obligations, and emphasizes the fundamental rights and duties of states. He also adopts his master's complicated and impractical division of positive international law into the voluntary, customary, and conventional law of nations; 19 but he rejects the Wolffian fiction of a world state or civitas maxima as a foundation for the voluntary law. of nations. Vattel wrote in an attractive style and enriched his work with illustrations drawn from the history of his own times. 20

The period between 1648-1713

The period between 1648 and the Peace of Utrecht (1713) was marked by the aggressive policy of Louis XIV, resulting in a series of wars and conquests and a disturbance of the balance of power in Europe created by the Peace of Westphalia. This in turn led to the formation of the first great European coalition against France headed by England in 1688 a date which also marks the beginning of what Seeley 21 calls the "Second Hundred Years' War" between England and France (1688-1815) which resulted in the conquest of the major portion of the French colonies by England and the establishment of the maritime supremacy of Great Britain. The War of

19 In addition to these three classes of positive law, we have of course in the Wolffian, as in the Grotian system, the natural or necessary law which Vattel (Preliminaries, §§ 6-8) says "consists in the application of the law of nature to nations."

20 Though not members of any particular school, the following eighteenth century publicists should receive special mention because of their influence upon the development of maritime law, more especially in connection with the law of neutrality: the Danish minister Hübner, whose important treatise entitled De la saisie des batimens neutres (Seizure of Neutral Vessels) was published in 1759; the French jurist Valin, whose excellent Commentary upon the Marine Ordinance of 1681 and Traité des prises (Treatise on Prizes) appeared during 176063: Heineccius, who wrote his treatise De navibus in 1721 and Elementa juris naturalis which was translated into English in 1763; and the Italians Lampredi and Galiani who engaged in a famous controversy on the principles of the Armed Neutrality in the latter part of the eighteenth century. On these authors and this controversy, see Wheaton, History, espec. pp. 200, 219-229, and 309–322. 21 Expansion of England, Lect. II, pp. 24 and 29. There was, however, a long period of peace, and even of alliance, between England and France between 1713-40.

the Spanish Succession (1701-13) ended in the restoration and first formal acknowledgment of the balance of power as a fundamental principle of European policy.

During this period (1648-1713) lip-service was rendered to the leading principles and usages of the law of nature and nations laid down by Grotius and his successors, but its rules were often practically ignored. The rights and immunities of legations were generally recognized and became fully established; the doctrine of the freedom of the seas made considerable progress; and fixed rules were laid down regulating such matters as the right of visit and search, blockade, and the capture of contraband. In respect to the law of maritime capture a long backward step was taken.

The famous French Marine Ordinance of 1681 22 admitted the maxim of the Consolato del Mare that enemy goods in a friend's vessel are good prize; but it denied the rule that the goods of a friend found on an enemy ship are free. It even declared that neutral vessels carrying enemy goods are liable to confiscation, thus limiting the lawful commerce of a neutral to his own goods carried in his own vessel.23 With the exception of the latter rule, the principles laid down by the Marine Ordinance of Louis XIV may be said to have entered largely into the theory and international practice (both

22 This ordinance was modelled on earlier ones. The law of France varied at different times. On the Marine Ordinance of 1681 and the maritime law of this period, see especially Wheaton, History, 107-161.

23 Wheaton, p. 111. "Valin states that this jurisprudence, which prevailed in the French prize courts from 1681 to 1744, was peculiar to them and to the Spanish courts of admiralty, the usage of other nations being to confiscate the goods of the enemy only." Ibid., p. 114. Bynkershoek (Questiones juris publici, lib. I, cap. 14) denies that the neutral ship carrying enemy goods might be condemned, but he admits that the goods are subject to confiscation. He also agrees with Grotius (De jure belli ac pacis, lib. III, cap. 6) that the rule that "goods found in enemies' ships are to be treated as enemies' goods, ought not be accepted as a settled rule of the law of nations, but as indicating a certain presumption which may be rebutted by valid proof to the contrary." Grotius adds: “And so it was judged in full senate by our Hollanders in 1338, when war was raging with the Hansa towns; and the judgment has become law.” Some eighteenth century publicists like Hübner and G. F. de Martens declared that both neutral goods and enemies' ships and enemy goods on neutral ships were free; but their views were not generally accepted either in theory or practice.

customary and conventional) of Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.24

The eighteenth century

The most important events in the international relations of the eighteenth century were: the admission of Russia under Peter the Great to full membership in the circle of European states; the rise of Prussia under Frederick the Great as a first-rate Power; the declaration and achievement of American independence; and the outbreak of the French Revolution.

The colonization of America by the leading nations of Europe, which was begun on a large and effective scale during the seventeenth and continued during the eighteenth century, gave rise to new questions to which the Roman law of occupatio and alluvium

24 It is extremely difficult to say what the law was either in general or at any particular time and place. The rules of the Consolato seem to have prevailed quite generally during the period extending from the thirteenth to the middle of the sixteenth centuries when France adopted harsher rules. About the middle of the seventeenth century, the Dutch began to secure the insertion of the rule of "free ships, free goods into treaties, conceding in return the confiscation of reutral goods in belligerent vessels (enemy ships, enemy goods). This latter principle was regarded as a corollary of the former, thus reversing the maxims of the Consolato del Mare. Even England, which became the champion of the double doctrine of the Consolato, yielded these rules in a number of treaties. The United States, while advocating the adoption of the principle of "free ships, free goods" and incorporating it into most of their treaties, followed English precedents in their interpretation of the customary law, thus recognizing the right of capture of enemy goods in neutral vessels. On the other hand, our government and courts have always maintained that the goods of the neutral found in the vessel of an enemy are free. The leading case is that of The Nereide (1815), 9 Cranch, 388, espec. p. 418.

