of the impoffibility of maintaining it on the mere want of right in the neutral, when they proceed to contend, that the trade which they wish to restrain is in substance an interference in the war, and a breach of the duties of neutrality. If this be the cafe, it ought no doubt to be interdicted upon that footing; but it ought to be clearly understood at the fame time, that this is the ground on which it is objected to; and that all that is wanting for its juftification, is to fhew that it does not assist the one belligerent, nor diftrefs the other, in fuch a way as is inconfiftent with the ftrict duties of neutrality. Now, upon this head, we are inclined to hold, that the affiftance or obftruction to which this defcription applies, muft bear a direct reference to the hoftile efforts of the two belligerents, and that the neutral character will not be violated merely by carrying on trade with one of them, in fuch a way as to give him a fhare of its commercial advantages, while the other is obftructed in nothing but its general defire to impoverish the traders of the enemy. To relieve a place which is blockaded, is a direct interference with a specific act of hoftility, and tends to defeat a scheme of annoyance which is then in the courfe of execution. It is therefore interdicted by the law of nations, as an evident tranfgreffion of the duties of neutrality. To carry arms or warlike ftores, in like manner, to a nation whofe means of attack or defence muft depend in a great measure on the poffeffion of fuch articles, has a direct and immediate effect to alter the fortune of the war, and is nearly as palpable an interference in it, as to give or to lend to one party a fupply of foldiers or failors. All traffic with a belligerent, in fuch articles, has accordingly been prohibited; and the right of feizing contraband of war, been recognized from time immemorial. But it has, for as long, been thought lawful for a neutral to trade freely with a belligerent in every other article, and to buy and fell with him upon terms of mutual profit and advantage; nor has it ever been pretended that this trade was illegal, merely because it was a fource of emolument to the belligerent as well as to the neutral, and in this way interfered eventually with his enemy's lawful endeavours to bring him to a fubmiffion, by cutting off all his resources and means of revenue. In this point of view, however, it is evident that there is no room for distinguishing between the colonial trade of a belligerent and any other trade which may be carried on between him and a neutral. The belligerent has a profit by both, and is thus enabled to carry on the war with undiminished refources, while the enemy's views of impoverishment are obftructed by means of the neutral. It can make no difference to either party, whether the neutral buys wine in the ports of the mothercountry, country, or rum in those of her colonies. The affiftance which he gives to one belligerent, and the consequent obftruction he occafions to the views of the other, are the fame in both cafes; and if the one trade be undoubtedly lawful, it will not be easy to fhew that the other is not. These are the general principles upon which we are inclined to go to iffue with the author of this publication. The reafons upon which they are founded will be better understood when we have, confidered more particularly the grounds upon which he has rested his oppofite conclufions. Though the pamphlet is certainly written with great ability, and the author is abundantly perfpicuous in most of his particular ftatements, we will confefs that we have been at fome lofs to difcover the precife ground upon which he is difpofed to juftify the rule of the war 1756. He quotes with vehement approbation a paffage, which we have already given entire, from a judgment of Sir W. Scott, in which, if we do not mistake, the trade in queftion is condemned, chiefly as being in the nature of a direct interference with our lawful hoftilities against the enemies' colonies; but while he affects to coincide with the learned judge in this view of the queftion, it is evident, we think, that our author has himself laid but little ftrefs on that confideration, and rather feems inclined to infer the illegality of the trade from the circumftances of its being beneficial to the enemy, and not having been open to the neutral in time of peace. These confiderations, we conceive to be quite feparate in their own nature, and to require therefore a diftinct investigation. The principle laid down by Sir W. Scott, in the paffage already quoted, feems fhortly to be this;-The colonies of an enemy are natural objects of hoftility, and may with certainty be reduced and captured, if fupplies can be cut off from them: If a belligerent, therefore, chooses to apply his means to this object, no neutral has a right to step in and prevent its execution. Now this, it is evident, is refting the argument upon the fuppofition of an actual interference with a fcheme of direct hoftility;--the plea is, that the neutral has no right to obftruct a belligerent actually employed in the reduction of his enemies' colonies. The principle cannot be difputed; but, with all fubmiflion to the learned perfon referred to, it does not appear to apply to the fact of the cafe. * B 3 We * We hope it is unneceffary for us to fay, that in spite of the liberty we have here taken with the reafonings imputed to him, we entertain, in common with all who have ever looked into the record of his decifions, the moft unfeigned veneration and refpect for the penetrating fagacity, profound judgment, and unblemished integrity of Sir William Scott. We are not now engaged in reducing the colonies of the enemy :we have not chofen to apply our means to that object : '-we have no thoughts of taking from the enemy the iflands of Cuba and St Domingo, or the vast continent of South America :-we have never propofed to poffefs ourselves of thofe places, nor pretended to blockade or inveft the other colonies of our enemies. Our complaint is not, that these colonies are withheld from us in confequence of affiftance illegally rendered by neutrals to places in a ftate of fiege; we complain, merely, that their produce is withdrawn from our capture, by being fold to neutrals on the fpot: and whatever may be the validity of this complaint, it seems to be certain, that the reafons faid to have been affigned in the Court of Admiralty, are wholly and entirely inapplicable to the admitted circumftances of the cafe. This feems alfo to be the opinion of the author before us; for, though he pronounces a warm eulogium on the doctrine which he quotes from the reports, he has certainly made no attempt to enforce or fupport it, and refts his own reafonings upon a foundation altogether independent. The only paffage in which he appears to borrow any thing from the argument of Sir W. Scott, is, where he talks of the colonial trade being fet up within the lifts of war,' and fubject to hoftility of courfe, by whatever hands it may be carried on. Thefe are metaphorical expreffions which feem to have no precife meaning. For our own part, at least, we do not understand how any poffeffion of the enemy can be fo fet within the lifts of war, except by the known and established courfe of blockade;-that it is liable to be attacked, Scott. Bound as he seems to have conceived himself, by the terms of the Royal inftructions as the rule of his judgment, it was natural for him to feek to justify to his own mind the principle of those inftructions; and if they were not capable of being juftified, it is not won derful that he fhould have been mifled. It is to be obferved, alfo, that there is reafon for fufpecting that our long habit of maritime fuperiority has produced in this country a very general infenfibility to the rights of thofe to whofe fituation it never occurs to us that we may be reduced. The fecure poffeffion of power gives a prodigious bias to our moral judgments in every queftion which relates to its exercife. We eafily fatisfy ourselves that we have a right to do all that we have the defire, the power, and the habit of doing; and can rarely bring ourselves to take a fair view of those claims which we know cannot be enforced against us. There are innumerable inftances of this dangerous illufion. It was with the utmoft difficulty, that even the moft liberal and enlightened of the old Nobleffe could be made to feel and understand the rights and claims of their inferiors; and in our own country, to take a narrower inftance, it is aftonishing how hard it is to convince the common people that there is any fin in plundering a wreck that is thrown unprotected into their hands. attacked, certainly affords no reafon for declaring it unlawful for neutrals to interfere with it. The author's own reasonings, however, depend upon a different principle. The enemy is benefited by this trade of neutrals with his colonies; and it is a trade to which the neutral had no access in time of peace. These two circumftances taken together, are fufficient, he seems to think, to entitle us to reprefs this trade as illegal. We have an interest to do fo, because we fhall thus harafs and annoy our enemy; and we are not barred from pursuing this intereft, because the neutral, after he is interdicted from this trade, will be no worse than he was in time of peace. The intereft we have already admitted ;-the right, we think, extremely questionable. In point of fact, we deny that the neutral, if interdicted from this trade in time of war, would be in as good a fituation as in time of peace; and, in point of principle, we contend that, even if it were otherwife, the nature of the benefit to be gained by us from enforcing this rule, is not fuch as to entitle us to prevent the neutral from improving his condition by rejecting it. It is perfectly plain, at first fight, that the condition of the neutral, who is prevented from trading to the colonies of a belligerent during war, is incomparably worfe than his fituation while excluded from that trade during peace. In peace, the colonial proprietor brought his produce to the neutral in his own bottoms, and fupplied him with as much of it as he chofe to buy, either for his own confumption, or for exportation. In war, at least in the wars which give occafion to this question, the colonial proprietor cannot fend a fhip to fea; and the neutral must either go for the produce which he has occafion for, or be entirely deprived of the commodity. It is needless to enlarge on a confideration fo obvious and important. The products of an enemy's colony may fometimes be fuch as to be indifpenfable to the comfort, or even to the existence of fome other nation. If the proprietors are prevented by war from exporting them according to their ufual colonial regulations, will it be faid that the neutral fhall be altogether deprived of his neceffary supply, because, truly, he cannot now obtain it, without engaging, himself, in a trade which was not open to him in time of peace? It is mere quibbling and mockery to fay, that, by fuch a prohibition, he is not put in a worse situation than before; and it would evidently be the height of injuftice to fubject him to this grievous difadvantage, merely that the weaker belligerent might be a little more diftreffed in his general commercial fpeculations. The difference between being excluded by the owner of the colony in time of peace, and by his enemy in time of war, is, that, in the former cafe, the neutral gets the produce as plentifully B 4 |