The lord chancellor left the wool sack, and said the law of nations was the law of justice, which existed between individuals in a state of nature. With respect to hostilities, if it appeared that neutrals acquiesced in the views of an enemy, and means were adopted to prevent the injury likely to arise from the designs of the enemy, he did not think, that from Magna Charta to the present time, any contradiction had been offered to the principle on which the orders of council proceeded. The noble lord then defended the policy of the subsequent orders, that we must use the same weapons as France, and contended that they were calculated to promote the benefit and security of the country.

Lord King contended, that it must be proved by his majesty's ministers, that neutrals had sub. mitted to the decrees of the enemy, in order to justify the monstrous conduct which we were pursuing against them. He acknowledged that the decrees of France against our commerce were such as to justify us in measures of retaliation against that power; but surely, before we retaliated on neutrals, it was necessary to show that they had given sufficient provocation. This, however, was not the case, and he called on noble lords on the other side to adduce any one act done by neutrals, which manifested even a disposition to submit to the measures of Bonaparte against this

ships. Such a view of the subject might answer a temporary purpose, as a set-off against facts and incontrovertible statements, but he trusted that there would be an end of such justification as that hitherto pursued, he meant that of instancing the conduct of the late government. Upon that question, however, the present ministers could not defend themselves, for the measures which they had adopted in the way of retaliation, did not violate every principle and recognised forms of the law of nations, as the present ministers had done. Although they had deemed it necessary to resort to a declaration of blockade against the enemy, yet they did not involve innocent and unoffending neutrals in the calamities of war.-Having dwelt for some time on this part of the subject, the noble lord then proceeded to examine the measure before their lordships generally, as one on the revocation, or non-revocation of which, depended (he believed in his soul) the existence of Great Britain. He contemplated with the deepest regret, the motives which seemed to influence some persons in this country on the present subject: they might, it was true, derive a short-lived popularity from their rigour beyond all law, even the law of necessity, as generally understood, but he feared the day was not very distant, when not only the country, but the very authors of the mischief, who were now triumphing, would lament and bitterly deplore their conduct; all he could hope was, that their repentance might not be too late. The noble and learned lord (Eldon) laboured very much on points which were not capable of being contradicted; he had stated propositions with respect to the law of necessity,

which were clear and self-evident; but the inforences of the noble and learned lord were irrelevant, because they had no application what ever to this question; the noble lord not only failed in making out the necessity, but in showing that there was even a colourable pretext for the orders in council as against neutrals. Their lordships should consider whether the decree of the enemy was executed: now, so far from it, that all the evidence was the other way; for on the applica. tion of neutrals to the French government for an explanation, the answer was, that it was not intend ed against the power so inquiing, This was the answer given to the American ambassador in particular; he was told that not a provision in it should affect the treaty subsisting between both countries. The American ambassador communicated this explanation to the present ministers, who certainly might thus far have regulated their conduct, in conformity to an undeniable fact, namely, that Bonaparte had not executed his decree against America, and that America had shown no intention of acquiescing in that decree, if it were the intention of France to carry it into effect. What then was the line pursued by ministers? They said, in substance, by their order of council, You, Americans, may be satisfied with the explanation of France, but we feel the explanation disgraceful to the United States, and infer from it the submission of Americ, therefore we will impose on you all the calamities and all the evils of war. If the necessity of the case were the ground to be relied on, why not establish it? Here was a fact which proved that it existed as against neutrals only in the imagi.

1808.

nation of those who recommended and wrote the orders of council. If the orders were examined, it would be found that the plea of justification which they recited at their very opening was, that the French government had issued unjust decrees against the commerce of England, and that neutrals had not procured a renunciation of them. This was no ground at all, because Bonaparte had not executed them, and therefore his decrees were as waste paper against us: for our object was to see whether they were executed, and then to be informed whether neutrals had submitted to Bonaparte's wishes. We find, however, that ministers have not any foundation for supposing either case; on the contrary, every kind of proof was against them.

