212 detention of vefseJs in neutral porti. -^ug. 14, 

 of favouring one of the parlies as to be an apparent 

 infringement of the rights of neutrality. • 



What appears to me just and reasonable in this 

 case would be, that in all cases, prises brought into 

 a neutrai port, or vefsels taking ihelter there in 

 time of war, (hould be allowed to remain there for 

 their convenience, not exceeding a certain limited 

 time, — say thtee months ; at the expiry of vv'iich 

 time-they ought to be ordered to depart, wisid and 

 weatiier serving, unlefs they could make it appear 

 that the port was biock«d up at the time by the 

 enemy's cruizers, within sight of land ; in which case 

 alone the Iheltering pawer fhould be allowed to exer- 

 cise a discretionary suspending power, without breach 

 of the laws of neutrality, I do not know, however, 

 that this rule does anv where obtain ; but if it does 

 not, it is evident that the neutral power may be al- 

 lowed greatl)! to favour one of the belligerent powers 

 more than the other. In the case which gave occa- 

 sion for these queiie-;, for example, French cruisers 

 findi'ig that the riJk of carrying prises from Nor- 

 way to France is too great to be ventured upon by 

 them, might allow the vefs-ls they have carried into 

 Bergi^n to lie there till they rotted ; so that although 

 they got no good of them themselves, they fliould 

 thus deprive the Britifh owners of the whole of their 

 prises. But for a fneltering power to lend its con- 

 currence to such a plan, would seem to be depart- 

 ing very far from the idea of strict neutrality. I 

 cannot help therefore thinking that if such a rule as 

 is hinted at above, does not already prevail, it ought 

 to bt universally establilhed without delay. It seems lor 



