power to promote justice among christian nations, to the extent of desiring that the pope, conjointly with the emperor, should still have the power of deciding questions among the European governments.' But history shews that no reliance could possibly be placed on such a tribunal, always liable to the bias either of the interests of the states themselves, or of the corruption of the arbitrators. The power of the popes was not more false in its origin than it was perverted in its exercise and in the ages of which we are speaking, an authority which, had it been animated by intelligence and guided by integrity, might have had an angel's power in the incalculable benefit it would have bestowed, was little more than subservient to a bad ambition, or degraded as the instrument by which priestcraft tyrannized over ignorance.

During the middle ages, maritime law had obtained a greater precision, and fuller development, than the laws of war. This was principally owing to the excellence of the Rhodian laws, which formed the basis of all the modern maritime codes, thereby accounting for the resemblance which these codes bear to each other. The date of the Rhodian laws is uncertain; they obtained the sanction of Tiberius, and subsequently of Adrian and other emperors. Their decisions respecting shipping, salvage, contracts, &c., are curious and valuable, but they contain nothing regarding prize law, or the law of nations properly so called.'

1 Opera (Geneva, 1768), IV. 330, 331.

* See the Rhodian laws, pp. 73-116 of a Work entitled "A general Treatise of the Dominion of the Sea, and a compleat body of Sea Laws, containing what is most valuable in that subject in ancient and modern authors: and particularly the laws of the Rhodians and Romans, those of Oleron, Wisby, and other countries," &c. &c. 4to, 3rd ed. London, no date. It purports, in the preface, to be the work of several authors. There is also a work entitled "Laws, Ordinances, and Institutions of the Admiralty of Great Britain, civil and military, &c.," 1st ed. dated 1746, and 2d ed. dated 1767. As the work above quoted purports to be the 3rd edition, it may be the same work,

A similar uncertainty as to date applies to the next code of maritime law, the celebrated Consolato del Mare, which probably succeeded the Rhodian laws with the interval of at least a thousand years. It is variously attributed to the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, some Italian writers asserting that it was known at Rome in 1075, and others that it was not compiled till the reign of Louis IX. in the thirteenth century. The knowledge of the Roman law indicated in its composition induced many writers, among them sir C. Robinson, to fix its date posterior to the discovery of the Amalphitan table: but the belief, which now seems to be established, that the Roman law was known before the capture of Amalphi, annuls even this chance of an approximation to a correct date. Grotius speaks of the Consolato del Mare as containing the constitutions of Greece, Germany, France, Spain, Syria, Cyprus, the Balearic Isles, Venice and Genoa.' The Consolato differs from other maritime codes of the middle ages in being the only one where there are distinct regulations on points connected with the law of nations. We shall subsequently have occasion to remark that its decision on prize law, besides the concurrence of the states above enumerated, coincided with all the treaties relating to their provisions made during several succeeding centuries; and they agree at present with the maritime code of Europe, notwithstanding many attempts to reverse their regulations. Such assenting testimony speaks much for the wisdom of the compilers of the Consolato, who, in a rude age, established regulations which no more recent discoveries have superthough with a different title. If this be not the case, there is disgraceful plagiarism in whichever work was last published, for the matter contained in the two books is nearly identical, with very few changes, and there is not the least notice of any obligation to preceding works.

De Jure, 1. III., c. 1, n. 4. See also sir C. Robinson's "Translation of the Chapters CCLXXIII. and CCLXXXVII. of the Consolato del Mare relating to Prize law," (published without a name, Lond. 1800), Advertisement VII. note.

seded; and its standing the proof of the experience of perhaps seven centuries, is almost conclusive as to the justice of its decisions, which could only have abided such a test from being coincident with the principles of natural equity, which are immutable.

The laws of Oleron are, like the Consolato del Mare, of uncertain date. According to some writers, Queen Elinor, (duchess of Guienne, and wife of Henry II. of England,) when at Oleron, ordered these laws, which were called the Roll of Oleron, to be compiled. According to others, their compilation is due to Richard I., while others again say he only enlarged them. The language employed is old French, and the earliest copy known is, I believe, that bearing the date 1266, "the Tuesday after the feast of St. Andrews," and having the arms of Oleron.'

