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

NORTHERN POLITICAL UNION.

Mr. GROTE presented a petition signed by Mr. Chas.
Attwood, as Chairman of the Northern Political Union,
praying for the ♦ote by ballot and the repeal of the Sep-
tennial Act.

Lord ALTHORP objected to its being received, as the
petition of an unrecognised body.
The SPEAKER decided that it was irregular.
Mr. WARBURTON stated a case in favour of the ad-
mission.

After a few remarks by Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Mr.
HUME, and Mr. BARING, Mr. GROTE consented to with-
draw the petition.

UNSTAMPED PUBLICATIONS.

Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE presented a petition from
Mr. Henry Hetherington, confined for vending unstamped
publications, praying that be may be discharged out of
custody.

Mr. HUME remarked up,tn the impropriety of allowing
any portion of the Six Acts to remain in force in the
second year of a liberal Ministry. These Acts bad been
directed against Cohbett's Trash, as it was called. The
11,n. Member alluded to the opinion of Sir James Mac-
donald, and stated that these had been already 250 vic-
tims. He gave notice that he should move, at an early
date—to-morrow or Monday—for a return of convictions.
He believed the number was 173. Much as he blamed
the Right Hon. Gentlemen, the late Metnbers of his Ma-
jesty's Ministry, he mu-t say they were less to blame than
Lie Maje ty's present Ministers. The latter had certainly
procured the passing of the Act in question, but they
had never put it in force in a single instance. His Ma-
jesty's present Minister-, when out of office, had de-
claimed night after night against the Act, yet, when
they got into power, it was found that they put it in
force far more rigidly than their predecessors, who had
caused it to be passed. They had obtained the power, but
they had never us-d it.

Lord .ALTHORP observed, that the whole number of
these prosecutions, instead of 250, was only 16, of which
Hetbei ington certainly had given occasion to three cases.
There had teen tinny more cores certainly ; hut these
were not instituted by the Government. With respect
to the repeal of the taxes on periodical., the Noble Lord
was understood to say, that a modification was intended
to be proposed by the Government.
Mr. 0 CONNELL observed that it was extremely de-
sirable that Government should state, as soon as possible,
what its intentions might be with respect to that portion
of the Six Acts which still remained in force. He hoped
that these Acts would soon be obliterated from our laws.
lie was surprised at what had fallen from the Noble Lord
in his attempt to show that the Government had not been
over severe in enforcing the penalties of the Act. If, out
of 250 cases, only 16 had been brought forward at the
instance of the Government, it showed either a great re-
missness on their part, or a strong feeling of the injustice of
the law which they had to enforce. There was another
point of view in which the petition of Mr. Hetherington
deserved consideration, and that was with relation to the
power which it appeared that the persons who had the
regulation of the gaols had of inflicting torture ; for he
considered the confinement of a person for the time men-
tioned in the petition in a damp cell was neither more nor
less than a species of torture.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that the con-
victions had nothing political in them. A representation
had been made on the subject in tie proper quarter, and
he had no doubt that proper steps would be taken respect-
ing it.
Mr. LENNARD believed his Hon. Friend the Member
fur Taunton intended to move for the repeal of that part
of the Six Acts which had been referred to.

After a fe v observations from Mr. RUTHVEN, Mr.
O'DWYER, and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL (who stated
that the Crown Lawyers had nothing to do with these
prosecutions), the petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. HADDOCKS presented a petition from the town
of Denbigh against negro slavery.
On the motion of Mr. METHUEN, an account was
ordered to be laid before the House of the expenses of
passing Scjtch and Irish vagrants during the Isst ten years,
distinguishing the amount paid in each county.
On the motion of Mr. WIGNEY, an account was or-
dered to be laid before the House of the amount of the
house and window tax, distinguishing the amount paid by
each county.
General PALMER presented a petition from the parish
of St. Michael, in Bath, praying for the repeal of the house
and window tax.
Mr. 'I'YNTE and Mr. ROEBUCK expressed their cordial
concurrence in the player of the petition.
IRISH SOAP MANUFACTURE.
Mr. O'CONNELL, adverting to the gi ievance suf-
fered by the Irish soap manufacturers in consequence of the
large drawbacks obtained by the English manufacturers of
soap, observed that the Noble Lord opposite had stated the
other day that he contemplated a measure which would
ch ck the evil. Was the Noble Load prepared to state
his intentions in gener,il terms ? It was a matter of great
importance to the Irish manufacturers.
Lord ALTHORP hoped he should be able to propose
a measure which would check the evil as much as was
possible.

SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
The SPEAKER stated, that he had received a petition

Mr. HERRIES wished to ask the Noble Lord for in-
formation on a subject of great importance. Perhaps the
Noble Lord wou'd have the goodness to state at what time
it was probable tie would be able to introduce his Bill ;
and especially if it would be before Easter or after. Thy
information would lie highly sitisfactory to many persons
who were much interested in the subject; and he was
sure that the Noble Lord would give it, if in his power.
Lo d ALTHORP hoped to be prepared to bring in a
measure upon the subject befire Easter.
EMBARGO ON DUTCH TRADE.

Lord ALTHORP having moved the Order of the Day
far the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,
Sir ROBERT PEEL rose, in pursuance of his notice,
I to make some observations on a subject of deep interest to
the commerce of this country, and greatly affecting drat of
other nations. It was his intention to make these obser-
vations on Wednesday, but as the Hon. and Learned
Member for the Tower Hamlets and the Attorney-General
were not then in their places (for which, however, he did
not attach to them the slightest blame), he had been in-
duced to postpone doing so until the present occasion.
The subject to which he relerred was the Order in
Council, issued by his Majesty in Council, and bearing
date the 6th of last November, which imposed a restric-
tion on British ships from entering and clearing out for
any of the ports within the dominions of the King of the
Netherlands until further orders ; laid a general embargo
on all ships belonging to subjects of the King of the
Netherlands in British ports; and authorized the seizure
by the Commanders of his Majesty's ships of war, of all
merchant vessels bearing the flag of the Netherlands,
in the open seas. In the debate which had taken place
on the address in answer to the speech from the Throne,
he (Sir R. Peel) had stated that he entertained conside-
rdble doubts whether the power:which that order assumed
was constitutionally exercised. He felt, however, that it
did not become him, who had no other means of knowing
the law on such matters than that which was possessed
by Hon. Members generally, to be very tenacious of his
opinion upon the subject, and if he had received from the
Hon. and Learned Member for the Tower Hamlets any
satisfactory solution of his doubts, he should certainly not
have brought the subject again under the consideration of
the House. If the authority of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman's declaration had been supported by arguments
as powerful, he (Sir R. Peel) would have remained
silent; for as far as authority or talents went, no man
had a greater respect for the Hon and Learned Gentle-
man. But it should be remembered, that if the autho-
rity of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman were not
sustained by satisfactory argument, that circumstance
was favourable to his (Sir R. Peel's) position. For
the House might be quite sure that every thing that
could he urged in the way of reasoning, would be
urged by a person of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's
great ability and extensive information. It was because,
therefore, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's reply was
not satisfactory—it was because the doctrine maintained
by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman did net appear to be
warranted by law—that he again called the attention of
the House to this important question. He did not, how-
ever, require them to pronounce any opinion upon it on
the present occasion. He merely wished to give an oppor-
tunity for further explanation respecting it. If lie should
feel convinced by the arguments of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman and his friends that he was in error, he should
not hesitate to say so, and he trusted that they would follow
his examples and not refuse to listen to the reason which
induced him to believe that his view of the subject was
correct. The Order in Council to which he referred com-
pletely forbade all commercial intercourse between Iris
Majesty's subjects and any of the ports within the domi-
nions of the King of Holland. It went further than most
Orders of a similar character, for it authorized the forcible
seizure on the open seas by his Majesty's ships of war of all
merchant vessels bearing the flag of the Netherlands, and
the sequestration of their cargoes for the present. No
reason was assigned in this Order in Council for so violent
a proceeding. It merely stated that by order of his
Majesty, with the advice of his Privy Council, these re-
strictions were imposed on our commerce with Holland,
and these directions given to seize the merchant vessels be-
longing to a nation which was nevertheless at peace with
Great Britain.—(Hear, hear.) The order was simply
signed " Charles Greville." Now he was bound to say
that in his opinion this Order amounted to neither more
nor less than a suspension of an Act of Parliament. The
trade with Holland—with a country with which we were
at peace—was suspended without uny motive a•signeit.
This was at least an assumption of great power on the
part of the Crown—a power capable of much perversion.
To Order in C. uncil was followed by other Orders in
Council, suspending the operation of the first Order, with
reference to vessels having perishable cargoes. He was
far front imputing any undue motives on the present occa.
sion, but it must be evident to all who reflected on the
subject, that great opportunities existed for perverting
such powers. A corrupt Government might exercise
them in a manner favours le to their friends and sup-
porters and fatal to their opponents.—(Hear, hear.) He
was prepared to maintain that the Order suspended the
Statute Law of the land. No one could deny that the
power which it claimed to exercise was a dispensing power
of that nature. No one could deny that by the Statute
Law of the land merchants-strangers belonging to a
country in amity with this country had a right to carry on
their commercial intercourse with this country uninter-
ruptedly. It could be proved, step by step, that
such merchants had as clear a right to free inter-
course with the shores of this country as the natives
of this country themselves had.—(Hear.) This right
was conferred by the earliest statutes. It was con-
ferred by Magna Chute. In Magna Charta it was de-
clared that " All merchants (if they were not openly pro-
hibited before) shall have their safe and sure conduct to
depart out of England, to come into England, to tarty
and go through England, as well by land as by water, to
buy and sell without any manner of evil tolls, by the old
and rightful customs, except in time of war."—(Hear,
hear.) It then went on—" And if they be of a land
making war against us, and be found in our realm at
the beginning of the wars, they shall be attached without
harm of body or goods, until it be known unto us, or our
Chief Justice, how our merchants be intreated there in
the land making war against us ; and if our merchants be
well intreated there, theirs shall he likewise with us."._
(Hear, hear.) Now he wished to know whether that
declaration was consistent with the Order in Council
which had been issued in November last ? He claim d to
have established by that statute what he was sure a Re-
formed Parliament would nut deny, that merchants-
strangers had a right to carry on a free commercial inter-
course with this country, unless they belonged to a nation
with which this country sik as at war. Lord Coke even hold
that in case of war the prohibition of foreign commerce must
be by Act of Parliament. In that he might be going too
far, but the extract which he (Sir Robert Peel) had read
from Magna Charta, proved that foreign merchants
might continue to trade with us while their country
remained at peace with us. In the present instance
we were at peace with Holland, and yet we se-
questered the property of her subjects. In the 27th
Edward 111., cap. 2, it was provided, that " to re-
plenish our said realm and lands with money and
plate, gold and silver, and merchandises of the lands,
and to give courage to merchants strangers to come with
their wares and merchandises into the realm and land
aforesaid, we have ordained and established that
all merchants-strangers which be not of our enmity, of
what land or nation that they be, may safely and surely,
under our protection and safe conduct, come and dwell in
our said realm and lands where they will, and from thence
return with their ships, wares, and all manner of mer-
chandises, and freely sell their merchandises at the staple,
and elsewhere within the same realm and lands, to any
that will buy them, paying the customs thereof due."—
(Hear. hear.) Now he would say that the Crown had
not the prerogative to dispense with the law on this point,
but be would say that it was manifest that by the statute
law of the land, merchants-strangers of a country in
amity with us, had a right to free commercial intercourse
with us; and that if his Majesty's Government issued an
Order in Council, prohibiting that intercourse, they dis•
pensed with the statute law of the land. Those statutes
were in full force at the present moment, and it was im-
possible to refer to them without noticing and admiring
the liberal principles by which our ancestors were actu-
ated in their regulations respecting fort ign commerce.
All .hose who were the friends of free trade, might refer
with peculiar satisfaction to those statutes which preceded

