for the recovery of their liberties, they would not suffer the BOOK II. English to carry goods to Dunkirk, before which the Dutch CHAP. VII. fleet lay.* trals. A neutral nation preserves, towards both the belligerent 3 118. Impowers, the several relations which nature has instituted be- partial offitween nations. She ought to show herself ready to render ces of neuthem every office of humanity reciprocally due from one nation to another she ought, in every thing not directly relating to war, to give them all the assistance in her power, and of which they may stand in need. Such assistance, however, must be given with impartiality; that is to say, she must not refuse any thing to one of the parties on account of his being at war with the other (§ 104). But this is no reason why a neutral state, under particular connections of friendship and good neighbourhood with one of the belligerent powers, may not, in every thing that is unconnected with war, grant him all those preferences which are due to friends: much less does she afford any grounds of exception to her conduct, if, in commerce, for instance, she continues to allow him such indulgences as have been stipulated in her treaties with him. She ought, therefore, as far as the public welfare will permit, equally to allow the subjects of both parties to visit her territories on business, and there to purchase provisions, horses, and, in general, every thing they stand in need of,-unless she has, by a treaty of neutrality, promised to refuse to both. parties such articles as are used in war. Amidst all the wars which disturb Europe, the Switzers preserve their territories in a state of neutrality. Every nation indiscriminately is allowed free access for the purchase of provisions, if the country has a surplus, and for that of horses, ammunition, and arms. An innocent passage is due to all nations with whom a state ? 119. Pasis at peace (Book II. § 123); and this duty extends to troops sage of as well as to individuals. But it rests with the sovereign of troops through a the country to judge whether the passage be innocent; and it neutral is very difficult for that of an army to be entirely so. In the country. late wars of Italy the territories of the republic of Venice and those of the pope sustained very great damage by the passage of armies, and often became the theatre of the war. asked. Since, therefore, the passage of troops, and especially that ? 120. Pasof a whole army, is by no means a matter of indifference, he sage to be who desires to march his troops through a neutral country, must apply for the sovereign's permission. To enter his territory without his consent, is a violation of his rights of sovereignty and supreme dominion, by virtue of which, that country is not to be disposed of for any use whatever, without his express or tacit permission. Now, a tacit permission for [ 341 ] the entrance of a body of troops is not to be presumed, since Grotius, ubi supra. BOOK M. their entrance may be productive of the most serious conse CHAP. VII. 2121. It quences. If the neutral sovereign has good reasons for refusing a may be re- passage, he is not obliged to grant it, the passage in that case being no longer innocent. fused for good rea sons. ? 122. In may be forced. In all doubtful cases we must submit to the judgment of the proprietor respecting the innocence of the use we desire what case it to make of things belonging to another (Book II. §§ 128, 130), and must acquiesce in his refusal, even though we think it unjust. If the refusal be evidently unjust,-if the use, and, in the case now before us, the passage be unquestionably innocent, a nation may do herself justice, and take by force what is unjustly denied to her. But we have already observed, that it is very difficult for the passage of an army to be absolutely innocent, and much more so for the innocence to be very evident. So various are the evils it may occasion, and the dangers that may attend it,-so complicated are they in their nature, and so numerous are the circumstances with which they are connected,-that, to foresee and provide for every thing, is next to impossible. Besides, self-interest has so powerful an influence on the judgments of men, that if he who requires the passage is to be the judge of its innocence, he will admit none of the reasons brought against it; and thus a door is opened to continual quarrels and hostilities. The tranquillity, therefore, and the common safety of nations require that each should be mistress of her own territory, and at liberty to refuse every foreign army an entrance, when she has not departed from her natural liberties in that respect, by treaties. From this rule, however, let us except those very uncommon cases which admit of the most evident demonstration that the passage required is wholly unattended with inconvenience or danger. If, on such an occasion, a passage be forced, he who forces it will not be so much blamed as the nation that has indiscreetly subjected herself to this