[Sidenote: _Armed Neutralities_.]
It is not improbable the course of events in the present war may make
it not uninteresting to my readers to have some short account of the
origin and meaning of _Armed Neutralities_, especially as the
principles on which they were founded may again be open to discussion.
The right to take enemy's property on board neutral vessels has, in
the present war, been waived by the Queen, in a declaration, dated
Buckingham Palace, March 29th 1854. This is however tempered by a
reservation of the right to search for contraband. Up to the present
time the right to take enemy's goods on board a neutral vessel has in
this country been steadily maintained; though in France it has been
fluctuating; the interests of another commercial power became the
origin of the extraordinary confederacies termed _Armed Neutralities_.
At an early period it was an object of interest with Holland, a great
commercial and navigating country, whose permanent policy was
essentially pacific, to obtain a relaxation of the severe rules which
had previously been observed in maritime warfare. The States General
of the United Provinces having complained of the provisions in the
French Ordinance of 1538, a treaty of commerce was concluded between
France and the Republic in 1646, by which the law, as far as respected
the capture and confiscation of neutral vessels for carrying enemy's
property, was suspended; but it was found impossible to obtain, at
that time, any relaxation as to the liability to capture of enemy's
property in neutral vessels.
This latter concession, however, the United Provinces obtained from
France by the treaty of alliance of 1662, and the commercial treaty
signed at the same time with the peace, at Nimiguen, in 1671;
confirmed by the treaty of Ryswick, in 1697. The maxim that _free
ships_ make _free goods_ was coupled in these treaties with its
correlative maxim, _enemy's ships_ make _enemy's goods_.
The same concession was obtained by Holland from England in 1668 and
1674, as the price of an alliance between the two countries against
the ambitious designs of Louis XIV.
In the subsequent war of 1756, a controversy arose between England and
Holland, in which it was said, on the one hand, that England had
violated the rights of neutral commerce; and on the other, that
Holland had not fulfilled the guarantees under which those privileges
had been granted.
Afterwards, when the American Revolution gave rise to a war between
France and Great Britain, the latter power, instead of following the
example of her enemy, (who had issued an ordinance prohibiting the
seizure of neutral vessels, even when bound to or from enemy ports,
unless carrying contraband,) issued an order in council, (March,
1780,) suspending the special stipulations respecting commerce and
navigation contained in the Treaty of 1674.
This was the crisis of many complaints made by the neutral powers
against Great Britain; and, in 1780, the Empress of Russia proclaimed
the principles of the Baltic Code of Neutrality, and declared she
would maintain them by _force of arms_.
This system of armed neutrality contained the following principles.
1. That commerce with the ports and roads of the enemy is free to
neutral powers.
2. That the ship covers the cargo.
3. That those merchandizes only be considered as contraband, which are
declared to be such by treaties with the belligerent powers, or with
one of them.
4. That no place shall be considered as blockaded, till it is
surrounded in such a manner by hostile ships that no person can enter
it without manifest danger.
5. That these principles shall serve as a basis for decisions
concerning the legality of prizes.
The principal powers of Europe, as Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Germany,
Holland, France, Spain, Portugal, Naples, and also the United States,
acceded to the Russian principles of neutrality.
The Court of London answered this declaration by appealing to "the
principles generally acknowledged as the Law of Nations, being the
only law between powers where no treaties subsist;" and to
"the tenor of its different engagements with other powers,
where those engagements had altered the primitive law by
neutral stipulations, according to the will and convenience
of the contracting parties."
England, being thus opposed to all the maritime world, was at this
time obliged to smother her resentment; only simply expostulating with
Russia. But the want of the consent of a power of such decided
maritime superiority as that of Great Britain, was an insuperable
obstacle to the success of the Baltic Conventional Law of Neutrality;
and it was abandoned in 1793 by the naval powers of Europe, as not
sanctioned by the existing law of nations, in every case in which the
doctrines of that code did not rest upon positive compact.
During the protracted wars of the French Revolution, all the
belligerent powers began by discarding in practice, not only the
principles of the armed neutrality, but even the generally received
maxims of international law by which neutral commerce in time of war
had been previously regulated. France, on her part, revived the
severity of her ancient prize code; decreeing not only the capture and
condemnation of the goods of her enemies found on board neutral
vessels, but even of the vessels themselves laden with goods of
British growth, produce, and manufacture.
In 1801, principally in consequence of the doctrines of the British
Admiralty Courts with regard to the right of search, great efforts
were made by the Baltic powers to recall and enforce the doctrines of
the armed neutrality of 1780. This attempt is generally known as the
Armed Neutrality of 1800, and was met, promptly overpowered, and the
confederacy finally dissolved, by the naval power of England. Russia
gave up the point, and by her convention with England of the 17th of
June, 1801, expressly agreed, that enemy's property was not to be
protected on board of neutral ships.[198] This settlement was ended by
the death of the Emperor Paul.
APPENDIX TO PART I.
NOTE A.--_The Law of Reprisals_.[199]
Reprisals by commission, or letters of marque and reprisal, granted to
one or more injured persons, in the name and authority of the
Sovereign, constitutes a case of "partial, or special reprisals," and
is considered to be compatible with a state of peace, and was formerly
permitted by the Law of Nations; though it may be doubted if such a
rule would hold good now.[200] General reprisals upon the persons and
property of the subjects of another nation are equivalent to open war.
It is often the first step which is taken at the commencement of a
public war, and may be considered as amounting to a declaration of
hostilities, unless satisfaction is made by the offending state.
A stoppage or seizure (in other words, an embargo), must not be
confounded with complete reprisals. When ships are seized for the
purpose of obtaining satisfaction for a particular injury, or security
against a possible event, that seizure is only an embargo. The vessels
are preserved as long as there is any hope of obtaining satisfaction
or justice. As soon as that hope disappears, they are confiscated, and
the reprisals are accomplished. In fact, that which was _embargo_
becomes reprisals by the _act of confiscation_.[201]
In the words of Lord Stowell:
"Upon property so detained the declaration of war is said to
have a retroactive effect, and to render it liable to be
considered as the property of enemies taken in time of war.
