3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy's flag;'

4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.'

The Declaration was signed by the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey. And their respective governments having engaged to bring the Declaration to the knowledge of the states which did not take part in the congress of Paris, and to invite them to accede to it, in a short time the Declaration was acceded to by Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmark, Bremen, Brazil, Brunswick, Chili, the Argentine Confederation, the German Confederation, Equador, Hesse, Lubeck, Hayti, Hamburg, Hanover, the Two Sicilies, the Roman States, Greece, Guatemala, Mecklenburg, Nassau, the Netherlands, Oldenburg, Parma, Peru, Portugal, Saxony, Sweden, Switzerland, Tuscany, and Wurtemburg. Spain, however, objected to the first article relating to privateering, and accepted the three others. Mexico did the same. And the United States of America offered to accept the Declaration on condition that private property at sea be declared free from capture.

The question of international maritime law has been often discussed since this important Declaration was signed, but the policy thereby traced has been generally adhered to. Mr. Cobden advocated the further extension of the principle of lessening the impediments to commerce during war, by exempting private property from capture at sea by armed vessels of every kind; the limitation of blockades to naval arsenals, and to towns besieged at the same time on land; and by the inviolability of merchant ships of neutrals on the high seas to the visitation of

The first English treaty which contained the principle, 'free ship, free goods,' was that of Westminster in the year 1654, concluded between John IV., King of Portugal, and Cromwell. That treaty, confirmed by that of Whitehall in 1661, and re-confirmed by that of Lisbon of 1703, continued unaltered till 1810, when in the 26th article of the treaty of Rio de Janeiro, the power of carrying in the ships of either country goods and merchandise the property of the enemies of the other country was renounced and abrogated.' In 1655 the Lord Protector concluded a treaty with Louis XIV., containing the same principle, but it was not inserted in the treaty of Breda in 1667. In 1677, however, the treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye contained an article declaring that_goods_of the enemy of the most Christian King should not be taken or confiscated if found on board ships appertaining to the subjects of Great Britain except contraband of war.' In subsequent treaties the same clause was inserted. In the treaty of Madrid of 1655, and in all other treaties with Spain till 1796, the same stipulation was made, and the treaty of 1814, which ratified the treaties existing in 1796, renewed the principle. The treaty of Breda with the United Provinces in 1667 contained it, and also the treaty of the Hague of 1780. All the treaties between France and Spain; between Spain and the United Provinces; between the United States and the South American States; and between France and the South American States, have the same stipulation.-See Sir William Molesworth's Speech, July 4, 1854, and Sir Travers Twiss's Law of Nations, vol. ii. p. 156.

alien government vessels in time of war, as in time of peace! These reforms in the public law of Europe have not yet received the support they deserve. But whatever be done to lessen the injurious influences of war, it will ever be found that war is destructive of all commerce and irreconcilable with economic progress.

See a paper on International Maritime Law,' by Henry Ashworth, Esq.:

Social Science Association, 1864.

CHAPTER XVI.

TRADE WITH CHINA.

Relations with China.-Entrance into Canton.-The Case of the Arrow.'Mission of the Earl of Elgin.-Treaty of Tien-tsin.-Hostilities at Takoo. -Trade with Chinese Ports.

THE war with Russia ended, information reached this country that the relations with China had once more been disturbed. The treaty of Nanking of 1842 had stipulated that British subjects with their families and establishments should be allowed to reside, for the purpose of carrying on their mercantile pursuits without molestation or restraint, at the cities and towns of Canton, Amoy, Foochow, Ningpo, and Shanghai. And it was only in view of the danger or difficulty of allowing foreigners to enter the city of Canton, that the treaty signed at Bocca-Tigris provided that, in the meantime, British subjects should enjoy full liberty and protection in the neighbourhood on the outside of the city of Canton. But time passed without any progress being made in providing for free access to the city of Canton, and all the negotiations for the purpose had proved of no, effect. In a despatch on the subject Viscount Palmerston said: These engagements, thus solemnly recorded, the Chinese government has now declined to fulfil. But the faithful porformance of treaty engagements by sovereigns is the security for peace between nations. The Queen of England has fulfilled her treaty engagements to the Emperor of China. The Emperor of China has not fulfilled his treaty engagements to the Queen of England. Why has the Emperor broken his word? Is it because he is unwilling to keep his engagements, or because he is unable to do so? If he is unwilling to keep his engagements, how can the British Government trust to the Emperor's word, and how can there be lasting peace between the two governments? If the Emperor is unable to keep his promise, because his word and his orders are not respected by his subjects, how can he expect that foreign governments should show him more respect than his own subjects are willing to show? and will not foreign governments be obliged to inflict on the Chinese people, in order to repress their violence, those punishments which the Emperor is too weak to be able to

award?'

