Power, a tacit agreement would seem to have been entered into between Neutral and Belligerent Powers, that on the one hand the Neutral State shall not be implicated in the misconduct of the individual, and on the other hand the offender shall be subject to the exercise of Belligerent Right. Forfeiture of Property is under such circumstances the penalty, which the Belligerent State inflicts upon the Subjects of a Neutral Power for every departure from Neutrality, whilst the Neutral State abstains from all interference between the captors and the captured, on the understanding that it shall not be responsible for the misconduct of its Subjects, nor be involved by their acts in War against its will. It is the duty of every Neutral Power, as such, to observe Impartiality, and consequently, if its Subjects voluntarily array themselves under the banner of one of the Belligerent parties, to make no complaint, if they are treated by the other as Enemies. But it will always be a question of a most delicate nature with regard to its own citizens for a Neutral State to renounce the obligation of protecting them from the operation of Belligerent Force, unless it shall be satisfied of the justice and legality of the rules of conduct, which the Belligerent Power prescribes to its Commissioned Agents. Hence, whilst the Neutral Nation allows to a Belligerent Nation the unobstructed exercise of the Rights of War, its own dignity and security require that a Court of the Law of Nations should sit in judgment on each case, and pronounce whether its Subjects have

been guilty of a breach of Neutrality, or the Commissioned Agent of the Belligerent Power has exceeded his authority. It was in this direction, that the first step was made to vindicate the equality and independence of Neutral Powers by TreatyStipulations, that all questions of Prize of War in regard to Neutral property should be submitted by the Belligerent captor to a judicial enquiry, so that the Neutral Subject might be heard in his defence, and not be deprived of his property, until his complicity with the Enemy should have been established. No wrong will have been inflicted upon the Subject of a Neutral Power, if he should be punished by the strong arm of a Belligerent Power for a breach of Neutrality, as soon as his bad Faith has been established; but an intolerable wrong may be inflicted upon a Neutral merchant by a Belligerent captor, if his property should have been seized and detained in bad faith, under the pretext of the Right of every Belligerent to submit the conduct of the Subjects of a Neutral Power to the ordeal of a judicial enquiry. The prompt action of Prize Tribunals is intended to mitigate this evil, and it is therefore incumbent on the good Faith of every Belligerent Power to prevent any unreasonable delay in the action of those Tribunals.

A great concession has been made to the convenience of Neutral Commerce by the Declaration issued by the Powers assembled in Congress at Paris in 1856, under which they have renounced in regard to one another the exercise of Belligerent

Right against Enemy's goods laden in vessels under the mercantile flag of a Neutral State. The Neutral Merchant has ever been a great instrument under Providence in mitigating the extreme exercise of Belligerent Right, and the victories of Commerce may be traced through a long series of Treaties and Declarations, which serve to mark the epochs, when the more rigorous usages of War have been formally renounced by the leading Maritime Powers, after whose example such usages have subsequently been allowed by all civilised Nations. to fall into desuetude.

The Right of a Belligerent to debar his Enemy from all supplies by blockading his coasts, is a right in the exercise of which all Nations, which profess Neutrality, must be prepared to acquiesce; but the interests of Neutral Commerce, under the more enlightened views of the present age as to the reciprocal benefits which result from Commerce, may demand a more candid consideration at the hands of Belligerent Powers, than they have heretofore received.

That a Belligerent Power should cut off the supplies, which a Neutral merchant is carrying from a Neutral port to the Enemy's country, is eminently reasonable; but that a Belligerent Power should cut off the supplies, which a Neutral merchant is carrying from the Enemy's ports to a Neutral country, may not accord so entirely with Reason, nor will it always rest upon the same foundations of Necessity. Great Britain and

France established a blockade on 1 June 1854, against the vessels of all Nations entering the river Danube, whilst Neutral vessels were allowed to come out with cargoes destined to Neutral ports. Accordingly Greek and Ionian vessels continued to load cargoes in the Danubian ports, and the Neutral Nations of Europe were not debarred during the continuance of hostilities from all access to one of their accustomed granaries. It may well merit the calm consideration of Statesmen, whether the conduct of the Allied Powers on this occasion, in the exercise of the Right of Blockade, has not furnished an example of moderation, which will be deserving of imitation under circumstances of an analogous nature, where Neutral Nations depend upon access to the country of a Belligerent for their normal supplies of an article of primary necessity.

Another question suggests itself in reference to the exercise of the Right of Blockade arising out of the Declaration of the Congress of Paris, that "Blockades in order to be binding ought to be effective;" in other words, "ought to be maintained by a force sufficient to prevent really all access to the coast of the Enemy." No explanation is afforded in the Protocols of the Congress on the subject of the forms, which are to attest the reality of an effective Blockade.

On the one hand, it seems reasonable to suppose, that the Congress had in view some other criterion of the reality of an effective Blockade than the actual capture of an offending vessel;

on the other hand, where the presence of a blockading squadron off the mouth of a port is notorious, a Neutral merchant can hardly claim in good Faith, that his vessel should receive an actual warning from one of the Belligerent cruisers, in order that the reality should be established of all access to the Enemy's coast being interdicted. It may however deserve consideration, whether the good Faith of every Belligerent Power, which is a party to the Declaration of Paris, should not prompt it to grant a period of Grace, after a Blockade has been de facto established, during which the effectiveness of the Blockade shall be attested to Neutral merchants by an actual warning given by the blockading squadron to all vessels seeking access to a blockaded port, and during which period no Neutral vessel shall be confiscated, unless she attempts to run past the blockading squadron after such warning.

With regard to Contraband of War, no merchant can with reason complain of being treated by a Belligerent Power as an adherent of the Enemy, if he carries to the Enemy supplies of war; but there are many articles of Equivocal Use, and there will be from time to time articles of Novel Character, respecting which it will not be always clear to the merchant, that it is inconsistent with Neutrality to transport them to the Enemy's country. Naval steam-engines, for instance, are articles of modern invention, and were for some time considered to be only serviceable for vessels of Com