But his Lordship admitted that the decision of Sir William Scott by no means went so far; that distinguished judge remarking in the most guarded manner that it was not his business to determine “what was a _bonâ fide_ importation.” However, from Lord Hawkesbury’s commentary upon the judgment, presuming that he indorsed the Judge-Advocate’s opinion, by sending it to America as an extract, it came to be universally understood in the United States that the mere landing of the goods, and paying the duties in the neutral country, were sufficient to break the continuity of the voyage and to legalise the trade; whereas the landing and the payment of the duties were only deemed the best criteria or the best evidence obtainable of a _bonâ fide_ importation. This distinction became afterwards of great importance, although the peace of Amiens put an end for a time to all controversies on the subject. But when hostilities recommenced between France and England, the American merchants, recollecting the footing on which the trade had been placed at the conclusion of the previous war, embarked in it without apprehension, as a commerce perfectly lawful. An immense amount of tonnage was employed in this trade, which was carried on without interruption till the summer of 1805, when a decision on new grounds was adopted by the English Admiralty Courts, which suddenly, and without the smallest warning, exposed the whole of the American merchant vessels to seizure and condemnation. [Sidenote: Reversal of the law in England.]