THE LAW OF BLOCKADE.
THE PRESS.
MORNING CHRONICLE.—The question of blockade (in the cases of Oporto and Madeira) reduces itself to a very narrow compass ; and it is only the confusion of intellect of the French Journalist which could have led him to mix up the question of title to rule with that of blockade. The English; Government, on the present occasion, has adopted no new principle. It has always, in the various regions of South America, during the protracted war- fare between Spain and her quondam Colonies, and between Brazil and Buenos Ayres, and in the Levant during the warfare between the Greeks and Turks, acknowledged all blockades duly promulgated and enforced. It has never made any distinction between a war of Colonies against a Parent State, of particular provinces or divisions of an empire against the rest, and a war of one independent state against another. When we recognised the blockades declared by the South Americans and Greeks, we had Ambassadors at Madrid and Constantinople. In the same mariner we recognise the block. ade of Don Miguel, at one time in his character of Regent, and at another in his character of usurper. If a revolotiou had taken place at Lisbon, and the authors of it had declared Portugal a Republic, and Oporto held in the name of Don Pedro in a state of blockade, we should with equal readiness have acknowledged the revolutionary blockade of Oporto. This may or may not be a sound rule of action, hut it is at all events one which we have rot taken up yesterday. The approbation of the conduct of a Sovereign, or party in possession of power, and the neutrality observed with regard to their acts as belligerents, are quite distinct. We withdrew our Ambassador from Portugal because we disapproved of the conduct of Don Miguel; but if we had refused to acknowledge his blockade, we should have done more than disapprove of his conduct—we should have taken part against him. We are not obliged to send an Ambassador to a Court or to continue one at it; and to withdraw an Ambassador is nearly akin to that liberty which, in private life, induces a man to visit Or receive the visits of another. Neither, because we are on good terms with a Sovereign, and disapprove of an usurpation against his authority, are we bound to support him against the usurper, and make ourselves parties to a civil war. We supported Portugal against inroads from Spain, because we were bound by a particidar Treaty to support Per- tugal against foreign aggression. The obligation to assist, though limited thus far, was, however, when lately discussed, deemed exceedingly objection- able; and were such a treaty to be proposed for the first time, it would assur- edly be objected to. But weare prepared to contend that the rule adopted by the British Government, of observing strict neutrality, not only in wars between nation and nation, but in civil wars, or wars between different races in the same territory, as the Greeks and Turks, is a just and proper one. When it is known that we are strictly neutral, neither belligerent can find fault with us. On the other hand, by acknowledging the blockade of one party, and refusing to acknowledge that of another, we lay ourselves open to an accusation of mixing ourselves up with the quarrel, and, consequently, lay the foundation for quarrels with the .party supposing itself aggrieved.
Previous page
