but the Spaniards were soon reduced to extremity. They were in want of every thing, and particularly of money, provisions, and ammunition. Their indigence was in some measure supplied by the senate of Venice, who were so indulgent as not to prohibit the exportation of salt-petre from the territories of the republic, for the use of Spain. The king of France made complaints to the senate, who, convinced of the right they possessed, in virtue of the principles which have been just laid down, answered, that what had been done, was in the way of commerce, and without their sanction, and that Venice being a free city, all its citizens were allowed to carry on any trade whatever, and that they could put no restraint on their speculations.(58) In this

animum non advertisse eos, qui de hac re tam prolixe scripserunt, manifeste patet; maxime enim inter se differre videntur exportatio mercium ad hostem meum ab amico vel neutro populo facta, et eorum venditio quæ ad bellum necessaria esse possunt. Lampredi, Theorem. juris publici universalis, p. 3, cap. 12, § 9, n. 4, et in notis.

(58) Guicciardini, Storia delle guerre d'Italia, lib. 5, p. 145, edit. 1587. Et trovandosi molto inferiore di gente Consalvo, si ridusse coll' esercito in Barletta, senza danari con poca vettovaglia, et carestia di munitioni, benchè questo fu alquanto sollevato

Contradictions of Galliani.

manner these prudent senators, by making a distinction between their own ordinances and the operas tions of merchants, maintained the liberty of their commerce, even in time of war, and without exception of any species of merchandise.

5. Notwithstanding the certainty of this funda mental principle, Galliani, who has been so often cited, is desirous of establishing a theory, directly opposite, forgetting that he thereby contradicted himself on every other point.

6. After having justly remarked, page 111, that neutrality is not a change, but a continuation of a former state, and at page 142, "that the state of neutrality is not, nor can be, a new state, but a continuation of a former one, by the sovereign that has no wish to change it," he concludes, to the astonishment of every man of good sense, that neutrals cannot sell, to belligerents, on their own territory, arms, instruments, and other warlike stores, as they might have done before the war. But if war, as he has said, produce no change in the previous state of a neutral nation; if it do not destroy the rights it

pu tacito consenso del Senato Venitiano, il quale non proibî, che in Vinetia facesse comperare molti salnitri, di che querandosi il re di Francia, risponderano essere fatto senza saputa loro, da mercanti privati et che in Vinetia, citta libera, non era mai stato victato ad alcuno, che non esercitasse le sue negotiationi, et i supi commertii,"