Puissances, relativement à la navigation, et au commerce maritime; systême fondé sur les seuls principes du droit naturel, et abstraction faite des traités existans, ou des usages établis; on y a joint un projet de traité, tendant à concilier les droits du commerce neutre, avec ceux d'une nation en guerre, d'après les principes developpés dans ce systeme. And we may add, on the authority of M. Jacobsen, on the laws of the sea, that M. Jouffroy supports the maxim of "free ship, free goods," only so far, as concerns the direct trade of neutral countries, with their natural products to any enemy's country, or from an enemy's country to neutral ports.

SAALFELD.

In 1809, Professor Saalfeld of Göttingen published a neat text book, entitled, Grundniss eines systems des Europäischen Volkerrechts, zum gebrauche Academischer Vorlesungen, a sketch or outline of a system of the European law of nations, for the use of academical lectures. In this sketch Saalfeld has obviously benefitted by the works of his more recent predecessors, Martens, B. S. Nau, and Azuni; and his arrangement is an improvement on that of Martens. In the first part, he treats of the law of nations during peace; of Europe in general, considered as a great body or corporation of states; of the property of nations; of the rights and obligations of nations, with reference to the maintenance of the friendly relations existing among them; ambassadors, negotiation, commercial councils. In the second part, he treats of the law of nations in time of war; with regard to the belligerent powers in relation to each other; with regard to allied and auxiliary powers; and with regard to neutrals. Under the last division, he distinguishes neutrality by land and neutrality by sea; giving an account of the leading counter claims of belli

gerents and neutrals, and of the discussion of the contested points during the last two centuries, particularly during the latter part of the eighteenth century. But in a mere outline for a course of lectures, we are not to expect details; and we do not perceive in it any indications of profound or enlarged views. Although obviously under the influence in favour of neutrals, so prevalent in the north of Germany, as if their cause were that of genuine liberty, our author does not go so far as to maintain with Professor Cobald Totze, that conventions entered into by a majority of the European nations, for their own advantage or profit, are binding on the minority of these nations, although manifestly to their disadvantage, and deterioration of their national strength. He does not maintain that the mutual stipulation and concession of a privilege, in a treaty between two nations, is binding on them in favour of all and sundry other nations, although not parties to that treaty. But he seems to entertain, like Martens, some vague indefinite idea of treaties altering or new moulding the common maritime law of nations, beyond the extent and duration of their stipulations or provisions, so as to create modified obligations in perpetuity, after the treaties themselves have expired, been annulled, or ceased to exist. He seems to consider the rule of "free ship, free goods," though not supported by the practice of the European nations, independently of express treaty, as consistent with the natural law of nations, from analogy to the recognised rights of neutrals on land. But this analogy can only be discovered by Hübner's absurd assumption of a vessel or flag in the open sea or ocean, being equivalent in physical fact and law, to those solid and stable parts of the globe, continental or insular, which form the territories of nations. And, while Professor B. S. Nau admits, that the rule "free ship, free

goods," is extremely favourable for neutrals, obviously implying more favourable than they can reasonably ask or expect, Professor Saalfeld, on the other hand, admits that this rule is unequal and partial, in relation to the belligerents, because it enables the one belligerent, although defeated at sea, still to carry on at a moderate increase of expense, its accustomed commerce, and thereby to protract the war, while it deprives the opposite belligerent government of a great portion of the naval strength, which it naturally derives from its territory and the industry of its people.

SECTION IV.

Review of the work of M. de Rayneval.

There still remain two eminent writers on Maritime international law, whose works appeared during the period we are now surveying, from the peace of Amiens in 1801, to that of Paris in 1815; M. de. Rayneval, a Frenchman, and M. Tetens, a Dane. And as the former supports throughout, upon general principle, the new neutral doctrine, and the latter upholds, also upon general principle, the doctrine so long and so universally prevalent, as the genuine law of nations in this department, we shall conclude our account of this period, by contrasting the views and arguments of the one, with those of the other.

M. de Rayneval distinguished himself in 1803, by the publication of his useful work, entitled, Institutions du Droit de la Nature et des Gens; in speaking of which work, M. Dupin observes, "C'est un grand avantage, de pouvoir jouir des méditations d'un homme, qu'une longue pratique a éclairé. On a cet avantage, dans la

possession du livre de M. Gerard de Rayneval. Il a toujours été attaché aux affaires étrangères, et à la Diplomatique Françoise." From his knowledge of the law and practice of his country for centuries, and from the moderation of his former work, we should have expected from M. de Rayneval, a more impartial exposition of the principles of Maritime international law. But he appears to have forgot, or rather intentionally to have kept out of view, the French administration of that law, as exhibited in the ordonnances of 1543, 1584, and 1681, and in the works of Valin and Pothier. He appears to have become enamoured of the new fangled doctrines, which Hübner and Galiani were employed to devise and support. And he perhaps felt himself called upon to attempt to vindicate the altered policy towards neutrals, which Louis XVI, and subsequently the Emperor Napoleon, for a short time, found it convenient to adopt, for the purpose of carrying on, by means of neutrals, the otherwise almost ruined maritime commerce of France, and of annoying England. Accordingly, he gave to his treatise, published in 1811, the same title nearly, as the worthless republican Barrère had done -De La Liberté des mers-apparently with the view of obtaining popular favour in neutral countries; and he devoted about the half of his work, almost all the second volume, to an examination of the works of Selden and Grotius, the Mare Clausum, and the Mare Liberum. This revived discussion in the nineteenth century, of the exploded doctrines of Selden, in the earlier part of the seventeenth century, cannot easily be ascribed to any other motive, than a desire to exhibit England as still persisting in certain extravagant pretensions, which, in fact, she never actually put forth in practice. For, we have the Swedish lawyer, Loccenius, who wrote so far back as 1651, mentions that these disputes about

seen,

the pretended empire and appropriation of the sea, were even at that time considered settled, and had ceased to excite any interest. Indeed, so out of time and place was the revival of this discussion, except for some collateral and indirect, if not sinister purpose, that the American lawyer, Dr. Hoffman, in his late course of legal study, recommended only the first volume of this work, as the student can reap but little useful instruction from a discussion on the long agitated, and we may now add, exploded doctrines of Mare Clausum. And we shall follow this advice, by confining our attention to the first volume, or rather to the second part of that volume, the first part being devoted to the same exploded doctrines.

In the second part of his first volume, De Rayneval certainly adduces many ingenious arguments in support of the novel doctrines maintained by neutrals. But in the words of Dr. Hoffman, the work "has many defects, and some opinions to which we cannot subscribe." It is to be regretted, that on this occasion De Rayneval should have laid aside the character of an impartial man of science, maintained by him in his former work, and should have carried the exhibition of his animosity against England, to such an almost ludicrous height. The Treatise appears to have been composed while the Berlin and Milan decrees of Napoleon were in force— while the French Emperor, then invincible by land, was prosecuting with unabated success, his progress towards universal empire, and while Great Britain presented the chief obstacle to the ultimate gratification of his insatiable ambition. And as M. de Rayneval seems to have been then a French minister, in the department of foreign affairs, this work is perhaps to be considered, not so much a scientific treatise, by an impartial spectator, as a controversial pamphlet, or political brochure,