On this subject, which has become a mere matter of historical interest since the Declaration of Paris in 1856, see De Boeck, De la proprieté ennemie sous pavillon ennemie (1882); Bonfils-Fauchille, Nos. 1497-1526; Dupuis, Le droit de la guerre maritime (1899), ch. 2; Hall, Pt. IV, chs. 7 and 9; 2 Halleck (Baker's 3d ed.) 279-286; 2 Hautefeuille, Des Droit des neutres, Titre X; Kleen, De la neutralité, I, Introduction-historique, and II, 92–215; Lawrence, Pt. IV, ch. 4; Manning, Bk. V, ch. 6; 3 Phillimore, Pt. IX, ch. 10; 2 Ortolan, Dip. de la ner, liv. III, ch. 5 2 Rivier, 429-30; Taylor, Pt. V, ch. 2; 2 Twiss, ch. 3; and 2 Westlake, 125-28.

was applied. In Europe the main issues were dynastic, economic and territorial, and the principle of the balance of power based on an equilibrium of forces was repeatedly affirmed and violated. The diplomacy of this period was dominated by Machiavelian aims and methods.25 The end was the glory and aggrandizement of dynasties and states; and to attain these ends all means seemed good. Treaties were violated whenever the interests of the state (raison d'Etat) appeared to demand it, and wars were undertaken on the slightest pretexts. Frederick the Great suddenly invaded Silesia upon the death of Charles VI, in 1740, within a few years after having written his "Anti-Machiavelli; " and of all the states which had guaranteed the pragmatic sanction of the Emperor, England alone (and she acted from motives of self-interest) kept faith with Austria upon the accession of Maria Theresa after the death of her father. But the greatest crime committed by the Machiavelian statesmen of the eighteenth century was the extinction of one of the most important members of the European family of nations- the three-fold division of Poland in 1772, 1793, and 1795.26

The Armed Neutrality of 1780

Early in 1780 the Russian Government laid down the following rules which were primarily directed against the maritime pretensions of England: 1) all neutral vessels may freely navigate from port to port; 27 2) the goods belonging to the subjects of the Powers at

25 On the Machiavelian character of the eighteenth century diplomacy, see espec. Sorel, L'Europe et la Revolution Française. I, particularly, ch. I.

26 The first division of Poland has been characterized by Wheaton (History, p. 267) as the most flagrant violation of natural justice and international law which has occurred since Europe first emerged from barbarism." Sorel (op. cit., p. 89) remarks: "Two episodes summarized the custom of Europe on the eve of the French Revolution: the war of the Austrian Succession and the division of Poland." He calls these the "testament of old Europe," and declares that after this had been signed she could only die, leaving as a legacy the pernicious tradition of the abuses from which she perished.

27 This is a denial of the famous Rule of 1756 which forbade neutrals to engage in the coasting trade of a belligerent, or in trade between a belligerent and its colonies when such trade is not permitted during peace. The rule is now prac

war shall be free in neutral vessels, except contraband articles; 28 3) such contraband articles shall be restricted to munitions of war; 4) the denomination of blockaded port shall only be given to a port "where there is, by the arrangements of the Power which attacks it with vessels, stationed sufficiently near, an evident danger in attempting to enter it." 29 These principles were approved by France, Spain, the United States, and Austria, and were incorporated into the conventions of the League of Armed Neutrality of 1780, which was formed by Denmark and Russia and soon joined by Sweden, Holland, Prussia, Portugal, and the king of the Two Sicilies. In 1800 these principles were affirmed anew with some modifications and additions 30 by the Second League of Armed Neutrality consisting of Russia, Prussia, Sweden and Denmark.

tically obsolete. Whether it was ever good law is doubtful. The principle had been applied to the coasting trade before 1756, and was extended to the colonial trade during the Seven Years' and the Revoluntionary Wars. The great champion of the rule was England. The leading case is that of The Immanuel, 2 Rob. Rep. 186. On the Rule of 1756, see espec. Hall (3d ed.), § 234; 2 Kleen, § 175; Manning, Bk. V, ch. 5; 7 Moore, Digest, § 1180; 3 Phillimore, Pt. IX, ch. 11; and Wheaton, History, 217-19.

28 See supra, note 24. This principle of "free ships, free goods" had also been asserted in 1752 by the Prussian commissioners who reported to Frederick the Great on the celebrated Silesian Loan Controversy. See Ch. de Martens, 2 Causes célèbres, cause première. For a good summary of this controversy between Great Britain and Prussia, see Wheaton, History, 206-17.

29 Wheaton, History, 297-98. Upon the Armed Neutrality of 1780, see espec. Bergbohm, Die Bewaffnete Neutralität (1884); De Boeck, De la propriété privé ennemie, 55 ff; Fauchille, La diplomatie française et la ligue des neutres de 1780 (1893); Manning, Bk. V, ch. 6, 325; 3 Phillimore, CLXXXVI ff; Wheaton, History, 295 ff.

30 The main additional article adopted by the Second Armed Neutrality of 1800 affirmed that the "declaration of the officers, commanding the public ships which shall accompany the convoy of one or more merchant vessels, that the ships of his convoy have no contraband articles on board, shall be deemed sufficient to prevent any search on the convoying vessels or those under convoy." Wheaton, History, p. 399. It will be seen that several of the principles of the Armed Neutrality Leagues are still in advance of international law. They were, of course, far in advance of the times in which they were formulated. Though soon violated by some of the very nations which declared them, they do not deserve the cavalier treatment which they receive at the hands of several English