Page images
[ocr errors]

tinguished from an equipment which would enable the transport ARGUMENT. when equipped as contemplated by the Act to cruize or commit hostilities. The words “equip, furnish, and fit out” are applied

6th Day not to a ship of war, or to a ship which is to cruize or commit hostilities, but they are applied to a ship which is not to cruize, which is not to commit hostilities, but which is to act as a transport or store ship. When, therefore, you have got the word equip for the purpose of a transport, in reality you have a distinctivo application made of that term "equip

equip ” in the 7th section, as importing an equipment other than an equipment for a hostile purpose, or in a hostile fashion. And, my Lords, although it is true that the structure of the vessel, its capabilities, its adaptation to the purposes of war are very important to be considered when the intention is in question, yet if you grant the intention, there is no use whatever in inquiring as to whether or not the structure of the vessel is such as to make it capable of being adapted for the purposes of war. If, indeed, the structure were such as that it could not be used as a transport, for instance, or could not be used for a cruizer, or to commit hostilities, that would negative the intention ; but granting the intention, which of course could not be granted unless the vessel were of a structure which would suit it, and the possibility of its being executed by the structure in question, the kind of structure is not material; the intention being present, the question really is, whether the words “equip,

furnish, and fit out” can by possibility extend to anything more than an equipment for the purpose of navigation. I address to your Lordships those observations with reference merely to the words which are found in the Act. I cannot help

I thinking that when you find words in an Act of Parliament capable of being interpreted so as to make the whole Act consistent and intelligible, that is a far more valuable test than a discursive inquiry as to what the policy of the Act may be. If you can see that a word is used in one section which is consistent with its interpretation in a fixed sense in that section, and which is consistent with its interpretation in that sense in other sections of the Act (say, in one other section of the Act), it would require a great deal indeed to show you, either from conjecture, or from considerations of policy, or from any consideration except some absurdity or repugnancy, that it should not be accepted in that fixed sense, which I venture to call the natural sense.

I shall presently offer to your Lordships an observation or two with regard to the policy of the Act, but I dwell for a moment upon the observation that the quality of that “ equip

ping, furnishing, and fitting out,” is only material when the intention is in question. When the intention is in question you look to see whether or not the structure of the vessel is such, or the fittings of the vessel, so to speak, are such, as to reconcile and make the structure of the ship compatible with the existence of


[ocr errors]

ARGUMENT. the intention, and I insist that to say the equipment must be an

equipment for purposes of war is to confound the quality of the 6th Day.

equipment with the purpose of the equipment, and I insist that
the objection that the equipment must be a warlike equipment,
that is to say, an equipment for the purposes of war, is a dis-
guised repetition of the objection that the ship must be armed
besides being equipped.

Now, my Lords, granting that an equipment for the purposes
of navigation is the equipment contemplated and prohibited by
the Act, the next question is, What is an equipment for the pur-
pose of navigation ? or, otherwise expressed, What, again, is the

meaning of these words, "equip, furnish, and fit out?” Of course
they are not to be construed etymologically. The question is,
whether they are compatible with the reasonable interpretation
assigned to them. Now, my Lords, I do not think it is necessary
for the purpose of this case or for the purpose of this argument to
consider whether or not those words, “ equip, furnish, or fit out,”
must be such or are such as relate exclusively to the structure
of the vessel, or whether they must be ancillary to an existing
vessel or ancillary to the structure of the vessel ; I apprehend
it is not necessary in any point of view, but I apprehend it is
eminently not necessary here, because I should say if that
question had to be considered, when you have the engines in
the vessel, or partly in the vessel, surely that is a furnishing
of an existing structure ; when you have the cooking apparatus
surely that is a fitting. But, however, it is not necessary for
my purpose to consider that; it is sufficient for me to consider
what is an equipment such as is contemplated by the Act.

