rning from his contest with Rodney, came into the same
port with his West Indian squadron, of nineteen ships-of-the-line; but
the immense armament thus assembled did nothing. The French ships
returned to Brest in January, 1781.

While thus unproductive of military results in Europe, the war in 1780
gave rise to an event which cannot wholly be passed over by any
history of sea power. This was the Armed Neutrality, at the head of
which stood Russia, joined by Sweden and Denmark. The claim of England
to seize enemy's goods in neutral ships bore hard upon neutral powers,
and especially upon those of the Baltic and upon Holland, into whose
hands, and those of the Austrian Netherlands, the war had thrown much
of the European carrying-trade; while the products of the Baltic,
naval stores and grain, were those which England was particularly
interested in forbidding to her enemies. The declarations finally put
forth by Russia, and signed by Sweden and Denmark, were four in
number:

1. That neutral vessels had a right, not only to sail to unblockaded
ports, but also from port to port of a belligerent nation; in other
words, to maintain the coasting trade of a belligerent.

2. That property belonging to the subjects of a power at war should be
safe on board neutral vessels. This was the principle involved in the
now familiar maxim, "Free ships make free goods."

3. That no articles are contraband, except arms, equipments, and
munitions of war. This ruled out naval stores and provisions unless
belonging to the government of a belligerent.

4. That blockades, to be binding, must have an adequate naval force
stationed in close proximity to the blockaded port.

The contracting parties being neutral in the present war, but binding
themselves to support these principles by a combined armed fleet of a
fixed minimum number, the agreement received the name of the Armed
Neutrality. The discussion of the propriety of the various
declarations belongs to International law; but it is evident that no
great maritime State, situated as England then was, would submit to
the first and third as a matter of right. Policy only could induce her
to do so. Without meeting the declarations by a direct contradiction,
the ministry and the king determined to disregard them,--a course
which was sustained in principle even by prominent members of the
bitter opposition of that day. The undecided attitude of the United
Provinces, divided as in the days of