the Navigation Act, and all other Acts of a prohibitor
nature. ' Those statutes were founded on the principl
that the prosperity of English commerce was interwoven
with the prosperity of foreign commerce, and that regu-
lations favourable to the commerce of other countrie•
would prove favourable to the commerce of our own.
—(Hear, hear.) Having said so much with respect to the
law on the subject. he would proceed to state his autho-
rities on a question so deeply interesting to the corn
move of this country. He would begin with the authority
of Lord Erskine, who had placed on record his opinions by
moving certain resolution's, which he should read to the
Howe, and it should be borne in mind that his Lordship
was Chancellor of the Administration of which Lord•
Grenville and Grey were Member'.—(The revolution•
were, in effect, that in any emergency, calling for such
measures, the King should forthwith assemble Parlia-
ment.) His (Lord Erskine's) opinions went at least as
far as his own, and he was a man selected by an Ad-
ministration holding opinions similar to those avowed by
the Honourable Gentlemen opposite. The opinions of the
writers on the law of nations were also on his side of the
question ; but, as be supposed this House had the same
indisposition to lengthy extracts that a former House had,
he should not give them in fu'l. He should merely refer
to such parts as more particularly upheld and enforced
his argument. One of the documents on which he most
relied was a pamphlet which bad been universally ascribed
to Lord Brougham, with what justice he knew not, though
it was certainly written with a learning and ability worthy
of so reainent an individual.—(This extract was a very
long one, quoting the opinions of Hale and Holt in support
of the writer's views, that the ports could only be shut
against the trade of natives or foreigners by Statute.)
From the earliest times there was nothing more remarka-
ble in the history of this country than the tenderness of the
Constitution for the trading interests. He had the words
of the Statute Law—he had the opinion of Lord Erskine
—the supposed opinion of Lord Brougham (or
rather, he should say, the opinion of that exalted
individual, for he believed there was no doubt of the
authorship of the work)—and next he had the declara-
tions of Holt and of Hale to maintain the rights
as laid down by the statute law, in every case except that
of war. The power assumed in'these Orders of Council,
he contended, could only be justly and properly exercised,
either from a necessity for reprisals for actual injuries on
our own subjects, or in the circumstance of an imminent
contemplation of hostilities. To say that, on the mere
arbitrary allegation of State necessity, such violent mea-
sures vs the detention en the high seas of the vessels of
other nations could be resorted to, was placing most im-
portant interests not under the law, but under a discre-
tionary power of the most dangerous description. The
Right Hon. Baronet here read extracts from several Acts
of Parliament in support of his argument. In 1766,
when there was a famine, the Administration of which
Camden and Chatham formed a part, ♦entured to pub-
lish an Order in Council, prohibiting the export of wheat
and other corn. The sense of Parliament, however,
over-rul, d the measure, and an act of indemnity, as
well to the officers enforcing the order as to the Mi-
nisters who issued it, was brought in and passed.
The Right Hon. Baronet next read the preamble to the
Act of 7th Geo. 111., and he referred to it, he said, as
showing that the Parliament had ever been extremely and
properly jealous of the prerogative of the Crown on every
occasion where such great powers were attempted to be
exercised. The question more immediately to be con-
sidered was, whether such a step as this could be taken
except in consequence of injuries received, or in the appre-
hension of hostilities; and he contended that the preroga-
tive could not be vindicated but on the two grounds thus
stated. Now they had had no public information that hosti-
lities between England and Holland were intended. The
speech from the throne did not even hint at such a possibi-
lity. It referred only to the embargo. But it was not a mere
embargo, let it be recollected—(Hear, hear)—but an Or-
der in Council, authorizing the forcible detention of ves-
sels belonging to an ally with whom we professed to be in
perfect amity.--(Cheers.) He did not hesitate to say that
the order went further—much further then—with the ex-
ception of one or two instances—bed ever before been known
in the history of this country. The question then was, did
the circumstances of the case justify it ? He did not deny
the existence of the prerogative—that was not his argu-
ment at the present time—but he warmly denied there
were any circumstances to justify its exercise. How could