The property is seized provisionally--an act hostile enough
in the mere execution, but equivocal as to its effects, and
liable to be varied by subsequent events, and by the conduct
of the government, the property of whose subjects is so
detained. Where the first seizure is equivocal, if the
matter in dispute terminates in reconciliation, the seizure
is converted into a mere civil embargo. This would be the
retroactive effect of that course of circumstances. On the
contrary, if the transactions end in hostility, the
retroactive effect is directly the other way. It impresses a
hostile character upon the original seizure. It is declared
to be embargo; it is no longer an equivocal act, subject to
two interpretations; there is a declaration of the _animus_
by which it was done, that it was done _hostili animo_, and
is to be considered a hostile measure _ab initio_. The
property taken is liable to be used as the property of
persons, trespassers _ab initio_, and guilty of injuries
which they have refused to redeem by any amicable alteration
of their measures. This is the necessary course, if no
particular compact intervenes for the restitution of such
property taken before a formal declaration of
hostilities."[202]
The modern rule seems to be, that tangible property, belonging to an
enemy, ought _not_ to be _immediately confiscated_. It may be
considered as the opinion of all who have written on the _jus belli_,
that war gives the _right_ to confiscate, but does not of itself
confiscate the property of an enemy.
Chancellor Kent expressly terms this species of hostility--_a
reprisal_.[203] And Lord Mansfield says, that though foreign ports or
harbours are not the high sea any more than the shore, yet numberless
captures made there have been condemned as prize,[204] _i.e._ can be
the subject _of reprisal_.
NOTE B.--_War Bill Act_.
During the last war, the War Bill Act, 34 Geo. 3. c. 9, was passed as
a measure of retaliation. It was passed in order to prevent the effect
intended to be produced by an order of the French Government,
compelling all merchants, bankers, and others, possessed of money,
funded property, and effects, in different parts Europe, to declare
all such property, that it might be taken by violence, and applied to
the purposes of the war then carried on by the government of France
against the greater part of Europe.
The principal sections relating to bills, prohibited any British
subject, from and after March 1, 1794, from wilfully and knowingly in
any manner paying or satisfying any bill of exchange, note, draught,
obligation, or order for money, in part or in whole, which, since
January 1, 1794, had been or at any time during the said war should be
drawn, accepted, or indorsed, or in any manner sent from any part of
the dominions of France, &c.; every person so offending to forfeit
_double_ the value, and the payment not to be effectual against any
person who might otherwise have demanded the same; but the demands of
all persons to remain, notwithstanding such payment, and
notwithstanding such bills shall have been delivered up.
NOTE C.--_Rule of_ 1756.
During the war of 1756, the French Government, finding the trade with
their colonies cut off by the maritime superiority of Great Britain,
relaxed the monopoly of that trade, and allowed the Dutch, then
neutral, to carry on the commerce between the mother country and her
colonies, under special licences or passes, granted for this
particular purpose, excluding at the same time, all other neutrals
from the same trade. Many of their vessels were captured by the
British cruizers.
The policy under which they were captured is called the "Rule of
1756;" and as, in the present war, its justice and propriety has
already begun to be doubted, it may not be uninteresting to read the
reasons upon which it was founded.
1. They were considered as part of the French navigation, having
adopted this otherwise exclusive commerce, and acting in the character
of French enemy in identifying themselves with that interest, in
direct opposition to the belligerent interests and purposes of Great
Britain.
2. Inasmuch as they were only carriers for the French, they were to be
regarded as French transports, carrying national assistance to the
enemy, and therefore to be condemned on the same principle as vessels
carrying troops or despatches.
3. That the property they carried being from one part of the French
empire to the other, was so completely identified with French
interests as to take a hostile character.
4. When war comes it is necessary to shut some of the avenues of
commerce, otherwise the belligerent rights could not be protected.
5. That the neutral ought not to have _through_ and by means of the
war, which is not his affair, that he has not in time of peace; and by
natural justice he is only entitled to his accustomed trade. That any
inconveniences he may suffer are quite balanced by the enlargement of
his commerce; the trade of the belligerents is usually interrupted to
a great degree, and falls into the lap of the neutral.[205]
6. That it is a direct assistance to the enemy, and an injury to the
belligerent interests of the other country, to carry on for the enemy
the commerce that she has lost by the pressure of the war,--rendering
the efforts of the successful power nugatory.
NOTE D.--_Articles that have been declared Contraband at various
times._
Gunpowder, arms, military equipments, and other things peculiarly
adapted to military purposes.
Sail cloths, masts, anchors, pitch, tar, and hemp, universally
contraband, even when destined to ports not of military equipment.
Cheeses, fit for naval use; such as Dutch cheeses, when exclusively
used in French ships of war.
Rosin, tallow, and ship biscuits, if destined to ports of military or
naval equipment.
Similarly, of Wines.
And ship timber, when so destined.
Ships of war, or ships adapted for such service, going to a port of
the enemy for sale.
Copper in sheets, certified by government dockyard officers as fit for
the sheathing of ships.
Brimstone, destined to a port of warlike equipment.
NOTE E.--_The Late Declarations_.
The first manifesto or declaration of war issued by the Queen, so far
follows the ancient form, that it gives a justification of the war,
but differs from it in the omission of a general command to all her
subjects to commit hostilities on the enemy. By this command (in the
ancient form), the subjects were in general ordered, not only to break
off all intercourse with the enemy, but also to _attack_ him. Custom
interpreted this general order. It authorized, and even obliged every
subject, of whatever rank, to secure the person and things belonging
to the enemy when they fell into his hands; but it did not invite the
subjects to undertake any offensive expedition without a commission or
particular order. The present manifesto simply proclaims that the
Queen of England has taken up arms against Russia, that is, has
declared "a state of war." The omission of an injunction to break off
intercourse, and to exercise hostility, does not relieve the subject
from his duty in that respect; for war may commence without any
manifesto, and any official recognition of the "state of war" casts
upon the subject his full duties under that condition of things. The
ancient form has been judiciously allowed to drop, leading, as it
might have done, to misconception on the part of her majesty's lieges.
The second manifesto has reference to regulations with respect to
neutral commerce, and speaks for itself.
The third is as follows, and the references to the text will be
sufficient to explain it.
DECLARATION.
Her Majesty, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, having been compelled to take up arms in support of an Ally,
is desirous of rendering the war as little onerous as possible to the
powers with whom she remains at peace.
