or interrupt the intercourse of neutral vessels in that branch of commerce more than in any other.

"Soon after the commencement of the late war (Nov. 6, 1793), the first set of instructions that issued were framed, not on the exception of the American war, but on the antecedent practice; and directed cruizers to bring in, for lawful adjudication, all vessels laden with goods, the produce of any colony of France, or carrying provisions or supplies for the use of any such colony.' The relaxations that have since been adopted have originated chiefly in the change that has taken place in the trade of that part of the world, since the establishment of an independent government on the Continent of America. In consequence of that event, American vessels had been adınittted to trade in some articles, and on certain conditions, with the colonies both of this country and France. Such a permission had become a part of the general commercial arrangement, as the ordinary state of their trade in time of peace. The commerce of America was therefore abridged by the foregoing instructions, and debarred of the right generally ascribed to neutral trade in time of war, that it may be continued, with particular exceptions, on the basis of its ordinary establishment. In consequence of representations made by the American government to this effect, new instructions to our cruizers were issued on the 8th January, 1794, apparently designed to exempt American ships trading between their own country and the colonies of France. The directions were, 'to bring in all vessels laden with goods, the produce of the French West India Islands, and coming directly from any port of the said islands to any port in Europe.'

"In consequence of this relaxation of the general principle, in favour of American vessels, a similar liberty of resorting to the colonial market for the supply of their own consumption was conceded to the neutral states of Europe. To this effect, a third set of public instructions was issued on the 25th January, 1798, which recited, as the special course of further alteration, the present state of the commerce of this country, as well as that of neutral countries, and directed cruizers to bring in all vessels coming with cargos, the produce of any island or settlement belonging to France, Spain or Holland, and coming directly from any port of the said islands or settlements to any port of Europe, not being a port of this kingdom, nor a port of the country to which such ships, being neutral ships, belonged.'

6

"Neutral vessels were, by this relaxation, allowed to carry on a direct commerce between the colony of the enemy and their own country; a concession rendered more reasonable by the events of war, which, by annihilating the trade of France, Spain and Holland, had entirely deprived the states of Europe of the opportunity of supplying themselves with the articles of colonial produce in those markets. This is the sum of the general rule, and of the relaxations in the order in which they have occurred."

"On the other hand," writes Chancellor Kent (i. 90), "the government of the United States constantly and earnestly protested against the legality of the rule to the extent claimed by Great Britain; and they insisted in their diplomatic intercourse that the rule was an attempt to establish a new principle of the law of nations,' and one which subverted many other principles of great importance, which have heretofore

been held sacred among nations.' They insisted that neutrals were of right entitled to trade, with the exception of blockades and contrabands, to and between all ports of the enemy, and in all articles, although the trade should not have been opened to them in time of peace.' (Mr. Monroe's Letter to Lord Mulgrave, Sept. 23, 1805; Mr. Madison's Letter to Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, May 17, 1806.) It was considered to be the right of every independent power to treat, in time of peace, with every other nation for leave to trade with its colonies, and to enter into any trade, whether new or old, that was not of itself illegal and a violation of neutrality. One state had nothing to do with the circumstances or motives which induced another nation to open her ports. The trade must have a direct reference to the hostile efforts of the belligerents, like dealing in contrabands, in order to render it a breach of neutrality." Upon the whole, the principle of the rule of 1756 may very fairly be considered as one unsettled and doubtful, and open to future and vexed discussion, although," concludes Chancellor Kent, "should the United States attain that elevation of maritime power and influence which shall prove sufficient to render it expedient for her maritime enemy to open all her domestic trade to enterprising neutrals, her government might be induced to feel more sensibly than it has hitherto done the weight of the arguments in favour of the policy and equity of the rule."

In the case of The Juliana (4 Rob. 336), which was the case of a neutral vessel sailing between France and Senegal, then a French colony, the court having ascertained, after much investigation, that France had

been accustomed to leave open the trade of Senegal to foreign ships, as well before as since the war, restored the vessel to the neutral claimants.

The Danish ship Wilhelmina (2 Rob.101) was taken on a voyage from a hostile colony to a port of Europe, which was not a port either of this kingdom or of the country to which the ship or cargo belonged. It was therefore considered as a case not falling within the protection of the instructions, and a condemnation ensued. In the case, indeed, of The Hector (4 Rob. App.), and in the subsequent case of The Sally (Ib.), the instructions appear to have been construed a little more favourably than their tenor dictated. These were cases of American ships, captured on voyages from hostile colonies in the West Indies to another West Indian Island, that of St. Thomas, which was then a neutral possession. The trade thus carried on by the American neutrals was not to any port of this kingdom, nor to a port of their own country, and upon principle would therefore have been subject to confiscation; but the instructions had directed the capture only of ships coming from the hostile colonies to Europe; and as this produce had not been carried out of the West Indies, it was restored, although it should seem, that, even without any instructions at all, the trade was inherently illegal. However, it was thought right at that time to put a liberal interpretation on the instructions, and to consider as exempted that which was not specifically included; though, in The Sally, the court professed merely to act on the authority of The Hector, and intimated that, if the question had been a new one, their decision would have been different. In the case of The Lucy (4 Rob. App.), an

attempt was made by a neutral claimant to extend the indulgence still further. It was the case of a neutral Swedish vessel, taken on a voyage from a hostile colony to a neutral American port. Here, too, the adventure was certainly not pointed out for confiscation by the letter of the instructions; but the court thought proper to decide upon the principle, which they did not conceive to have been in this instance relaxed by the instructions; and they therefore proceeded to condemnation. The Master of the Rolls pronounced judgment to the following effect:-" In the case of The Sally, the court thought they were going further than they should have been disposed to go, if it had not been for the authority of The Hector. Now we are required to go farther. In neither of these cases was the produce of the colonies carried out of the West Indies. If an American vessel would not be permitted to trade from St. Domingo to Sweden, there can be no reason why the same rule should not be applied to Swedish vessels trading between the colony of the enemy and America."

On the other hand, in the case of Margaretha Magdalena (2 Rob. 138), which was the case of a ship captured on a voyage bona fide from a hostile colony to her own port, the protection of the instructions was held to be fairly applicable, and the property was restored.

In the case of The Providentia (2 Rob. 142), a vessel having been captured in a trade with a hostile. colony, which trade, even in time of war, was not generally open to all neutrals, but permitted only to particular persons by special passes or licences, it was contended, on the part of the captors, that the instruc