Page images
PDF
EPUB

the enemy; and that the neutrals, having fubmitted to the one, have no right to complain of the other. The whole queftion, therefore, on the ground of juftice and principle, comes merely to this, whether the French decree of blockade had been enforced or not, and whether the neutrals had submitted to it.

In the preamble to the Orders in Council, it is stated, that certain orders, establishing an unprecedented fyftem of warfare against this kingdom, had been fome time fince iffued by the Government of France, and that the fame have been recently enforced with increafing rigour. It is alfo ftated in another part of the preamble, that countries not engaged in the war have acquiefced in thefe orders of France, and fubmitted to them as parts of the new fyftem of war,' &c.; and therefore, it is added, his Majefty, under thefe circumftances,' finds himself compelled to take measures for vindicating his juft rights, &c. It is fufficiently implied in this preamble, that the juftification of those measures muft depend upon the truth of the facts which are fet forth, as having compelled his Majefty's Government to adopt them. It is of confequence, therefore, to confider how far thefe facts have been established,-fince the very framers of the Orders evidently admit that they could not be defended, if the decrees of France fhould appear not to have been unprecedented, not to have been enforced, and not to have been acquiefced in.

That they were not unprecedented, is made out by Mr Brougham in the clearest manner, by reference to authorities which feem to have efcaped all former inveftigators, though perfectly decifive of the queftion. Similar decrees had been iffued in 1739, and in 1756, under the old government. Since the revolution, they had been many times repeated; once in 1796, when certificates of origin were first required; once in 1797; and again, after the firft formation of the Confular government, in 1800. In all these decrees, a veffel, loaded in whole or in part with British produce, is declared lawful prize; and the ports of France are shut against all fhips which had touched at a British harbour in the courfe of their voyage.

[ocr errors]

None of thefe decrees, it is admitted, were either enforced, or fubmitted to, by neutrals; and as they were not backed by any measures of retaliation on our part, our commerce with neutrals went on, during their fubfiftence, not only without interruption, but with prodigious increafe. Laft of all comes the edict of November 186; and the question is, whether it was enforced or acquiefced in, more than thofe that had gone before it.

Now, with regard to thefe points, it is perfectly manifest, from the official correfpondence on the fubject, as well as from the evidence which has recently been laid before Parliament, that this

edict never was enforced, nor expected to be enforced; and that, fo far from being fubmitted to by America (and there is no other neutral), the moft pofitive affurances were given, that it would not be fubmitted to. In the first place, there is the note of Lords Auckland and Holland to the American commiffioners on the 31st December 1806, more than fix weeks after that edict had been promulgated; in which they fay, that they cannot believe that the enemy will ever feriously attempt to enforce fuch a fyftem; and that if he should, they are confident the good fenfe, &c. of the American Government will prevent its acquiefcence in fuch ⚫ pretenfions,' &c. The Orders in Council of the 7th January 1807, prohibiting the enemy's coafting trade by neutrals, is introduced by a preamble, reprobating the illegal decree of France, and is tranfmitted in a defpatch to our minifter in America, ftating, that we rely with confidence on the firmness of that government in refifting pretenfions, which, if fuffered to take effect, would prove fo deftructive to its commerce.' And, in anfwer to this, it appears that Mr Maddifon, the American fecretary, ftated in his first letter to our ambaffador, that the honour, &c. of the United States, was a fufficient pledge that no culpable acquiefcence on their part would ever render them acceffary to the attack of one belligerent on the commerce of its adverfary, through the rights of neutrals.'

[ocr errors]

The most important document of all, however, is the answer of M. Decrés the Minifter of Marine, to General Armstrong the American Ambaffador, when, inftead of acquiefcing in the Berlin decree, he applied to learn, whether it was intended to be put in force against the veffels of his country. That anfwer diftinctly states, firft, that it was not intended to make any alteration in the former commercial regulations of the two countries; and, fecondly, that an American veffel could not be taken at fea, because it was going to an English port, or had cleared out from one. The blockading decree, in fhort, was not to be put in force against fhips of that country. This was the pofitive official anfwer of the Minifter of Marine to the American Ambaffador; and though it is added in that document, that his answer cannot have that development which might be received from the Minifter of the Exterior, ftill it is given without qualification; and having been followed by no oppofite explana tion, must be taken as the authentic refcript of the French Government. It is known to have been communicated by General Armstrong to his Government; and if they were fatisfied without any more folemn or public declaration, it cannot be doubted that they thought they could rely in fafety on the affurances they had received. It could not be very defireable for the Ruler of France to declare formally, that he had iffued a decree which he had no P 4 intention

intention of enforcing; and while his conduct was conformable to the answer of his Minifter of Marine, it would evidently have been both unneceflary and imprudent to infift for any other difavowal. The fact, however, which feems to fet the question as to the execution of the Berlin decree, previous to our Orders in Council, entirely at reft, is, that fo late as the 18th of October 1807, only one month before the iffuing of thefe Orders, Meffrs Monroe and Pinkney, the American refidents, communicated to the Secretary of State the construction which France had given to that decree, and officially affured him, that the practice had been in conformity to that conftruction. No answer was made to this communication; and Mr Monroe was fuffered to leave England, and Mr Rose despatched on his miffion, a few days before the Orders in Council were made public.

