the rights of the neutral should be finally ascertained and secured, but that the trade of Great Britain and the United States should be placed upon a firmer and more permanent footing than the law of the respective countries afforded. From that period to the year 1815, the whole American commerce to the British possessions, in every part of the world, rested upon the uncertain and most unsatisfactory protection of acts of Parliament. Undoubtedly, it might be expected, that mutual interest would maintain, on both sides, a continuance of such regulations as should be just and equal. But the convention, submitted to lord Hawkesbury by Mr. Monroe, embraced only articles having a reference to our maritime rights. It failed, for the same reason that all other negotiations of the like tenor have failed, with the British go

vernment.

- Matters stood in this situation till August, 1805; when, by an instruction of the British government, of the 17th, the "direct trade with the enemies' colonies was made subject to restrictions." This revived, in full force, the celebrated rule of the war of 1756. Few acts of the belligerents have more deeply wounded the rights of this country or done a more serious mischief to its commerce. We shall take an opportunity, in this place, in order to avoid future repetition, to compress into a brief form those general considerations, that belong to the history, application and justice of this assumed principle of maritime law.*

This rule is generally called the rule of the war of '56. It was then first universally promulgated, and applied in strict

*We refer the reader to a work, entitled "An Examination of the British Doctrine, which subjects to Capture a Neutral Trade, not open in time of peace." This dissertation was understood to have been written by Mr. Madison. One of the best productions on the other side, is "War in disguise, &c." by Mr. James Stephen, who made himself conspicuous, as a member of Parliament, on the American question. We shall, shortly, have occasion to refer to his speech on the orders in council.

rigour, though it existed previous to that time, particularly in 1744. * An impression has generally prevailed, that this "rule" was not exercised during the war of the revolution. Robinson, in the note to which we have just referred, furnishes undoubted evidence that it was maintained; and, if the application was not universal, it was only because some of the enemies' colonies had been opened before the war, for the purpose of supplying them with provisions. Here the colonial trade was not altered (flagrante bello) by the pressure of the enemy. In the admiralty courts, the principal discussions have been on the modifications or relaxations of the rule. We shall give the general principle in the words of the author before quoted :—

"The fundamental maxim of the trade being founded on a system of monopolizing to the parent state, the whole trade to and from her colonies, in time of peace; it is not competent to neutral states, in time of war, to assume that trade on particular indulgences, or on temporary relaxations, arising from the state of war. Such a trade is not entitled to the privileges and protection of a neutral character.""The neutral has a right to carry on his accustomed trade. In time of peace, he is excluded from the colonial trade; he, therefore, suffers no injury, in being excluded from it in time of war. If he is admitted to it, it is only in consequence of the pressure of the enemy. But a neutral has no right to interpose in a war, and afford aid to one of the belligerents. Whenever suspensions of the colonial system have been enacted by the mother country, before war, the admiralty has always respected them flagrante bello."

The British government maintained, from the time the war with France began in 1792, to the peace of Amiens in 1802, and again upon the renewal of the war in 1803 till 1805, the substance and spirit of the rule of '56. They did not allow the direct trade between the colonies and the mother country, but the various relaxations of this rule mitigated the severity of its application. An indirect trade was permitted, and

* Robinson's Reports, vol. vi. Append. Note.

as a proof of an indirect trade, the courts required no other state of things than that the goods should have been fairly imported, and the duties paid on them; a continuation of the voyage was, therefore, made to depend upon the evidence furnished. But the court of appeal, in the case of the Essex, in 1805, established that the trade was illegal, the continuity of the voyage not being broken. The sole reason of this extraordinary decision was, that the duties on the cargo had not been paid in money, but by a bond of the importer. This distinction embraced the whole foreign trade of the United States. The decision was rapidly and eagerly spread among the public and private armed vessels of Great Britain; and in the course of a few months, the ports of that country were crowded with American vessels for trial.*