To preserve the commerce of neutrals from all unnecessary obstruction,
Her Majesty is willing, for the present, to waive a part of the
belligerent rights appertaining to Her by the Law of Nations.
It is impossible for Her Majesty to forego the exercise of her right
of seizing articles contraband of war,[206] and of preventing neutrals
from bearing the enemy's dispatches,[207] and she must maintain the
right of a belligerent to prevent neutrals from breaking any effective
blockade which may be established with an adequate force against the
enemy's forts, harbours, or coasts.[208]
But Her Majesty will waive the right of seizing enemy's property laden
on board a neutral vessel, unless it be contraband of war.[209]
It is not Her Majesty's intention to claim the confiscation of neutral
property, not being contraband of war, found on board enemy's
ships,[210] and Her Majesty further declares, that being anxious to
lessen as much as possible the evils of war, and to restrict its
operations to the regularly organized forces of the country, it is not
her present intention to issue letters of marque for the commissioning
of privateers.
Westminster, March 28, 1854.
THE FOURTH DECLARATION.
At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 29th day of March, 1854,
Present, The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council. Her Majesty
having determined to afford active assistance to Her Ally, His
Highness the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, for the protection of his
dominions against the encroachments and unprovoked aggression of His
Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of all the Russias, Her Majesty,
therefore, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to
order, and it is hereby ordered, that general reprisals[211] be
granted against the ships, vessels, and goods of the Emperor of all
the Russias, and of his subjects or others inhabiting within any of
his countries, territories, or dominions, _so that Her Majesty's
fleets and ships_ shall and may lawfully seize all ships, vessels, and
goods, belonging to the Emperor of all the Russias, or his subjects,
or others inhabiting within any of his countries, territories, or
dominions, and bring the same to judgment in such Courts of Admiralty
within Her Majesty's dominions, possessions, or colonies, as shall be
duly commissionated to take cognizance thereof. And to that end Her
Majesty's Advocate-General, with the Advocate of Her Majesty in Her
Office of Admiralty, are forthwith to prepare the draft of a
Commission, and present the same to Her Majesty at this Board,
authorizing the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High
Admiral to will and require the High Court of Admiralty of England,
and the Lieutenant and Judge of the said Court, his Surrogate or
Surrogates, as also the several Courts of Admiralty within Her
Majesty's dominions, which shall be duly commissionated to take
cognizance of, and judicially proceed upon, all and all manner of
captures, seizures, prizes, and reprisals of all ships, vessels, and
goods, that are or shall be taken, and to hear and determine the same;
and, according to the Courts of Admiralty and the Law of Nations, to
adjudge and condemn all such ships, vessels, and goods, as shall
belong to the Emperor of all the Russias or his subjects, or to any
others inhabiting within any of his countries, territories, or
dominions: and they are likewise to prepare and lay before Her
Majesty, at this Board, a Draft of such Instructions as may be proper
to be sent to the said several Courts of Admiralty in Her Majesty's
dominions, possessions, and colonies, for their guidance herein.
From the Court at Buckingham Palace, this twenty-ninth day of March,
one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four.
INDEX.
ADMIRALTY.
Droits of Admiralty, 6
AMBASSADORS, 85
ARMED NEUTRALITY, 92
AFFREIGHTMENT, 16
BILLS OF EXCHANGE.
Drawn during war, 14
BLOCKADES, 86
By whom Proclaimed, 86
Violation of, 87
First Rule of, 87
Second Rule, 87
Third Rule, 89
Simple Blockade, 88
Blockade in Fact, 88
Blockade with Notification, 88
Maritime Blockade not violated by Land Carriage, 90
CONTRACTS.
With Enemy, void, 12
Made before the war, 15
CARTEL, 20
Principles of Cartel, 33
CARGOES.
Distinguished from Ships, 30
CONDEMNATION.
Preliminary Proceedings, 44
CAPTORS.
Answerable for Damages, 68
When entitled to Freight, 74
CONVOYS, 91
CONTRABAND OF WAR, 76
Provisions, when Contraband, 77
Lord Stowell's Opinion, 78
Neutral Ships transporting Enemy's Forces, 83
Neutral Ships carrying Enemy's Despatches, 84
Penalty for Contraband Trade, 85
Further Penalties, 85
Return Voyage Free, 86
Articles of Contraband, 101
DECLARATION OF WAR, 2
Contents, 3
The Late Declarations, 101
When retroactive, 98
DEBTS.
Due to or from an Enemy, 7
DOMICILE.
Test of Nationality, 24
Test of Domicile, 25
In Eastern Countries, 27
EMBARGO.
Hostile, 6
Civil and Hostile, 97
ENEMY.
Alien Enemy cannot Sue in this Country, 9
Who is Enemy?, 21
Natural Enemies, 23
FUNDS.
Public, 5
FOREIGNERS.
Married in this Country, 22
FREE GOODS.
In Enemy's Ships, 73
Free Goods, Free Ships, 74
_See_ Rule of 1756.
FREIGHT.
Captor entitled to, 74
When he takes Goods to Port of Destination, 73
When Captor pays Freight, 74
HOSTILE CHARACTER.
Acquired by Trade, 27
HOSTILE PROPERTY.
Cannot be transferred _in transitu_, 30
INSURANCES, 12
LICENCES.
To Trade with Enemy, 54
Duties of Merchants using Licences, 55
What vessels may be employed under them, 56
The Cargo allowed, 57
Rules with respect thereto, 57
The Voyages permitted, 58
The time of the Licence, 59
Note, 60
MARINERS.
Their position in time of War, 23
NEUTRALITY.
Rights of Neutral Nations, 69
Qualified Neutrality, 69
Neutral territory protected, 70
Property of belligerents in Neutral territory, 71
Vessels chased into Neutral ports, 72
Violation of Neutrality, 72
Armed, 92
NEUTRAL COMMERCE.
Freedom of, 72
NEUTRAL SHIPS.
Enemy's property in, 73
Public Neutral Ships, 73
Private Neutral Ships, 73
Transporting Enemy's forces, 83
NEUTRAL PROPERTY. _See_ Property.
PARTNERSHIPS.
