ment immediately prepared to enforce its demands, by sending orders to the admiral who commanded the fleet in the Mediterranean, to hold himself in readiness to commence active hostilities against the Neapolitan flag. This monopoly caused such a decline in the British trade in sulphur, that although previously it was of the average value of 35,000. per annum, it became, after the grant to the company, too small for a return to be made by the customs. The increase in cost was above 200 per cent. On the 17th of April, the British ships-of-war in the vicinity of Naples commenced hostilities, and captured a number of Neapolitan vessels; and an embargo was laid on all vessels in the ports of Malta that bore the Sicilian flag. At first the king made preparations to resist, but he was finally induced to accept the proposed mediation of France in adjusting the quarrel, on the principle that the monopoly should be dissolved, and an indemnity given to the contractors. And early in May amicable relations between the Court of Naples and the British legation recommenced.(7)

In 1847,(m) a motion was made in the House of Commons, the object of which was to induce the Government to give redress to the British holders of unpaid Spanish bonds, by issuing Reprisals against Spain. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Palmerston) resisted the motion solely on the grounds of expediency and public policy, but ad[*29] mitted that it was justified by the principles of International Law, and gave no vague intimation that, if the British holders continued to receive no redress from Spain, the time would come when it would be politic as well as just to compel by measures of force the payment of this debt.

The last instance of a recourse to Reprisals by England took place in 1850. In that year the British Government made six demands upon the Government of Greece for reparation and redress for alleged injuries inflicted upon British subjects. The demand, which, not being conceded, led to the issue of the Reprisals, was that of Don Pacifico, whose claim was thus stated by the English Foreign Secretary :-" M. Pacifico is a native of Gibraltar, and therefore a British subject. His claim is for the value of property and effects belonging to him which were destroyed in April, 1847, when a riotous mob, aided by Greek soldiers and gendarmes, broke into and plundered his house at Athens in open day. The amount claimed by her majesty's Government for M. Pacifico on account of his personal sufferings and those of his family is 5007. A detailed account of the amount of his losses was sent in to the Greek Government by Sir Edmund Lyons, in 1847."(n)

Now the real question of International Law at issue in this case was, whether the state of the Greek tribunals was such, as to warrant the English Foreign Minister in insisting upon M. Pacifico's demand being satisfied by the Greek Government, before that person had exhausted the legal remedies which, it must be presumed, are afforded by the ordinary

(1) Annual Register (1840), vol. lxxxii pp. 209-10, from which this account is taken.

(m) 6th July. Vide ante, vol. ii. pp. 9-12.

(n) Annual Register (1850), vol. xcii. p. 281.

legal tribunals of every civilized State. That M. Pacifico had not applied to the Greek Courts of Law for redress appears to be an admitted fact; and the most eminent lawyers in Athens advised the Greek Government upon this point in the following manner :

[*30]

*In regard to the affair of Signor D. Pacifico, it appears from the documents which the Council of Ministers has been pleased to communicate to us, that the authorities charged with the investigation, used every effort both to stop the consummation of the deplorable act already begun before their arrival, and also to deliver the authors of it into the hands of justice.

"These efforts did not, as it appears, fully succeed, for reasons independent of the will of those authorities and of the Greek Government; but according to the Greek legislation and to that of other European nations, as also according to the principles that regulate their International Relations, and which the Government of Great Britain also invoked in its favour in the difference that arose betwixt it and Prussia in the year 1752,(o) quoted in extenso in the second volume of the Causes Célèbres du Droit des Gens, by Martens, pages 1-88; according to these principles, we say that Signor Pacifico ought to have instituted before the civil tribunals of Greece an action for damages against those whom he might have considered the authors of this culpable action; and the success of this suit was the more certain, inasmuch as Signor Pacifico affirms that, among the authors of the crime, committed in open day, there were persons known to him and to many other witnesses of the act; and such an action, instituted in time, and supported with regard to the amount of the indemnity claimed, by solid proofs, would certainly have succeeded; and in this way the complaints of Signor Pacifico would not have been made."(p)

