between one enemy's port to another, and between enemy's and neutral ports. The only ports excepted, are those really blockaded; and ports really blockaded, are those only which are actually invested, besieged, and in danger of being taken. Such are the duties of belligerents, and the rights of neutrals." The report then proceeded to state, that the Berlin and Milan decrees "have rendered the manufacturing towns of Great Britain deserts; distress has succeeded prosperity; and the disappearance of money, and the want of employment, endangers the public tranquillity." And then it denounced, that "until Great Britain recals her orders in council, and submits to the principles of maritime law abovementioned, the French decrees must subsist against Great Britain, and such neutrals as should allow their flags to be denationalized." And, finally, the report avowed, that "nothing will divert the French emperor from the objects of these decrees; that he has already, for this purpose, annexed to France, Holland, the Hanse Towns, and the coasts from the Zuyder Zee to the Baltic; that no ports of the continent must remain open, either to English trade or denationalized neutrals; and that all the disposeable force of the French empire shall be directed to every part of the continent, where British and denationalized flags still find admittance; and, finally, this system shall be persevered in, till England, banished from the continent, and separated from all other countries, shall return to the laws of nations recognized by the treaty of Utrecht."

Thus the Berlin and Milan decrees were in full force, and would continue to be so, until England should not only recal her orders in council, but should also abandon all her great maritime rights; and that these decrees would subsist against not England alone, but America, and all other countries which should not unite in an endeavour to overthrow the ancient system of maritime law; and, further, that France considered herself authorized to invade and seize any neutral, territory whatsoever, for the sole object of excluding all British trade from the continent; and that all his violent and outrageous usurpations in Holland, Germany, and the shores of the Baltic, had been prompted, and were attempted to be justified, by this motive.

22. In order to bring to a distinct issue the verbal discussion between England and Ame rica, and to place the relative measures of England and France clearly before the neutrals, the British government, on the 21st of April, 1812, put forth to the public a declaration and order in council, detailing the present state of the contest between the two belligerents; and stating, "that as soon as the Berlin and Milan decrees are re

engaging beforehand, "that a proof of the ab- BOOK XI. solute repeal of the French decrees, produced in an admiralty court, shall be held, in fact, to be a CHAP. III. satisfactory proof of the absolute revocation of the British orders in council."-(For this declaration see the preceding chapter.)

21. Since this declaration, but before it reached America, an embargo was laid on, by act of congress, for ninety days, from the 4th day of April, 1812.

Thus the matter stood; and, until France repealed her decrees, it was impossible that Great Britain could relinquish the principle of retaliation. The repeal of the orders in council would have had the following effects:

1. It would restore the American trade; and that portion of manufactures, which are usually consumed in America itself, would immediately revive.

2. It would open to England no other market for any branch of manufacturing whatsoever than the home market of America; for France having a right, by municipal regulations, to exclude British articles from her territory, and to extend, for this purpose, her territory over the whole face of Europe, any article of British produce and manufacture imported by an American, would be liable to be confiscated or burned.

3. France would be relieved from all the pressure she at this time felt. America would supply her with all kinds of raw materials, as well as of colonial produce; and would convey to her, from the distant parts of Europe, all kinds of stores and timber, and the various materials of naval strength. France would have just what trade she pleased to have; she would continue the prohibition, all over Europe, of British manufac tures, with a double view: first, to encourage her own; and next, to ruin those of Great Britain. And all inconvenience and pressure being thus removed from her, there would no longer have existed any means or hopes of forcing her to a system more equitable towards Great Britain.

4. America would have become the carrier of the world; she and France would have divided the trade of the globe; and Great Britain, with all her command of the sea, would have had the mortification to have seen the ocean covered with the commerce of France, protected under the American flag.

5. The British shipping interest would have been annihilated, and that of America would have risen up in its stead. The East and West Indies, and the home coasting trade, would alone have remained to England; and the two former could not have been long retained, in competition with a rival whose means of ship-building were inexhaustible; whose flag would have been the only neutral flag in the world; whose ships alone conld

1812.

this order shall have been duly notified by his majesty's minister in America to the said government, revoke, or cause to be revoked, the said acts, this present order shall in that case, after due notice signified by his majesty's minister in America to the said government, be thenceforth null and of no effect.

