L. 1807. tion! Can we who do such things object to the Irish CHAP. rebels, who burned the notes of an obnoxious banker to ruin his trade? Our Orders in Council have thrown the mistake of the ignorant Irish into the shade. The order of 7th January 1807 was liable to none of these objections. It introduced or adopted no new or illegal principle; it merely reprobated the illegal decree of France, and asserted the right of retaliation by actual blockadea restriction which, it is admitted on all hands, neutrals must submit to. But the order of the 11th November stands in a very different situation. Sir William Scott has told us, in the case of the Maria (Robinson, i. 154), that no blockade can be made by the law of nations, unless force sufficient is stationed to prevent an entry. Can this be predicated of all Europe put together? Is every harbour and river from Hamburg to Cadiz, so closely watched that no vessel can enter any of them without evident risk of capture? Such a proposition is clearly out of the question; and therefore government has issued an Order in Council, which its own prize courts, if adjudicating in conformity with their former principles, must declare to be contrary to the law of nations, and therefore refuse to execute. 17. tion upon "Nor is it in this view only that these orders are illegal. They purpose to interrupt the commerce of Their reacneutral and unoffending nations, carrying on their accus- England tomed traffic in innocent articles, between their own herself. country and the ports of our enemies, not actually blockaded, and even between their own country and our allies; they compel neutrals, under the pain of confiscation, to come to our ports, and there submit to regulations, restrictions and duties, which will expose them to certain destruction the moment they approach the enemy's shore; they declare all vessels good prize which carry documents or certificates declaring that the articles of the cargo are not the produce of his Majesty's dominions, contrary alike to the law of nations and the rights and L. 1807. CHAP. liberties of the people of this realm. Such a monstrous system of aggression never was and never should be successful. Let us leave to our enemies the guilt of discord and bloodshed, and seek to support our country by the virtues of beneficence and peace. The idea that you can starve the enemy into submission, or the adoption of a more reasonable mode of hostility, is founded on an essential and fatal mistake in regard to the relative situation of Great Britain and the Continental states in the contest. The former must, of necessity, be the greatest sufferer. The Continental nations will lose only articles of luxury, but the British will be deprived of those of necessity sugar may rise to an extravagant price in Germany, but the manufacturers will be deprived of their daily bread in England. The greatest calamity which could befall this country, in her present predicament, would be a war with America, both as depriving her of the chief vent for her manufactured industry, and of the advantage of neutral carriers, who would contrive, for their own profit, to elude every Continental blockade, in order to introduce them into the Continental states. And surely the present moment, when we have all Europe, from the North Cape to Gibraltar, arrayed 1 Parl. Deb. against us, is not that when it is expedient, gratuitously and unnecessarily, to withdraw so beneficial a customer from our markets, and add his forces to those of the enemy." On the other hand, it was argued by Lord HawkesReply of the bury, the Advocate-General, and Lord-Chancellor Eldon "It is in vain to refer to the law of nations for any authority on this subject, in the unprecedented circumstances in which this country is now placed. What usually passes by that name is merely a collection of the dicta of wise men who have devoted themselves to this subject in different ages, applied to the circumstances of the world at the period in which they wrote, or circumstances nearly resembling them, but none having the least resemblance to the circumstances in which this x. 682, 930, 970. 18. supporters of the Or ders in both Houses. "1 L. 1807. country is now placed, Such as they are, however, they CHAP. all admit, what indeed common sense dictates, the right of retaliation, or of resisting an enemy by the same means by which he attacks ourselves. Nothing can be more expedient in the general case, than to adhere, with scrupulous exactness, to the law of nations; but if one belligerent commences a violation of it, it is sometimes indispensable, in order to put an end to the enormity, to make the enemy feel its effects. In some cases the most civilised nations have been driven to the melancholy necessity of putting prisoners to death, to terminate a similar practice on the part of their enemies. Doubtless, in the general case, quarter should be given; but during the fury of a charge, or the tumult of an assault, it is universally felt, by the experience of mankind, that a less humane rule must be followed. Every belligerent should usually adhere to the ordinary instruments of human destruction; but if your enemy fires red-hot shot, you are entitled to do the same. Russia herself acted on this principle in repelling, when still a neutral power, the aggressions of France; she authorised the seizure of all ships proceeding to France. Lord Howick himself, in his letter to the Danish minister, in relation to the order of 7th January, had clearly vindicated the justice, not only of his own measure, but 1 Parl. Deb. of the more extensive measure, based on the same prin- and 975. ciples, which was ultimately adopted.1 * "The Berlin decree of 21st November is at once the foundation and the justification of the present proceeding. That decree declared the British Islands in a state x. 674, 971, Lord Howick ister. * Lord Howick's (afterwards Earl Grey) letter to the Danish minister, who complained of the British order of 7th January, was a very able state paper, and Able note of among other things observed-" The French government, in adopting a measure on this subat once so violent in itself, and so unjust in its consequences, committed a ject to the manifest act of aggression, though immediately levelled at Great Britain, Danish minagainst the rights of every state not engaged in the war, which, if not resisted on their part, must unavoidably deprive them of the privilege of a fair neutrality, and suspend the operation of treaties formed for the protection of their rights in relation to Great Britain. The injury which would be sustained by England, if she suffered her commerce with foreign nations to be thus interdicted, while that of the enemy with them should remain unmolested, is so manifest that it L. 1907. CHAP. liberties of the people of this realm. Such a mon system of aggression never was and never should cessful. Let us leave to our enemies the guilt of and bloodshed, and seek to support our countr virtues of beneficence and peace. The idea that starve the enemy into submission, or the ado more reasonable mode of hostility, is found essential and fatal mistake in regard to t situation of Great Britain and the Contir in the contest. The former must, of nece greatest sufferer. The Continental nations articles of luxury, but the British will be dep of necessity: sugar may rise to an extra Germany, but the manufacturers will be d daily bread in England. The greatest could befall this country, in her prese would be a war with America, both as the chief vent for her manufactured in advantage of neutral carriers, who w their own profit, to elude every Cont order to introduce them into the And surely the present moment, Europe, from the North Cape t PD against us, is not that when it is and unnecessarily, to withdraw so be our markets, and add his forces to On the other hand, it was a Reply of the bury, the Advocate-General, and of the Or" It is in vain to refer to tl 18. 3.es in both Houses authority on this subject, in t usually passes by that name :. 1, in Skade of |