the 17th century, pronounces that goods in an enemy's ship are to be treated as hostile property until the contrary be shown, but if this can be done they ought to be released. 1 Molloy, again, thus expresses himself:-"If the goods of friends are found in the ships of enemies, this does not ipso facto subject the same to be prize by the Law of Nations, ́though it be a violent presumption, and may justly bear a legal examination.”2 Heineccius, the author of an approved work, published in 1721, on Maritime Captures, expressly states, that the goods of a friend found on board the ship of an enemy ought to be released. 3 Bynkershoek likewise concurs in the doctrine that the enemy's ship is lawful prize, but that the neutral property on board is free. His work appeared in 1737. "Cape, si potes quodcunque est hostis tui, sed mihi redde quod meum est, quia amicus tuus sum, et impositione rerum mearum nihil sum molitus in necem tuam."4 The reply of the British Government to the Prussian memorial of 1752 treats it as a settled rule, that the goods of a friend ought to be given up to him, although found on board the ship of an enemy. This masterly state paper is supposed to have been framed by Lord Mansfield. His Vattel is the next writer in order of succession. work was published in 1758. He thus expresses his views: The effects of neutrals found in an enemy's ship are to be restored to the owners, against whom there is no right of confiscation."5 Lord Liverpool's celebrated "Discourse on the Conduct of the Government of Great Britain towards Neutral Nations" assumes the same doctrine as the settled practice of this country. This pamphlet appeared about the same time as Vattel's "Treatise on the Law of Nations." Chancellor Kent also thus addresses himself to the same point: "During the whole course of the wars growing out of the French Revolution, the Government of the United States admitted 1 De Jure Maritimo et Navali, lib. ii. c. 4. s. 11. 4 Quest, Jur. Publ. lib. i c. 13. 3 De Navibus, &c., c. 2. s. 9. Lib. iii. c. 7. s. 115. the English rule to be valid, as the true and settled doctrine of international law. The two distinct propositions that enemy's goods found on board a neutral ship may lawfully be seized as prize of war, and that the goods of a neutral found on board an enemy's vessel were to be restored, have been explicitly incorporated into the jurisprudence of the United States, and declared by the Supreme Court to be founded on the Law of Nations."1 "It is a principle," says Chancellor Kent, "of the law of nations relative to neutral rights, that the effects of neutrals found on board of enemy's vessels shall be free; and it is a right as fully and finally settled as the other [that enemy's property on board neutral ships is not free]: though, like that, it is often changed by positive agreement.” After referring to the Consolato del Mare, he thus proceeds: "The former ordinances of France of 1543, 1585, and 1681, declared such goods to be lawful prize; and Valin justifies the ordinances on the ground that the neutral, by putting his property on board of an enemy's vessel, favours the enemy's commerce, and agrees to abide the fate of the vessel. But it is fully and satisfactorily shown, by the whole current of modern authority, that the neutral has a perfect right to avail himself of the vessel of his friend to transport his property; and Bynkershoek has devoted an entire chapter to the vindication of the justice and equity of the right." 2 "The rule that the goods of an enemy found in the vessel of a friend are prize of war, and those of a friend found in the vessel of an enemy, are to be restored, is a part of the law of nations, and has been fully and unequivocably recognised by the law of the United States. " 3 The French Law and Practice has undoubtedly been always opposed to these authorities, which are, in our opinion, conclusive against the view apparently taken of British rights by the authors of the declaration. It may, however, have been thought necessary to exhibit a complete accordance between French and English Governments in this as well as other matters connected with the war. But we regret that any clause of a declaration so liberally conceived should be disentitled in the eyes of neutrals to those Kent's Comm. i. 126, &c. 2 Kent's Comm. 127, 4th edit. The Nereide, 9 Cranch, 388.; 3 Cond. Rep. 439. commendations which the general scope of the instrument will infallibly secure to it at home and abroad. The only legal publication of a substantial nature which the present occasion has called forth, is "A Manual of the Law of Maritime War," by Mr. Hazlitt and Mr. Roche, in which all the doctrines relating to these interesting subjects will be found very fully collected, and illustrated by the principal judicial authorities' decisions of England and America. This work is in use in the principal offices of State, and is supplied also to the British embassies in foreign countries as a ready guide for solving the numerous and difficult questions which the long discontinuance of war with European Powers has rendered rather unfamiliar to our diplomatists. Dr. R. Phillimore's publication is the first part of a large and comprehensive work, extending to all the various branches of international law, and is in nowise confined to war or to the rights of belligerents. It has not been called into existence by the present crisis, but is the fruit of long previous study and preparation; and we notice it here as a work which bids fair to remedy the deficiency which has so long existed in our legal libraries, and which even the admirable works of Story and Wheaton are insufficient to fill up. This will be a work for the student as well as for the more advanced jurist, and we trust that Dr. R. Phillimore will apply his best energies to the completion of the undertaking thus worthily commenced. 5 Annual Report of the Society for Amending the Law. 381 ART. IX. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE AMENDMENT OF THE LAW. ELEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL. IN reviewing the proceedings of the Society during the past year for the purpose of presenting their Eleventh Annual Report, the Council are gratified to have to observe on the steady progress of Law Reform. A year marked by great national excitement, — spent either in the immediate anticipation, or in the actual prosecution, of a foreign war, was not likely to be distinguished by many improvements in our internal administration. Least of all was it probable that a subject so technical as the Amendment of the Law must, in the present state of our jurisprudence, necessarily be, should attract popular attention in any great degree. Yet the Council are happy to reflect that no retrogression in public opinion concerning Law Reform has been observable, that the labours of the Society have been steadily pursued, and that several measures framed to effect substantial improvements in our law, have during the present Session been introduced into Parliament. The subjects which have chiefly occupied the attention of the Society have been, Law Reporting the Ecclesiastical Courts the Reformation of Juvenile Offenders-the Assimilation of the Commercial Laws of the United Kingdomthe Commission on the Inns of Court-and the Appointment of a Minister of Justice. LAW REPORTING. On this important subject a Committee of the Society have, during the last year, made a second Report, in which they urge the necessity for establishing a system of authorised Reports, which should supersede the many publications of the kind now in existence. It cannot be doubted that the number of different Reports of the decisions of our Judges, no less than the prolixity of many of them, has tended to increase the uncertainty of the law, while it has entailed a heavy burden on the legal profession. The Council cannot venture to hope for the immediate cessation of an evil which, remarked on three centuries ago by Lord Bacon, referred to continually by our best judges and jurists, and never defended seriously by any one, has yet been suffered to continue without any vigorous effort for its removal. Yet they trust that by once more drawing attention to its existence, and even to its increase, they may be hastening the time for its ultimate, though it may not be its speedy extinction. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. Great interest has been felt in the Society in regard to the Report on these Courts, made after long and arduous deliberation by a numerous Committee. Valuable assistance had been rendered in the preparation of that Report by several gentlemen of eminence connected with Doctors Commons, and it was satisfactory to find that a general concurrence of opinion existed as to the expediency of an extensive reform. Some difference of opinion, however, arose as to the nature of the change that ought to be introduced; for while some contended for the retention of the Ecclesiastical Courts on an amended plan, others recommended the transfer of their jurisdiction to the Courts of Chancery or of Common Law, or to the County Courts, while a third course was proposed for establishing a new Court altogether. Several animated discussions took place in the Society previous to the adoption of the Report, but at length a series of resolutions was carried, recommending that the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in all testamentary matters should be transferred to the Superior Courts at Westminster, which should be clothed with full powers both of Law.and Equity, and should each be open to the suitor at his option, and that the County Courts should be made ancillary to the Superior Courts in this matter. During the present Session of Parliament a Bill has been introduced by the Government for the transfer |