naret hoc juri et commodo reipublicæ quæ merces prohibuit." Apply this in the same manner. But if the goods sold were to be delivered in England, where they are prohibited, the contract is void, and the buyer shall not be liable in an action for the *price, because it would [*487] be an inconvenience and prejudice to the State if such an action could be maintained. "The gist of the whole turns upon this, that the conclusive delivery was at Dunkirk. If the defendant had bespoke the tea at Dunkirk to be sent to England at a certain price, and the plaintiff had undertaken to send it into England, or had had any concern in the running it into England, he would have been an offender against the laws of this country. But upon the facts of this case, from the first to the last, he clearly has offended against no law of England. Therefore let the rule for a new trial be discharged.' “The three other judges concurred." No. 3. In the 4th year of George IV., the following case was decided in the Court of King's Bench :—(7) JAMES V. CATHERWOOD.-(June, 1823.) "Assumpsit for money lent. Plea, first, non-assumpsit, and second, the statute of Limitations. At the trial before Abbott, C. J., at the Second Middlesex Sittings in Easter Term, it appeared that the money in question was lent by plaintiff to defendant in France, in the year 1814, where both parties then resided. To prove the loan, receipts for the money, dated in the year 1817, and signed by the defendant, but not stamped, were tendered in evidence. The defendant's counsel objected to those receipts as inadmissible, and offered to show, that by the law of France, such receipts required a stamp; but the learned judge being of opinion that they were admissible here, as acknowledgements of the debt, without any stamp, rejected that evidence, and the plaintiff had a verdict. "Chitty now moved for a new trial, on the ground that the defendant should have been allowed to produce evidence of the law of France, to show that in that country such receipts were not legal without a stamp, and contended that as every contract must be entered into in conformity with the lex loci, it was competent to the defendent to show that this contract had not so been entered into. (Best, J.-Can we take notice of the revenue laws of France?' Abbott, C. J. That is the question. In the time of Lord Hardwicke, it became a maxim, that the Courts of this country will not take notice of the revenue laws of a foreign State. There is no reciprocity between nations in this respect. Foreign States do not take any notice of our stamp laws, and why *should we [*488] be so courteous to them, when they do not give effect to ours?') There certainly was a dictum of Lord Hardwicke, that an English Court cannot take notice of the revenue laws of a foreign country, but here was (1) 3 Dowling & Ryland's Reports, pp. 190-1. no solemn decision upon that point; which seems rather to have been taken for granted, than grounded on any authority. It is admitted by foreign writers, and others, that though an instrument made in a foreign country, may not be admissible in evidence, yet it does not make it void; but that if any use is to be made of it, evidence must be adduced to show that it has been framed according to the lex loci. Upon this principle it is a matter worthy of further consideration, whether it was not competent to the defendant to show that, by the law of France, these receipts would not be binding in that country unless stamped. "Abbott, C. J.-This point is too plain for argument. It has been settled, or at least considered as settled, ever since the time of Lord Hardwicke, that in a British Court we cannot take notice of the revenue laws of a foreign State. It would be productive of prodigious inconve nience, if in every case in which an instrument was executed in a foreign country, we were to receive in evidence what the law of that country was, in order to ascertain whether the instrument was or was not valid. Nothing must be taken by the motion.' 66 Holroyd, J.(m) and Best, J. concurred. "Rule refused." No. 4. It is difficult to strive against the authority of Hardwicke, Mansfield, and Tenterden, but the international jurist must lament that a more liberal view of international obligations, by way of comity at least, has not been taken by these great luminaries of the English law. And it is right to add that the authority of Stowell supports a case of gross fraud upon an enemy which it is difficult to reconcile with the laxest views of belligerent morality. The case is as follows: CASE OF THE LONDON.(n) "This was also the case of a British ship and cargo, captured by an American privateer, the captain of which offered to restore the ship and cargo to the master, on condition of his drawing a bill for 1,000Z., payable in London. The master accepted the restitution on these terms, and accordingly drew a bill to that amount; but took care to send advices to London in time to *prevent payment of it. A demand was now made by him for salvage on the cargo, as recaptured from the enemy. The value of the cargo was stated to be from 1,5007. to 2,0007. “The Court gave him one-tenth and his expenses." No. 5. [*489] To these cases it should be added that it was actually held in the case of Smith v. Marconnay, (o) "that the maker of paper in England, know (m) Bayley, J., was absent. (n) 2 Dodson's Admiralty Reports, 74. (0) 2 Peake's Reports, 81. ingly made by him for the purpose of forging assignats upon the same, to be exported to France in order to commit frauds there on other persons, might recover damages for not accepting such paper pursuant to contract." The same doctrine has been held by the American Courts in various cases. In the Santissima Trinidad, Mr. Justice Story says "The question as to the original illegal armament and outfit of the Independencia may be dismissed in a few words. It is apparent, that though equipped as a vessel of war, she was sent to Buenos Ayres on a commercial adventure, contraband, indeed, but in no shape violating our laws or our national neutrality. If captured by a Spanish ship of war during the voyage, she would have been justly condemned as good prize, and for being engaged in a traffic prohibited by the law of nations. But there is nothing in our laws, or in the law of nations, that forbids our citizens from sending armed vessels, as well as munitions of war, to foreign ports for sale. It is a commercial adventure which no nation is bound to prohibit, and which only exposes the persons engaged in it to the penalty of confiscation. Supposing, therefore, the voyage to have been for commercial purposes, and the sale at Buenos Ayres to have been a bona fide sale, (and there is nothing in the evidence before us to contradict it,) there is no pretence to say that the original outfit on the voyage was illegal, or that a capture made after the sale was for that cause alone, invalid."(p) But Dr. Story, A similar doctrine has been laid down in other cases. in his Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, speaking as a jurist, reprobates, with Pothier, the principle of these decisions. Dr. Story says"It might be different according to the received, although it should seem upon principle indefensible, doctrine of judicial tribunals, if the contract were made in some other country, or in the foreign country to which the parties belong; for (as has been seen) it has been long laid down as a settled principle, that no nation is bound to protect, or to regard the revenue laws of another country; and, therefore, a contract *made [*490] in one country by subjects or residents there to evade the revenue laws of another country, is not deemed illegal in the country of its origin. Against this principle Pothier(g) has argued strongly as being inconsistent with good faith and the moral duties of nations. Valin,(r) however, supports it; and Emérigon(s) defends it, upon the unsatisfactory ground, that smuggling is a vice common to all nations. An enlightened policy, founded upon national justice as well as national interest, would seem to favour the opinion of Pothier in all cases where positive legislation has not adopted the principle as a retaliation upon the narrow and exclusive revenue system of another nation. The contrary doctrine seems, however, firmly established in the actual practice of modern nations, without any such discrimination, too firmly, perhaps, to be shaken, except by some legislative act abolishing it.”(t) (p) 7 Wheaton's (Amer.) Reports, 340. (9) Pothier, Assur. n. 58. (r) 2 Valin Comn. art. 49, p. 127. (s) Emérigon, c. 8, s. 5, pp. 212, 215. The passage in Pothier to which Dr. Story refers, is as follows : "Lorsque l'arrêt a été fait pour cause de contrebande, et que les marchandises assurées s'étant trouvées de contrebande ont été confisquées, cette perte doit-elle tomber sur les assureurs? Par exemple, un nêgociant François a fait charger en Espagne clandestinement des marchandises de soierie, contre les loix d'Espagne, qui en défendent l'exportation: le vaisseau a été arrêté par les Officiers du Roi d'Espagne, et les marchandises confisquées, comme étant chargées en contrebande. Les assureurs sont-ils tenus de cette perte? Vaslin tient l'affirmative, pourvu que les assureurs aient eu connoissance que les marchandises qu'on a fait assurer étoient de contrebande: car s'ils l'avoient ignoré, il n'est pas douteux, en ce cas, qu'ils n'en seroient pas tenus: ils ne pourroient pas être censés s'être soumis au risque de la confiscation pour cause de contrebande, n'ayant pas de connoissance que les marchandises fussent de contrebande."