French bottoms only could be employed, they were considered as made French by adoption: but the substantial principle of the rule of judgement was this that a neutral has no right to deliver a belligerent from the pressure of his enemy's hostilities, by trading with his colonies, in time of war, in a way that was prohibited in time of peace." p.11—13. Such was "the rule of the war of 1756;" a rule then first practically established by a court renowned for its equity, in order to counteract an artifice then first adopted.*

The neutral thus takes advantage of the weakness of the colonizing power, and attempts to exercise new privileges, to the manifest injury of that very belligerent power, by whose success it obtains them. We can not, perhaps, state the principle of law more clearly, than in the language of that excellent judge, who has long presided, with distinguished reputation, at the Admiralty Court.

"The general rule is, that the neutral has a right to carry on, in time of war, his accustomed trade, to the utmost extent of which that accustomed trade is capable. Very different is the case of a trade which the neutral has never possessed, which he holds by no title of use and habit in times of peace; and which, in fact, he can obtain in war, by no other title, than by the success of the one belligerent against the other, and at the expence of that very belligerent under whose success be sets up his title; and such I take to be the colonial trade, generally speaking.' p. 13.

In the subsequent war (the American) there were circumstances we are informed that rendered it expedient to relax from the strict justice of

* But this rule was established, not merely on just views of the colonial system, but on rights founded in the law of nations, and sanctioned by ancient usage and acquiescence. The author has, indeed, adverted to this argument, in another part of his work; but we could wish he had extended his views of the subject to an earlier périod than 1756. He would have found the principle of the laws then in force,' originating at a very remote period, and recognised even under Edward III. The law of nations, in the 16th century, undoubtedly permitted the seizure of neutral vessels, carrying warlike stores to an enemy; accordingly, Queen Elizabeth seized and destroyed above 60 vessels, conveying such stores to Spain while the Armada was in preparation. Those vessels bore the flag of the Hanseatic league-a power then more respected upon the ocean, and better able to revenge an insult, than any sovereign state. And, although the Queen was, at that time, and for several years after, accused of infringing upon their maritime rights, yet this measure was not enumerated among their grievances-a sufficient proof that they could not impeach its justice. The analogy, it is true, does not hold directly with regard to the colonies; but it makes out a case much stronger than the mere analogy, for the Hanseatic vessels may be considered as carrying property belonging to their own state. "The law of nature and nations, undoubtedly rendered the burning of these ships a matter of right :-the ships of an ally, assisting an enemy, are to be considered as enemies." It will be necessary, indeed, to make out a new definition of warlike stores, which, in fact, should extend to every article necessary for the wellbeing of the belligerent power.-See Oddy's European Commerce, pp. 49, 50, &c. for an account of which we refer to our Nos. for January and February, 1806.-Rev.

this

this rule: though" it was never avowedly departed from, much less expressly reversed." Immediately on the termination of hostilities, France resumed her colonial monopoly; and at the commencement of the late war, again threw open her ports to neutral commerce.

"Our government adopted, with promptitude, the course which it seemed proper to take. On the 6th of November, 1793, a royal instruction to the commanders of his Majesty's ships of war and privateers was issued, ordering them to stop and detain for lawful adjudication, all vessels laden with goods the produce of any French colony, or cartying provisions or other supplies for the use of any such colony." p. 20.

This regulation deeply affected the Americans; whose "flag was used, for the most part, to protect the property of the French planter, not of the American merchant." The disputes which arose, and their amicable termination, are sufficiently known. Nothing, however, was expressly settled by our convention, respecting the lawfulness of neutral commerce with the colonies of a belligerent power: nor were any concessions inade, whereby this country was in any degree precluded from asserting the rule of the war of 1756, to its utmost practical extent. By a new direction, in January, 1794, neutrals were permitted, by implication, to convey produce from such colonies any where but to Europe; and in January 1799, a fresh instruction further relaxed the rule, and permitted, by implication, the conveyance of such produce to Great Britain, or to the neutrals' own country, in addition to the former permission.

The general principle acknowledged by the Courts of Admiralty and Appeal, in their decisions, was-That the colony trade is generally prohibited, and that whatever is not specially relaxed continues in a state of interdiction.'

'On there commencement of hostilities the same plan was with little variation pursued ;' by the order 24th June, 1803, neutrals are permitted to trade from the colonies to their own neutral country,provided the ship and cargo belong to inhabitants of such country; and provided they should not have supplied articles contraband of war,nor traded with a port under blockade.' The general result of this historical statement, is, that we have receded very far in practice from the rule of the war 1756, in some points, while we have adhered to it in others; but that the principle of that important right has never been theoretically or practically abandoned."

