332 SKETCHES OF THE
tomary law of nations did not apply in their favour. Were these debts contracted frmn a persuasion of its observance? Did tJie creditors b'ust to this customary law of nations? No, sir. They trusted to what they thought as firm, the statute and common law of England. — Victorious and successful as their nation had lately been, when they, in their pride and in- considerate self-confidence, stretched out the hand of oppression, their subjects placed no reliance on the customs of particular ncdions. They put confidence in those barriers of right, which were derived from their own nation. Their reliance was, that the tribunals esta- blished in this country, under the same royal authority as in England, would do them justice. If we were not willing, they possessed the power of compelling us to do them justice. The debts having therefore, not been contracted from any reliance an the customaiij law of nations, were they conti^acted from a regard ^ to the lights of commerce? From a view of promoting the commerce of those little things called colonies? This regard could not have been the ground they were con- tracted on, for their conduct evinced that they wished to take the right of commerce from us. What other ingredient remains to show the operation of this custom in their favour.^ The book speaks of strangers trusting subjects of a dilTerent nation, from a reliance on the observance of the customary law. The fact here was, that fellow-subjects trusted us, on the footing just stated; trusting to the existing compulsory process of law, not relying on a passive inert custom. A fear- ful, plodding, sagacious trader, would not rely on so flimsy, so uncertain a dependence. Something similar to what he thought positive satisfaction, he relied on. Were we not subject to the same king? The cases are
�� �
