ciliation, the seizure
is converted into a mere civil embargo. This would be the
retroactive effect of that course of circumstances. On the
contrary, if the transactions end in hostility, the
retroactive effect is directly the other way. It impresses a
hostile character upon the original seizure. It is declared
to be embargo; it is no longer an equivocal act, subject to
two interpretations; there is a declaration of the _animus_
by which it was done, that it was done _hostili animo_, and
is to be considered a hostile measure _ab initio_. The
property taken is liable to be used as the property of
persons, trespassers _ab initio_, and guilty of injuries
which they have refused to redeem by any amicable alteration
of their measures. This is the necessary course, if no
particular compact intervenes for the restitution of such
property taken before a formal declaration of
hostilities."[202]

The modern rule seems to be, that tangible property, belonging to an
enemy, ought _not_ to be _immediately confiscated_. It may be
considered as the opinion of all who have written on the _jus belli_,
that war gives the _right_ to confiscate, but does not of itself
confiscate the property of an enemy.

Chancellor Kent expressly terms this species of hostility--_a
reprisal_.[203] And Lord Mansfield says, that though foreign ports or
harbours are not the high sea any more than the shore, yet numberless
captures made there have been condemned as prize,[204] _i.e._ can be
the subject _of reprisal_.

NOTE B.--_War Bill Act_.

During the last war, the War Bill Act, 34 Geo. 3. c. 9, was passed as
a measure of retaliation. It was passed in order to prevent the effect
intended to be produced by an order of the French Government,
compelling all merchants, bankers, and others, possessed of money,
funded property, and effects, in different parts Europe, to declare
all such property, that it might be taken by violence, and applied to
the purposes of the war then carried on by the government of France
against the greater part of Europe.

The principal sections relating to bills, prohibited any British
subject, from and after March 1, 1794, from wilfully and knowingly in
any manner paying or satisfying any bill of exchange, note, draught,
obligation, or order for money, in part or in whole, which, since
January 1, 1794, had been or at any time during the said wa