“It is now distinctly understood,” said his Majesty’s Advocate-General, in a report officially communicated by Lord Hawkesbury to the American government, and transmitted to all the Vice-Admiralty Courts aboard,[322] “and so decided by our highest tribunals, that the produce of the colonies of the enemy may be imported by a neutral into his own country, and may be re-exported from thence, even to the mother-country of such colony; and in like manner the produce and manufactures of the mother-country may, in this circuitous mode, legally find their way to the colonies. The _direct_ trades, however, between the mother-country and its colonies have not, I apprehend, been recognised as legal, either by his Majesty’s government, or by his tribunals. What is a _direct_ trade, or what amounts to an intermediate importation into a neutral country, may sometimes be a question of some difficulty: a general definition of either, applicable to all cases, cannot well be laid down. The question must depend upon the particular circumstances of each case. Perhaps the mere touching at a neutral country to take fresh clearances may properly be considered as a fraudulent evasion, and as, in effect, the _direct_ trade; but the High Court of Admiralty[323] has expressly decided that landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country breaks the continuity of the voyage, and is such an importation as legalises the trade, although the goods be re-shipped in the same vessel, and on account of the same neutral proprietor, and be forwarded for sale to the mother-country or the colony.”