regarded as permanent, and that other powers should be invited to accede to similar conventions. (1) 21 July 1 August A treaty precisely similar, and copying the above four stipulations, and the ensuing articles, verbatim, was made between Russia and Sweden, on the 1780, and Sweden and Denmark exchanged declarations, each binding themselves to the Russian treaty with the other, and making the confederacy for mutual defence complete between these three powers. (2) On the 24th December, 1780, the United Provinces made, at St. Petersburgh, a treaty with Russia, in which they acceded to the above treaties with the Northern courts, and issued declarations of their joining in the full extent of the new confederacy. (3) Great Britain Before the conclusion of this treaty, however, Great Position of Britain had declared war, on the 20th December, and the United against the United Provinces. By treaties existing Provinces. between this country and the United Provinces, it had been agreed that the principle that "free ships make free goods" should exist between the two countries; and also an alliance for mutual defence existed, engaging that if either party were attacked, the other party should break with the aggressor in two months from the time. of requisition to do so. On France and Spain joining in the American war, such requisition was made by our ambassador, but was evaded by the United Provinces. A hostile feeling was produced by this conduct, and also by the evident favouring of the American cause by the United Provinces; and, on the 17th April, 1780, a declaration was published by our government, announcing that the succours stipulated by the treaty of (1) De Martens, Rec. III. 189 -195. (2) Id. 198-208. (3) Id. 215-222. The United receive no the confede rates, are in and lose Nega 1678 never having been afforded by the States General, the provisions of the treaty of commerce of 1674 should be suspended, and the United Provinces treated, no longer in accordance with the privileges there granted, but only on the footing of other neutral nations. (1) Disputes had already taken place between the two countries regarding a squadron commanded by Paul Jones, which had been refitted in the Texel, and also respecting a fleet of merchantmen convoyed by Count Byland, who had been fired at, upon his refusing to submit to search, and the naval materials on board his merchantmen confiscated as contraband, contrary to the provisions of the treaty of 1674. The angry feeling between the two countries was aggravated by the accession of the United Provinces to the Russian Memorial; and a crisis arose upon the capture of Mr. Laurens, formerly president of the American Congress, who was taken by a British ship, and among whose papers were found documents showing that the United Provinces had been in friendly correspondence with the United States ever since 1778, and who had with him a sketch of a treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and the States General, which appeared to be in a train of negotiation, and which was approved by the Pensionary of Amsterdam. (2) Soon after the British declaration of war, the States General made application for the assistance stipulated assistance from in the new confederacy, in case any member of the alliance should be attacked in consequence of the prinvolved in war, ciples there promulgated. But Sweden, to whom the application was made, replied that the British declaration could hardly be regarded as a consequence of the States General joining the new confederacy, inasmuch (1) Ann. Reg. 1780, p. 61. (2) See the British Manifesto, id. p. (142.) patam. as that junction was made after the British declaration of war, the latter being dated London, the 20th December, while the Dutch treaty was dated St. Petersburgh, the 24th December. But although not coming within the terms of the treaty for mutual defence, it was possible that the British declaration had been hastened in order to anticipate that contingency, although the conduct of the United Provinces in regard to the Russian Memorial was not noticed in the British Manifesto. Still, if the Northern courts declared war in consequence of our breaking with Holland, they removed all the advantages of neutrality which the confederacy was especially established to promote; while, on the other hand, if the United Provinces were left to their fate, it would seem as if the confederacy had agreed to a convention which they were afraid to carry into execution. Therefore, concluded the Swedish Note, it would be best for the Northern courts to adopt a middle course, and present in their joint names a Memorial to the British court, offering their mediation between Great Britain and the United Provinces. In this proposition Russia acquiesced. (1) But the position of the Northern powers with regard to this country, was not, at that period, the most likely to make an offer of mediation acceptable; and the Dutch, having deserted our alliance for the prospect of a more gainful union, found themselves unsupported by their new confederates, and had to buffet for themselves till the end of the war, and to see their commerce cut up, and some of their colonies taken from them, till they were included in the general peace, in 1783, with the loss of Negapatam. To return to the acts of accession to the Armed Accession of Neutrality. On the 8th May, 1781, a treaty was made other courts to the Armed between Prussia and Russia, embodying the four articles Neutrality. (1) See the correspondence in De Martens, Rec. III. 230-244. Considerations on the Armed Neutrality of 1780. of the new alliance, and establishing Prussia as a member of the confederacy. (1) On the 10th July, 1781, a similar treaty was made between Russia and the Emperor of Germany. (2) A similar treaty was made between Russia and Portugal, dated the 13th July, 1782. (3) And on the 10th February, 1783, the King of the Two Sicilies acceded to the Northern confederacy. (4) Thus had all the principal continental powers acceded to the principles of the Armed Neutrality, when its operations were suspended by the general peace of 1783. In whatever point of view we regard this celebrated confederacy, it is difficult to find anything respectable connected with it. Among others, the following observations suggest themselves. I. The abandonment of principle for interest marks the commencement of the Armed Neutrality; an open breach of faith being made by the two powers that first joined Russia in the association. II. The ready manner in which one party of the belligerent States acceded to the novel principles, was itself a proof that these principles were inconsistent with the duties of neutrality, as they evidently assisted one side in the contest, and injured the opposed State, which refused to acquiesce in these pretensions. The declaration of France and Spain therefore, that they approved of the Northern alliance, was a disproof, not a sanction, of the justice of the confederacy; and thus States, with the title of an Armed Neutrality, undertook to interfere in the issue of a war, by measures which directly assisted one, and directly injured the other, belligerent. III. A principle which the Northern con federacy undertook to establish as a fundamental right of Neutrality, was then for the first time heard of in Europe; for the second article of the statement of principles declares that "free ships shall make free goods," but does not convey the corresponding stipulation that "enemy's ships shall make enemy's goods." The latter engagement is never once referred to in any of the documents creating the Armed Neutrality. But never had there been, among Christian powers, a treaty which conveyed the former immunity without also engaging the latter privilege. One principle had invariably been conveyed in exchange for the other. But the framers of the Armed Neutrality, relying upon the imposing aspect of their union, and upon Great Britain having already to cope with several enemies, defied at once precedent and principle, and attempted to establish by force what their own subsequent conduct proved them not to have regarded as a right, and what never had been claimed as such by any government whatever. IV. The number of the States that joined in the confederacy does not in the least affect the question of the right of the principle which they sought to establish. An universal, or even general, continued acquiescence in any given legal principle, may make it probable that such a principle is based on universal law. But no combination of States can establish that as a part of the Law of Nations which is not dependent upon natural equity, nor can they, rightfully, make the observance of any stipulation incumbent upon any but the contracting parties. A glance at the position of the European powers, at the time of the Armed Neutrality, will destroy any belief that the principles of the confederacy must have been just because they were so generally recognised. Russia, Sweden, Denmark, and the United Provinces, had the most direct and immediate interest in the pretensions which they engaged to defend. Remaining neutral at a time when some of |