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

medietinis Power. And here he begged to say that
had be now been, as formerly, actively engaged in husi-
ness, he would h ive tried the question with the Law
Officers of the Crown whether the Custom-house could
refuse a clearance to a British ship proceeding to Hol-
lend. The embargo having now continued far three
months, he wished to know whether it was to be in-
terminable, and to what length of time the prerogative
of the Crown in this respect extended? What could be
done for three months might perhaps be done for three
years, and all trade in the meantime suspended. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman aeemed to rely, not upon
any of the books of authority on this suirj-ct, but merely
upon a dictum of Lord Stowell, " that there were other
cases besides those contemplated, to justify an embargo."
Did he mean to contend that that dictum wound cover
every possible case where a foolish Government thought
tit to lay an embargo ? He (Mr. Bering) abstained from
entering into the merits of the case between England and
Holland ; but this at least was clear, that for ourselves '
we had no subject of dispute, and that our present di-
lemma arose only out of the attempt to mediate. He
inee.ged to remind the Noble Lord, that negotiations could
not now be conducted as upon the ancient regime In
the present state of the world, matters no loneer depended
solely upon the wills of Sovereigns and Ministers ; but
the voice of the people would be heard, and must have
its influence. What now were the sentiments of the
Dutch people towards Great Britain, and how lamentably
they had been recently changed, was evident from the
fact, that no Englishman could walk in the streets of the
great towns without danger of insult. The Hon. Mem-
ber concluded by sense farther observations upon the im-
portance of the commerce of Holland to this country, and
illustrated it by reference to a case which had just come
to his knowledge, in which, for an adventure to Java, en
English merchant had been obliged to employ an Ame-
rican vessel, in consequence of ti.e existence of the embargo.
Sir WILLIAM HORNE admitted, that if the embargo
had been laid on without any reference to really intended
acts of hostility, and had ben used only as a cloak to hide
the designs that in point of fact were entertained, then he
should admit that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite (the
Member for Tamworth) had made out his case—that
that he had established the position that the Order in
Council had beer. an improper interference with the rights
of other nations, and a most improper suspension of the
law of this country, and therefore gal and unconstitu-
tional. The Right Hon. Baronet had endeavoured to
carry the House back to the statute law of this realm ;
but there he (Sir Win. Horne) should not follow him, fer
lie bad no desire to argue such a question technically.
The ground he desired to take up was, that the Crown,
possessing the prerogative of declaring war or concluding
peace, did equally possess the prerogative of continuing
or terminating a state of miaigated hostility, which
might or might not be followed by war; but that
species of mitigated hos•ility, in many instances, did
demand the exercise of as large a portion of the preroga-
tive as any state of war could demand ; and it was as little
constitutional to question that exercise, or to limit its opera-
tion, in the one case as in the other. It would, indeed,
be a retrogression in the work of civilization if there were
o be no intermediate state between the extremes of war
and peace—if there were to be no mitigated, but in every
instance unqualified hostility. It hail, as a matter of
course, been readily conceded on all hands, that the
Crown, and the Crown alone, possessed the right of de-
claring war or concluding peace; but was the Crown,
therefore, compellible to make war, and nothing hut war—
nothing short of actual and extreme hostility ? He was
perfectly ready to admit, that if the matter then before
the House had reference merely to an affair of a domestic
nature, the position which the Right Hon. Baronet as-
sumed would have been more tenable ; but as the facts
now stood, no position could be less tenable. He would
beg of the House to look at the real state of the case. Be-
fore the present Administration came into office, a separa-
tion de facto hail taken place between Belgium and Hol-
land. In 1831, a treaty was entered into between France
and others of the great European Powers, which treaty had
been brought down to that House, and he begged to sa
that he had never heard that treaty condemned : he had
always understood that it was one to which it was never in-
tended to take exception. As to the proceeding which this
country adopted when France, in consequence of what
took place, marched a force for the purpose of reducing
Antwerp, he must say that nothing could be less justified
by the facts, or less in consonance with the law of nations,
than were the views taken of that subject by the other
side. It could not be contended with any show of reason,
that France had done otherwise than the occasion re-
quired, in marching against Antwerp—not for the pur-
pose of occupying it as a place deserted, but for the pur-
pose of producing that evacuation which the treaties be-
tween the several contracting nations required. If those
treaties were justifiable, as he believed no one would con-
tend they were not, he wished to learn upon what grounds
it could be maintained that the Crown did not duly exer-
cise its prerogative in the course of mitigated hosAity
which it had pursued? Hs was aware that the authority
of Lord Stowell had been referred to on both sides of the
question, and might be referred to again; but he hesi-
tated not to affirm, that that authority would in every
instance be found, if fairly and impartially examined, in
iris favor throughout.