166

The British Government continued to press, and the Greek Government to refuse, the claim. The British Government then proceeded to enforce it via facti; and first the English Admiral in the Greek waters received orders to prevent any vessels belonging to the Greek Government from putting to sea, and one which had put to sea was compelled to return. *Upon this the Greek Minister put forth the following dignified and temperate protest - I have received the note [*31] you did me the honour to write to me yesterday. It is impossible for me to convey to you the feelings with which it has been read by the King of Greece, and by his Government. The whole nation will partake them. Greece is weak, sir, and she did not expect that such blows would be aimed at her by a Government which she reckoned, with equal pride and confidence, among her benefactors. In the presence of a force like that which awaits your instructions, His Majesty's Government can only oppose its rights, and a solemn protest against acts of hostility done in profound peace, and which, without reference to other interests of the highest order, are violations, in the supreme degree, of its dignity and its independence. In this painful conjuncture, certain of the support of the Greek people and of the sympathies of the civilized world, the King (p) Ib., pp. 283-4.

(0) Vide ante, p. 25.

of Greece and his Government await with sorrow, but without weakness, the end of the trials which, by order of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, you may still inflict upon them."(q)

The next step of the British admiral was to lay an embargo on all Greek merchant-vessels, and to capture and detain all that he found upon the seas.

The French Government tendered its good offices for the adjustment of these claims; and although the Greek Government was compelled to accept unconditionally the terms imposed by England, the French mediation was practically accepted.

Three commissioners were appointed to examine into M. Pacifico's claims, and that person having demanded 21,2957. 18. 4d., they awarded to him 1507.(r)

The case at the time excited, from a variety of reasons, a great sensation both in England and on the Continent.

A vote in the House of Peers censured, by a majority of *37,(s) [*32] the act of the British Foreign Ministers. In the House of Commons the issue was in some degree changed, the whole foreign policy of the British Minister was brought under consideration, and was sanctioned by a majority of 46,(t) after a debate remarkable for animation and eloquence, and for the brilliant defence of the Minister himself. His answer to the charge of issuing Reprisals before the Courts of Law of the country had been applied to and had denied justice, the real point of International Law in M. Pacifico's case,-was, that the state of the courts rendered it a mockery to expect justice at their hands. Upon the evidence as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of this position, the historian will condemn or absolve this act of issuing Reprisals.

But the International Jurist is bound to say that the evidence at present produced does not appear to be of that overwhelming character which alone could warrant an exception from the well-known and valuable rule of International Law upon questions of this description.(u)

It should also be mentioned that Russia addressed a strong remonstrance to the British Government, in consequence of these proceedings

(q) Ann. Reg., vol. xcii. p. 286.

(r) See Correspondence respecting M. Pacifico's Claims, presented to the House of Commons August 7, 1851. (8) Contents:

(u) Hansard's Parl. Deb. for 1850. Annual Register, vol. xcii. c. iii. pp. 57-88, 281-94.

against Greece, which she ended in these words:"It remains, indeed, to be seen whether Great Britain, abusing the advantages which are afforded her by *her immense maritime superiority, intends, hence[*33] forward to pursue an isolated policy, without caring for those engagements which bind her to the other Cabinets,-whether she intends to disengage herself from every obligation as well as from all community of action, and to authorize all great Powers on every fitting opportunity, to recognise towards the weak no other rule but their own will, no other right but their own physical strength."(x)

No country has better understood both the theory and practice of Reprisals than the United States of North America.