And now, on the successive indulgences we have mentioned, wherein Great Britain was the only power that made a sacrifice of any interest, the neutral and hostile nations attempt to establish a claim of right, and thus to subvert the rule of 1756,' and the original principles on which it was founded. The author then proves, in a complete and satisfactory manner, that neutrals have deviated even from these relaxed regulations to a daring and enormous extent. The regulation of 1798, permitted neutrals to carry colonial produce to their own countries, or to England. Then, American vessels, under a pretended destination to England, conveyed it without risque to any European port. Now, being prohibited from bringing it to this country, they carry it into an American port, and re-ship for Europe, or even proceed with the same vessel under fresh papers. This commerce, so importantly injurious to us, is carried on in a manner the most shameful and scandalous, in violation of every Q2 prin

principle of morality and natural right, and is protected by a compli cated system of fraud, evasion, and perjury.

A principle founded on justice, it is the interest of all nations to render permanent; those who are desirous, for the moment, of renouncing it, will in a change of circumstances, lament and condemn their imprudence. There is certainly a particular advantage in this system, as tending to cramp the sinews of war, and to shorten the duration of hostilities, without the effusion of human blood.

The author shews, in a perspicuous manner, the nature of this illicit trade, and proves beyond dispute, from the premium of insurance on such double voyages, that the risk is very inconsiderable. The property is insured as neutral; but the underwriters pledge themselves, as a matter of honour, that they will not, in case of loss, dispute the neutrality of the property, or avail themselves of any sentence pronouncing it to be hostile. The enemy, therefore, has as full a security for his low premium, as the British importer has for his high one. For six per cent. the British underwriter will warrant Spanish property, knowing it to be such, from the Havannah to Spain, by way of America; though he receives what is equal to seven on British property of the same description, carried with convoy, and in far better bottoms, from Jamaica to London. The excess of the whole war premium, above that which was paid on the direct yoyage in time of peace, is only two per cent.-Can we wonder that Buonaparte should be indignant and clamorous at the late attempts of our prize court to restrain it ?"

Among other evils, our privateering force is entirely superseded, while that of the enemy flourishes with increasing vigour, and improves on the ruins of our trade. In short till we carry the execution of the laws respecting neutrality into full force and effect-only two descriptions of vessels will navigate the seas: British and Neutrals. The latter will carry on the commerce of our enemies, at peace freights, peace wages, and peace insurances; the former with all war contingencies, and exposed to increasing depredations from the privateers of our enemies: we shall not be able, therefore, to stand the competition upon any market in the world, although we possess the sovereignty of the ocean. According to the present practice, our own are the only vessels that can be captured; the enemy will not have a single ship at sea, except for the destruction of our commerce, while his own is carried on, by neutrals, with safety and success !

The author then adverts to the effect of such a system upon the naval power of the country. It is sufficiently evident that our national prosperity is essentially connected with our commercial; and that the Royal Navy depends, for its strength and continuance, upon the mercantile.

These remarks require no comment; the evil, though not its whole extent, is manifest; and, after establishing the truth of his statements so satisfactorily, we are surprised that the author should set himself to prove our right of applying a remedy. We might venture to rest it on the primary duty of self preservation; but we cannot doubt the propriety of correcting the mischief, when we consider it as originating in usurpation of once acknowledged rights, existing only by voluntary and temporary indulgence, and even now flourishing in perjury and fraud. We shall not, therefore, follow the author into this discussion, though undoubtedly he has, by this means, the advantage of arguing his point in a new way, and thus rendering 'assurance doubly sure.' We most warmly recommend it to those who have any doubt upon the subject, or who wish for complete information.

We

We proceed, then, to the manner of applying the remedy; and perfectly agree with him that it deserves the most serious and deliberate inquiry. We certainly do not see that he has succeeded in the discovery; and we should ill perform the duty we owe to our country were we to profess our satisfaction with the remedy he proposes. This is-to revoke our indulgences, to assert the right which was declared in the war of 1756, and, after notice, to confiscate every ship and cargo trading with an enemy's colony. It would be impertinent in us to attempt to supply what we deem a deficiency, and indeed would involve combinations too important to be here discussed. The author has, doubtless, rendered a great service to his country, in calling its attention to this interesting subject, in pointing out the nature of the evil, and stating the right, as well as the reasons, of preventing its continuance.

