palliate any indirect and disingenuous transaction, that has for its object the concealment of an illegal purpose. To the gamester, the stock jobber, and the usurer, they are perfectly familiar. Should it, however, be admitted, that such specious reasons are sometimes the real motives of the assured, and that they are commonly held forth to the underwriters as such, (which, I admit, is probable enough; for it is not likely that the enemy's agent often needlessly violates decorum, so far as to announce openly the true character of his principal,) still the defence would be extremely weak. That enemies, very often at least, are the real proprietors in these cases, is too natural, and too frequently confirmed by actual detection, to be seriously doubted: besides, our London insurers are not so ill informed, as to be at a loss for a shrewd guess in regard to the national character of the true owners in the policy, from the nature of the transaction itself, and the known connections of the agents. In the insurances on property engaged in the collusive commerce which I have described, the secret engagement has become almost universal. If, then, any considerable part of this property is known to be hostile; how can our underwriters be excused by the asser tion, supposing it true, that much of it is really neutral (I)?

(1) See Appendix.

This bad and dangerous practice, however, is not peculiar to the policies on colonial produce and supplies, but extends to almost every other species of insurance upon commerce, that is now fraudulently carried on under neutral colours. Almost every contest in our prize courts, respecting property so insured, becomes an unnatural struggle between British captors, fairly asserting their rights under the law of war; and British underwriters, clandestinely opposing those rights under cover of neutral names. Every sentence of condemnation, in such cases, is a blow, not to the hostile proprietor, but to our own fellow subjects.

If the danger of disloyal correspondence, in order to prevent or defeat a capture, if the augmented means of imposition on the courts of prize, or if the cheap and effectual protection given to the enemy, be considered, in either view, this bad practice ought to be immediately abolished.

But there is a still more important and sacred reason for its suppression. If neutral merchants will violate the obligations of truth and justice, in order to profit unduly by the war, the societies to which they belong, will soon feel the poisonous effects, in the deterioration of private morals; for habits of fraud and perjury, will not terminate with the neutralizing employments that produced

them. But with the profit, which redounds to them and their employers, let them also monopolize the crimes. Let us not suffer, at once, in our belligerent interests, and in what is far more valuable, our private morals, by sharing the contamination; let us not be the accomplices, as well as victims of the guilt.

Since it is not enough, that the engagements in question are void in law, they ought to be prohibited, under severe penalties, as well on the broker, who negotiates, as on the underwriter, who subscribes them.

Returning from this digression, let us resume for a moment our comparative view of English, and French or Spanish commerce, as to the expence of carriage during war between the West Indies and Europe.

There is one remaining head of expence attending the importation of colonial produce, under which it may possibly be supposed that the enemy sustains a loss, more than equivalent to his comparative advantages in other respects, I mean the commission, or factorage for it cannot be disputed, that the fraudulent must be compensated more liberally, than the honourable, service.

I cannot pretend with certainty to state the average price of that collusive agency, the business of which is called "neutralization," either

in this or any other branch of trade; but there is every reason to conclude, that it is by no means equal to those differences in the rate of insurance, which have been shewn to be so favourable to the enemy. I am credibly informed, that in some European branches of trade, it is reduced to two, and even to one, per cent. on the amount of the invoice; and there seems no reason why the price of conscience should be higher in one transaction of this kind than another, except in proportion to the profit derived by the purchaser.

But here it may perhaps be objected, that I am building on an hypothesis, the truth of which has not hitherto been proved; namely, that the colonial produce, the subject of the commerce in question, though ostensibly neutral property, is carried on the enemy's account.

Independently of the discoveries frequently made in the prize courts, there are strong presumptive grounds for supposing that this is commonly the case, not only in the colonial trade, but in every other new branch of commerce, which the neutral merchants have acquired during the war. The general views and interests of the parties to these transactions, must strongly incline them to that fraudulent course; and the facility of concealing it, is become so great, that nothing, for the most part, can induce them to

ship bona fide on neutral account, but a principle which, unhappily, experience proves to be extremely rare among them-respect for the obli gation of truth.

Besides, where can America, and the other neutral countries, be supposed to have suddenly found a commercial capital, or genuine commercial credit, adequate to the vast magnitude of their present investments?

By what means, could the new merchants of the United States, for instance, be able to purchase all the costly exports of the Havannah, and the other Spanish ports in the West Indies, which now cross the Atlantic in their names? Yet what are these, though rich and ample, when compared to the enormous value of that property which is now carried, under the flag of this new power, to and from every region of the globe?

Those who are but superficially acquainted with the subject, may perhaps be ready to suppose, that the frauds which they hear imputed to peutral merchants at this period, are like those which have always prevailed in every maritime war; but the present case, in its extent and grossness at least, is quite without a precedent.

Formerly, indeed, neutrals have carried much of the property of our enemies; and great part of what they carried was always ostensibly their