« السابقةمتابعة »
rights, with the judgements founded upon them in our Admiralty Courts, furnish Mr. M. with a copious, though very unwarrantable, strain of crimination. To conclude the bulky pamphlet, he reviews the reasons urged in defence of the British principle, stating very fairly those used by Sir W. Scott. So clearly and unequivocally indeed do the reasons bear upon the question, that our author feels their force, and is driven into a curious situation, viz. to admit the reasonableness of the clain, bit to contend that the law of nations, being an established Code, must be the governing principle of decision. This is appropriately inconsistent, after unequivocally denying that any part of such law was specifically adapted to the subject, the case having been wholly unknown to the elder writers on the law of nations, and unnoticed by the latter; and after stating the mutable and improving condition of the principles of national intercourse.
Mr. Madison then examines Mr. Ward's publication, which he accuses very unjustly of being so vague and confused, that it is difficult to find out its real meaning. We can only account for so harsh a censure, by supposing that Mr. Madison did not chuse to understand the real meaning: for willing to give it any interpretation, but that which is obvious, he endeavours vainly to make it contradictory to the opinion of Sir W. Scott.
Alter an impartial consideration of this work, it appears to us that the principle it professes to oppose is actually conceded, though vası labour has been taken to get rid of its force, or distort its import. The view taken of the grand question is vague and defective, though tediously voluminous. Authority is crowded upon authority, cominent upon comment, with little judgement or reference to the point at issue. The language is dry, feeble, and involved, painfully minute and verbose, and ill suited either for argument or elucidation.
This pamphlet, as might have been expected, (coming from such high official authority) did not remain long without reply. The writer of Belligerent rights vindicated,' states as a reason for thus coming forward, that the great weight of the gentleman to whom the last publication is attributed, has drawn towards it so large a portion of the public attention, that it has been deemed requisite to have its inaccuracies and inconsistencies pointed out, and its unwarranted conclusions combated.'.
• In order to do this in the most satisfactory manner, no reference is made to any fact, or to a quotation from any authority, but such as are found in this reprint of the American tract itself, and to which correct reference is made.' Commencing with the rule of the war in 1756, and the principle on which it was founded, he takes a short review of its operations, and the modifications that have been made on it by the royal instructions at different times, with a view to prove that they were all restrictions upon the full rights of Great Britain. It will not be necessary to follow him in this part of the subject, nor in his comment on the laws of nations as quoted by his opponent, since we have already endeavoured to shew the fallacy of the arguments contained in the examination ; in our opinion the present writer has easily and triumphantly refuted them.
The evidence derived from treaties is ably turned against the author of the examination.
• Of these sixteen (the nuinber quoted by him to which Great Britain was not a party) four are between France and Holland, and are therefore only repetitions, two between Holland and Spain, and two between Holland and Sweden, which are equally so: thus these eight treaties can be taken but as three. This reduces the treaties quoted to eleven, of which six are in favour of the rule of 1756; what then becomes of this argument of the American advocate ? Besides, to what do these treaties amount ? to every one of them but two nations are parties : there was no general assent, no general recognition; they are therefore but a voluntary and positive national law between the subscribing parties, and between them alone.'
One treaty is between France and the Duke of Mecklenburg! Of the number to which Great Britain was a party, the author after a short comment, concludes that out of all these treaties,
Ten are repetitions or confirmations of those of 1713; three do not decide one way or the other, seven are said to be against Great Britain, and eight support the principle of the rule of 1756; and let it be marked and remembered by the reader, that no authority is adverted to, but such as are quoted by the American writer himself, and his account of the treaties which he brings forward is taken for granted as correct.'
The arguments adduced from the conduct of other nations is shewn to be inconclusive, because no nation has been in the condition to be injured by neutral interference in the colonial trade of her enemy, but Great Britain; since it has become a policy to open that trade in time of war which is always kept closed in time of peace.
