ships or vessels with similar objects. It may be ob- International and Municipal Law. served from the context, though not expressed (except in the marginal note, which is of course no part of the act), that the vessels contemplated in sec. 8 are foreign. ships of war.

The remaining sections are mere matter of form.

When the war which has so unhappily broken out between the Federal and Confederate States, attained such proportions as to render it expedient for this country to take cognizance of it, the royal proclamation above referred to was issued.

Several important facts are officially announced by the opening paragraphs of this proclamation:

an

nouncement

relations.

1st. That this country is at peace with all the world, Official and consequently, whether treating the United States of peaceful of America as a whole, or viewing the Southern States as having acquired a separate locus standi, friendly relations are alike acknowledged to subsist between them and this country.

between the United

States government and the

2nd. That hostilities have commenced between the war government of the United States and the Confederate States of America, distinguishing them as separate Confederate existences.

States.

neutrality.

3rd. The determination to maintain strict and Declaration impartial neutrality in the contest between the said "contending parties;" the latter expression not only distinctly, implying the recognition of the Southern States, but acting upon it.

trality.

Lastly, Having given for the information of Her Effect of Majesty's subjects the most important penal sections of the act, the proclamation concludes by a notification to them that if they infringe any of those provisions, they do so at their own peril; not so much the peril of crown prosecution as the risk of capture by the

of

neu

International and offended belligerents, in respect of which it warns them Municipal Law. that they are not to look for protection, or seek compensation by or through the government.

Duty of Executive.

Non-intervention would appear to be the only course consistent with the pure and absolute neutrality announced by the proclamation. If this be so, as there is nothing in the law of nations which renders illegal the supply by neutral subjects of any species of merchandise, however warlike its character, is it consistent with the true principles of neutrality for a neutral government to interdict such supplies to either belligerent at the instance of the other?

Is it consistent with common justice for the government of a neutral state to cripple, by such interference, the lawful commerce of its subjects, merely because their foreign customers happen to be at war with each other?

If those questions can only be answered in the negative, does the mere existence of a purely municipal act, designed for the benefit of a particular state, justify its enforcement at the instance of either of two foreign belligerents, with each of whom the same amicable relations subsist?

It is evident from the preamble of the Foreign Enlistment Act, that its main object is the prevention of such hostile demonstrations on the part of the subject

as

"may tend to endanger the peace and welfare of "this kingdom." The evil designed to be guarded against was that of the subjects of a neutral state becoming actual participators in foreign wars, without leave, identifying themselves with and taking part in the strife with either of the belligerents, whether by enlisting or engaging others to enter into their service, or by equipping and arming, as partisans in the war,

ships with the intention of employing or joining others International and Municipal Law. in employing them for purposes of aggression.

As questions of policy are involved, it rests with the executive to determine whether the provisions of the act should be enforced or not; but the same may be said of the statutory power before referred to, which authorizes the queen in council to prohibit the exportation of arms and munitions of war.

Where then is the difference? In this perhaps we may find the solution of the learned Chief Baron's meaning, when he said arms, &c., may be exported, why not ships?

If a neutral subject may, at his own risk only, furnish to either of the foreign belligerents the ordinary implements of warfare, it cannot endanger the peace and welfare of the kingdom, because according to the settled rules of international law, no casus belli can arise out of this independent act of the subject (ante, p. 25). This being so, it would appear to require an extraordinarily astute refinement of logic to distinguish between the supply of the most terribly destructive instruments of warfare, and the sale of ships to bellige

rent customers.

tive necessary

to enforce

either muni

cipal act.

So long as the Government abstains from exercising Action of Execuits statutory power of prohibition, the subject is free to manufacture and export arms; and even admitting that the 7th section of the Foreign Enlistment Act prohibits the building and sale of ships, so long as the Government abstains from enforcing its provisions, the subject is free to build and sell a ship to any purchaser.

Seeing then that there are two recognized belligerents at war with each other; that arms and ammunition are as essential to the one as ships are to the other, both being contraband of war (ante, p. 22); and that

International and there are two domestic statutes, the one exercisable Municipal Law. by acting on the authority to prohibit the exportation of arms, and the other exercisable by putting in force the alleged restriction on the supply of ships-the question arises whether in the true spirit of neutrality the Confederates have not as good a right to invoke the exercise of the former, as the Federals have to claim the enforcement of the latter! Or to put the question more pertinently, Is it not more consistent with the avowed principle of non-intervention to abstain from interference with either? This would be in accord not only with the authorities already cited, but with the opinion expressed by the learned Solicitor-General in his place in the House of Commons on the 21st of March last, as cited by Mr. Cobden in his speech of the 24th April following, to the effect that our neutrality may be maintained either by aiding both belligerents, or assisting neither.

Respective knowledged

belligerents.

ac

It may be argued that the United States, notwithpositions of standing the dismemberment of the revolted portion of the country, constitute a power formally recognised by the other nations of the earth; but once more adverting to the queen's proclamation, the separate locus standi of the Confederate States, by its acknowledgment as a belligerent power, is equally placed beyond a doubt; and in reference to the 7th section of the Foreign Enlistment Act, it will be seen that the recognition of the separate existence of such a power under such circumstances was fully contemplated by the adoption of descriptive language remarkably appropriate to the present position and character of the Confederates, as persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers "of government in any colony, province, or part of any "province or country, or the inhabitants of any

66

Municipal Law.

foreign colony, province, or part of any province or International and "country, with whom Her Majesty is not at war," and this in contradistinction to the equally apt description of ordinarily recognised nationalities, which precedes it —a distinction evidently designed by the framers of the act to suit a contingency not provided for by the Acts of Congress of the United States, which appear to have furnished the groundwork of the Foreign Enlistment Act of this country.-Vide corresponding section in the note on the 7th section of the Foreign Enlistment Act, cited in the proclamation, Appendix, p. 88.

If the debate on the passing of this act threw no Reasons special light upon the object of its promoters, many probable vision. reasons might present themselves for the extension of the provisions of the act to cases of revolt, where policy suggested the recognition and encouragement of the struggle for freedom. The achievements of the greatest military genius of the world, whose thirst for territorial aggrandisement had made Europe the theatre of his brilliant conquests, were then fresh in memory; and although the empire of our continental neighbours had by force of circumstances been once more reduced to its natural limits, the suggestion might present itself to a thoughtful mind, that in the event of the balance of power being again disturbed by the ravages of ambition, it might be expedient to reserve to this country, in case of a political revolt against the aggressions of overgrown power, the right to treat the aspirants for independence, should they assume an importance entitled to respect, with the same consideration as an already recognised nationality. The present posture of affairs, keeping in view the interests of the world, is suggestive to many persons of a close parallelism. The generally received opinion, however, is that the reason

for

pro