LETTER To THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR ON THE 13LOCRADE
OF OPORTO.
7th July, 1828.
SIR,—As you fortherly inserted in the Atlas a trifle of mine on a critical subject, I am emboldened to address you upon the Blockade of Oporto, conceiving that the subject is of more than temporary interest, and that the real points of the question have hitherto been left untouched.
The admission of the blockade is justified upon two grounds—first, that Don Miguel is the "governing authority" of the country ; secondly, that our conduct should be guided by the precedents in the case of Greece and Chili. To me it appears that both of these reasons are invalid.
No maxim, I apprehend, is clearer than that a commission is void the moment that the bearel' ceases to recognise the authority of the grantor*. The principle is indeed a law of reason rather than of convention, but waiving any discussion as regards its origin, it is evident it pervades every transaction of civilized life. The officer (to put a case which even bar- barians can understand) who denies the authority of the power which created him, becomes, ipso facto, a mutineer and a rebel, with whom communication is perilous, obedience to whose commands is participa- tion of his guilt, and towards whom the extension of protection becomes a legitimate ground of war. So, by the same rule, from the moment Don Miguel assumed the crown, his authority as regent ceased, and he became a rebel and an usurper, whose offence was capital, whose acts were illegal, and whose orders, so far from being entitled to obedience, it became dan- gerous, if not treasonable, to obey. To meet, in fact, a despicable so- phistry by a schoolman's fiction, Don Miguel, the Regent, ceased to exist when Don Miguel the rebel and usurper came into existencet. If there be any legitimate "governing authority" in Portugal, it resides clearly in the Junta at Oporto.
With regard to the second point, I need hardly say that a precedent, to be of weight, must be strictly in point, or exactly analogical, neither of which, in this instance, is the case. At the very commencement of the struggle between Spain and her colonies, every body was aware that the recognition of the latter might take place. Their acknowledgement would indeed depend upon the fulfilment of certain contingencies, and would become a question of policy and expediency, but there was a prima facie case of possibility if not probability. Whereas, I apprehend that neither our Home nor our Foreign Secretary will deny but that Don Miguel is and (as far as can be seen at present) ever will be an usurper.
-..Waiving any discussion as to the difference between the revolt of a ma- jority of a people, and the assumption of the crown by a viceroy, in op- position, at all events, to the majority of a certain district, it may be as- serted that the practice of nations has drawn a wide distinction between them:. It seems to be decided that the question between a people and its.government is one strictly between themselves, the point at issue being, not whether the people have a right to iesist, but whether their grievances warrant resistance. When, therefore, a discontented body are so numerous, so powerful, and so organized as to have established a govern- ment, and that government has raised forces, has appointed officers, has established laws, and imposed taxes (whether the laws are obeyed, or the revenue collected is not immediately at issue,) it seems a practice that the blockades of this new power should be respected ; and this " lex non scripta" is still clearer when the war has continued long, when it is no longer a bellum internicinum (though singular ferocities may occasion- ally be perpetrated) when capitulations are entered into between the con- tending parties, and there is little probabiiity of eventual success attend- ing the efforts of the old government. But none of these reasons can apply to a case like Don Miguel's.. It is, prima facie, without any kind of right whatever, nor can it gain any by long continuance, or even success. It commenced in fratul 0,114 perjury, P.114 is coasumulate4 by treachery alA brach kit11,
It is for these reasons that I have presumed to address you. Putting the interest of our commerce and the honour of the nation out of the question,, the admission of the blockade seems of considerable import- ance, as establishing a new and dangerous precedent, making the legiti- macy of the blockade a question of force and not of right,4 and substi tuting a lax and dangerous discretion for a plain and acknowledged law. LECTOR.
* This role may, perhaps, be affected by the subsequent conduct of the grantor. In a political point of view, however, success alone would ensure safety. But even in this case, a friendly foreign power would not (in so early a stage of the pro- ceedings) have been justified in doing what our government has done. t Ministers have precluded themselves from any argument to be drawn from their "official" ignorance of the cause of the war, by their remonstrance against Don Miguel's proceedings. z It will be seen that I am not arguing the question upon any abstract notions about the rights of man, but upon the strictest principles of legitimacy.
I do not clearly recollect the facts, and have not any documents to refer to, but if (as Mr. Peel states) Lord Londonderry grounded the admission of the blockade alluded to solely on the question of force, he must be rated lower as a philosophical statesman than the world is inclined to rate bim. How is the question of force to be decided ? It cannot be by preventing the egress of vessels, for possibly there may be none within the port. It.cannot be by the capability of resisting the whole collected naval force of the power blockaded, for in such case blockades could rarely if ever take place. It resolves itself then into a question of mere brute force. A "sea attorney" is a blockader entitled to respect as long as he can en- force the blockade, but—in the case of the most legitimate power—when a "stronger than it eometh," it is no blockade at all. This is recurring to first principles—this is knocking about theories with a vengeance.
Previous page