Proceeding in the steps of Mr. Madison, our author says,
'The fourth general head of the American author is the conduct of Great Britain, which he divides into two parts; and first, that whilst Great Britain denies to her enemies a right to relax their laws in favour of neutral commerce, she relaxes her own, those relating as well to her colonial trade, as to other branches, p. 76 ; in which he says she is governed by the same policy of eluding the pressures of war, and of transferring her merchants ships, and mariners from the pursuits of commerce to the operations of war, p. 78; and those remarks occ:ir again in page 79, 81, 160, et seq. and 190—Pray in what do these remarks impugn the rule of 1756. Does Great Britain deny to her enemy the right to open her colonial ports in time of war? No, not a bit more than she denies her the right of conveying her colonial produce in her own ships during war. But Great Britain says this to the belligerent, open your ports, and welcome ; but I will intercept your own trade with them, and all neutral commerce with them too, which you have admitted contrary to your customary peace-regulations. Does any one deny to a belligerent to levy troops in a neutral country? No one certainly. Yet such levy in any country is a good ground of war, and an evident departure from neutrality; and therefore an act of which the injured belligerent has a right to oppose. Does any one deny the right to the belligerent to purchase contraband of war of a neutral nation, and to have it conveyed in a neutral ship? No one denies this right to the belligerent; but the right of affording this supply, help, and succour, is by all denied to the neutral. It is not the right to the belligerent to receive assistance, but the right to the neutral to give it, which is the question. In the case of a blockaded town, no one denies the right of the besieged to receive supplies, but the neutral conveys them at his peril, and subject, if intercepted, to capture and condemnation.
* The relaxations, therefore, of her colonial monopoly by Great Britain, afford no sort of argument against the right which she exercises, of capturing and condemning a neutral trade shut in peace, and opened in war by her enemies.'
In a train of argument agreeably striking and just, our author satisfactorily refutes the calumnies and false reasoning contained in the examination. We shall take one or two more examples, and close our remarks on this interesting subject.
• The advocate of neutral claims, says he, does not attempt to deny the position of Mr. Ward, that a neutral trade is unlawful, which is not with but for an enemy (p. 188) and he acknowledges as a principle settled by ancient judgments, the position laid down by Sir Wm. Scoit, that neutrals are not permitted to trade on freight, (p. 141.) Yet he quibbles upon these propositions, and essays to fritter them down to nothing. He appears incapable of considering commerce in any other relation than that existing between the immediate individuals concerned in it, and never once recollects, that in this discussion it is to be considered, in its relation to the belligerents and the neutrals, as nations. A belligerent coasting trade, of beiligerent produce, may be carried on by neutrals, as property belonging to the neutral owner of the ship; and then to him individually it is not a trading on freight : But is this the just view of the principle, or its just application? A neutral buys wine at Bourdeaux, ships it in his own ship, and sails, intending to carry his cargo to Caen, and there dispose of it. Is not this to every national purpose a trade on freight ? and most decisively, is it not a trade for, instead of with, an enemy? To trade with an enemy, nationally considered, is to trade to and from a country, or between the neutral state and the belligerent power; while to trade for an enemy, is to enable him to have his commerce carried on as usual, to have his internal markets of his own produce and manufactures supplied without interruption, that the consumption of his people may be continued without derangement, and his industry may be unchecked.' And again,' Feeling himself driven from his first position already quoted by both authority, treaty, and practice, and finding himself under the necessity of abandoning the neutral claim to carry on openly the colony and coasting trades of a belligerent, either upon belligerent or neutral account, the American author endeavours to defend the evasion of this rule by his country. Conscious that the citizens of the
United States have abused the indulgence and moderation of Great Britain, in permitting them a trade to and from the West Indian colonies of France, by exporting from American ports their previous imports froin French colonies, and that this passage through the ports and Custon-houses of America, was a mere farce, he complains heavily of súbjecting to capture, colonial produce re-exported from a neutral country to countries, to which a direct transportation from the colonies by vessels of the re-exporting country has been disallowed by British regulations ;'(p. 124.) and contends, that no doubt had existed that our importation of colonial produce into a neutral country, converted it into the commercial stock of the country; with all the rights, especially those of exportation, incident to the produce or manufactures of the country itself. (p. 126. Now to what purpose are those remarks ? Does the author mean to say that neutrals have a right to do that indirectly which they are prohibited from doing directly? Does he mean to justify that fraud, which renders an importation of colonial produce into America a cover, for enabling the neutral flag to carry on the trade between colonies and the mother country? if he does he will not find many to applaud the skill of his evasion, or to approve the morality or honour of his contrivance. Besides, the author admits' experience has finally shewn that the activity, the capital, and the economy, employed by the American traders, bave overpowered the disadvantages incident to the circuit through the ports of the United States.' (p. 132.)-If this then is the case, re-exportations of colonial produce are auxiliary to our enemy's prosperity and revenue, and enable hiin to carry on the war with more vigour and effect (p. 3.) They are therefore on the authority of Grotius, siding with the enemy (p. 10.) or that of Bynkershoek, a taking a part in the war (p. 20.) and in the language of Vattel, an injury which the belligerent has a particular right to oppose (p. 26.)