Dissolved by War, 16
In Neutral countries, 18
PRISONERS OF WAR, 22
PRIVATEERS, 36
Acquisition of captures by, 22
Commissions of, 39
Efforts to suppress Privateering, 41
Piratical Privateers, 42
PRIZES.
Jurisdiction over Prizes, 48
Common Law Courts not always excluded, 49
Prize Courts, 50
Where held, 57
Their judgments conclusive, 52
POSTLIMINY.
Right of, 53
Jus Postliminii, 67
PASSPORTS, 54
PROPERTY.
Of subjects of belligerent states in enemy's country, 4
Immoveable Property, Rule in respect of, 5
Private, on land, 34
Government Property, 35
Captured Property, title to, 43
Enemy's, in Neutral Ships, 74
Neutral, in Enemy's Ships, 75
Neutral, on _Armed_ Hostile Ships, 75
Hostile cannot be transferred _in transitu_, 30
RECIPROCITY.
Rule of, 6
RULE OF 1756, 25
Note, 99
RANSOMS, 61
RECAPTURES, 63
Of the Property of Allies, 66
Of Neutral Property, 67
REPRISALS, 97
SHIPS.
National Character of, 29
Sale and purchase of, by Neutrals, 75
Not restored on recapture, if set forth as Ships of War, 65
SAFE-CONDUCTS, 54
SALVAGE IN WAR, 64
SEARCH, RIGHT OF, 90
TRADE.
With the Enemy unlawful, 8
Not permitted with Enemy, except under Royal Licence, 10
Subjects of an Ally cannot trade with Enemy, 11
Trading with the Enemy punishable, 19
Hostile Character acquired by Trade, 27
_See also_ Licences, Contraband, &c.
WAR.
Solemn, 1
How commenced, 3
Objects of, 31
Maritime, Objects of, 34
Limitations of the right of making War, 35
POSTSCRIPT.
Since the completion of the Second Edition of this work, two very
important Orders in Council, (dated April 15th, 1854,) have been
published. Before proceeding to explain the intended effect of these
Orders, it will be well to state that the consent of _both_ the Allies
of England in this war is necessary to give full validity to the
Orders.
It is a very old principle that, during a _conjoint_ War, no subject
of an ally can trade with the common enemy without liability to
forfeiture, in the prize courts of the ally, of all his property
engaged in such trade. This rule can be relaxed only by the permission
of the allied nations, according to their mutual consent.[212]
Lord Stowell lays down the principle in much broader terms, thus--
"It has happened, since the world has grown more commercial,
that a practice has crept in of admitting particular
relaxations; and if _one_ state only is at war, no injury is
committed to any other state. It is of no importance to
other nations how much a _single_ belligerent chooses to
weaken and dilute his _own_ rights; but it is otherwise when
allied nations are pursuing a common cause against a common
enemy. Between them it must be taken as an implied, if not
an express contract, that one state shall not do anything to
defeat the general object. If one state admits its subjects
to carry on an uninterrupted trade with the enemy, the
consequence may be that it will supply aid and _comfort_ to
the enemy; especially if it is an enemy very materially
depending on the resources of foreign commerce, which may be
injurious to the prosecution of the common cause, _and the
interests of its ally_. It should seem that it is not
enough, therefore, to say that one state has allowed this
practice to its own subjects; it should appear to be at
least desirable, that it could be shown that the practice is
of such a nature that it can in no way interfere with the
common operations, or that it has the allowance of the
confederate state."[213]
Trade with the enemy has always been held to be a direct interference
with the common operations of the war, and indirect trade has been
regarded with as much jealousy as direct trade. If Lord Stowell is to
be trusted, this country cannot in any way waive its belligerent
rights, without the consent of its ally; so that it is quite in the
option of France at any time to withdraw its assent, or to modify it
in terms, and thus bind English merchants to the terms of their
assent.
The _intended_ effect of these Orders is well described in the
_Times_, of April 21st, 1854.
"The Order in Council of the 15th April, 1854, recites, in
the first instance, Her Majesty's declaration made on the
opening of the war; but it then goes on to enact not only
that enemies' property laden on board neutral vessels shall
not be seized, but that all neutral and friendly ships shall
be permitted to import into Her Majesty's dominions, all
goods and merchandizes whatsoever, and to export everything
in like manner, except to blockaded ports, and except those
articles which require a special permission as being
contraband of war. But this liberty of trade is not confined
to neutrals. It is further ordered, that, with the above
exceptions only, British subjects shall have free leave to.
trade 'with all ports and places wherever situate,' save
only that British ships are not permitted to enter the ports
of the enemy. The effect of this Order is, therefore, to
leave the trade of this country with neutrals, and even the
indirect trade with Russia, in the same state it was in
during peace, as far as the law of our courts maritime is
concerned; and the doctrine of illegal trading with the
enemy is at an end.[214] The restrictions henceforth to be
imposed are solely those arising out of direct naval and
military operations, such as blockade, and those which the
enemy may think fit to lay upon British and French property.
As far as we are concerned, except that British ships are
not to enter Russian ports--which it is obvious that they
could not do without incurring the risk of a forfeiture of
their property and the imprisonment of their crews--the
trade may be lawfully carried on in any manner which the
ingenuity and enterprise of our merchants can devise. In
order to facilitate the removal of British property from the
ports of the Baltic and the White Sea, which were frozen up
at the date of the Order of the 29th of March, further leave
has been given to Russian vessels to come out of those
ports, if not under blockade, until the 15th of May; as, in
fact, it is only by taking up Russian ships that British
property in those ports is likely to be removed, as neutrals
will not enter them from fear of the blockade.
"It is not easy to convey to the mind of the mercantile
classes of the present generation, who have had no practical
experience of the state of war, the extent of the change
which is thus effected in their favour. The vigilance of our
cruisers and the acuteness of our lawyers were incessantly
employed in all former contests in tracking out the faintest
scent of enemy's property on board every vessel met on the
seas. The character of enemy's property was regarded as an
infection, and reprobated with all the terms originally
reserved for guilty practices. The mercantile ingenuity of
the country, pressed by the increased demand and exorbitant
prices of prohibited articles, was strained to evade by
every species of fraud these prohibitions, and a warfare was
carried on within our own courts of justice between the
pitiless exactions of the laws of war and the irresistible
impulse of the laws of trade. To allay, in some degree, the
inconveniences of this system, and to provide by legal means
some of those commodities which it was for the public
interest to purchase, the English and French Governments
were driven, even during the height of the Continental
System, to the granting of licences. But here again fresh
abuses of every kind arose. These licences were an
authorized mode of evading that very prohibition which the
belligerents conceived it to be for their interest to
maintain. They conferred a monopoly on the holder of the
licence, which enabled him to sell his cargo of French wines
or French silks at a prohibition price; and the law books of
the time are still full of the endless litigation and fraud
to which these practices gave rise.
