war.

trade between either belligerent and its colonies, by permission of such belligerent, without any interference on the part of the other belligerent, although such trade was not allowed in time of peace. The principles of blockade and contraband gave Great Britain a great preponderance, on account of its maritime superiority; and the question naturally occurs, whether this preponderance is so dangerous as to call for the united efforts of nations to modify the principles of national law on these subjects, or, at least, to resist the construction put upon them by Great Britain. On examination, it will appear that the pretensions of Great Britain, whether well or ill founded, do not immediately threaten the independence of other nations, but only injure their commerce in time of It increased the price of some articles of luxury, in Europe, during the late wars from 1802 to 1812, but could not endanger the political independence of nations; could not, like the preponderance of a continental power, extinguish states, and enslave Europe. The continental nations suffered these evils only in time of war; for, in time of peace, England never has used oppressive measures against the commerce of other countries; and even in time of war, this reproach was most strongly made against her by those who judged of a maritime war solely by the rules established by the laws of nations to regulate wars on shore. But the rules adapted to the one cannot properly be extended to the other. Thus it is a general rule, acknowledged, at least, if not always acted upon, that the private property of the enemy shall be spared. If these rules were extended to maritime war, as France maintained they should be, the war would, in most instances, be entirely illusory. How, for example, could England, in a maritime war against France, after having taken her few colonies, and destroyed her fleets, do her any further injury, if private property were, in all instances, to be respected? If, in such a case, the seizure of private, as well as national property, be not permitted, the war would be at an end. For the same reasons, the neutral flag, during a maritime war, cannot be unconditionally respected, as in time of peace. Were this, the case, the flag of the weaker belligerent power would disappear from the seas, whilst neutrals would carry on its trade undisturbedly, un er their flags; and how could deceptions ever be detected? The neutrals, themselves, allow that they have no right to render either belligerent direct

assistance in the war; and yet, if their flag were to protect all property, it would be impossible to prevent neutrals from rendering such assistance, and, in fact, taking a disguised part in the war. The history of the continental system begins with the famous decree of Berlin of Nov. 21, 1806, by which the British islands were declared to be in a state of blockade; all commerce, intercourse and correspondence were prohibited; every Englishman found in France, or a country occupied by French troops, was declared a prisoner of war; all property belonging to Englishmen, fair prize, and all trade in English goods entirely prohibited. No vessel coming directly from England or English colonies, or which had been there since the publication of the edict, was to be admitted into any harbor, and all vessels attempting to avoid this edict by false declarations were to be confiscated, with all their goods, as English. The reasons assigned for this decree were, that England did not acknowledge the international law, accepted by civilized nations, but treated every individual belonging to the country of the enemy as if found in arms; made even the crews of merchantmen prisoners of war; extended the right of conquest over merchantmen and private property, and the right of blockade over places and harbors not fortified; over the mouths of rivers; nay, over whole coasts and countries. But many of these measures had always been taken, in maritime wars, even by France herself, as long as she had the means. One great reason for this and all the subsequent decrees of Napoleon was, that he considered England his inveterate enemy, and the enemy of the political doctrines which took their rise from the revolution. He often used to say, "Je ne fais pas ce que je veux, mais ce que je peux. Ces Anglais me forcent à vivre au jour le jour." England immediately directed reprisals against the Berlin decree, first by an order in council of Jan. 7, 1807, by which all neutral vessels were prohibited to sail from one port to another belonging to France, or one of her allies, or to a nation so much under her control that English vessels could not freely have intercourse with it. Every neutral vessel which should violate this order was to be confiscated, with her cargo. A second decree of Nov. 11, 1807, was much more oppressive to commerce. By this, all harbors and places of France and her allies, in Europe and the colonies, as likewise every country with which England was at war, and from which the English flag

was excluded, were subjected to the same restrictions as if they were closely blockaded; all commerce in the manufactures and productions of such countries was prohibited, and vessels engaged in such commerce were to be confiscated, as also all those vessels whose certificates showed that they were built in the enemy's country. Another order in council declared the sale of vessels, by the enemy, to neutrals, unlawful, and the intended transfer of property void. Hardly were these orders promulgated, when France made counter reprisals. By a decree of Milan of Dec. 17, 1807, aggravated by a decree of the Tuileries, Jan. 11, 1808, every vessel, of whatsoever flag, which had been searched by an English vessel, and consented to be sent to England, or had paid any duty whatever to England, was to be declared denationalized, and to have become British property; and in every case, such denationalized vessel, as also those which had broken the blockade declared against the Ionian islands, or had sailed from an English harbor or English colony, or those of a country occupied by the English, or which were destined to any such ports, were declared good prize. In order the more effectually to annihilate the English commerce, the tariff of Trianon, respecting colonial goods, was proclaimed Aug. 3, 1810. This was extended by another decree of Sept. 12 of the same year, and both were followed by the decree of Fontainebleau, Oct. 18 of the same year, directing the burning of all English goods. These decrees were to be executed, with more or fewer modifications, in all countries connected with France. The consequence was, that the price of colonial goods rose enormously; a regular smuggling trade was carried on at different points; for instance, at Heligoland, which was sometimes so crowded with persons concerned in this business, that a ducat was paid for a barrel to sleep in; thousands of substitutes for colonial goods, particularly for coffee and sugar, were invented (which presented the remarkable psychological fact, that people would drink the decoction of any stuff, which resembled coffee in color, if it had not the slightest resemblance in taste; so powerful is imagination), and a variety of manufactures grew up on the continent, which were the germs of very extensive and flourishing branches of industry.-As the holy alliance (a league as obnoxious as its name is arrogant) is composed of European continental powers, and as a chief object of this coalition is the destruction of