A similar uncertainty of date attaches to the laws of Wisbuy, which were probably of rather later origin than the laws of Oleron, as it was not till 1288, that the inhabitants of Wisbuy obtained leave to wall and fortify their city. Wisbuy was shortly after this period a town of first rate maritime importance. Merchants from all parts of Europe resorted thither, and each nation had their separate quarter, with peculiar streets for their shops and warehouses; and all strangers enjoyed the same privileges as the native townsmen. Long after the destruction of the city, the ruins of Wisbuy attested its former greatness. Its laws were recognised not only in the Baltic, but throughout a great part of Europe; they bear a great resemblance to those of Oleron, so as to make it probable that they were partly copied from the latter, unless the likeness be owing to both codes resulting from one common original."

The laws of the Hanse-Towns bear a great resemblance

See the "Complete body of Sea Laws," &c. above quoted, where the laws of Oleron are inserted, pp. 120-173.

to the laws of Oleron and of Wisbuy. These laws were made in public assembly, and were published in German in 1597. Like the codes of Oleron and of Wisbuy, they have no provisions respecting prize-law. These several codes are valuable in many of their provisions regarding shipping, such as salvage, and average, which have formed the basis of the laws on these subjects at present existing in Europe. But if such provisions evince the wisdom of the compilers of these Codes, not less do the regulations in other parts confess the barbarism of the times which rendered some of their enactments possible. Not to mention the use of torture permitted by the Rhodian laws, and the loss of the hand to which the laws of Wisbuy condemned the mariner who struck his captain, unless compensated by fine, the frequent and severe denunciations against wreckers shew how general, in those times, was a barbarity which has been the crime of a few in our own days. By Art. xxv. of the Laws of Oleron, it appears that pilots, undertaking to convey ships into harbor, were sometimes in league with the lords of territories which they passed, to shipwreck the vessel for the sake of the plunder which would ensue. By Art. XXVI. "if the lord of any place be so barbarous, as not only to permit such inhuman people, but also to maintain and assist them in such villanies, that he may have a share in such wrecks, the said lord shall be apprehended, and all his goods confiscated and sold, in order to make restitution to such as of right it appertaineth; and himself to be fastened to a post or stake in the midst of his own mansion house, which being fired at the four corners, all shall be burnt together; the walls thereof shall be demolished, the stones pulled down, and the place converted into a market-place for the sale only of hogs and swine to all posterity." similar detail of punishment, obviously a vindictive return

1 Id. 194-206.

2 See the Laws of Wisbuy, p. 153.

"If

for cruelties actually practised, is found in Art. xxxI. a ship or other vessel happens to be lost by striking on some shore, and the mariners, thinking to save their lives, reach the shore in hope of help, and instead thereof it happen, as it often does, that in many places they meet with people more barbarous, cruel, and inhuman, than mad dogs, who to gain their moneys, apparel, and other goods, do sometimes murder and destroy these poor distressed seamen; in this case the lord of that country ought to execute justice on such wretches, to punish them as well corporally as pecuniarily, to plunge them into the sea till they be half dead, and then to have them drawn forth out of the sea, and stoned to death."1

The numerous instances in which reprisals are mentioned in the diplomatic remains of the middle ages which have reached us, are again examples of the frequency of outrage and the difficulty of obtaining justice. A curious example occurred in 1326. The admiral of James II., king of Arragon, seized a French ship and sold it; not with the slightest color or pretext of justice, but with the express purpose that by the proceeds of the sale he might obtain funds for carrying on war. James II. wrote to Charles IV. of France, stating the fact, and requesting that reprisals might not be allowed against him, inasmuch as he had promised the owners of the vessel to reimburse them in three years, as the exhausted state of his treasury prevented his doing so immediately. The king of France acceded to his request; and the correspondence conveys the impression, that a king, in those days, would gratify a brother king at the expense of his subjects, where his own interest and honor were not concerned, nearly as easily as a man, at the present day, permits another to shoot over his estate."

But the account that has been given of the rude manner

1 Id. p. 161.

* See the Correspondence in Dumont, Corps, Dipl. I. 11., 95 — 97.