The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-03-22 00:00:00

ligerent parties ; that it was looked upon as an exit-I'6ll'k
right of war, as it inflicted so much injury, not alone on
the nation whose ports were declared in h g; ate of block-
ade, but also on the interests of heti-toil powers ; and
on these grounds Sir W. Scott 'would not recognize it
in any other sense. He tLord•Santion) looked upon block-
ade as something analogmis to a state of siege, which no
power had a right toter upon except in a state of war.
This was the opinion of Bynkershook, that it was purely a
belligerent Tbrht of parties at declared war. All authoritative
writers the law of nations admitted that a blockade to be
recognized must be effective not only for one but for all of
the ports declared to be blockaded, that it should lee as far
as possible a circumvallation of those ports, if he might ,so Ott
that word, so as to make it a matter of great risk for any
vessel to attempt to go in or come Gat of these ports This
was the opinion of very high naval authorities. It was held
by the British Admiral Rowley,. VIM was at Ilk -head of a
naval force in those very waters in 11121 and 1822. A CI-hat
period a blockade had been proclaimed by The 'Spanish Go-
vernment of the ports la the Rio de la Plata, by Which British
commerce in those quarters had suffered Ary considerably.
On that occasion the British 'Admirtil addressed a remon-
strance to the Spanish officer in,conimand of the blockading
force, in which he declared'tikal he would resist the blockade,
against the legality of which he protested ; that legality, he
observed, depending %n the power of the blockading force to
prevent any vessel 'from going in or coming out of the block-
aded ports without great risk. Now, he (Lord Sandon) wanted
to know whether a similar course bad been adopted with re-
spect to the blockade of the ports of Mexico?—whether the
blockade was effective as to all the ports, for if it wets not ef-
fective in some, it would vitiate the whole? The admiral
went on to say that the blockading ships eenhl not enforce it
partially, and only where these ships happened to be, for the
blockade must be effectively kept in all. The language 'of
Sir W. Scott on the same subject was that the besieging force
must be applied to all the ports resorted to for such a:purpose
—(hear, hear.) The writers, however, couldte 'brought to
bear upon it inferentially, for all throughout their works it
was mentioned as a belligerent right, and only in that light
was it received by them—(hear, hekr.lc: This was the view
taken of it by Sir William Scott It was purely a right of
war, and, being an extreme ono, it should be watched with
the greatest jealousy. 'Ceee should always be taken that no
injury should acertiete neutral parties. If Sir William Scott
were now living he would receive a blockade in no other than
a belligerent view, and would by no means allow its use as an
intermediate instrument—(hear, hear.) It was to all intents
and purposes the same as a strict siege, and could Weyer be
considered in the light of a gentle pressure from without,—
(a laugh.) He did not think that the French had the power
of enforcing their blockade on the northern coast of Mexico.
The noble lord then referred to the opinion Of a French offi-
cer in proof of the fact, and next read extracts from the cor-
respondence of the authorities of the United States on the sub-
ject. He contended that there was on the part of the govern-
ment of this country atlispositionto support French rather than
British interests. If we could not prevent hostilities in Mexico,
we ought, at least, to •do our utmost towards mitigatilig their
effects. The noble lord then referred to varioussitocuments,
for the pUrpose of showing that no adequgtt 'protection was
afforded to the commercial interests of -England in Mexico.
The trade between Liverpool and Wilco produced, at least,
£500,000. a-year, yet nothing sits done to protect it. Would
that the country had these&ices of Mr. Canning at so criti-
cal a moment as thisd now very different would he have
acted from the noble lord opposite ! (Palmerston.) When
the Liverpool 'merchants made application to the admiralty
for protection to the trade with Mexico, and for a govern-
ment packet to convey specie from Mexico to this country,
what wars the answer given ? Why, that sufficient protection
was already afforded, and that there was no want of it. When
the application was repeated, and when it was urged that the
United States had the right of exporting specie from Mexico,
and why should England not have it also ? The answer he
received was that an application would be made to the French
government, with the view of obtaining permission -for the
object in question. The noble lord then went On to argue
that the blockade was not eftective, and:Skit for 30 or 40
days there was not a single ship at Tempieo, nor was there
one at Laguna till the 30th Of .11/14.y last, while the trade in
logwood was entirely suspended. It was not till the 28th of
October that any steps were taken by the British government
to send out a naval force to Mexico, thus suffering a period
of four or five months to intervene without any protection
whatever. He had reason to telieve that when, at the re-
