The ALABAMA QUESTION took its name from the privateer which went out from Liverpool and occasioned the greatest devastation while the war lasted. Although the executive of the Union at Washington duly directed the attention of the English Government to the fact that allowing the pirate to leave the English port would be equivalent to a breach of the peace, yet the Government took no measures to prevent the vessel leaving. The American Government, who with reason regarded this omission as a violation of the laws of neutrality, claimed from England full compensation for the property which had been destroyed in the course of the civil war by the Southern privateer which came from an English port. I have previously given more particularly the constitution and functions of the Court of Arbitration appointed to settle the threatening dispute which arose on this occasion. The arbitration award had to be adjudicated in accordance with the three following fundamental principles of international law:-- A neutral Government is bound:-- 1. To guard assiduously against any vessel being armed or equipped in its ports, which there is reason to believe would be employed for warlike purposes against a peaceful power, and with equal assiduity to prevent any vessel designed for privateering, or other hostility, from leaving the domain of the neutral State: 2. Not to allow any belligerent power to make use of its ports or harbours as the basis of its operations, or for strengthening or repairing its military strength, or for enlisting: 3. To use every care within its ports and harbours and over all persons within its domain, to prevent any violation of the obligations named. The contracting parties to this treaty agreed to hold themselves responsible for the future, and to bring them before the notice of other Maritime powers, with the recommendation that they also should enter into them. The historical facts here produced show that the mutual interest nations have in the inviolability of the seas has effectually contributed to the development of an accepted international law. When the necessity of making the principles of neutrality binding at sea was once understood, it was not long before the value of adopting them on land became apparent. In the documents, for instance, by which Belgium, Switzerland and Luxemburg are neutralized, it is distinctly stated that the permanent neutrality of these States is in full accord with the true interests of European policy. According to the actual modern law of nations, there is a permanent neutrality guaranteed by international deeds of law and treaties, and one occasionally resting upon free decisions.[14] As instances of permanent and guaranteed neutrality, we have: The NEUTRALIZATION OF SWITZERLAND. Ever since the unhappy Italian war in the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Swiss Confederation has endeavoured to assure to the country the security which neutrality gives.