CONTINENTAL SYSTEM. 



with the continent of Europe. All importation 

 of British manuliictures and produce, as well as all 

 other intercoms- with Great Britain, was prohibited. 

 tor tlie purpose of compelling Britain to make peace 

 upon the terms prescribed by tlie French emperor, 

 and to acknowledge the na\ ig;ition law established 

 at tlie peace of I'lrccht. For a long period, a vio- 

 lent conflict liad been carried on between tlie mari- 

 time powers, concerning the rights of neutral flags, 

 which involved Uie following points: 1. J'oes 

 the neutral flag protect enemies' property, or not? 

 2. Is neutral property subject to confiscation under 

 nn enemy's flag, or not? 3. How fer does tlie 

 right of belligerent powers extend to search neutral 

 - sailing with or without convoy? 4. What 

 is contrabamfof war at sea, and what are the rights 

 of tlie captors in respect to it? 5. How far does 

 tlie right extend to declare places in a state block- 

 ade ? and, finally, G. Have neutrals tlie right to 

 carry on a trade, in time of war, from which they 

 were prohibited, in time of peace, with one bellige- 

 rent, without disturbance from the other ? or may 

 neutrals carry on trade between a belligerent power 

 and its colonies, during a war, either directly or cir- 

 cuitously, from which they were excluded in time of 

 peace ? On all these questions, the interest and po- 

 licy of Great Britain were at variance with those of 

 neutral nations, and induced her to urge belligerent 

 pretensions, to which they were not willing to submit. 

 This opposition to the previously acknowledged rights 

 of neutrals was not, however, confined to Great Bri- 

 tain ; France, likewise, adopted it, and other maritime 

 powers did the same, whenever they were strong 

 enough to maintain their pretensions. The principle 

 tliat the flag protects the property was denied by the 

 most powerful maritime nation, and still less was 

 neutral property respected under a belligerent flag. 

 The right of searching, not only neutral vessels sail- 

 ing singly, but even fleets under public cqnvoys, was 

 introduced in the case of a Swedish merchant fleet, 

 and followed up in respect to others, and the search- 

 ing vessels were not bound by the rule adopted in 

 the British admiralty, to take the word of officers 

 commanding the convoy, that there were no contra- 

 band goods on board. A very wide latitude was also 

 given to tlie term contraband. Not only arms and mu- 

 nitions of war were include;! as such, but also ma- 

 terials which might be used in their manufacture, or 

 such as were necessary in naval and military equip- 

 ments, especially where they were destined to a naval 

 or military station of the belligerent enemy. The prin- 

 ciple adopted was, that whatever might afford the 

 enemy any direct assistance or facilities in his naval 

 or military enterprises, was contraband of war. The 

 principle of the right of confiscating articles of contra- 

 band, and, in some circumstances, the ship also, was 

 carried to the extreme extent of the national law. 



On tlie right and extent of blockades, new doctrines, 

 likewise, became prevalent. The old doctrine, that 

 a naval blockade, in order to be valid, in respect to 

 neutrals, must be maintained by an adequate force, 

 so as to render ingress and egress imminently dan- 

 gerous to neutral vessels, was never denied by the 

 British admiralty ; but then the novel practice was 

 introduced, of declaring a whole coast in a state of 

 blockade, and, by a pretty liberal construction as to 

 the force requisite to maintain a valid blockade, and 

 the danger of capture to which a neutral must be ex- 

 posed, by an attempt to enter the places declared to 

 be thus blockaded, the belligerent possessing the 

 strongest naval force was enabled to interrupt the 

 trade of a neutral with tlie enemy. These doctrines 

 of blockade were finally carried to such a length, 

 thst Britain declared the whole coast of France and 

 Holland lo be in a state of blockade, while Napoleon, 



in retaliation, declared the whole of Great Britain to 

 lx- in a state of blockade, though lie had not a vessel 

 to enforce the blockade. This subject of contraliund 

 of war was violently contested, as Jong ago as 1780; 

 and it was maintained, by the European powers who 

 joined the armed neutrality of that lime, that the flag 

 should cover the property, and that the neutral had 

 the right, during war, to carry on a trade between 

 either belligerent and its colonies, by permission of 

 such belligerent, without any interference on the part. 

 of the other belligerent, although such trade was not 

 allowed in time of peace. 



The principles of blockade and contraband srave 

 Great Britain a great preponderance, on account of 

 its maritime superiority ; and the question naturally 

 occurs, whether this preponderance is so dangerous 

 as to call for the united efforts of nations to modify 

 the principles of national law on these subjects, or, 

 at least, to resist the constructions put upon them by 

 Great Britain. On examination, it will appear that 

 the pretensions of Great Britain, whether well or ill 

 founded, do not immediately threaten the independ- 

 ence of other nations, but only injure their commerce 

 in time of war. It increased the price of some arti- 

 cles of luxury, in Europe, during the late wars from 

 1802 to 1812, but could not endanger the political in- 

 dependence of nations ; could not, like the prepon- 

 derance of a continental power, extinguish stales, and 

 enslave Europe. The continental nations Mtfiered 

 these evils only in time of war ; for, in time of peace, 

 Britain never has used oppressive measures against 

 the commerce of other countries ; and even in time 

 of war, this reproach was most strongly made ti gainst 

 her by those who judged of a maritime war solely by 

 the rules established by the laws of nations to regu- 

 late wars on shore. But the rules adapted to the 

 one cannot properly be extended to the other. Thus 

 it is a general rule, acknowledged, at least, if not al- 

 ways acted upon, that the private property of tlie ene- 

 my shall be spared. If these rules were extended to 

 maritime war, as France maintained they should be, 

 the war would, in most instances, be entirely illusory. 

 How, for example, could Britain, in a maritime war 

 against France, after having taken her few colonies, 

 and destroyed her fleets, do her any further injury, if 

 private property were, in all instances, to be respect 

 ed ? If, in such a case, the seizure of private, as well 

 as national property, lie not permitted, the war would 

 be at an end. For tlie same reasons, tlie neutral flag, 

 during a maritime war, cannot.be unconditionally re- 

 spected, as in time of peace. Were this the case, the 

 flag of the weaker belligerent power would disappear 

 from the seas, whilst neutrals would carry on its trade 

 undisturbedly, under their flags ; and how could de- 

 ceptions ever be detected. The neutrals, themseU es. 

 allow that they have no right to render either belli- 



ferent direct assistance in the war ; and yet, if their 

 ag were to protect all property, it would be impos- 

 sible to prevent neutrals from rendering such assist- 

 ance, and, in fact, taking a disguised part in th 

 war. 



The lu'story of the continental system begins with 

 tlie famous decree of Berlin of Nov. 21, 1806. by 

 which the British islands were declared to be in 

 a state of blockade ; all commerce, intercourse, and 

 correspondence were prohibited ; every Briton 

 found in France, or a country occupied by French 

 troops, was declared a prisoner of war ; all properly 

 belonging to Britons, fair prize, and all trade in 

 British goods entirely prohibited. No vessel coming 

 directly from Britain or British colonies, or which 

 had been there since the publication of the edict, 

 was to be admitted into any harbour, and all vessels 

 attempting to avoid this edict by false declarations 

 | were to be confiscated. w ; th all their goods, as Bri- 