they contemplate a state of hostilities, after reading the
speech from the Throne, in which it was directly stated
that negotiations were again opened with that Power,
against whose vessels these confiscations were directed ?
There was no hint of any danger of war, but an express
statement that all other Powers were in amity with us.—
(Cheers.) It was impossible to say then that this Order
in Council had been rendered necessary either by way of
reprisal or from an apprehension of hostilities; they
could not take that ground. If Ministers would declare
they bad a bona fide ground for expecting a state of hos-
tilities, he would admit the propriety of the embargo,
and withdraw the subject from the notice of the
House ; but, short of that, they would have no jus.
tification for the extreme course they had resorted
to. In a speech which was made by the Noble Lord
(Palmerston), he bad himself declared there was no
war, nor the prospect of one ; and as no injury had teen
attempted against us by Holland, as we bad no cause for
reprisals, and, on the Noble Lord's own asseveration, no
expectation of hostilities, on what ground was it that this
Order was issued ? The speech of the Noble Lord was
the only public declaration to which he could refer upon
the subject. If correctly reported, the Noble Lord was
made to say, in plain English, that he would take the
hull by the horns, and not he daunted by the cry of Dutch
war, for that it was the mere creature of a vivid imagina-
tion and exuberant fancy.—(Lauehter and cheers.) The
French expedition, then, was no war ?--(Cheers.) The
seizure of Antwerp, the slaughter that attended it, the
capture of prisoners, did not constitute war.—(Cheers.)
It was merely exuberant fancy! There was neither war
nor apprehensions of war, as the Noble Lord said, at the
very time 70 000 men, equ:pped abundantly with every
munition of war, were marching to attack the citadel of
Antwerp. Why, then, this embargo ?—(Cheers.) Why,
for thirteen weeks, this stoppage to British commerce?
Why authorize English vessels to scour the high seas,
and seize the ships of a Power with whom we are in
perfect amity ? He complained of that girder. It was
very rarely, indeed, that England resorted to measures
of such extreme violence, for above every other
nation, she had been hitherto proudly distinguished
by her respect for the right, of trade. He instanced
the embargo on Dutch vessel., the seizure of Spanish ones
in 1801, and the embiego on Dutch ships in 1803 unac-
companied, however, by an order to seize vessels on the
high seas. The present case he looked upon as one of
most grievous injustice. He denied that the opinion of
Lord Stowell, which had been quoted by the Learned
Civiiian (Dr. Lushington), was against him ; for, if the
whole of the case were read, it would be found in no de-
gree to support the view of that Learned Gentleman. We
had no right whatever to make reprisals fur a third party
—no right, either as mediators or arbitrators, to redress
their grievances, by laying an embargo on the commerce of
an ally, still less by harassing that of our own subjects.
—(Ci eers.) They had seized trading vessels of another
Power, when there was not any reason to apprehend the
ceaninencement of hostilities with that Power. Such a
course was completely without justification in the ak of
nations. But even if it could be justified by la w,9lllllkas
absolutely necessary to show that the case in which it bad
been adopted was perfectly plain and clear in its circum-
stances. Attached to this right of seizure was a di►pens.
ing power which might be exercised upon an imminent
emergency, but it was not one that aver ought to be used
as an instrument of negotiation.—(Hear, hear.) They
might think Holland was unreasonable in not yielding the
question of Belgium to France and England, but they must
not on that account seize the vessels of the subjects of a
foreign State, because that State did not please them and
did not obey their wishes, nor must they do so because the
seizure of vessels was a degree less forcible than actual
war. There were recognised states of war and peace, but
that intermediate state, which this embargo exemplified, was
one for which no country, especially a country like
this, with its innumerable commercial relations,
ought lightly to set a precedent.—(Loud cheers.) Ile
would net go into the circumstances of the dispute between
Belgium and Holland. It was not necessary fur the pur-
poses of his argument. He might admit all that they said
with respect to the unreasonableness of Holland, hut he
denied again and again that that conduct furnished them
with a justification for the conduct they had adopted. We
are not, said the Right Hon. Gentleman—we are not
living under laws of Orders in Council, signed " Charles
Greville"—(A laugh)—one to authorize you to suspend
the trade of your own and another country. Many great

