The Sun.
London, England, 1833-02-16 00:00:00

plation. How the Hon. Member who read that judgment
could imagine that it supported his own argument, he
(Lord Palmerston) was at a loss to understand. It might
be asserted, however, that though we had a right in such a
case, to detain vessels in our ports, we had no right to seize
them on the high seas. But this assertion was not borne
out by the authorities on international law ; and it was
not consistent with the practice of this country in such
rases. In the embargo on Turkish ships, in 1807 ; in that
upon Danish vessels in the sime year; in the embargo upon
Russian vessels in 1807 ; and in that upon American
vessels, in 1812—in every one of these cases not only were
vessels in port detained, hut orders were given to seize and
to bring into port all such vessels belonging to these respec-
tive nations which should be met with on the high seas by
our cruisers.

Mr. POLLOCK (as we understood) here observed, that
hostilities had t •ken place in the case of the United States.
Lord PALNIERSTON—I beg pardon. Hostilities had
not taken place at the time of the embargo. It is true
that hostilities followed. The United States had declared
war ; but this country had not declared war at the time
of the embargo.
Mr. POLLOCK repea.ed his observation.

Lord PALMERSTON said he had no doubt but the
Hon. and Learned Mein er would find himself mistaken.
If war had been declared, what possible use could there
have been for an embargo, when we had it in our power
to steize and confiscate immediately the vessels and pro-
perty of the enemy wherever we might find them ? Let-
ters of marque and reprisals would, in that case, have
been the proper course to be pursued. But it would base
been perfectly ridiculous to imoose an embargo upon ves•
sels when we hail the power of capturing them wherever
we might find them. The United States had, indeed,
lee! ared wit again-t us previously to the embargo ; but
we did not declare war against them till several months
after. We cl‘ose rather to have recourse to the more
lenient expedient in the first place, in order to give the
Government of that country an opportuni y of retracting the
step which they had taken, by renewing their friendly
relations with this country. It was true that the state of
things which led to the embargo had, in this case, merged
in war ; but it showed, at least, that there was nothing in
our embargo incompatible with the continuance of negotia-
tion. between the parties. War was, in fact, to be avoided
by all possible means ; and it was, therefore, the duty of
the Government to try whether. by suspending the fall
of the sword for a time, they might not avert so dreadful a
calamity. They had, therefore, proceeded, in the first
place, to detain the property of the Dutch ; they had re-
solved to try the minor measure hafore they had recourse
to the more severe. It appeared that, in the opinion of
the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite, they oug 't to have
proceeded immediately to declare war. The Right Hon.
Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) had said, if th, re is a
cause of quarrel, go to war.—[Sir R. Peel denied this.]
The words of the Right Hon. Baronet implied as much.
The Noble Lord here proceeded to quote a passage from
Vattel to this eff ct—that the law of humanity r quired
nations to susoenil to the last the fatal calamity of war, and
to tiy every other method of obtaining justice before pro-
ceeding to that extremity. His Majesty's Mini-tern had
acted upon this principle; and for doing so they were ac-
cused of robbery and piracy. Would they have satisfied
the opposite side if they had immediately declared war?
He (Lord Palmerston) did not believe. certainly, thit the
Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have approved of
their going to war in favour of B Igium ; but he certainly
did believe that they would have had no ohjection to this
country's going to war to prevent the sepaaation of
Belgium from Holland—to maintain a Union which was
hateful to the Balgians, and not more agreeable to the Du, cb.
If Ministers had pursued that course, he did not know
what would have been the opinion of the Right Hon. Gen.
tletnen ; but he was sure they would have deserved the re-
probation of that House and of the country. Thus, in every
point of view, whether the question were considered as one
of municipal law, or one of in•ernational, it was perfectly
clear that the measure was perfectly just. rite measures
which had been taken were in perfect concurrence with
the other Powers. The five Powers had commenced their
interference in the affairs of Belgium as arbi,rators, and
they so began before the period when his Maj sty's pre-
Rent 'Ministers came in.. office. The first act of these
arbitrators was to say—" You shall fight no more. The
war must be suspended for an indefinite period." The
parties objected to the suspension of host:ll6es for an in-
definite period. What was the answer of the five Pow-
ers? We are ready to enforce the armistice with our
whole power. This was the act of arbitrators. It it
were not, there was no dispute about the subject, but with
regard to words. After finding, however, that the Bel-
gians declared they would never again bear allegiance to a
Prince of the House of Nassau, the five Powers no langer
