Page images
PDF
EPUB

ance to it could rescue them from its pernicious effects. Such was the sense of America upon the Decree of 1798. What, now, has been the sense of America upon the Decree of 1806? We have a right to look to that Government for the same sort of conduct upon that subject, when there was the same sort of Decree issued by France, with the addition of declaring the British Isles in a state of blockade. Was it too much to expect of America, that on being informed of that Decree, she should consider it as a measure issued totally regardless of her rights and independence? Was it too much to expect that she would make a firm resistance to oppose its consequences? We shall suppose, then, that America did actually interpose, and the question must come to this, was it done in such a manner as to satisfy her honour and her interest as connected with G. Britain? As it was a measure of warfare against this country, was it not tending to affect America remotely? She owed her interposition, undoubtedly, not only for her own honour but for her interest, and those duties she should have observed towards the belligerent power that was thus attacked, and with whom she was in perfect amity. It has been asked, upon a former occasion, in order to shew the illegality of our measures, has this French Decree been at all enforced in France? But I apprehend the question ought to be-has the measure been revoked by France? Are we to resort to the ministers of France for the purpose of knowing whether they can exercise their own Decree or not? After the discussion that has already taken place upon the subject of M. Decres' Letter, can any body consider that it contains that sort of revocation that ought to have satisfied America? Has there been any Decree declaring that America was excepted out of the Order of the 21st of Nov.? If France chose to give a doubtful and prevaricating answer to America, was that to assure America that her commerce would be free from interruption? Did not the tenor and the maxim still continue? Were not her vessels, as well as those of other countries, obliged to pay higher insurance, in consequence of that Decree still existing? Undoubtedly it must be conceded that a private assurance of this sort ought not to have been considered any thing upon which America could rest satisfied. But, even let it be granted, that there had been a public assurance to America that she alone was to be exempted from its influ

ence, would that have been a sufficient ground for us not to look further to our interest? What! because France chooses to except America from her injurious decrees, are we to consent to their continuance? If France thinks proper to violate the territories of several neutral powers and not to act in a similar manner towards another neutral, does it follow that those other nations are to submit and endure a misconstruction of her conduct? Such, then, is the construction that can be put upon her conduct by the law of nations, which is the principle of natural justice, honestly and bona fide employed. It is not by inanceuvre and management of this sort that we are to be bound to make the same exception in our conduct towards France, that she may be pleased to make towards America, by that private assurance, if it may be so called, that passed through M. Decres.-What took place upon the 17th or 19th of Feb.? The Spanish Decree was then issued, and it may be looked upon as the act of France. Was there any exception in favour of America? If it was to be understood that America was excepted out of the Decree of the 21st of Nov. is it to be supposed that in that subsequent decree we should not have had some notice of that exception? This, surely, was a pretty strong proof that America was never intended to have been exempted. Did not the capture of the ship Sanson, by the Spanish officers, evince what was their understanding of the blockade of England? She was taken upon the sole ground of her violating that blockading decree. Now, let us go on to another point that will yet further clucidate the nature of that Decree. I allude to the Treaty of Tilsit. France now had consumated partly her object; Russia and Prussia had made their peace with France and were become neutrals; but do they call for a revocation of that Decree? No; they are converted into the allies of France; and can any one doubt that it was part of the system of that Treaty, that Denmark, Russia, and Prussia, were all to be condemned to comply with the confederacy? France now had accomplished what she deemed a grand object towards excluding the commerce of G. Britain from all the continental ports. What was the answer of Buonaparte himself, as to America? He expressly disavows any intention of excluding her from his measures, even when he began to feel that the blockade of this country might tend to

[ocr errors]

