only for a short time, they lived idle all the rest of the year, and commonly all the rest of their lives, one successful campaign, by pay and plunder, and the ransom of prisoners, was sufficient to raise a man a small fortune, which no doubt was a great inducement to enter into the service.

The increase of commerce within the last three centuries, has introduced a very great increase of elegance in buildings, furniture, equipages, tables, and drefs, throughout all Europe. Until the reign of Henry VII. the bulk of the houses of England was generally very mean in comparison of the piesent times. They had very few stone buildings, or even brick ones, excepting some large churches, some of the great men's houses, and the larger monasteries, the generality of houses not only in London and other cities, but many capital court seats, were of timber, with clay or plaister intermixed; and those of most farmers, and in villages, were of mud and clay.

In these days, they had scarce any other than thatched houses in the most polished countries of Europe.

And, although those countries were overrun with woods, they had not even learnt to guard against the cold by means of chimmies, (the kitchen excepted,) an invention so useful and ornamental to our modern apartments. The custom then was for the whole family to sit in the middle of a smoaky hall round a large stove, the funnel of which pafsed through the ceiling.

ons.

Lafflamma, who wrote in the fourteenth century, complains that frugality and simplicity had given way to extravagance and luxury, and regrets the times. of the emperor Frederic Barbarofsa, of the twelth. century, and of the emperor Frederic II. of the thirteenth century, when in Milan, the capital of Lombardy, they ate flesh meat but three times aweek. Wine was very scarce. They had no idea of wax candles, and even those of tallow were deemed luxury, insomuch that all the better sort of people used splinters of wood instead of candles. They wore woollen fhirts, the most considerable citizens gave not above 100 livres for their daughter's porti"But now, (says Lafflamma,) we wear linen, the women dress in silk gowns, and have their ears adorned with gold pendants, with other luxuries unknown to our ancestors.' At this time, the use of shirts and table linen was very rare in England. Wine was sold only by apochicaries, and that as a cordial alone. Private gentlemen's houses were all of wood, both in London and Paris. It was reckoned a kind of luxury to ride in a two wheeled cart in the ill paved and dirty streets of Paris, and was forbidden the wives of citizens by an exprefs law. "Let no one presume, (says an edict of Carles v of. France,) to treat his guests with more than soup and two dishes." The use of silver knives and forks, spoons, and cups, was esteemed in those days, an extreme degree of luxury. Glass windows had been in use long before this, but being always esteemed marks of great extravagance, had not come into general use, and were very rare in private

houses. Italy had them first, na France, from whence they made their way into England.

We read in Madox's history of the exchequer, that king Henry III. in the 6th year of his reign, directs the sheriff of Gloucestershire, to buy for him twenty salmons, to be baked in pies, and to be sent. him up to London by Christmas following. He also directs the fheriff of Suf x, to send to him ten brawns, with the heads, ten peacocks, fifty rabits, 100 partridges, and 500 heus. I am, &c.

Edinburgh, April ·793•

}

PROMETHEUS.

QUERIES RESPECTIN~ THE CONDEMNATION OF VESSELS IN NEUTRAI PORTS, &c.

I

SIR,

To the Editor of the Bee.

you will admit the following queries into your paper as early as pofsible, you will much oblige your constant reader

Many vefsels have been of late seized by French privateers in the northern seas, and carried into Norway and other neutral ports, concerning the condemnation or detention of which I find opinions are not unanimous. I will therefore be obliged to you or any of your intelligent correspondents for answers to the following queries.

Has it been the practice heretofore to allow vefsels to be condemned and sold in neutral ports ;-and VOL. Xvi.

D D

if so, what are the forms of proceeding in this case ? I do not myself at present recollect any case exactly in point, and therefore I can only reason from what would seem to be the dictates of common sense. In that point of view it would seem at first sight, that neutral powers could not naturally af sume a right of jurisdiction over either of the parties; and that therefore the persons who brought vefsels into their ports, might, without examination into the manner in which they had acquired the property, be at liberty to dispose of them in any way the established laws of the state permitted; so that the property of captured vefsels might be disposed of as readily as of others imported by the original

owners.

This, however, is on the supposition that no legal alleged claim is made against the person who offers it for sale. For if a representation fhould be made setting forth that the owners of the vessel had obtained possession of it by an act of piracy, there can be no doubt but all sales would be stopped till this question was tried and decided.

In like manner, it would seem that in case a plea were lodged, that a captured vefsel had not been legally captured, a stop to all sales must in this case be made till the question be examined and a decision given. Accordingly we find, that in no case is a prise delivered up for sale, even in a friendly port, without a legal trial and condemnation; but such a trial and condemnation would be afsuming a jurisdiction that no neutral power seems to have a right to exercise, so that it would seem no condemnation

can there be made, and consequently no sale of captured vefsels be permitted.

Supposing no sales of captured vefsels can be permitted in neutral ports, May they be there laid up, and detained for an indefinite time, or are there any limitations in this respect admitted by common consent?

It is well known that there are regulations universally admitted respecting the sailing of vessels from neutral ports, so that if a vefsel belonging to one of the belligerent powers sails at any time, another of superior force belonging to the other, is not allowed to sail, till after the lapse of a limited time from the sailing of the former; but I have heard of no rule that has been generally admitted respecting the time that alleged prises may be allowed to remain in a neutral port, though I can see many reasons that would seem to indicate that such a rule ought to be adopted.

Vefsels coming into any port, if not for the purpose of trade, are supposed to come there or the purposes of obtaining a temporary fhelter from danger either from storms or innical attempts, or for obtaining refreshments to the hands, or for repairing such damages as the vefsel may be in want of; and after a reasonable time has been allowed for these purposes, all the claims from neutral hospitality seem to be accomplished, and the neutral power has certainly then a right to order such vefsels to depart; and if they decline to exereise that right it must have so much the appearance