The noble lord concluded his speech, with expressing his surprise that ministers should revive the right of imposing a tax on the commerce of America. When that had been attempted in former times, the consequences were disastrous to both countries during the struggle; but on what ground could or ought government to have torn those wounds inflicted on America? Why should it be our policy to rouse her independence; and all this at a moment when we should endeavour to soothe her sufferings and conciliate her attachment? Surely the evil genius of Great Britain could not have suggested a more certain plan for the ruin of the country, than that of compelling the Americans to come into our harbours, and there exacting from them those duties or taxes as our folly might demand from them. This was such an act of insolence, and such a violation of all law, as ought to make the most unprincipled and tyranni

D

cal

cal government shrink from its acknowledgment ! He conjured their lordships to put an end as soon as possible to this mischief. He feared that the effect which it might produce would not be removed, or even mitigated during the life of any person who witnessed the transaction. It was SO atrocious that the Americans could not forget it; and he was of opinion would not easily forgive its injurious tendency.

Lord Hawkesbury said that with respect to the question of retaliation, which was the only one before their lordships, he should say, that it involved the deepest interests of the country; and feeling this to be the case, he was the more anxious to state his view of it generally at present, reserving the detail till some future discussion, which he had no doubt would be afforded by noble lords opposite to him. He thought that the mistaken notions of the noble baron with respect to the violation of the laws of nations, must arise from a want of due consideration. The noble baron acknowledged the right of retaliation against an enemy, but denied it against neutrals he lamented the necessity of inflicting any of the calamities of war, on neutrals, but self-preservation fully justified it He did not anticipate such evils from the operation of our measure on American commerce, as the noble baron apprehended; he, on the contrary, hoped that America would, on a calm view of the whole transaction, feel inclined to give it effect rather than opposition. She must be aware that the enemy provoked us to adopt it by his decrees and various oppressions; and of course, that with respect to America as a neutral, it was an order growing out of

necessity, which carried its justification with it! The noble lord closed his speech at two o'clock, with stating, that he should resist the noble baron's motion.

Lord Lauderdale and lord Sidmouth gave their support to the motion. On a division, the numbers were:-For the motion 48, against it 106.

Ministers, finding themselves secure in their majorities on this important question, introduced a bill on the subject into the lower house; on the second reading of which, Feb. 18,

He

Mr. Eden said that he could not allow this bill to go through another stage without declaring his sentiments upon it. In doing so he should throw out of his consideration the question as to the right of retaliation. That he should leave to other gentlemen better able to discuss the subject, and should confine the few observations he had to offer on the measure in question to its effects, so far only as America was concerned. would ask, if it could at all be shown either that America had any access to that decree of the French government issued on the 21st of November, 1805, previously to the passing of it; or that she acquiesced in it without reluctance after it was issued? He maintained that there was no evidence to this effect, but the contrary. It appeared too, from the letter of Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney to our government,

planatory of this matter, that the decree was never acted upon; and that the trade of America was in no wise annoyed in consequence of the decree. It did not appear that any answer was given to this letter, but three weeks after followed the orders of council, which went to in

fict on America a punishment as severe as if she had been in a state of the most abject submission to the wishes and objects of France. It was a mere mockery to say that any vessels whatever sailing from American ports, at any time whatever, were to be exempted from the operation of this tax. Supposing it to be the wish of the captain or owners, though the ship was originally cleared out for Bourdeaux, that the place of her destination should be changed with the change of circumstances, and that she should proceed to Stockholm; that very change of destination would subject her to the tax. Supposing such a deviation to be voluntary on the part of the American, he was anxious to know what right our government, or that of any other country, could have to impose a penalty on a neutral vessel conducting herself in this manner. He conceived this to be a tax on the neutral trader without any reason, or the most distant shadow of right.