com

retort upon him the evil of his own injus- tempt to force open the door to the contitice. Now, let us look a little into the nental market, or submit to those terms of situation of this country and Europe, as peace which France was willing to impose affected by the Treaty of Tilsit, in the lat- upon us. If France had the means of obter part of Oct. or beginning of Nov. last, taining from other sources those articles when these Orders in Council were issued. of which she stood in need, is it at all proThe fact was, that with regard to England, bable that she would ever have consented she was excluded from every port of Eu- to admit our produce? When France is rope, except the island of Sicily. Her deprived of those articles, is it not natural produce and manufactures were to suppose that she will become the vio pletely interdicted. Yet, it has been lator of her own prohibitions? Will she stated, that these Orders have been the not then be induced to receive our comruin of our commerce. Look at our situ- merce into her territories? Is there any ation without these Orders, and then let chance of her doing this, if she could be us consider the question. Not a port was supplied by other means? It is true, that open at the period they were issued. The before these Orders in Council were issued, continental market of Europe was com- there was a considerable degree of benefit, pletely shut against us. But then it is in my opinion, derived by the effect of the said, that those vigorous measures of the Order of the 7th of Jan. That Order French government would not have been pressed very considerably upon the conticarried into execution, had not our Orders nent of Europe; and the more so as the been adopted. Now, I answer to this, powers gradually came under the dominion that we have not read a single news-paper, and controul of France, as there was then for many months back, that did not bring no neutral intermediate power through us accounts of fresh measures being taken which they could violate those Orders. for the rigorous and strict observance of We must be aware, however, that the that original decree. Besides this, let us coasting trade of Europe was necessarily look to the probability of the fact. It open to very considerable evasion, by might very probably have been the case, stealing along their shores in small vessels; had France continued at war with some and besides, that there were means of of the other continental powers, that she communication through the great rivers would, from necessity, have softened the of Europe, by which with considerable rigour of her Decree, and connived at inconvenience to themselves, they might neutrals introducing British commodities be supplied with the various products of upon the continent; but, when Buonaparte the continents. But with respect to the has consummated his grand scheme for foreign commerce, they were actually the destruction of our maritime power, under no inconvenience whatever, notcan any person believe, that he would withstanding all our boasted maritime suany longer have suffered this connivance? periority. Our enemies had, in fact, betWould he not have done every thing to ter opportunities for procuring foreign forward his grand object of excommuni-commerce, than if they had employed a cating G. Britain from the society of nations? We have only to refer to the newspapers of the month of Oct. to find, that at the very moment when Buonaparte restores to their legitimate sovereigns the districts of Mechlenburg and Oldenburg, it is upon the express condition that they shall exclude British commerce. If this, then, was the case, what was the situation of this country? We might send our manufactures for the consumption of our colonies, and in return we could bring home our colonial produce, but there our commerce ended. Not one article of British manufacture could find its way to the continent of Europe. Will any person say, that this situation would not be the destruction of the resources of this country: We could have nothing to do, but either to at

great maritime force to protect their trade. This may, indeed, appear paradoxical, but the truth is, that by means of neutral vessels they could bring home, not only all the produce of their islands, but even the produce of America, as securely as if they had not been in a state of warfare: under neutral names they enjoyed a complete supply of all the products from the various quarters of the world. They collected the duties upon the export of them from their colonies, and they were even doing something more than, this; they were granting bounties for the carrying of those very products to the mother country. Wines and brandies and other products of France, went in exchange for oils, soap, and other products of their colonies, without being in the slightest degree ques

tioned. In short, they were in the full presents the injustice of the French Deenjoyment of all the advantages of peace, cree of Nov. 1806, and justifies the conby having an ample supply of all sorts of duct of his majesty in issuing the Order in goods. The regular tea sales at Amster- Council, of 7th Jan. which Order was dam went on without any the smallest in- founded upon the just principle of retaliterruption, just as if the Dutch were in a ation. This principle seems to have been state of the most profound peace; ships asserted by France herself. I do not feel that traded from Amsterdam to China be- it, notwithstanding these authorities, neing allowed to navigate with the greatest cessary to plead the justification of these facility. Even the capital of every Dutch Orders, by the precedent of that issued by merchant was fully employed. Most of his majesty's late government.-No; I the houses in Amsterdam have houses in think, and I am sure, this house will feel, America, or have agents in that country, that they are perfectly justifiable; and, I so that the money was advanced in many will add, founded on the law of nations. instances before a single bale of goods left In 1798, Russia feeling at that period the America. They had then colonial and aggressions and overweening tyranny of other produce conveyed to them just in the France, did issue an Order of a much same manner as if we had not the enjoy stronger stamp than those issued by G. ment of any maritime superiority at all. I Britain, and so much complained of; that do not know whether or not I have been Order authorised the seizure of all ships succesful in my view of the subject, but it proceeding to France. I do contend, that does seem to me, that looking to the situ- the question of the conformity of these ation of Europe, and of this country, at the Orders to the law of nations, cannot be time of issuing these Orders, it was ruinous viewed in the abstract. It may be asked, to us in the extreme. While this country will you repel injustice with injustice? No. was in this state of blockade, America-But, I would ask, is it to be endured, could not take from us a single bale of British goods without the risk of her vessels being lawful prizes to the French. Our commerce and colonial produce might have remained in our warehouses and rotted there; as I cannot help thinking that the more Buonaparte acquired of the continent, the more rigorously would he be inclined to enforce his measures. And be it recollected, that our commerce constitutes the sinews of war, and therefore those measures of retaliation which we adopted were absolutely necessary for our preservation and defence. We have only imposed those privations upon France which would induce France, or at least the inhabitants of that country, (for I am not supposing that we could compel their government to agree to these measures), to become the violators of their own decrees. Now, upon the ground of retaliation we are perfectly justified. It has been said, that our Orders have been a violation of the law of Nations; but need I revert to any other authority upon this subject than that of the late government themselves? I confess that I cannot see any difference in the principle, although there may be some in the degree, between these Orders and that of the 7th of Jan.; they were founded upon the principle of retaliation. This principle was completely set forth by a noble lord (Howick) in a note to Mr. Rist, [p. 402,] in which he strongly reVOL. X.