"From all these evils we trust that the Order in Council of
the 15th April has permanently relieved us, and the change
it is calculated to bring about in the state of war is not
of inferior importance to that which marked the transition
from Protection to Free Trade in the state of peace. The
system of licences is at an end, for all the liberty of
trade with the enemy which it is in the power of the
Government to confer at all, is thus conferred at once, and
indiscriminately upon all; and, unless the Russian
Government find means to maintain a prohibitive system on
their frontiers, we hope that the supply of raw material
from that country will not be reduced to scarcity."
In addition, however, to this very lucid explanation, it may be added,
that it might become necessary to grant licences to trade directly
(with the consent of our allies) to the Russian ports.
That on the part of British vessels, the
"entering or communicating with any port or place in the
possession or occupation of the enemy, will place the
English vessel in the position of an illegal trader, and
that the vessel will then be liable to the same penalties as
if this Order had not been published."
With respect to Contraband, it will have to be remembered that
contraband _to_ Russia will not be contraband to England, unless it is
despatches, treasonable letters, enemy's forces, secret agents or
spies. Neutral property on board an enemy's vessel is not generally
liable to seizure, unless on an "armed vessel of force;" but even
this, by the Order, seems to be protected. By the same Order, British
property on Russian vessels is _not_ protected. It is quite in the
option of neutrals, or British vessels, to break any Russian blockade.
The renunciations in these Orders are a waiver only of certain parts
of the Queen's belligerent rights, and in no way diminish the state of
war between England and Russia. Notwithstanding these Orders,
Russo-English partnerships are dissolved, contracts with the enemy
invalid, and even though a free trade is permitted, an Englishman
cannot draw a good bill on a Russian, and _vice-versâ_. All attempts
to communicate with the enemy are still illegal. The Queen has not
altered her belligerent rights, she merely declares that she will not
put them into motion; but that does not alter, nor can she of her own
authority alter, any part of the International Law, which also is a
part of our common law. These, Orders, therefore, give no power to the
enemy to sue or reside here, or to make a valid indorsement to any
British subject. Insurances will become legal on cargoes that by these
Orders may be imported.
(From the _Gazette_ of Tuesday.)
At the Court of Windsor, the 15th day of April, 1854, present the
Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council.
Whereas Her Majesty was graciously pleased, on the 28th day of March
last, to issue her Royal declaration on the following terms--
"Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, having been compelled to take up arms
in support of an ally, is desirous of rendering the war as
little onerous as possible to the Powers with whom she
remains at peace.
"To preserve the commerce of neutrals from all unnecessary
obstruction, Her Majesty is willing, for the present, to
waive a part of the belligerent rites appertaining to her by
the Law of Nations.
"It is impossible for Her Majesty to forego the exercise of
her right of seizing articles contraband of war, and of
preventing neutrals from bearing the enemy's despatches, and
she must maintain the right of a belligerent to prevent
neutrals from breaking any effective blockade which may be
established with an adequate force against the enemy's
forts, harbours, or coasts.
"But Her Majesty will waive the right of seizing enemy's
property laden on board a neutral vessel, unless it be
contraband of war.[215]
"It is not her Majesty's intention to claim the confiscation
of neutral property, not being contraband of war, found on
board enemy's ships;[216] and Her Majesty further declares
that, being anxious to lessen as much as possible the evils
of war, and to restrict its operations to the regularly
organized forces of the country, it is not her present
intention to issue letters of marque for the commissioning
of privateers."
_Now it is this day ordered_, by and with the advice of her Privy
Council, that all vessels under a neutral or friendly flag, being
neutral or friendly property, shall be permitted to import into any
port or place in Her Majesty's dominions all goods and merchandize
whatsoever, to whomsoever the same may belong,[217] and to export
from any port or place in her Majesty's dominions to any port not
blockaded, any cargo or goods, not being contraband of war, or not
requiring a special permission, to _whomsoever the same may belong_.
And Her Majesty is further pleased, by and with the advice of Her
Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby further ordered, that, save
and except only as aforesaid, _all the subjects of Her Majesty_, and
the subjects or citizens of any neutral or friendly State, shall and
may, during and notwithstanding the present hostilities with Russia,
_freely trade_[218] with all ports and places wheresoever situate,
which shall not be in a state of blockade, save and except that no
British vessel shall, under any circumstances whatsoever, either under
or by virtue of this order, or otherwise, be permitted or empowered to
enter or communicate with any port or place which shall belong to or
be in the possession or occupation of Her Majesty's enemies.
And the Right Hon. the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury,
the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, the Lord Warden of the
Cinque Ports, and Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for War
and the Colonies, are to give the necessary directions herein as to
them may respectively appertain.--C.C. GREVILLE.
At the Court at Windsor, the 15th day of April, 1854, present the
Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council.
Whereas, by an Order of Her Majesty in Council, of the 29th of March
last, it was, among other things, ordered,
"that any Russian merchant vessel which, prior to the date
of this order, shall have sailed from any foreign port,
bound for any port or place in Her Majesty's, dominions,
shall be permitted to enter such port or place, and to
discharge her cargo, and afterwards forthwith to depart
without molestation; and that any such vessel, if met at sea
by any of Her Majesty's ships, shall be permitted to
continue her voyage to any port not blockaded."
And whereas Her Majesty, by and with the advice of Her said Council,
is now pleased to alter and extend such part of the said Order, it is
hereby ordered, by and with such advice as aforesaid, as follows--that
is to say, that any Russian merchant vessel which, prior to the 15th
day of May, 1854, shall have sailed from any port of Russia situated
either in or upon the shores or coasts of the Baltic Sea or of the
White Sea, bound for any port or place in Her Majesty's dominions,
shall be permitted to enter such last-mentioned port or place and to
discharge her cargo, and afterwards forthwith to depart without
molestation; and that any such vessel, if met, at sea by any of Her
Majesty's ships, shall be permitted to continue her voyage to any port
not blockaded.