* This decision of the Court of Appeals, is not a deviation from the strict principle of the English government, in regard to the trade of a neutral with an enemy's colony; but it was exceedingly fatal to the American commerce, from the circumstance, that the whole trade which it interrupted, had been safely and confidently conducted since, at least, 1801, not only under the protection of an opinion of the king's advocate general, officially communicated, but also of the order of August 1803. That instruction has, already, been cited; but in 1801, the minister in England, Mr. King, having protested against certain decisions of the vice-admiralty courts, lord Hawkesbury notified to him, in a formal manner, the opinion of the principal law officer of the crown, which is in these words :-" The high court of admiralty have expressly decided, (and I see no reason to expect that the court of appeals will vary the rule,) that landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country, breaks the continuity of the voyage, and is such an importation as legalizes the trade; though the goods be re-shipped in the same vessel, and on account of the same neutral proprietors, and forwarded for sale to the mother country."-The decision of 1805 was founded on this consideration, that as the duties were not actually paid, the greater part being returned in the shape of debentures, (a provision of the custom-house laws of this country, with which the English do not appear to have been acquainted,) the importation was not a bona fide one. See judgment of Sir William Grant, in case of William. Robinson, vol. v. p. 387.

The rule of '56, and its modifications, or relaxations, are liable to numerous objections. A colony is part of a country, and, therefore, as much subject to commercial regulations as any other part of the country. In peace, the parent state has the whole monopoly of a colony; in war, it has the same right to regulate its trade. A belligerent can acquire no rights to the territory of another, but by conquest; or to control its trade, except upon the acknowledged principles of blockade or contraband, so far as the neutral is concerned. If neutrals are allowed to have, in war, only the trade permitted in time of peace, it is obvious, that as few limitations as possible should be put to this trade. But war cuts off a great deal of trade, in the customary form of contrabands and blockades. Neutrality is not a new state of things, as it respects the conduct of the neutral. He is placed in that situation by the conduct of other parties. The state of war or peace of a third party cannot, by any natural right, affect the right of a neutral nation to conduct its commerce, for neutrality is a continuation of its former condition. The condition of the belligerent is changed, not that of the neutrals ;-the right to disturb the condition of the neutral is, therefore, a conventional one. If the war opens a new course of trade in innocent articles, the neutral has a right to take advantage of it; he may in this way remunerate himself for the privations the laws of nations compel him to submit to. A neutral has a right to carry neutral commodities from one port to another of the mother country. Why not from a colony to the mother country? In time of war, the mother country may alter her commercial regulations. She may allow the neutral to export or to bring to her articles not permitted in time of peace. We see no difference, in this respect, between the trade of a colony and that of the mother country. Both are systems of monopoly ; both subject to such commercial regulations as the parent state may choose to adopt. This right cannot be conceded to the belligerent, because it would really throw into his hands the principal part of the commerce of

the world. The neutral has no interest in the war; and the just construction of the laws of war is, that they should abridge the rights of a third party to the smallest possible degree. The whole business of contraband is one of convention. We allow, too, the legitimacy of a blockade only on the consideration, that the belligerent has actual possession of the waters, or the territory, and has the means of establishing and enforcing on it his own municipal regulations, precisely as he could do at home. Great Britain has, also, repeatedly suspended her own colonial acts, in time of war, and opened new trades to the neutral. Contrabands, as they are specified in most conventions, constitute but a very small portion, indeed, of the trade of every country. But to supply one belligerent with them, may do a vast injury to the other. On this ground, the neutral foregoes the slight benefit of a trade in those articles. The colonial trade has a very different character. To arrest vessels, engaged in this business, upon any part of the ocean, is permitting to the belligerent the exercise of a great power, exerted in a very oppressive manner.

In itself the right of navigation is of course as unlimited as the ocean, and the right of commerce depends on the pleasure of the nation whose ports we wish to frequent. The privileges of commerce do not depend upon the laws of nations, but upon the will of the parties; and these privileges are regulated by treaties. Nations are not under any obligation to account to the world for their commercial regulations; and regulations that depend upon treaties are (of course) not affected by a war in which either party may engage. War does not deprive neutrals of a single right,-their commerce remains unshackled, with the exception of those articles that are directly and immediately useful in war. Undoubtedly, it is for the benefit of the belligerent to contract as much as possible the trade of the neutral; but utility does not constitute a right. The neutral abandons the trade in contrabands because the belligerent considers these articles dangerous.