Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

charge any guilt upon a man who, in the course of philosophic investigation, is brought at last to doubt respecting any of the great points of religious belief, after an investigation pursued with diligence, and under a sense of the high importance of the subject. Such a charge would be the result of bigotry alone, and would have no corresponding conviction in the heart of the person thus accused. Yet such a person may be morally guilty of blasphemy. He is morally guilty, if he suffer himself to be led to the use of gross and opprobrious expressions, such as are shocking to the common sense and common feelings of mankind, and abhorrent to the minds of all philosophic inquirers, and all persons who, in the spirit of seriousness, are seeking to know the truth in respect of things which are of the last importance to them. Whoever acknowledges the existence of God and his providence, and yet speaks of him, or still more to him, or of and concerning them, in the language of affront, or otherwise, indeed, than with a feeling of reverence correspondent to the dignity and awfulness of the subject, cannot be held morally guiltless: and when there is no such admission, there is at least a decency to be observed in treating or speaking of them which will be observed by all who have any spirit of seriousness, or any just regard for the peace and welfare of society.

At the same time it must also be admitted that a certain freedom must be allowed in respect of the manner in which questions referring to sacred subjects are treated. All things are not really sacred which many agree to call so. The term sacred may be made to cover any opinior however absurd, as witchcraft and the popular superstitions have sometimes taken shelter under it. It will scarcely be denied that it is morally right to attack opinions of this class, even though the mind of a nation is not sufficiently enlightened to discern the absurdity of them, with any weapons, even those of insult.and ridicule; and that though the cry of blasphemy may be raised, yet that at the bar of sound reason such a person, so far from being justly chargeable with so odious a crime, may be rendering to the

world the most essential service, hy setting the absurdity of the opinion in that clear light in which it admits of being placed, and thus attracting to it the eyes of all observers. But opinions which have better pretension to be called sacred may not improperly be treated with a certain freedom that to those holding them shall be offensive. Very strong things in this way have been said against the doctrine of transubstantiation by Protestant writers, who have not been regarded by their fellow-Protestants as doing more than setting an erroneous doctrine in its true light, though the Roman Catholic will have a different opinion on the matter. So the Almighty Father, as he appears in the system of Christian faith which is called Calvinism, has by some been represented in characters which, to the sincere believer in that system, cannot but have been accounted blasphemous; while by those who hold the system to rest on a mistaken interpretation of Scripture it has been held to be no more than the real character in which that system invests him. There is in fact, when the subject is regarded as one of morals rather than of law, a relative and a positive blasphemy. That is blasphemy to one which is not so to another. And this should teach all persons a forbearance in the application of so odious a term. Strong and forcible expressions have had their use. Satire and ridicule may reach where plain argument will not go: but it behoves every man who ventures on the use of these weapons to consider the intention by which he is influenced, to look upon himself as one who is a debtor in an especial manner to the truth, and who has to satisfy himself that he aims at nothing but the increase of the knowledge and the virtue and happiness of society.

BLOCKADE, LAW OF. Whenever a war takes place, it affects in various ways all states which have any connexion with the belligerent powers. A principal part accordingly of the science of international law is that which respects the rights of such neutral states. For obvious reasons this is also the most intricate part of the subject. There is here a general

rule, namely, that the neutral ought not to be at all interfered with, conflicting with a great variety of exceptions, derived from what is conceived to be the right of each of the belligerents to prosecute the object of annoying its enemy, even though (within certain limits) it inflicts injury upon a third party. In the first place there is to be settled the question of what these limits are. It evidently would not do to say that the belligerent shall not be justified in doing anything which may in any way inconvenience a neutral power; for such a principle would go nigh to tie up the hands of the belligerent altogether, inasmuch as almost any hostile act whatever might in this way be construed into an injury by neutral states. They might complain, for instance, that they suffered an inconvenience, when a belligerent power seized upon the ships of its enemy that were on their way to supply other countries with the ordinary articles of commerce. On the other hand, there is a manifest expediency in restricting the exercise of the rights of war, for the sake of the protection of neutrals, to as great an extent as is compatible with the effectual pursuit of the end for which war is waged. Accordingly it has been commonly laid down, that belligerents are not to do anything which shall have a greater tendency to incommode neutrals than to benefit themselves. It is evident however that this is a very vague rule, the application of which must give rise to many questions.