liberal institutions by the exercise of the droit d'intervention armée (see Congress, towards the end), a policy very different from that of the English, when Canning was at the head of foreign affairs, this continental policy has sometimes been called the continental system.

CONTINGENT; the name often given to the quota of troops which is to be furnished by each member of a number of states composing a confederation. By the terms of the confederation of the Rhine, each of the states of which it consisted was to furnish 1 man for every 150 inhabitants. The proportion has been increased in the German confederation, and amounts, at the lowest rate (the simplum), to 1 man for every 100 souls. The whole confederation amounting to 30,095,054, the army of the confederates, at the lowest ratio, called simplum, contains over 300,000 troops, divided into 10 corps d'armée, of which Prussia and Austria furnish each 3, Bavaria 1, and the remaining states 3. The quotas of men and money were assigned for a term of 5 years, according to the population of the different states at the time when the union was formed, and remain unaltered to the present time. Such an army has never yet been called together, and, should it ever be, the German confederation, in this case, would show how impotent and fragile is its whole constitution.

CONTORNIATI; ancient medals which have occupied the attention of antiquarians for a long time, and, on account of their rarity, are highly esteemed in cabinets. They are formed of a thin plate of metal (not of two different sorts, as is often supposed), with a flat impression. They differ from other ancient coins, by having a furrow upon both their sides, where the others have a wreath of pearls. These hollowed lines (in Italian, contorno) may have occasioned their name. Another characteristic of genuine contorniati is a cipher composed of the letters EP or PE, of which no satisfactory explanation has, as yet, been discovered, together with numerous impressed characters, and a great number of palm branches, the cavities of which are often filled with silver. They are also added by a second hand, and thereby are essentially distinguished from the monograms, so called in the language of the mint. They resemble the signa incusa (contremarques) on the Roman medals. All the contorniati are of bronze, and equal in size to the large_bronze coins called medaglioncini by the Italian collectors. Their form is various, their work

manship rude, and their inscriptions are frequently different from the usual curial style upon the ancient coins. From these circumstances, we may conclude that they did not belong to the age of the Roman emperors whose images they bear, but to a later one. Eckel, in his masterly treatise on the contorniati, follows the opinion of Morelli and Mahudel, who consider them to have been made from the reign of Constantine the Great to that of Valentinian. It has been ascertained that they were not struck by public authority; and the ancients have transmitted no account of their destination, which must, therefore, be left to conjecture. The frequent representations of race-grounds, palms, men shouting to the charioteers, and even the images of the emperors Nero and Trajan, &c., upon them, make it probable that they were intended for the frequenters of the games at the circus in Rome and Constantinople, for whose amusement both these emperors provided so abundantly. They were, probably, distributed as tickets of admission for the spectators, by the directors of the bands. The images of celebrated men, which are found upon them, are of little value as portraits, because they do not appear to have been executed with care.

CONTOUR. (See Outline.)

CONTRABAND, in commerce; all goods and wares exported from or imported into any country, against the laws of said country. There are, also, a number of articles termed contraband of war, which neutrals may be prevented, by one belligerent, from carrying to another. What is to be considered contraband of war depends upon existing treaties. These, however, have not settled, with much precision, the articles embraced under this term. Indeed, before the Consolato del Mare of the Italian mercantile states, the subjects of many powers were forbidden to furnish their enemies with arms. The rule was afterwards established, that a belligerent power might prevent neutrals from supplying its enemy with munitions of war; hence the name contraband (contra bannum) was introduced. Subsequently, the term contraband was extended so as to embrace articles out of which munitions of war were made. All other articles, however, even such as might be useful to the enemy, such as grain, wine, provisions, money, &c., were allowed to pass free, a few only being excepted, by particular treaties (as, for instance, in the compact between France and Spain, in 1604, in the treaty between England and Holland, in

