Lampredi.-Martens' treatise concerning captures.

but he has not had patience sufficient to deduce all the consequences he might have done, in order to form a right judgment in every possible case. This production appears to be a preliminary discourse to a more considerable work, the execution of which he probably meditated, when a premature death snatched him from the republic of letters, to which by his vast and extensive knowledge and erudition, he would have rendered the greatest service. In spite of the laconism, and even precipitancy of this work, I confess, that I have often taken it as a guide my researches, and, on a more close examination, have discovered some articles, which display the hand of a master, though not always expressed in a decisive manner.

in

17. Among the maritime captures which most attracted the attention of Europe, during the last war, may be distinguished that of the rich Spanish regis ter ship Santa Yago, taken the 5th April, 1793, by the French privateer Le Dumourier, and retaken, nine days after, by the English sloop of war Edgar, The process instituted in England for the restoration of this prize, induced M. MARTENS, a learned professor in the University of Gottingen, and the distinguished author of several works on public law, to publish, in 1795, an Essay on Privateers, Maritime Captures, and Recaptures. In the first chapter he traces the history of privateering from the middle ages to the present time; and in the second, makes some rapid observations on the modern rights of pri

Martens' work on privateers, captures, and recaptures.

vateering, in which he follows the general principles laid down by M. Valin, in his Traitè des Prises, and by Emerigon, in his Traitè des Assurances. The third chapter is divided into two sections, in which he endeavours to establish some theories of the universal, and positive law of nations, on the subject of recaptures. He gives a brief and very imperfect account of the ancient Codes of maritime law, and takes a cursory notice of the laws and treaties of some of the northern powers on the same subject. He passes over, in silence, the ancient and modern laws of many of the Italian states, of which so ample a view has been given in the first volume of the present work. The essay of M. Martens displays much erudition, which will render it instructive, and highly useful to those who feel interested in the progress of the science of ma ritime legislation.*

*This work of M. Martens has been translated into English by Thomas Hartwell Horne, with notes, in one volume 8vo, printed at London, in 1800. The translator has subjoined "a Discourse, by the same author," in which the rights and duties of neutral powers are briefly stated.

Besides the writers on neutrality mentioned by our author, several have appeared in Great-Britain, who deserve notice.— Among these, the works of two may be distinguished, as exbibiting the claims of the belligerent, at least, in regard to neutrals, in their fullest light. The first is, "A Discourse on the Conduct of the Government of Great-Britain, in respect to Neutral Nations," written, in 1758, by Charles Jenkinson, esquire, now Earl of Liverpool, a new edition of which was published

Essence of neutrality.-Definition of neutrality.

ARTICLE III.

Of the Essence of Neutrality.

$1. NEUTRALITY is the strict continuance of the peaceful state of a power, who, on the breaking out of a war between two or more nations, wholly abstains from taking any part in their quarrel.

2. Galliani who, in the first chapter of his work, (page 7, defin. 5,) endeavours to define neutrality with the utmost precision, in order, he observes, to avoid those errors which he pretends to have discovered in Hubner, has himself committed one that deserves as much reprehension, as he has shewn arrogance, and even bitterness, in the discussion.

at London, in 1801, to which its venerable author prefixed an ample preface, in which he declares his present conviction of the truth of the propositions and arguments contained in that treatise. In 1801, Robert Ward, esquire, author of the "Enquiry into the History and Foundation of the Law of Nations in Europe, to the Age of Grotius," published " A Treatise of the Relative Rights and Duties of Belligerents and Neutral Powers, in Maritime Affairs, in which the principles of armed neutralities, and the opinions of Hubner and Schlegel are fully discussed." He divided his subject into seven propositions, two of which he has examined; but.. the rest of his work remains to be published. Mr. Ward is a learned and elegant writer, but his manner is too diffuse, and he often reasons more like the advocate of a particular cause, than a sober and impartial judge. He attacks Hubner and Schlegel with great ability and force, and it must be confessed, that with such feeble and unskilful adversaries, he was almost certain of victory....T.

Definition of neutrality by Galliani.

3. He denominates neutrality to be," the position of a prince, who being in a state of repose, of friendship, or of alliance, with other princes, who are at peace with one another, continues to remain in the same state in regard to them, whatever cause of rupture or of war, may arise between them."(18)

4. In his first chapter, entitled, Definitions and Axioms, (truly puerile) in the 4th definition, Galliani explains what he means by alliance. "It is the union of two sovereigns by certain treaties, in which they enter into agreements and promises relative to the supposed event of a future war." If this definition be just, in what manner, in what case, or at what time, can a prince in a state of alliance, such as he defines it, remain neutral? If the clear light of reason, as he boasts, taught him, in the fifth chapter, § de Sovrani alleati, p. 131, "that an alliance contains a promise to unite in all wars of its ally, manifestly just, with all its forces, or with a stipulated number, and even in doubtful wars, when there are reasons in favour of both parties," what other light will discover the means of introducing

(18) The little reflection with which this subject was treated under the article neutrality, in the third volume of my work on mercantile jurisprudence, led me blindly to adopt the definition of Galliani, as well as other principles advanced by him on this subject. I thank heaven for having granted me life, and strength sufficient to acknowledge, and correct my error.

Ipse ego librorum video delicta meorum.

Ovid. ex Ponto, lib. 3, epist. 9.

Galliani's definition of neutrality defective.

alliance into his new system of neutrality? If an allied prince, as he says, a little further on, page 133, "when the casus federis happens, being obliged to join his ally, cannot pretend to remain neutral," in what sense would he comprehend allies in his definition of neutrality, when they cannot, according to the terms of his fourth definition, avoid taking a part in an actual war?

5. Galliani, in vain, endeavours, in his fifth chapter, to justify his errors, by heaping together metaphysical arguments, in order to distinguish just from unjust wars, offensive from those which are defensive all these reasonings tend only to establish the right of the belligerent to declare war, or not, against the ally of his enemy; they do not cure the defect of the definition, which gives to allies, without distinction of cases, the power of remaining absolutely neutral. In the following paragraph, from the same page, he thus expresses himself: "In short, "I say, that a prince who declares war against another, has no right to declare war at the same time, "without any previous explanation, against the ally of his enemy; but he ought first to demand of such ally, whether or not he considers himself within "the case provided by his treaty, and whether, in "consequence, he intends to join and make a common cause with his ally, or to keep aloof, and re"main neutral."(19)

"

(19) This opinion of Galliani, is suceptible of further, and more VOL. II.

G