questions may arise as to the extent of the powers of a
country or its Government under such circumstances, but
I will not enter on all of them. I will content myself
with addressing my observations to one point. What is
the authority of Vattel on this subject? He calls it a
contested right—l mean the right of calling on other
states to obey conventions entered into between yourselves
and another Power—he calls it, I say, a contested right,
and be declares that for the purpose of enforcing it on any
state you are not authorized to place neutral vea,els in the
state in which you have placed them by this embargo.
Why, Sir, what oppression may be exercised under colour
of such an authority ?—(Hear, hear.) Whet arbitrary
octs may be committed ?—(Hear, hear.) When I make
this observation, do not let it be thought that lam
making an accusation. I mean to make none. I have
not heard that there have bee any abuses committed ;
but I have a right to argue this question on the pos-
sibility of abuse. Look, Sir, at what has been said upon
the trading by license. See the abuses of which that
system is said to be capable. -tinder Orders in Council
of this nature the same opportunity will occur.—(Hear,
hear.) The law of the land gives to every subject of this
country the opportunity of trading ; the Orders in Council
suspend that right, and the Ministers of the Crown have
the right, and, for anything I know, ought to possess the
right, of remitting these Orders in Council. Are nut
these circumstances such as to afford the opportunity for
great abuses? and ought we to encourage a system that
is liable to be thus abused ? But whether there have
been abuses of the authority or not, there can be' no doubt
that, under the authority itself, the most grievous wrongs
have been sustained by individual merchants.—(Hear,
hear.) These were the practices of former times.—(Hear,
hear.) We appear, Sir, to be going back to those times
when, for a nation's quarrels, injuries were inflicted, not
on the State, hut on individuals.—(Hear.) If we dis-
countenance rapine and plundering on land, on the ground
that a public quarrel should not be visited upon indivi-
duals, by what right can we possibly recognise treatment
of this kind exercised towards individual property at sea?
—(Hear, hear.) These are the arta, Sir—these are the
devices, equally of ancient barbarism and of modern civili-
zation. —( Hear, hear.) You seize on Dutch vessels
peaceably coming from the Dutch Colonies to Holland— I
(Hear)—vessels which have never received notice of your
hostility. You make no war on armed vessels.—(Cheers
from the Opposition.) You confine your hostility to
unarmed merchant ships, which could not possibly
have heard of your quarrel with their country--( Hear,
hear)—and you seize on these vessels in spite of the
repeated declarations of Lord Hale and Lord Holt,
of which you have so often boasted that "la mer snit
ouverte."—(Cheers.) You say that you permit the cargo
to be landed here. Why, suppose a cargo of sugar, after
a winter's voyage damaged by the water, you permit it to
be landed, do you ? You allow all vessels to unload into
a British warehouse. Why, you might as well authorize
the landing of a cargo of ice in the summer time—it is all
melting away. (The Solicitor-General said, that vessels
with cargoes liable to be spoiled might be released.) But
have they been released ? ( The Solicitor-General—Here is
the Order in Council.—(A laugh.) You say that where the
cargo has received damage, you permit it to be landed. I say
that such a permission is illusory. You do not permit in this
country the refining of foreign sugars—your permission to
land it in the case of such a cargo as I have described, is
good for nothing, for if you allow nothing else, it amounts
in fact to a positive denial of justice. But, Sir, with re-
gard to ourselves, what is the fact ? Why, that the loss
falls on the British insurer.—(Hear.) Most of these
vessels are insured. (Something was said to the Right
Hon. Baronet across the table.) I do not know whether
it is strictly the law that the insurer is liable, but such I
understand is the feeling of honour of the British insurer
that the loss will be borne by him. I say, then, that it
is to the disadvantage of your own subjects that you are
exercising this arbitrary and discretionary power. You
assume the right to enforce a treaty, and to annul the
ordinary laws of nations, and you do this under ordi-
nary circumstances, and by doing it inflict injuries upon
individuals and losses on your own subjects. Ido say,
Sir, that this is a matter deeply deserving the consi-
deration of the House, to decide whether or not it is
justice that we should persevere in enforcing these Orders
in Council.—(Hear.) The answer may be, that these
Orders in Council promote the object which the Govern-
ment have in view ; that in the end they will create dis-
satisfaction among the subjects of the King of Holland;