that one belligerent shall be suffered to act towards another in a manner the most unjust, and the most contrary to the laws of nations, and that the other belligerent shall be bound to observe the accustomed usages and conduct towards her? I do contend that France has acted towards this country in open violation of every law of nations; and I do maintain that this country is justified in retaliating upon her. If it be said that the law of nations ought not to be observed, I do from my heart protest against such a principle. I do think that nothing but the most urgent necessity can warrant its nonobservance. If, however, your enemy will not be bound by it, I do think that you have no other resort but that of going back to first principles, and looking to self-preservation. Much has been said of the infringement of neutral rights, but I have heard very little said of neutral duties. In the operation of these Orders in Council, it never was in the contemplation of the framers of them to oppose neutral rights. If America suffer, it is what is unavoidable where her interest is so connected as in the present war between this country and France. These measures against America were alone intended to annoy France, not to injure or infringe upon the rights of neutrals. Every concession, that was compatible with the defence of the country, I do maintain was 2 X

footing of complete equality. I regret to hear that so much clamour has been raised, by I know not what infatuation, for peace are such advocates for that measure, satisfied that it would be a lasting, solid, and safe one? I very much fear that no peace of the kind could be obtained at present. I am satisfied, that by carrying on the contest with that spirit and energy that become a free people, the issue will be speedy, honourable, and glorious.

made in favour of neutrals. America was, | as before, admitted to go to the colonies and bring back their produce for her own consumption. I cannot consider it a hard-at the present moment. Are those who ship to require of a neutral whom you adinit to go to an enemy's colony, to be subject to certain restrictions for such admission. If you have a right to interdict it, you have a right to point out such regulations as you think fit. It has been said that the measures adopted towards America will be likely to produce misunderstanding between her and this country. Earl Temple thought his hon. and learned I do not believe it; on the contrary, I am friend, who had just sat down, had dethoroughly persuaded that America will parted from the investigation of the quesfeel, when she views these measures with tion before the house. He contended, that that temper and coolness that I think she the principle of self-preservation laid down will, that this country has been actuated by his hon. and learned friend in defence by no hostile feeling against her, but that of these Orders in Council, was not made whatever injury she may sustain, was ab- out. If it had been, he would admit it to solutely unavoidable on our part, and in- be a justification of them. The injury dispensable to our preservation and exist- done to neutrals, it was contended, was ence. It is impossible that America should unavoidable, and was with a view to the not see that this country has done every ultimate injury and annoyance of the thing in its power compatible with its enemy. He contended, that we could security, to accommodate and convenience have no right to attack neutrals directly her. I am proud it has been so; con- in order to injure the enemy collaterally. vinced as I am, that the prosperity of the The Order issued by his majesty's late one country is the prosperity of the other. government, in Jan. 1807, was issued on Different has been the treatment of France grounds totally distinct from the present to America. All communication with G. Orders. The former was in perfect conBritain has been interdicted, under the formity with the laws of nations; the latter threat of destroying her independence. in direct violation of them. In order to The conduct of France towards America, Ijustify our conduct towards America, it do contend, has been one continued scene would be necessary to shew that she acof insult and injury. G. Britain has, on quiesced in the provisions of the French the contrary, uniformly acted with mode- Decree. The contrary, however, appeared ration and forbearance, and with every wish to be the fact. On the appearance of the to cultivate amity and friendship between French Decree, in Nov. the American mithe two countries. I am satisfied, from all nister required an explanation of it, statthese considerations, and from the gooding, that it was contrary to the treaty of sense of the people of America, that no rupture will take place between us and her. A great deal of objection has been raised against the shape of these Orders in Council, against the particular time at which they have been issued, and against their being too rigorous; but I do trust the house will feel the weakness of these objections, and agree that they have been founded both upon policy, justice, and law. These Orders, I am satisfied, will cause severe privations on the continent, and visit upon the head of its tyrant the evils intended to be entailed upon us. The period in which we live is awful beyond example, and the contest in which we are engaged, great beyond precedent. We are possessed of the dominion of the sea; France of the land; so far we are on a

