of such privilege would interfere with the specifick measures of hostility actually and immediately pursued by the other belligerent. In point of duty, the neutral should refrain from taking any share in the war, and from giving aid or assistance to either party, for offence or defence. So far all parties are agreed; but there is matter enough for contention remaining. "The author of War in Disguise contends, that, by these definitions, neutrals are excluded from the colonial trade of a belligerent; they are only to retain in war what they enjoyed in peace; but as they were entirely excluded from this trade in peace, they can have no claim to any share of it in war upon the footing of mere neutrality. Their rights are sufficiently respected, if they are left during the war in as good a condition as before it began; and they have no cause to complain if a belligerent follows out his own hostile interest, by restraining them from usurping what he has disabled the enemy from retaining. In point of fact, it is added, that this usurpation of a new trade tends directly to aid and assist one of the parties in the war, and to defeat and obstruct the lawful hostilities of the other: it is therefore a clear violation of the duties of neutrality. • We confess that we cannot agree with any part of this interpretation. The general principle is, that a neutral shall suffer no prejudice from the war, but shall remain in point of right, on the same footing as if peace had never been violated. Now, it was the right of a neutral, in time of peace, to trade with every country in the world, from the sovereign or proprietors of which he had received permission, and to be free from all challenge or interruption from any other party. That right and that freedom, however, is utterly destroyed in time of war, if a belligerent may interfere with his trade to any quarter of the world over which it has no dominion, and with the sovereigns of which it is admitted that the rights of the neutral were to remain as free and as ample as ever. It was his undoubted right, in time of peace, to treat with every other nation for leave to trade with its colonies; and if this right is lost by the war, it is in vain to say that he has not suffered prejudice by that occurrence. It is plain, indeed, that the advocates for the exclusion are sensible of the impossibility of maintaining it on the mere want of right in the neutral, when they proceed to contend, that the trade which they wish to restrain is in substance an interference in the war, and a breach of the duties of neutrality. If this be the case, it ought no doubt to be interdicted upon that footing; but it ought to be clearly understood at the same time, that this is the ground on which it is objected to; and that all that is wanting for its justification, is to show that it does not assist the one belligerent, nor distress the other, in such a way as is inconsistent with the ftrict duties of neutrality. Now, upon this head, we are inclined to hold, that the assistance or obstruction to which this description applies, must bear a direct refer ence to the hostile efforts of the two belligerents, and that the neutral character will not be violated merely by carrying on a trade with one of them, in such a way as to give him a share of its commercial advantages, while the other is obstructed in nothing but its general desire to impoverish the traders of the enemy. To relieve a place which is blockaded, is a direct interference with a specifick act of hostility, and tends to defeat a scheme of annoyance, which is then in the course of execution. It is therefore interdicted by the law of nations, as an evident transgression of the duties of neutrality. To carry arms or warlike stores, in like manner, to a nation whose means of attack or defence must depend in a great measure on the possession of such articles, has a direct and immediate effect to alter the fortune of the war, and is nearly as palpable an interference in it, as to give or lend to one party a supply of soldiers or sailors. All traffick with a belligerent, in such articles, has accordingly been prohibited; and the right of seizing contraband of war, been recognized from time immemorial. But it has, for as long, been thought lawful for a neutral to trade freely with a belligerent in every other article, and to buy and sell with him upon terms of mutual profit and advantage; nor has it ever been pretended that this trade was illegal, merely because it was a source of emolument to the belligerent as well as to the neutral, and in this way interfered eventually with his enemy's lawful endeavours to bring him to a submission, by cutting off all his resources and means of revenue In this point of view, however, it is evident that there is no room for distinguishing between the colonial trade of a belligerent and any other trade which may be carried on between him and a neutral. The belligerent has a profit by both, and is thus enabled to carry on the war with undiminished resources, while the enemy's views of impoverishment are obstructed by means of the neutral. It can make no difference to either party, whether the neutral buys wine in the ports of the mother country, or rum in those of her colonies. The assistance which he gives to one belligerent, and the consequent obstruction he occasions to the views of the other, are the same in both cases; and if the one trade be undoubtedly lawful, it will not be easy to shew that the other is not.' DIGNIFIED RETIREMENT. IT is amusing to hear our Jacobins prating about the 'heartfelt satisfaction' of 'a LINCOLN' in dignified retirement. What act of Lieutenant Governour Lincoln's whole political career entitles him to the approbation of independent citizens?" Is this heart-felt satisfaction to be the result of His Honour's reflec tions on the patriotism, the wisdom, and the virtue, which have characterised his six-month's administration? We know of nothing on which his Honour can reflect with more pleasure than the circumstance of his retiring before he had lost the confidence of his own party. He ought to bless the federalists for permitting him to go into his dignified retirement so early for had he continued in office another year, his folly and ignorance. would have made him the scorn of the party who elected him, and the pity of his opponents. : We wish his honour may enjoy all the satisfaction he is entitled to in cultivating his farm, planting turnpike roads with poplars, or any other employment more congenial to his feelings.We expect shortly, to hear him, after the example of Jefferson, asking the jacobins of Worcester, whose ox, or whose ass have I stolen ? and talking of heart felt satisfaction, and the pleasure of a good conscience. He undoubtedly flatters himself that his political vices and his wilful violation of the constitution will be forgotten. Deluded man! He is not beyond the reach of satire. For when to truth allied, the wound she gives Sinks deep, and to remotest ages lives. When in the tomb thy pamper'd flesh shall rot, And e'en by friends, thy memory be forgot; Still shalt thou live, recorded for thy crimes, Live in her page, and stink to after times. RECENT PUBLICATIONS. 