Star.
London, England, 1828-07-01 00:00:00

ferences such as bad leer! alluslaWiould be drawn :
it might be that the Potigaese 'mlinitude would so
draw them ; it alight be-that false and improper in-
fer were alsolVawn from the correspondence stated;
bu tiffealion of an effective blockade by this Go-
. virntnigt to the British public was what the latter had
Allightehlexpect. As to the correspondence of Lord
Beresford, that Noble Lord had before explained its
origin and its nature, and whatever the one or the other
was, he could say that the Noble Officer was never
authorized by any one of his Majesty's Ministers to ex-
plain their views or state their opinions to Don Miguel
or the PortugueseGovernment.The English Ambassador
was the onli person who was empowered to explain the
views or expectations of this Government. The decla-
rations of Lord Beresford were entitled to their fair
share of attention, and he nuerly denied having given
any pledge or promise or encouragement to the sub-
version of the Portuguese Charter. With respect to
the terms used in the notification, he apprehended no
injurious consequence to result from them. It was said
they implied or recognized the power of Don Miguel
as legitimately used in ordering the blockade, but no
such construction could be put upon them. But if any
doubt could exist on the subject, what would be said of
the King of England having directed his Ambassador
to discontinue his funitions at the Court of Lisbon?—
(Hear, hear). This would show the real feelings and
disposition of his Majesty's Government, and spoke a
language which no man could misunderstand. The
Right Hon. Gentleman said he did not object to the
blockade, but to the terms in which :t was notified; but
other terms would have been altogether inappropriate.
We observed a decided neutrality—and if we bad not,
we should have sent a force to break through the block-
ade, which would be a declaration of war. But the Go-
vernment was not prepared to adopt so hasty or so vio-
lent a course of proceeding. Hence, as soon as the
blockade was announced, they caused it to be notified,
in order to ptotect the rights and commerce of his Ma-
jesty's subjects. If such maxims as those stated by the
Right Hon. Gent. (Sir J. Macintosh) were to govern the
country, they would be at war with the four quarters
of the globe, and the Right Honourable* Gentleman
could no longer object to the Army and Navy Esti-
mates for the ensuing year. The English Government
acted in the case of Portugal as they did in the case of
Chili and of Greece, and the very same terms, " effec-
tive blockade," were used on the two former occasions,
although their use was now'so much objected to. He
again repeated, that no unfavourable inference could
be drawn from their use. It was said that we should
not state the blockade to have been made by the Prince
Regent of Portugal, but how could we deny to him the
delegated authority which we had before _recognized?
His conduct might deserve censure. and must be disap•
proved of, but in his delegated character alone could we
acknowledge him. It would be difficult to act other-
wise, at least until they had had some communication
with the chief authority as to the nature of the delegated
authority which had been so much Wised. Iti consis-
tency, therefore,,the Government had taken the only
course which was open to them. It would be too much
for Foreign States to say, that the Executive Govern-
ment at Lisbon was at an end, whatever the criminal
intentions of Don Miguel might be. It was his duty
not to have encouraged the, addresses which were pre-
sented to him ; but because. he did not do so, we were
not therefore to disclaim his delegated authority. It
would be better to try strong remonstrance than_ all at
once to proclaim that all their relations with Portugal
were suspended. Our Consul was still in communica-
tion with Officers appointed by Don Miguel ; and
under all the circumstances of the case, there was no-
thing in the course taken by the British Government
which could show the slightest approbation of the con-
duct of that Prince. There was no want of caution on
their parts ; and however he regretted that false infe-
rences were drawn, he Felt they were not justified, nor
were they contemplated.

Dr. PHILLIMORE thought the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite had entirely misapprehended the drift
of the arguments made use of by his Right Hon. Friend.
He (Dr.P.) bad not heard his Right Hon. Friend express
any opinion to treat the subject exclusively with refe-
rence to international law, or with regard to the pro-
priety or policy of using the term blockade; on the
contrary, he understood him to express no doubt as to
the word, and he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman had
abstained from expressing an intention to introduce any
litigated question of international law. There could be
no doubt that the authorities in Portugal, if they had
the right's:if governing, also possessed the tight of in-
stituting *blockade. if they could exercise any [Niel-.
lege of Sovereignty they could also exercise that one of
its highest ; but he questioned the authority. On the
other baud, he thought with his Right Hon. Friend,
that the British Government had acted on this occasion
in a manner contrary to established usage. The Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite said that Government was
compelled to notify the blockade. Why ? A blockade
had no effect on the subjects of any State except they
were aware of If our merchants sailed into a port
in a state of blockade, but of which fact they had nu
notice, it was not in the power of any State to confis-
cate these vessels. But it was for the Government
to give notice of the circumstance, and after the period
" of such notice, every merchant attempting to break the
blockade was liable to have his property confiscated.—
The Right Hon. Gentleman said we had authority for
recogrizing the existence of a blockade in cases of a
still stranger nature than the present. But why should
we be ancillary, and all that in us lay to assist the Go-
vernment of Portugal to impose a blockade which Don
Miguel himself had no means of imposing as it regarded
'British merchants? By the notification, we look on our-
' selves to -do what Polio-gal herself was incapable of
performing. not being in a situation to notify to us the]
existence of the blockade, on account of the suspension ,
of the functions of our Ambassador at that Court, who
was the only official medium of communication between
the two cour.t ies. In the long war we had with France•
there was no such promulgation. 'The Right Hon.
Gentleman talked of the blockade in the case of Chili,
but he (Dr. P.) con elided that that precedent was inap-
plicable to the present circumstances.
Mr. Secretary PEEL—In the case of Chili we did
notify the blockade. With respect to the argument of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that we should not
notify the existence of the blockade of Opoito to our
merchants, because it was not notified to us by the Por-
tuguese Government, that may be law, but sure I am
it is not equity. How does the case stand? This country
orders its Minister to suspend his functions, and then
• turns round and says to Portugal, it is impossible for
you to notify to us, through our Minister, the existence
of an effective blockade, and we shall not not fy it t
British subjects, whom we shall leave in ignorance of
the fact; thus placing them in a situation to call on you
for compensation for any ►njury or loss they may sus-
tain. We, being the parties who have suspended the
functions of our own Minister, and who by our own
act have put tt out of the power of Portugal to annauoce
w us officially the blockade—are we to leave our sub•
•