presiding over the High Court of Admiralty, which have been ably reported by Dr. Edwards and Sir Charles Robinson. A very convenient compendium of the law, principally derived from this source, has been given by Mr. Joseph Chitty in his work entitled A Practical Treatise on the Law of Nations,' 8vo. Lond. 1812. The various pamphlets and published speeches of Lord Erskine, Mr. Stephen, Mr. Brougham, Lord Ashburton (Mr. Alexander Baring), Lord Sheffield, and others, which appeared in the course of the controversy respecting the Orders in Council, may also be consulted with advantage. To these may be added various articles in volumes xi. xii. xiv. and xix. of the Edinburgh Review,' particularly one in volume xix. pp. 290—317, headed "Disputes with America," written immediately before the breaking out of the last war with that country.

The first and the essential circumstance necessary to make a good blockade is, that there be actually stationed at the place a sufficient force to prevent the entry or exit of vessels. Sir William Scott has said (case of the Vrow Judith, Jan. 17, 1799), “A blockade is a sort of circumvallation round a place, by which all foreign connexion and correspondence is, as far as human power can effect it, to be entirely cut off." Such a check as this, it is evident, is absolutely necessary to prevent the greatest abuse of the right of blockade. The benefit accruing to a belligerent from blockading its enemy's ports, by which it claims the privilege of seizing any vessel that attempts to touch or has actually touched at such ports, and the inconvenience thereby inflicted upon neutrals, would both, without such a provision, be absolutely unlimited. In point of fact, belligerents have frequently affected, in their declarations of blockade, to overstep the boundaries thus set to the exercise of the right. France, as Mr. Brougham showed in his speech delivered before the House of Commons, 1st April, 1808, in support of the petitions of Lon

It is by this rule that publicists have endeavoured to determine the extent to which the right of blockade may properly be carried, and the manner in which it ought to be exercised. We can only notice the principal conclusions to which they have come, which indeed, so far as they are generally admitted, are nothing more than a set of rules fashioned on positive international morality (that is, so much of positive morality as states in general agree in recognising) by judicial decision. Accordingly perhaps the most complete exposition of the modern doc-don, Liverpool, and other towns, against trine of blockade may be collected from the admirable judgments delivered during the course of the last war by the late Lord Stowell (Sir William Scott), while

the orders in council, had repeatedly done so both since and previous to the Revolu tion. She did so in 1739 and in 1756, and also in 1796, in 1797, and in 1800.

But in none of these instances were her pretended blockades either submitted to by neutrals, or even to any considerable extent attempted to be enforced by herself. There can be no doubt that no prize-court would now condemn a vessel captured for the alleged violation of any such mere nominal blockade. It has, however, been decided that the blockade is good although the ships stationed at the place may have been for a short time removed to a little distance by a sudden change of wind, or any similar cause.

[ocr errors]

The second, and only other circumstance necessary to constitute a blockade which the prize-courts will recognise, is, that the party violating it shall be proved to have been aware of its existence. "It is at all times most convenient," Lord Stowell has said in one of his judgments (see case of the Rolla, in Robinson's Reports'), "that the blockade should be declared in a public and distinct manner." There ought to be a formal notification from the blockading power to all other countries. Nevertheless this is not absolutely required, and a neutral will not be permitted with impunity to violate a blockade of which the master of the vessel may reasonably be presumed to be aware from the mere notoriety of the fact. Lord Stowell, however, has said that, whereas when a notification has been formally given, the mere act of sailing with a contingent destination to enter the blockaded port if the blockade shall be found to be raised, will constitute the offence of violation, it might be different in the case of a blockade existing de facto only.

With regard to neutral vessels lying at the place where the blockade commences, the rule is, that they may retire freely after the notification of the blockade, taking with them the cargoes with which they may be already laden; but they must not take in any new cargo.

