331 /BIO mjL a .. ..,.- x. Ts UC-NRLF AN EXPOSITION OF THE CONDUCT OF FRANCE AMERICA : ILLUSTRATED BY CASES DECIDED IN THE COUNCIL OF PRIZES IN PARIS. BY LEWIS GOLDSMITH, NOTARY PUBLIC, Author of " The Crimes of Cabinets Translator of Mr. D Hauterive s " Etat de la France a la Fin de 1 An 8," &c. &c. -" Semperque recentee, Convectare juvat praedas & vivere rapto." VIRGIL. SECOND EDITION. Hontion r PRINTED FOR J. M. RICHARDSON, 23, CORNHILL, OPPOSITE THE ROYAL EXCHANGE. x-^,x"x.^/- 1810. Printed by Mercier and Chervet, No. 32, Little Bartholomew Close, London. Aldine Collection* TO THE PUBLIC A RESIDENCE of eight years in the me tropolis of France, an intimate acquaintance with some of the most conspicuous persons in that country, and the different situations in which I have myself been placed, have given me opportunities which few others have pos sessed, of collecting information on the state of society in Paris, and the politics pursued by the French government and its agents. This information I have formed a resolu tion of giving to the public, as soon as I can prepare it for the press ; and I flatter myself I can render it interesting without betraying confidence or private friendship. As a first essay, which I now offer to the Public, I have selected the subject of the conduct of France towards America, which, from every thing I have read or heard since I returned to England, appears to me to have been much misunderstood. I Have given faithfully the Berlin and Milan Decrees, and the British Orders in Council, with a statement of the circumstances under which they were respectively issued ; and I trust that the comparison I have made between the conduct of Great Britain and France respectively towards America, and the view I have given of the conduct of the latter, will be found to be candid and impartial. I do not think I have made a single as sertion in the body of the pamphlet which is not supported by the interesting cases detailed in the Appendix. At the present moment the subject of itself is of important interest, and I hope I shall not have diminished that interest by the manner in which I have treated it. THE AUTHOR, London 5 February 1, 1810. EXPOSITION, IT is well known that the French Revolu tion produced a ferment in all the civilized states of the world. The principles on which it was pretended that revolution was founded, had been long under stood and recognized in this country, and were the reml foundation of the emancipation of the North American Colonies, and of their erection into an independent state. \ - America had for nearly ten years been recog nized by the Government of this country as an in dependent state : and, in that character, had, with out foreign interruption, carried on her commerce to all parts of the world. - "Q*- The French Revolution burst forth in all its terrors. Excesses were committed which alarmed some even of the most ardent par tizans y and assertors of the principles on which it was founded. 1 In those states which may be supposed to have possessed some degree of political freedom, parties were divided as to the policy of favouring or oppos ing it. The old governments of Europe trembled : even ENGLAND, from whence the pretended * prin ciples had been adopted, took the alarm ; and in the year 1793, became a party in the continental war which had been raised against Republican France. America was connected with England in ami cable commerce : it was not her interest to take part in the quarrel against France : it was not her interest to oppose England : the commerce of the world was open to her ; and if she could have been permitted to act as a perfect neutral) she would have reaped great advantage from carrying on the trade of the naval belligerent powers. America was, however*, at that time divided into two political parties, nearly equally balanced : the one attached to the cause of England, and called the English or Aristocratical Party ; the other, from probably the same motives in addition to others less honourable, called the Democratic or French Party. * I &ny .pretended, because the Leaders of the French Revo lution only held them out as a pretence to the people, as I shall ta a future publication prove by incontestible evidence. America, remote from the scene of contest, could have had no individual interest in it, had it not been for her commerce ; but this rendered it impossible for her not to be in some degree involved in the quarrel. Washington endeavoured to keep the balance even. Adams, his immediate successor, shewed an evident propensity to favour the E?iglish Party : on this account, he became in some degree unpopular; and Jefferson, who followed him, seems to have pursued quite a contrary policy : he is accused of having favoured the French. A short time previous to the accession of Jef ferson to the office of President of the United States, Bonaparte assumed the reins of Government, and during the continuance of that Presidency, had become Emperor of France. The commercial relations between America on the one hand, and the two principal belligerent powers and their respective allies on the other, had become of great importance to America. The contending parties had, or supposed they had, each an interest in throwing obstacles in the way of the commerce of America with the other. The preponderancy of England on the seas was the great object of the" jealousy and envy of Bona parte : to destroy her commerce, appeared to him the only means of destroying that preponderancy : and prohibition upon prohibition was issued to prevent the introduction into France, and the coun tries in subjection to it, of English manufactures and colonial produce. These prohibitions princi pally affected the Americans, who had become in a great degree the carriers. They had in various instances endeavoured to elude the law of nations with respect to contra band trade : England did not so much want their assistance as France ; they had first directly, and then indirectly, carried on the commerce between that country and her colonies, which she could not, from the relative condition of the naval power of England with her own, carry on for herself. Several captures were made, and condemna tions pronounced of American vessels found under such circumstances. Complaints were made on the part of the American Government to ours. It must have been wished by both the English and American Governments, that those disputes should be settled in an amicable manner. It is not the object of the writer of these few sheets, to enter into a long discussion of the pro priety or impropriety of the conduct of the two great belligerent powers towards America, nor of that of America towards each of them respect ively ; but to give a plain statement of facts, from which the unbiassed reader may judge for himself of which of the two the Americans have had most reason to complain. In the year 1806, the American Minister, Mr. Monroe, arrived in London for the purpose of con cluding and signing a treaty of commerce with this country, jointly with Mr. Pinckney, the American Resident at the Court of St. James s. Bonaparte was soon apprised of this negotia tion : This monopolizer of domination immediately burst into a paroxysm of rage; " Assumed the God, " Affected to nod, " And seem d to shake the spheres." HE DECLARED THAT IF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONCLUDE A TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN, HE WOULD IMMEDIATELY CONSIDER AMERICA AS HIS ENEMY, AND DECLARE WAR AGAINST HER*. This denunciation prevented the ratification of the treaty which had been actually signed in London. Such was the INDEPENDENT spirit of * Perhaps my simple assertion of this important fact, un supported by -written proof, may not carry conviction to the mind of every reader. But I appeal to every Englishman and every American who knew me in Paris, some of whom are now in London, whether they do not know that I had opportunities of information which were within the reach of but very few private individuals. America, and such her impartiality towards the two belligerent powers: And to prove to the American Government that he was in earnest, he issued the famous Decree of Berlin in the month of November 1806, which is so often mentioned, and so little known or recollected. It was ex pressed in these terms : " BERLIN DECREE. ce The British Isles are in a state of blockade " All trade and communication with Great Britain are strictly prohibited " All letters going to or coming from Eng land, or addressed to English persons, are not to be forwarded ; and ail those written in English are to be suppressed *. * In consequence of this article of the Decree, orders were sent to all the clerks (Commis) of the Post-offices, to sei^e all letters addressed to persons having English names. Two American Merchants, Mr. C. and Mr. S. then residing at Paris, waited on the Post-Master-General, Monsieur Lavallette, a Conseiller d Etat (Counsellor of State). They remon. strated with him on the hprdship imposed by this Decree on the Americans ; and represented to him that English an< American names were in general so much alike, that it was impossible to distinguish them. They requested, therefore, to know how they were to act, with regard to corresponding in the English Language : the answer was " Correspond in your own language."!!! This Conseiller d Etat, it seems, did not know that the English and American language were the same* But this needs not excite surprise, when it is known that Monsieur de la Vallette was originally a Gar f on Lemona. dier (a Waiter in a Coliee House), afterwards a soldier, thea a general, &c. &c. " Every individual who is a subject of Great Britain is to be made prisoner of war wherever he may be found. " All goods belonging to Englishmen are to be confiscated, and the amount paid to those who have suffered through the detention of ships by the English. " No ships coming from Great Britain, or having been in a port of that country, are to be admitted. trade in English goods is rigorously prohibited." At that period there was hardly any state or nation in Europe that could be called neutral ; the Decree could, therefore, be construed in no other way than as pointed against the independence of American commerce. The American Minister in Paris, General Armstrong, seems to have considered it in that light. No sooner was the Decree made known there, than he applied to the French Minister of "Marine, requesting that he might be informed, whether it was applicable to American vessels, stating as a more especial reason for making this inquiry, that there were several American vessels at that time in England ready to sail for America, 8 To this question the French Minister of Ma rine replied, that he would dispatch a Courier to his Imperial Majesty, to know his intentions on that subject ; and shortly after, before he could have had an answer from Bonaparte, he sent a letter to Gene ral Armstrong to inform him that the Emperor had decided that the Berlin Decree was not in contra vention of the existing treaties between France and America*. The substance of this letter was sent to Mr. Monroe in London, who had it publicly made known to the merchants in this metropolis con cerned in the American trade. We shall now see what confidence the Ame ricans were justified in placing in the Imperial faith of Napoleon. At this period there was in the River Thames an American vessel called the Horizon, Captain Mac Clure, Owner of the ship and cargo. She had been at Lisbon ; when there, she had been chartered by the Spanish Government to carry oat certain articles to Lima, and to bring from thence three millions of Piastres for the Spanish Government. To complete this engagement, it was necessary for her to come to the port of * See this letter in the Appendix, with the remarks upon it. London. She was lying there taking in her cargo at the time when this famous Berlin Decree., and the assurances of the French Minister of Marine upon it with respect to Americans, became known here. In full confidence of the faith that might be supposed due to the Imperial decision, she sailed richly laden from the river, On the coast of France, she experienced a very heavy gale of wind, and was driven on shore. The Custom house officers went on board and sequestered provisionally (provisoirement) both ship and cargo. The question was ultimately to be tried in Paris by the Council of Prizes*. Mr. De la Grange, an intelligent, and respectable and respected man, Advocate for the Claimants, produced the letter of the French Minister of Marine in defence of his clients; it was to no purpose. He produced the charter-party signed at Lisbon before the pro mulgation of the Berlin Decree, between Captain Mac Clure and the Spanish Ambassador in- that city : he urged that Spain was a friendly power, and not merely so, but that she was an active ally of France, and in open hostility with Great Britain, against whom, it was supposed, the * A person disposed to ridicule, and fond of a pun, might be tempted to call them the Council of BLANKS. They are themselves Blanks, because they have no freedom of decision according to general principles ; and in every individual case they must decide according to the dictates of their master, They may be called the Council of Blanks, because no Claim ant, however just his cause, however flagrant his proofs, draws a prize. C 10 Decree was principally directed. Vain attempt ! to use the language of the mighty Napoleon himself. The ship and cargo must at all events be confiscated; she was too rich a prize to be per mitted to slip through the hands of the rapacious government of France. The ship and cargo were condemned. In the course of this trial, if trial it can be call ed, the Council of Prizes took occasion to express their opinion on the Letter of the French Minister of Marine to Mr. Armstrong, in a manner which marks their servility, and their little regard to the assurances given by the administration of one country to the minister of another, requiring an official explanation of a doubtful measure. They said that the Minister of Marine had stepped beyond his