And Her Majesty is pleased, by and with the advice aforesaid, further
to order, and it is hereby further ordered, that in all other respects
Her Majesty's aforesaid Order in Council, of the 29th day of March
last, shall be and remain in full force, effect, and operation.
And the Right Hon. the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury,
the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and the Lord Warden of the
Cinque Ports, are to give the necessary directions herein as to them
may respectively appertain.--C.C. GREVILLE.
H.B.T.
3, SERJEANT'S INN,
_22nd April, 1854_.
NOTES
[1: See Justice Story's Judgment in the Case of the La Jeune Eugenie.
Life, Vol. i. 341.]
[2: The Law of Reprisals; _Vide_ note (A.)]
[3: Rutherford's Institutes, vol. ii. p. 509.]
[4: 2 Wheaton, p. 11; 1 Kent, p. 54.]
[5: Per Sir W. Scott--Case of the Eliza Ann, 4 Rob. Adm. Rep. 247.]
[6: Wildman's International Law, vol. ii. p. 5.]
[7: 1 Kent, p. 54; Vattel, book 3, chap. iv. sec. 64.]
[8: 1 Kent, p. 55.]
[9: 2 Wheaton, p. 12; 1 Kent, p. 55; Rutherford's Institutes, book 2,
chap. 9, sec. 10.]
[10: 2 Wheaton, p. 12-25; 1 Kent's Com. p. 55-6; Brown _v._ United
States, 2 Cranch, 110; see also 228, 229.]
[11: Idem.]
[12: Grot, book 3, chap. 20, sec. 16.]
[13: 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. 64.]
[14: 2 Wheaton, p. 19.]
[15: Lindo v. Rodney, Doug. 612; The Boedes Lust, 5 Rob. Rep. 233.]
[16: Per Lord Mansfield, Lindo _v._ Rodney.]
[17: Wolff _v._ Oxholm, 6 M. and S. 92.]
[18: Grot. book 2, chap. 18, sec. 344; book 3, chap. 5, sec. 77.]
[19: Whewell, Grot. vol. 3, p. 151, sec. 4; p. 165, sec. 4 (2).]
[20: 1 Kent's Com. p. 65.]
[21: Bynkersheok, Quæst. Sur. Pub. lib. i. cap. 3; 2 Wheaton, p. 26.]
[22: Robinson's Adm. Rep. p. 196.]
[23: The Hoop.]
[24: The Rapid, 8 Cranche's Rep. p. 155.]
[25: The St. Lawrence, 8 Cranche's Rep. p. 434.]
[26: The Juffrow Catharina, 5 Rob. 141.]
[27: 2 Wheaton, p. 37.]
[28: 1 Kent's Com. p. 67.]
[29: The Rendsborg, 4 Rob. Adm. Rep. 132.]
[30: Park, p. 497.]
[31: Toulmin _v._ Anderson, 1 Taunt. 227.]
[32: Potter _v._ Bell, T. Rep. 548; The Hoop, _supra._]
[33: Vandyck _v._ Whitmore, 1 East, 475.]
[34: Park, 502.]
[35: Park on Insurance; Arnold on Insurance; Gist _v_. Mason, I T. R.
84.]
[36: Idem.]
[37: The Immanuel, 2 Rob. Adm. Rep. 198.]
[38: Park, 502; Sewell _v_. Royal Exchange Assurance Co. 4 Taunt. 856;
Wilson _v_. Marryat, 8 T. Rep. 31.]
[39: Willison _v_. Patterson, 7 Taunt. 439; _Vide_ Note on the War
Bill Act, at the end of this part.]
[40: Per Gibbs, C.J. Antoine _v._ Morshead, 6 Taunt. 238. According to
Mr. Serjeant Byles, a bill drawn by a British prisoner in favour of an
alien enemy cannot be enforced by the payee. He cites no case in
support of this assertion; but on the principle of the last case
cited, if it were drawn for _subsistence and not for trade_, there
seems to be no reason why it should not be legal.]
[41: Duhamel _v._ Pickering, 2 Starkie, 92.]
[42: Barker _v._ Hodgson, 3 M. & S. 270.]
[43: Liddard _v._ Lopes, 10 East. 526; Abbot, on Shipping, 596.]
[44: 1 Kent's Com. 248; The Hiram, 3 Rob. Adm. 189.]
[45: 1 Kent's Com., 249.]
[46: Hadley _v._ Clarke, 8 T.R. 259; 3 Kent's Com. 249.]
[47: Abbot, on Shipping, 599.]
[48: Pothier, Trait du Cout. de Joc. No. 140.]
[49: Story, on Partnership, pp. 447, 448.]
[50: Griswold _v._ Waddington, 16 Johns. Rep. U.S.]
[51: Story, on Partnership, 447.]
[52: Story, on Partnership, 449; Griswold _v._ Waddington, 15 Johns,
57; 16 Johns, 438.]
[53: Platt, on Covenants, 588; Doe _d._ Lord Anglesea _v._ Ch. Wardens
of Rugely, 6 Q.B. 113, and cases there cited.]
[54: Cosmopolite, 4 Rob. 10, 11, in note.]
[55: 1 Term. R. Gist. _v._ Mason.]
[56: Per Buller, J. Bell _v._ Gilson, 1 Bos. _v._. Pull.]
[57: Case of Bella Guidita, cited 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. 207.]
[58: 1 Kent, p. 73]
[58: 1 Kent, p. 73]
[59: Per Eyre, C.J. Sparenburgh _v._ Bannatyne, 1 B. & P. 168.]
[60: Sparenburgh _v._ Bannatyne, 1 B. & P. 163.]
[61: Maria _v_. Hall, 2 B.&P. 236.]
[62: Derry _v_. Duchess of Mazarin, 1 Taunt. 147.]
[63: 7 & 8 Vic. c. 66, sec. 16; Mrs. Manning's Case, 2 D.C.C. 468.]
[64: The Vriendchap, 6 Rob. 166; the Embden, 1 Rob. 17; the Endraught,
1 Rob. 23.]
[65: Kent's Com. vol. i. 74.]