Thus matters stood, when, in 1852, Dr., afterwards Sir John, Bowring was appointed superintendent of the trade of British subjects in China, his instructions being to insist upon the performance by the Chinese authorities of the engagements which existed between the two countries, but not to resort to measures of force without previous reference home, unless in the extreme case of such measures being required to repel aggression or to protect the lives and property of British subjects. From the first, however, Sir John Bowring was not disposed to remain passive on the subject. Soon after his arrival he communicated to the Earl of Clarendon his conviction that the entrance into the city of Canton might be effected without serious difficulty, and that no better or more appropriate period could be found for peremptorily urging upon the Chinese authorities that the engagement entered into by the Chinese government as to the entrance into the city of Canton should be fulfilled without further delay. Still her Majesty's Government urged upon Sir John Bowring not to pursue the correspondence and not to press for personal interOn February 13, 1854, the Earl of Clarendon sent a note to Sir John Bowring to the effect that there were points which it was desirable to secure, and to which England had even a right by treaty, that among those were free and unrestricted intercourse with the Chinese authorities and free admission into some of the cities of China, especially Canton; but that the treatment of these questions required much caution, for if we should press them in menacing language, and yet fail in carrying them, our national honour would require us to have recourse to force; and in order to obtain results the practical advantage of which was not clearly demonstrated, we might place in peril the vast commercial interests which have already grown up in China, and which with good and temperate management would daily acquire greater magnitude.

course.

Thus cautioned by her Majesty's Government, Sir John Bowring continued his correspondence with Commissioner Yeh respecting the entry into Canton, but his efforts were still unavailing, when an event occurred which led to momentous consequences. On October 8, 1856, Consul Parker informed Sir John Bowring that the Arrow,' a lorcha sailing under British colours, had been suddenly boarded by a force of Chinese officers in a war boat of large size and heavy armament, and that they had pinioned and carried away nearly the whole of the crew, leaving only two out of the fourteen men on board, adding to this act of violence the significant insult of hauling down the national ensign. The Arrow' was a Chinese ship belonging to a Chinese trader, sailing under a colonial certificate of registry, renewable annually, bearing date Hong Kong, September 27, 1855, and therefore, at the time, no longer under its

6

protection. But it was urged that the Chinese had no knowledge of the expiration of the certificate, and Consul Parker affirmed that the inviolability of the British flag might be satisfactorily and easily vindicated by reprisals on one or more of the war boats of the Chinese force by which the violence was committed. Accordingly, an apology was demanded from Commissioner Yeh, and immediately on the receipt of a very unsatisfactory answer an imperial junk was seized in Canton. Taking advantage of this opportunity, Sir John Bowring wrote to Admiral Sir M. Seymour that the circumstances were auspicious for requiring the fulfilment of treaty obligations as regards the city of Canton, and for arranging an official meeting with the Imperial Commissioners within the city walls. A more peremptory demand was thereupon made to that effect, and the same having been met by more evasions, steps were being taken for blockading the Canton river, when, in view of the imminence of another war, the Earl of Elgin arrived as high commissioner and plenipotentiary for the settlement of various important matters between her Majesty and the Emperor of China.

The demands which the Earl of Elgin was instructed to make were reparation of injuries to British subjects, complete execution at Canton, as well as at the other ports, of the stipulations of the several treaties, compensation for losses incurred in consequence of the late disturbances, the assent of the Chinese government to the residence at Pekin of a British minister, a revision of the treaties with China, with a view to obtaining increased facilities for commerce, such as access to cities on the great rivers, as well as to Chapoo and other ports on the coast, and also permission for Chinese vessels to resort to Hong Kong for purposes of trade from all ports of the Chinese empire without distinction. The latter demand was considered of great importance, for although since the conclusion of the treaty of Nanking, the trade of foreign nations with China had been greatly extended, yet it fell far short of what might reasonably be expected under an improved system of intercommunication with the Chinese people. As yet the trade was confined to free ports, to which alone foreigners were entitled to resort, and from which alone Chinese vessels could proceed for purposes of trade to the island of Hong Kong. And it was one of the main objects of Lord Elgin's mission to endeavour to liberate the trade with China from these restrictions, and to induce the Chinese government to consent to throw open the ports of China generally to foreign commerce, and to allow the subjects of foreign powers freely to communicate with the great cities in the interior, but more especially with those which are situated on the large rivers, and those lying immediately within the seaboard of the

north-eastern coast.

On his arrival at Hong Kong the Earl of Elgin placed himself