Now, my Lords, I submit to your Lordships that any com-
mencement of a vessel, present the intention, is an equipment
forbidden by the Act. If the words are flexible," and I thank

" my

learned friend Mr. Mellish for the word, it is a very just word to be used; I should say, that if, looking at the meaning of the word as it occurs in the 7th and in the 8th sections, and treating it as flexible, if there be any doubt about it, the only way of explaining it is to regard the policy of the Act itself. Now, has any reasonable policy been suggested other than that which has been stated on our side already, namely, that the policy of the Act was to prevent this country from being made a station of hostilities? I am quite aware that it is suggested as a policy of the Act to prevent what Sir Hugh Cairns calls proximate acts of hostility ; but as to that being the sole policy of the Act, is there anything in the Act, or in the history of the Act, or in pre-existing events, which confines it to that policy? Of course, the larger the policy the better for the argument for the Crown; but I ask, Is there anything wbatever in the Act which excludes the notion of its being so applied as to prevent our soil from being made a station for hostilities?

[ocr errors]


6th Day.

Mr. Baron Pigott.You mean the starting point ?

Mr. Jones.-Call it what you will, I call it the cradle for hostilities.

Lord Chief Baron.--Call it what it is.

Mr. Jones.- Allow me to ask whether it was not intended to prohibit this country from being made the cradle of a naval armament, for such it would be if you allow a ship to be formed. I apprehend that if the object of the Act be to prevent any ship being built or made here on our soil, I will not say being made or built here alone ; but I say, if the object and the policy of the Act be to prevent our country from being made the fulcrum, if you will, or, if I may revert to my illustration, a cradle, in which you may lay the infant navy; unless, I say, you can reasonably show that the purpose of the Act is something else, or unless you can advance something to show that the object of the Act is not such; unless you can furnish a better argument than seems to have been advanced, or unless you can find some fault in the argument, that the most reasonable construction from all history and from the language of the Act, not forgetting the preamble, is to prevent that which will be the cause of irritation to belligerent nations

Mr. Baron Channell.-Not “ will be;" it is a very important observation: it is “ may be.”

Mr. Jones.- What is likely to be, that is. I say, unless you can destroy—and this is really the pinch of the matter- unless you can suppose some policy to be in the contemplation of the Legislature other than that which we assign to it, namely, that the object of the Act was to prevent that irritation which not only may be, but which we know is, and which, appealing even to contemporaneous events, we see is the cause of irritation, and wbich, if you were to go back to the history of the times in which this Act was passed, was known to be the cause of irritation ; unless, I say, you can destroy that argument, and the probability and the presumption arising from the language of the preamble, and arising from the provisions of the Act, and arising from what I venture to call the antecedent probability, what is there to affect the argument arising out of this policy? The Act must have had some policy ; that policy, so far as it is possible to glean it from the words of the Act itself, is consistent with the policy which I assign to it; for may it not, and does not the lending of the use of the soil by a neutral to one of two belligerents (to use the language of the Act) “tend to “ endanger the peace and welfare of this kingdom ” by annoying the other belligerent? Would it not tend“ to endanger the peace " and welfare of this kingdom" if all the yards of Liverpool and Hull, and of all the other great naval towns, were avowedly employed in building vessels not intended to be armed in this country, but merely to be made into sailing vessels to be armed elsewhere, and when armed to be employed in war by the Confederates ? Allow, for the purpose of the argument, that it is avowed that the contracts between the Confederates and the builders in

6th Day.


ARGUMENT. Liverpool, in Hull, and elsewhere, are printed in letters as large

as can be employed, and suppose that you know that there are constructing a hundred, or as many vessels as you can choose to suppose, is that a thing not calculated “ to endanger the peace " and welfare of this kingdom ?"

Mr. Baron Bramwell.-Do you read the Act of Parliament with this sort of preamble, Mr. Jones: Whereas certain practices are likely to endanger the peace and welfare of this kingdom by causing foreign nations to make a complaint where by the law of nations they have no right to make a complaint ?

Mr. Jones. - Where by the comity of nations they have such right.

