expedient, that the ships and vessels of countries and states, in amity with his Majesty, should be allowed to import goods and commodities into, and export the same from, the British territories in India. It is, besides, an obvious question, to whom are the credentials of this gentleman, as consul, addressed? certainly to the British government, to the East India company, and not to the Mogul. What is the condition of a foreign merchant residing there? From attention to the argument of a gentleman, whose researches have been particularly turned to subjects connected with the East, I have made inquiry of a person of the greatest authority on such a subject, who is just returned from the highest judicial situation in that country, and the result is, as on general principles I should certainly have expected, that a foreign merchant, resident there, is just in the same situation with a British merchant, subject to the same obligations, bound by the same duties, and amenable to the same common authority of British tribunals." It being insinuated in the same case, as a further objection, that Mr. Millar was not a general merchant of Calcutta, Lord Stowell shortly observed upon it in these words: "Whether he was a general merchant or not is totally immaterial, for if this was even his first adventure, still, in this transaction, he must be taken as a merchant, and can be considered in no other character.

When a person has fixed his residence in a hostile or neutral country, with a voluntary intention of remaining, his national character, communicated by that residence, will not be divested by his periodical absence on account of professional avocations. The Junge Ruiter, 1 Acton, 116.) On the other hand a

merchant having a fixed residence, and carrying on business at the place of his birth, does not acquire a foreign commercial character by occasional visits to a foreign country. (The Nereide, 9 Cranch, 388.)

It is not invariably necessary in order to impress a man with a national character, that his residence in the hostile or neutral country should be personal. A merchant trading to a foreign nation does not, indeed, as a rule, contract the character of that nation by the residence of a stationed agent, but when the agent so residing performs duties for his employer, which imply that this employer considers himself as being virtually a resident of the country, where in fact his agent resides, that is, in short, where the agent instead of being the mere factor, becomes the deputy of his employer, the latter seems sufficiently invested with the national character by the residence of his agent. In The Anne Catherina (4 Robinson, 107), a contract had been made with a hostile goverment; a contract which, from the peculiar privileges annexed to it, not only placed the contractors, being neutrals, upon the footing of Spanish subjects, but perhaps might be considered as going further still, and giving them privileges to which a Spanish merchant, merely as a native subject of Spain, would probably not have been admitted. For the purpose of executing this contract, the merchants engaged in it thought fit not indeed to reside themselves in the hostile territory, but to commission an agent, who did reside there. On this residence by agent Lord Stowell thus animadverted in his judgment:-"It is not indeed held in general cases, that a neutral merchant, trading in an ordinary manner to the country of a belligerent does contract the character of a person domiciled

there by the mere residence of a stationed agent; because in general cases the effect of such a residence is counteracted by the nature of the trade, and the neutral character of the British merchant himself. But it may be very different where the principal is not trading on the ordinary footing of a foreign merchant, but as a privileged trader of the enemy. There the nature of his trade does not protect him; on the contrary, the trade itself is the privileged trade of the enemy, putting him on the same footing as their own subjects, and even above it."

This principle is fully confirmed by the American Courts. Where a person is engaged in the ordinary or extraordinary commerce of an enemy's country, upon the same footing and with the same advantages as native resident subjects, his property employed in such trade is deemed incorporated into the general commerce of that country and subject to confiscation, be his residence where it may. (San Jose Indiano, 2 Gallison, 268.) A shipment made by a house in the enemy's country, on account and risk of a bonâ fide and exclusively neutral partner or house, is not subject to confiscation as prize of war, and the same principle applies in the converse case of a partner or agent, domiciled in the enemy's country, and making shipment to his neutral house, or principal, on the exclusive account of the latter. (Ib.)

A person holding the office of Consul in a foreign state, though he does not reside there himself, but commits his whole duty to Vice-Consuls, must be deemed to be virtually a resident of that state where the commission of his office implies him to reside; and the appointment of deputies is a proof that he still considers himself as retaining the office to which this implied

residence attaches, though he may have found it convenient to avoid the personal burden of its functions. In The Dree Gebroeders (4 Rob. 232), the claimant, who represented himself as an American, stated in his affidavit, that the government of the United States had appointed him Consul-General for Scotland, but that he had not yet acted further in that capacity than to appoint deputies. Lord Stowell said, "It will be a strong circumstance to affect him with a British residence, as long as there are persons acting in an official situation here, and deriving their authority from him. (See also Vattel, B. 4, c. 8, s. 114; The Indian Chief, 3 Rob. 22.)

To establish the animus manendi, the external circumstances need not be notorious or numerous; the intention of remaining will still be the decisive proof. In The Jonge Klassina (5 Rob. 297), the claimant, wishing to persuade the Court that he was not to be deemed a resident in the hostile country, pleaded that he had no fixed counting-house there. Lord Stowell said, "That he had no fixed counting-house in the enemy's country will not be decisive. How much of the great mercantile concerns of this kingdom is carried on in coffee-houses? A very considerable portion of the great insurance business is so conducted. It is indeed a vain idea, that a counting-house or fixed establishment is necessary to make a man a merchant of any place: if he is there himself, and acts as a merchant of that place, it is sufficient; and the mere want of a fixed counting-house there will make no breach in the mercantile character, which may well exist without it."

Persons affected with hostile residence, in a hos

tile or neutral country, are to be deemed enemies only with reference to the seizure of so much of their commerce as is connected with that residence or establishment. Lord Stowell lays it down, in The Jonge Klassina (5 Rob. 297), "That a man having mercantile concerns in two countries, and acting as a merchant of both, must be liable to be considered as a subject of both, with regard to the transactions originating respectively in those countries." So, too, in The Herman (4 Rob. 228), Lord Stowell said, "The personal domicil of the claimant is at Embden, where he resides, and has a house of trade; he is only connected with this country by his partnership in a house here, which is to be taken in a manner as collateral, and secondary to his house at Embden; that he may carry on trade with the enemy at his house in Embden cannot be denied, provided it does not originate from his house at London, nor vest an interest in that house."

The case of The Portland, and nine other ships (3 Rob. 41), still more precisely establishes the distinction, in respect of liability to capture, between the trade which a merchant may be carrying on to his hostile, and that which he he may be carrying on to his neutral establishment. The claimant resided in a neutral territory, but he had two settlements, or places of resort for his business; one in a neutral territory, and the other in a hostile country, at Ostend. Lord Stowell said, "As to the circumstance of his being engaged in trading with Ostend, I think it will be difficult to extend the consequences of that act, whatever they may be, to the trade which he was carrying on at Hamburgh, and having no connection with Ostend; because, call it what you please, a colourable charac