have, with unexampled heroifm and fuccefs, contended alone against the combined force of Europe, and who, by the brilliancy and rapidity of their conquefts, have doomed to oblivion the victories hitherto celebrated in the annals of hiftory. Let us commemorate an event, which in the language of congrefs" fecured to us our independence."-Let us evince to the world, that we are not as forgetful of benefits as our enemies reprefent us. Let us not, at the distance of nineteen years, coldly and minutely fcan the motives of France, or unneceffarily irritate by attributing to finifter and selfish caufes, what our forefathers, who were the best judges, afcribed to her wifdom, "magnanimity, generofity," and "difinter"eftednefs." Let us not undervalue the immenfe aid we received, barely because the French government may, befides affifting us, have had in view the humiliation of an ancient enemy. Let us at least be more juft than to traduce the memory of Louis XVI. whom congrefs, and we after them, have fo often and fo fondly ftiled "the protector of our liberties and "of the rights of mankind."

66

While celebrating this feftival, can we avoid recollecting, that France is now engaged in an arduous ftruggle for her own liberties? Let us then unite our best wishes for her fuccefs. Although we cannot but lament many of the exceffes which have been committed during the revolutionary ftate of her affairs; furely it cannot be criminal to hope, that the horrors of war will foon ceafe, and that France may in peace and happiness enjoy the fruits of her labours and victories, under a free, wife, and stable form of government.

Let us, above all, deprecate every effort to diffolve our connexion, or to plunge into a war with the French republic. Notwithstanding the unpleasant appearances of the moment, let us indulge the foothing hope, that the clouds, which encircle our political horizon, will foon difperfe; that a spirit of reconcilation

55

TH

No. I.

HE following sketch of historical facts will ferve to expose, in their true light, the wifdom, the good faith, and, above all, the folidity of reafoning difplayed in mr. Pickering's letter to Charles Pinckney. It shows the origin of the barbarous cuftom of confifcating enemy's goods, found on board neutral veffels, and points out the epoch when the truth of the principle, that free fhips make free goods, began to be univerfally recognised in all the treaties between the different powers of Europe.

During the last two centuries, it has been a common practice among Chriftian fovereigns to affume the right of feizing and confifcating goods belonging to an enemy, notwithstanding they were under the protection of a neutral flag.-Ancient hiftory offers no inftance of civilized nations having affumed to them-felves the authority to moleft the veffels of a friendly neighbour, or feize any part of their cargoes. The Greeks and Romans never rendered themselves guilty of fuch an unjus tifiable practice. The Mahometans to this very day abhor it.

This cuftom took its origin between the tenth and thirteenth centuries, in those dreadful times of univerfal confufion, ignorance, and perfidy, when juftice no longer exifted, and the will of the ftrongest was law.

Europe was then overrun by the favage nations of the north, and par

celled out into numberlefs fmall ftates, too impotent to maintain their independence, and yet folely intent upon fubjugating or destroying each other by continual warfare. Amidft thefe diforders and bloody conflicts, it happened that commerce and navigation, of which hardly any traces were left, began again to revive in a few feaports on the Mediterranean fea, in the Baltic, and in Flanders. The trade of these towns did not confist in articles of their own growth or manufacture, for their territory was too small to furnish a fufficient quantity, they were merely the carriers of more extenfive ftates, whofe produce they tranfported from one quarter of Europe to the other.

The great riches which the inha bitants of thofe feaports foon acquired by their industry, excited the envy and hatred of more powerful neighbours, and whenever the latter engaged in war, they did not fail to exercise their rancour upon commerce, and no longer refpected the rights of neutral flags. The great nations of Europe hefitated the lefs to feize enemy's property on board neutral veffels, because, having no merchant men of their own, they were not afraid of reprifals; there was ftill lefs cause to dread the vengeance of the commercial states, who were too fee ble to protect their flag, and far too impotent to reprefs the infolence of the aggreffors.

It must be confeffed, that this cuftom, at the time of its introduction, did not prefent the fame inconveniences as at prefent, nor was it attended with fuch vexations and cruelties as are now commonly exercised by the captors upon the captured. It was then a fettled point, that the owners of neutral veffels fhould be paid the full amount of the freight, as if the confifcated goods had been delivered at the place of deftination: the property of neutrals was not expofed to be ranfacked, carried into port and detained under pretence of its belonging to an enemy." The mafters of veffels and their crews loft

no time; they were not diverted from their road, nor were they dragged from place to place, and fubjected to lengthy and troublesome interrogatories, concerning the real owners of the cargoes.

In thofe times It was customary, that the merchants accompanied their property in perfon, as the Greeks and Romans had done before, and as the oriental nations continue to do to this day, whether they travel by fea or by land. Therefore, to difcover the nature of the goods on board, nothing elfe was required but to examine whether the merchants belonged to a friendly or to an hoftile nation, and then the whole matter was fettled. If the owner of the goods was not on board, which, however, was very feldom the cafe, the captor was bound to confider the declaration, and attestation by oath, of the captain of the neutral veffel, as a fufficient evidence. In the naval wars among Chriftian nations, the goods and not the perfons, were the objects aimed at ; and agreeably to one of thofe many and striking inconfiftencies the human mind is fubject to, the merchandizes were declared good prize, but the merchants and owners thereof were not made prifoners. The true caufe of the dif tinction, was probably this: the value of precious effects excited the captors to plunder; on the contrary, the owners of those effects were confidered as a mere incumbrance, because, being Chriftians, they could not be made flaves, and it would have been expenfive to maintain them.

These and other regulations which commercial people had fucceffively established amongst themselves, were afterwards collected in a book, entitled SEA CONSULATE (Confolato del Mare) which was originally written in the old Catalonian language, and partly compiled between the 11th and 13th centuries. In thofe unhappy days of ignorance, this compilation of arbitrary ftatutes, foon acquired the authority of a code of laws, although it contained nothing that claimed refpect, except a certain natural fenfe of

equity, which is remarkable in fome of those ancient ftatutes. Thus it happened at laft, that the violation of friendly and independent flags, was counted among the marine rights. The falle principle being adopted, that enemy's goods, found on board neutral veffels, were good prize, they foon after established another, which ftands in connection with the former, viz. that the goods of friends, found on board the fhips of an enemy, fhould be free and exempt. The eftablifhment of these maxims was in a high degree facilitated by the circumftance, that almost all the naval wars of thofe times, were carried on between the Chriftians and the Mahometans; for in thefe wars the Chriftian nations not only confidered themfelves mutually as friends, but as natural allies, against a common and generally a detefted enemy.

From all this it appears, that little refpect was paid to the rights of neutral flags; yet never had the rancour againft commercial states been carried to fuch a height as under the reign of Francis I. king of France, who introduced the maxim, that if only part of the cargo of a neutral veffel belonged to an enemy, and the remain der to a friendly nation, the whole fhould be deemed good prize, as if the latter could be, in a manner, in fected by the former! This arbitrary maxim, which was alfo enforced by the edicts of Charles IX. of 1569, and of Henry III. of 1584, and not entirely renounced during the defpotic reign of Louis XIV. cannot be ex cufed. But to explain how arbitrary fovereigns could be encouraged to profefs principles and iffue edicts fo injurious to commerce and navigation, it will be well to remark, that under the reign of Francis I. France had neither manufactures, nor commerce, nor navigation; that king was therefore not afraid of reprifals; and almost all the commercial ftates were either fubjects or allies of his rival, Charles V. who poffeffed not only Spain, Flanders, and Holland, but alfo the major part of Italy, the Ger

man empire, Auftria, Bohemia, and Hungary, befides the extenfive and valuable colonies in India and Ame

rica.

As foon as the arts and fciences were again cultivated in Europe, and the great nations themselves began to apply to commerce, it was reafonable to expect, that cuftoms which owed their exiftence to ignorance and a total direliction of juft principles, would no longer be countenanced. The honour of having made the firft steps towards reinftating the flag of neutrals in its natural rights belongs to Spain. She was aware how injurious and offenfive the old cuftom, to pay regard only to the owners of the goods and not to the flag, was to the rights of every independent nation, and she had the power which in former times the fmall Italian republics and the Hanfe-towns did not poffefs, to enforce her well-founded claims, and restore authority to the rights of nations which had been fo many centuries difregarded and wantonly violated. And without doubt it must either be maintained, that a veffel, as foon as the proceeds to a certain diftance from the coaft, becomes a fmall independent republic recognizing no fovereign, which, however, would be an abfurd fuppofition; or it muft be allowed, that the continues under the jurifdiction of the fovereign who gave her permiffion to put to fea, whofe flag fhe carries, and of whom her owner and crew are fubjects; confequently the conftitutes part of his territory; he is bound to protect her as fuch; and no other has a right to claim the jurifdiction over her, unless the moft enlightened nations of the 18th century fhould choose to re-establish the altars of Neptune, and grant this privilege to him as the fovereign of the ocean.

It has been explained above, how cuftoms contrary to this inconteftible principle of the rights of nations happened to be established among nations. The territorial rights attached to flags, have been difregarded, often invaded, and, even in this enlightened

century, repeatedly violated; but the neutral rights of feeble inland ftates, although lefs contefted, have not been better refpected: belligerent powers have hardly ever fcrupled to violate the territory of a neutral nation, if they expected to derive advantages in their military operations from fuch an ufurpation, and felt themselves ftrong enough to defy the vengeance of the injured neighbour-How often has this been done during former wars, and alfo during thofe of the prefent century, in Italy, in the German empire, and in Poland before its partition! The powers who violated the neutrality of those countries, did not feize enemies goods on neutral ground, because generally, there was none of that defcription; but they often feized provifions, horses, oxen, &c. the property of neutrals, and authorised their rivals to do the fame ;-if the neutral government did not poffefs wifdom and firmnefs enough to vindicate the rights of its territory, by compelling the firft aggreffor to make reparation. But to quote inftances of unjuft acts having been perpetrated, is not fufficient to justify a repetition of fuch acts. Power may enable an ambitious prince to encroach on the rights of a feeble neighbour, and fcreen him from juft punishment; yet it cannot give him a right to do fo.