The advocate-general (sir John Nicholl), conceiving that the house had a right to hear his opinion on this question, rose thus early to state his sentiments and the grounds upon which be formed them. These orders of council were preceded and accompanied by circumstances which were material to be considered in forming a judgment upon their legality. The French decree prohibited the trade of neutrals in articles of British produce and manufacture, and had even gone the further length of declaring the British islands in a state of blockade. According to this regulation, a Danish vessel bound from Copenhagen to Tranquebar, and having on board British goods

purchased at Lisbon or America, may be seized by a French cruizer, and would be confiscated on being brought into a French port. The French government, falsely assuming that the British government had declared ports under the dominion of France to be in a state of blockade without placing armed ships to exercise and enforce that blockade, and claiming a right of retaliating upon the same principles, declared the British islands in a state of blockade. But the fact was, that in the most extensive blockade published by this country, which extended from the Elbe to Brest, a particular inquiry had been made, whether there was a paval force sufficient to execute that blockade according to the strict terms of public law. The result of that inquiry was, to shew that there was an ample force, and that force was employed accordingly. retaliation adopted upon the French decree was gradual, moderate, and dignified. It was intended always to avoid injuring neutrals as much as possible. The first measure was the publication of the order of council of January 7th. That measure he had defended and supported at the time. It was largely ef ficacious: but even then it was felt, that in strict right, we might have gone further, if that measure should be found insufficient to obtain resistance to the French decrec. Denmark, Portugal, Lisbon, and America, were at that time the only neutral powers. Had any one of these powers resisted or remonstrated when a decree, similar to that which now provoked our retaliation, was published by the French directory in 1798? It was immediately denounced by the American president, in his speech

The

to the congress, as a violation of the rights and independence of the United States. Was any step of that nature taken in the present instance? Was any representation made by the court of Lisbon? On the contrary, the port of Lisbon was become a perfect port of entrepot, to protect the vessels carrying on the coasting trade of France, and the countries under the dominion of France. Had Denmark resisted? The contrary was proved by reference to lord Howick's letter to Mr. Rist, in which that noble lord, for whom he professed a high respect, as he did for the late go-. vernment generally, very properly censured the submission to the original imposition of France, and the remonstrance against the consequent restriction adopted on the part of this country. With respect to America, the note of the French minister of marine, Decres, gave no assurance of exception of American vessels from the operation of the French decrce of the 21st of November, 1806. An instance of the capture of an American vessel, under the provisions of the French decree, had since occurred, and that vessel having been recaptured by a British cruizer, a salvage had been awarded upon the recapture. Now that the peace of Tilsit established the influence of France over the continent, the prohibition of British trade would be, universally enforced by France; and unless some principle of retaliation were adopted on our part, we should be compelled to submit to such terms, of peace as France may be disposed to dictate. But if, by our retalia tion, France should be deprived of many of the necessary articles of daily consumption, the French would in the course of a little time

be forced to become the violators of the prohibition of their own government. The colonial trade of France, Spain, and Holland, had been hitherto throughout the war carried on by means of American ships. There were French houses established in America to facilitate this trade, and it was from these French houses that a great part of the late groundless outcry against Britain proceeded. The only prior example of the prohibitory mandate of France, was one issued in 1798 by Russia against France as the enemy of all nations; Russia, which was now in alliance with France against Britain, and which complained of the departure of Britain from the law of nations, while it was silent upon the previous outrage of France! It should be recollected, that in all engage. ments, express or implied, between belligerents and neutrals, there were neutral duties as well as neutral rights; and that belligerents had direct obligations towards themselves, as well as collateral obligations towards their neighbours. If a neutral power allowed its territory to be violated by one bellige rent, it was bound to allow an equal latitude to the opposite belligerent. The same principle held at sea; and if America submitted to the intervention of France, the intervention should be permitted on our part. If it was in our power, and if our right permitted us to detain vessels on their way to France, it was equally our right to permit them to proceed on certain condi tions, and on this ground the detention and duty bond were perfectly justifiable. If, under these circumstances, America should de. termine to be hostile, it was a satis faction to us that our cause was

just