Star.
London, England, 1829-11-21 00:00:00

NEUTRALITY AND NON-INTERFERENCE.

Such is the title of the pamphlet we alluded to yester-
day, and to which we claim the particular attention of
our readers. It will be for them and the public to decide,
whether the extracts we are about to give do not make
out an irresistible case, both for the young Queen of
Portugal and her persecuted subjects ?
Neutrality and Non-interference being the points
which the author. professes to examine, he begins with
the following quotation from the Duke of WELLING-,
TON'S speech in the memorable debate of the 19th of
June last:—
' Now (add the Duke) the Noble Lord (Holland) slid, admit-
ting all this to be true, still this was a most boatible act ; and that
by the Law of Nations we had no right to prevent these persoos
from landing in the island. Now, be was informed, that by the
Law of Nations the fact was otherwise ; and that these persons had
violated the Law of Nations by organizing, in this country, an
attack against the dominion of a Power with which we were at
that very time engaged in a treaty."
Adopting the above as a species of text, the author
then proceeds—
,. Let us reduce the question to a thesis. If a nation has two
governments in two of Its possessions, one de facto, the other de
jure ; and a portion of unarmed persons consisting of soldiers and
citizens, adherents to the government de jute, seek shelter in a fo-
reign country which haswithdrawn its Minister from the government
de facto, and red:Weed that de jure, has this foreign country any
right, under the pretext of neutrality, to oppose the landing of these
persons in a possessios which has declared for the government
de jure ?
Hypothetically, the question is this :.—Could the English go-
vernment hinder the Portuguese emigrants. then residing in En•
stand, from going to, and landing I. the Island of Terceira ?
If we prove, that the word neutrality, its meaning, in accordance
with what we term the Law of Nations, the rules annexed to it
in its observance, have no application in the present hypothesis, it
will follow, that the Law of Nations is no support whatever to
the opinion of those persons who have attempted to justify the
measures adopted, to kinder the Portuguese emigrants from land-
ing at Terceira.
According to the Law of Nations, neutrality Is the state of non-
eo-operadoo of a power, in regard to two belligerent powers.
This is what we may properly call neutrality : this is the meaning
attached to it by those authors who wrote upon the Law of Na-
da:is; and it is under this meaning that the general rules of this
law are applied and understood. In the meantime, as there was
no other wad to express this negative state of cooperation, some
authors said, that a power might be neutral in regard to another,
that was divided into parties, that is to say, by assisting neither of
the parties. We cannot, however, infer from this expression, that
between a nation and a party, there should be the same principles,
rules, obligatioos, duties and rights to observe, as betweea nation
and nation. There may be some engagements, dudes, to.c. but it
does not however follow, that, because there are any, they are all
precisely the same as those which exist between nation and nation.
It does not follow, then, because there are rules of neutrality be.
tweet one nation and another, that these rules should apply to a
nation and a party of another nation; and that the non-fulfilment
of these engagements should be considered a breach of neutrality.
Let us, therefore, transcribe what Vattel says concerning civil war
and rebellion, in order to explain these differences. (Book 111.
chap. wain. p. 103)
" L'usage affects le terse guerre civil, a toot, pare qui se fait
'sure les membres Cane mime societd poUtique si e'en entre nose
pantie de citoyens d'un cod, et le souverain avec crux qui let
obeisant, de Ventre ; U souint qua les mccoontens ayent quelque
raison de prendre les anises pour quo ee desordre soft append
pare citing, non pas rebellion. Cette derider. qualification nest
dosage qu' i on soulevenssat contra ranterite legidms destitue de
toots mare= de justice."
Now we should like to know whether the colingadons of a na-
den, with regard to a rebellion, are the same as those with regard
to a state of civil war in another nation? In case of neutrality,
has that nation the same duties to observe, or has it even any to ob-
serve in the event of dvU war in the other nation?
Justice is always, in cases like this, the only criterion of de-
cidlog. In the event of rebellion, no power has authority to In-
terfere with that nation which is the prey of Its ravages. It is,
however, different with respect to civil war. Let us see what says
Vattel. Book 11. chap. iv. section 56.
" Maio d le Prince, attaquant les lois fundantentales donne ii son
people
,un legithne sujit de lul resister; al la tyrannie doyenne
Insupportable souleve la nation ; toots puissance dtrangere est
en desk de moult 611 people opprimi, qui Id demands son as-
sistance."
" He says immediately after,—
" Qum on people proud avec raison In uses centre on op-
ream, U n'y aqua justice et generosite a ...murk des braves gens
qui defendant tear liberte. Toutes les ids done que les chines den-
:sent a one guerre dvile, les puissance. etrangfires peuvent &ulster
celul de deux tarns, qui kW' pareit fonde en justice.
" Cello qui assists un tyrant adieux, retie qui se declare pour
um people injuste et rebate, peche sans doute contra son devoir."
Portugal and Tercdra are not two belligerent powers; nor can
Terceira be galled a rebellious island. They are both one and the
same sedan; there are no mutual treaties between them ; nor are
there treaties betwixt either of these parties with England or any
other power, that might constitute them distinct Ka independent
kingdoms, nations, or powers. Therefore, by the simple definition of
neutrality, we see that this word and its consequences are not ap-
plicable to rights or engagements between England and imaginary
powers. Consequently, the Law of Nations cannot, according to
the meaning attached to it by his Britannic Majesty's Ministers,
justify the measure' they adopted, under the pretext of a breach
of neutrality, to hinder the Portuguese emigrants from landing at
Terceira.