[66: Case of the Emmanuel, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. 302.]
[67: Case of Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheaton, 76.]
[68: 1 Wheaton, 46; Rob. Adm, Rep. iii. 324; the Harmony, the Indian
Chief, 3 Rob. 12.]
[69: The Ocean, 5 Rob. p. 91.]
[70: The Vigilantia, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 1.]
[71: The Susa, Rob. Adm. Rep. vol. ii. p. 255.]
[72: Wheaton, vol. ii. p. 71, citing Cranch's Rep. vol viii. p. 253.]
[73: 1 Kent's Com. 82, citing Berens _v_. Rucker, I W. Bl. 313; and
_vide infra_ Chap. iii. under title "Rule of 1756."]
[74: The Vigilantia, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. 15.]
[75: The Success, I Dodson's Adm. Rep. 132.]
[76: I Kent's Com., p. 85.]
[77: I Kent's Com. p. 85.]
[78: Vrow Margaretha, I Rob. Adm. Rep. 338.]
[79: Esprit des Loix, book 15, c. 2.]
[80: Vattel, Idem.]
[81: Wheaton, vol. 2, p. 79.]
[82: Wheaton, vol. 2, p. 8; Kent, vol. 1, p. 91.]
[83: Not so, however, in the late Declaration, March 28,1854; _sed
vide_ App.]
[84: Vattel, book 3, chap. 15.]
[85: Kent, vol. I, sec. 5, p. 94.]
[86: 4 Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 262 (n).]
[87: Prize Acts, 45 Geo. III. c. 75.]
[88: Order of Council, 1665; the Maria Francaise, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep.
282; Rebekah, 1 Rob. 229.]
[89: Vattel, book 3, chap. 15, sec. 229.]
[90: The Elsebe, 5 Rob. 176.]
[91: The Thorshaven, Edw. Rep. 102; 45 Goo. III. c. 72.]
[92: 45 Geo. III. c. 72, sec. 25.]
[93: The Vryheid, 2 Rob. 16.]
[94: Martens, on Privateering, p. 2.]
[95: But see the Introduction.]
[96: Act of Congress, April 20, 1818, chap. 83.]
[97: Kent, vol. I, p. 100.]
[98: Wheaton, vol. 2, p. 88-9.]
[99: Kent, sec. 5, p. 102; Rutherford's Institutes, book 2, chap. 9.]
[100: This description of the preliminary proceedings in Prize is
taken from the second volume of Wildman's Institutes of International
Law, p. 355; cited "by that author from a letter from Sir W. Scott and
Dr. Nicholl to Mr. Jay, the American Minister."]
[101: Lindo _v._ Rodney, Doug. 614, note.]
[102: Brymer _v._ Atkins, I. H. Black.]
[103: Brymer _v._ Atkins, I. H. Black, p. 189.]
[104: Floy Owen, I Rob. Adm. Rep. 136; Oddy _v_. Bovill, 2 East. 470.]
[105: 4 Rob. Rep. 43.]
[106: Wheaton, vol. 2, p. 97.]
[107: Vattel, book 3, chap. 13, sec. 197.]
[108: Wheaton, vol. 2, p. 112.]
[109: Vattel, book 3, chap. 17, sec. 265-268.]
[110: Page 6, ante.]
[111: The Cosmopolite, 4 Bob. Kep. 8.]
[112: The Abigail, Stewart's Adm. Rep. p. 360.]
[113: Shroeder _v_. Vaux, 15 East. Rep. 52; 3 Camp. N.P. Rep. p. 83;
the Cosmopolite, 4 Rob. 8.]
[114: The Dauk Vaarhirt, 1 Dod. Adm. Rep. 187.]
[115: The Dauk Vaarhirt, 1 Dod. Adm. Rep. 187.]
[116: Idem.]
[117: The Jonge Arend, 5 Rob. 14.]
[118: The Henrietta, 1 Dod. Adm. Rep. 173.]
[119: The Jonge Johannes, 4 Rob. Adm. Rep. 268.]
[120: Idem.]
[121: The Jonge Klassina, 5 Rob. Adm. Rep. 297.]
[122: The Cousinne Marianne, Edw. 346.]
[123: The Twee Gebroeders, Edw. Adm. Rep. 95.]
[124: The Manly, I Dod. 257.]
[125: Europa, Edw. 42.]
[126: Golden Hoop, Nov. 7, 1809, 1 Edw. Rep.]
[127: The St. Ivan, Edw. 376.]
[128: 1 Kent, 103. The statutes are, 22 Geo. 3, c. 25; 35 Geo. 3, c.
66, sections 35, 36; 45 Geo. 3, c. 72, sections 16, 17, 18, and 19.]
[129: There are a few other general points with respect to ransoms,
which will be found _infra_ under recaptures. Valin is the principal
authority, and his law will be found well summed up in the 2nd volume
of Wildman's Institutes of International Law. There are few cases on
the subject; the chief are, Ricard _v._ Bellenham, 3 Burr, 1734; Yates
_v._ Hall, 3 T.R. 76, 80; Authon _v._ Fisher, Corner _v._ Blackburn, 2
Doug.]
[130: Martens on Privateers and Recaptures.]
[131: The Ceylon, I Dod. 105; l'Actif, Edw. 185, _vide etiam_; the
Nostra Signora, 3 Bob. 10; the Georgiana, I Dod. 397; the Horatio,
6 Rob. 320.]
[132: The Edward and Mary, 3 Rob. 305.]
[133: The Pensamento Felix, Edw. 115.]
[134: The Charlotte Caroline, 1 Dod. 194.]
[135: Santa Cruz, 1 Rob. 63.]
[136: The War Onskan, 2 Rob. 300.]
[137: 1 Kent, Com. 108.]
[138: The William, 6 Rob. 316.]
[139: Idem.]
[140: Vattel, book iii. c. 7.]
[141: Idem.]
[142: 2 Wheaton, chap. iii. sec. i. p. 133.]
[143: Wheaton, vol. ii. 137; Kent's Com. vol. i. p. 116.]
[144: Vrow Anna Catharina, 5 Rob. 18.]
[145: Idem.]
[146: 1 Kent's Com. p. 117; The Anna, 5 Rob. Adm. Rep. 373.]