The whole tenor of the official papers, therefore, and public documents, demonstrate that the Berlin decree was not enforced, and, of course, that it was not submitted to, up to the date of these Orders, which proceed on the extraordinary narrative of its having been enforced with increasing rigour, and acquiesced in by the neutral governments. The matter, however, does not rest on the authority of public papers, or assertions and admissions on one side or the other. It is ascertained by public and notorious facts, and by evidence laid before the Legislature, for the purpose of ascertaining it. With regard to the supposed acquiescence of America; it may be asked, in the first place, how any neutral can acquiesce in an order of blockade, otherwise than by discontinuing its trade with the blockaded ports, and admitting the justice of all captures made in support of it? Will it be pretended, by any advocate of the Orders in Council, that America has thus acquiesced in the Berlin decree? Did she discontinue her trade with the ports of Great Britain upon the publication of that edict. Did she ever limit or disguise that trade? not true, on the contrary, that, up to the date of our Orders in Council, it went on increasing, from day to day, in the sight of the whole world,-the subject of commercial speculation in both the belligerent countries, and of public arrangement and discussion with both governments? Instead of acquiescing in the blockade, therefore, it is notorious and undeniable, that America utterly disregarded it; and resisted that extraordinary measure of hostility in the most effectual and unequivocal manner, by openly violating every one of its provisions, and continuing to us the full benefit of that intercourse, of which it was the object of that measure to deprive us. It is equally certain and equally notorious, that France never resented this resistance of her order; but, in conformity to her official declaration, permitted the neutrals

to do every thing which she had formally prohibited, and allowed her last solemn and boastful decrees to fall into the same neglect as those which had gone before them. No attempt was made to capture American vessels going or coming from an English port, except in one or two instances; and, in all of these, the property was restored upon examination.

If any doubts, however, could still remain as to the fact of the non-execution of the Berlin decree, they must be effectually removed by the evidence laid before the Houses of Parliament on the London and Liverpool petitions, and detailed with the most admirable clearness and force in the speech of Mr Brougham now before us. From that evidence it appears, first, that neutral vessels were publicly and regularly chartered on voyages from this country to the continent of Europe, after the Berlin decree, in the same manner as before; and that there was no interruption in their trade up to the date of our orders in Council: 2dly, That the prices of articles of our colonial produce and home manufacture continued the same in the continental markets, after the Berlin decree, and down to the date of our orders in Council: 3dly, That gentlemen concerned in this trade, to an extent that raised their foreign postages to near 700/. in a year, never heard of a sin de nstance of a neutral vessel condemned in the hostile ports for being engaged in it: and, 4thly, That the rate of insurance on such voyages did not experience the least advance, in consequence of the Berlin decree, but remained precisely at the point where it had formerly stood, till our Orders in Council raised it so high as to put an end to the trade altogether. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced his intention to call witnesses to contradict some parts of this evidence, we refer to it with the most perfect confidence in its accuracy,--not only from the unquestionable respectability of the individuals by whom it was given, but from its exact conformity with public documents and notorious facts, and from the circumstance, that the persons who give this testimony from their own experience, have, together with Sir Francis Baring, whose son has corroborated their whole statements, almost the sole management of that great trade, to the history of which these statements belong.

It is clearly and indisputably made out, therefore, that the preamble of our Orders in Council, which contains their only justification, is erroneous and fallacious in all points; and that the Berlin decree, whose rigorous enforcement and unresisted execution they are meant to retaliate, neither was enforced nor submitted to, until it was seconded and superseded by those effective and most injurious proclamations. We are chargeable, therefore, with the whole of the injustice and oppression which

wa

we have been accustomed to charge against the enemy; and are answerable, primarily and alone, for the unprecedented measure of putting a whole quarter of the world in a state of blockade, by a few pages of writing, and interdicting the commerce of neutrals with a whole continent, which we have neither invested nor set a watch upon.

All that we have now said relates to the blockade of the enemy's whole ports, and the measures intended to make it effectual. There is another part of our Orders, however, still more indefensible; we mean that by which we declare our intention to make prize of all neutral vessels which shall have aboard a certificate of origin, or a declaration that no part of the cargo is British produce or manufacture. The blockading part of the system bears at least the semblance and exterior form of retaliation; for France and her dependencies had declared our country to be blockaded, before we actually enforced the laws of blockade as to theirs. This last regulation, however, has not even that apology; but really seems to be a barefaced act of violence and revenge, dictated by an arrogant disregard of the rights of neutrality. France had an unquestionable right, either in peace or in war, to exclude British produce and manufacture from her ports, and to enact laws, confiscating all that should be brought in spite of such exclusion, as well as to require such evidence upon the matter, by certificates or otherwise, as she might think satisfactory. This, accordingly, was the original purpose and design of certificates of origin; and the only retaliation which we could possibly make, was to prohibit the importation of French produce and manufactures, and to require similar certificates of origin in all vessels that came to our ports, under pain of confiscation. By her late decree, France, indeed, outstepped the law of nations, and committed a new outrage on the rights of neutrality. She said, not only that she would confiscate all goods brought into her ports without a certificate that they were not British, but that she would seize and confiscate every neutral vessel which she might meet at sea without such a certificate. Here, too, we had an opportunity of fair retaliation; and might have enacted, that we should do the same by all vessels which had not a certificate that the cargo was not French. If the neutral had submitted to the outrage of the enemy, we conceive we might have done this, without exceeding the limits of allowable retaliation. But then, we could not have done even this, consistently or rationally, without previously interdicting all commerce in French produce or manufactures, and subjecting to seizure all such articles brought into our ports under any condition by a neutral. It is notorious, however, not only that we have taken no such measure, but, by these very Orders in Council, we have invited

and

« PreviousContinue »