persevered in their course of arbi!ration; but they en-
deavoured to persuade the two parties to arrange their
differences amicably. They then took the character of
mediators ; and that course they had pursued, perhaps,
too long. In the opinion of some Hon. Mernb-rs at least,
they hail pursued it too long. He had been ridiculed on
all hands, and held up to the derision of that House and
of the country ; but the country was too enlighiened to
ridicule him for endeavonring to preserve peace by pro-
tocolling, as it had been called.—(A laugh.) Toe Right
Hon. Member for Essex had talked contemptuously of his
hammering and protocolline ; he found fault with the
Ministers' adherence to pacific counsels ; and he was no
less displeased, it appeared, with the dep attire from them
in the case of the attack upon Antwerp. Whether they
attempted to preserve the peace of Europe, so much en-
dangered by the quarrel of the Dutch and B-Igians—
whether they endeavoured to preserve peace by persuasion
or by force, the course which they thi,ught it advisable to
pursue was equally disagreeable to those Hon. Gentlemen.
He trusted, however, that the House and the people would
bet er appreciate their endeavours to prevent a war in
Europe, and,a confl cm of po itical principles which would
inevitably have arisen if such a war bad taken plat:. He
expressed his sorrow once more, that neither their peaceful
endeavours to attain these objects, nor their endeavours in
the way of co rcion, had had the good fortune to hit the
fancy of the Right Hon. Gentleman. They were accused
of continuing the system of protocols too long; but, for his
own part, tie thought that protocols were better and leas
expensive than Extraordinary Gazettes--( Hear, hear)—
and the effusion of ink was much less to be regretted than
the effusion of blood. H tying tried these means, the five
Powel" felt it to be their duty to draw out the terms of an
arrangement, founded on the due consideration of the claims
of the two parties ; and the result was, the treaty signed
in October, 1831. They then told the parties that it was
their determination to enforce the terms proposed. They
took the character of arbi rators again ; and Belgium
having accepted the terms, they then took that of gum an.
tees. Holland, however, believing from every turn of
affairs, that she would obtain better terms, refused to
agree to the proposals, and she has ever since refused to
accede to th it or any other arrangement. The five Powers
then commenced as arbitrators; they then became media-
tors between the contending parties. They afterwards
resumed the character of arbitrators ; and they are now
to he considered guarantees f the treaty which Belgium
had accepted. This, the Noble Lord observed, was the
character in which the five Powers now stood with respect
to Belgium and Holland. There had been no difference
of opinion aiming the five Powers respecting the embargo,
and Be'gium had a right to expect that they would take
measures, in order that the treaty migi t be fulfilled. The
Right Honourable Member for Essex (Mr. Baring) com-
plained of our conduct to so faithful an ally of this country
as H illand. He (Lord Palmer-ton) did not wish to dis-
parage Holland ; but had Holland acted the part of a
faithful ally to this country mu the time of the American
war? Hail it done so in the time of the Fiench w ?
Or since the peace of 1815, had it displayed any of that
trrendly feeling in its colonial and commercial reguktions
which inieht have been expected, cons.dering thesactofices
which had been mate by this country on her account ? The
conduct of the alinistry had been characterised as imbecile,
lual as diplomatic foolery. The Manaber for Oxford
might probably recollect the declaration which he hid
made on the occasion of the French troops proceeding to
Belgium in 1831 That it the Government suc-
ceeded in getting the French troops out of Belgium, it
would indeed be a masterpiece of diplomacy." The
French troops had left Belgium ; yet it was no master-
piece of diplomacy ; it was owing to nothing but the good
faith and nice sense of honour with which his Majesty
the King of the French, not only on that occasion, but
on every other, had been found anxious to fulfil every
oblig ition. The Convention on the subject had been land
on the table yesterday. Notwithstanding the sarcasms of
gentlemen on the opposite side, be %vita convinced that
Ministers, by cultivating friendly relations with France,
were taking the best m. ant to secure the peace of Europe.
While the two countries continued united, they could
command the pe tee of Europe—(Cheers)—for Fiance
and England together would never make an unju.t war ;
and he should like to know what Power or what con-
federacy of States could make an unjust war upon France
and England united ? The representative syvein establish-
ed in
i both countries was a guarantee that they
would
wounvolve themselves in no unjust wars. The great
foe to the peace of Europe was Holland. The great cause
of the obstinacy of the Dutch was the secret hope by
whi, 11 they were undoubtedly aetuited of reconquering
Belgium. Every event which had recently taken place in
Europ- had la, en watched by them, in hers of its leading
to circumstances which might be favourable to the reco-
very of Belgium. Even the defeat of the Grand Vi;ier