-- "made of it to nations in their mutual relations to each "other, fo far at least as his plan permitted or re"quired that he should do this *." Here Barbeyrac made one step at leaft in the right track: but it required more profound reflection and more extenfive views in order to conceive the idea of a fyftem of natural law of nations, which fhould claim the obedience of ftates and fovereigns, -to perceive the utility of such a work, and especially to be the first to execute it. This glory was referved for the baron de Wolf. That great philofopher faw that the law of nature could not, with fuch modifications as the nature of the fubjects required, and with fufficient precifion, clearnefs, and folidity, be applied to incorporated nations or states, without the affiftance of those general principles and leading ideas by which the application is to be directed;-that it is by thofe principles alone we are enabled evidently to demonftrate that the decifions of the law of nature refpecting individuals must, pursuant to the intentions of that very law, be changed and modified in their application to states and political focieties,-and thus to form a natural and neceffary law of nations: whence he concluded, that it was proper to form a diftinct fyftem of the law of nations, a task which he has happily executed. But * Note 2 on Puffendorf's Law of Nature and Nations, book ii. chap. 3.5 23. I have not been able to procure Budæus's work, from which I fufpect that Barbeyrac derived this idea of the Law of Nations. If it were not more advisable, for the fake of brevity, of avoiding repetitions, and taking advantage of the ideas already formed and estabathed in the minds of men,-it, for all these reasons, it were not more convenient to prefuppofe in this inftance a knowledge of the ordinary law of nature, and on that ground to undertake the talk of applying it to fovereign ftates,-it would, inftead of fpeaking of fuch application, Le more accurate to fay, that, as the law of nature, properly fo called, the natural law of individuals and founded on the nature of man, fo the natural law of nations is the natural law of political focieties, and founded, on the nature of thofe focieties. But as the refult of either mode is ultimately the fame, I have in preference adopted the more compendious one. As the law of nature has already been treated of in arple and fatisfactory manner, the shorteft way is fimply to make a ional application of it to nations. it is just that we should hear what Wolf himself says in his Preface. "Nations," fays he, " do not, in their mutual relations to each other, acknowledge any other "law than that which nature herself has established. Perhaps, therefore, it may appear fuperfluous to "give a treatise on the law of nations, as diftinct from "the law of nature. But those who entertain this " idea have not sufficiently studied the fubject. Na"tions, it is true, can only be confidered as fo many. "individual perfons living together in the state of na"ture; and, for that reason, we must apply to them "all the duties and rights which nature prefcribes "and attributes to men in general, as being natu rally born free, and bound to each other by no ties "but those of nature alone. The law which arifes "from this application, and the obligations refulting "from it, proceed from that immutable law founded "on the nature of man; and thus the law of nations, "certainly belongs to the law of nature: it is there"fore, on account of its origin, called the natural, "and, by reason of its obligatory force, the neceffary "law of nations. That law is common to all na"tions; and if any one of them does not refpect it, "in her actions, the violates the common rights of "all the others." "But nations or fovereign ftates being moral per"fons, and the subjects of the obligations and rights refulting, in virtue of the law of nature, from the "act of affociation which has formed the political body, the nature and effence of these moral "fons neceffarily differ, in many refpects, from the "nature and effence of the phyfical individuals, or per men, of whom they are compofed. When, therefore, we would apply to nations the duties which "the law of nature prefcribes to individual man, and "the rights it confers on him in order to enable him * A nation here means a fovereign ftate, an independent political fociety. ❝ to "to fulfil his duties,-fince thofe rights and those "duties can be no other than what are confiftent with "the nature of their fubjects, they must, in their application, neceffarily undergo a change fuitable to "the new fubjects to which they are applied. Thus "we fee that the law of nations does not in every "particular remain the fame as the law of nature, regulating the actions of individuals. Why may "it not therefore be feparately treated of, as a law peculiar to nations ?" pro Being myself convinced of the utility of such a work, I impatiently waited for Monfieur Wolf's duction, and, as foon as it appeared, formed the defign of facilitating, for the advantage of a greater number of