The offence of violation is effected either by going into the place blockaded, or by coming out of it with a cargo taken in after the commencement of the blockade. But vessels must not even approach the place with the evident intention of entering if they can effect their object. It would even appear that a vessel will

render itself liable to seizure and condemnation if it can be proved to have set sail with that intention. In such cases however it must be always difficult for the captors to make out a satisfactory case.

After a ship has once violated a blockade, it is considered that the offence is not purged, in ordinary circumstances, until she shall have returned to the port from which she originally set out; that is to say, she may be seized at any moment up to the termination of her homeward voyage. If the blockade however has been raised before the capture, the offence is held to be no longer punishable, and a judgment of restitution will be pronounced.

The effect of a violation of blockade to the offending party when captured is the condemnation usually of both the ship and the cargo. If however it can be shown that the parties to whom the cargo belongs were not implicated in the offence committed by the master of the ship, the cargo will be restored. It has sometimes, on the contrary, happened that the owners of the cargo have been found to be the only guilty parties, in which case the judgment has been for the condemnation of the cargo and the restitution of the ship.

If a place, as generally happens in the case of maritime blockades, be blockaded by sea only, a neutral may carry on commerce with it by inland communications. The neutral vessel may enter a neighbouring port not included in the blockade with goods destined to be carried thence over land into the blockaded place.

When a place has once been notified to be blockaded, a counter notice should always be given by the blockading power when the blockade has ceased. The observance of this formality is obviously conducive to the general convenience, but there are of course no means of punishing a belligerent for its neglect.

In this country a blockade is ordered and declared by the king in council. It is held however that a commander of a king's ship on a station so distant as to preclude the government at home from interfering with the expedition necessary to meet the change of circumstances, may

have authority delegated to him to extend or vary the blockade on the line of coast on which he is stationed. But the courts will not recognise a blockade altered in this manner within the limits of Europe. It appears to be necessary for the sake of the public convenience that the power of declaring a blockade should, as far as possible, be exercised only by the sovereign power in a state; but it would perhaps be going too far to insist that it should in no circumstances be delegated to a subordinate authority. This would seem to be something very like interfering with the internal arrangements of states.

Some very important questions connected with the law of blockade were brought into discussion in the course of the last war by the Berlin decree of Bonaparte and the orders of the king of Great Britain in council.

The Berlin decree, which was issued on the 21st of November, 1806, declared the whole of the British islands in a state of blockade, and all vessels, of whatever country, trading to them, liable to be captured by the ships of France. It also shut out all British vessels and produce both from France and from all the other countries then subject to the authority of the French emperor. By a subsequent decree, issued soon after in aid of this, all neutral vessels were required to carry what were called letters or certificates of origin, that is, attestations from the French consuls of the ports from which they had set out, that no part of their cargo was British. This was the revival of an expedient which had been first resorted to by the Directory in 1796.

There can be no question as to the invalidity of this blockade, according to the recognised principles of the law of nations: the essential circumstance of a good blockade, namely, the presence of a force sufficient to maintain it, was here entirely wanting. And it is proper also to state that a certain representation of the nature of the decree, much insisted upon by some of the writers and pamphleteers in the course of the subsequent discussions, with the view of mitigating its absurdity and violence, that is to say, that it was never attempted to be en

forced, is now well known not to have been strictly correct. Many vessels of neutrals were actually captured and condemned by the French courts, in conformity with it, during the first few months which followed its promulgation.

The first step in resistance to the Berlin decree was taken by Great Britain on the 7th of January, 1807, while the Whig ministry of which Mr. Fox had been the head was still in office, by an order in council subjecting to seizure all neutral vessels trading from one hostile port in Europe to another with property belonging to an enemy. This order, however, is said to have been extensively evaded; while, at the same time, new efforts began to be made by the French emperor to enforce the Berlin decree. It is admitted that in the course of the months of September and October, 1807, several neutral vessels were captured for violation of that decree; that a considerable alarm was excited among the mercantile classes in this country by these acts of violence; that the premium of insurance rose; and that some suspension of trade took place. (See Edin. Rev. vol. xiv. p. 442, &c.) It is contended by the supporters of the British orders in council, that the effect of the Berlin decree upon the commerce of this country during the months of August, September, and October in particular, was most severely felt. (See Mr. Stephen's 'Speech.')

