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

with wliom we were most strongly connected.—(Hear,
hear, and Oh, oh.) He was surprised that his Hon. and
Learned Friend, the Member few the Tower Hamlets,
should support this measure on the ground of temporary
policy ; but he trusted this House would not cease to ex-
claim against a measure so unjust, and one, he would say,
so impolitic, as that of inflicting such grievous injury on
one of our best and most ancient allies.—(Hear, tit at.) He
could not but consider it a piece of injus ice to endeavour
to force our mediation on those two Powers, when one of
them neither wished for our interference, nor ever con-
sented to become a party to it. He hoped the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would at least afford the
House some reason for this embargo. If he did, he should
submit ; but if he did not, he could not but consider the
ineamre as one unjust in itself, injurious to our ancient
allies, and prejudiced even to this country.—(Cheers.)
The SOLICITOR.GENERAL complained of the tone
of the appeal of his Hon. and Learned Friend towards our
feelings and prejudices in favour of our ancient ally. It
was his firm belief, that if it had not been for such ap-
peals as these, the question would have b.-en settled before
now. He tor one was ready to take his toll share of re-
sponsibility in the matter—for, from all the consideration
he was enabled to give the matter, he believed it to be a
prudent, just, and constitutional exercise of the King's
prerogative. His Hon. and Learned Friend opposite h
attacked the measure with what in Westminster Hall
they called a special demurrer.—(A laugh.) He com-
plained of the Order for the embargo, because it had no
preamble. He had referred to authorities to show that
usually there was no order for an embargo without a pre-
amble. But the one in 1766, to which he drew the at-
tention of the Flame, was merely a municipal embargo,
whereas this was an international one ; he would
paint the attention of the House to the order fur
embargo in 1807, which was an international
one, and which had no preamble. The Honourable and
Learned Gentleman sa d that Holland was justified in
resisting the interference of France and England, and
almost expressed his surpri.e that she did not resist.
Therefore, it was quite clear that even his Hon. and
Learned Fri. nil and his party imagined there was some
prospect of hostilities between Holland and Enalaud ;
and, indeed, he must do them the justic.• to say, that it
was not th it fault it such hostilities hid not take place.-(A
laugh.) Thus, even they admitted that the embargo was
not without some reasonable f. and .tion—it was one of
the mildest measures that could be resorted to, and one
which was the most likely to prevent actual war.—
(Hear, hear.) He must again express his surprise twat
his Hon. Friend should compare this case with ti,ise he
ad cited. A mere municipal embargo such as those
was certainly illegal ; to place an embargo on the exporta-
tion of copper, or of pearl- .sh, was contrary to the pro-
visions of our Act of Parliament, and one which made it
necessary for those who imposed it to seek indemnity train
the House, and was by no means to be compared with
one which was purely and eniirely international. Under
all the circumstances of the case, he must give it as his
decided opinion, that the Government were fully justified
in the course which they had a lopted.—(Hear.)

Sir JAMES SCARLETT contended, that it was con-
trary to the law of nations to impose a❑ embargo, unless
in contemplation of war. There was no act of hostility
on the part of Holland, and there could be no fear or con-
templation of any, except as a con-equence of the Intel fe-
rence contemplated by France and England. Had not
France and England. indeed, gone to war—had they not
fitted out an army and a fleet, there would have been none.
But the Government did not content itelt with merely
detaining Dutch ships, but it gave orders for taking them
and brining them into our ports.—( Hear.) Of late years
it had been customary to beain hostilities without any
actual declaration of war—(Hear)—and tl is, although
there was no declaration, was a direct act of war against
Holland.—(Hear.) If it was not an act of war, it was
piracy.--(Hear.) Had it not been the act of the two
greatest Powers of Europe—had it been the act of Algiers
or of Tripoli, then it would have been at once denounced
as a deed of piracy. He hail no doubt, from all that he
had heard, and from all the authorities that be had con-
sulted, that the seizure of and bringing the ships of Hol-
land into British ports was an unjustifiable aggression, and
one which would entitle the Dutch met chants to redress in
our Courts of Justice.