sphere, when he took upon himself to write such a letter; that a ministerial letter ought not to be admitted to destroy or in validate an Imperial Decree, and it could not have that effect*. * Some time ago, Mr. Baring published a very well written pamphlet, in which he took notice of the French Minister s Letter before mentioned, as an instance of French forbearance towards the Americans ; but unfortunately for him, or for his fame, for candour and impartiality, he either did not himself know, or to suit his purpose, he did not choose that his readers should know, that the Horizon was condemned in despite of the letter in question. The same intelligent gentleman, in the eourse of his Work, states, ". that the Berlin Decree was only issued to try the temper of Great Britain." This is not correct. It was not to try the temper of Great Britain, but to deter Anic- 11 On board the Horizon was a Mr. Mac Clure, brother to the owner of the ship and cargo; he acted as supercargo: he came, impressed with the idea of the justice and impartiality of the "enlightened Government of France," as he had been taught to believe it by the documents published under the sanction of his own government : he was fur nished with the necessary passports ; he wished to be present at Paris while the cause was depending,, in order to instruct his counsel and agents in person: he thought himself secure against all personal attack ; he found himself, however, under a woeful mistake ; his passports availed him no thing: he was arrested in the capital of that " enlightened government," and sent to prison on suspicion of being, What ? an Englishman | The highest crime of which a man can be accused, Avho is found on the territory of France whether Aristocrat or Democrat : of the two the Democrat is the more odious. He was permitted to be at large on surveil lance*, finding sureties to procure from America a rica from entering into any amicable arrangement with this country. The cases of the Horizon, the Paulina, Captain Clark, and the Victory, Captain Caleb Hopkins prove that the Americans were the victims to the Berlin Decree before the second British Order in Council was issued. See the Appendix. * We may be thankful that no single English word can adequately express this. Englishmen, be pleased that you do not yet know the system of French Police God-forbid you *hould ever know it by experience. C 2 certificate, not of his being an American citizen, but of his having been }>orn in that country. The Americans submitted to this Decree, which so evidently infringed their rights as an independent and neutral nation. By this submis sion they shewed a manifest partiality to France. ; OUR Government, not wishing to make war with America, on account of this apparent partiality, were at last, after two months forbearance, under the necessity of adopting measures of retaliation agains^ France, however the Americans might suffer in consequence of the inveteracy of the contest be tween the two belligerent powers. Orders in Council were, therefore, published in the London Gazette of January 10, 1807, which, after noticing in the usual terms the unprecedented and unjustifiable violence of the Berlin Decree, proceed thus: "His Majesty is thereupon pleased, by and with the advice of his Privy Council, to order that no vessel shall be permitted to trade from one port to another , both which ports shall belong to or be in possession of France or her allies, or shall be so far under their controul, as that British vessels may not freely trade thereat, arid the commanders of his Majesty s ships of war and privateers shall be, and are hereby instructed to warn every neutral vessel coming from any such port, and destined to another such port, to DISCON-: her voyage, and not to proceed to any 13 such port ; and any vessel, after being so warned* or any vessel coming from any such port, after a reasonable time shall have been afforded for re ceiving information of His Majesty s order, which shall be found proceeding to another such port, shall be captured and brought in, and toge ther with the cargo shall be condemned as lawful prize." What is there in this in the least resembling the Decree of Berlin ? By that Decree, the Bri tish Isles, that is the whole empire of Great Bri tain, are to be considered as in a state of blockade ; and no neutral ship is to be at liberty to enter a port of that country: nay, "all trade and com munication with Great Britain are strictly pro hibited. To whom ? To the French, who could not, previously to this Decree, have traded to Great Britain ? Surely not : this would have been a mere decree of supererogation. But to neutrals, to independent, nations 3 and of course, as there was hardly at that time any neutral, any independ ent commercial nation, except America, it was principally directed against the Americans, whose commerce with England was of more consequence to her, than that with all the world besides. But further, " No sbipscomirig from Great Britain, or hav ing been in a port of Great Britain, are to be ad mitted." No, not even to take in a cargo from France, either for America, their native country, 14 or for any other place for the purposes of general trade. A ship in ballast, which had come from a port in Great Britain, could not be admitted into a port in France. It must have been on this article that th Council of Prizes proceeded, when they condemn ed the Horizon ; but even this did not justify their sentence : she had been, it is true, in a British port, and was going from thence; but she was not going to France; if she had, she might, under this article of the Decree., have been refused admittance ; but the only consequence would have been, that she must have sought another market. She was strand ed, as it is called, by the act of God*, which, in correct language, means something which human foresight could not prevent: she was, however, con demned because she had come from a British port, and perhaps because she was a rich prize. Even ships belonging to hostile powers, putting into an enemy s port, have been relieved, and sent to prose cute their voyage; but it seems, the Droit (TAu- * Much has been said against the humanity of MAXIMILIAN ROBERSPIERUE ; let us contrast his conduct on a similar occasion jrfrn THAT OF NAPOLEON BONAPARTE on this, In the time of the "Committee of Public Safety, an English transport coming from Germany with some French Emigrants on board, amongst whom were the Dukes of Choiseul and MontmoreHcy, was stranded near Calais. The unfortunate Emigrants were of course put into confinement, and tried by a Military Com mission. They were all acquitted by order of the Executive Government, upon the principle that stranding was an act of God, and that to condemn these men for coming to France invo luntarily would be not only a violation of the law* of nations, but of humanity. bains is not yet forgotten in France* : the circum stance of the ship having been stranded, and a mi nisterial letter, expressing the decision of the au thor of the Decree with respect to the non-operation of it against the existing treaties between France and America, could not protect her. Again : " All trade in Englisa goods is rigor ously prohibited." To wliom prohibited? to the French? to the slaves under the domination or immediate controul of the Despot who assumes to himself the power of dictating in what manner men shall carry on their trade? No; this had been done before : it was manifestly dictated to Inde pendent States ; and principally to the Americans, who could not bring to England a cargo of their own raw materials, or of the produce of any other country, and take back to America for their own consumption a cargo, whether of English manufacture or produce, or of any other country, which had once found its way to England. What is his Majesty s Order in Council to this? It is manifest, that it was meant as a mere measure of retaliation against the Berlin Decree; but how short is it of retaliation? "No vessel shall * The truth is this, that it is not forgotten but revived: it was abolished in the first paroxysms of the Revolution ; but has been restored with all its rigour by the great Patron and Pro tector of Nations, against the feudal barbarity of their rulers. See Code Napoleon, chapter 1. art. xi. be permitted to trade from one port to another, BOTH which ports shall belong to, or be in the pos session of France, &c." What is there in this re sembling the Berlin Decree? A neutral, in other words,, an American, shall not be permitted to carry on the trade of France or her allies, while they cannot carry on their trade themselves fc or shall be so far under their controul, as that British vessels may not freely trade thereat." Where- ever therefore British vessels may trade, there may American vessels trade, without interruption from Great Britain. And what are the orders given to the Com manders of His Majesty s ships of war, &c.? To seize all ships of America that shall have been in a port under the dominion or controul of France, or to prevent such ships from being admitted to an English port ? No ! But to warn every neutral vessel coming from any such port; and destined to another such port, to discontinue her voyage, &c. She might go back to the port from which she had set out, and unload: she might go to any other port in the world, but one under the domi nion or controul of France, and dispose of her cargo without molestation from the British cruisers. She was to be captured and brought in for con demnation, only in case of attempting to get into the destined other French ports, after such warning given. 17 This Order in Council was ineffectual with respect to America; no disposition appeared on the part of the Government of that country to re sist the Berlin Decree ; inconsequence of which, the British Government thought fit to publish the following Order in Council, Nov. 17, 1807* After taking notice of the inefficacy of the first order, it is said, His Majesty is, therefore, pleased, &c. to order, and it is hereby ordered, " That all the ports and places of France and her allies, or of any other country at war with His Majesty, and all other ports and places in Eu rope, from which, although not at war with His Majesty, the British flag is excluded, and all ports or places in the Colonies belonging to His Majes ty s enemies, shall from henceforth be subject to the same restrictions, in point of trade and navi gation, with the exceptions hereinafter mention ed, as if the same were actually blockaded by His Majesty s naval forces in the most strict and rigorous manner* : and it is hereby further ordered and declared, that all trade in articles which are of the produce or manufacture of the said Coun tries or Colonies, shall be deemed and considered to be unlawful: and that every vessel trading from or to the said Countries or Colonies, toge ther with all goods and merchandizes on board, and all articles of the produce or manufacture of * Following only the phraseology of the Berlin Decree. D 18 the said Countries or Colonies, shall be captured, and condemned as prize to the captors." Those who made no resistance to the Ber lin Decrees, nor even any serious remonstrance against it, have clamoured incessantly, and in the most virulent terms, against this British Or der in Council, as a violation of the laws of na tions. Let those clamourers compare to this Order the Berlin Decree, and point out where the differ ence exists : they will, if they reason fairly, be obliged to admit, that this order is moderate in comparison with the Berlin Decree : it is but an humble imitation of that decree, intended by way only of retaliation to the French decree ; but it is far from being a complete retaliation. The Ameri cans, it is true, are like the ass between the hay ; but they liked the bite on one side better than on the other ; whether they have been wise in their choice, will be seen probably in the sequel. Two enemies are contending : the Americans are perfectly neutrals to the quarrel ; but for some reason known only to themselves, they submit quietly to the restraints arbitrarily imposed on them by the one ; and when the other tells them you shall not lend my enemy a sword, with which he means to accomplish my destruction ; they complain bit terly of this prohibition. 19 Let any advocate of American clamours against this Order in Council compare it to the Berlin Decree, to which it was meant to be an an swer ; and let him, if he can, point out in what it has exceeded that decree : exceeded ! no ! it will appear that the British Order is far short of the Decree and not only so 5 but the severity of the order is mitigated by exceptions : These are, I. Vessels, and their cargoes, which shall be long to any country not declared by this order in a state of blockade, and which shall have cleared out of some port of such country, either in Europe or in America, or from some free port in his Majesty s colonies, direct to some port in the colonies of His Majesty s enemies, or direct from those colonies to the country to which such vessels shall belong, or to some free port in His Majesty s colonies. II. Vessels belonging to any country not at war with His Majesty, which shall have cleared out of any port of this kingdom, or from Gibraltar or Malta, under regulations to be prescribed, direct to the port specified in their clearance. III. Vessels belonging to any country not at war with His Majesty coming directly from any port in this Order declared in a state of blockade, to any port belonging to His Majesty in Europe. These exceptions, however, to exempt from D2 so capture vessels entering or departing from any port actually blockaded by His Majesty s squad rons, or having enemy s property on board, or any other circumstances therein as stated in these exceptions, are subject to some restrictions. Cer tificates of origin obtained in neutral ports from enemies agents, declaring the cargoes of vessels not to be of the produce or manufacture of His Majes ty s dominions, are to subject to capture the vessels having such documents on board, after reasonable time for notification of this Order, at the port from which they clear out; vessels, which may have cleared out before this Order for any port declared in a state of blockade, to be warned not to proceed to such port, but to proceed to some port in this kingdom, Gibraltar or Malta; and if offer such warning or reasonable time to have this Order known at the port whence they clear out, vessels shall be found proceeding to any port declared in a state of blockade, they shall be captured and condemned as prizes to the captors. Much clamour has been raised against this Order deputations have been sent to the Mi nister to ask what it meant ; when the slightest knowledge of the English language, with a very small attention to the composition of the words, might have saved the Constituents of the Depu ties, and the Deputies themselves, the trouble and the ridicule of such an inquiry. It seems to me extraordinary, that men of good sense could 21 doubt about the meaning. The Decree of Berlin w obscure, and may admit of doubtful interpreta* tion : it was calculated and intended to entrap ; and that it has answered its purpose in this re^ spect, will be seen by the cases faithfully detailed at the conclusion of these sheets. But it seems out of the compass of the English, or of any other language, to express in words more clear, the general meaning of the order, or the cases which are meant to be an exception to it. It would be wasting words, and a prostitution of time, to attempt to give an explanation of the one or of the other : he that runs may read, and if willing to understand, may after reading understand. Of the same date with the foregoing Order in Council, there is another, of which the sub stance is : " That vessels so warned, which shall come into any port of His Majesty s dominions^ shall be allowed to report their cargoes for ex. portation, and to proceed to their original desti nation, or to any port at amity with His Majesty, or they may be allowed to import the said Cargo, on paying certain duties, in respect to all articles which may be on board, except sugars, coffee, wine, brandy, -snuff, tobacco, which articles may be exported by licence to ports prescribed by His Majesty. * It has been represented that this order pre tended to impose a duty on neutral commerce -, it has been said, that by it every American ship, in order to avoid capture by British cruisers, must come into a British port, and pay a duty at the arbitrary will of the British Government, before she shall be permitted to proceed on her destined voyage, wherever that might be. Thank God, the British Government, I mean the executive Government, has no such power. The King in Council might order ships found under such cir cumstances to be brought in and confiscated ; and with infinitely more justice than exists in the Berlin Decree: but they could not, and I am sure they would not attempt to order neutral ships, at all events, to come into a port of Great Britain, and pay a duty before they should be permitted to pro ceed on their destined voyage. But what is the order in question ? nothing more than this, that being found in circumstances which the British Government have thought fit to consider as an act favouring their enemy, you shall not be permitted to enter the enemy s ports : we might, if we chose, declare you lawful prize; but we will not proceed so far : provided you de sist from your intended voyage, the object of which was to assist our enemies, you shall be per mitted to enter our ports, if you be so disposed, and to make the best market of your cargo there, with certain excepted articles, on paying a certain duty ; and as to the articles excepted, you may go to any port to be prescribed by his Majesty, having a licence for that purpose. Then comes the Milan Decree issued Decem ber 17, 1807. After a preamble, and allusion to the last order in Council, this notable Decree orders: tc I. That every ship, to whatever nation it may belong, which shall have submitted to be searched by an English ship, or which shall be on her voyage to England, or which shall have paid any tax what ever to the English Government, shall be declared to be (denationalisee) unnationed, if such an un- national word can be admitted into the English language; or in other words stripped of the rights or privileges to which she was before entitled as a ship belonging to the nation of which her pro prietors were subjects; to have forfeited the pro tection of her Sovereign, and to have become ENGLISH property." The second article attempts to give additional effect to the former. It is in these words : " Whether the ship denationalised by the ar- bitary measures of the ENGLISH GOVERNMENT enter our ports or those of our ALLIES, or whether they fall into the hands of our ships of war or pri vateers, they are declared to be good and lawful prize." 24 The ships visited and merely VISITED by English ships of war or English privateers, are to be de nationalised, and declared out of the protection of their Sovereign: for an act not their own, but of a party whom they could not resist, they are to be confiscated: a traveller on Finchly Common is sa luted by the excise officer, who suspected he is carrying on an illegal trade : he submits to be searched; nothing contraband is found upon him, and he is permitted to pursue his journey. But he meets afterwards with a band of smugglers, who ask him only whether he has been saluted by the excise officers? He answers yes ! Then, Sir, you are our prize: whatever you have belongs to us. This is the true interpretation of the Milan Decree. But the ship is to be denationalised by the arbitrary measures of the ENGLISH Government. Now, what are these arbitrary measures ? a ship of war, or a privateer meets a ship at sea; if she belong to an enemy, she may be legally captured; if she be a neutral, she may be searched; she is by force compelled to submit to this search, and is permitted to proceed on her voyage: but this search is fatal to her : " she is, by this arbitrary measure of the ENGLISH Government denationa lised and deprived of her rights; she shall not enter our ports, no ! nor those of our allies, whose conduct and politics we take upon ourselves com pletely to controul, and to subject to our will: Stat pro ratione Toluntas. 25 If they enter they shall be confiscated : if they fall into the hands of our ships of war Of privateers, they shall be declared lawful prize. It has been stated in our houses of par liament, and also in some pamphlets, that our Orders in Council produced the second Decree of Bonaparte. In answer to this charge, I will take the liberty to quote a letter from Monsieur Colin, Director General of the Customs and Counsellor of State, dated Paris, the 17th of March 1808, addressed to the proper authorities in the sea. ports of France, Holland and Italy. " The sequestration of neutral vessels must be carried into execution according to the orders of his Imperial Majesty, which express in formal terms, that all neutral vessels must be detained under sequestration, which have been visited by the enemy, whether ANTERIORLY or subsequently to the Decree of the 17th of December, and conse quently referred to the Council of Prizes." The substance of this letter appears in a memoire presented to the Council of Prizes, by Mr. De La Grange, Advocate for the captured in the case of the American Ship the Sally, Captain Jacob Hastings*. If Bonaparte had really wished to support * See Appendix. E his claim to the title of Champion of the Liberty f the Seas against the tyranny of the cc Usurping Lie*/ as he has been pleased to style Great Britain, he would have done well to imitate the tyrant s conduct, in allowing a sufficient time to neutrals to be acquainted with the existence of his pira tical orders; but he chose rather to adopt a conduct for the ocean, which JONATHAN WILD the Great, whom he seems to have taken for his prototype, established for his depredations on Terra Firma. We have another Decree of Bonaparte, dated Palace of the Tuilleries, January llth, 1808 f, by which he holds out inducements to sailors to impeach their Captains. " Art 1. Whenever a vessel shall have entered a French port, or that of a country occupied by our armies, any man of the crew, or a passenger, who shall declare to the principal of the Custom house that such ship comes from England, or her * About three years ago, Bonaparte, in one of his Speeches to his servile Senate, called Great Britain L Isle Usurpatrice. This word was then new to the French language ; it is the femi nine of Usurpateur. The word was adopted. An eminent bookseller in Paris, of the name of Moutardicr, published some time after a new edition of the French Dictionary, known by the title of Dictionnaire de I Academic Fian^aise, with an Ap pendix of newly-invented words since the Revolution, and th names of the persons who introduced them. Opposite to the words " Usurpateur, Masc." " Usurpatrice, Fern," was placed the name of L y Empcreur Napoleon, who immediately ordered the bookseller to be arrested, and every copy to be eized, wherever it was found ! f See the London Papers of the 25th of January 1808. 27 colonies, or countries occupied by English troops* or that she has been visited by any English vessel, shall receive a third part of the produce of the nett sale of the ship and cargo, provided his declaration be found correct." * The second and third articles prescribe the form for the interrogatories. As a sample of the execution of this decree> let the reader peruse the following case : Captain Ralph Linzee was condemned on the denunciation of his crew, that he had a brother in the British Navy; this crew were properly re warded for their perfidy ; they were pressed into the French Navy at Porto Ferrajo, and never received a shilling for their denunciation. Linzee* was treated in a most barbarous manner : he was confined in a common dungeon at Porto Ferrajo ; was not suffered to make a pro. test, or converse with a living creature until his ship and cargo were condemned : he wished to go to Paris, in order to appeal to the Council of State. General Armstrong sent him a passport, coun tersigned by Fouche, Minister of Police: the Com missary of Marine at Porto Ferrajo refused to let him proceed, alleging that the passport ought to have been countersigned by the Minister of Ma rine: it was sent back to Paris for this purpose, * The name of his ship was the Grace. I have seen his subsequent protest, from which these facts are taken. The Case is detailed in the Appendix. E2 and at length Captain Linzee was permitted to depart. The object of these proceedings was merely to gain time, in order to prevent Linzee from stating the hardship and oppression which he ex perienced: and the better to accomplish this object, he was constantly attended by a guard, who was ordered to see that he should have no op portunity of writing. His appeal was ineffectual. It would be an insult to English jurisprudence to suppose it possible that a similar instance could be found in the conduct of England towards America. To return for a moment to the Milan Decree, which condemns to confiscation every neutral vessel that has been met at sea by an English cruizer and searched by her. The French word in the Decree is Cf visitc" which, in English means searched : a sworn Interpreter to the Council of Prizes, whom I well know, was employed by that Council to trans late the documents found on board of an American Ship which was brought in as a prize : he found in the log-book that the ship had been hailed by an English man of war, and permitted to proceed on her voyage : the word " hailed" he knew did not correspond to the word visite (searched): he translated it into the corresponding French word 6C h&lc" He was well acquainted with the English language, as he was with the French, and e perfectly well knew the import of the terms : 29 But the Council of Prizes thought they knew better ; they would have the word " hailed" trans lated into " visit? (searched) to answer the words of the Decree : the translator refused to make the alter- tion, because he thought it contrary to his oath as a sworn interpreter. He was never employed again to translate for the Council of Prizes. The Council of Prizes is composed of twelve members and a president. The present president is Monsieur Berlier, who, in the time of the directory, obtained the name of Berlier Otage*, from the circumstance of his having proposed the Law of Hostages. A Procureur Imperial, who at present is M. Collet Descotils, an intelligent and very honest man, and a substitute j-. * Mr. Berlier, when Member of the Council of 500, in the Directorial Government, proposed a law to detain as hostages all those persons whose relations were Emigrants, and to make them responsible for their conduct. His motion was negatived. At present the relations of those who are subject to the laws of Conscription are responsible for them. And if a son, or a ne phew, or even cousin, is not forthcoming when called upon, the nearest relations, eitherrnale or female, are obliged to procure a substitute, or are subject to be tried by the Tribunal Conec- tionelle, for aiding and abetting the evasion of a Conscript. The punishment is two years imprisonment, and a fine from one to five thousand francs, accord ing to the means of the parties. This is done on purpose to induce people to give information to Go vernment, if they suspect their relations intend to avoid the Conscription laws. Thus are persons called upon to act as spies or denunciators on their own relations. f The last substitute, to whom no successor has been ap pointed, was Monsieur Florent Guyot, an Ex-constitutional, now a prisoner in the " Hotel de la Force/* one of the strongest _ prisons in Paris, on accusation of conspiracy with others to assassinate Bonaparte : his companions in misfortune are Jac- quemont, Ex-tribun, and late Chef de Division at the Mi- nister s of the interior, Generals Mallet and Gilliet. In this conspiracy were also implicated Garat and Tracy, Senators, and General Lemoine, This accusation was believed in Paris 30 The proceedings are private 5 the public is not admitted to hear the debates : they