vessels when bound to Europe, an indulgence to neutral vessels carrying such cargoes to other parts of the world, was plainly implied: and in like manner, when the instruction of 1798, still further narrowed the prohibitory effect of the direction, confining it to vessels bound to countries in Europe not their own, with the exception of Great Britain, the trade to their own ports, and to ports of this kingdom, was by clear implication permitted.

Their lordships, and the judge of the court of admiralty, also followed these distinctions into fair analogies, in respect of the outward voyage, This branch of the trade, was left unnoticed in the two latter instructions; but as that of 1793, which placed the carrying supplies to a hostile colony, on the same footing with the bringing away its produce, had been generally revoked, it would have been unreasonable and inconsistent not to admit, that a neutral vessel might allowably go to the colony, from the same port, to which she was now allowed to carry its produce. Such outward voyages therefore were held to be within the clear meaning of the relaxation.

On the other hand, when neither the letter, nor spirit of the royal instructions, could fairly be construed to have permitted the particular branch of this commerce with the hostile colonies, in respect of which a question arose, it was always held by those tribunals to be illegal. Thus, a

voyage from any hostile country, whether in Europe or elsewhere, to any hostile colony; or, vice versa; the voyage of an American from a hostile colony to any part in Europe, except Great Britain; the voyage of a Dane or Swede from any hostile colony to the United States of America, and their respective converses, have all been held to be contrary to the law of war, and have induced the condemnation both of the ships and cargoes *.

In short, the doctrine uniformly held by the Lords Commissioners of Appeals, as well as by the Court of Admiralty, was such as the learned judge of that court, has thus comprehensively expressed" The true rule of the court, is the "text of the instructions; what is not found "therein permitted, is understood to be prohi"bited; upon this plain principle, that the co

lony trade is generally prohibited, and that "whatever is not specially relaxed, continues in "a state of interdiction †."

The only doctrines in which the supreme tribunal may possibly be supposed to have departed from the rule of the war 1756, on any other

* Cases of the New Adventure; the Charlotte, Coffin; the Volant, Bessom; the Wilhelmina, &c. &c. at the Cockpit, last war.

+ Case of the Immanuel at the Admiralty, 2d Robinson's Reports, 202.

ground than that of a voluntary remission of belligerent rights by the crown, were the restitutions of vessels and cargoes which had been captured and condemned prior to the instruction of January, 1794; for by that order the first legislative relaxation of the general prohibitory rule was introduced.

Vessels and cargoes of this description certainly were restored, when the voyages in which they were taken were found to have been such, as that instruction, if in force at the time, would have legalised.

There may be good reasons for giving to such orders in time of war, when they go to enlarge, not to restrain, the indulgence of neutral trade, a retroactive effect upon cases still depending in judgment. Nor is it unjust towards captors; for since they often derive from sudden changes, during the war, in our relations with different powers, or from new strictness in the conduct of the war itself, benefits not in their contemplation at the time of the capture; it is reasonable that their private interest should, on the other hand, give way to the public good, when necessary for purposes of conciliation with neutral states, and to effectuate such amicable arrangements with them, as may intervene between the capture and the judgment. It might be added, that a captor's rights under the acts of parliament which give

him the benefit of the prizes he makes, comprehend by express law, no more than property taken from the enemy; consequently it would be the more unreasonable to restrain on the notion of an inchoate right in him prior to the definitive sentence, the power of the state itself to decide, how far the rules of the law of war shall be relaxed in favour of neutral property, which may be liable to seizure. It is enough that he is indemnified; and in the present case, all captors, whose disappointment would have been attended with actual loss, had reason to be satisfied with the national liberality and justice.

But in truth, the lords commissioners found also some equitable reasons, on behalf of the neutral claimants, for giving to such of them as had traded with the French islands, prior to January, 1794, the benefit of that instruction.

I presume not to develope the motives of his Majesty's government, for granting such large and truly costly indulgences, as were ultimately accorded to neutral commerce during the last war, at the expence of our belligerent interests. They were perhaps proportionate in their weight, to the magnitude of the sacrifice. But the indulgent instruction, of 1794, was probably founded in part, on a consideration which avowedly weighed much with the lords commissioners, for giving it a retrospective effect. It was found,

that before France had actually engaged in hostilities with any maritime power, the revolutionary assemblies and governors of her West India islands, had opened some of their ports, to a considerable extent, to foreign vessels bringing necessary supplies; and consequently that the principle of the rule of the war, 1756, did not apply to the whole extent of the existing neutral commerce with those colonies*.

*As this is an important fact, of which authentic evidence is not easily to be found in Europe, I subjoin a proclamation of the French governor Behague, and the colonial assembly of Martinique, by which certain ports of that island were opened. It is extracted from the evidence in a prize appeal, that of the Peter, Augustus Robson, master, before the lords commissioners, Dec. 16, 1801.

" PROCLAMATION.

"John Peter Anthony de Behague, lieutenant-general in "the King's armies, governor-general of the Windward "Islands, commanding in chief the forces by land and sea.

"

"Examined by us the resolution of the colonial assembly of the 14th of this month, the purport whereof fol"lows:

"Extracts of the verbal process of the resolution of the "colonial assembly in their sitting of the fourth day of December, 1792.

"The colonial assembly of Martinique, after hearing "the reports of its committee, and taking into considera"tion what had been done at Guadaloupe, upon opening the "ports, resolved,

"1st. That the ports and roads of St. Pierre, Fort