frequently allowed full time for the settlement of their affairs. This practice is observed more especially with regard to merchants, and care is moreover taken to provide for their case in commercial treaties. The king of England has done more than this. In his last Declaration of War against France, he ordered that all Frenchmen, who were in his dominions, might remain there in perfect security in regard both to their persons and their property, provided they demeaned themselves dutifully "." Vattel's observation is applicable also to the next following formal Declaration of War made by England (2 Jan. 1762), against Spain; the concluding paragraph of which was to this effect: "And whereas there may be remaining in our kingdom divers of the subjects of the king of Spain, we do hereby declare our Royal intention to be that all the Spanish subjects, who shall demean themselves dutifully towards us, shall be safe in their persons and effects 18" § 48. If the observations of Emérigon and Vattel are limited to the natural born subjects of an Enemy, who have established themselves for the purposes of trade in the country of a belligerent Power before the breaking out of war, much may be said in favour of their view, that such parties cannot be at once treated as enemies by the belligerent Power with due regard Obligation to good faith. They are clearly distinguishable from faith. natural born subjects of the Enemy, who are within the jurisdiction of the belligerent Power at the commencement of a war casually as visitors for the purpose of 17 Droit des Gens, L. III. c. 4. § 63. Vattel published his work in 1758, he is therefore referring to the English Declaration of War against France of 17 May 1756. 18 This Declaration of War against Spain is set forth at of good trade or pleasure. A foreigner who has established a house of trade in the country of a belligerent Power, has given security as it were for his good behaviour, and is contributing by his industry and capital to promote the welfare of the country which he inhabits, equally with its natural born citizens. The Government of the country, on the other hand, having permitted him to establish himself under its jurisdiction. by the side of its natural born subjects, must be taken to have accorded its protection to him, as an adopted subject, equally as to its native subjects. It is obvious therefore that the personal relations of such an individual to the Sovereign of the country in which he has established himself, are substantially different from the personal relations of foreigners in transitu: and that there is a tacit contract between him and the Sovereign, that as long as he obeys his laws, the latter will accord to him his protection; but his relations of strict Right (stricti juris) towards the Sovereign of the country in which he has established himself, will be determined by the Territorial Law, of which he was bound to inform himself, when he first established himself in the country. The Territorial Law of every Nation, for instance, prescribes for the most part certain conditions, under which a foreigner may become a naturalised subject or citizen, and as such have within its territory all the rights and privileges of a natural born subject in time of war, equally as in time of peace. But if a foreigner, resident within the territory of any particular Nation, should not have been naturalised in conformity with the requirements of its Territorial Law, his personal status will continue to be that of an alien, and if war should arise between his native country and the country in which he has established himself, his personal relation with the latter country will be that of an alien enemy. An indepen dent Power under such circumstances will be justified in case of war, in the exercise of its strict Right, to order him, with all other alien enemies, to quit its dominions, although he may have established himself therein bona fide for purposes of trade, and have acquired a commercial domicile under the Law of Nations. But in exercising his strict Right, a belligerent Sovereign must observe good faith towards such persons, and allow them a reasonable interval of time to collect and transport their goods and effects. It would be inconsistent altogether with good faith to treat them in a summary manner as enemies, unless the public safety imperatively required it,-as, for instance, if they should be in league with the Enemy, and be preparing to co-operate with an invading army. In such a case there would be bad faith on their part, and the Sovereign of the country might at once exercise his extreme Right, as a belligerent, against them with perfect good faith on his part. § 49. It may be affirmed, that there is now a long established Practice amongst the Christian Powers of Europe, from which it would be an immoral act for any of them to depart without notice, to refrain from seizing the effects of alien merchants, who are resident for purposes of trade within their territory at the time. when war breaks out. It was one of the provisions of the Great Charter of King John (15 June 1215), that "all merchants (unless publicly prohibited beforehand) might have safe conduct to depart from, to come into, to tarry in and go through England for the exercise of merchandise, without any unreasonable impost, except in time of war; and that upon the breaking out of war with their Nation they should be attached (if in England) without harm of body or goods, until the King or his great Justiciary be informed how English merchants are treated in the Enemy's country; and if English merchants are secure, then the enemy merchants should have the Ancient same security 19." The early practice of England would Provisional thus appear to have been to embargo enemy merEmbargo. chants at the commencement of the war, and to practice of release them subsequently on conditions of reciprocity being observed. Such also seems to have been the practice of the Scandinavian Nations 20; and a passage in Matthew Paris seems to show that it had been the ancient practice of the kings of France not to seize the persons or goods of enemy merchants, who were resident within their dominions when war broke out, as he censures the conduct of Louis IX. of France in 1242, in arresting the persons and goods of the English merchants trading within the kingdom upon the breaking out of war, as contrary to duty and derogatory to the ancient dignity of the kingdom. Henry III. of England, on hearing of the king of France's severity, immediately retaliated by reprisals against the persons of French merchants resident in England 21. Whatever may have been the practice of France in the thirteenth century, it seems probable that the interests of international commerce had not at that period given rise to any fixed rule amongst Nations. But we find in the middle of the fourteenth century (A.D. 1354), that it was an express provision of the Law of England, that foreign merchants residing 19 Blackstone's Commentaries, facto antiquam Galliæ dignitaVol. I. p. 260. tem. Cum autem hujus pro 20 Stiernhook de Jure Sueon, tervitatis infamia aures et cor L. III. c. 4. 21 Rex Francorum mercatorum Angliæ corpora cum suis bonis, per regnum negotiantium, secus quam decuit, capi feraliter imperavit, lædens enormiter in hoc Regis Angliæ tetigisset, jussit similiter ut per regnum Anglorum mercatores regni Galliæ subirent merito talionem. Matth. Paris, Hist. p. 485. in England 22, when war broke out, should have convenient warning of forty days, by proclamation, to depart the realm with their goods; and if by reason of accident they should be prevented from so doing, they were to be allowed forty other days to pass with their merchandise, with liberty to sell the same. The example of England in this matter was soon afterwards followed by King Charles V. of France, when he issued an ordinance declaring that foreign merchants who should be trading in France at the time of the Declaration of War, should have nothing to fear, for they should have liberty to depart freely with their effects 23. subjects the terri tory of a § 50. In the fifteenth century the importance of Enemyinternational commerce began to be generally appre- resident in ciated by Governments, more particularly as the Confederation of the Hanse Towns gave great political belligerent. weight to mercantile interests; and we find accordingly a treaty concluded between the Hanse Towns and Louis XI. of France (anno 1483) under which merchants of the Hanse Confederation were to be at liberty to remain in the French dominions for one year after war broke out, with protection of persons and goods. In the next century it came to be a common stipulation in treaties of commerce, that a period of time, varying from three months to two years24, should be allowed to the subjects of the contracting parties after war should have been declared, to withdraw themselves and their goods and effects in safety from the enemy's country. France seems to have been eminently the leading Power in entering into such treaties 25. Thus we find a treaty concluded 22 Statute of Staples, 27 Ed. III. c. 17. 23 Hérault, Abrégé Chronologique de l'Histoire de la France, L. I. p. 338. 24 Dumont, Corps Diplom. L. III. p. 23. 25 In the treaty between Por |