and that by their complaints be will be compelled to yield
to the wishes of the two Powers. If that is your object--
if that is your expectation—again I deny your right to in-
flict these injuries on individuals, even for such a purpose ;
for I say that your conduct is opposed to the laws of
nations. Go to war, if you think yourselves justified in
entering upon it, but do not affect to exercise a discre-
tionary power which no authority can justify. If you can
even show that public policy demands the continuance of
this embargo, that may be sufficient fur some; but it will
not he sufficient for me. I should distrust such an argu-
ment—it is one that may be applied to sweep away every
law and all authority.—(Hear, bear.) In discussing this
matter, I have steered clear of the political question of Bel-
gium and Holland—l have not alluded to the statements
which i.ave been made in papers both at home and abroad.
I have taken the case on your own showing. But as far
as I can form a judgment upon it, I must say that I doubt
whether the object you have in view will be attained—
whether the arrangement of this affair will be promoted
by what you have done. I see nothing in opposition to
appealing in a different manner to the parties you are now
endeavouring to coerce. I see much to believe that your
course would be facilitated by so doing. There have been
conferences between the five Powers on the subject
of Belgium and Holland. The five Powers appeared
to have agreed on the principle of that treaty
which was lately in part enforced by the French army,
but they refused to take any part in coercing Hol.
land. The main object of the Convention between
England and France was the recovery of the citadel of
Antwerp, and of the forts dependent on it. That object
has been accomplished. The French army has returned
to France. Why should not the English Orders in
Council, passed at the same time, and with the same view
—why should not they be repealed ? Is there anything
inconsistent with the honour of England iu repealing
them ? Since those Orders in Council have been issued
the Scheldt has been closed. If they are repealed, it will
again be opened. Are they not the chief impediments to
the renewal of negotiations? The five Powers have re-
fused to take any part in forcible measures. A portion of
your forcible measures are still in operation. Can they
become parties to renewed negotiations while such mea-
sures contiune? Will Holland consent to negotiate with
France and England, and to exclude those Powers which
have ant, rtained a friendly disposition towards her, or at
least so far friendly as to refuse to take part in measures
of force directed against her? These are matters, Sir, for
the consideration of the King's Government—it is for
them to consider whether they cannot hut by' acts such as
these promote the views they have, consistently with their
own honour. It may still be said, I know, that these
measures will produce dissatisfaction among the subjects
of the King of Holland, and thus compel him to do what
the two Governments require. But first, Sir, before
adopting or continuing such measures, let his Majesty's
Government ask themselves whether they are founded in
justice.—( Hear, hear.) Let them beware how they resort
to this mode of argument with a foreign State, without be
ing fully convinced in their own minds that the measure is
accoroing to the law of nations. There are some pressures
upon nations, which, however those nations have been be-
fore divided, combine rather than dissipate the elements of
public spirit.—( Hear.) You may summit nations to pres-
sures so severe that the spirit of resolution, of fortitude, of
resistance to wrong, becomes sublime and refined, from the
operations of those lower and those baser passions on which
you may have calculated for obtaining subintssion.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) Admitting that considerations of f rce
may weigh upon the opinions and feelings of some men.
by affecting their tears or their interests, and by deprivine
them of commercial advantages, still there have been pe
tiods in the history of our own country—(Hear, hear)
in the history of other countries struggling for indepen.
Bence—(Hear)—but, above all, in the history of that
country of which we are now speaking—(Hear, hear,
hear)—which prove that self-interest, that fear, that a!,
the passions on which you may speculate, may be forgotten.
and a spirit of independence, a spirit of resistance
arise, which redresses the inequality of physical force, ano
enables the smaller state successfully to contend against
the energies of the more powerful.—(Hear.) Take care,
then, I say, that your measures are founded upon the
laws of nations; adopt not too readily the suggestions to
expediency : or beware lest your speculations may other-
wise excite the indignation of the people of Holland, and
farm an additional motive for rallying round their King,