The appendix contains a brief reply to the letter of Mr. Monroe (the American Plenipotentiary) to Lord Mulgrave, when Secretary of State, added to the second edition of the Examination; and a still shorter, though no less conclusive, refutation of the first pamphlet noticed in this article.
Our opinion on this point is clearly formed from mature deliberation; we sincerely wish that a speedy and permanent peace may again lay the question at rest, and that our country will always have the spirit to assert, and the power to maintain, rights so essential to her existence and prosperity, and, even by the concession of our enemies, so consistent with sound reason, and the fundamental principles of international economy. Art. XIII. A practical Treatise on the Diseases of the Stomach, and of
Digestion, including the History and Treatment of those affections of the Liver and digestive Organs, which occur in persons who return from the East and West Indies, with Observations on various Media cines, and particularly on the improper Use of Emetics. By Arthur Daniel Stone, M. D. Coll. Reg. Lond. Med. Soc. pp. 291. Price 6s. Cadell and Davies, London, 1806.
MONG the most irksome toils of reviewers, we may
tions, which, containing but little in addition to what has been already said on the same subject, can afford but little matter for either praise, censure, or coinment. Although we are obliged to admit that the work before us is one to which this complaint will in a great measure apply, it is but justice to remark, that, although not abundant in original remarks, it plainly evinces that the author is competently in forined, on the topics which he has discussed.
The first part contains some introductory observations on the structure of the stomach and intestines, on digestion, chylification, &c. From the coagulation of milk in the stomachs of animals, the Doctor conceived, that it probably was necessary for milk to be deprived of its watery part, in order to produce its solution; he therefore made the following experiments, to which he appears to have been led by those of Scheele and Deyeux, and the later observations, on the formation of chyle, by Werner.
An ounce of skimmed milk was coagulated by twenty drops of muriatic acid, the liquor was filtered through fine muslin, and forty drops of muriatic acid were added to the curd ; this mixture was again filtered; the curd was somewhat less in quantity, and in finer particles ; to the curd remaining after the second-filtration, eighty drops of muriatic acid were added, and the solution was complete: a scruple of dried nitron was added to this solution, and the curd in fine particles was again precipitated with effervescence; another scruple of nitron was added, and almost the whole of the curd was redissolved.
An ounce of skimmed milk was coagulated as before, with twenty drops of muriatic acid, but it was not filtered; forty drops, and afterwards eighty drops of muriatic acid were added to the unfiltered mixture, as in the former instance to the filtered curd, but nothing like solution of the curd in the whey was produced, nor even on the addition of larger portions of acid. pp. 28,29.
From these it is inferred, that, on the coagulation of milk by the gastric fluid, the watery part is absorbed, and in part passes the pylorus ; that the curd is afterwards dissolved by the gastric fluid in the stomach ; that this solution gives a precipitate in the duodenum, on being mixed with the bile, which precipitate is true chyle.
In the second part of this work, we find the history of diseases of the stoniach. Under this head, observations are offered on the vitiated state of fluids in the stomach; marasmus, repletion of the stomach; poisons; the state of the stomach, and abdominal viscera, produced by hard drinking; pyrosis; melæna; hypochondriasis; sick head-ach; pain of the stomach, &c.
cAs nothing particularly worthy of notice occurs here, we proceed to the third part, in which the treatinent of the different morbid States of the stomach is explained.