violence. Another case, which carries its own exception on the very face of it, and admits not of the smallest doubt, is that of extreme necessity. Urgent and absolute necessity suspends all the rights of property (Book II. §§ 119, 123): and if the proprietor be not under the same pressure of necessity as you, it is allowable for you, even against his will, to make use of what belongs to him. When, therefore, an army find themselves exposed to imminent destruction, or unable to return to their own country, unless they pass through neutral territories, they have a right to pass in spite of the sovereign, and to force their way, sword in hand. But they ought first to request a passage, to offer securities, and pay for whatever damages they may occasion. Such was the mode pursued by the Greeks on their return from Asia, under the conduct of Agesilaus.* Plutarch's Life of Agesilaus. CHAP. VII. Extreme necessity may even authorize the temporary seizure BOOK III. of a neutral town, and the putting a garrison therein, with a view to cover ourselves from the enemy, or to prevent the execution of his designs against that town, when the sovereign is not able to defend it. But when the danger is over, we must immediately restore the place, and pay all the charges, inconveniences, and damages, which we have occasioned by seizing it. rizes a re When the passage is not of absolute necessity, the bare ? 123. The danger which attends the admission of a powerful army into fear of danour territory, may authorize us to refuse them permission to ger authoenter. We may have reason to apprehend that they will be fusal, tempted to take possession of the country, or at least to act as masters while they are in it, and to live at discretion. Let it not be said, with Grotius,* that he who requires the passage is not to be deprived of his right on account of our unjust fears. A probable fear, founded on good reasons, gives us a right to avoid whatever may realize it; and the conduct of nations affords but too just grounds for the fear in question. Besides, the right of passage is not a perfect right, unless in a case of urgent necessity, or when we have the most perfect evidence that the passage is innocent. sonable ie But, in the preceding section, I suppose it impracticable to ? 124. or a obtain sufficient security which shall leave us no cause to ap- demand of prehend any hostile attempts or violent proceedings on the every reapart of those who ask permission to pass. If any such secu-curity. rity can be obtained, (and the safest one is, to allow them to pass only in small bodies, and upon delivering up their arms, as has been sometimes required, †) the reason arising from fear no longer exists. But those who wish to pass should consent to give every reasonable security required of them, and consequently submit to pass by divisions and deliver up their arms, if the passage be denied them on any other terms. The choice of the security they are to give does not rest with them. Hostages, or a bond, would often prove very slender securities. Of • what advantage will it be to me to hold hostages from one who will render himself master over me? And as to a bond, it is of very little avail against a prince of much superior power. But, is it always incumbent on us to give every security a ą 125. Whenation may require, when we wish to pass through her terri- ther always tories?-In the first place, we are to make a distinction be- necessary to tween the different reasons that may exist for our passing kind of segive every through the country; and we are next to consider the man- curity reners of the people whose permission we ask. If the passage quired. be not essentially necessary, and can be obtained only on suspicious or disagreeable conditions, we must relinquish all idea Book ii. chap. ii. 2 13, note 5. By the Eleans, and the ancient inhabitants of Cologne. See Grotius, ibid. BOOK III. of it, as in the case of a refusal (§ 122). But, if necessity auCHAP. VII. thorizes me to pass, the conditions on which the passage will be granted may be accepted or rejected, according to the manners of the people I am treating with. Suppose I am to cross [343] the country of a barbarous, savage, and perfidious nation,shall I leave myself at their discretion, by giving up my arms and causing my troops to march in divisions? No one, I presume, will condemn me to take so dangerous a step. Since necessity authorizes me to pass, a kind of new necessity arises for my passing in such a posture as will secure me from any ambuscade or violence. I will offer every security that can be given without foolishly exposing myself; and if the offer is rejected, I must be guided by necessity and prudence,—and, let me add, by the most scrupulous moderation, in order to avoid exceeding the bounds of that right which I derive from necessity. ¿ 126. E wards both If the neutral state grants or refuses a passage to one of the quality to be parties at war, she ought, in like manner, to grant or refuse observed to- it to the other, unless a change of circumstances affords her parties as to substantial reasons for acting otherwise. Without such reathe passage. sons, to grant to one party what she refuses to the other, would be a partial distinction, and a departure from the line of strict neutrality. ? 