amity and commerce existing between America and France. The answer of the minister of marine was, that it was not in the contemplation of the French Decree to affect American ships. He had heard it said, that this was idle assertion; but he would be glad to ask, if the communication of the explanation of this Decree, by the President of the United States of America to Congress, was nothing more than idle assertion? It was a well-known fact, that the merchants of this country, whose opinions upon these Orders in Council were certainly the most correct, and who uniformly complained of them, had not, in consequence of the French Decree, been obliged to pay a single additional shilling insurance on the trade between, this country and America. Spain was

[ocr errors]

prised that the sinews of our strength laid in our commerce. Hence the whole force of this injurious system reverted on ourselves. He concluded with entering his formal protest against the measure.

obliged to issue a similar decree at the time France issued hers. An American ship was brought into a Spanish port for a violation of this decree; she was brought to trial in the Prize Court, and ordered to be released. Another instance occurred in France, when an American ship, under the same circumstances, was released. What? he would ask, could be so convincing as these facts? and what could more strongly shew that it was not the intention of France to injure or restrict American traders? There were other facts which proved Mr. Munroe's letter to Mr. Secretary Canning, [p. 598] stating it not to be the intention of France to interfere with the trade of America. In the teeth of all this evidence, and three weeks after the receipt of Mr. Munroe's letter to Mr. Canning, these Orders in Council appeared. It was said that America did not obtain the revocation of the French Decree--but how could that be expected? It might not be, nor was not in her power to do so.-The noble lord proceeded to consider the Orders in Council as contradictory to the established principles of municipal law; quoting part of Magna Charta, with the commentary of Montesquieu, to prove that this country ever had considered the rights of even foreign merchants as part of their own constitutional liberty; hence, he maintained, the exertion of the king's prerogative in the publication of these Orders, and their enforcement, had effectually violated the established law of the land. The rights of war should only be exerted by the king on the property of the enemy, and by no means should they be extended to that of neutrals. This measure had even proceeded so far as to raise a tax, and levy supplies, without the consent of parliament.-With respect to the policy of the measure itself, if the inexplicable nature of the Orders permitted him to say he could form any just idea even of their tendency, he must acknowledge his decided conviction of their tendency to injure our trade, to depreciate our character among other nations, and to deprive us of the means of meeting the pressing emergencies of the times. These Orders, as affecting the sugar and cotton trade, had the worst possible effect. He could never comprehend how this measure could be denominated a reta liation, since it affected primarily ourselves, and next our allies. The French would contentedly suffer some embarrassment and inconvenience, being well ap

Mr. Rose defended the legality of the measure, contending that it had not violated any law whatever, but on the contrary was expressly provided for by act of parliament. When these Orders in Council were made, he assured the house, they were not pointed at America, but were intended as a direct and justifiable retaliation against France. He then adverted to the state of the navigation of America, and the immense increase of her shipping and carrying trade, her trade from the East Indies with all parts of the world, and the reduction in the sale of all East India goods, pepper, tea, &c. He repeated, that nothing was more desirable than to avoid warfare with America, and he could not help hoping, that when America came to consider coolly and deliberately upon the subject, she would be satisfied that these Orders were never intended against her; that to preserve peace with that country was most desirable; and he was well assured that government would see it in its true light-that of a measure of retaliation adopted through necessity.

Mr. Hibbert had been anxious to thank his learned friend (the Advocate General) for his excellent speech, but could not omit, at the same time, to recollect with gratitude another speech of that learned gentleman,* in which he had ably defended the Order in Council of Jan. 1807, not only as founded on principles of natural justice, which were the basis of the law of nations; but as directly bearing upon the enemy and considerate towards neutrals. The principle of that measure was so clearly expressed in a State Paper which had been alluded to in the course of the debate,† that he begged permission to read the words; "Neutrality, properly considered, does not consist in taking advantage of every situation between belligerent states, by which emolument may accrue to the neutral, whatever may be the consequences to either belligerent party; but in observing a strict and honest impartiality, so as not to afford advantage in the war to either; and particularly in so far restraining its trade to the accustomed

* See vol. viii. p. 633.

+ Lord Howick's Letter to Mr. Rist, see p. 402.

« PreviousContinue »