are carried on huis dos, which is an old Flemish expression, adopted into the French family, and means " a house shut up." Yet it is not altogether " Huis Clos:" The ad vocate presents his printed memorial to the Judges, which has been probably circulated beforehand amongst all the friends of the party in Paris. The Procurcur General, (Attorney General, if it be not profanation to the ear of an English reader to give a literal translation of the Title,) the Procureur General de sa Majcste Imperials is always Counsellor for the CAPTORS, because Sa Majcste has an interest in the condemnation. When a ship and cargo are sold, the produce of the sales is deposited in the Caisse d Amortis- semejit*, a public establishment for the extinction of the national debt, and one third of the produce goes to government. The Procureur General is in effect the Chief Justice, though he has not the name; he sees, beforehand, as well as the Judges do, the memoires of both parties, and has personal conversation with them and their friends : He sums up, as it is called to be an idle tale, worked up into a conspiracy by the Prefit of Police, for the purpose of destroying the friends of Fouche, the Minister of GENERAL Police ; this to a certain extent suc ceeded. They were committed to prison in May 1808, and in June last they were still there. * Sinking Fund. 31 in this country, or to use the French phrase, he draws his CONCLUSIONS, which are in almost every instance an Imperial Decree to the Judges, who whisper together, and in general decide as he has concluded. But this is not enough for Bonaparte. He wishes to know personally whatever passes in the Council of Prizes: he has his spy there, one of the pretended judges who, at present is Monsieur CAMUS LE NEVILLE. When the conclu sions of the Procureur General are not quite con clusive, which sometimes, though rarely happens, this gentleman always directs the deliberations of this immaculate Court of Justice. About two years ago a Decree of Bonaparte excluded all neutral ships from the Elbe and Weser, and directed that the French authorities at the mouth of tliose rivers should apprize the Neutrals of this Decree and not suffer them to enter. They were, however,, suffered to enter quietly; but, when they reached Hamburgh and Bremen, they were sequestered, and afterwards condemned by the Council of Prizes at Paris. A Monseiur Dukerque, merchant at Hamburgh, went as agent to Paris, for claiming those neu trals, but his efforts were unsuccessful. It must, however, be admitted, that this conduct to the Americans by Bonaparte is not without a precedent ; he is not the original of all the measures he has pursued; though he is 32 very ready to adopt every thing in the conduct of former depredators, which he thinks will suit his views. He likes to follow great precedents when they answer his purpose. The people of America have been plundered and pillaged ever since the beginning of the French Revolution. The Americans furnished the French from the beginning with the means of subsistence ; they thought it would be a bene ficial commerce^ but the adventurers have been woefully deceived : few of them indeed have been paid in full, and some nothing at all. In the year 1802, when the French obtained Louisiana from the Spaniards, they sold it to America for a certain sum, which was reduced bv four millions of piastres, to be applied by the French government to answer the claims of Ame rican citizens on that government. The New Jersey, with a cargo of great value belonging to Nicklin and Griffiths, merchants, of Philadelphia, was on her voyage from China to the latter city taken by the French, and carried into St. John s at Port Rico. Gene ral Hedouville, who was Governor General of the West-India Islands, then resided at St. Domingo : he ordered the ship to be seques- j-ered on suspicion that she and her cargo were English property ; and the affair to be referred to the Council of Prizes in Paris, The American S3 owner, fearing that the cargo would spoil, deposited 400,000 piastres with General Hedouville, to ob tain a main levee *, and to be permitted to send away the ship and cargo to the place of her desti nation. The Council of Prizes at Paris declared the capture to be illegal : but General Hedouville having expended for his Government the money deposited, gave bills for the amount on the Direc tory, who being without a sous, could not honour the bills. The matter stood over till the affair of Louisiana, before mentioned; it was of course ex pected that Nicklin and Griffiths would be paid their demand in full. This was not the case. In this instance there may be some appearance of justice ; had Nicklin and Griffiths been paid in full* the other claimants could not have received a farthing. This affair gave rise to a great deal of discus sion in America, between Nicklin and Griffiths on the one hand,and General Armstrong on the other. The General was blamed for not having insisted on their full claim; but it is not the object of these few sheets to enter into private disputes. When the expedition was fitted out by Bona parte for St. Domingo, under the husband of his * A main levee is in general equivalent to what we call a replevin ; but in this case it is rather correspondent to ajj " Amoveas Manus." sister, General Leclerc, now the Princess Borghese, the Americans supplied that colony for the use of the French invading it. Generals Leclerc, Ro- chambeau, and Ferand, gave drafts or orders for payment on the Minister of Marine in Paris ; but not one of these drafts has been paid, unless the following case may be deemed an exception, In the short interval of peace, if peace it can be called, a Mr, Allsop was sent to Paris by the house of Messrs. Linclo and Co. merchants in Lon don, to negotiate bills drawn by Leclerc on the French Minister of Marine, which had been ac cepted by him for stores furnished by Mr. Lindo s house at Jamaica, for that colony. This person negotiated some of the bills, and was proceeding to negotiate others. This was a crime sufficient to deprive him of his liberty. It was said he knew they would not be paid : he was immured in prison for some time; but was at last discharged - 3 and by some extraordinary circum stance of good fortune,, Mr. Lindo was paid. Truth and its connection with the subject on which I am writing, compel me here to relate an affair which happened in St. Domingo during Ro- chambeau s command in that island. I state it with reluctance, because he is now a prisoner in this country ; and because, if he should ever return to his own, it is probable he willfmd himself in a worse 35 situation than that of a prisoner here : but not for the transaction which I am now going to relate. General Rochambeau, when commander- in- chief of St. Domingo, had a dispute with General Clauzel, and some other officers ; he had them all arrested to the number of sixteen. An American vessel happened to be there, and consigned to Mr. Anthony Laussat, merchant in Port-au-Prince ; she belonged to Smith and Ridgeway, merchants, of New- York ; she was taking in a cargo for Ame rica. General Rochambeau sent for the Captain, and told him to prepare for sea in twenty-four hours,, to take General Clauzel and suite on board, and to land them in France, America, or (ou en enfer] in hell. The Captain remonstrated that his ship was only half full, that his masts and rig ging were not in order, and that his ship was leaky. The General answered that she must depart at the time mentioned ; otherwise he would have him shot. The commander of the vessel went to the Port-Captain, entreating him to examine her, and report to the General whether it was possible for her to put to sea in that state, without endangering the lives of the persons on board. The Port- Captain confirmed to General Rochambeau the American Captain s first statement, but without effect. The vessel was compelled to put to sea. After having been out three days, the ship and cargo 36 were lost on the shores of the Floridas ; though for* tunately the people were saved. Till this hour Mr. Ridgeway, who is the American Consul at Antwerp, has not received a farthing of compen sation ! The loss was estimated at six thousand pounds sterling ! ! Here a question naturally arises: What part has the Government of America taken in this affair? The reply is easy; it appears evident that they have never taken any part. They have not thought fit to interpose with their great and powerful ally, who guides the destinies of France. The experi ment might be ungrateful. I state as a fact that Mr. De la Grange,, the able and disinterested advocate for most of the un fortunate Americans in Paris, receives no kind of assistance from the American legation there, though sometimes in his professional capacity he requires it*. * I think proper to state a very important fact which I omitted in the first Edition of this Work. It will be seen by the annexed Memoirs that Mr. DE LA. GRANGE, the advocate for most of the American claimants, de fended his clients with rather too much zeal, and in conse quence of which he very naturally incurred the displeasure of THE TYRANT OF THE FRENCH ! Therefore, about a twelvemonth ago, the American legation at Paris, either from instructions received from Bonaparte, or from those in the FRENCH INTEREST AT WASHINGTON, thought fit to take all the American business from Mr. De la Grange, and to give it to the advocate PERIG- NON ! The reader will not be a little surprised when he learns that M. PERIGNON is the advoHite employed by all the 37 General Armstrong is admitted to be an in telligent and firm man, and his private character without exception. It is supposed he guides his conduct in conformity to the wishes of his GO VERNMENT. While the Americans make such loud com plaints on the asserted violation, by the ENGLISH Government, of the law of nations, in searching on board their ships for English seamen ; let us see how they are treated in France. All the crews of the ships taken in the manner before stated, were made prisoners of war, and sent to the different depots. Hundreds of Americans taken on board of British merchantmen are now prisoners there. They have been reclaimed by the American Ministers, but in vain. About twelve months ago, some few were liberated , but the order was countermanded, and they were re taken. Owners of Privateers in France, Italy, &c. ! nay he is even known at the Paris bar by the name of Pcrignon le Corsaire ! That learned and respectable advocate, rather ashamed of such employment, as privateering is looked upon in France in the same light as Piracy, thought proper, for the sake of his professional honour, to get a Mons. DUPONT, an obscure advocate, to sign the Memoirs in favour of his clients. lie can therefore with pro priety sign the memoirs for the American claimants. Shortly before 1 left Paris, I knew of two cases which were in ap peal before the Council of State, and another in the Council of Prizes, in which Mr. PEKIGNON acted fur both parties I / The American merchants and ship owners have a pretty good specimen of the paternal solicitude of their Government for their rights and interests, and they may judge of the good that is likely to result from the partnership of NAPOLEON, MADDISO.V, and Co. 38 It may perhaps be argued, and with a degree &{ plausibility, by those unacquainted with the laws of nations, that these Americans, neutrals, were found on board the ships of an enemy ; this would be correct, if they had been found on board an enemy s ship of war, but they were on board mer chant ships. But, granting that which, on no principle of the law of nations, can be granted, that this conduct of the French Government towards these poor individual Americans could be palliated or excused; what shall we say to the clamour raised by the partisans of America against the seizure from the Chesapeake of Brtish seamen, acknowledged deserters from British ships of war! ! When Bonaparte was at Bayonne in May 1808, organizing robbery and murder in Spain; an American vessel arrived at L Orient, under a flag of truce from her own Government, with dispatches for General Armstrong, and a bag of commercial letters on board., and also a messenger (Lieutenant Nourse). This vessel was to proceed immediately to England, as she had clearly a right to do as a neutral. In the first place, the vessel was embargoed : the Messenger, however, was allowed to proceed to Paris ; but the dispatches were sent to the Empe ror, for his previous perusal *, and were not till a * In the office of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, there is a collection offac similes, impressions of the variou* hand writings suad arms of Sovereigns, Ministers, and of all dis- 39 fortnight afterwards transmitted to General Arm strong. Such an independent situation does the American Minister hold at Pahs ; and such pro found regard has the magnanimous Napoleon for the rights of neutral and allied nations ! ! The commercial bag of letters was forwarded to the office of Fouche, Minister of General Police, where the letters being read, about one half were delivered, and the other, because, as is supposed, they contained some political remarks, were sup pressed. Lieutenant Nourse, though having dispatches for the American Envoy in London, was detained six weeks in Paris. A similar circumstance occurred in the case of another flag of truce, which arrived at Havre some time after; but things. of this kind do not transpire in America. The agents in Europe of the Ame rican Government have, in general, too great a predilection for their august ally to make a faithful report of such infamous transactions. tinguished men in Europe and in America. Bonaparte has neither much difficulty nor qualms of conscience to open dis patches addressed to Ministers accredited to him, By such means he procured easily the surrender of Magdeburgh a forged letter, purporting to be from the King of Prussia, ordered General Kleist, the Governor, to evacuate that fortress, and to join the king on the Oder! This letter was sealed with a seal resembling that of the King of Prussia. The Governor was, therefore, easily imposed upon. 40 In jus flee, however, it must be admitted that the Great Regenerator of Governments and of Nations, the champion of the liberty of the seas, and of the international code, acts with some degree of im partiality. He treats his own slaves, and the sub jects of his brothers, no better than he does the citizens of neutral states. The case of Messrs. Faesch and Co. mer chants of Amsterdam, which is given in the Ap pendix, deserves attention*. A French merchant, who had been settled at the Havannah, came to France with his ship; she had been Visited by the English, of course, as supposed to be American property. On the arrival at Bour- deaux, ship and cargo were condemned ; and the merchant, for having in a memorial made a spirited remonstrance in strong language, in which he said that the English were more merciful to him than his own people, was sent to the Temple for six months!! The house of Buff and Co. at. Paris, in con sequence of a Decree permitting cotton to be in troduced into France from Macedonia, imported a considerable quantity of that article. In the inte rior of Greece there are no French Consuls j and consequently there could be no cerlificat d origine; * When the war broke out betvreen Prussia and France, up wards of two hundred Prussian vessels were embargoed as a preparatory step to condemnation. It was proved that all these vessels were Dutch property. Nevertheless they were all condemned. 41 but experts (persons skilled in the article) on the frontiers of Hungary, and the Austrian autho rities there furnished certificates that the cotton came from Greece. The cotton was seized at Strasburgh, and ultimately condemned at Paris ! ! Several other houses in France suffered most materially from the iniquity of this cajoling De cree. These Decrees ought to be made as pub licly known as possible, because the com mercial world are marked as the victims of them. When at Bayonne in May 1808, this subtle tyger was plotting the means of drawing within the reach of his grasp the unfortunate and misguided Royal Family of Spain : he issued a De cree, permitting colonial produce to be sold for home consumption, which should be taken by pri vateers or other ships of war. Till then the pro perty could be sold only for exportation, by reason of which prize-goods sold for a mere trifle. To enhance the value, therefore, he pretended to per mit them to be sold for home consumption : but mark the consequence. This Decree induced a number of merchants from Holland, and elsewhere, to order colonial produce from England : but at the.same time they G 42 intended to send out a privateer to take them, it being hinted that the French Government winked at this. Bonaparte caused private circular letters to be sent by his Minister of Marine, and by Mr. Colin, one of his Conseillers d Etat, and his Directeur General des Donanes*, to the different authorities in the sea-ports of France and Holland, ordering them to confiscate all property brought in by the French privateers, unless it could be proved that the ships in question made a proper resistance, and were captured en tonne forme ! ! ! What resistance can a merchant ship make against an armed force fitted out on purpose to at tack her, while, by this insidious Decree, she was lulled into security ? Luckily for the merchants, it was soon whis pered that such circulars had been sent, and they countermanded their orders. Every six weeks or two months, when he wanted to extort money from his brother Louis j*, or by his means, he permitted the entry into France of colonial produce; but frequently, when the * Comptroller General of the Customs. f Louis is an unwilling king; he is considered in Hol land as a good man, a friend to the commerce of that coun try, and adverse to his brother s measures; but he is obliged to obey. 43 goods were at Antwerp, a counter Decree ap peared, by which they were to be confiscated. This happened to a number of merchants at Ant werp in October, 1808. In May last, several cargoes of colonial pro duce were advertised for sale at Flushing : in conse quence of the Decree which had permitted such articles to be sold for home consumption, they fetched a comparatively high price. After the sale, the purchasers wrote to Mr. Colin at Paris, for the necessary permits ; but to their astonishment they were informed by that gen tleman, that his Imperial Majesty had changed his mind since the passing of the Decree, and that no permission could or would be granted. The purchasers, in this dilemma, resolved on the dangerous experiment of smuggling their goods along the coast to France. They sent them along shore to Gravelines. They were there seized with their property. The cargoes were condemned; and the persons sent to Boulogne, where they were to be tried as spies. They were respectable inha bitants of Dunkirk; and Mr. Coffin, the American Consul at that port, being intimate with Mr. De- villiers, Commissary General at Boulogne, con trived by his generous exertions to save their lives. P 2 44 THE chief object of these few sheets is to prove that those who have cast so much blame on our Orders in Council, with respect to neutral naviga tion, have laboured under a gross mistake in im puting to them our disputes with America; and to shew by an historical deduction that they are pro perly to be imputed to the senseless and mad De crees of him who takes upon himself the title of assertor of the freedom of the seas against their tyrant; that those Orders in Council are even mo derate efforts at self-defence against a determined enemy, and a pretended friend insidiously acting in conjunction with that enemy for the destruction of our commerce; and that the reader may judge how far America has or has not been impartial in her conduct towards the two contending powers. I have perhaps here and there indulged in some degree that indignation., which every honest mind must feel, on contemplating, with sufficient knowledge of the facts, the egregious usurpations and insolence of the ruler of the destinies of France, and the tame and uncalled-for submission of the Government of America and their marked hostility to England. But I can vouch for every fact that I have stated; and justify every conclusion or re mark I have made. The Cases contained in the following Appen dix, will carry conviction to every unprejudiced mind; they are extracted from printed Memoires 45 of the proceedings of the Council of Prizes at Paris, now in my possession *, I will add but a few observations more. A gentleman, to the veracity of whose report I can trust, had an opportunity of seeing a distin guished Member of the Council of Prizes, in rela tion to the capture of an American vessel: the gentleman in support of his argument cited a pas sage from Vattel; to which the Frenchman jocosely replied : " WE know nothing of public law, or what YOU call the law of nations-)*: we must follow the Decrees of the Emperor : we leave it to you Englishmen to speak of it at this moment. Your Lord Auckland must be very simple indeed to trou ble himself about it at this moment J." This was in allusion to a speech of his Lord ship, mentioned in that day s paper, in which he was represented as complaining of the conduct of the British Government as incompatible with the laws of nations. * They may be seen at the Publisher s* f I think this a good lesson for the American Secretary of State, Mr. Smith, who, in his correspondence with Mr. Jack* son, talks of Vattel\ the American Executive would do well to quote Vattel in their correspondence with their grand ally, Bonaparte, in regard to his enormities against American com merce, as detailed in the Appendix. \ Nous ne connoissons pas le droit public nous laissons celu a vous autres. II faut s^en tenir aux decrcts de I Empe- reur. Ilest bien bon^ votre Milord Auckland , de s en occuper a cette heure. G 3 46 The Member of the Council of Prizes alluded to knows perfectly well that Lord Auckland is a consummate statesman, a scholar, and a gentle man ; but Frenchmen in office, or out, cannot conceive how persons of rank and condition can make any apology for the conduct of Bonaparte, or how they can condemn any measure which the enemies of the tyrant adopt against him. French men know him well, and of what he is capable. " We cannot/ continued the same Gentleman, " go so far as Sir William Scott, who said, that if he were sitting at Stockholm, he would give his opinion as in London. We are not quite so inde pendent." I have no hesitation in saying, that the learned and enlightened judge of Doctors Commons can not be more respected for his knowledge and inte grity in England than he is in France. But nothing excites greater astonishment in France, than the credulity of our underwriters at Lloyd s Coffee-house*. The pamphlet of " War in Disguise" excited much interest in France, and was read with much avidity by those who could obtain it. It was trans- * I had in my possession, and believe I have them still, though I have mislaid them, some documents by which I could incontestibly prove the above assertion. On some future occa- son I may perhaps be able to lay them before the public. 47 lated for the use of the Counsellors of State ; so was the reply of Mr. Maddison, the present President of America; but the first was considered as the more correct statement, as it was well known in France that all the trade which was carried on from that country, was carried on by means of neutral agents, who neutralized the property for a commission of 10 per cent. Upon the whole, it is a poor recommendation in France to write or to have written in favour of the measures adopted by the respective governments of that country since the Revolution ! APPENDIX. Copy of a Letter from Mons. Decres, ster of the Marine and of the Colonies, to General Armstrong, American Minister at Paris, dated 24lh December, 1806 *. I HASTEN to answer the note you did me the honour to address to me on the 20th of this month. * When General Armstrong received the above letter, he waited on the Minister of Marine, to learn from him all the explanations which that Minister wished General Armstrong to obtain from the Prince of licnevento! who was at Berlin with his Imperial master. The result of that interview was, that General Armstrong, knowing that no French Minister can take upon himself to give an interpretation to Bonaparte s decrees icithoiit his consent, was therefore so fully convinced that the Minister s letter would he acted upon, that he lost no time in communicating the same to the American Legation in London. At all events, the Horizon ha\ing been stranded , ought not to have come within the meaning of any decree. It is also necessary to observe, that as the Berlin Decree was only in tended against America, Bonaparte s intentions Avcre made known to the Minister of Marine at the same time that he forwarded to him his Berlin De cree. Thus, while the Decree was held out to the Americans in terrorem, the above letter was intended to delude them into an heedless security. have heard even some of the Members of the Council of Prizes say, that the letter was only imtended "pour mystifier les Amcricaim ! I . " 50 I consider the Imperial Decree of the 21st of November last as thus far conveying no modification of the regulations at pre sent observed in France with regard to neutral navigators, nor consequently of the Convention of the 30th of September, J800, (8 Vendemiaire 9th year) with the United States of America. But although, by this answer, the four questions upon which your Excellency has desired to know my opinion, have been implicitly resolved, I think I can add, that the declaration ex pressed by the first article of the Decree of the 21st of No vember, not at all changing the present French laws con cerning maritime captures ; there is no reason for inquiring vhat interpretation, restriction, or extension, may be given to this article. 2dly, That seizures contrary to the existing regulations con cerning cruizers, will not be allowed to the captors. 3diy, That an American vessel cannot be taken at sea for the mere reason that she is going to a port of England, or is re turning from one ; because, conformably with the 7th article of the said Decree, we are limited in France not to admit ves sels coming from England or the English colonies. 4thly, That the provisions of the 2d and 5th articles of the aid Decree naturally apply to foreign citizens domiciliated in France, or in the countries occupied by the troops of His Ma jesty the Emperor and King, inasmuch as they have the cha racter of a general law; but that it will be proper that your Excellency should communicate with the Minister of Ex terior Relations as to what concerns the correspondence of the citizens of the United States of America with England. I pray your Excellency, &c. DECRES. P. S. It will not escape General Armstrong, that my an swers cannot have the developement which they would receive from the Minister of Exterior Relations ; that it is naturally to 51 him that he ought to address himself for these explanations, "which I am very happy to give him, because he wishes them, but upon which I have much less positive information than the Prince of Benevento. No. I. Case of the Victory, Caleb Hopkins. THIS man, entrusted with the command of an American .ship called the Victory, sailed from New York on the 25th of July, in the year 1807, with a cargo for Cherbourgh. On the 30th of August following, he was met by an English privateer, called the Cochrane, and carried into Plymouth. His papers had been seized by the privateer ; some hours after he had anchored, he was conducted on board the ship of the Port Admiral, where he found his papers, and was told that he might pursue his voyage to Cherbourgh, without inter ruption. He set sail from Plymouth, and arrived at Cherbourgh on the 1st of September. He had hardly cast anchor, when he was boarded by a boat from a man of Avar ; he informed the party of his short detention at Plymouth ; and as they understood but imperfectly his language, and he did not understand theirs, he sent his documents on board, and offered them his journal, which they refused. The next day another boat assailed him : he made the snme declaration he had made to the former, and as the same ditfi- 52 culty of mutual understanding existed, he was conducted on board the frigate " Le Departement de la Manche*." The American went down to the cabin, where he expected to meet the officer on guard, but he saw only a young man about sixteen years of age, who was busied in writing. As they could not understand one another, the lad called the surgeon, who spoke a little English. The surgeon interpret ing, asked the Captain whether he was an Englishman? he replied that he was " a real Yankey." He was then asked, as he understood, from what port he had come? of what his loading consisted ? and how long he had been on his passage? When he had answered these questions, a written paper in French was presented to him ; he was asked to sign it, as a mere form necessary for his admission into the harbour. He signed in confidence without knowing the contents, as he could not read it, and the surgeon who acted as interpreter could not translate it. The next morning, the 3d of September, he went into the inner harbour, and the Commissary of Police having come on board to make his visit, the Captain declared to him, without hesitation, his detention for some hours in Plymouth roads. On the 4th he went with his crew to the custom-house, where he voluntarily made the same declaration. The Members of the Board then observed to him that, on froard the frigate, he had signed a declaration, "that he had not been in England." He answered that nothing of the kind had been asked him : that he had signed, in confidence, a writing which he did not understand, and that he must have been drunk or mad, to have declared that he had not been in England, as the fact declared by him at the moment of his arrival was known by all his crew, and written at length, on his journal. He was permitted to land his cargo. It was almost all on * The names of persons and ships are immaterial to the narration of facts, but I insert them, that the partisans of French politics may not suppose that I speak without authority. 53 shore, when goods, ship, and tackle, were all seized at the rt- quest of the Custom-house, on the 21st of the same month of September. He was stripped of every thing : he wished to go to Paris to defend his rights : for eight months he solicited a passport without success: he was starving at Cherbourgh, and in com plete ignorance of what was passing in the council of Prizes, when at last he was informed that his ship and her loading were confiscated to the use of the State. Thus this vessel was condemned by virtue of the Berlin Decree. No. 2. Case of the Paulina, Captain Clarke. THE Paulina, Clarke, of Baltimore, sailed from Morlaix to Guernsey, with a cargo of wheat for neutral account, consigned lo the mercantile house of Brock, Laserre, Maingy, and Co. at the latter city. In the month of September, 1806, Captain Clarke signed a charter party to proceed to Malaga in ballast, to take in a cargo f wine, fruit, and wool, from the house of Maury, Brothers, and Co. and from thence to proceed to England and Riga ; the whole for account and risk of Mr. George JBimbel, merchant, of Kiga. The Paulina was proceeding to her place of destination, when passing through the Straits of Gibraltar, she was taken fcy a Spanish privateer, and carried into Algeeiras, where she 54 was condemned by virtue of the Berlin Decree, which had just then been promulgated in Spain. The house of Maury, Freres, and Co. having heard of this capture and condemnation, commissioned their correspondeaC at AJgeziras to re-purchase the Paulina, which was done for 6500 Spanish piastres. The ship then proceeded to Malaga, where she took in her cargo, and departed for England or Kiga. On the 7th of January, 1808, the Requin privateer, of Morlaix, took the Paulina and carried her into Morlaix. In the course of the trial it appeared that the reason why the Paulina was taken and carried into Morlaix, was, that she had spoken an English brig of war, called the Redwing, on the 17th of December, 1807, (the same day that the Milan Decree wa* dated ;) and on the 25th of the same month had been hailed by- several English ships of war oft* Lisbon, especially by the Tonnant. In the course of the proceedings it was stated by the captors, that the ship had been in Guernsey, and what had happened at Algeziras, &c. &c. The captors therefore demanded the con fiscation of ship and cargo, as having acted in contravention to the Berlin and Milan Decree. The counsel for the claimants, M. Loisean, on the other Tiand, contended that what had happened to the Paulina at Algfcziras was in favour of his clients, as they had already paid for the Berlin Decree, although the ship sailed from Guernsey before that Decree passed. The Paulina having since become the property of the house at Malaga, ought not at this momen|- to be liable to condemnation for acting in contravention to the Berlin Decree ; and as to the Milan Decree, it ought not L to apply to his clients, as the visits or the hailing by the English ships was made before that Decree could be known to the cap. tors or captured, and that the ship and cargo being neutral property should be restored to the parties. At ail events, whatever guilt was attached to the ship, the cargo ought to be distinct, as it was put on board after the Paulina was re. purchased at Algeziras, &c. Nevertheless, ship send cargo 55 were condemned by the Council of Prizes in Paris, the 23d of July, 1808. (Signed) Mr. CHOMPRE, Juge Rapporteur ; Mr. LOISEAU, Advocate for the Paulina; and Mr. LE PJIOCUREUR GENERAL, for the Captors. No. 3. Case of the American Ship Hopewett, Captain Jeremiah Shephard. THE facts relating to this case are not given in a distinct and separate detail in the Memoire ; but they are sufficiently ex plained in the course of the argument of the advocate, and oot at all contradicted on the part of the captors. I give a transla tion of that argument, because it contains every thing that can tend to shew the iniquity of the decision in this, as well as in all the others which are mentioned in this Appendix. e The captors," says the advocate, " think they have discovered four grounds for the confiscation of the Hopewell and her cargo. We shall see, on a discussion of these grounds, that not one of them can justify a measure so severe. The first ground is that the Hopewell had just come out of an English port when she was taken, and consequently that there is a contravention of the Decrees of the 21st November, 1806, and 17th December, 1807. H 2 56 " It is nugatory to speak here of the first of these Decrees. It is sufficient to read it, and compare it with those which have followed it, to be convinced that it did not in any manner in terdict direct commerce between England and a neutral coun try ; that the prohibition was confined to the exclusion from French ports, vessels which should have been in those of the enemy. " This truth has been demonstrated so many times; it is so evident to the COUNCIL/ that it appears perfectly useless to em ploy longer time upon it. " We must therefore absolutely exclude from the discussion, not only the Decree of the 21st November, 1806, but even that of the 23d November, 1807, because it is certain that the AB SOLUTE PROHIBITION was established only by that of the 17th De cember ofJtii last year. " But can this Decree of the 17th December be applied to the HOPEWELL? We maintain the negative, and that upon two grounds : " It is ascertained, in the first place, that the Hopcwell, dis patched from Salem for Bourdeaux, the 3d December, 1807, was met on the 24-th of the same month by the armed English vessel the SPEEDWELL, which forced her to change her course, and steer towards England; that yielding to superior force, the Hopewell s ailed for Cowes ; and that the bad weather having prevented her from getting in there, she arrived at Dartmouth, from whence she went to London, after a long and indispensable repair* " These facts, proved by the ship s papers, and by the proceed ings in the cause, are further confirmed by three other papers which we produce to-day. "The first is the French certificate of origin, which Captain Shephard had obtained for his voyage to Bourdeaux : the se cond is the certificate of health, delivered at Salem for the same voyage ; and the third the protest made at Dartmouth, by the Captain and his officers, the 15th of February, 1808. "This being the case, the first ground of inapplicability will result from this, that the Captain haying sailed from, Salem the 57 3d December 1 807, could net know of the Decree promulged at Milan fourteen days after ; and that he could have no know ledge of it on the 24th December, when he was met by the Speedwell. Whence this consequence is inevitable, that he could not know that in yielding to a superior force, he incurred the confiscation attached to such a passive act. Whence also the consequence, that the Decree in question cannot be applied to the present case, without giving it a retrospective effect; an excess of power which all laws natural and positive have denied to the French tribunals. " The second ground of inapplicability results from this, that the/orm/ entry into an English port, being once legitimated by the ignorance of the law, the Hopewell must be acknowledged to have had the right to quit that port. "It is a principle universally recognized, that no interruption of commerce can have a retro-active effect; and that when a port or a country are declared in a state of blockade, all vessels found there before that declaration ought to have the liberty of re turning home. " This principle, guarantied by the law of nations, has been formally consecrated by the 12th Article of the Convention with America, in the year 9, which is expressed thus : * No ship of the one or of the other nation, which shall have entered into a port or place, before they have been REALLY blockaded, besieged, or invested by the other, SHALL BE HINDERED from coming out with her cargo ; if she be found there when such place shali be surrendered, the ship and her cargo shall not be liable to confiscation, but shall be sent back to the owners. " To resume the argument, we say that the Hopewell t from thesingle circumstance that she could not know of the Decree of the 17th December, could not contravene it, by yielding to the violence which this Decree had in view to punish ; and further \ve say, that once legitimately entered into an enemy s port, this vessel had the right at any period, to come out of that port. " The having been in an enemy s port, therefore, proves no thing here in favour of the capture ; the Decree is evidently 58 inapplicable, and this first ground of confiscation is inad missible. " The second ground is, that the cargo was put on board at London; whence, according to the captors, the necessary con sequence is that this cargo was for English account. " Whether the cargo was put onboard at London, we have neither a right, nor do we feel an interest to dispute: but ad mitting this fact, the consequence by no means follows, that the cargo was for English account. " It has been attempted to make out this allegation, from what the crew of the Hopewell may have been brought to declare ; but to be convinced of the futility of this attempt, to recollect that the cargo was on freight, and sent on board by a variety of freighters, so that we have reckoned not fewer than fifty-five .particular invoices. " This being understood, the crew of the Hopewell could know nothing of the account for which the shipment was made, in which the Captain could have no interest, because, whatever r might be, the goods always answered to him for his freight. And accordingly we find the Captain uniformly declaring that he is totally ignorant, who are the real owners of the cargo. et His Mate declares, it is true, that the cargo belonged to differ ent merchants, whose names he does not know, but that they were in London at the time of the loading. " Suppo&ing this officer not to have confounded the loader with the owner, it is evident that his declaration proves the cargo to be for American account; for if the owners had been Englishmen established in London, he could not have simply said, that they happened to be in London at the time of the loading. These expressions can only be applied to American merchants, come for a time to London for the purpose of making their purchases, and dispatching them for their houses in the United States. " To this let it be added, that twelve invoices formally announce that they are for American account; let it be added that it is an invariable principle, that the cargo is presumed, 59 of right, to belong to the consignee ; and no longer doubt can be entertained of the neutrality of that of the Hoptwett. " It is useless after this to observe on the one part, that accord ing to the 14th Article of the Convention of the year 9, tha enemy s goods are protected by the flag; and on the other, considering the interest of the Captain in his freight, that the objection attaching to the goods cannot affect the rights of the ship. " We come to the third pretext for confiscation it is that there was no muster roll (Role d Equipage) on board the Hopewell. This is, in the first place, not true; and in the next^ if it were, it is not a ground of confiscation. " With respect to this last point, we have only to confine our selves to this irresistible observation : this document has ceased to be requisite since the Convention of the year 9, and in the terms of the 4th Article, which has, in this point, derogated from all contrary regulation, American ships are not bound to have any other proof of their regularity, than the passport, of which the form is inserted in that article. " Two motives may have caused the adoption of this dispo sition : "First, There being no distinction of ranks in the United States, there could be no Role d Equipage in the sense which we attach to this expression ; and, tc Secondly, The Convention is founded in sound policy, which says that, far from excluding English sailors from America n navigation, we ought to facilitate the means of their being em ployed in it ; for every time that an English sailor is employed on board an American ship, we have a friend the more, and an enemy the less. tf Bat it is not true that this document was not found on board the HOPEWELL. There is such a document among the ship 9 * papers; and we cannot conceive why the captors could not fin<f it. Let them give themselves the trouble of examining again, and they will find the Role d Eyuipagc made at Salem the first December, 1807, consisting of eight men, of whom seven are Americans, and t>ne a Dane. 60 rr They will further find a certificate delivered by the Ame rican Consul at London, the 14th of November, 1808, attesting that three of these men had deserted. It was necessary to supply their place; and assuredly this could only be by Ame ricans ; for we must be totally ignorant of what is called press ing in England, to suppose that a Government which confines on board its ships men even who are not mariners should permit its mariners to take a service on board of foreign ships. " Accordingly we find Captain Shephard giving, in his decla ration, all the details on the age and places of nativity of the men who compose his crew, and who are all, to the number of nine, natives of the United States. " This third ground of confiscation is therefore refuted both by the fact, and by the right. We may now proceed to answer what follows : " Fourth iy, The captors have taken upon themselves to say that the Hopewell was destined for CADIZ; that she was there to land some gun-powder and saltpetre which she had on board ; and hence an irresistible ground of confiscation. " This is founded on a receipt for duties given at London, at the bottom of vvhich they say, is the announcement of a double destination for Cadiz and New York. " We answer by the ?nost positive denial, and maintain that the Hopeu-ell had not, and could not have any other destination than that to New York. " Besides that the receipt for the duties says nothing of what it is made to say, it is absurd to look in such a document for the destination of a vessel to which it has been given. The person, who receives the duties has neither interest in knowing where the vessel is going, nor the means of ascertaining it. His single office is to fix the quantity of the duties, to take care that he receives good money, and to give a good receipt. " It is, therefore, in the other documents, and particularly in the clearance, that we must exclusively look for the real des tination of the ship. "Now, this document, dated the 14th November, 1808, the 61 iame day as the receipt for the duties, says positively that the Hopewell is destined for Calais, and makes no mention of the port of Cadiz. " Let us add the proofs referred to in the proceedings, and the demonstration will be complete. Captain Shephard, and the nine men of his crew have been interrogated. All unanimously declare that the Hopewell was destined for New York. "But there is still something better than these official decla rationswitnesses who cannot be suspected, as they have no kind of interest in the event ; the passengers in the Hopewell have attested the same truth. " These passengers, to the number of six, have also unani mously declared that the Hopewell was going to New York : several of them had even declared that it was certain she was going to New York, and that they never heard the smallest hint that she was to touch at any other port. - And how can it, in fact, be supposed, that American passen gers would have been prevailed upon to lengthen a winter pas sage, and brave, without any motive, the dangers they might have to run, whether for arriving at Cadiz, or to sojourn in that city, the unfortunate theatre of external war, and of civil dis sensions? " We may, therefore, confidently say that a direct destination to New York is positively demonstrated, and that the allegations in thenegative, which have been hazarded, are not justified by any species of proof. " But here we may expose the absurdity in addition to the rash ness of the assertions. Why should it be presumed that the Hopewell would have undertaken the dangerous entrance into Cadiz, to carry thither a few pounds of powder to shoot game and a few pounds of saltpetre ? " First let it be observed that we find no saltpetre, either in the manifest or in the invoices; and that on the whole, this coalition with the enemies of France is reduced to 325 quarters of a pound of gunpowder which, from the very circumstance of its being put in quarters of a pound, must be nothing but superfine powder, fit only for shooting game. These, to be sure, are powerful succours for a place of war, in a state of I 62 siege ! As if the English government had any occasion to load on board a neutral, the perfidious succours they wished to give to the victims of their seduction * ; as if they had not their own transports; as if, in short, some cwts. of powder for shooting game were succours to furnish to a city menaced by the most formidable armies in the universe ! " AH this is wretched ; and we think too well of the good sense of our adversaries, to hesitate to tell them that they are already convinced, that the articles in question could have no other des tination than the United States ; a country where fine powder fetches a good price, because it is not yet manufactured there ; and where saltpetre is still of more value, because the country does not produce it, though gunpowder has been manufactured there for some years, while on the contrary everybody knows that Spain produces this article in abundance. " Thus then fail the four grounds of confiscation weakly pro posed by the captors. " We cannot see a fifth in what they say with respect to the rencontre of the 24th December, 1807, and of the contra vention, resulting from it, of the Decrees of his Imperial Majesty. "This pretended ground is confounded with the first; and from the moment it has been proved that the Decree of the 1 7th of December, the only law on the subject, is inapplicable to the case of having been in an enemy s port, it must also necessarily be inapplicable with respect to the visit of which the conse quence was that the Hopewell was conducted to England. " Here we might conclude our argument; but it will not be foreign to mention a trifling incident, which will shew some thing of the spirit in which those interested in the Rodeur (the privateer) wish to exercise the rights which they think belong to them. "There were found, on board the Hopewdl, some cloaths and other things for the personal use of Mr. John H. Purviance, an accredited agent of the United States at London. * The reader will recollect that I give here only the observations of the French advocate, I do not adopt his expressions. 63 " Informed of this circumstance, the American Consul of the arrondiscment to which the prize was conducted, reclaimed these effects of Mr. Purviance, in virtue of his office. " His reclamation was founded on the law of nations, the constant usage of civilized nations, which respects the per sonal effects of accredited agents, even when the question con cerns agents of enemies, and effects taken on board enemy s ships. " What can it be supposed the captors answered to this de mand, so trifling in its object, and so strongly recommended by the dignity of the French name ? * It must be copied to be believed : ef John Purviance/ they say," claims by a special memorial, a trunk, a box, and a writ ing desk, put on board the Hopewell, the remonstrants are obliged, on this point, to insist on the execution of the regulations: the effects were found on board a ship denationalised; they ought to be subject to the forfeiture to which they have been exposed. 3 " AB UNO DISCE OMNES, says the French advocate; captors who forget themselves so far as to covet the very cloaths of an agent accredited and avowed by his Government, must have en gendered many chimeras and accumulated many sophisms, to plunder those who are protected by a law common to all, and by the justice of their cause." All this reasoning was in vain. The ship and cargo were condemned on the ground of the meeting of the 24th of Decem ber, being a contravention of the Decree of the 17th, which issued at Milan only three days before, and Mr. Purviance never recovered an atom of his private property ! ! It is to be hoped, that Mr. Secretary Smith will not forget to instruct General Armstrong to quote Vattel, when he applies to the French Government for the restoration of Mr. Purviance s property. I had the pleasure of becoming acquainted in Paris with a Mr. Purviance of Baltimore, who lately returned from France to America. That gentleman claimed a ship and cargo which had been confiscated, and afterwards sold at Leghorn by order of the Junto of Florence, (a provisional form of government I 2 64 established after the dethronement of the Queen of Etruria,) I introduced Mr. Purviance to a distinguished member of the Council of Prizes at Paris, to ascertain where the ship s papers were, as they had been taken from the captain, arid which were of great service to him, as he intended to appeal. The Junto at Florence told Mr. Purviance that the papers were sent to Paris to Mr. Maret s Office, (Secretaire d Etat.) On appli cation there, he was informed, that it was not in his department to receive ship s papers, but that the Minister of Marine would certainly Know something about them. Accordingly Mr. Purviance went to the Marine ; there they could not be found, but he was referred to another Bureau. In short he went round to all the government offices in Paris, but no papers could he get, nor were they at the Council of Prizes, where they ought to have been, as the ship and cargo were already sold. Upon this occasion the Member of the Council of Prizes addressed us in nearly the following words: " There are many " sequestered ships and cargoes sold in the different ports of France of which I have not the least knowledge ; sometimes (( the Minister of the Marine, sometimes the Grand Judge, or " the Ministers of the Interior or Police, are in correspondence el with the different Constituted Authorities in the ports where " the ships and cargos are sold, and the affair is arranged among " themselves ; and we, who are the only competent persons to " make the final arrangements, know no more of it than you "do; I have often been applied to by persons making simila r ft claims to that which you are now making, I could not give te them the necessary information, and they have not been " more successful than you are." This is the language of a person in the service of Bonaparte, and such are his opinions on the enormous conduct of his master. Mr. Purviance is a very intelligent impartial man ; let him say, whether the above statement be not correct ! What would an American Claimant say, if he got such an answer from Sir William Scott, or from the King s Advocate ! No. 4. Case of the American Ship the Catherine^ Thomas Beckford^ Master. THE Catherine sailed from Boston in America, the 23d of Norember 1807, bound to Leghorn. Her cargo, which con sisted of sugar/ coffee, salt fish, logwood, &c. estimated at 48,332 dollars. The ship s papers produced were all regular, viz. Her register proving her to have been built in America, and belonged to William Gray, junior, merchant at Salem. A permission from the President of the United States to pro ceed to Leghorn. The cargo belonging to the owner of the said ship was consigned to Messrs. Grant, Webb, and Co. mer chants of Leghorn, as appeared by the invoice, bill of lading, and a certifieat d originc, by the French Consul at Boston, at testing the origin of the cargo, &c. &c. When off Cape St. Vincent, she was hailed by a Spanish gun br.-g, who suffered her to proceed on her voyage. On the 28th of December 1807, she was boarded by the English brig of war, the Grasshopper, Lieutenant Joseph W T ilkes, who wrote the following on the ship s register : " Not " to proceed to any port of those countries at war with Great- " Britain, or which are under the influence of France." This mandate was duly entered on the log book of the Catherine. On the 2d of January, she was captured by the privateer La Josephine and conducted to the port of Palma in Majorca- This capture is not to be wondered at, as the owner of the pri- rateer, long before the decree of the 17th of December (the Milan decree) sent his instructions to his captain ordering him " to stop all American vessels and to bring them up in the " nearest port." Thus, without any reason assigned, notwith standing the protest of the captain, the cargo was sold in direct violation of the 20th article of the treaty of the year 9. nd of the formal orders of the decree of the 2 Prairial, an 1 1 *. * The above is a literal translation of the printed Memoir c presented t* the Council of Prizes by the advocate for the claimants. 66 But it did not stop here ; the captors even refused to ailovr the crew of the ship the common necessaries of life. Convinced of the inutility of their application to the French agents in that Port, the parties concerned have thought proper to appeal to the Council of Prizes. These are the facts : We will now see what the captors have alleged in support of their conduct. They pretend that the Catherine had 1. Refused to bring to. 2. That the Catherine was denationalise by -the visit of the English ship of war. 3. That she was bound to another port than that of Leghorn. 