It was then that the question of neutral rights, originally promulgated by Catherine of Russia in 1780, first seriously attracted the attention of those nations of Europe who were not directly involved in the war, and especially of the United States of America, now fast becoming a power of no mean importance, and one, even then, prepared to assert her rights. These powers indignantly repudiated the claims which England, under Pitt, had enforced. They alleged that the accidents of war ought not to interfere with the trade of those not engaged in it; and that they were justified in possessing themselves of such carrying trade as the belligerents had been obliged to relinquish. Holding these views, they claimed the right of frequenting freely all the ports of the world, and of passing to and fro between those of the belligerent nations; thus traversing from France and Spain to England, from England to Spain and France, and (what was still more disputable) of going from the colonies to the mother-countries, as for instance, from Mexico to Spain. They resolutely maintained the principle that “the flag covers the merchandise;” that the flag of neutrals sheltered from search the merchandise transported in their vessels; that in such vessels French merchandise could not be seized by the English, nor English merchandise by the French; in short, that the ships of neutrals were as sacred as the soil of the country to which they belonged. On the other hand, they admitted that they ought not to carry goods unquestionably contraband of war, it being incompatible with any notion of neutrality that the neutral should supply one of the belligerent nations with arms against the other. They, however, sought to limit their admission solely to articles fabricated for war, such as muskets, cannon, powder, projectiles, and materials for accoutrements of every kind; nor did they consider provisions interdicted, except such as were prepared for military and naval armaments, as, for example, biscuits. [Sidenote: Their views respecting blockades.] They made a second admission as to the ports which might be entered, but only on the express condition that these should be accurately defined; and, further, that it could be shown that such ports were _bonâ fide_ blockaded by a naval force capable of laying siege to them, or of reducing them to famine. In such cases they allowed that running the blockade was an attempt to thwart one of the belligerents in the exercise of its legitimate right, while at the same time it afforded succour to one of the powers against the other. They insisted further, that the blockade should be preceded by formal declarations, that it should not be a mere paper blockade, and that it should be carried out by a force that it would be impossible to pass through without great danger. [Sidenote: Right of search.] [Sidenote: Chief doctrines of the neutrals.]