"It is further ordered and declared, that all American vessels, and their cargoes, being American property, that shall have been captured subsequently to the 26th day of May last, for a breach of the aforesaid orders in council alone, and which shall not have been actually condemned before the date of this order; and that all ships and cargoes as aforesaid, that shall henceforth be captured under the said orders, prior to the 1st day of August next, shall not be proceeded against to condemnation till further orders; but shall, in the event of this order not becoming null and of no effect, in the case aforesaid, be forthwith liberated and restored, subject to such reasonable expences on the part of the captors as shall have been justly incurred.

"Provided, that nothing in this order contained, respecting the revocation of the orders hereinmentioned, shall be taken to revive wholly, or in part, the orders in council of the 11th of November, 1807, or any other order not herein-mentioned, or to deprive parties of any legal remedy to which they may be entitled under the order in council of the 21st of April, 1812.

"His royal highness the prince-regent is hereby pleased further to declare, in the name and on the behalf of his majesty, that nothing in this present order contained, shall be understood to preclude his royal highness the prince-regent, if circumstances shall so require, from restoring, after reasonable notice, the orders of the 7th of January, 1807, and 26th of April, 1809, or any part thereof, to their full effect, or from taking such other measures of retaliation against the enemy as may appear to his royal highness to be just and

necessary.

"And the right honorable the lords commissioners of his majesty's treasury, his majesty's principal secretaries of state, the lords commissioners of the admiralty, and the judge of the high court of admiralty, and the judges of the courts of vice-admiralty, are to take the necessary measures herein, as to them may respectively apper"JAMES BULLER."

tain.

Before this declaration was known to the United States, it was understood that the American government had authorised the issuing of letters of marque and reprisal against England. In the house of commons, July 10, Mr. Brougham rose, and said, that it was rumoured that the house of representatives had moved a resolution for war with England: he wished to know whether go

vernment had received any official intelligence BOOK XI. from their diplomatic agent in America. If war should take place, it was referable, in his opinion, CHAP. IV. to the declaration published by the late government in April.

Lord Castlereagh said, that government had received advice from bis majesty's minister in America, that a warlike motion, of which the precise nature was not known, had passed the house of representatives, and was carried to the upper house, where the consideration of it was for some time delayed, and the exact result not known.

In the house of lords, July 21, the Duke of Norfolk rose to ask a question before his majesty's ministers left the house, respecting the reports which had recently been in circulation, of a declaration of war on the part of the United States of America against Great Britain. He wished to know whether those reports were true; and, if true, whether his majesty's ministers had any consolation to offer under this unfortunate situation of affairs?

The Earl of Liverpool stated, that his majesty's ministers had received information, through an indirect channel, that the senate of the United States had come to a vote concurring in the bill proposed by the house of representatives, for declaring war against Great Britain; but what measures the president had adopted in consequence of this vote of the senate, his majesty's ministers were at present uninformed. He could not, therefore, at the present moment, enter into any further explanation upon the subject.

At length the following declaration of war, by America, appeared in the British journals:Message.-To the Senate and House of Repre

sentatives of the United States.

"I communicate to congress certain documents, being a continuation of those heretofore laid before them, on the subject of our affairs with Great Britain.

"Without going beyond the renewal, in 1803, of the war in which Great Britain is engaged, and omitting unrepaired wrongs of inferior magnitude, the conduct of her government presents a series of acts hostile to the United States, as an independent and neutral nation.

"British cruisers have been in the continued practice of violating the American flag on the great highway of nations, and of seizing and carrying off persons sailing under it; not in the exercise of a belligerent right, founded on the law of nations, against an enemy, but of a municipal prerogative over British subjects. British jurisdiction is thus extended to neutral vessels, in a situation where no laws can operate but the law of nations, and the laws of the country to which the vessels belong; and a self-redress is assumed, which if British subjects were wrongfully de

1812.

1812.

