Neutral Rights,' are the only parts of this publication which attempt anything like original investigation. The notice of M. Hautefeuille's work attempts to point out, though very imperfectly, the erroneous sources from which that writer has sought to derive the institutes of international law, and also very slightly indicates the real basis of that jurisprudence. The letter on 'Intervention' is rather of a political than a juridical cast, but the present interest of the question gives it a place here.

An adequate work on the Rights and Duties of Neutral Nations, founded on a sound basis of historical investigation and judicial decision, has yet to be written. I have given my reasons at some length, in a subsequent paper, for holding the treatise of M. Hautefeuille to be vicious in its method, and unsatisfactory in its execution. The work of Dr. Phillimore, though laborious and impartial, is rather an indiscriminate digest of opinions, than a scientific investigation of the principles and practice of international law. The lectures of Chancellor Kent at the commencement of the Commentaries are a perfect specimen of juridical exposition. They are, however, too deficient in detail to supply the place of a practical treatise. The work of M. Ortolan is fair, trustworthy, and generally accurate, but makes no pretensions to a scientific treatment of the subject. The Elements of International Law,' by Mr. Wheaton, slight as they are, nevertheless present, on the whole, next to that of Kent, the best general attempt which has yet been made at a discussion of these questions. Nevertheless, on most questions of international law, the student has still to make for himself his own textbook; to extract from scattered documents the records of historical precedents; to deduce from judicial deci· sions the principles of established law; and, what is still

more difficult, to distinguish in contradictory textwriters the doctrines which are founded on reason and law from those which have their birth in inveterate prejudice or empty speculation. It is from these difficulties that ill-informed and shallow reasoners have been induced to question altogether the existence of the principles of international law. Yet this idea is about as reasonable as if a man who had neither the instruments nor the knowledge requisite to take an observation, should dispute the possibility of a science of astronomy.

Whilst on the subject of works upon these topics, I gladly take the opportunity of expressing my great obligations to Mr. Reddie for his valuable researches into the literature of this head of jurisprudence. His volumes are a perfect storehouse of learning and information, and he has the merit, rare in these days, of having pursued, under the advice of Sir J. Mackintosh and Mr. Horner-two sound opinions, if ever there were such—the true method of investigation. It will be seen that abundant use has been made of these volumes in the following papers. The defects in the arrangement of Mr. Reddie's writings alone prevent them from being among the most useful works on this subject which the present generation has produced. The treatise of Mr. R. Plumer Ward on 'The Rights and Duties of Belligerent and Neutral Powers,' is a perfect model of the method of discussion of disputed questions, such as arose in the case of the Armed Neutrality. His ‘History of the Origin of International Law' shows how competent this accomplished writer was to treat these topics. Lawyers and statesmen have much occasion to regret that he abandoned the severe field of jurisprudence for the lighter paths of fiction. It would,

probably, have much astonished the author of these works to have been told that, after the lapse of half a century, whilst his romances are comparatively unread, it is hardly possible, so great is the request for them, to obtain a copy of his tracts. I must not omit to notice the Commentaries on International Law,' by Mr. Oke Manning, a very careful and useful work, and which, on the limited ground that it covers, is very accurate and full. It contains, perhaps, the most complete refutation of the sophistical reasonings and unfounded statements of Hübner and his disciples which has appeared. But of all the sources of authority on these subjects,. the most valuable-though unfortunately in this country not the best known-are the decisions of the American Courts. The policy of neutrality and peace which was, until the late unhappy events, the sacred tradition of the United States, has brought it about that the Rights and Duties of Belligerents and Neutrals have been more fully and minutely discussed in the jurisprudence of that country, than in that of our own. No praise too high can be awarded to a body of decisions which for learning, impartiality, logic, and good sense are unsurpassed in judicial annals. Nothing gives me greater confidence in maintaining the justice and equity of English practice than the knowledge that on all the great topics of international law, the voice of that which was once the chief neutral Power of the world is absolutely in accord with Great Britain, who, from various causes, has taken the lead among maritime belligerents. It will be seen that throughout the course of these papers I have largely availed myself of American learning.*

* I trust I may without offence take this occasion of appealing to the authorities of the Inn of which I have the honour to be a

In commenting in the columns of a daily journal upon questions of law which have immediately arisen out of those great events which are rending to pieces the entrails of America, and agitating to its inmost core the mind of Europe, it was impossible to adhere altogether to dry disquisition, and avoid some allusion to political considerations. I trust that in any remarks which will be found in these papers there may appear no spirit of partisanship with either of the conflicting elements in the terrible struggle which every wise and humane man must pray may be speedily terminated. I have professed-what I sincerely feel—a desire not only for a political but a moral neutrality in this deplorable strife. The principles of one party and

humble member on the subject of the serious defects of the library of the Inner Temple. In the year 1839 Mr. Manning, in his book, complains that he could not find there a copy of Schlegel's famous tract on Lord Stowell's judgement. The library a few weeks since did not contain a copy of it after the lapse of thirty years, though it is a work to be easily obtained. Last year there was no copy in the library of Mr. Ward's tract on Neutral Rights, published in 1801—I believe a copy has been procured within the last few days. Not even Lord Grenville's letters of Sulpicius are to be found there. The most ordinary works of reference, such as the American State Papers, the 'Pièces Officielles' of Schoell, and other works essential to any research in political jurisprudence, are altogether wanting. In fact, the Library is little better than a common practitioner's collection. For the purposes of investigation or study of any questions of general jurisprudence, it is absolutely useless. The library of the Inner Temple bears a lamentable contrast to the magnificent collection of Lincoln's Inn. I gladly seize this opportunity of acknowledging my obligations to Mr. Martin, the zealous and obliging librarian of the Inner Temple, who is the worthy son of a worthy father - the former librarian of Woburn Abbey. I only hope that the Society will place at the librarian's disposal the means which his knowledge and intelligence would enable him to employ to the best advantage, in order to make the collection what it is not now creditable to the Society and useful to the profession.

the aims of the other seem to me alike so indefensible as to leave to the impartial spectator little room for sympathy with either. I rejoice that the English Government have proclaimed the policy of an absolute neutrality. I most earnestly hope that, through good report and through evil report-in spite of all solicitations, and in spite of every menace—they will religiously adhere to the only course which can bring credit to themselves or advantage to the country. We are told, indeed, that a policy of neutrality will bring us the hatred of both belligerents. It may be so; for, to men inflamed by passion and hatred, nothing is so odious as the spectacle of justice and fairness in others. It is said that neutrality is not popular in this country. I do not believe it; but if it were so, I hope that fact would not influence the policy of an English Administration on so critical a question. The quality by which statesmen are distinguished from the clamorous mob, and the title which they possess to govern the destinies of a people, lies in the power to look beyond the exigency of the moment, and to forecast the horoscope of the future. To be firm when the vulgar are undecided, to be calm in the midst of passion, and to be brave in the presence of panic, are the characteristics of those who are fit to be the rulers of men. Such men can bear obloquy and put aside vituperation, because they know that the time will come when their assailants themselves will feel-though perhaps not acknowledge-the wisdom of their acts, and that, in the return of moderation and good sense, justice will be done to the equitable policy of a true and faithful neutrality.

In the year 1818, in the debates on the Foreign Enlistment Bill, Mr. Canning held up to the imitation