"Greece and his Government await with sorrow, but with"out weakness, the end of the trials which, by order of the "Government of Her Britannic Majesty, you may still in"flict upon them" (p).

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. 1s. 4d., they awarded to him 150l. (q).

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

A vote of the House of Peers censured by a majority of 37 (r) the act of the British Foreign Minister. 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 (s),

(p) Ann. Reg. 1850, p. 286.

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

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 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 (t).

It should also be mentioned that Russia addressed a strong remonstrance to the British Government, in consequence of these proceedings 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 henceforward to "pursue an isolated policy, without caring for those engage"ments 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 authorise 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" (u).

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

(t) Hansard's Parl. Deb. for 1850.

Annual Register, 1850, c. iii. pp. 57-88, 281-94.

(4) Annual Register, 1850, p. 294.

"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 sub"jects, sufficient to pay the debt, without giving just cause "of war. This remedy has been repeatedly resorted to, "and recently by France herself towards Portugal, under "circumstances less questionable. The time at which resort "should be had to this or any other mode of redress, 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 under"taking, and refused to pay an acknowledged debt. In "that 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 honour"able 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, authorising Reprisals upon French property, "in case provisions shall not be made for the payment of the "debt at the approaching session of the French Chambers. "Such a measure ought not to be considered by France as 66 a menace. Her pride and power are too well known to "expect anything from her fears, and preclude the necessity of a declaration that nothing partaking of the character of

66

66

She ought to look upon it

"intimidation is intended by us. "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 what it has itself acknow"ledged 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 civilised nations, and the "retributive judgments of heaven" (x).

One of the grounds of the last War, not Reprisals, between the N. A. United States and Mexico was the nonpayment of debts due from the Government of that country to the subjects of the United States.

The intervention in the affairs of Mexico by England, France, and Spain, which took place in 1861, was partly in the nature of reprisals, and has been fully discussed in an early part of the work (y).

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

66

'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."

(x) Annual Register, 1834, pp. 360-1.

(y) Vol. i. p. 307.

(2) Q. J. P. 1. i. c. xxiv.

CHAPTER III.

EMBARGO.

XXV. 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 wrongdoer. 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

66

war. The property is seized provisionally,-an act hostile "enough in the mere execution, but equivocal as to its "effects, and liable to be varied by subsequent events, and "by the conduct of the Government, the property of whose

(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 Bades Lust, 5 Ib. 245-6.