readers, the knowledge of the luminous ideas which it contains. The treatife of the philofopher of Hall on the law of nations is dependent on all thofe of the fame author on philofophy and the law of nature. In order to read and understand it, it is neceffary to have previously ftudied fixteen or seventeen quarto volumes which precede it. Befides, it is written in the manner and even in the formal method of geometrical works. Thefe circumstances present obitacles which render it nearly ufelefs to thofe very perfons in whom the knowledge and taste of the true principles of the law of nations are most important and moft defirable. At first I thought that I fhould have had nothing farther to do, than to detach this treatife from the entire fyftem by rendering it independent of every thing Monfieur Wolf had faid before, and to give it a new form, more agreeable, and better calculated to enfure it a reception in the polite world. With that view, I made fome attempts; but I foon found, that if I indulged the expectation of procuring readers among that clafs of perfons for whom I intended to write, and of rendering my efforts beneficial to mankind, it was neceflary that I should form a very different work from that which lay before me, and undertake to furnish an original production. The method followed followed by Monfieur Wolf has had the effect of rendering his work dry, and in many refpects incomplete. The different fubjects are fcattered through it in a manner that is extremely fatiguing to the attention: and as the author had, in his " Law of Nature," treated of univerfal public law, he frequently contents himself with a bare reference to his former production, when, in handling the law of nations, he speaks of the duties of a nation towards herself. From Monfieur Wolf's treatife, therefore, I have only borrowed whatever appeared most worthy of attention, especially the definitions and general principles; but I have been careful in felecting what I drew from that fource, and have accommodated to my own plan the materials with which he furnished me. Thofe who have read Monfieur Wolf's treatises on the law of nature and the law of nations, will fee what advantage I have made of them. Had I every-, where pointed out what I have borrowed, my pages would be crowded with quotations equally useless and difagreeable to the reader. It is better to acknowledge here, once for all, the obligations I am under to that great mafter. Although my work be very different from his (as will appear to those who are willing to take the trouble of making the comparifon), I confefs that I fhould never have had the courage to launch into fo extenfive a field, if the celebrated philofopher of Hall had not preceded my steps, and held forth a torch to guide me on my way. Sometimes, however, I have ventured to deviate from the path which he had pointed out, and have adopted fentiments oppofite to his. I will here quote a few inftances. Monfieur Wolf, influenced perhaps by the example of numerous other writers, has devoted feveral fections to the exprefs purpofe of treating of the nature of patrimonial kingdoms, without rejecting or rectifying that idea fo degrading to human kind. I do not even admit of fuch a denomination, which I In the VIIIth Part of his Law of Nature, and in his Law of Nations. think equally fhocking, improper, and dangerous, true citizen. Monfieur Wolf determines (Jus Gent. § 878) that it is naturally lawful to make ufe of poisoned weapons in war. I am shocked at fuch a decifion, and forry to find it in the work of fo great a man. Happily for the human race, it is not difficult to prove the contrary, even from Monfieur Wolf's own principles. What I have faid on this fubject may be feen in Book III. § 156. In the very outfet of my work, it will be found that I differ entirely from Monfieur Wolf in the manner of establishing the foundations of that fpecies of law of nations which we call voluntary. Monfieur Wolf deduces it from the idea of a great republic (civitatis maxima) inftituted by nature herself, and of which all the nations of the world are members. According to him, the voluntary law of nations is, as it were, the civil law of that great republic. This idea does not fatisfy me; nor do I think the fiction of fuch a republic either admiffible in itself, or capable of affording fufficiently folid grounds on which to build the rules of the univerfal law of nations which shall neceffarily claim the obedient acquiefcence of fovereign ftates. I acknowledge no other natural fociety between nations than that which nature has established between mankind in general. It is effential to every civil fociety (civitati) that each member have refigned a part of his right to the body of the fociety, and that there exift in it an authority capable of commanding all the members, of giving them laws, and of compelling those who should refufe to obey. Nothing of this kind can be conceived or fuppofed to fubfift between nations. Each fovereign ftate claims and actually poffeffes an abfolute independence on |