History of the United States of America, Volume 4 (of 9) : $b During the second administration of Thomas JeffersonAdams, Henry
History
History of the United States of America, Volume 4 (of 9) : $b During the second administration of Thomas Jefferson
Adams, Henry
United States -- History -- 1801-1809; United States -- History -- 1809-1817
“The short principle is,” said Perceval,[72] “that trade in British
produce and manufactures, and trade either from a British port or
with a British destination, is to be protected as much as possible.
For this purpose all the countries where French influence prevails
to exclude the British flag shall have no trade but to or from this
country, or from its allies. All other countries, the few that remain
strictly neutral (with the exception of the colonial trade, which
backward and forward direct they may carry on), cannot trade but
through this being done as an ally with any of the countries connected
with France. If therefore we can accomplish our purpose, it will
come to this,--that either those countries will have no trade, or
they must be content to accept it through us. This is a formidable
and tremendous state of the world; but all the part of it which is
particularly harassing to English interests was existing through the
new severity with which Bonaparte’s decrees of exclusion against our
trade were called into action. Our proceeding does not aggravate our
distress from it. If he can keep out our trade he will; and he would
do so if he could, independent of our orders. Our orders only add
this circumstance: they say to the enemy, ‘If you will not have _our_
trade, as far as we can help it you shall have _none_; and as to so
much of any trade as you can carry on yourselves, or others carry on
with you through us, if you admit it you shall pay for it. The only
trade, cheap and untaxed, which you shall have shall be either direct
from us, in our own produce and manufactures, or from our allies,
whose increased prosperity will be an advantage to us.’”
These private expressions implied that retaliation upon France for
her offence against international law was a pretence on the part of
Perceval and Canning, under the cover of which they intended to force
British commerce upon France contrary to French wishes. The act of
Napoleon in excluding British produce from French dominions violated
no rule of international law, and warranted no retaliation except an
exclusion of French produce from British dominions. The rejoinder, “If
you will not have _our_ trade you shall have _none_,” was not good
law, if law could be disputed when affirmed by men like Lord Eldon and
Lord Stowell, echoed by courts, parliaments, and press,--not only in
private, but in public; not only in 1807, but for long years afterward;
and not only at moments, but without interruption.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account