312 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1812. 



cutrix, in refusing to give up the 

 property, was acting in an unjusti- 

 fiable manner, inasmuch as all the 

 property in the house was, in fact, 

 the property of Mr. Conyer. Mr. 

 Alley argued the contrary ; and the 

 court holding a similar opinion, the 

 defendants were found guilty. Mr. 

 Justice Mainwaringsentenced them 

 to pay the moderate fine of 3s. 4d. 

 each. The court were not desirous 

 of passing a very heavy judgment 

 upon the defendants, but simply of 

 marking their sense of the impro- 

 priety of Mr. M.'s conduct, who 

 seemed to have acted under a mis- 

 take of the law, rather than from 

 any intention to act improperly. 



Admiralty Court, July 30. — 

 Judgment in the case of the ship 

 Snipe. — Sir William Scott began 

 his speech by observing the great 

 importance of a decision in this 

 case, the principle of which involv- 

 ed several other cases of capture 

 under the orders in council before 

 May 20th, 1812. He stated that 

 the captors contended, that the ship 

 was liable to condemnation under 

 the orders in council, she having 

 been taken on the 28th of March 

 last, entering the river of Bour- 

 deaux ; whilst, on the other hand, 

 the claimants contended, that those 

 orders had ceased to operate before 

 the capture, on account of a 

 French decree, bearing date April 

 28th, 1811, having repealed the 

 Berlin and Milan decrees, to which 

 those orders had only been retalia- 

 tory measures, which the British 

 government was pledged to annul 

 from the date of the repeal of the 

 French decrees. 



iifter a short account of the 

 origin and progress of the decrees 

 and orders in question. Sir William 



stated, that on the 21st of April, 

 in the present year, the British 

 government published a declara- 

 tion, otfering to annul the orders 

 in council from the day that the 

 French government should by a 

 subsequentdecree repeal the Berlin 

 and Milan decrees ; and on the 

 20th of May a paper was received 

 from the American minister, pur- 

 porting to be a copy of a French 

 decree of that import, bearing date 

 April 28th, 1811. The British 

 government, not recognizing the 

 authenticity of this document, but 

 wishing to conciliate America, 

 issued on the 23d of June last, a 

 declaration re^jealing the orders 

 of council from the 20th of May. 

 As to captures prior to that time, 

 this declaration was silent, leaving 

 them to the effect of the prior de- 

 claration of April, which rested 

 on the principle of retaliation. It 

 lay, therefore, with the claimants 

 to prove that the Berlin and Milan 

 decrees were actually repealed by 

 the French decree of 1811, and 

 also that they were so repealed as to 

 oblige other nations to take notice 

 of such repeal. The decrees in 

 question had been promulgated in 

 the most authentic and.public man- 

 ner, and their revocation ought to be 

 made equally public, at least to all 

 whom it might concern ; for it was 

 the rule, decretum non obligate sed 

 promulgatio. The Duke of Cadore, 

 in his letter dated August 5, 1810, 

 began by stating that " he was 

 authorised to declare the Berlin and 

 Milan decrees at an end ;" but 

 afterwards came the condition, " it 

 being understood that Great Britain 

 will repeal her orders in council, 

 and her new principles of block- 

 ade, or that neutral nations will 

 cause their flag to be respected." 



A letter 