107. No complaint lies against a neutral state for granting a passage. 128. This state may refuse it When I have no reason to refuse a passage, the party against whom it is granted has no right to complain of my conduct, much less to make it the ground of a hostile attack upon me, since I have done no more than what the law of nations en joins (§ 119). Neither has he any right to require that I should deny the passage; for he must not pretend to hinder me from doing what I think agreeable to my duty. And even on those occasions when I might with justice refuse permission to pass, I am at liberty to abstain from the exertion of my right. But especially when I should be obliged to support my refusal by the sword, who will take upon him to complain of my having permitted the war to be carried into his country, rather than draw it on myself? No sovereign can require that I should take up arms in his favour, unless obliged to it by treaty. But nations, more attentive to their own interests than to the observance of strict justice, are often very loud on this pretended subject of complaint. In war, especially, they stick at no measures; and if by their threats they can induce a neighbouring state to refuse a passage to their enemy, the generality of their rulers consider this conduct only as a stroke of good policy. A powerful state will despise these unjust menaces: firm and unshaken in what she thinks due to justice and to her own from a fear reputation, she will not suffer herself to be diverted by the fear of the re- of a groundless resentment: she will not even bear the menace. the opposite But a weak nation, unable to support her rights, will be under party; a necessity of consulting her own safety; and this important sentment of concern will authorize her to refuse a passage, which would BOOK III. expose her to dangers too powerful for her to repel. a CHAP. VII. should be war. Another fear may also warrant her in refusing a passage, ? 129. And namely, that of involving her country in the disorders and lest her calamities of war. For, even if the party against whom country passage is requested, should observe such moderation as not come the to employ menaces for the purpose of intimidating the neutral theatre of nation into a refusal, he will hardly fail to demand a passage for himself also he will march to meet his enemy; and thus [ 344 ] the neutral country will become the theatre of war. The infinite evils of such a situation are an unexceptionable reason for refusing the passage. In all these cases, he who attempts to force a passage, does an injury to the neutral nation, and gives her most just cause to unite her arms with those of his adversary. The Switzers, in their alliances with France, have promised not to grant a passage to her enemies. They ever refuse it to all sovereigns at war, in order to secure their frontiers from that calamity; and they take care that their territory shall be respected. But they grant a passage to recruits, who march in small bodies, and without arms. of passage. The grant of permission to pass includes a grant of every 130. What thing which is naturally connected with the passage of troops, is included and without which the passage would be impracticable; such in the grant as the liberty of carrying with them whatever may be necessary for an army,-that of exercising military discipline on the soldiers and officers, and of purchasing, at a fair price, every thing the army may want, unless, through fear of scarcity, a particular exception has been made, to oblige them to carry with them their own provisions. He who grants the passage is bound to render it safe, as far ? 131. Safeas depends on him. Good faith requires this; and to act ty of the otherwise would be ensnaring those to whom the passage is passage. granted. be commit For this reason, and because foreigners can do nothing in a 132. No ? a territory against the will of the sovereign, it is unlawful to hostility to attack an enemy in a neutral country, or to commit in it any ted in a neuother act of hostility. The Dutch East-India fleet having put tral couninto Bergen, in Norway, in 1666, to avoid the English, the try. (160) British admiral had the temerity to attack them there. But the governor of Bergen fired on the assailants; and the court. of Denmark complained, though perhaps too faintly, of an attempt so injurious to her rights and dignity.* (160) The author of the "Present State of Denmark," written in English, pretends that the Danes had engaged to deliver up the Dutch fleet, but that some seasonable presents, made to the court of Copenhagen, saved it. Chap. x. (160) At present, by the general law of nations, the whole space of the sea, within cannon-shot of the coast, is |