• Bet where can we find a code of inter-national law ? Is there
a thing of the kind written yet? The Law of Nations is nothing
snore than a right established among men by natural reason,
erotism defies the Law of Nations,—a law established by the
common consent of nations, and thus distinguishes it fropidte Law
01 Nations. Hobbes. however, scarcely makes 'any difference in
the names, and expressly says, that their principles are identical.
Wolfius hesitates in separating the Law of Nations from the Law
Of Nature. What are, then, the dictates of reason in the present
state of the question ? What motives can a third person, allege for
preventing me from entering my own house? Let us suppose that
I claim this house, and dispute the right of possession in a Court
of Justice : one of the floors of It is inhabited by my adversary,
and the other by my family; who can, under any pretext what-
ever, binder me from having access to that floor, of which I have
fall possession? Let us even suppose that I am residing at a
neighbour's house, who will take no part in our contentions
in order to get into the floor occupied by my fa•
Idly, I speak to another party to buy a ladder from this man
where I live, deceiving hint as to the use I intended to make
of ft. However, I get out of his house with the ladder :
what right has he to follow me and break my legs and ladder, when
I have reached my premises, and have the ladder in my area, and
against the window of my own floor?• Could my adversary blame

• The Portuguese were so near the shores of Terceira, that they
bad lowered the beats and were ready to get into them when they
were bred at.
We read the following in the Ensyclops& Loodinensis,
under the word—Law of Nations.—" So also all those parts of
the sea which ere near land, may be looked on as lawfully ac-
=and maintained. as the property and under the dominion of
don that is master ()ills. coast.
A custom generally acknowledged, extends the authority of
the state possessing the coast, to a cannon-shot from the shore,
which is understood to be three leagues ; and this distance is the
least that a nation ought now tocialas as the =tent of its dominion
on the seas ln fact, all &Dee pens of the sea which Du-
resod the coast, ought to be looked upon as ferwaing a pan of the
unitary of time soosysigo who Is mew of the shore."

