XXI.

1784.

BOOK every part of the kingdom. He recommended to their most serious consideration to frame suitable provisions for the good government of our possessions in the East Indies. Upon this subject parliament would not lose sight of the effect which the measures they adopted might have on our own constitution and our dearest interests at home." The address proposed on this occasion contained strong expressions of approbation respecting the late dissolution, which lord Surry on the ground of unanimity moved Triumph to omit. But Mr. Pitt declared," that much as nister. he was convinced of the importance of unanimity,

of the mi

he would not purchase a hollow unanimity by passing over a great constitutional measure which the circumstances of the times had made necessary and wise, and which had given the most entire satisfaction to every part of the kingdom." On this point, therefore, the house divided, and the amendment of the earl of Surry was rejected by a majority of 76 voices; so that the dissolution appeared to have completely answered its intended purpose, and from this period Mr. Pitt may be regarded as the constitutional and efficient minister of the nation.

END OF THE SEVENTH VOLUME,

R. TAYLOR and Co. Printers, 38, Shoe-Lane, Fleet-Street.

APPENDIX:

CONTAINING

STATE PAPERS AND AUTHORITIES,

TO THE

SEVENTH VOLUME.

DECLARATION FROM THE EMPRESS OF RUSSIA TO THE COURTS OF LONDON, VERSAILLES, AND

MADRID,

APRIL, 1780.

THE empress of all the Russias has so fully manifested

her sentiments of equity and moderation, and has given such evident proofs, during the course of the war that she supported against the Ottoman Porte, of the regard she has for the rights of neutrality, and the liberty of uni versal commerce, as all Europe can witness, that her conduct, as well as the principles of impartiality which she has displayed during the present war, justly inspired her with the fullest confidence that her subjects would peaceably enjoy the fruits of their industry, and the advantages belonging to a neutral nation. Experience has nevertheless proved the contrary. Neither the abovementioned considerations, nor the regard to the rights of nations, have prevented the subjects of her Imperial majesty from being often molested in their navigation, and stopped in their operations, by those of the belligerent powers. These impediments to the liberty of trade in general, and to that of Russia in particular, are of a na

APPEND. VOL. VII.

2 E

ture to excite the attention of all neutral nations. The empress finds herself obliged therefore to set it free, by all the means compatible with her dignity and the well-being of her subjects; but before she puts this design into execution, and with a sincere intention to prevent any future infringements, she thought it but just to publish to all Europe the principles she means to follow, as the best adapted to prevent any misunderstanding, or any occurrences that may occasion it. Her Imperial majesty does it with the more confidence, as she finds these principles coincident with the primitive right of nations, to which every people may appeal, and which the belligerent powers cannot invalidate, without violating the laws of neutrality, and without disavowing the maxims they have adopted in their several treaties and public engagements. They are reducible to the following points:

I. That all neutral ships may freely navigate from port to port, and on the coasts of nations at war.

II. That the effects belonging to the subjects of the said warring powers shall be free in all neutral vessels, except contraband merchandize.

III. That the empress, as to the specification of the above-mentioned merchandize, adheres to what is mentioned in the 10th and 11th articles of her treaty of commerce with Great Britain, extending the terms of it to all the powers at war.

IV. That to determine what is meant by a blocked-up port, it is only to be understood of one which is so completely guarded by the ships of the power that attacks it, and which are stationed there, that it is dangerous to any vessel to enter it.

V. That these principles serve as a rule for proceedings and judgments upon the legality of prizes.

Her Imperial majesty, ia publishing these particulars, does not hesitate to declare, that for maintaining them, and for protecting the honour of her flag, the security of

the trade and navigation of her subjects, she has equipped the greatest part of her maritime forces. This measure will not, however, influence the strict neutrality she does observe, and will observe; so long as she is not provoked and forced to break the bounds of moderation and perfect impartiality. It will be only in this extremity that her fleet have orders to go wherever honour, interest, and ne cessity may require.

In giving this solemn assurance with the usual openness of her character, the empress cannot do other than promise herself that the belligerent powers, convinced of the sentiments of justice and equity which animate her, will contribute towards the accomplishment of these salutary purposes, so manifestly tending to the good of all nations, and to the advantage even of those at war; in consequence of which her Imperial majesty will furnish her commanding officers with instructions conformable to the above-mentioned principles, founded upon the primitive laws of nations, and so often adopted in their conven tions.

Petersburg, April, A. D. 1780.

ON THE RIGHTS OF THE NEUTRAL FLAG.

THE famous maritime code, originally framed and established by the free and flourishing commercial states bordering on the Mediterranean, styled IL CONSOLATO DEL MARE, subsisted in full force in Europe, or rather in the southern parts of Europe (for in the north its authority was never recognized) for the space of four hundred years, viz, from the end of the twelfth to that of the sixteenth century. From the last mentioned period it may be consi dered as gradually sinking into disrepute. And certainly

22

at the close of the eighteenth century, though the govern ment of Great Britain affected in all it public declarations to speak of the ancient maritime law of Europe as of high and incontrovertible authority, it was rejected by almost all the European powers, as an impolitic, unjust, and exploded system. A concise view of historical facts, will shew upon what tender and questionable ground Great Britain stood, when in vindication of her violent and outrageous attack on the powers of the Baltic, in the spring of 1801, she maintained in high aud haughty language, the unimpeachable sovereignty of this law, respecting which some English jurists have indeed expressed themselves as if it were of divine, rather than of human authority.

According to the fundamental principles of this constitution, an enemy's property found on board a neutral ship is liable to confiscation, and the right of search was supposed and allowed to be the necessary consequence or concomitant of the right of seizure.

It is remarkable, that queen Elizabeth was one of the first potentates who, in defiance of this law, reclaimed the rights of the neutral flag. In the year 1596, several English vessels, which had on board property belonging to some citizens of Antwerp, subjects of the king of Spain, were detained by the Dutch. But the queen insisted on restitution being made, and also reparation made for the insult*.

It was England also, who concluded the first treaty in which the principle of the ancient code was formally and expressly departed from, viz. that with Portugal, in 1612. And since that period to the year 1780, according to an eminent writer on maritime jurisprudence, thirty-five commercial treaties have been concluded, on principles more or less favourable to neutral rights, while two only can be found during that interval framed upon the an

• Busch, p. 145.