[147: Vrow Anna Catharina, 5 Rob. 18.]
[148: The Anna, 5 Rob. 385 c.]
[149: The Twee Gebroeders, 3 Rob. A. R. 162.]
[150: The Etrusco, 3 Rob. Adm. Rep.]
[151: 1 Kent Com. p. 116; Vattel, book in, chap, vii, sec. 115. See
also, The Immanuel, 2 Rob. Adm. Rep. 198, and the Notes on the
Declarations, in Appendix.]
[152: Vattel, book in, chap. vii, sec. 116.]
[153: The Fortuna, 4 Rob. Rep. p. 278.]
[154: The Diana, 5 Rob. Rep. 57.]
[155: The Fortuna.]
[156: _Vide_ Vattel.]
[157: Kent's Com. 123; The Copenhagen, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. 290.]
[158: _Vide post_. Section IV, and Notes on the Declarations.
Appendix.]
[159: The Fancy, 1 Dod. Adm. Rep. 448.]
[160: The Nereid, 9 Cranch Rep. 398.]
[161: The Fancy, 1 Dodson's Adm. Rep. 448.]
[162: The Sachs Gesawhistern, 4 Rob. Adm. Rep. 100.]
[163: The Minerva, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep. 399.]
[164: The Noydt Gedart. 2 Rob. 137, (n.)]
[165: 4 Rob. 100.]
[166: See in the Appendix a table of articles of commerce that have
been declared contraband.]
[167: Grotius, book in. chap. i. sec. v.; Rutherfurd's Instit. book
ii. chap. ix. sec. xix.]
[168: The Commercen, 1 Wheaton's Rep. 241.]
[169: The Commereen, 1 Wheaton's Rep. 241.]
[170: The Jonge Margaretha, Rob. Adm..Rep. vol. i. p. 192.]
[171: The Charlotte, Rob. Adm. Rep. vol. v. p. 305.]
[172: 2 Wheaton, 194, 210.]
[173: The Haabet, 2 Rob. Adm. Rep. 182.]
[174: The Carolina, Rob. Adm. Rep. vol. iv. p. 256.]
[175: They were officers of distinction.]
[176: The Orozembo, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 434.]
[177: Idem.]
[178: The Atalanta, Rob. Adm. Rep. vol. vi. p. 440.]
[179: The Caroline. Rob. Adm. Rep. vol. vi. p. 461.]
[180: The Ringende Jacob, Rob. Adm. Rep. vol. i. p. 90.]
[181: The Franklin, Rob. vol. iii, p. 125.]
[182: The Rolla, 6 Rob. 366.]
[183: The Edward, Rob. Adm. Rep. vol. iv. p. 70.]
[184: The Tonina, Rob. Adm. Rep. vol. iii. p. 168.]
[185: The Betsy, The Columbia, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. pp. 92 and 155.]
[186: The Hoffnung, 6 Rob. 120; see also The Triheton, 6 Rob. 65.]
[187: The Mercurius, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 83.]
[188: 2 Wheaton, p. 233, citing Rob. Adm. Rep.]
[189: Rob. Adm. Rep. vol. i. p. 156.]
[190: Neptunus, Rob. Adm. Rep. vol. i. p. 171; Neptunus, Hempel. Rob.
Adm. Rep. vol. ii. p. 112.]
[191: 2 Wheaton, p. 239.]
[192: 2 Wheaton, pp. 242, 244.]
[193: The Betsey, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 93.]
[194: 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 340.]
[195: See Section iv. on Armed Neutralities.]
[196: 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 340.]
[197: 43 Geo. III. c. lvii. sec. 1; Abbot, on Shipping, pp. 353--356.]
[198: This account of armed neutralities has been extracted
principally from Kent's Commentaries, vol. i. pp. 126-7; Wheaton on
International Law, vol. ii. pp. 165-184; Martens on Privateers, pp.
230-33.
There are also most excellent accounts of these celebrated
confederacies to be found in the Annual Register, in volumes 23,
(1780,) and 43, (1801,) in the portion called the Historical
Chronicle.]
[199: This Note was originally intended to form part of the text, but
was accidentally omitted.]
[200: Le Louis.]
[201: Vattel, book ii. chap, xviii. sec. 342.]
[202: The Boedes Lust, 5 Rob. Adm. Rep. p. 244.]
[203: 1 Kent's Com. p. 60.]
[204: Lind. _v._ Rodney, Dougl. Rep. p. 614. a.]
[205: Lord Stowell argues the principles at length in the Immanuel, 2
Rob. Adm. Rep. 198, 100.]
[206: _Vide_ section ii. chap. iii. Contraband of War.]
[207: _Vide_ p. 84.]
[208: See section ii. chap. ii. Blockades.]
[209: This is the doctrine _free ships free goods_, for the first time
voluntarily adopted by this country, pp. 72, 74.]
[210: According to Vattel, this belligerent right has no existence,
and
need not therefore be waived, as it could not legally be exercised;
but
see p. 73.]
[211: This grant of general reprisals, though apparently limited in
its address, (as to action in the war) to Her Majesty's fleets and
ships, does not exclude non-commissioned captors from taking Russian
ships, or goods when called upon _by necessity_ to do so. For example,
any of our armed merchantmen, who in the present war will not be
allowed letters of marque, would be quite justified when beating off
the enemy, in also making a capture if possible, and although her
prize would become a _Droit of Admiralty_, the captor would be
entitled to apply to the court for some compensation. The second part
of this declaration is intended to proclaim the preliminary step to
establishing the court of prize. The declarations with respect to the
embargo laid upon Russian goods and ships in our ports require no
comment.]
[212: See pages 11 and 12.]
[213: The Neptunus, 6 Robinson's Adm. Rep. p. 406; also the Nayade,
4 Rob. p. 251.]
[214: Vide post.]
[215: See page 74.]
[216: See page 75.]
[217: This allows free commerce in neutral bottoms to our ports, from
Russia. It is difficult to see what is meant by "friendly flags." It
cannot mean "a flag of the allies," for that would be giving our
allies more than we take ourselves. It is, perhaps, intended to
include powers that may not be friendly to Russia, but in that
position to ourselves, without being allied to us.]
[218: Free trade by British vessels in enemy's property to ports not
hostile.]