maintenance of those principles by the equipment of a joint fleet, and for their mutual defence against any power who should attack either of the contracting parties on account of their reciprocal engagements. By this convention, to which Sweden acceded on the 9th September, 1780, the Baltic sea was declared to be mare clausum against the ships of war of the belligerent powers; and the contracting parties referred to their respective treaties with the belligerent powers for the definition of contraband.b In the mean time a diplomatic struggle was going on in the United Provinces between the agents of France and Great Britain, the former seeking to confirm the republic in her resolution of remaining neutral, and the latter insisting on her furnishing the succours stipulated by the existing treaties of alliance and guarantee. In order to determine the conduct of the Dutch, the French government issued, on the 14th of January, 1779, an ordinance suspending the operation of the first article, that of the 26th July, 1778, in respect to their navigation, excepting that of Amsterdam. The operation of this ordinance was again suspended as respected the entire province of Holland on the 2d of July, 1779, which still continued to be privileged under the former ordinance of 1778. France thus sought to divide the councils of the republic, whilst the British court notified the States General that, if they did not, within the term of three weeks, furnish the stipulated succours, Great Britain would no longer consider their flag as privileged by treaty, but would conduct, in respect to it, according to the strict principles of the preexisting law of nations. This menace was executed by the proclamation of the 17th April, 1780, which authorized the seizure of Dutch vessels, bound from one enemy's port to another, or laden with enemies property. Whilst thus agitated by alternate hopes and fears, the States General were invited by Russia to b Martens, Recueil des Traités, tom. iii. pp. 189, 205. accede to the convention of armed neutrality which had been formed by the Baltic powers. After long delays and hesitation, the resolution for this purpose was, at length, passed on the 20th November, 1780; but it was even then not unanimous, the three provinces of Zealand, Guelders, and Utrecht, having refused their assent. This was followed on the 20th December, 1780, by a declaration of war against the United Provinces on the part of Great Britain, grounded upon the alleged fact of their having concluded a secret treaty acknowledging the independence of the United States of America. The United Provinces demanded from the northern powers the succours stipulated by the convention of armed neutrality; but this demand was rejected, upon the ground that the rupture between Great Britain and Holland, had actually taken place before the accession of the latter to the armed neutrality, and that the causes of war, stated in the British declaration, were entirely foreign to the objects of the neutral alliance.c The United States of America acceded to the principles of the armed neutrality by the ordinance of Congress of the 7th April, 1781. Prussia acceded to the armed neutrality on the 8th May, 1781. Austria acceded to the principles of the armed neutrality, but not to the conventions by which it was formed, on the 9th October, 1781. Portugal acceded to the conventions on the 13th July, 1782. The king of the two Sicilies acceded to the conventions on the 10th February, 1783.d The armed neutrality of the northern powers continued to hang as a dark cloud constantly menacing the safety of • Schoell, Histoire abregée des Traités de Paix, tom. iv. p. 53. Flassan, Histoire de la Diplomatie Française, tom. vii. pp. 282–297. Martens, Recueil, etc. tom. iii. p. 223. d Schoell, tom. iv. pp. 55-57. Treaty of peace, 1783. the British empire until the peace of 1783. Being engaged in war with France, Spain, Holland, and the United States of America, the addition of the hostility of those powers might have turned the already doubtful balance against her naval superiority. It was with this view, and also to detach Holland from the confederacy, that Great Britain offered, in 1782, to make a separate peace with the republic, under the mediation of Russia, on the basis of the treaty of 1674, by which, as Mr. Fox, then secretary of state for foreign affairs, stated in his communication to the Russian minister in London, "the principles of the armed neutality are established in their widest extent to all the contracting parties. His majesty, therefore, does not make any difficulty to say, that he will accept, as the basis of a separate peace between him and the States General, a free navigation, according to the principles demanded by her imperial majesty in her declaration of the 26th February, 1780."e This negotiation proved abortive, and Great Britain continued to act towards the powers which remained neutral during the American war, according to the preexisting law of nations, as understood and practiced by her. She, however, asserted her maritime pretensions, with much for bearance and caution, and suffered the rule she had established in the war of 1756, relating to the enemy's colonial trade to slumber in oblivion. This war was finally terminated by the treaty of peace concluded at Versailles in 1783. By this treaty the independence of the United States of America was recognized by Great Britain, and the Floridas with the island of Minorca were restored to Spain. Senegal and the island of Tobago were ceded to France, which was also admitted in common with Great Britain and the United States to parti cipate in the fisheries on the Banks of Newfoundland. All • Annual Register for 1782, p. 299. the places taken in the East Indies were mutually restored, and Hyder Ali, with the other allies of France, invited to accede to the treaty. The maritime and colonial balance of power was thus in some measure restored, whilst France liberated herself from the military servitude imposed by the treaty of Utrecht, 1713, and confirmed by that of Aix la Chapelle, 1748, and of Paris, 1763, according to which the French government stipulated to demolish the fortifications of Dunkirk. The treaty of peace of 1783 with France and Spain revived the treaties of peace and commerce of Utrecht, and consequently confirmed the maritime stipulations contained in the treaty of commerce of Utrecht in favour of the freedom of neutral navigation. But the treaty of peace of 1784 between Great Britain and Holland contains no equivalent stipulation.f The same provisions were again inserted in the treaty of navigation and commerce between Great Britain and France of 1786. In the debate which took place in the British parliament upon the preliminaries of this convention, it was objected to these provisions by the Marquis of Lansdowne, that they contained a complete recognition of the principles of the armed neutrality by Great Britain. The only answer made to this objection was, that the stipulations in question were merely intended to provide for the very im probable case, that either of the contracting parties should be engaged in a maritime war, whilst the other should remain neutral, and not to furnish a general rule to be observed towards other nations.g The United States of America had adopted the principle of free ships, free goods, with the associated maxim of enemy ships, enemy goods, in their treaties of 1782 with 1 Martens recueil, tom. iii. pp. 521, 543-560, tom. iv. pp. 168-173. Parliamentary History of England, vol. xxvi. p. 563. § 16. Treaty tween and Prussia. the the United Netherlands, of 1783 with Sweden, and with Prussia of 1785.h The last mentioned treaty between the United States of 1785 be- and Prussia contains two very remarkable stipulations for United States limiting the operations of war. By the 23d article of this treaty, it is provided, that "all women and children, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, artizans, manufacturers and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfortified towns, villages, or places, and in general all others whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments, and shall not be molested in their persons, nor shall their houses or goods be burnt, or otherwise destroyed, nor their fields wasted by the armed force of the enemy, into whose power, by the events of war, they may happen to fall, but if any thing is necessary to be taken from them for the use of such armed force, the same shall be paid for at a reasonable price. And all merchant and trading vessels, employed in exchanging the products of different places, and thereby rendering the necessaries, conveniences, and comforts of human life more easy to be obtained, and more general, shall be allowed to pass free and unmolested; and neither of the contracting powers shall grant or issue any commission to any private armed vessels, empowering them to take or destroy such trading vessels or interrupt such commerce." By the 24th article, it is stipulated, that, "to prevent the destruction of prisoners of war, by sending them into distant and inclement countries, or by crowding them into close and noxious places, the two contracting parties solemnly pledge themselves to each other, and to the world, that they will not adopt any such practice: that neither will send the prisoners, whom they may take from the other, into the East Indies, or any other parts of Asia, or Elliot's American Diplomatic Code, vol. i. pp. 134, 168, 334. |