the probability that in any future war between England and a foreign power, however insignificant in naval strength, the example now set by subjects of her Majesty while England is neutral may be followed by citizens of other countries, neutral when England is belligerent; and that the attitude of helplessness, in which her Majesty's Government have declared their inability to detect and punish breaches of the law notoriously committed by certain of her Majesty's subjects, may hereafter be successfully imitated by the Governments of those other countries in answer to English remonstrances."

Supporters of the theory of the "intolerable responsibility of interference" will do well to read this passage.

"That the experience of late events has proved to the conviction of your memorialists that the possession by a belligerent of swift steam-cruisers under no necessity, actual or conventional, to visit the possibly blockaded home ports of that belligerent, but able to obtain all requisite supplies from neutrals, will become a weapon of offence against which no preponderance of naval strength can effectually guard, and the severity of which will be felt in the ratio of the shipping and mercantile wealth of the nation against whose mercantile marine the efforts of those steam-cruisers may be directed.

"That the effect of a future war with any power thus enabled to purchase, prepare, and refit vessels of war in neutral ports will inevitably be to transfer to neutral flags that portion of the sea-carrying trade of the world which is now enjoyed by your memorialists and by other British. shipowners.

"That over and above the chances of pecuniary loss to themselves, your memorialists share in the regret with which a law-regarding community must naturally look on successful attempts to evade the provisions of an Act of Parliament passed for a single and simple purpose, but which has been.

found not to give the executive all the powers needed for its effective execution.

"That your memorialists would accordingly respectfully urge upon your lordship the expediency of proposing to Parliament to sanction the introduction of such amendments into the Foreign Enlistment Act as may have the effect of giving greater power to the Executive, to prevent the construction in British ports of ships destined for the use of belligerents. And your memorialists would further suggest to your lordship the importance of endeavouring to secure the assent of the Governments of the United States of America and of other foreign countries to the adoption of similar regulations in those countries also."

In reply to this fair-minded, practical, and most prophetic document, Mr. Hammond was directed to state "that in Lord Russell's opinion the Foreign Enlistment Act is effectual for all reasonable purposes, and to the full extent to which international law or comity can require." It is possible that some doubts as to the correctness of this opinion may have beclouded the minds of the thirty-one shipowners, when shortly afterwards the Government paid £3,000,000 as compensation for the shortcomings of that same Foreign Enlistment Act.

The "memorial" is particularly instructive from the glaring contrast it presents to the remarks of Sir W. Harcourt on the same subject which have been previously set out, and further from its strong corroboration of the views we have just advocated concerning the importance of the hull. will be noticed that the shipowners, unaccustomed to the nice distinctions of analytical jurists, bluntly allude to “successful attempts to evade the provisions of an Act of Parliament passed for a single and simple purpose, but which has been found not to give the Executive all the powers. needed for its effective execution."

In other words, the Act did not forbid the building of the

ship for the belligerent by the neutral, which was the main. thing, but only forbade the arming of the ship by him, which was merely an accessory. The Liverpool merchants, who had seen 715 American merchant vessels change their nationality merely from the apprehension of three vessels built in England and six in France (five of which were never allowed to depart), seem to have felt instinctively that here there was something wrong, and it may be that other people could be found who would agree with them. Sir W. Harcourt, on the contrary, as we have seen, says, "To build is nothing unless the vessel be armed and despatched; it is in these acts that the real breach of neutrality consists. The law should lay its hands on the immediate offence, and not be astute to search out its remote sources and springs."

The conclusion we draw from the whole matter is that it is not true that the ground principles of neutrality admit of the sale of war-ships to a belligerent by a neutral subject, provided that they are not commissioned before they leave the neutral port. On the contrary, those principles are flatly opposed to any such trade which in practice reduces neutrality to a hollow mockery. The growing custom against that trade has arisen from a better perception of the real nature of the ground principles of neutrality. If the fears of the Liverpool shipowners were well-founded, it is clear that it would be of enormous advantage to this country to promote a general International convention so that the law on these points might be settled once for all as was done by the Treaty of Paris in 1856, concerning other points of neutrality law. It is noteworthy that in 1870 Lord Granville proposed some such convention to Prince Bismarck. If the Convention does meet, the following rough outline may perhaps give some idea of the proposals which may come up for discussion.

1. The contracting Powers undertake that they will each provide themselves with municipal laws (in case such laws. do not already exist) whereby in the event of any of the said

Powers occupying the position of neutrality, their subjects may be effectively restrained from supplying either belligerent with arms or munitions of war, or materials for the construction of the same, or with horses or their accoutrements. They further undertake that such laws shall be rigorously enforced.

2. The said Powers having regard to the enormous and unique capacity for the destruction of maritime commerce possessed by steam-vessels, hereby undertake that in the event of any of them occupying the position of neutrality they will exercise the most vigorous surveillance to prevent their subjects from building ships for either belligerent which are capable of being used as war-vessels, and from selling such vessels ready-made, to either belligerent, and from arming or equipping or despatching such vessels for either belligerent.

3. The said Powers further engage that if any of them, being in the position of belligerency, shall have established an effective blockade of any of their enemy's ports, the rest of the said Powers which are in the position of neutrality, shall provide themselves with municipal laws whereby if any of their subjects attempt a breach of such blockade, they shall be deemed to have committed a criminal offence, provided that it shall be shown

(a) That the blockade was effective at the date of the alleged offence;

(b) That there was proof of scienter on the part of the alleged offender.

Further regulations would probably be proposed concerning

(a) The supply of coal to war-vessels in neutral ports.

(b) The reception of such vessels and their equipment or armament in neutral ports.

There is no subject which more frequently serves as a butt for the facetious, both in the legal profession and among the laity, than that of International Law. Prince Bismarck, for

example, mentions "hunting up some old fogeys who have written on International Law" when in want of an excuse for having caused the sinking of some English vessels in the Franco-German War. The fact that there is among nations no "Austinian Sovereign," with his accompanying "positive laws," his "sanctions," his "power to abolish other sovereigns," and all the other paraphernalia of that juristic Frankenstein, is sufficient to blind the technically minded to the existence of International Law as a hard fact in the life of States. Such persons usually agree with the Swiss delegate at the Alabama arbitration, who thought that International Law was evolved in each case by an inductive process, i.e. was made up as one went on.

It may be noted here, entirely parenthetically, that the total immersion of English constitutional lawyers in the baptismal font of Austinian theories of sovereignty, has been attended with some extremely awkward results in the case of the protectorates established by Great Britain over Zanzibar, Brunei, and the Somali coast. The persons who were responsible in the matter, under the influence of the Austinian twaddle as to the "indivisibility of sovereignty," and ignoring the fact that it is a very far cry from the sovereignty of the Queen in council to that of some naked savage seated on a mat of the type of the late Lobengula, or of the Sultan of Brunei, have caused the powers of the Crown to be expressly limited, so as to exclude all jurisdiction over foreigners in those barbarous countries in either civil or criminal matters. inexpediency of this absence of jurisdiction is manifest, but the reason of it is to be found in the theory that the sovereignty of Great Britain is only "delegated" in such cases, and therefore cannot be exercised over persons who are not subjects of the delegating power. The French and the Germans suffer from no such Austinian delusions as regards their Protectorates.

The

We would also observe parenthetically, that if the late John