In 1834, President Jackson, in his speech, thus expressed himself on the subject of Reprisals against France :

"It is my conviction that the United States ought to insist on a prompt execution of the Treaty, and, in case it be refused or longer delayed, take redress into their own hands. After the delay on the part of France of a quarter of a century in acknowledging these claims by treaty, it is not to be tolerated that another quarter of a century is to be wasted in negotiating about the payment. The laws of nations provide a remedy for such occasions. It is a well-settled principle of the International Code, that where one nation owes another a liquidated debt, which it refuses or neglects to pay, the aggrieved party may seize on the property belonging to the other, its citizens, or subjects, sufficient to pay the debt, without giving just cause of war. This remedy has been repeatedly resorted to, and recently by France herself towards Partugal, under circumstances less questionable. The time at which resort should be had to this or any other mode of address, is a point to be decided by Congress. If an appropriation shall not be made by the French Chambers at their next session, it may justly be concluded, that the Government of France has finally determined to disregard its own solemn undertaking, and refused to pay an acknowledged debt. In that [*34] event every day's delay on our part will be a stain upon our national honour, as well as a denial of justice to our injured citizens. Prompt measures, when the refusal of France shall be complete, will not only be most honourable and just, but will have the best effect upon our national character. Since France, in violation of the pledges given through her Minister here, has delayed her final action so long that her decision will not probably be known in time to be communicated to this Congress, I recommend that a law be passed, authorizing Reprisals upon French property, in case provisions shall not be made for the payment of tho debt at the approaching session of the French Chambers. Such a measure ought not to be considered by France as a menace. Her pride and power are too well known to expect any thing from her fears, and preclude the necessity of a declaration that nothing partaking of the character of intimidation is intended by us. She ought to look upon it as the evidence only of an inflexible determination on the part of the United States to insist on their rights. That Government, by doing only

(x) Annual Register, vol. xcii. p. 294.

what it has itself acknowledged to be just, will be able to spare the United States the necessity of taking redress into their own hands, and save the property of French citizens from that seizure and sequestration which American citizens so long endured without retaliation or redress. If she should continue to refuse that act of acknowledged justice, and, in violation of the Law of Nations, make Reprisals on our part the occasion of hostilities against the United States, she would but add violence to injustice, and could not fail to expose herself to the just censure of civilized nations, and the retributive judgments of heaven."(y) One of the grounds of the recent War, not Reprisals, between the N. A. United States and Mexico was the non-payment *of debts. [*35] due from the Government of that country to the subjects of the United States.

XXIV. These observations on Reprisals may not unfitly be closed in the words of Bynkershoek(z).

"Sic manente pace, ipsius Principis est judicium de jure vel injuriâ querelæ, et sic Princeps qui judicavit litem suam facit. Utile sanè est ejusmodi pactis Repressaliarum usum restringere, in totum enim tollere, eorum, qui non uni Principi subsunt, improbitas non patitur."

XXIV. THERE is a mode of redress known to International Law which stands, as it were, midway between Reprisals and War, and which is known by the name of Embargo.

Embargo is an act of the State, (a) done in contemplation of hostilities, a retorsio facti, a seizure or rather a sequestration of property belonging to the Government or the individual members of the State which is the alleged wrong-doer. It may or may not be accompanied by a seizure of the persons to whom the goods belong. In maritime Embargoes the persons and goods are usually seized.(b)

The character and effect of such sequestration is thus described by Lord Stowell:(c)

Upon property so detained the declaration of war is said to have a retroactive effect, and to render it liable to be considered as the property of enemies taken in time of war. The property is seized provisionally,—

(y) Annual Register (1834), vol. lxxvi. pp. 360-1. (z) Q. J. P., 1. i. c. xxiv.

(a) The Theresa Bonita, 4 Rob. Adm. Rep. 431.

(b) So Lord Stowell, discussing the claim of the master of an embargoed but subsequently restored vessel to freight, observes: "In the situation in which the two countries stood, the master had no right to make his demand against any subject of this country, being himself under detention as well as the vessel, on whose behalf this demand arises."-Ib. 241.

(c) The Bædes Lust, 5 Ib. 245-6.