this neighbour because he favoured and received me in his homer
Was it his fault if I went from thence Into my own? How is it
proved, in this case. that he interferes! in our affairs, and deviated
from the neutrality, which be, and nu other power, either physical
or moral, had imposed upon him? Where is that moral precept
which compelled him to be neutral? His neutrality might be an
effect of self will, yet no law. Hi 4 Majesty's Ministers might, if
they pleased, agree between themselves to be neutral; yet this
agreement cannot be considered as possessing the power of a low
sanctioned by the code of the Law of Nations. They cannot re-
fer to the Law a Nations in cases for which this law does nut po-
sitively provide, or in cases immediately dependent on self will,
and not on any law. The existent law on neutrality, independent
of the mere will of any government, refers, properly speaking, to
two belligerent nations. As nations they are independent and un-
c'ontroilable : their rights and engagements are regulated by ex-
press conventions ; and when there are no conventions, they are
guided bj the rules of the Law of Nature. Their mutual Inde-
pendence, notwithstanding their inequality in forces and riches : '
their treaties with a third nation places the latter in a position de-
pendent on certain laws and contracts which must be observed.
Nothing of this hind, however, exists, properly speaking, be-
tween a nation divided intossarties and any other nation. In con-
forming with the principles laid down, I venture to advance the
following proposition :—lf a nation that is divided into parties has
at the head of one of them, a legitimate sovereign, whose legid-
inlay has been recognised by another nation, the latter cannot
, shrink from assisting him, 'much less remain neutral ; as such neu-
trality would, in such a case, amount rather to a protection of my
adversary than to a negative state of co.operatiou : who; in such
circumstances, is not for me, is against me. Let us consult natural
reason ; let us consult the basis of all laws, and decide the follow-
ing case. Suppose I meet a thief in the street, who deprives me
of my watch, and soother loan is a witness to the rubbery; I begin
to struggle with the thief for the recovery of my watch, ought this
man, though he bad never seen me, to remain neutral at such a
robbery, and not assist me ? Could this man honourably observe
this neutrality without being suspected? Where Is the English-
man who would not immediately fly to the assistance of the help-
less and injured, and pursue the aggressor ?
This practice, daily observed, forms a just eulogiurn on
the true Briton ; this spirit of justice that characterises
the civilisation of s sople; this observance of a duty that
the law of Nature engraves with indelible characters in man's
heart, is the only basis of that law of nations, which loudly cries
out against a neutrality which, if we consider it well, is nothing
but protecting the guilty, and, therefore, cannot be founded on
any law, as unjust laws are repugnant to common sense.
If there be any man yet, who attempts to maintain that this
much talked of neutrality Is founded upon the law of nations : that
his Majesty's Ministers could and ought, in compliance with that
to order that the unarmed Portuguese emigrants going from
England to the dominions of their Q,ueen, should be Bred at and
killed, I defy him, whoever he be, to answer, honestly and sin-
cerely, the following question :
Can her Majesty, Donna Maria 11. go, if she pleased, from
England to Terceira?
If so, why could not her subjects do the same ? If she could
not go, where are the laws that forbid her from going?
This knotty point may be cut with a sword, but cannot be an-
swered with honour and good faith. Even supposing the law of
nations had sanctioned such a neutrality, has it been observed
without leaning to the Usurper's side?
It Is an undeniable fact that the Portuguese, who were fired as
on the seas of Terceira, by the *Men of the English Government,
were unarmed. They went front there to France, and there they
are still unarmed. The ostensible reasons given for such conduct
were, that arms were bought and sent to Terceira under false re.
presentations ; and; because these arms were sent AM, ought the
men to be prevented from going afterwards?
The thing is this: consenting to the exportation of arms to Ter-
ceirs, was a breach of neutrality ; but consenting to' loans being
raised In this country foe Don Miguel, (in which he might have
succeeded had not his uncle Ferdinand taught a lesson to the Stock
Exchange); and consenting to the exportation of rigging, tackle, and
other things, without giving to the custom-houses orders to prevent
these things from being sent to Portugal, is not a breach of neu-
trality! What sort of neutrality Is this, that prevented the Por-
tuguese from going to Portugal, from going to Terceira, and per-
mined the exportation of two thousand quintals of rigging, tackling.
and all other necessaries for fitting out an expedition against that
faithful island ?
Ts not the hasty recognition of a merely nominal blockade of the
Usurper, a breach of neutrality? The Puglia Ambassador bad
withdrawn from Lisbon, Dos Miguel had been proclaimed King
of Portugal, and his Majesty's vessels in the Tagus as a King
saluted him ! Pow much more consistent was the French Go-
vernment ! When Don Miguel declared Oporto in a state of
blockade, the French frigate Themis was sent to force h. When
the English forces stationed in the Tagus saluted Miguel. the
Thuds followed their example : but what was the result the
Commander was recalled from his station and disgraced for his
behaviour.
Such are the facts and arguments brought forward by
the Author, on the pOint of neutrality. We shall in a
second notice, cite those which regard the question of
non-interference.

BUCKMINSTER. PARK.—Lord and Lady HUNTING-
TOWER and the Misses TALMASII, are expected to con-
tinue here till the Spring. His Lordship moat benevo-
lently employs upwards of 300 poor labourers in improv-
ing roads, &c. who, but for his benevolent consideration,
would be reduced to an extremity of distress.
LIVERPOOL' Nov. 19.—We continue to have the
same animated demand for Cotton, and the sales to-day.
amount to 6,000 bags, at the prices obtained yesterday ;
and more would have been taken but higher rates are de-
manded, which will no doubt be realised.
Two officers of Artillery, Captains D— and A—, who'•
were dismissed the Army for refusing to salute the Host
when passing their Regiments at Malta, have taken
Orders, and are now preaching at Guernsey, and other
places.
It would, in our opinion, be extremely injudicious to
estimate the prosperity of the country by any of these
quarterly or weekly quotations of the revenue, taken sepa-
rately. They relate to periods which are too brief and
fluctuating for data upon which to form an opinion. We
want more convincing evidence of returning prosperity.
We want to see the farmer and manufacturer living upon
their profits ; the shopkeeper, with a brisk credit and a
flourishing trade, enjoying the comforts and even luxuries
due to the middle classes ; the husbandman working six
days a week, rewarded by wages equal to his industry ;
and the artizan amply participating in the blessings of a
bountiful Providence and the fruits of honest labour
and ingenious exertion. We could then endure the
clamourous triumph of the Government press. We do
not want to be told of the amount of taxes paid for this
or for that quarter or week. In our opinion, it is dis-
creditable to boast that immense levies have been made
upon the people, unless it be first shown that the
people could bear them, and had borne them, WITHOUT
INJURY AND DISTRESS. When the government Jour-
nals quoted, the revenue returns for the week ending the
13th inst. they should, by way of contrast, Lave exhibited
the increase of bankrupts during the same period. A refer-
ence to the Gazette might have checked their presumption.
The contemplation ofpaasing calamities, might have quelled
their empty boastings about the future prospects of the
country. But we must expect these attempts to conceal
the errors of a disastrous policy.—Sheffield Courant.