BOOK XI. tained and alone concerned, is that substitution of force for a resort to the responsible sovereign, CHAP. IV. which falls within the definition of war. Could the seizure of British subjects, in such cases, be regarded as within the exercise of a belligerent right, the acknowledged laws of war, (which forbid an article of captured property to be adjudged, without a regular investigation before a competent tribunal,) would imperiously demand the fairest trial, where the sacred rights of persons were at issue. In place of such trial, these rights are subjected to the will of every petty commander.

"The practice, hence, is so far from affecting British subjects alone, that under the pretext of searching for these, thousands of American citizens, under the safeguard of public laws, and of their national flag, have been torn from their country, and from every thing dear to them; have been dragged on-board ships of war of a foreign nation, and exposed, under the severities of their discipline, to be exiled to the most distant and deadly climes, to risk their lives in the battles of their oppressors, and to be the melancholy instruments of taking away those of their own brethren.

"Against this crying enormity, which Great Britain would be so prompt to avenge, if committed against herself, the United States have in vain exhausted remonstrances and expostulations. And that no proof might be wanting of their conciliatory dispositions, and no pretext left for continuance of the practice, the British government was formally assured of the readiness of the United States to enter into arrangements, such as could not be rejected, if the recovery of the British subjects were the real and the sole object. The communication passed without effect.

"British cruisers have been in the practice also of violating the rights and the peace of our coasts. They hover over and harass our entering and departing commerce. To the most insulting pretensions they have added lawless proceedings in our very harbours, and have wantonly spilt American blood within the sanctuary of our territorial jurisdiction. The principles and rules enforced by that nation, when a neutral nation, against armed vessels of belligerents hovering near her coasts, and disturbing her commerce, are well known. When called on, nevertheless, by the United States, to punish the greater offences committed by her own vessels, her government has bestowed on their commanders additional marks of honor and confidence.

"Under pretended blockades, without the presence of an adequate force, and sometimes without the practicability of applying one, our commerce has been plundered in every sea: the great staples of our country have been cut off from their legitimate markets; and a destructive blow aimed at our agricultural and maritime interests. In aggrava

tion of these predatory measures, they have been considered as in force from the dates of their notification; a retrospective effect being thus added, as has been done in other important cases, to the unlawfulness of the course pursued. And to render the outrage the more signal, these mock blockades have been reiterated and enforced in the face of official communications from the British government, declaring, as the true definition of a legal blockade, that particular ports must be actually invested, and previous warning given to vessels bound to them not to enter.'

"Not content with these occasional expedients for laying waste our neutral trade, the cabinet of Great Britain resorted, at length, to the sweeping system of blockades, under the name of orders in council, which has been moulded and managed as might best suit its political views, its commercial jealousies, or the avidity of British cruisers.

"To our remonstrances against the complicated and transcendent injustice of this innovation, the first reply was, that the orders were reluctantly adopted by Great Britain, as a necessary retaliation on decrees of her enemy proclaiming a general blockade of the British isles, at a time when the naval force of that enemy dared not to issue from his ports. She was reminded, without effect, that her own prior blockades, unsupported by an adequate naval force actually applied and continued, were a bar to this plea; that executed edicts against millions of our property could not be retaliation on edicts confessedly impossible to be executed; that retaliation, to be just, should fall on the party setting the guilty example, not on an innocent party, which was not even chargeable with an acquiescence in it.

"When deprived of this flimsy veil for a prohibition of our trade with Great Britain, her cabinet, instead of a corresponding repeal of a practical discontinuance of its orders, formally avowed a determination to persist in them against the United States, until the markets of her enemy should be laid open to British products; thus asserting an obligation on a neutral power to require one belligerent to encourage, by its internal regulations, the trade of another belligerent, contradicting her own practice towards all nations in peace as well as in war; and betraying the insincerity of those professions which inculcated a belief, that, having resorted to her orders with regret, she was anxious to find an occasion for putting an end to them.

"Abandoning still more all respect for the neutral rights of the United States, and for its own consistency, the British government now demands, as prerequisites to a repeal of its orders, as they relate to the United States, that a formality should be observed in the repeal of the French decrees no wise necessary to their termination, nor exemplified by British usage; and that the French repeal,