may depend, as we cannot expect, for some time to come, any arrival from Vera Cruz; and certainly the difference between the value of the specie and the bills given for it, considered as a contribution, cannot be deemed a very onerous one, when, in the usual course of warfare, the whole might be extorted without any recompence at all. In the payment of all other supplies, and which, being of a more tangible and visible description, are more easily made amenable to your orders, I should hope no difficulty can arise in rendering this system of payment available. I am, &c.,

CASTLEREAGH.

Lord Chatham to Lord Castlereagh.

Batz, August 29, 1809.

My dear Lord-I have only time to offer my best acknowledgments for your very kind letter on the subject of Major Bradford; and indeed I am not aware that I have any thing to add for your information beyond what my public despatch contains. I am sorry to say that I receive every hour the most alarming accounts of the progress of sickness among the troops. This island is by far the most unhealthy, and so much so, that even such of the natives as can leave it at this season of the year.

A large force must remain at Walcheren, in the first instance, at least-I think not less than from 12,000 to 15,000 men. Our general officers drop off fast: we have no less than four incapable of duty, besides Frazer, who is gone home. I am hitherto very well.

Believe me, &c.,

CHATHAM.

Commissary-General Robinson to Lord Chatham.

August 29, 1809.

My Lord—I am honoured with your lordship's letter of the 28th inst., enclosing the copy of Instructions to the Commissary-General of the British forces in Holland, of the 17th of

July, with copies of certain capitulations of Middleburg of the 31st of July, of the fortress of Veer of the 1st of August, of the fortress of Ramakins of the 3rd of August, and of the towns of Zerickzee and Brower's Haven, and the islands of Scowen and Driveland, of the 15th of August, and of the town and fortress of Flushing of the 16th of August instant; and directing that I would take the same into consideration, and report to your lordship my opinion whether, after these capitulations, and particularly adverting to the second Article in the capitulation of Middleburg, and the corresponding articles in the other capitulations, the Commander of his Majesty's forces is justified in requiring the delivery of cattle, forage, and other necessaries, for the subsistence and moving of the army, upon the terms prescribed in the said letter; or whether he must be bound to enter into such terms of contract as the parties possessing the articles required may demand; 2ndly, whether, after those terms of capitulation, adverting to the said Articles in the capitulations, the Commander-in-Chief of his Majesty's forces is justified in requiring a contribution of money from the inhabitants comprehended within the capitulation, upon the terms specified in the said letter; and, lastly, whether such instructions were originally justifiable by the laws of war, or whether they are in any respect rendered unjustifiable by the terms which the islands have now been occupied by the army, upon in its progress to its ulterior objects.

In obedience to your lordship's directions, I have considered the same with the attention which so important a question requires, and I have the honour to report that the right of a belligerent over the property of his enemy is absolute in principle, and almost co-extensive with his power; and, although the practice of modern warfare abstains, in many instances, from the exercise of this extreme right, the principle in itself is never to be put out of sight, as the basis of the reasoning which must ultimately decide on pretensions advanced to

restrain the right of conquest, and to entitle the conquered country to particular exemptions.

On this principle, connected with the necessities inseparably incident to military operations in an enemy's country, the practice of exacting contributions of particular articles and of particular services is considered by public writers rather as a mitigation of an acknowledged right, than as admitting of doubt as to the legality of the measure. The time when this right can only be enforced with regularity and order is when the country is so far reduced and subdued, as to justify the public functionaries in rendering this submission and service to their enemy.

66

The description which Vattel gives to the situation of such a country is in these terms: Pourvu que les habitans se soumettent à celui qui est maître du pays, qu'ils payent les contributions imposées, et qu'ils s'abstiennent de toute hostilité, ils vivent en sureté, comme s'ils étoient amis; ils conservent même ce qui leur appartient." (Liv. iii., c. 8, § 147.) It is a right, therefore, which is not superseded by general submission, nor is inconsistent with the privileges of personal protection and security of property.

On these grounds, I am of opinion that the Instructions were originally justifiable by the laws of war, and that they will continue to be so, unless something special has intervened to alter the relative situations and rights of the parties.

The demands of the British army would remain, it may be presumed, as before, so long as the chief object of the expedition was yet in prosecution. The parts subdued could not by possibility be relieved from the pressure of military operations, in the same manner as a detached settlement or colony might be, where, when the object of attack is attained, further operations, and the necessities and burdens arising from them, immediately cease. Here, on the contrary, it was matter of necessity that ulterior operations must proceed, or the object of the expedition be altogether abandoned. His Majesty's forces con

tinued in that state of public exigency which must either justify the continuance of corresponding rights and powers, for the purposes of present support and defence, or must give merchants of the country exorbitant advantages for no public purpose whatever, but merely lucrandi causá, if it can be held that they have a right to exercise an unlimited power over the markets, so as to make the urgency of the demand the measure of the prices of articles rendered indispensable, and consequently so advanced in price only in consequence of such operations. Under this alternative, an advantage so important would not reasonably be supposed to be granted away by capitulation, unless the terms were special, and express to that effect.

On examining the several capitulations, it does not appear that they are of that import. The second Article of the capitulation of Middleburg, to which reference is principally made, grants "protection to property, as far as relates to private property;" but it is material to observe in what view that is granted, viz., in contradistinction to confiscation, as explained by a reference to the corresponding proposal, "that all property should be protected, without exception whatever." To which the answer is, that "all public property shall be confiscated, but private property shall not.”

It would carry such a concession, I conceive, further than would be warranted by the situation of the parties, or by their own conceptions, to interpret this answer so as to exempt these military stations, so surrendering, from the conditions ordinarily belonging to non-combatants, reduced to a peaceable submission to the enemy.

The immediate object may more naturally be conceived to be to exempt the property of those in arms from special confiscation, but not from ulterior demands, in the nature of preemption at a reasonable price, as is expressed with regard to particular articles in the sixth clause of the Treaty of Flushing, which stipulates that "the British Government shall be at

liberty to make use of military stores belonging to individuals, on paying a just remuneration to the proprietors."

This clause seems to describe accurately the different rights intended to be exercised over public and private property. For, in times of particular exigency, one article would not be more an article of military use than another, so as to make it subject to different laws affecting the right of property. Under particular circumstances, articles of general use, such as provisions and money, may be included in the technical description of articles of military use, as applied to contraband; and, by the same reasoning, being equally or more essential to the success and self-defence of an advancing army, they seem not to admit of any distinction arising from the nature and quality of the thing.

On these grounds, I humbly submit it to your lordship as my opinion, that the right assumed is one which has always been held to accompany the necessities of military operations in an enemy's country; that the Commander, or rather his Government, is the sole judge of that necessity; that it is a right not considered as opposed to personal protection and security of property, but as the price and equivalent by which they are purchased; that the Instructions were therefore originally justified by the laws of war, and continue so to be, notwithstanding the surrender of particular fortresses, and the capitulations which have taken place; that, as a measure of present relief, the Commander of his Majesty's forces is justified in requiring the delivery of cattle, forage, and other necessaries, for the subsistence and moving of the army, upon the terms prescribed in the Instructions; and that he is not bound to enter into such terms of contract as the parties possessing the articles required may demand; and it appears to me that the same principle applies to money as to other articles of indispensable necessity on such occasions.

I have the honour to be, &c.,

C. H. ROBINSON.