OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS BEARING ON THE ARMED NEUTRALITY OF 1780 AND 1800 Introduction1 In the meantime Spain had been drawn into the war as an ally of France under the family compact of 1761, and Great Britain had demanded in vain from Holland that assistance which the republic was bound to render by the subsisting treaties of alliance and guarantee between the two countries. Indeed appearances indicated that Great Britain was soon to encounter an enemy in her ancient ally. Her naval, commercial, and colonial superiority were thus threatened by a formidable confederacy of the maritime Powers of Europe combined with the youthful energies of her own revolted colonies. In this extremity, the British Cabinet turned its attention to Russia, as a Power whose friendship and aid might be secured by the application of suitable means. Sir James Harris (afterwards Lord Malmsbury) was instructed to sound the disposition of the Empress Catharine, and for this purpose addressed himself to Panin, Chancellor of the Empire, and Potemkin, the reigning favorite of that princess. The former was unfavorable to the views of the British Cabinet; but the latter opened to their Ambassador the means of secret conference with the Empress, who consented to offer her armed mediation in the war between Great Britain on the one side, and France, Spain, and the United States on the other, as an equivalent for Russia's being allowed to prosecute her designs on the Turkish Empire. But the inclinations of the Empress were still resisted by Panin, who endeavored to convince her that the true interests of the Kussian State would not be promoted by such an alliance; and an official answer was accordingly returned declining the British overtures. Harris was disconcerted by this unexpected result, but received assurances from Potemkin, in the name of the Empress, of unchanged good-will, and an expression of the hope that circumstances would soon enable her to conform her conduct to her wishes. An incident now occurred which seemed to favor the designs of the British negotiator. Two Russian vessels laden with corn, and 1 From Henry Wheaton's History of the Law of Nations in Europe and America from the Earliest Times to the Treaty of Washington, 1842, (New York, 1845), pp. 295-304 and 397-421. bound to the Mediterranean, were seized by Spanish cruisers upon the ground that they were intended to supply the fortress of Gibraltar. The Empress instantly demanded satisfaction from the Spanish Court, and was persuaded by Potemkin to order, without consulting Panin, the equipment of a fleet at Kronstadt, which was destined to cooperate with Great Britain against Spain and her allies, in case redress should be refused. The fitting out of the fleet could not long be concealed from Panin, nor did he doubt its destination. But he determined to carry into effect his own views by appearing to forward those of his rival. Far from appearing to oppose the designs of the Empress, he declared that he himself participated in her indignation at the conduct of Spain, and entirely approved of her determination to require satisfaction for the injury done to the neutral navigation of her subjects engaged in a lawful commerce. He would even go further; he would exhort his sovereign to seize this opportunity of solemnly announcing to Europe that she would not suffer the wars waged by other Powers to affect injuriously the accustomed trade of Russia. He represented that such a course would secure the friendship and cooperation of all the neutral Powers, and would compel Spain to grant complete satisfaction for the injury she had committed. The true principles of neutrality, sanctioned by the natural law of nations, had been hitherto too little respected in practice. They had hitherto wanted the support of a sovereign uniting sufficient power, wisdom, and benevolence to cause them to be respected. These requisites were now united in Catharine, and she had an opportunity of acquiring new titles to glory, of becoming a lawgiver to the high seas, of restraining the excesses of maritime warfare, and affording to the peaceful commerce of neutrals such a security as it never had possessed. The Empress was completely carried away by these representations so flattering to her pride and ambition. She ordered Panin to prepare a statement of the principles he had developed, to be communicated to the belligerent Powers, as the rules to be observed for the security of Russian navigation and commerce, and to neutral States, as the basis of a league to be formed between them for the protection of neutral rights.1 1Von Dohm. Denkwürdigkeiten meiner Zeit, vol. ii, pp. 100-150; Mémoire sur la Neutralité armée par M. le Comte de Goertz, p. 104. This account given by the Count de Goertz of the history of the armed neutrality is confirmed by what the Empress Maria Theresa said to Baron de Breteuil, Minister of France. "Il n'y a pas," lui-dit elle à l'occasion de la In the declaration of the Empress of Russia, which was accordingly drawn up, under date of the 26th February, 1780, and communicated to the Courts of London, Versailles, and Madrid, these rules are laid down as follows: 1. That all neutral vessels may freely navigate from port to port and on the coasts of nations at war. 2. That the goods belonging to the subjects of the Powers at war shall be free in neutral vessels, except contraband articles. 3. That the Empress, as to the specification of the above-mentioned goods, holds to what is mentioned in the 10th and 11th articles of her treaty of commerce with Great Britain, extending these obligations to all the Powers at war.1 4. That to determine what is meant by a blockaded port, this denomination is only to be given to that where there is, by the arrangements of the Power which attacks it with vessels, stationed sufficiently near, an evident danger in attempting to enter it. Such was the origin of the first armed neutrality of 1780. It sprung from no enlarged and beneficent views of improvement in the maritime law of nations hitherto sanctioned by general practice. It was the accidental result of a mere court intrigue, and of the rivalry between two candidates for the favor of a dissolute, ambitious, and vain-glorious woman. Catharine herself had a very imperfect idea of the immense importance of the measure she had adopted and of the effects it might produce. So ignorant was