18 An Address from the Berean Society of Universalists in Boston, to the Congregation of the first Church in Weymouth, in answer to a Sermon Delivered in said Church, March 18, 1808, by their pastor, Rev. Jacob Norton, A. M. entitled, The will of God, respecting the Salvation of all men, illustrated.' Boston, Munroe, Francis & Parker. 19 Report of the Committee appointed by the General Assembly of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence plantations, at the February Session, 1809, to enquire into the situation of the Farmer's Exchange Bank in Gloucester, with the documents accompanying the same. Published by order of the General Assembly. 20 The Pleasures of Reason, or the Hundred Thoughts of a sensible young Lady; to which are added Moral Miscellanies, by R. Gillet. Boston, Lincoln & Edmands and T. Wells. THE arguments upon the subject of the rule which is to establish some permanent authority to which this country may always appeal in her future commercial transactions with belligerent colonies, will soon be revived, and the old controversies of the year 1806-7, will again be agitated with as much warmth and animation as ever. The interests of Great-Britain have evidently driven her into many contradictions and inconsistencies as to the settlement of this rule, and various doctrines have been laid down and deserted by her, whenever she has considered it necessary to her safety, or the aggrandizement of her power, until it has terminated in the unqualified assertion, that the neutral shall enjoy no commerce in time of war, from which he was debarred in time of peace, on the ground that traffick conducted on more liberal principles would essentially be interfering in the war, or injure one belligerent by assisting the other. We think the fallacy of this doctrine is well exposed in the arguments which follow. The general principle upon which Great-Britain declares against the legality of this trade, is that it tends to enrich the enemy, and that it was not carried on by the neutral in peace. Now, if this be a sufficient, ground of condemnation, it must follow that that every trade is illegal, into which a neutral enters with a belligerent for the first time during war; and that it is absolutely unlawful to throw any part of the traffick formerly carried on by the belligerent into neutral hands. In opposi tion to this maxim, however, it will be easy to shew, that upon the breaking out of a war, neutrals have always been permitted to take up many branches of trade that were formerly in the hands of the belligerents, and that their right to carry them on has never been disputed, upon the ground of the security or profit derived therefrom to the enemy. There are a variety of branches of trade in which this must occur invariably in every war between two maritime and commercial nations. In the first place there is the trade between the two belligerents themselves. Vol. I. W w This, of course, in its direct original state, is altogether destroyed and suspended by the war ; but if the nations have a mutual and permanent demand for the products of each other's territory, the traffick will infallibly go on as formerly; and the only difference will be, that the trade which was formerly conducted by the ships and sailors of the belligerents, will now fall wholly into the hands of neutrals. This is in all respects a new trade to the neutral, and an addition to his former trade, arising entirely out of the war. It is productive likewise of profit and emolument to the belligerent, and ought therefore to be condemned as unlawful, according to the doctrine of the writer now under consideration. But this is by no means the only new trade into which neutrals are uniformly admitted without challenge in the course of a maritime war: A very considerable part of the general trade of the belligerents passes naturally into their hands. In time of peace a maritime nation carries a great part of its exports to the foreign purchaser, and brings home in its own vessels a great part of its imports. As soon as it engages in war, however it ceases to be profitable for it to do this; the rates of wages and insurance, are necessarily raised; and even where it maintains the superiority at sea, the risk and the expence of transportation become considerably greater than when the same commodities are embarked in neutral bottoms. Accordingly it inevitably happens, that the neutral purchaser finds it for his advantage to come for those goods which the belligerent used formerly to send out to him in her own ships; and the belligerent finds it more convenient that her imports should be brought into her ports by vessels not liable to capture. In this way, a large part of the hostile commerce is naturally transferred to the hands of neutrals, and that for the very purpose of avoiding the risk of capture by an enemy. It was never pretended, however, we believe upon any side, to condemn this new trade as unlawful. Even in our own ports, it is probable there are now more than double the number of neutral veffels that found business there in time of peace; and in those of France and Spain the number is increased tenfold. They there deliver the produce of their own and other foreign countries, and take on board the commodities of the hostile territory, to distribute in all those markets to which they were formerly carried in a great measure by the ships of the enemy which they have superseded. Yet this. new war trade between the neutral and the enemy, we do not so much as pretend to find fault with, or to denounce as beyond the rights of neutrality. The new neutral trade with the colonies, we conceive, however, is not to be distinguished from this new neutral trade with the home ports of the enemy; and the admitted legality of the one is pretty conclusive, therefore, in favour of the legality of the other also. Neutrals were not, perhaps, excluded from the former, during peace, by any positive laws or prohibitions; but they were excluded, in point of fact, as effectual |