Mr. POLLOCK confessed that be was by no means
satisfied with the arguments and observations which he had
heard from his Hors. and Learned Friend opposite ; but
he should, fur the present, suppress his dissatisfaction, and
content himself with referring the House to a few facts
and authorities. Let Hon. Members but turn their at-
tention for a moment, to the embargo laid on in the year
1766 ; they' would there see that Parliament was con-
sulted, and the order was strictly temporary ; they would
see that Parliament separated on the 6th of June, that the
embargo expired on the 14Th of November following—
that Parham nt was called together on the Ilth of No-
vember, and voted an address of thanks to the th one for
the ptoclamarion, and for taking their advice before ti e
expiration of the embargo. The year 1801 furnished
other instance in which there was an embargo laid upon
the vessels of Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, in conse-
quence of a violation of the just rights of England by the
Court of St. Peteraburgh, and to which the other Powers
were parties. In that instance, as in the former, Parlia-
ment was consulted, and a course pursued the direct rever-e
of that which it was thought expedient to pursue in refe-
rence to the affairs of Holland and Belgium. He was
perfectly aware that there might be reasons of State
which would render it extremely inexpedient to lay before
the public the grounds upon which the neeotiations now
under consideration had been conducted ; but if so, he
would take the liberty of observing that there ought not
to be a moment lost in making the necessary communica-
tions on tine suirj et to Parliament. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman then recurred to the case of the year 1791,
when the 34th of Geo. 111., cap. 34, recognised pr ncipies
opposed in the strongest manner to the course which his
Majesty's Government had thought it proper to adopt in
the course of these negotiations. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman then referred to the opinions expressed by Lord
Stowell on tine subject of embargoes, for the purpose of
showing that that which was then under the consideration
of the House had been laid on against all recognised prin-
ciples of international law. He hoped his Majesty's Go-
sternment would reed these passages, for lie was quite sure
that Sir William Scott never contemplated that an embargo
could be legally laid on without some act of direct
hostility on the part of the nation against whom it
was directed. His Honourable and Learned Friend
the Attorney-General had made a statement which,
in his opinion, clearly disproved the conclusion to
which he came. If he recollected rightly, the taxis
were these, that when the present Ministers came into
office, they found the two countries of Holland and Bel-
gium separated de facto—he would say nothing about
the declaration of a certain Noble Lord, on another and
more recent occasion, that they were not really separated
—lie would, for the purpose of the argument, assume that
they were ale facto separated. The five Powers then in-
terterad to form a treaty, which required th it Antwerp
should be given up to Belgium. He begged to ask his
and Learned Friend, however, whether there was
any claim in that treaty that Holland should evacuate
Antwerp until she had exchanged ratifications ? Holland
had not exchanged ratifications. and, consequently, Hot-
' land was not bound to evacuate Antwerp? What then took
place? Why, two out of the five Powers entered into a
separate treaty to say how the treaty executed by the five
Powers ought to he construed, and how it ought to be
acted upon. Whin were the other three Powers doing ?
Upon what just principlae—acenrdina to what law of
nations—was it that they carried their interference to
such an extent as for the one to fit out a set, the other
an army, to attack the garrison of Antwerp, and foieibly
take possession of the ships of Holland, against whom
no war had been declared, and from whom nu act of hos-
tility was to be apprehended ? far from there being
any thing like a justification of it, it was a case which
called forth very great suspicion. He denied that it
was either just, politic, wise, or generous.—(Heir,
hear, hear.) It might be wise, it might be politic,
according to sortie systems of sordid and selfish policy,
but was it generous,.-was it truly advantageous, thus to
oppress our former, best, and most ancient ally ?—(Hear,
Lear.) The voice of those who expressed their sorrow tor
the fate of Poland had been heard with sympathy in
that House, and he regretted much that its Members and
iris Majesty's Government did not appear to feel more for
tl e losses inflicted upon our most ancient ally, and one