- r -
nd defending him to the last. __(Hear. tn.the dot
.at I sincerely feel as to yner ii ;1, t to enfoaC,e thei cede"'
in Council—in the opimor, 1 entertain
against the law of nations—in the belief thaiAlerllOY-,e,'=
even opposed to public policy—in the convictioss4lNG
suggestions of political expediency alone will not
them, I must express my earnest hope that the Cavern-
silent, and that this House, will seriously consider the
question of the continuance of these orders in Council.
Dr. LUSHING TON said, as the observations which
he bad made on a former occasion hail been so frequently
the subject of notice by the Right Hon. Baronet, the
House would pardon him if he troubled them with a few
remarks in reply. He assured the House that in doing eo
he should not feel it necessary to detain them long, nor
should he attempt to contest many of the propositions the
Right Hon. Baronet had laboured to establish ; least of all
should he he in the humour to deny the doctrine which
the Right Hon. Baronet had eloquently enforced, that in
all our dealings with foreign states, in all our intercourse
with them, and more especially in dealings of any kind
between Great Britain and states of minor importance, it
was the duty of this country, as well as her interest, ever
to adhere to those principles of justice whereby the weaker
are defended from the expressions of the stronger.—( Hears
hear.) He had ever been the advocate of such principles,
and he had often had to deplore that the Governments
with which the Right Hon. Baronet had been successively
connected had so often shown such little regard for the
rights of foreign states—(Cheers)—and so little respect for
those principles of magnanimity with which it was justly
said smaller states ought to be treated.—(Cheers.) Indeed,
he had but to look back to the year 1814, when what was
called the settlement of Europe took place, to see the nu-
merous examples in which Great Britain had forgotten
those doctrines which it now suited the purpose of the
Right Hon. Baronet to maintain.—(Hear, hear.) That
they might be observed was his perpetual prayer—that they
might ever be treated as objects of respect he most ardently
Jesired, and so long as he had a seat in Parliament he
should ever be found, when any Administration swerved
from theta, to be the first individual to denounce such
misconduct. He should lee the last man in the world to
justify the assumption of an authority which the laws of
nations did not warrant. He had on ,a former occasion
taken the liberty of showing that what had fallen from the
Right Hon. Baronet was founded on a fallacy ; but be must
he allowed to say, that in what he bad then expressed be
had only given utterance to his own feelings, ignorant of
any circumstances but those with which he had become ac-
quainted from the usual and ordinary sources of informa-
tion ; and for the arguments with which he was now pre.
pared to defend his former opinions he alone was responsi-
ble. He should not repeat them if he were not convinced
they were well founded in law and justice. The Right
Hon. Baronet doubted whether the Orders in Council were
in conformity with the laws of nations—with the muni-
cipal laws of the land—and lastly, whether they were not
in themselves impolitic. It was evident, from the com-
mencement, that the Right Hon. Baronet Ltd come there
in the full determination to answer the speech of the
Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. addressed
by that Noble Lord to his constituents. The Right Hon.
Baronet said that these Orders in Council were not issued
in contemplation of hostilities, and if that was so, that
they were in violation of the laws of nations, and that
they sere not issued as reprisals for injuries sustained.
If the question was put, so he was afraid he must be of
accord with the Right Hon. Baronet, for he must admit at
once that if they were issued without the probability of hos-
tilities taking place against the State to which they re-
lated, he was not prepared to defend them—(Hear)—bet
judging from the treaties on the table, they Premed to him
to have been issued in strict accordance with the law of
nations. He should not now enter into the consideration
of the circumstances that led to those treaties. He was
not now obliged to justify either the treaty of 1831 or
1832. He was perfectly aware of the principle on which
those treaties were entered into ; but he was nut called on
for, the purposes of the present argument, to go into any
consideration of that principle. The Right Hon. Baronet
had said that he should give no opinion as to the transac-
tions that had taken place between this country and Hol-
land, yet no one could have listened to the concluding part
of his speech without seeing that he treated those transac-
tions in a manner unfavourable to the Government, and
such as to prejudice the question under discussion. He
(Dr. L.) would state the principle on which he meant to
argue the question. He must assume that the treaties of
1831-1832 were justified by the law of nations. In
what situation, then, was this country pieced ? He
should answer that question by a quotation from the Con-
vention between France and England Being more-
over convinced that any further delay in tie execution of
the same would seriously endanger the general peace of