(u) It appears that the Judicial Tribunal in Prussia do, to their great credit be it said, hold that a contract relating to the smuggling into a foreign country of goods prohibited by the revenue laws of that country, is illegal and invalid, as being contra bonos mores (guten Sitten zuwider.) -Heffters, Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart, § 31, n. 21. *APPENDIX III. (PAGE 79. CHAP. 8.) [*491] TREATIES-INTERPRETATION of. No. 1. Interpretatio § 4. Pacis Monasteriensis, 30 Januar. 1648.(x) "LONGUM esset exponere, quæ Pontificiorum fuerit conditio in Belgio Foederato ab initio Reipublicæ ad hæc usque tempora. Ne quidem animus est commemorare, quæ in Imperio Ordinum Generalium, et quæ in singulis Provinciis contra solos Ecclesiasticos, qui Pontifici Romano adsurgunt, constituta et decreta sunt. In rem nostram sufficit scire, ut Laicis Pontificiis in Belgio Foederato libere morari semper licuit, ita Clericis, etiam ante pacem Monasteriensem, non licuisse. Jesuitis quidem,. qui in Belgio Foederato invenirentur, 600, florenorum mulctam Ordines. Generales constituerunt in Edictis 26 Febr., 1622, 8 Sept., 1692, et 30 Aug., 1641, ceteris omnibus Ecclesiasticis Belgio Foederato simpliciter interdicto, exceptis duutaxat iis, qui ante annum 1722, hic habitassent, dummodo intra dies octo nomina sua ad Magistratum loci, ubi degunt, deferrent, et secundum leges Ordinum viverent. "Recte se habebant ea Edicta tempore belli Hispanici, quo facta sunt, sed quæro, an recte se habeat Edictum, quod Ordines Generales post pacem Monasteriensem promulgarunt 14 Apr. 1649, quo priora illa (u) Pothier, Œuvres de Traité du Contrat d'Assurance, t. iii. c. i. sect. 2, art. 2, S, 2, p. 58. (x) Bynkershoek, Quæstiones Juris Publici, lib. ii. cap. 20. Edicta, quorum sententiam retuli, repetita et servari jussa sunt? vel potius quæro, an non sæviora illa Edicta restringi et temperari debeant quod ad Ecclesiasticos, qui ex Imperio Regis Hispaniarum, Belgio forte tunc Hispanico, nunc Austriaco, hic adsunt? Quæstionem facit § 4, Pacis Monasteriensis 30 Jan. 1648, quo inter Regem Hispaniarum et Ordines Generales convenit, ut olim quoque convenerat § 4, Induciarum 9 Apr. 1609, alterius subditis et incolis, absque ullo personarum discrimine, in alterius Imperium recte licere advenire, ibi manere et agere, et commercia sua exercere. Verba Belgice sic habent: de Ondersaten en inwoonderen van de Landschappen van de voorschr. Heeren Coning en Staten zullen ook mogen homen en blyven in de Landschappen de een vau de andere, en daar doen hare trafique en commescie in alle versekertheid, zoo ter Zee, andere Wateren, als te Lande. "Sane plerique Belga Foederati videntur credidisse, salva ea pace, duriora illa Edicta explicari non posse, atque ita Ecclesiasticis Pontificiis omnino prodesse d. § 4. Gelri quidem, et Hollandi, et Frisii, et Groningani in extraordinariis Ordinum *Generalium Comitiis, proxime [*492] post illam pacem habitis anno 1650, et 1651, proposuerunt, exer cerentur Ordinum Edicta contra effrenem Ecclesiasticorum in has Regiones veniendi licentiam, sed hoc nominatim addito, quatenus salva pace fieri posset, cujus nomine non aliam, quam illam Monasteriensem, intelligo, et ita quoque, addita hac ipsa clausula, Ordines Generales decreverunt 27 Jan. 1651. Quia autem illa clausula parum certitudinis habebat, idcirco in iisdem Comitiis mense Apr. 1651, propositum est, habita ratione eorum, quæ tempore induciarum acta gesta erant, certa ei rei forma daretur, sed traditum invenio, eam non esse constitutam, verum ad ordinarium Ordinum Generalium Collegium rejectam ejus rei curam, atque adeo tacite substitum esse in illo Decreto 27 Jan. 1651, nihil enim quicquam postea definitum est. «Nondum igitur extricata res erat. Zelandi, ut extricarent, 22 Jan. 1651, in iisdem extraordinariis Comitiis alia rem adgressi sunt via. Existimarunt illi, non obstante eo § 4, omnes Ecclesiasticos, qui Pontificia Sacra sequuntur, expelli, nec ullos alios admitti posse, quod nempe illi Ecclesiastici, utut ex Imperio Hispanico advenientes, non essent Regis Hispaniarum subditi, sed Papæ Romani. Addebant, id ipsum Regis Legatos eo tempore, quo pax illa pangebatur, fuisse testatos, quin etiam Ordines in deliberationibus, quæ pacem præcesserunt, decrevisse, nihilominus Edicta, contra Ecclesiesticos Pontificios facta, effectum esse habitura. Quas rationes Synodorum Legati per libellum, iisdem Comitiis porrectum, deinde suas fecerunt. At prima ratio apud me parum valet, Ecclesiastici utique etiam sunt subditi, et pro subditis habentur in omnibus Imperiis Pontificiis. Si tamen, qua sunt Ecclesiastici, subditos Regis esse neges propter jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam, non negabis certe, qui ex Imperio Hispanico ad nos advenere, Regis Hispaniarum esse incolas, inwoonderen, pax autem loquitur de subditis et incolis, ondersaten en inwoonderen. Legatos Regis aliud fuisse testatos, et Ordines in præviis deliberationibus modo decrevisse, etiam post pacem factam tuenda esse sæviora illa Edicta, non comperi, etsi diligenter quæsiverim, neque adeo de duabus illis rationibus, quæ facti sunt, quicquam habeo, quod |