Lord PALMERSTON said that the legal objections
taken by the Hon. Gentleman on the other side of the
House had been so completely answered r y his Hon. and
Learned Friends, that he should not detain the Howe on
that point. They had clearly shown that the embargoes
referred to on the other side were purely municipal, and
that the opinions which had been quoted against them
did not apply to this now under consideration. The
embargo had been objected to as an injury, to the sub-
ject—and it was maintained that the obj et for which it
was imposed was not a British object. The embargo was
imposed in order to give effect to engagements which had
been entered into by his Majesty; and he should like to
see the man who would say that any measure which was
rendered necessary by any engagement—which had been
entered into by his Illajesty—was not a measure for a
British interest. To carry into effect such an engage-
ment, the nation was bound to proceed to any ex,retnity,
even to a war ; and as the smaller measure must be in-
cluded in the greater, it was still more competent for his
Majesty's Government to impose an embargo. But, said
the Hon. Gentleman on the opposite side, what is the
nature of the engagement to which you allude? Is it the
Convention which you lately concluded with France, for
the purpose of imposing this vet y ettibat go ? It was
very true that that convention had been signed for the
purpose of which he bad spoken ; but that was not the
engagement to which he alluded. The engagements of
which he now spoke were those which arose from
the treaty signed on the 15th of November, 1831, the
copy of which had been before Peril iment for nearly
twelve months, and on the vet), face of which those en-
gagements were to be found, fur the execution of which
the Convention which had been spoken of became neces-
sary. No allusion, during the last session, had been made
to anything iu that treaty from which the House ought to
be called upon to express its dissent. Nu Alerober had yet
stood up in his place to say that the Crown, when it con-
clad d that treaty, had entered into improper engag,-
ments. He did not wish the House to take it upon his
bare assertion that the Government had suffic.ent grounds
for the course which they had pursued, whe her as it
respected national or municipal law, or as it regarded ex-
pediency. He was prepared to prove that it was equal),
consistent with the one and the other; and be tuns con-
vinced, that when Hon. Aleo,bers had once read the papers
which were now lying hn the table of the House, and the
other papers with which they would be speedily followed—
(A laugh)—they would concur with him, that the course
which had been pursued by his Majesty's Ministers was
mot only legal, but prudent. Tue course pursued by the
Hon. Baronet, in his argument upon the embargo, was
by no means fair. It was proper to take the whole sub-
ject into consideration, and not to discuss insulated parti-
culars. The object of the Hon. Baronet appeared to have
been to confound two things which ought to be considered
perfectly distinct, the imposing of an embargo on the ves-
sels of a Power with whom we are at peace,. and ti e
issuing of letters of marque and reprisals against t e vessels
of a nation with whom war is about to Is,- declared. The
Noble Lord here quoted a passage from Vattrl, to show
that, in order to obtain justice, it was lawful to detain the
vessels of the enemy in our ports ; but till these vessels
were condemned anti confiscated, the reprisals could not
be considered complete. In this case the rep Utah, were
not complete, tor no confiscation or condemnation bad
taken place subsequent to the embargo. Those Hun.
Membets, therefore, who argued that this was an act of
rubbery, of piracy—a commencement of hostilities—pro-
ceeded in direct opposition to the opinion of Vattel. He
would say, as lie had said before, vat they were not at
war with Holland ; he would abide by the declaration
which lie hail mad, elsewhere, that Great Britain was not
at .tar with Holland, nor with any other country on the
face of the earth. Toe existence of the embargo, in fact,
was incompatible with a state of war. The law of nations
enabled a belligerent Power to take and confiscate the ves-
sels and property of the enemy, wherever they might find
diem, Now, in this case, nu such confiscation bad taken
place ; and therefore, he contended, that the very a xisteoce
of the embargo—the imposing of which Members spoke
of as the first act of hostilities—was, in fact, the cle,rest
proof of the non-existence of war. If any other fact
were necessary, there could he none more remarkable than
the fact, that there was still a British diplomatic agent
resident at the Hague, and there was also a Dutch Minister
resident in London--a state of things which was not very
usual in the case 01 two countries at tsar with each other.
It had been said, that we ought not to have imputed the
embargo, unless hostilities had been committed. Though
;hey were not at war—and though he hoped that there
was no peollandity that they would soon be reduced to the
necessity of going to war, he would not deny that at one
time—at the time of imposing tha embargo upon Dutch
vessels—there was a possihility of a war arising.
Sir ROBERT PEEL (we believe) here exclaimed,
" Yes ; in consequence of the embargo."
Lord PALAIEI STON continued. It was not in con-
sequence of the embargo. Au Hon. Member on the
opposite side had been so obliging as to read a judgment of
S r Win. Scott, whico, in fact, proves the position for
which we are conteudirrg more effectually than anything else
sts,a.f:
gi c(l,tiig
couldu bht, e urged.consistently
with
the law of nations, be
decision proved that an tun-
imposed, even when hostilities were not at all in contein-