The truth of the above principle being evident, the Spanish monarchs did not hesitate to declare in their treaties with foreign nations, that "every thing should be deemed free and exempt which fhould be found on board neutral veffels; although the whole lading or part thereof fhould appertain to the fubjects of a hoftile power, contraband goods only excepted."

Hence it neceffarily followed, that every thing found on board enemy's fhip's, goods belonging to neutral nations not excepted, should be deemed good prize.

Thus Spain agreed with Holland, in the treaty of 1650, article 12. But Spain did more; the compelled the haughty monarch of France to recog.

nize formally the truth of those principles in the treaty of 1659, article 20. The other great powers of Europe did not delay following the example of France and Spain, and adopted the fame principles in their treaties, fo that between the years 1648 and 1675, they were generally established in Europe, and formed a new axiom of the marine law, which was fo current amongst commercial nations, that it gave rife to a popular phrafe, and was expreffed in the few words; free ship, free goods.

None of the treaties + concluded

NOTES.

* Befides thofe treaties already cited, the following are the moft important of thofe times in which the principle, that " free ships make free goods," was recognized. In the treaty between Denmark and France, of 1662, article 27. France and Holland, of 1662, art. 24 and 36.

England and Sweden, of 1667, art. 8. England and Holland, of 1674, art. 5 and 8.

Sweden and Holland, of 1675, art. 7.

+ It would be too tedious to cite all the treaties concluded, annulled by a war, then again renewed and confirmed. The following are the most celebrated.

The treaty between France and Holland, of 1678, art. 21 and 26, which was afterwards confirmed by the treaty of 1697, art. 26 and 31, England and France, of 1713, art. 17. France and Denmark, of 1742, art.28. Denmark and Naples, of 1748, art. 16. King of Naples and Holland, of

1753, art. 19. Denmark and the republic of Genoa, of 1756, art. 15. England and Ruffia, of 1766. Holland and Spain, of 1689, 1713, and 1750.

France and Sweden, of 1715. England and Holland, of 1713. Denmark and Spain, of 1742, and 1752.

Spain and the emperor, Charles VI. of 1725.

between independent nations, from the year 1675, to the declaration of the American independence, refted on different principles; or, in other words; no one of the fovereigns of Europe thought himfelf authorised, to grant formally to another the privilege of violating the rights of his flag, and committing depredations upon the commerce of his fubjects, under the mask of friendship.

No. II.

IF proofs were wanting to fubftantiate the truth of the fact just recorded, it would be eafy to draw them from the official letter of the executive to Charles Pinckney. Let those who have no complete collection of the treaties concluded between independent nations from 1675 to 1776 examine that letter. If the writer of it had been able to produce a fingle inftance of an independent nation, having, during the courfe of the century immediately preceding the American revolution, like the United States, abandoned the principle, that free fhips make free goods, why did he cite none? what induced him to come forward with a treaty concluded between France and Hamburgh, between a powerful monarchy and a fingle city? Did he mean to demonftrate that the United States were as impotent and as far from enjoying a real independence as the city of Hamburgh? Or was his intention only to perfuade the people of the United States, that Great Britain owed no more refpect to the American flag, than was paid by the French monarchy to that of Hamburgh?

Every one knows that Hamburgh and the other Hanfe-towns recognife the fupremacy of the emperor, and are dependent on the German empire; confequently they enjoy no perfect fovereignty; their territory extends hardly beyond their gates; they have no produce of their own, and are merely the carriers of others. They are entirely deftitute of means to protect their flag, which is the only one in Europe that is allowed no free

dom, nor even the leaft indulgence. France treated the United States as her equals, and recognised their independence and the freedom of their flag; because it was fuppofed they would be able and willing to protect both. The fame fuppofition could not exift with refpect to Hamburgh and the other Hanfe-towns. None of the European powers therefore has recognised the freedom of their flag. France in her treaty with Hamburgh, and in those of 1655 and 1716 with the Hanfe-towns in general, referved to herself the right of feizing enemy's goods on board their veffels. But did the grant to the Hanfe-towns the privilege of feizing enemy's goods on board of French veffels? If the had done this, it would be a mere mockery, for it is notorious that the Hanfe-towns are utterly incapable of exercifing a right of that kind. Therefore the treaty between the city of Hamburgh and the French monarchy, does not prove that the law of nations declares enemy's goods found on board neutral veffels, are rightful fubjects of condemnation, if captured; nor that France has abandoned the principle, that free fhips make free goods, in any of her treaties with other nations fince 1675, nor that the United States, by fanctioning, in the courfe of the prefent war, a contrary principle in favour of England, have not violated their neutrality; nor does it in any way impair the truth of the fact above ftated; that the maxim declaring enemy's goods on board neutral veffels free, which the executive of a modern republic attempts to invalidate, by calling it " a pretended principle of the modern law of nations," was univerfally recognised in all the treaties concluded between the European powers, a whole century before the declaration of American independence.

The American war gave rise to a coalition among the neutral powers in the north of Europe, known under the name of armed neutrality; words expreffing at once peace and, war, friendship and diffidence. The object