trade directly between the colonies of enemies and the neutral country to which the vessel belongs, and laden with the property of inhabitants of such neutral country: provided, that such neutral vessel shall not be supplying, nor shall have on the outward voyage supplied, the enemy with any articles of contraband of war, and shall not be trading with any blockaded port:" (P. 125.) with the additional one of the 3d of August 1805, purporting that the trade with the settlements and islands belonging to the enemy, in America and the West Indies, is to be carried on through the medium of the British free ports in the West Indies, and not otherwise." (P. 137.)

It is evident that the instructions of 1794, 1798, 1803, and 1805, relax that of 1793; and of course, if the instruction of 1793 can be proved consistent with, and warranted by, the law of nations, the other three will fall within that proof, and will then be evidences of the moderation and liberality of Great Britain. The American author of "An Examination of the British Doctrine, which subjects to Capture a Neutral Trade not open in Time of Peace," acknowledges that we have completely destroyed the commerce between our enemies and their colonies; (P. 134.) that, by putting an end to reexportations from neutral countries, and reducing the importations into these, to the mere amount

of their own consumption, the immense surplus of productions accumulating in the American possessions of our enemies can find no outlet but through the free ports provided for it, nor any other market than the British, and those to which she finds it for her interest to distribute it; (P. 137.) and that neutrals carrying on the trade prohibited by the "rule of 1756," carry on a trade auxiliary to our enemy's prosperity and revenue, which he could no longer carry on himself, and which, at the same time, by liberating his naval faculties for the purposes of war, enable him to carry on the war with more vigor and effect. (P. 3.)

Hence it may be laid down as a maxim, which he cannot dispute, that the trade prohibited by the "rule of 1756" is one at this time beneficial to France and injurious to England, and is one at all times beneficial to the weaker, and injurious to the stronger, naval power; and that the benefit and the injury are proportionably greater as the one power is stronger than the other.

The American author on whose work I am commenting, says, "a nation not engaged in the war remains in the same relations of amity and of commercial pursuits with each of the belligerent nations as existed prior to the war;" (P. 1.) and in a great measure rests his

defence of modern neutral claims on this ground, forgetful that the list of contraband, and the right of blockade, infringe upon his rule, and are recognised by even the partisans of the armed neutrality.

When reminded of this, the author will shift his ground, and say, "War imposes on neutral commerce a variety of privations and embarrassments it is reasonable therefore, as well as lawful, that neutrals should enjoy the advantages which may happen to arise from war.” (P. 192.) Yes; as far as the enjoyment of these advantages does not interfere with the war-but no further; and surely it will not be denied, that a trade which is auxiliary to the prosperity and revenue of one of the belligerents, at the expense of the interests of the other, and which enables the belligerent so favored to carry on the war with more vigor and effect, is a trade which does interfere with the war.

Is not the injury to neutrals, from refusing them the carriage of belligerent property, from the list of contraband, and the rights of search and blockade, amply compensated by the carrying trade of the neutral world, which belligerents are obliged to abandon to them, and by the relative prosperity which their neutrality gives them over those who are engaged in war?

At the end of his fifth page, the author appeals

wholly to AUTHORITIES, and begins with the most received writers upon public law; but, by his own quotations from them; it will be found that they sanction the principle of the "rule of 1756." Gentilis is passed by as superseded by Grotius, who, in the author's own extracts, says

He is to be reputed as siding with the enemy, who supplies him with things necessary for war. (P. 10.)

In hostium esse par

tibus qui ad bellum necessaria hosti administrat. (P. 9.)

To do a thing is a common expression; and hence it is clear that things include, not only substances, but services and actions; and the original Latin fully confirms this construction. Who then can hesitate in declaring that he ought to be reputed as siding with the enemy who supplies him with the service or action which enables him to carry on the war with more vigor and effect?

Puffendorf is brought forward; but he, in a letter here quoted to Groningius, observes that England and Holland are willing to leave neutrals the trade they usually carry on in time of peace; but they cannot see them take advantage of the war, to extend their commerce to their prejudice." (P. 15.) The American author, indeed, is pleased to say this passage, thus negatively sanctioned by Puffendorf, "cannot possibly refer to the British distinction between a

trade usually permitted in peace, and a trade permitted only in war;" (P. 17.) and then quarrels with Dr. Kennett's translation of the sentence which precedes the above. The original French is "Qu'il n'est pas just que les peuples neutres s'enrichissent à leurs depens, et en attirant â eux un commerce interrompu pour l'Angleterre et la Holland, fournissent à la France des secours." (P. 17.)

Dr. Kennett translates The American author itsays the true meaning

But the correct translation would be-" They say it is not just that neutrals should enrich themselves at their expense; and, by drawing to themselves a commerce in which England and Holland are interrupted, furnish succour to France;"-and if this is correct, it destroys the attempt to oppose