« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
conduct to pass through the enemy's territory, may be taken in his own country by the law of war. This question was agitated in the case of the marquis of Messarano, who had received a safe conduct from the Spaniards to go from his own castlé to Venice, passing through the Spanish Milanese territories; but before he sat out on his journey, the castle was taken by the Spaniards, and himself made prisoner. It was asked, whether he was exempted by his safe conduct from paying any ransom? Bellus, who himself sat as judge in the cause, did not venture to decide any thing, as he relates himself in his treatise De Re Militari;* neither does Zauch, agreeably to his custom, give any opinion on the point.f But Menochiust distinguishes, whether the marquis was then ready for his journey, or whether he was not; in the first case, he thinks that the safe conduct would; in the second, that it would not have availed him. The doubts of Bellus and Zouch appear to me as silly as the decision of Menochius. The marquis's castle and territory being invaded by the Spaniards, he was himself most lawfully a prisoner; because he had only asked for a protection in the enemy's territory, and not in his own, nor had he stipulated for a peace or a truce, but merely for a passage through the Milanese country into the territory of Venice. Whatever, therefore, was not within that particular object, was to be decided by the law of war.
X. It is unjust to compel a sovereign to make war or peace.
As it is unjust to force a prince to make war against his will, it is so likewise, to compel him to make peace. But, when the states-general, on the one hand, were afraid of the French, and the great men of England, on the other, were displeased with the extent of the territory of France, the kings of England and Sweden and the states-general, made a treaty on the 23d of January 1668, in which, among other things, they 'stipulated, that the Spaniards, who were then at war with the French, should be compelled to accept of certain conditions,
• P. 9. No. 15, & seq.
De arbitr. judic. quæst. 1. 2. cent. 4. cas. 336. n. 19, & seq.
prescribed by the said treaty; and that after they had accepted them, if the king of France should, nevertheless, continue to make war upon Spain, the allies should interfere in an hostile manner; and thus, the French and Spaniards were COMPELLED to make peace.
In another instance, when it was not thought proper for the welfare of Europe, that the king of Sweden should also possess Denmark, the French, the English and the states-general, on the 21st of May 1659, forced the king of Sweden to make peace with the Danes,* and thus saved the king of Denmark from total ruin, to which he was exposed in consequence of having excited a neighbour more powerful than himself.
These are real injuries, cloaked with the pretence of a wish to make peace; a pretence which has been used to cover in. juries of a much greater magnitude, which have been fashionable for some years past; for, princes, in their treaties with each other, have been in the habit of disposing of the dominions and territories of other sovereigns as if they were their own. Such injuries are the offspring of what is called the reason of state:
Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum. If governments will yield to that monster, and indulge themselves in following its dictates, and considering the property of other nations as their own, it is idle and useless to investigate any more the law of nations, or discuss its principles.
Aitz. I. 48.
Page 4, note t, line 2, for "first consul,” read emperor.
Page 21, dele note $. It was a mere newspaper account, which was not confirmed, and ought not to have had a place in this work.
Page 31, dele note *, and in lieu thereof, insert a reference to p. 87. *Page 46, line 10, for “ Paul,” read Paulus.
Page 71, in the note, 3d line from the bottom, after “lord Hawkesbury," read now earl of Liverpool.
Page 82, note t, line 7, for “ any,” read my.
Page 91, note #. This note is not sufficiently clear, having been written in too much haste. It was enough to have observed, that our author does pot seem to have sufficiently attended to the distinction established by the edict to which he refers between neutral vessels, which, after leaving a blockaded port, go voluntarily into their own or some other free port, or go into such port on being chased and to avoid pursuit; in the second case, they are lawfully captured, if met with coming out of such port; and it makes no difference, whether it is the port of their actual destination, another port of their own country, or some other free or friendly port. Our author seems to think, that it does make a difference, and this mistake leads him into an unnecessary discussion about words.
Page 118, note", line 4, for “ for, of other rights he may judge as if no war existed,” read “for, of other rights, unconnected with the war, or its objects, he may judge as if no war existed."
Page 120, the note of reference * ought to be placed after the words “ commercial intercourse,” in the fourth line from the bottom of the text.
Page 131, note t, first line, for “ 26th of January," read 20th of January.
Page 148, in the note, line 7, for "3000 rials de vellon, equal to $1500," read 60,000 rials de vellon, equal to $3000-and add, that the amount of that security may be moderated at the discretion of the officers of the admiralty, according to the size of the privateers, and the number of men and guns which they respectively carry.
Page 18), note $, first line, for “ may,” read might.
Page 186, line 12, in note, for "treaty of Utrecht," read “ treaty of peace of Utrecht.”
Subjoin the mark T to the following notes: and + p. 105---4 p. 106, p. 114, p. 115–1 p. 125_and in a few copies of this work, to notes, $ p. 184-p. 187, and * p. 188.