quest of British merchants, her Majesty's ministers did inter-
fere, their language of remonstrance was not very decided.
It was known that not a single ship of war appeared in the
6'lW of Mexico for the purpose of attending to British inte-
rests till the latter end of the month of December. British
exports to Mexico had undergone a reduction of three-fourths
in the latter months of last year. The noble lord, is con-
clusion, submitted his motion to the house,
Mr. GOULDURN seconded it.
Lord PALMERSTON had no objection to produce the cor-
respondence with the merchants, but declined to give the ne-
gociations with France, which it might be detrimental to
the very object of them to publish. He agreedin the general
principles stated by Lord Sandon : on the individual applica-
tion of them he had consulted the legal advisers of the Crown
throughout the whole of these transactions. Practically, he
considered that a state of hostility existed : the warning of
the Admiral, that unless certain conditions were complied
with, his squadron must interfere, was a declaration of war.
No minister had been more anxious than himself for the pro-
tection of commerce ; he deemed it no duty of his to aid or
to vindicate France.- But he thought it inexpedient in gene-
ral to censure foreign governments in parliament : it produted
irritation, and injured the interests of England : though he
was willing to admit that in the present ease the British in-
terests, involved in the act of France, made the right of
comment by members of the British parliament a very fair
one. There was no intention, however, on the part of
France to accomplish a permanent settlement on the soil of
Mexico. Of this he had full and satisfactory assurances.
The noble moVer had blamed the government for not having
had a larger foroe, and for not having taken a higher tone.
Could we have gone to war for the prevention of this block-
ade ? If not, the large force and the high tone would come
to nothing. We had now, indeed, despatched a large force ;
but it was designed only to give moral weight to our efforts.
He had intended no incivility to the merchants who had ap-
plied to him ; he felt that they were entitled to all' possible
respect ; he had only been anxious not to mislead them.
Mr. E. TENNENT exposed the unsoundness of the French
pretexts. The Americans had fared better than the English,
by making a greater display of power. If ministers had used
either moral force or physical, England would not have been
placed in so humiliating and helpless a state. The hon. mem-
ber then entered into certain questions relating to claims
of France and Brazil upon Portuguese ' Guiana, and to the
indemnifi eat:intuit: Aritials hirtsuitOdantoti 1—""
Mr. GROTE complained of the conduct at Vera Cruz and
Mexico of the French, maintaining that it called for the
marked interference of the British government.
Dr. LDSHINGTON also strongly condemned the proceedings
of France, as oppressive and unjustifiable, and contrary to
the usages of nations ; and urged the interference of our
government, by the most decided remonstrances that could
be well enforced after whht had taken place in that house, to
show France that England was "wide awake" to its conduct.
Mr. C. WOOD stated what force had been sent to the sta-
tion, declaring that there was sufficient to protect British
interests, the best proof of which was that that they had not
suffered. •
Sir R. PEEL thought that there had not been adequate
activity and remonstrance on the part of our government ;
that there outght to be information produced ; and that it
was far from being clear that British interests had not
suffered.
The motion, however, was eventually withdrawn.
The orders of the day, together with the report of such
army estimates as were adopted on Monday night, having
been disposed of, the house adjourned.

--.,.-.—.-
HOUSE OF LORDS.—WEDNESDAY.
The House of Lords did not assemble to-day.

-.WOW
HOUSE OF COMMONS.--WEDNESDAY.
Many petitions were presented on the subject of the beer
act, most of them praying for its revision, especially so far as
concerned the consumption of the beer on the premises.
Mr. LABOUCHERE, in answer to inquiry from Mr. Hume,
said that it was not the intention of the government to pro-
pose any alteration of the institutions of Newfoundland.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that after Easter he would
move for a copy of the charter of Trinity College, Dublin ;
also for copies of any correspondence that may have taken
place between the King of Hanover and the authorities of the
college.
Dr. LUSHINGTON intimated his intention to move for
copies of any despatches or proceedings, on the part of the
Governor of the Leeward Islands, recommending the convo-
cation of a general assembly of those islands.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, in answer to Mr. Wodehouse's in-
quiry, said that he thought he should best consult the con-
venience of the parties if he were to defer his motion which
was appointed for to-day, relative to work-house out-door
relief, until after Easter.
The highways bill, on motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,
went through committee.
Mr. PAEINGTON moved the second reading of the sale of
beer act amendment bill; which, after much conversation,
was read a second time.