B L O 



532 



B L O 



toon after in aid of this, all neutral vessels were re- 

 quired to carry what were called letter* or ccrliCtr.r 

 origin, that is,' attestations from the French consuls of the 

 port* from which they hod set out, that no part of their cargo 

 was British. This w us the revival of an expedient w Inch 

 h<l been first resorted to by the Directory in 1796. 



There can be no question as to the invalidity uf this 

 blockade, according to the recognized principles of the law 

 of nations : the essential circumstance of a good blockade, 

 namely, the presence of a force sufficient to maintain it, was 

 here entirely wanting. And it is proper also to state that a 

 certain representation of the nature of the decree, much in- 

 sisted upon by some of the writers ami pamphleteers in the 

 course of the subsequent discussions, with the view of miti- 

 gating iis absurdity and violence, that is to say, that it was 

 never attempted to be enforced, is now well known not to 

 have been strictly correct Many vessels of neutrals were 

 actually captured and condemned by tlie French courts, in 

 conformity with it, during the first few months which fol- 

 lowed its promulgation. 



The first step in resistance to the Berlin decree was taken 

 by Great Britain on the 7th of January, 1S07, while the 

 Whig ministry of which Mr. Fox had been the head was 

 still in office. i>y an order in council subjecting to seizure 

 all neutral vessels trading from one hostile port in Europe 

 to another with property belonging to an enemy. This 

 order however is said to have been extensively evaded ; 

 while, at the same time, new efforts began to be made by 

 the French emperor to enforce the Berlin decree. It is ad- 

 mitted that in the course of the months of September and 

 October, 1807, several neutral vessels were captured for 

 violation of tiiat decree; that a considerable alarm wa> c\- 

 cilcd among the mercantile classes in this country by these 

 nets of violence : that the premium of insurance rose ; and 

 that s'MUL' suspension of trade took place. (See Kdin.Iiev. 

 vol. xiv. p. -142. Sic.) It is contended by the supporters ot 

 the British orders in council, that the effect of the Berlin 

 decree upon the commerce of this country during the 

 months of August, September, and October in particular, 

 wa> most severely felt. (See Mr. Stephen's Speech.) 



In these circumstances the British government, at the 

 head of which Mr. I'erccval now was, issued further orders 

 in council, dated the 1 1th and 21st November, 1807. These 

 new orders declared France and all its tributary states to be 

 in a state of blockade, and all vessels subject to seizure 

 which were either found to have certificates of origin on 

 board, or which should attempt to trade with any of the 

 parN of the world thus blockaded. All neutral vessels, in- 

 tended for Fiance or any other hostile country, were or- 

 dered in all cases to touch" first at some British port, and to 

 pay custom dues there, after which they were, in certain 

 cases, to be allowed to depart to their destination. In all 

 cases, in like manner, vessels clearing out from a hostile 

 port were, before proceeding farther on their voyage, to touch 

 at a British pirt. 



The predicament in which neutral countries were placed 

 by this war of edicts was sufficiently embarrassing. The 

 ctie.'t of the recent British orders in council is thus distinctly 

 Stated by a writer in the Edinburgh Review, vol. xii. p. 229 : 

 ' Taken in combination with the Berlin decree, they interdict 

 the whole foreign trade of all neutral nations; they prohibit 

 rxcrything which that decree had allowed ; and they enjoin 

 those very things which are there made a ground of confis- 

 cation.' 



By a subsequent decree, issued by Bonaparte from Milan 

 on the 127 th of IXrcmbe.r, 1SU7, the British dominions in 

 all quarters of the world were declared to be in a state of 

 blockade, and all countries were prohibited frorii trading 

 with each other in any articles produced or manufactured 

 in the parts of the earth thus put under a ban. Various 

 additional orders in council were also promulgated from 

 time to time, in explanation or slight modification of those 

 last mentioned. 



It is assertc.1 by tne opponents of this policy of the British 

 government, that the result was a diminution in the course 

 of the following year of ilie foreign trade of this country to the 

 extent of fourteen millions sterling. It is even contended 

 that, but for some counteracting causes which happened to 

 operate at the same time, the falling off would have been 

 nearly twice iw ercat. (See Klin. KIT. vol. xiv. p. .| fj, &c.) 