she of commerce, that she flattered herself with having at once vindicated her own honor and shown her strong regard for Great Britain. Panin took care not to neutralité armée; "il n'y a pas jusqu'à ses vues les plus mal combinées, qui ne tournent à son profit et à sa gloire; car vous savez sans doute que la déclaration, qu'elle vient de faire pour sa neutralité maritime, avait d'abord été arrêtée dans des termes et dans des vues absolument favorables à l'Angleterre. Cet ouvrage avait été fait par la seule influence de M. le Prince Potemkin, et à l'insu de M. le Comte de Panin; et cette déclaration, inspirée par l'Angeleterre, était au moment de paraître, lorsque M. de Panin, qui en a été instruit, a trouvé moyen de la faire entièrement changer et de la tourner absolument en votre faveur." Flassan, Histoire de la Diplomatie Française, vol. vii, p. 272n. 1The treaty of amity and commerce of 1766 between Great Britain and Russia, Article 10, restricts contraband to "munitions of war"; and the 11th article defines these to consist of "canons, mortiers, armes à feu, pistolets, grenades, boulets, balles, fusils, pierres-à-feu, mêches, poudre, salpêtre, souffre, cuirasses, piques, épées, ceinturons, poches à cartouche, selles et brides, au delà de la quantité qui peut être nécessaire pour l'usage du vaisseau," etc. Martens, Recueil de Traités, vol. 1, p. 395. undeceive her and, fearing that his intrigue might fail, begged she would not communicate with any one until the couriers were sent off with the declaration. But she could not refrain from saying confidentially to the British Ambassador that there would soon be delivered in her name to all the belligerent Powers a manifesto which would be completely satisfactory to the British Government; and condescended even to give him leave to communicate thus much to his Court. The communication which he accordingly made raised its expectations to the highest pitch, and the disappointment was proportionably greater when it learnt the true nature of the measures adopted by the Russian Cabinet. The British Government dissembled its resentment, and replied to the Russian declaration with cold dignity, that His Majesty had hitherto acted towards neutral Powers "conformably to the clearest principles generally acknowledged as the law of nations, being the only law between Powers where no treaties subsist, and agreeably to the tenor of his different engagements with other Powers, where those engagements have altered this primitive law by mutual stipulations proportioned to the will and convenience of the contracting Parties," and that "strongly attached to Her Majesty the Empress of all the Russias by the ties of reciprocal friendship and common interest, the King, from the commencement of those troubles, gave the most precise orders respecting the flag of Her Imperial Majesty and the commerce of her subjects, agreeably to the law of nations, and the tenor of the engagements stipulated by his treaty of commerce with her, and to which he shall adhere with the most scrupulous exactness. The Court of Spain answered the Russian declaration by professing its determination to respect the neutral flag of all the Powers that had consented, or should consent to defend it, until His Catholic Majesty ascertained what part Great Britain should take, and whether its navy and privateers would keep within due bounds. And to show to all the neutral Powers how much Spain was desirous of observing, in time of war, the same rules of which she had claimed the observance whilst neutral, His Majesty conformed to those laid down by Russia, "with the understanding however that with regard to the blockade of Gibraltar, the danger of entering subsists as determined by the 4th article of the said declaration." The Court of France answered, that the principles laid down by Russia were no other than the rules already prescribed to the French navy, the execution of which was maintained with an exactness known and applauded by all Europe. "The freedom of neutral vessels, restrained in a few cases only, is a direct consequence of natural law, the security of nations, and the consolation even of those who are afflicted by the scourge of war. The King has therefore been desirous to procure, not only to the subjects of Her Majesty the Empress of Russia, but to all other States which continue neutral, the freedom of navigation on the same conditions with those announced in the declaration, to which His Majesty this day replies. The King believed that he had already advanced the general good, and prepared a glorious epoch of his reign, in establishing by his example those rights which every belligerent ought and must recognize as belonging to neutral vessels. This hope has not been vain, since the Empress, whilst engaging to observe the most exact neutrality, has declared in favor of that system which the King sustains at the price of the blood of his people, whilst she claims the same laws which His Majesty would make the basis of the universal maritime code." Denmark and Sweden concurred in approving the principles of the Russian declaration, and notified their concurrence to the belligerent Powers. Great Britain answered to the Danish notification, that during the whole course of the present war with France and Spain, she had constantly respected the rights of all friendly and neutral Powers, according to subsisting treaties, and according to the clearest and most generally recognized principles of the law of nations common to all nations who are bound by no special conventions. Such conventions existed between Great Britain and Denmark, and the Danish flag and commerce would continue to be respected according to their stipulations, which defined the mutual rights and duties of the two nations. and which could not be changed without their mutual consent. Until thus changed, they constituted an inviolable law for both parties, which had been observed and would continue to be observed by the British Government with that spirit of equity which regulated all its conduct, and in the just expectation of reciprocal fidelity on the part of Denmark to its engagements. To the notification of Sweden the British Cabinet answered in a similar manner, with a special reference to the stipulations of the existing treaties between the two countries, which were clear and formal, and could not be changed without the mutual consent of the contract |