the diplomatists and courts of Europe. Now, if we recollect what were those rules in the eighteenth century, we shall be able to appreciate how lax were the moral principles professed by that school. It never separated law from policy, and was not inclined to criticise diplomatic documents from the juridical point of view. This indifference to universal justice is the greatest accusation against that school. There was but one man in the eighteenth century whose opinions were independent of both schools; and his works have more value, even for the present age, than the voluminous compilations of all the German professors of that time. I speak of the celebrated Dutch jurisconsult, Cornelius Bynkershoek. In his opinion, international law consists only of rules founded on reason, and approved by the consent of nations. He said, ratio est juris gentium magistra, and followed its dictates in all his conclusions, criticised the laws even of his own country with an impartiality not often to be found even in our own times, and explained with great force the most difficult points of international law-de dominio maris, de foro legatorum, de jure belli. His practical genius and erudition claim the next place in our esteem after Grotius. It is to be regretted that Bynkershoek lived in an age so unfavourable to the study of international law, and that his judicial occupations allowed him so little time for his scientific pursuits.

We come now to the present age. In the beginning of the nineteenth century, Professor Martens of Göttingen published his valuable work on international law. There is in it a tendency to amalgamate the two different schools, and to combine the philosophic and the practical methods. The chief merit of Martens lies in the construction of international rules, founded upon the mutual compacts of nations. He compiled treaties, compared them, and contributed by this to the elucidation of many historical and practical points of law. His successors in this mode of cultivating the science were Saalfeld, Schmalz, and Klüber. To the same school belongs the American publicist Wheaton, whose works are known and much appreciated in this country.

But there are many errors and imperfections in the method of Martens. He is too much occupied with the classification of treaties, and gives them an exaggerated importance. His views are of limited scope; he seems to be more compiler than jurisconsult. I do not contest his merits, but I do not rate them so high as they were appreciated by his immediate successors.

During the last twenty years a new movement of ideas is observable in the science of international law. Publicists found the compilation of treaties not sufficient for their purpose: parliamentary debates, state papers, and the memoirs of celebrated diplomatists, of which the publication came into general use after the congress of Vienna, opened new problems for jurisprudence. The scientific method was changed for the better. Casuistical and critical investigations, neglected before, became more and more predominant. I have no room for reviewing here all the works that have appeared since 1839; it is sufficient to enumerate the best of the general treatises on international law, and to appreciate their character in general terms. One of the most remarkable books published in Germany, and written with a critical tendency, is "Heffter's Modern International Law:" this is a concise digest, adapted more for students than for practical men. The same may be said of an inferior work by Bernard Oppenheim, published in 1845. The casuistical tendency is exhibited more in the English works of Oke Manning, and Robert Phillimore. On the contrary, Pando, the Spanish publicist, is more inclined to philosophical views. But, to observe better the influence of the new method, we should turn our attention not so much to the general treatises as to the dissertations and essays, in which are treated some doubtful topics of international law. The best of them have for their authors, Dr. Wurm of Hamburgh, Professor Mohl, the French jurists Ortolan and Hautefeuille, and some Dutch publicists. I hope to give a more detailed account of them in another work destined for general circulation, and shall conclude this paper, perhaps already too long.

In studying these various works, the idea suggests itself of a Periodical for international jurisprudence. The necessity of it seems to me beyond dispute. We find in other branches of juridical and political knowledge more unity and harmony than in international jurisprudence. The professors and practitioners of civil and criminal law, political economists, and statisticians, have their organs, interchange their opinions, and even hold congresses for the discussion of unsettled questions. On the contrary, international jurists, who have a common work to do for the benefit of the civilized world, have no means of communication. It is very difficult even to collect all their works; they hardly know each other by name, and cultivate separately a science destined for general The effects of this isolation are felt by all who take an interest in international law. A periodical published in England, or in France, would be a circulating medium for the diffusion of the most useful and practical knowledge, promote the interests of peace, and contribute largely to the general civilisation of the Christian world.

use.

I think that these desires have nothing utopian or visionary in them, but are honest opinions inspired by the science itself, of which the destination is to promote and diffuse the principles of law and of justice in the world. The improvement of this science, says Robert Mohl, one of its celebrated supporters, cannot be indifferent even to those who think that the practical efficiency of international law is imperfect; because the conduct of government and of nations, sooner or later, undergoes the influence of ideas. This influence is perhaps little felt or observed by the ignorant, but is hardly disputable. We live now under the rule of public opinion. If a certain action is thought unlawful, if a certain practice seems to be barbarous, its continuance is impossible.

I can add to this an illustration drawn from history. When Grotius published his immortal work, who could foresee that it would become an authority in the eyes of kings and of nations? A bloody war raged without the least hope of pacification; but the time came when the father of interna

tional law was respected as a general legislator and instructor. We men of the nineteenth century should be encouraged by this example given by the father of the science. We have brighter prospects before us; we live in an enlightened and pacific age. We should promote, then, as far as possible, the spirit of justice, and contribute by this to the work of civili

sation.

(To be Continued.)

VII-A BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE

OF THE LATE PROFESSOR WURM.
BY PROFESSOR KATCHENOVSKY.

[Read 7th March, 1859.]

THE science of international law lost, a few weeks ago, one of its most distinguished expounders and commentators. On the 2nd of February last, died, in Holstein, the celebrated publicist of Hamburgh, Dr. Wurm. His name belongs not only to his own country, but to all the civilized world. During the last twenty-five years he took the leading part in the discussion of all great questions of European policy, was the constant and impartial observer of diplomacy, the able defender of international rights, and one of the most intelligent organs of public opinion. His death is, therefore, an important event in the annals of science; he left after him a void; his scientific place can hardly be filled by another. Feeling a high and sincere respect for the merits of this eminent man, I thought it my duty to communicate some facts relating to his biography, and to give a general sketch of his works. These facts were collected for the most part by my personal inquiries and observations during a month's residence in Hamburgh last year.

Though there are few striking events in the life of Dr. Wurm, it is worthy of attention in many respects. We find in it, on the one side, proofs of the vigour and variety of his talents; on the other, it reflects the great aspirations and tendencies of our age. The most instructive part of this life for us is that which is connected with his activity as a publicist. It is interesting to know the causes that led him to the study of international law,

Dr. Wurm was born in Würtemberg, at Tübingen, in 1803. His father was a theologian, and desired, as many fathers desire, that his son should embrace the same profession; but, having found afterwards that he was averse to the study of theology, gave him up to follow his own inclinations.