Mr. Baron Bramwell. It is a very dangerous topic, with great respect to you, because although the policy of the Act may have been to prohibit something which no foreign nation had a right to complain of_because foreign nations are not always reasonable, and therefore it was as well to give them no cause, whether reasonable or unreasonable—yet it is obvious that the policy of the Act was to prohibit it in cases where foreign nations had a right to complain: and you then go into questions of international law which I thought the Attorney General threw over.

Mr. Jones.- International law does not affect my view of the matter. I say the policy of the Act was to avoid irritation, and to enable the Crown to observe the comity of nations.

Mr. Baron Bramwell.— I thought the learned Attorney General had gone a long way to show that the reliance placed upon international law


the other side was an ill founded one. Mr. Jones.

What I am saying is in perfect keeping with the observations which the Attorney General made, that you are to look at things practically. Now I ask your Lordships whether it is or is not probable that irritation and annoyance are caused by allowing our ports to be turned into ship yards for the construction of ships for the Confederates ? The question is answered by events. You know that it is, and independently of facts, it is surely impossible not to feel that whatever tends to make a belligerent nation look upon us as if we were acting a neutrality merely, not being really neutral, which disposes it to look upon us as only pretended neutrals, must be a source of irritation and annoyance to that nation. If you were to suppose that we have not those great advantages of constitution which we have, if you were to suppose the Crown to be despotic for the moment, there would be no doubt whatever that a belligerent might reasonably complain of a neutral nation allowing all its yards to be used for the purpose of calling into existence vessels which were intended and avowed to be intended to be used against the other belligerent. Nobody would doubt that such conduct would be a breach of comity on the part of the dispotic neutral. It is because we possess a constitution which forbids the Crown, except under conditions, to do what a despotic monarch may always do, that this Act of Parliament is passed, and was neces

[ocr errors]

sary to be passed, in order that by means of it the Crown may Angument. be enabled to observe and compel its subjects to observe the

6th Day. comity of the nations. I submit to your Lordships that, assuming it to be necessary to resort to the consideration of policy, your Lordships will not forget that at least nine-tenths of what has been addressed to your Lordships in this case has been to enable you to see that the policy of the Act is something different from that which might reasonably be supposed to arise from the language here employed. I ask your Lordships if your Lordships are satisfied with the argument which has been advanced to you, whether, with that knowledge, and with that narrative of events which has been laid before you, are satisfied that the policy, and the true policy, of this Act, was not to enable the Crown, at its pleasure, to forbid any act which by concession was intended to assist remotely a belligerent? I ask whether there is anything whatever in anything which has been advanced by the other side, which your Lordships can lay hold of, and from which your Lordships can see that the policy of this Act was not to prohibit that which would irritate, annoy, and vex a friendly nation, and that its object only was to prevent what is called, or what in abstract language is called, “ proximate acts of hostility”-an expression which may have a great deal more sense in it than I can see.

If there be any force in the observations which I have addressed to you, your Lordships will not fail to observe that this Act would be frustrated if you were to allow any species of equipment, at all events amounting to that height of equipInent which should make the vessel take the sea, that is to say, which would enable the vessel to be launched. It is not necessary for my purpose to specify or to distinguish the particular amount of equipment which would be necessary, because I submit to your Lordships that any equipment, granting the intention, would be sufficient. But surely, so far as this case is concerned, and so far as it is necessary to appeal to the construction of the Act for the purposes of this question, your Lordships will see you are relieved from difficulty on that point of the case, because in order to construe the Act it would not be necessary to go further and give a more abstract definition to it than that an equipment such as would satisfy the words of the Act would be such as would enable the vessel to take the sea. This vessel was launched.

Mr. Baron Pigott.Do you mean that after she leaves the builder's yard, then any equipment is within the terms of the Act?

Mr. Jones.--I say any equipment in the builder's yard which would enable her to be launched must be an equipment within the Act; and still more, as my learned friend the Attorney General reminds me, such an equipment as would enable her to leave the port.

Mr. Baron Channell.- You cannot, in construing an Act of Parliament, leave out the words that are found there. We all

[ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »