The doctrines laid down in these and in other treatises on international law, are thus condensed by Martens (Book 3, c. 3, s. 9): "The conqueror has a right to seize on the property of the enemy, whether moveable or immoveable. These seizures may be made, first, in order to obtain what he demands as his due, or an equivalent; secondly, to defray the expenses of the war; thirdly, to force the enemy to an equitable peace; fourthly, to deter him, or, by reducing his strength, to hinder him from repeating in future the injuries which have been the cause of the war. And, with this last object in view, a power at war has a right to destroy the property and possessions of the enemy, for the express purpose of doing him mischief. However, the modern laws of war do not permit the destruction of any thing, except, first, such things as the enemy cannot be deprived of by any other means than those of destruction, and which it is at the same time necessary to deprive him of; secondly, such things as, after being taken, cannot be kept, and which might, if not destroyed, strengthen the enemy; thirdly, such things as cannot be preserved without injury to the military operations. To all these we may add, fourthly, whatever is destroyed by way of retaliation." Vattel, however, qualifies this rule by exempting from seizure and confiscation real property (immeubles) held by the enemy's subjects within the belligerent state, which, having been acquired by the consent of the sovereign, is to be considered as on the same footing with the property of his own subjects, and not liable to confiscation jure belli. But he adds, that the rents and profits may be sequestrated, in order to prevent their being remitted to the enemy.

The first mode by which a belligerent proceeds to assail the commerce of his enemy is by embargo, the effect of which is to detain vessels in the ports where they may be lying. Embargoes, which are imposed on various occasions and for various purposes, are of two descriptions, warlike or civil. The former is imposed by a nation upon such foreign vessels within her ports as belong to states against whom she has declared war, or is about to declare it. Vattel lays it down as a rule that a nation is not at liberty to seize that part of her enemy's property which is in her dominions at the time of the declaration, because it came into her power upon the faith of previously existing peace. But declarations of war are not construed to take effect merely from the time when a formal notification of hostility is given; there are certain preceding acts, of a hostile nature, which are deemed to be virtually declarations of war, to certain intents and purposes, though they may be explained away and annulled by a subsequent accommodation between the governments. When, therefore, a nation receives certain injuries, for which she sees no prospect of obtaining redress, she is reduced to consider hostilities as virtually declared, and issues an embargo upon the commerce of the offending state then lying within her ports, in order to indemnify herself in the only way in which, perhaps, it may be possible for her to obtain indemnification at all. In this case, the hostile property, which comes to her hands after the commission of the injury, may be, and is regarded, as having come to her hands after the declaration of hostilities, though that declaration have not been duly and formally notified; and, therefore,

the case of embargo is not within the prohibition of Vattel, which reaches to the exemption only of goods in our hands at the time of the declaration, and does not cover property coming into our territory after that declaration, whether such declaration be only virtual, or whether it be announced with all the fulness of formality. If in the ports of this kingdom, an order of Council puts a general embargo on the ships of any foreign state, and reprisals afterwards take place, it is not contended that such vessels would not be condemnable as prize to the king jure coronæ. The Overyssel was a case of that description, and no question was raised about it; it passed, in a manner sub silentio, as a matter of common condemnation, and no observation was made upon it, but many material distinctions seem to render that case no authority on the present question. That ship was detained on an embargo laid on the ports of this kingdom, and operating therefore with just force and authority to produce its effect; but no embargo issuing in this country can operate with any effect, beyond the limits of the realm; it is a mere nullity as to other countries.

In The Boedes Lust (5 Rob. 246), an embargo had been laid upon Dutch property, by Great Britain, previously to an open declaration of war, but under such circumstances of injustice on the part of Holland, as were considered by the British Government as amounting to an implied declaration of war; and the formal declaration, which afterwards supervened, was deemed to have a retrospective effect, confirming all that had been done by an embargo under the implied declaration. "The seizure," said Lord

Stowell, "was at first equivocal; and if the matter in dispute had terminated in reconciliation, the seizure would have been converted into a mere civil embargo, so terminated. That would have been the retroactive effect of that course of circumstances. On the contrary, if the transactions end in hostility, the retroactive effect is directly the other way. It impresses the direct hostile character upon the original seizure; it is declared to be embargo; it is no longer an equivocal act subject to no two interpretations: there is a declaration of the animus by which it was done; that it was done hostili animo, and is to be considered as a hostile measure ab initio. The property taken is liable to be used as the property of persons trespassers ab initio, and guilty of injuries which they have refused to redeem by any amicable alteration of their measures. This is the necessary course, if no particular compact intervenes for the restitution of such property taken before a formal declaration of hostilities." (See also The Herstelder, 1 Rob. 114.)

As warlike embargoes are enforced against enemies, so civil embargoes are employed in the case of allies and subjects. "The civil embargo," says Beawes, (Lex Mercatoria, 271,) "is laid on ships and merchandize in the ports of this kingdom, by virtue of the king's proclamation, and is strictly legal, when the proclamation does not contravene the ancient laws, or tend to establish new ones, but only to enforce the execution of such laws as are already in being, in such manner as the king shall judge necessary." "The law," says Blackstone (i. 7), " is, that the king may prohibit any individual of his subjects from leaving the kingdom. A proclamation, therefore, forbidding this,

in general for three weeks, by laying an embargo upon all shipping in time of war, will be equally binding with an act of parliament, because founded on a prior law." (See also 4 Mod. 177-179; Skinner, 93, 335; 1 Salk. 32; 3 Inst. 162.)

But this civil embargo cannot be imposed upon British ships in a foreign port, unless by the concurring authority of the state to which that port belongs; for the king has no right to disturb the peace of neighbouring nations by any seizures, however useful to the interests of his own people. This principle is established by Lord Stowell, in The Gertruyda (2 Rob. 211). "In the first place, it is not necessary that the embargo should be exactly of the same nature, in order to vest the rights of the Crown; for any mode of forcible occupancy or detainer, prior to hostilities, is sufficient for the purpose." Even within the jurisdiction of this kingdom, the prerogative of the sovereign, with respect to the imposition of embargoes, is of a nature by no means unlimited, or absolute. Among the many reports that are to be found, of the great case of Sands v. East India Company, there is one in Salkeld, p. 32, where it is set down as agreed, that the king may lay embargoes; but then it must be for the public good, and not for the private advantage of a particular trader or company; and the embargo which was issued by his majesty to prevent the exportation of corn in 1766, is noticed by Beawes (Lex Mercatoria, p. 276), as having been illegally imposed, "Such exportation,' says he, "being allowed by law at the time;" and, therefore, the preamble to the stat. 7 Geo. 3, c. 7, for indemnifying all persons advising or acting under the order of council laying an embargo on all ships