The principal branch of trade affected was that with 

 America, which was at this time the only great neutral 

 power in exigence ; and which in that capacity had, pre- 



vious to the Berlin decree, been an annual purchaser at 

 British manufactures to a large amount, partly lor homo 

 consumption, but lo a much larger extent lor u 

 the Continent. Both the Americans, therefore. MM the 

 various parties in this country interested in this export ir.ide. 

 exclaimed loudly against the edicts of the two beihucrenl 

 powers. It appears that the American go\ eminent, on ap- 

 plication to thai of France, obtained an assurance, w Inch 

 was deemed satisfactory, though not in an official form, that 

 the Berlin decree would not be put in force against Ann 



v ; but when this was urged as a sufficient reason lor 

 the revocation of the English orders in council, the English 

 government refused to pay any attention to it, maintaining 

 that America should insist upon a public renunciation ot the 

 obnoxious French decree. 



The subject was brought before parliament in Marcli, 

 1808, by motions made in both houses asserting the illegality 

 of the orders in council. On the 1st of April the merchants 

 of London, Liverpool, and other towns, who had petitioned 

 for the repeal of the orders, on the ground of their injurious 

 operation upon the commercial interests of the country, were 

 heard at the bar by their counsel, Mr. Brougham, whose 

 speech, as has been already mentioned, was afler arils pub- 

 lished. The result was, that ministers consented to the 

 institution of an inquiry into the effect of the orders, in the 

 course of which many witnesses were brought forward both 

 by the petitioners and by the ministers in support of their 

 respective views. But no immediate result followed, cither 

 from this inquiry, or from a motion made in the II 

 Commons on the Gth of March, 1809, by Mr. \Vliitbreuil, 

 declaratory of the expediency of acquiescing in the proposi- 

 tions made by the government of the United State-. 



On the '2Gth of April however a new order in council was 

 issued, which, it was contended by the opponents of the 

 p. .lic\ hitherto pursued, did in fact amount to an abandon- 

 ment of the whole principle of that policy. On the pretext 

 that tii / state of circumstances, so for as the Continent ..- 

 concerned, had undergone a complete change by the insur- 

 rection of the Spaniards, the blockade, which had formerly 

 extended to all the countries under the authority of France, 

 was now confined to France itself, to Holland, to part o( 

 Germany, and to the north of Italy ; and the order which 

 condemned vessels for having certificates of origin on board 

 was rescinded. On the other hand, the interdict against 

 trading with the blockaded ports was apparently made more 

 strict and severe by the revocation of the liberty formerly 

 yiven, ill certain cases, to neutral vessels to sail for an 

 enemy's port after having first touched at one in Great 

 Britain. Upon this point however some important modifica- 

 tions were made by subsequent orders. A system w as intro- 

 duced of licensing certain vessels to proceed to hostile ports 

 after having first touched and paid custom-dues at a British 

 port : and this was eventually carried so far. that at lust the 

 number of such licences granted is said to have exceeded 

 16,000. 



The position however in which America was still placed 

 was such as almost to force her to go to war either with 

 England or France. In this state of things, in the spring 

 of 1812 a vigorous effort was again made by the opposition 

 in parliament to obtain the entire removal of the orders m 

 council. In the Lords, a motion was made by the Marquis of 

 Lansdowne on the 28th of February for a select committee 

 of inquiry into the effect of the orders, but was negatived 

 by a majority of 133 to 71. On the 3rd of March a similar 

 motion made in the Commons by Mr. Brougham was also 

 . (1 by a majority of 216 to 144. On the 3rd of April 

 however an order of the prince regent in council appeared 

 in the ' Gazette,' revoking entirely the former orders in so 

 far as regarded America, but only'on the condition that the 

 uox eminent of the United States should also revoke an 

 order by which it had some time previously excluded British 

 armed vessels from its ports, while it admitted those of 

 France. This conditional revocation being still considered 

 unsatisfactory, Lord Stanley, on the 2Sth of April, moved 

 in the ( '..MIIIIOH- for a committee of inquiry into the .-.il.jeet 

 generally, anil the discussion ended by ministers giving their 

 assent to the motion. Many witnesses were in consequence 

 examined, both by this committee and by another of the 

 Lords, which sat at the same time, having been obtained <.n 

 the .'.ill ot May on the' motion of Earl Fitzwilham. When the 

 examinations had been brought to a close, Mr. Brougham, 

 on the ICth of June, moved in the commons, that the 

 crown should be addressed to recall or suspend the ordeis. 



