Слике страница
PDF
ePub

few subsequent examples of the seizure of art treasures by the French kings." A notable case in the Thirty Years' War was the seizure of the library of the Elector Palatine, in 1622, and the subsequent sending of the books to Rome," but this act aroused the indignation of Gustavus Adolphus, and was made the subject of reprisals in kind by him." During the eighteenth century the spoliation of art museums and libraries had fallen into desuetude." The public archives were not always safe, especially where a claimant to a disputed province wished to secure his position by deeds .of title. Professor Nys gives two instances of the seizure of title deeds and similar documents, one by Louis XIV, in 1678, the other by his successor, in 1747,” but in each case the seizure was contrary to express stipulations in capitulations and can hardly be given as instances of what was then considered correct practice.

Heavy burden of Napoleon's armies.-During the days of the French convention, the war threatened to take on the bloody aspect of the Reign of Terror, but, says Mountague Bernard, "the sanguinary decrees of the Convention, which directed that no quarter should be given to English or Hanoverians and that neutral sailors found on board of British ships should be put to the sword, were execrated and disobeyed." Perhaps the heaviest burden of the subsequent war was due to the extended use of requisitions to support the immense forces which Napoleon kept under arms. They were largely responsible for the uprisings that caused his downfall.

Burning of the public buildings at Washington. In this relation, the incident of chief importance in the war of 1812, between Great Britain and the United States, was the burning of the public buildings at Washington. Otherwise, especially in the respect shown for private property, the conduct of the British commanders was generally commendable, and it is hard to determine on just what principle they acted at Washington. Admiral Cockburn, in his

134.

29 Ibid., 494.

» Ibid.

31 Harte, II Gustavus Adolphus, 66.

32 Müntz, IX R. H. D., 375.

33 III Nys, 314.

34 Bernard, the Growth of Laws and Usages of War, p. 112 and p.

BURNING OF THE CAPITOL.

[ocr errors]

63

report, excused the burning of the Capitol as an act of reprisal for shots fired from it," but General Ross made no such explanation, and for the burning of the public buildings other than the Capitol no excuse at all was offered. Afterwards, when the burning of the buildings had been the subject of so much censure, the attempt was made to justify it as an act of retaliation for the alleged burning of the public buildings at York (now Toronto) by the Americans earlier in the war; but there was clearly no such idea in the mind of either Admiral Cockburn or General Ross at the time. That old score had been wiped out, and the reprisals which Admiral Cochrane threatened to make soon afterwards were for an entirely different cause." The orders that Admiral Cochrane issued were directed to the naval forces alone, and had nothing to do with the expedition against Washington under General Ross.38 The burning of the buildings was almost universally condemned, and there has since been no question that the rights of a belligerent over the nonmilitary immovable property of his enemy do not extend to its destruction. In considering the burning of Washington, however, it is only fair to mention the remark of an English writer, that the public buildings at that time were comparatively insignificant, the Capitol being the only one of any considerable architectural pretension."

35 James, History of the War in America, II, 494.

se Ibid., p. 497.

37 Henry Adams, History of the United States, IX, 125. 38 Ibid., p. 128.

39 Gleig, Campaigns at Washington, p. 138.

CHAPTER VI.

THE PERIOD OF PEACE AND THE DECLARATION OF PARIS.

OF PARIS. Changes wrought during the period of peace.The exhausting wars of the Napoleonic period were succeeded by almost forty years of peace. The great inventions were followed by an industrial revolution, and this, with the spread of the doctrines of free trade and the brotherhood of man, led to ideas of a world-economy and world-peace that found expression in the great International Exposition of 1851. The condition of society at that time was well described by Mountague Bernard, who, writing in 1856, said:

"Forty years of peace, during which the inventive and constructive faculties have been stimulated to the utmost, have altered the face of society, and the change has been such as to make the contrast sharper and the plunge more abrupt. We live in times not of excessive luxury, but of elaborate comfort and ease, of order in things great and small, of vast mechanical enterprises, diffused though superficial knowledge, fluent benevolence, and tolerably active charity. We have attained remarkable success in avoiding and putting out of sight all that would hurt the bodily senses or distress the mind. The current of thought among good men and their disciples and imitators sets in the direction of social improvement. The prejudices and antipathies of race are smoothed down, the ties of country and of home weakened; and we have accustomed ourselves to divide society into classes rather than into peoples, and to study the component strata more than the superficial plan. At the same time the extension of trade has knit closer the mutual dependence of nations, so that the stoppage of a single avenue of intercourse, the smallest rise in the price of any necessary article, is felt with electric rapidity in places most remote from each other. As all these things seemed to remove indefinitely the danger of war, so it was reasonable to expect that they would modify its character when it came.'

1 Bernard, The Growth of Laws and Usages of War, p. 88.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Find expression in the Declaration of Paris.-And so they did. The desire for improvement found expres

sion in the four articles of the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which embodied the principles which the allied powers had followed during the war with Russia. They mark the most important modification of the laws of war that has ever resulted from convention. The four articles

are:

1. Privateering is and remains abolished.

2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war.

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

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

The last three articles concern neutrals primarily; but the relation of the second to the general abolition of the capture of private property at sea, as well as the insistence of Great Britain that the first and second articles should only be considered together, necessitates the examination of the Declaration as a whole, and of the first two articles in particular, in some detail.

The Congress of Paris.-The Declaration was the work of the Congress of Paris, composed of representatives of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, who had assembled to arrange terms of peace at the end of the Crimean War. Count Walewski, the French representative, considered the time opportune for a declaration of principles of maritime warfare, and on April 8, 1856, proposed the four articles above mentioned." Lord Clarendon immediately announced the willingness of the British Government to accept them, on condition that the first two articles should be inseparable, and at the following meeting of the Congress the other representatives announced the adhesion of their governments. On April 16, the representatives of all the seven powers signed the Declaration, with the understanding that no signatory or adhering government should ever enter into an arrangement,

British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. XLVI, p. 125.
Ibid., p. 128.

Ibid., p. 133.

involving the rights of neutrals, that did not rest on all the four principles."

The change in the attitude of Great Britain.—The Decla ration marked a revolution in the maritime policy of Great Britain. Hitherto, she had insisted on her right to seize enemy property on the high seas, whether found in neutral bottoms or not, and had combated the doctrine of free ships, free goods, as designed to cripple her power at sea by allowing enemy commerce to be carried on in neutral bottoms without molestation. Therefore, in adopting the second article, she accepted the very principle which she had so long opposed. The reason for the change of policy was explained in Parliament by Lord Clarendon, who, while holding the post of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had represented his government at the Congress. "It was evidently impossible," declared his Lordship, "that we should revert to our former policy—the great changes which had taken place in our commercial policy forbade that we should ever have recourse to that policy again. The Government therefore thought that it would be wise and politic and expedient that when we were under no compulsion and our motives could not be misunderstood, we should make the declaration we have made, that we will not recede but will abide by what we have done in the hope that we should thereby mitigate the evils of war and produce a friendly feeling among the nations of the earth.""

At another time he said:

sea.

"It has been, and still is, the great object of modern civilization to mitigate the miseries of war, and to define and extend the rights of neutrals. This has been done with respect to war by land, but not with respect to war by By land we should think it disgraceful to seize the property of neutral and peaceful persons even subjects of the enemy; but that is not the case by sea; and we even give licenses to buccaneers to seize the property of peaceful merchants on the ocean. There is no assignable reason for this difference, except, perhaps, that the acts committed by sea are less under observation than those committed on land, and the force of opinion is, consequently, less

■ Ibid., p. 137.

•Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, Vol. CXLII, column 498.

[ocr errors]
« ПретходнаНастави »