The prudenceof applying a remedy, which occupies the closing part of this work, admits of no more question in our view, than the right. The expedience of our author's plan, and indeed of every other, is open to deliberation. He is of opinion that it would not produce, eventually, any serious differences with neutral nations, and justly remarks, that a hostile opposition to it would be equally at variance with their duty, their honour, and their interest. It is highly desireable that as great exertions should be made to convince them of its equity, and necessity, on our part, as our enemies have used to vilify our assertion of this right as a tyrannical usurpation over the freedom of the ocean. We cannot

refuse to quote the following just and energetic passage, which fully expresses our opinion on the subject; and which the unprincipled and villainous rapine of the French upon the Continent, renders particularly applicable.

"To the vague general invectives of the French government on this subject, no serious reply can be due. Buonaparte declaims on the maritime despotism of England, with the same good grace, with which he imputed assassinating principles to the Duc D Enghien, perfidy to Toussaint, and ambition to the House of Austria. It is his peculiar stile, in all cases, not merely to defame his enemies, but to impute to them the very crime, which he himself, at the same moment, is perpetrating; and of which they are the intended victims. He is quite in character, therefore, when he accuses us of trampling on the maritime rights of other nations; while he, by the aid of those very nations, is subverting our own.- -Yes! he will clamour for the freedom of the seas, as he did for the freedom of France, till his neutralizing friends shall have placed him in a condition to destroy it. p. 150-152.

Sentiments so striking, and so important, to the interest of all nations, cannot be too widely circulated.

It appears likely, that a Committee of Trade, established on the plan of an author before alluded to, would afford opportunities of duly discussing this delicate subject. It is evident from this work, that the real state of our maritime law on this point has been, in general, very imperfectly understood. We earnestly hope that measures will be adopted for ascertaining our rights, and establishing our interests, on a question which is closely connected with our immediate and final security as a nation. In the vindication of our essential privileges, we would place our whole dependance on HIM, who alone can prosper our counsels, and exertions; whose arm is strength, and whose favour is safety.

*** The Appendixes to this tract will be found well worth attention.

Art. XII. An Appeal to serious Dissenters of every Denomination, concerning the present irreverent Practice of Sitting, while Singing the Praises of God in Public Worship, &c. pp. 50. price 1s.

and Hood.

1806.

Vernon

THIS appeal is certainly founded on Scripture, as well as the practice of the saints under both Testaments; and we cannot think it improbable that this effort, which is by no means so feeble as the modesty of the author would have us suppose, may produce an extensive change among those to whom it is addressed. We recommend it to the perusal of all persons who are desirous of conforming to scriptural institutions. We could wish, at the same time, that it were possible to effect a considerable reform, in many points more essential to the due performance of this pleasing and elevated duty.

Art. XIII. Lyra Evangelica; or, An Essay on the Use of Instrumental Music in Christian Worship, &c. &c. pp. 49, price 1s. 6d. liams. 1805.

THE author of this Essay has taken a great deal of pains, and shewn a great deal of ingenuity in parrying off the arguments of those who have been advocates for instrumental music in divine worship; but we are of opinion that his efforts to silence the melodious thunder of the organ, will be of little effect. We lament his misapplication of precious time, on a subject, in his own opinion, of so little importance to the promotion of piety. He deprecates controversy: Why then provoke it? With respect to the profanation of sacred music to mercenary purposes, as in oratorios, we perfectly agree with him; but the possibility of an abuse, is by no means an argument against the use of instrumental music in, sacred worship.

Art. XIV. A List of the irregular Preterites, or Præterperfects, and Supines; and, also of the Participles of Deponent Verbs, shewing from what Verbs they are derived. By Edmund Philip Bridel, LL.D. Author of An Introduction to English Grammar; and Master of the Academy, Bird's-buildings, Islington. 12mo. price 18. 1805.

THE greatest difficulty which a young person meets with in translating Latin, as our author observes, is that of ascertaining the root or present tense of a verb, when he finds it in its preterperfect tense, supine, or participle; if he flies to his Dictionary, he cannot recognize it; for there he can find only the present tense, which being very unlike the word he seeks, he may still remain in the dark. If young students are taught the use of the author's plan, they will find this difficulty very much diminished. Yet, perhaps, a complete familiarity with the venerable Lilly, would render it unnecessary. The author seems to follow the plan of the Clavis Homerica, the Lexicon of the Greek Testament, &c. which have been found very serviceable to the lazy and forgetful.

Art.