Gorrect knowledge of the shipping of the country, their value, and employment, observed with astonishment and regret, the inadequate return* on capital so employed, and the growing decrease of British shipping; which induced him to attempt, at different times, to recal the attention of the public to a subject so interesting and important: he trusts his endeavours have not been altogether unavailing; and that the danger, which would have ensued from further concession, will now be avoided by a resumption of the former system, and a firm adherence to the measures recently adopted by his Majesty's government; which are calculated to make a strong impression on the Continental powers, and to induce them to be sincerely disposed to accede to terms of peace, consistent with the honour, welfare, and safety of the kingdom. He, likewise, can truly state, he has not been influenced in the sentiments he has expressed by any unworthy or improper motive that he is not interested in shipping, or connected with the British colonists in America; his only view in offering these observations to the public, is to remove any unfavourable impression which the misrepresentations on these subjects may have produced; he can therefore with propriety adopt the words of an honest and sensible man+: "Most commonly, such as palliate evils, and represent the state of things in a sounder condition than truly they are, do thereby consult best for themselves, and better recommend their own business and pretensions in the world: but he, who to the utmost of his skill and power, speaks the truth, where the good of his king and country are concerned, will be most esteemed by persons of virtue and wisdom and to the favour and protection of such, these papers are committed." Austin-Friars, 29th April, 1808. See comparative statements of freights, outfits, &c. in collection of Reports on Trade, Edition 1807. Dr. Davenant on Trade. APPENDIX. ἐσ (65) "what goods might be imported under the revenue laws; but "this is a matter of general law, on which they are not the persons best qualified to give information or advice. The "intention of the parties might be perfectly innocent; but "there is still the fact against them of that actual contraven❝tion of the law, which no innocence of intention can do away. I may feel greatly for the individuals who, I have "reason to presume, acted ignorantly under advice that they "thought safe; but the court has no power to depart from "the law which has been laid-down." The British customhouse officers in assenting to the line of the neutral or common waters on the Campo-Bello side, exceeded their authority as officers of the customs, by determining a matter of general law. There is another principle of law, which I think applicable to the present case, recognised by Lord Mansfield, in the case of Berens v. Rucker. 1 Black. 313, in which he says, "The "first question is, whther this was a just capture. Both 66 sentences are out of the case, being done and undone by 66 consent. The capture was certainly unjust; the pretence was, that part of this cargo was put on board off St. Eustatias "out of Barks supposed to come from the French Islands, and "not loaded immediately from the shore; this is now a settled << point by the lords of appeal to be the same thing, as if they "had been landed on the Dutch shore, and then put on "board afterwards." It is admitted that the sloop Falmouth took in her cargo off Snug Cove out of two British vessels lying in the stream. These vessels, it appears, came from the upper parts of the bay of Fundy, laden with plaister, arrived. at Campo-Bello, and of course must be presumed to have entered at the custom-house at Snug Cove. As these vessels were lying on the Campo-Bello side, they must have been within the British waters; and agreeably to the law as settled by the laws of appeal, the taking on board her cargo out of the vessels lying in the stream, amounts to the same thing as if it had been taken on board from the shore, and is a direct violation of the Navigation Act. I am therefore of opinion, that the sloop Falmouth was laden within the British waters in contravention of the Navigation Act, and the statute of 7 and 8: W. 3. c. 22, and therefore decree the vessel and cargo to be forfeited; but considering the particular circumstances of the present case, I shall dismiss the claim without costs. F No. I. (B.) The Definitive Treaty of PEACE and FRIENDSHIP between His Britannick Majesty, and the United States of America. Signed at Paris, the 3d of September, 1783. In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. IT having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince, George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburgh, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the holy Roman empire, &c. and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore; and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between the two countries, upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience, as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation, by the provisional articles signed at Paris, on the 30th of Navember, 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part; which articles were agreed to be inserted in, and to constitute, the treaty of peace, proposed to be concluded between the crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France, and his Britannick majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannick majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the provisional articles above-mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say, his Britannick majesty, on his part, David Hartley, esq. member of the parliament of Great Britain; and the said United States, on their part, John Adams, esq. late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said State, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the states general of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, esq. late delegate in congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, esq. late president of congress, and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be the plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty: Who, after having recipro |