1654, &c.), until very lately, when the number of articles styled contraband of war has been prodigiously increased. Many belligerent powers, in the war which broke out near the end of the last century, gave a partial and arbitrary construction to the term; for instance, England and Russia, in 1794, who wished to prevent neutral powers from supplying France with corn; and the might of England enabled her to enforce her own construction, which made such articles, for example, as salted meat contraband, under the pretext that it could only be intended for the garrisons and ships' crews. "The catalogue of contrabands," says sir William Scott (now lord Stowell), "has varied very much; sometimes in such a manner as to make it difficult to assign the reason of the variations, owing to particular circumstances, the history of which has not accompanied the history of the decisions. The king is bound to watch over the safety of the state; he may, therefore, make new declarations of contraband, when articles come into use, as implements of war, which were before innocent. This is not the exercise of discretion over contraband. The law of nations prohibits contraband, and it is the usus bellici, which, shifting from time to time, make the law shift with them. The greatest difficulty seems to have occurred in the instance of provisions, which have not been held, universally, contraband, though Vattel admits that they become so on certain occasions, when there is an expectation of reducing the enemy by famine. In modern times, one of the principal criteria, adopted by the courts, for the decision of the question, whether any particular cargo of provisions be confiscable as contraband, is, to examine whether those provisions be in a rude or a manufactured state. Articles are treated with greater indulgence in their native condition than when they are wrought up for the convenience of the enemy's immediate consumption." Of late, the practice of treating provisions as contraband of war, when asserted at all, bas been, undoubtedly, less strict; a proof that the belligerent was not entirely confident of his right to confiscate. The belligerent has exercised the right of preemption only -a right of purchase with a reasonable compensation to the individual whose property has been diverted, by the act of the belligerent, from its original destination. Every state determines for itself what articles shall be deemed contraband in the way of trade; for the most part, on the principle that nothing shall be im

ported which the country itself produces in abundance, and nothing exported but that which exceeds its own consumption. (See Smuggling.)

CONTRACT; an agreement or covenant between two or more persons, in which each party binds himself to do or forbear some act, and each acquires a right to what the other promises. Natural law requires that if one person accepts from another a service, he should render to him something in return, whether this be expressly agreed upon, or only implied from the nature of the undertaking. Mutual promises of future good offices also are binding, at least by the natural law, if one of the contracting parties has thereby been induced to act; for, if he does not receive the thing stipulated for, he suffers wrong. We may go further, and say, that confidence in promises is so essential to the existence of social intercourse among men, that even the bare promise of one of the parties, when given and received in earnest, that is, with the idea of its being binding, is not entirely destitute of the force of obligation. In every state, it will be necessary to retain these principles, since the idea of justice implanted in the human mind should not be violated. It is the part of legislation to provide for special cases, to establish certain forms, and to fix, according to rules founded upon experience, the effects of each promise; also to withdraw from certain contracts their natural obligation, or to determine this in others, in which it is uncertain according to natural law. Such has been the course of the Roman law, which, by its consistency and justice in regard to contracts, has obtained, on the continent of Europe, almost universal authority. In that law, at an early period, a contract (contractus), in the proper sense of the word, was an agreement binding on both parties. It was required to be in a determinate form; and there was an equally determinate mode of impeaching it. A contract was distinguished from a simple pact or promise (pactum); and it was a fundamental doctrine, that a simple pact (pactum) would not entitle one to maintain a legal action, but merely to raise an objection in defence. The essential character of contracts in the stricter sense, is founded on the circumstance that such a legal relation is necessary for the most simple social intercourse, and imposes, according to its nature, certain duties. The most simple of these relations arise from a positive act, as the transfer of a thing to be returned

(contractus realis), in which the object and extent of the obligation are determined by the real benefit conferred. Such a contract arises from delivering a thing, with or without pay; as, for instance, a deposit, a mutuum, or a pawn. A determinate form of agreement, however, is not always necessary. Civil intercourse allows another kind of contracts, in which the simple consent of the parties gives obligation to agreements, so that they may constitute the ground of an action (contractus consensuales). Such, according to the Roman law, is sale, hire (as well the lending of a thing as services done for money), partnership, an accepted commission, and the contract for a fee farm rent (emphyteusis). But the same obligatory power, and this in the strictest sense, was allowed, also, to a verbal promise given in a certain solemn form, called a stipulation (contractus verbalis), as well as to a written obligation (contractus literalis, chirographarius). The form of a stipulation became continually more lax, approaching nearer to a simple promise, and, at last, amounted to nothing more than this, that he who wanted to bind another (stipulator) asked him, in a form of his own choosing, "Do you promise to give me such a thing?" and the other, who was to be bound, answered, "I promise it." It is obvious that, in this way, every simple promise (pactum) could be made actionable, and that the alteration, in modern times, in the law of some parts of Europe, which admits of an action upon every compact, amounts, in fact, only to this, that the form of a stipulation has become even more lax, so that there is no longer any necessity for the claimant (promissarius) to commence with his question, but the compact can as well begin with the declaration of the party under obligation (promissor). These forms of contracts are, in their essential parts, settled; and the legal relation, together with the action arising from it, has a fixed name (contractus nominati). But other relations, also, as exchanges of things and services, service for service, gift for gift, gift for service, service for gift (do ut des, facio ut facias, do ut facias, facio ut des), gave rise to rights and obligations, but in such diversified ways, that an appropriate form of action could be framed only from the statement of each particular case (actio in factum præscriptis verbis); and there were, accordingly, no technical terms adapted to such variously combined relations. Hence arose the contractus innominati, which were considered as real contracts