Their views respecting blockades.
They made a second admission as to the ports which might be entered, but only on the express condition that these should be accurately defined; and, further, that it could be shown that such ports were bonâ fide blockaded by a naval force capable of laying siege to them, or of reducing them to famine. In such cases they allowed that running the blockade was an attempt to thwart one of the belligerents in the exercise of its legitimate right, while at the same time it afforded succour to one of the powers against the other. They insisted further, that the blockade should be preceded by formal declarations, that it should not be a mere paper blockade, and that it should be carried out by a force that it would be impossible to pass through without great danger.
Right of search.
Chief doctrines of the neutrals.
Lastly, as it was necessary to ascertain whether a vessel really belonged to the nation whose flag she hoisted, and whether she had, or had not, on board goods contraband of war, the neutrals admitted the right of search if carried out with certain courtesies to be agreed upon, and if rigorously observed. Above all, they insisted that merchant vessels, regularly convoyed by a ship of war, should not be exposed to search, the naval, or royal flag, in their opinion, enjoying the privilege of being at once believed when it was affirmed, upon the honour of its nation, that the vessels so convoyed were of its own nation, and were not carrying interdicted articles.[246]
The doctrines asserted by the neutrals being similar in most respects to the declaration issued by Catherine of Russia, are therefore reducible to four principal points: (1) The flag covers the merchandise, that is to say, no neutral ship is to be searched for an enemy’s goods. (2) No merchandise is to be interdicted except contraband of war. This contraband to be confined solely to articles made for the use of armies or navies, corn and naval stores not being included under this head. (3) Access not to be interdicted to any port unless it is bonâ fide blockaded. (4) No ships under regular convoy to be subjected to search. Such were the principles maintained by France, Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, and the United States of America: they were, however, but loosely observed when their own interests were involved.
Mr. Pitt stands firm, and is supported by Mr. Fox.
Notwithstanding this mighty confederacy, leagued together to overthrow the maritime supremacy of Great Britain, Mr. Pitt stood forward as the undaunted champion of her shipping interests, and asked the House of Commons whether they would tamely suffer the country to be borne down by the hostility of the northern powers, or “would submissively allow those powers to abuse and kick it out of its rights?” He declared that the four northern nations had leagued together to produce a code of maritime laws in defiance of the established law of nations, at the same time strenuously denying that “free bottoms make free goods,” an opinion in which he was supported by Mr. Fox.
Defence of the English principles.
England accordingly insisted upon seizing enemy’s merchandise wherever it could be found, maintaining the principle that contraband of war included naval and military stores, indeed everything which could give succour to an enemy; and, though she admitted that ports ought to be considered in a state of blockade only when it was unsafe to enter them, she repudiated utterly the pretended right claimed by the neutral powers, that no vessel under convoy could be searched. “If,” exclaimed Mr. Pitt, “we subscribe to the doctrines laid down by the neutral powers, a small armed sloop would suffice to convoy the trade of the whole world. England would lose her own trade, and could not take any steps against the trade of her enemies. She could no longer prevent Spain from receiving the precious metals of the New World, nor preclude France from obtaining the naval munitions of war supplied by the North. Rather than thus sacrifice our naval greatness at the shrine of Russia, it were better to envelop ourselves in our own flag, and proudly find our grave in the deep, than admit the validity of such principles in the maritime code of civilised nations.”[247]