APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



313 



A letter merely promising the 

 repeal of those decrees under 

 certain qualifications and con- 

 ditions, could never be considered 

 as an actual revocation. No evi- 

 dence had been given of any prac- 

 tice which could induce a belief 

 that the decrees, even with respect 

 to America, had been revoked at 

 the time mentioned in the Duke 

 of Cadore's letter. On the con- 

 trary, Mr. Russel, the American 

 minister at Paris, in a letter dated 

 in May, 1811, stated, " that no 

 ship brought into the ports of 

 France since November 1st, 1810, 

 had either been released, or brought 

 to trial." If the Orleans packet 

 hud afterwards been released , sti i 1 he 

 would ask how it was possible that 

 that vessel should have been seized 

 at Bordeaux some months after 

 the decrees were said to be revoked, 

 and detained for such a considera- 

 ble time, if the revocation had 

 been made public? In March 

 1812, the Duke of Bassano, in a 

 public paper, asserted that " the 

 Berlin and Milan decrees were in 

 full force, and that they were fun- 

 damental laws of the empire." 

 The alleged decree of repeal was 

 stamped with all the characters of 

 fallacy and fraud. It bore date in 

 April 1811, and had never been 

 produced till May 1812. No such 

 document was known by the Ame- 

 rican ministers in the disputes with 

 this country on the subject, nor to 

 the tribunals or prize courts of 

 France. It was hardly to be doubt- 

 ed that it owed its existence to 

 the declaration of the 21st of April 

 last ; and to claim now under such 

 a document, was to require that it 

 should have operation long before 

 it existed. The court would 

 not now admit further proof of its 



having been in existence, for it 

 could only besought in the officina 

 fraudis whence the fabrication first 

 issued. 



The learned judge then proceed- 

 ed to consider certain cases which 

 were said to prove that those de- 

 crees were in fact repealed with 

 respect to America; and he showed 

 that not one of them had any 

 authority ; since acts merely of the 

 grace and pleasure of the ruler of 

 France could never be cited as the 

 law of that country, or the rules 

 which guided their tribunals. He 

 would not allow that even the non- 

 CKecution of the decrees could be 

 properly considered as a repeal of 

 them. The cessation in the exer- 

 cise might arise from some motive 

 of temporary policy ; but the cases 

 which would be real authority in 

 favour of the repeal must be the 

 liberation of vessels by the judg- 

 ment of the proper tribunals, and 

 not by special favour. It might 

 be said by some, that neutrals had 

 no right to prescribe the mode 

 of restitution, provided it was in 

 fact made. He, on the contrary, 

 asserted that they had a right to 

 expect that in France, as in every 

 civilized country, there should be 

 regular tribunals where they might 

 claim redress ex debito justicia, 

 and not as matter of court favour, 

 caprice, or state-policy. On the 

 whole, it appeared to him, that 

 there was no evidence that any 

 legal revocation of these decrees 

 had taken place ; and that the in- 

 strument relied on by the claimants 

 had no marks of authenticity, but 

 was evidently fabricated for a par- 

 ticular purpose. He should there- 

 fore determine on the case before 

 him, and on all those that depend- 

 ed upon the same principle, that 



the 



