only towns or places besieged, environed, or invested *.

This recital has been made the more minute, because it is necessary, in order to understand the whole force of the explanatory declaration between the parties bearing the same date; a document so peculiarly important in the present discussion, that its contents will be recited with equal exactness.

This document, after stating "that some difficulty had arisen concerning the interpretation of certain articles, as well in the treaty marine concluded this first day of December 1674, as in that which was concluded the 17th February 1667-8, between his majesty of Great Britain on the one part, and the states general, &c. on the other part," proceeds to state, "that sir William Tem ple, &c., on one part, with eight commissioners on the other, have declared, and do by these presents declare, that the true meaning and intention of the said articles is, and ought to be, that ships and vessels belonging to the subjects of either of the parties, can and might, from the time that the said articles were concluded, not only pass, traffic, and trade, from a neutral port or place to a place in enmity with the other party, or from a place in enmity to a neutral place, but also from a port or place in enmity to a port or place in enmity with the other party, whether the said places belong to one and the same prince or state, or to several princes or states, with whom the other party is in war. And we declare that this is the true and genuine sense and meaning of the said articles; pursuant whereunto we understand that the said articles are to be observed and executed on all occasions, on the part of his said majesty, and

* Chalm. vol. i. p. 177, 179,

the said states general, and their respective subjects; yet so that this declaration shall not be alleged by either party for matters which happened before the conclusion of the late peace in the month of February 1673-4 *."

Prior to the peace, neither of them could claim the rights of neutrality against the other.

This declaratory stipulation has been said to be peculiarly important. It is so for several reasons:

1st. Because it determines the right of the neutral party, so far as may depend on the belligerent party, to trade not only between its own ports and those of the enemies of the belligerent party, without any exception of colonies, but between any other neutral port and enemies' ports, without exception of colonial ports of the enemy; and moreover, not only between the ports, colonial as well as others, of one enemy and another enemy, but between the different ports of the same énemy; and consequently between one port and another of the principal country; between these and the ports of its colonies; between the ports of one colony and another; and even to carry on the coasting trade of any particular colony.

2d. Because it fixes the meaning not only of the articles in the two specified treaties, but has the same effect on all other stipulations by Great Britain expressed in the same on equivalent terms; one or other of which are used in most, if not all, her treaties on this subject.

3d. Because it made a part of the treaties explained, that free ships should make free goods; and consequently the coasting and colonial trade, when combined with that neutral advantage, was the less likely to be acknowledged, if not considered as clearly belonging to the neutral party.

* Chalm, v. i. p. 189.

*

4th. Because the explanatory article was the result of the solicitation of England herself, and she actually claimed and enjoyed the benefit of the article, she being at the time in peace, and the Dutch in war with France †.

In the treaty with France, February 24, 1677, articles i, ii, and iii, import that each party may trade freely with the enemies of the other with the same merchandise as in time of peace, contraband goods only excepted; and that all merchandises not contraband" are free to be carried from any port in neutrality to the port of an enemy, and from one port of an enemy to another; towns besieged, blocked up, or invested, only excepted ‡:"

In 1689, England entered into the convention with Holland, prohibiting all neutral commerce with France, then the enemy of both §. In consequence of the counter treaty of Sweden and Denmark, for defending their neutral rights against this violent measure, satisfaction was made, according to Vattel, for the ships taken from them; without the slightest evidence, as far as can be traced, that any attempt was made by either of the belligerent parties to introduce the distinction between such part of the trade interrupted as might not have been allowed before the war, and as was therefore unlawful, and such part as having been allowed before the war, might not lawfully be subject to capture.

* See sir William Temple's correspondence with his government (vol. iv. p. 55, of his Works), where the success of his efforts, made with the sanction of his government, is particularly rehearsed.

+ See Memorial of Dutch merchants, in the Annual Register for 1778. These treaties remained in force for more than a centuryviz. from 1674 to the war with the United Provinces in 1781. § Id. ibid.

Jenkinson, vol. i. p. 209.

We are now arrived at the treaties of Utrecht, an epoch so important in the history of Europe, and so essentially influencing the conventional law of nations on the subject of neutral commerce.

The treaty of navigation and commerce, March 31, 1713, between Great Britain and France, article xvii., imports, that all the subjects of each party shall sail with their ships with all manner of liberty and security, no distinction being made who are the proprietors of the merchandises laden thereon, from any port, to the places of those who now are, or shall hereafter be, at enmity with the queen of Great Britain and the Christian king;" and to trade with the same liberty and security from the places, ports, and havens, of those who are enemies of both or of either party, without any opposition or disturbance whatsoever, not only directly from the places of the enemy aforementioned to neutral places, but also from one place belonging to an enemy to another place belonging to an enemy, whether they be under the jurisdiction of the same prince or under several."

Art, xviii. "This liberty of navigation and commerce shall extend to all kind of merchandises, excepting those only which follow in the next article, and which are specified by the name of contraband."

Art. xix. gives a list of contraband, which is limited to warlike instruments.

Art. xx. specifies others, many of which are in other treaties on the list of contraband, declaring that these, with all other goods not in the list of contraband in the preceding article, may be carried and transported in the freest manner by the subjects of both confederates, even to places belonging to an enemy, such towns or places being

only excepted as are at that time besieged, blocked up round about, or invested *.'

Could the principle maintained against Great Britain be more clearly laid down, or more strongly fortified by her sanction?

To give to this example the complete effect which it ought to have, several remarks are proper...

In the first place, on comparing the description given of the free trade which might be carried on between the neutral party and an enemy of the other party, with the description of the free trade allowed between the parties themselves; by the first article of the treaty it appears, that, in order to except the colonial trade in the latter case, the freedom stipulated in article i. is expressly limited to Europe. The terms are, "that there shall be a reciprocal and entirely perfect liberty of navigation and commerce between the subjects on each part, through all and every the kingdoms, states, dominions of their royal majesties in Europe." In the stipulation relating to the neutral commerce of either with the enemy of the other (who, if a maritime enemy, could not fail to possess colonies out of Europe) the terms are," that all merchandises, not contraband, may be carried in the freest manner to places belonging to an enemy, such towns or places only being excepted, as are at that time besieged or blockaded, &c." without any limitation to Europe, or exception of colonies any where. It is obvious, that the terms here used comprehend all colonies, as much as the terms in the first article would have done, if colonies had not been excepted by limiting the freedom of trade to places"in Europe;" and consequently, that, if

* Chalm. vol. i. p. 390.