Europe, their said Majesties, notwithstanding the regret
which they experience at finding that their Majesties,
the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the
Emperor of Russia, are not at present prepared to concur
in the active measures which are requisite for the execu-
tion of the said treaty, base resolved to fulfil their owa
engagements, in this respect, without further delay." If
that meant anything, it meant that the general tran-
quillity would be endangered by allowing the treaty to
remain any longer unexecuted. That was a matter which
was not to be lost sight of in discussing this question
because, if the Government believed, and were prepared
to prove that the general peace of Europe would be en-
dangered, then they came to the first general principle on
which the laws of nations depended. If the Government
believed this, it was not merely their right, but their duty,
to take all measures, by negotiation, by embargo, by re-
prisals, or even by a declaration of war against that par-
ticular State, to secure the peace and tranquillity of other
nations, as well as of Great Britain itself. That was his
position. He maintained, from the beginning of the em-
bargo, that it was issued in expectation of hostilities. The
Convention went on to observe, that the contracting
Powers might see the necessity of interfering, and states
the manner in which they should do so—first, by the
entry of a French army into Belgium; and by a com-
bined English and French fleet being stationed off the
Scheldt. If that was not a measure directly leading to war,
it had at least a warlike tendency.—(Hear, hear, from
the Opposition.) He conceived that such steps as these
were generally preliminary to hostilities ; for if we banked
during the last forty years, they had been observed whets
we declared war, though, indeed, we had often made war
without any declaration of war, for such had been the cus-
tom of the last forty years.—(Hear, hear, bear.) The
Swedish embargo, for instance, was laid on in the month
of May, and the declaration of war was not made till the
July following.—(Hear.) No person could hesitate in
coming to the conclusion that the treaty thus to be en-
forced was a treaty which in all human probability might
lead to the commencement of hostilities. But at the same
time it might not necessarily do an ; for it was not im-
possible that a country like lielland, seeing such powers
as England and France were determined to enforce a par-
ticular measure, would yield, if not to the force of argu-
ment, yet to a sense of danger, and might thus concede
the point in controversy. On that he defended these
Orders in Council. The passage he had cited on a former
occasion from Lord Stowell's judgment was stric ly appli-
cable to this case. And if any man knew Lord Stowell
as well as he did—if any man had listened to the judgments
of that Noble Lord as long as he had—that person would
come from the hearing of theta convinced of this truth,
that of all the Judges who had ever presided in Courts of
Justice, there never was one who had taken such infinite
.rains, care, and reiterated labour that no principle, no
doctrine should emanate from him which could be app.
cable in a manner different from that in wt ich he believed
the law could be applied. All these judgments, too, it
.hould be recollected, were corrected by Lord Stowell's
own hand, and there was no rcan who could possibly think
that the Noble Lord did not see when he delivered them
what would be the full effect of them. That Noble Lord
had given the judgment then quoted, not only with refe-
rence to the particul ir embargo et that time in question,
nut upon the general laws of inflows; and, after stating
that it could be justified by those laws, he aiiittlheTitlht,o:7‘te‘
Porte,
and to disobey would be a high misprision." How was it
possible for the Right lion. Baronet to deny that the an-
hority of Lord Stowell went farther than he (Dr. Lush-
ington) had done ? The Nehle Lord, speak:rig of the
hr
restated
oertendb embargo o
theha d
conclusion
ulgaiiodn,
.:Prafriodtph:er"etyrtnhibenarptghrooe.psehrtilpytswweaonsuwladhpbir(e.ocess often resorted to in the
practice of nations, for objects not immediately connected
with the commencement of hostilities." Did the Nobles
Lord mean by that a civil embargo ? No, he knew that
'rich an embargo would not be permitted in these days;
he meant an embargo imposed in consequence of diffe•
rences with a foreign State—differences that it was proba-
ble would lead to hostilities. It was not necessary that
hey should be itnmediately connected with the expecta-
tion of hostilities. All that was requisite fur him
(Dr. Lushington) was to show that an earharee roiget
tke place on the authority of the law of nations. "r,be
Right Hon. Baronet had referred to Vattel. Wba!"
13
a r ounce: country on
denied
quoted
itoeedfd from
R terpetrphi
rsai that
as al. tmh
htwe
ba
es
Right
nibtte..
(}, found in
ei his
o t
uciy)nhoh, ra-
ternert
a
Crow
that
ridi;edcr:luuwsn;oitot
wnbo. r
ceats,tnqou
Suppose
Frant rance
:tep.itnwrw
rt:evtotaiii,
dvitboae friswt.
question p
would resemble the odes which the argument of the Right
Hun. Baronet The observation, therefore, did
not apply, for 71hPePteUsaed. odation of the whole proceeding was