mittances of pay and prize-money, have been by late acts extended to principal and commissioned officers of the navy, and also to the marine forces. See 35 Geo. III. ch. 28 and ch. 95.

By another late act, 25 Geo. III. ch. 31, the duty of the treasurer of the navy, when he presents memorials to the treasury for navy services, and prays that they may issue money to the bank of England on his account, and in many other particulars, is specially regulated.

In Ireland, it is provided (36) by statute, that all clauses in English or British acts, equally concerning their seamen and ours, are to be executed here according to their present tenor, save so far as the same have been altered or repealed. And by a subsequent statute(37), the remittance of the wages of seamen employed in the navy is facilitated; many provisions similar to those in the English acts already mentioned are enacted; and ample directions given to seamen and their relations, and to the out-pensioners of Greenwich hospital, with respect to obtaining the sums due to them, upon producing proper certificates to the collectors of the customs in that kingdom, whose revenue is reimbursed by the treasurer of the navy in England, and these repayments received in the Irish treasury.

(36) Irish statute, 21 and 22 Geo. III. ch. 48. (37) 33 Geo. III. ch. 23. Irish.

CHAPTER VII.

ON THE LAW OF THE PRIZE COURT.

WHEN treating of the admiralty law in general, it was observed, that on the subject of prize, little or no light can be derived from the ancient marine ordinances of Europe, they seldom appearing to have had this matter in contemplation, and scarcely affording a document on this subject, save two small chapters in the Consolato del Mare(1). Here then we must launch forth into the depths of the law of nations, which afford such infinite and curious matter for research, that the elementary writer may well be alarmed, who attempts to draw a chart of so boundless an ocean. To touch upon all the questions of prize which occur in modern war, would require immense volumes, and therefore I have not been able to point out for myself any other line, in so confined a treatise as this, but that of

(1) Lately republished, in an handsome form, among the very useful and learned labours of Dr. Robinson.

selecting certain of the most frequent and important questions relating to captures at sea, and shewing the application of the law of nations to them, either purely in itself, or as modified by the customs, usages, and statutes of England.A plan not dissimilar to that of the celebrated Bynkershoek, who, seemingly deterred by the view of the same vast ocean, though with incomparably greater powers to encounter it, selected for consideration only those quæstiones publici juris which are most frequently agitated.

The great questions therefore of prize, or connected with prize, of which I shall treat, are the following:

1. Of legitimate war.

2. Of the immediate effects of war denounced. 3. What is liable to capture.

4. When things moveable, and particularly ships, become the property of the captors.

5. Of ransom.

6. Who are the captors.

7. Of recapture and salvage.

8. What is a legal capture as against the captured; which question can only arise as to neutrals.

9. On the rights and duties of neutrals.

19. On the principles of the armed neutrality. 11. Of the principles adopted by Britain respecting neutral commerce.

12. Of enemies goods found in the ships of friends.

13. Of the goods of friends found on board

enemies ships.

14. Of contraband.

15. Of blockaded ports.

16. Of the right of search.

17. Of the proofs of enemies property.

18. Of competent courts of prize.

19. Of reprisals.

20. Of privateers.

21. Of the rights of neutrals.

OF LEGITIMATE WAR.

Vattel requires to a legitimate or lawful war, these three things. 1st. Just cause of complaint. 2dly. Denial of satisfaction. 3dly. A mature determination of the government, that it is for the good of the nation. But it is not my intention here to go at large into the grounds of lawful war laid down by moralists, but to confine myself to the one question, whether a declaration of war be required by the law of nations?

It has been generally supposed, that to a legitimate war, a previous proclamation, or declaration of hostilities, or sending fecial heralds to the enemy, was necessary; and this opinion hath been confirmed by frequent practice, both in ancient and modern times(2).

(2) In the instances of our wars since the revolution, that of King William with France was preceded by a solemn declaration, 7th of May, 1689; that of Queen

But as Britain and other European States have repeatedly failed to observe this ceremonial, we are called on to enquire whether their honour has been affected by this omission.

Grotius and Puffendorff admit, that a regular denunciation of war is not required by the law of nature; but they say it is by the jus gentium(3) ; and Grotius even pretends that the jus acquirendi is so peculiar to a solemn war, that it has no force in others, as e. g. in civil wars, in which points he has been fully refuted by Burlamaqui. Heineccius seems to favour the necessity of a solemn denunciation in his Prælections on Grotius.

Thomasius, followed by Bynkershoek, doth not allow that it is more than a matter of courtesy ; and to use their phrase, both refer it ad sola officia humanitatis. They ask what rights of war are affected or altered by its adoption or its omission ; and insist, that though it may be proper or advisable, it is not necessary. The war may com

Anne by the same, 4th of May, 1702; the Spanish war in 1719, by the same; but in that of 1739, actual hostilities were committed before any declaration; and so in 1756, when thousands of French seamen in our ports were seized by surprize, and their navy thus crippled during the war. So also in 1778.

(3) Bynkershoek saith, that Grotius did not so much treat of an universal jus gentium, as of the customs and usages of certain European nations, which do not constitute a jus gentium. Quæs. Jur. pub. Lib. 2.