In these circumstances the British government, at the head of which Mr. Perceval now was, issued further orders in council, dated the 11th and 21st of November, 1807. These new orders declared France and all its tributary states to be in a state of blockade, and all vessels subject to seizure which were either found to have certificates of origin on board, or which should attempt to trade with any of the parts of the world thus blockaded. All neutral vessels, intended for France or any other hostile country, were ordered in all cases to touch first at some British port, and to pay custom-dues there, after which they were, in certain cases, to be allowed to depart to their destination. In all cases, in like manner, vessels clearing out from a hostile port were, before proceeding farther

on their voyage, to touch at a British | factory, though not in an official form, port.

The predicament in which neutral countries were placed by this war of edicts was sufficiently embarrassing. The effect of the recent British orders in council is thus distinctly stated by a writer in the Edinburgh Review,' vol. xii. p. 229:-"Taken in combination with the Berlin decree, they interdict the whole foreign trade of all neutral nations; they prohibit everything which that decree had allowed; and they enjoin those very things which are there made a ground of

confiscation."

By a subsequent decree, issued by Bonaparte from Milan on the 27th of December, 1807, the British dominions in all quarters of the world were declared to be in a state of blockade, and all countries were prohibited from trading with each other in any articles produced or manufactured in the parts of the earth chus put under a ban. Various additional orders in council were also promulgated from time to time, in explanation or slight modification of those last mentioned.

It is asserted by the opponents of this policy of the British government, that the result was a diminution, in the course of the following year, of the foreign trade of this country, to the extent of fourteen millions sterling. It is even contended that, but for some counteracting causes which happened to operate at the same time, the falling off would have been nearly twice as great. (Edin. Rev., vol. xiv. p. 442, &c.)

The principal branch of trade affected was that with America, which was at this time the only great neutral power in existence; and which in that capacity had, previous to the Berlin decree, been an annual purchaser of British manufactures to a large amount, partly for home consumption, but to a much larger extent for the supply of the Continent. Both the Americans, therefore, and the various parties in this country interested in this export trade, exclaimed loudly against the edicts of the two belligerent powers. It appears that the American government, on application to that of France, obtained an assurance which was deemed satis

that the Berlin decree would not be put in force against American vessels; but when this was urged as a sufficient reason for the revocation of the English orders in council, the English government refused to pay any attention to it, maintaining that America should insist upon a public renunciation of the obnoxious French decree.

The subject was brought before parliament in March, 1808, by motions made in both houses asserting the illegality of the orders in council. On the 1st of April the merchants of London, Liverpool, and other towns, who had petitioned for the repeal of the orders, on the ground of their injurious operation upon the commercial interests of the country, were heard at the bar by their counsel, Mr. Brougham, whose speech, as has been already mentioned, was afterwards published. The result was, that ministers consented to the institution of an inquiry into the effect of the orders, in the course of which many witnesses were brought forward both by the petitioners and by the ministers in support of their respective views. But no immediate result followed, either from this inquiry, or from a motion made in the House of Commons on the 6th of March, 1809, by Mr. Whitbread, declaratory of the expediency of acquiescing in the propositions made by the government of the United States.

On the 26th of April, however, a new order in council was issued, which, it was contended by the opponents of the policy hitherto pursued. did in fact amount to an abandonment of the whole principle of that policy. On the pretext that the state of circumstances, so far as the Continent was concerned, had undergone a complete change by the insurrection of the Spaniards, the blockade, which had formerly extended to all the countries under the authority of France, was now confined to France itself, to Holland, to part of Germany, and to the north of Italy; and the order which condemned vessels for having certificates of origin on board was rescinded. On the other hand, the interdict against trading with the blockaded ports was apparently made more strict and severe by the revocation

« ForrigeFortsett »