4. That the cargo was for English account, and consisted of British produce. To support these charges, the Captors allege ; 1st. That when they first gave chace to the Catherine, she hoisted more sail, as if she had been an enemy. That when the privateer fired a shot at her, she hoisted American colours, and instead of lying to, continued her course, and it was only after a chace of five hours that the privateer could come up with her. In answer to which, the claimants say, and which the cap- fors admit, that it blew hard with a rough sea, and that the privateer did not hoist French colours till after she fired a shot. Besides, there is a positive law passed the 2d Prairial, year 11, which says, "That all vessels refusing to shorten sailor " bring to, may be compelled to do so, and in case of resistance " and an engagement, adjudged a legal prize." With respect to the second allegation, namely, that the American was denationalized in consequence of the visit by the English man of war : The counsel for the claimant says, That the Milan decree of the 17th of December could not be applicable to his clients, as theCatherine had sailed from Boston 24- days before the passing of that decree, consequently, not knowingthe existence ofsuch a law, they could not or ought not to suffer by it. " Non obliga t( lex, nisi promulgata." The 15th article of the American convention with France con. eluded in the year 9 says, " That any shipment which may be " made by subjects of neutral states, on board of an enemy s ship, 67 " is considered as neutral for the space of two months from the " date of the declaration of war against that country where the " ship belongs to, which has such a neutral cargo on board." Therefore the Milan decree could not be applied in this case. la regard to the third charge, namely, that the Catherine had another destination than that of Leghorn, the captors pretend that she was going either to Malta or Sicily, and to support this accusation they say " that she was going east of Sardinia, which is not the way " which vessels take that are going to Leghorn, in the winter sea- " son." The counsel for the claimants refute this charge, as the captain, by the instructions of his owners, might either go to Naples or to Leghorn. At the former place it was proved that the American owner had carried on a considerable trade, but there was a letter on board from the owner to Messrs. Grant, Webb, and Company, at Leghorn, consigning ship and cargo to them. In support of the 4th charge, that the cargo was for English ac count, and that it consisted in British produce, thecaptors alleged* that if the captain of the Catherine had not told the captain of the British ship of war, that his cargo was English property, he would have sent him into Gibraltar to pay the tribute, and that on account of that declaration he would not go to Leg horn for fear of being confiscated as English property. In reply to this the counsel for the claimants said, that by what the English officer had written on the ship s register, it proved that he thought that the British order in Council was not appli cable to the Catherine, on account of the time of her departure from Boston. And that if the cargo had been for English account, the English officer would certainly have given us every facility of going to Leghorn, as the English desire nothing better than to send their cargoes to countries from which they are excluded- The captors further pretend that William Gray only lent his name to the English merchants (n cst que leprete-nom des Anglais). In reply to which, the counsel contended that Mr. Gray i* considered as one of the wealthiest citizens of the United States, and that owing to his industry, he made the port of Salem one of the most considerable places of trade in America 1 There was a time when to be rich and to be criminal were svnouvr 68 mous ; but those times are past *. The counsel prays for the amount of the cargo, ship, &c. &c. Ship and cargo condemned. MR. DE LA GRANGE, counsel for the claimants. MR. LE PROCUKEUR IMPERIAL for the crown. No. 5. Case of the American Ship the Sally^ Jacob Hastings^ Master. THE Sally sailed from Boston in America, the 27th of De cember, J807, bound to Cagliari, or any port of France and Spain in the Mediterranean, in Sardinia, laden with cotton, sugar, hides, &c. &c. ft was proved by the ship s register, that she was the property of Jesse Summars and Thomas Coffin, citizens of the United States. A clearance of the Custom House at Boston clearly proved the shipments made at that place by BenjaminWheeler, part of it by William Oliver, by William Thompson, and part of it by Samuel S. Newman, by Lorring and Curtis, and by Wood and Slade, and further confirmed by the several invoices, bill of Jading, &c. &c. The whole valued at nearly 24,000 piastres. On the 19th of December, the Sally arrived off Malaga, without even ever having been spoken at sea by any English cruizers. She hoisted her colours for a pilot, and was standing in for the port, which was about nine miles distance. She wag proceeding towards the port with her colours still up for a pilot, when at about four miles from the said port, a row boat, with French colours hoisted, came towards her, which proved to be the French Row-boat privateer, L Aiglc: she was immediately taken possession of and carried by force into Malaga. As it is necessary for these depredators to set all their ingenuity at work to find out pretexts for capturing ships and cargoes be. * I must beg leave to differ from my worthy and learned friend Mr. De la Grange. In a future publication I will prove that the regime o Robespierre and Bonaparte is in many instances the same, especially in ruining and destroying rich men. 69 longing to the subjects of our allies, let us see what their alegations are. 1. The Sally is accused of being bound to Sardinia,, and that the captain concealed his place of destination. 2. Because some of the cargo was missing. 3. Because the fresh water, which was in the casks, did not appear to have been long there, and that there appeared to be small shells at the bottom of the ship, and at her sides, as if she had recently been at anchor in a port (to make it appear is if the Sally had been at Gibraltar to pay her tribute). To the first of these charges we must admit that the captain did not say at first that he intended going to Cagliari,, and for this reason, the destination to Cagliari was only simulated, to get rid of the English cruizers, but her real destination was the first port of France or Spain in the Mediterranean. From the very direction in which she was captured it was evident that she could have had no pretension of going any where else than to Malaga, and the reason why she was subject to capture in being bound to Cagliari, the privateer s owner pro duced the circular letter of the Minister of Marine, dated 18th of January, 1808, " to embargo all Sardinia ships in the " ports of France and Italy, and to capture all ships bound to " Sardinia, or coming from that island !!" and as an additional reason for the capture of the Sally, he produced a circular letter from Mr. Colin, Comptroller of the Customs at Paris, saying " Que lescqueslre des Navires neutres doit etrc maintenu d apres Ics " ordres de S. M. portant formellement que Von doit retenir sous (e " sequestre tons Navires neutres qui ont ete visites par I ennemi ff SO1T ANTERIEUREMENT, SOIT POSTERIEUREMENT ail decret du " 17 December (de Milan), et par consequent renvoyes au Consei i " des Prises*." Mr. De la Grange then argues upon the existing treaty of the year 9 between France and America, allowing two months * This letter certainlyjustifies the capture on the part of the privateer, had the Sally been visited by the English. But this case, like allthe others, are the acts of the so called government of France. The privateers are nothing more than the agents of that AVOINTED BRIGAND. Jit is to blame and not the privateers. " Quifacit per alium, facit psr sc." But as to the letter itself, is it not evident that Bonaparte s intention was to cap ture every ship belonging to America that hi* cruizer* could pick up J v 70 time for all the property of the Americans to arrive even im enemy s ships before they are subject to be captured. As to the second charge of her cargo being deficient ; the privateer s captain alleged that there were 650 pounds weight of salt fish less on board than what there is designated in the bill of lading and invoice, and that the said fish had been paid to the captain of the man of war as a tribute conformable to the British orders in Council of the llth of November. (To this charge the counsel for the claimants very justly observes, that they cannot account for a deficiency of 650 pounds of salt fish ; but surely no English captain of an English man of war will take salt fish in payment ! ! ! ) As to the charge of her having been at Gibraltar, Mr. De la Grange produced the two following documents. "American Consulate at Gibraltar." " These are to certify, that on examining my registers for the " entering of all American vessels at Gibraltar, no vessel called " the Sally, captain Jacob Hastings, has been in this port from " the month of December till March last. (Signed) " JOHN GATING, " Consul for the United States at Gibraltar/ " Offic of Customs at Gibraltar, 7th of May, 1808. " This is to certify that the American ship the Sally of Boston, " Captain Jacob Hastings, has not been in this port from the " month of December to March last. (Signed) " WILLIAM SWEETLAND, " Captain of the Harbour at Gibraltar." As to the charge of the water s being too fresh, Mr. De la Grange thought it too ridiculous to reply to : however The ship and cargo zeere condemned. MR. LA LOT, Ji>ge Rapporteur. MR, LE PROCUREUR GENERAL IMPERIAL for the Crown. MR. D LA GRANGE, for the Claimants. 71 No. 6. Case of the Grace^ Captain Ralph Linzee. THE American ship the Grace sailed on the 19th of November, 1807, with a rich cargo from Boston to Leghorn ; she was just going to enter into her port of destination the 27th of January when she was met by the privateer the Cosmopolite, boarded by her, and carried into Porto Ferrajo. The violence exercised as well by the French agents at that place, as by the privateer s crew on the person of Captain Linzee and his officers, are without example. To support this capture the captors pretend J. That the cargo is for English account. 2. That the Grace was visited by an English privateer th 29th of December, 1807. 3. That having on the 21st of January spoken with a vessel coming from Marseilles, by which she was informed of the Milan decree, Captain Linzee had in consequence thrown over board several documents. In answer to the first charge, the counsel for the claimants argues, that according to the 14th article of the treaty be tween France and America, concluded the 8th Vendemiaire, year 9, the American flag may neutralize property, excepting such articles which are considered contraband in time of war. This charge therefore needs no refutation, as existing treaties justify it ; but we will not avail ourselves of it, and we can prove that the cargo is bonafide American property. On examining the ship s manifest, that the shipments on board the Grace were made by William Gray, Butler, Fogesty, and Thomas Amony and Co. and consigned to different houses at Leghorn, and the ship was consigned to Grant, Webb, and company of that city, but the captors say that Captain Linzee had at first declared, that the whole of the cargo was his own property : And in the same proces-verbal, they say that they cap- tured the Grace, " because there was not any person on board f of their privateer who understood English, and who could 72 " read letters which were on board, which were all sealed, and " which the captain of the privateer] thought fit to break open." How could they then understand what Captain Linzee said about the cargo being his own ? The captors have another reason for supposing the cargo to be English property ; namely, that having been visited by the English, the 29th of December, they permitted the Grace to prosecute her voyage for Leghorn, without enforcing the duty required by the British orders in Council. These indulg- encies, the captors say, are a sufficient proof that the cargo is English property. Admirable reasoning, no doubt ! observes Mr. De la Grange, advocate for the claimants; however we will prove that we never were visited by the English. The captors pretend that eight men out of twelve of the ship s crew stated that the Grace was visited by the English off Malaga on the 29th of December 1807. The counsel for the claimants contend that three officers be longing to the Grace have positively sworn to the contrary, and that some of the crew had retracted what they had said, and who were mostly renegadoes and deserters. It is never theless true that she was visited by a ship of war under Eng lish colours, but that vessel was Spanish. In the course of the memoir, the advocate exclaims, " What is become of French hospitality, and French urbanity, when I must state that cap tain Linzee was seized, dragged from his ship, and confined, in spite of existing treaties between the two Nations! And supposing that the Grace had been visited by the English, is it that be cause the English ship of war respected our neutrality and suffered us to prosecute our voyage, that we are to be con demned by those to whom we are allied by solemn treaties ? * As to the charge made against captain Linzee for -throwing papers overboard, the counsel for the claimants observes, that four months after the capture of the Grace, an English sailor, one of her crew, had made a declaration to that effect, and also stated that captain Linzee had a brother in the Britisk navy. Snip and cargo condemned. Mr. DE LA GRANGE, Advocate. Mr.Niou, Juge Rapporteur, 73 N. B. Captain Linzee was not allowed to come to Paris till the trial was over, nor was he permitted to write letters to his friends either at Leghorn or at Paris, which appeared in his protest. NO. r. Case of the Mercury, an American Captain Bradford. THE Mercury and her cargo were the property of Robert Roberts, a native citizen of the United States, merchant at Plymouth in the State of Massachusets. She set sail from Boston for Alicante, on the 29th of October^ 1807, with a cargo consisting of dried cod, salmon, salt beef, cheese and sugar. It is material to attend to the date : the decree of Milan did not pass before the 17th of November. She had all the regular documents ; and indeed there was no doubt suggested before the Council of Prizes that her voy age was not perfectly fair. It appeared, without an attempt at contradiction, on the part of the captors, that the cargo was the produce of Holland, of the Havannah, and of the United States. She had a long and dangerous voyage. On the 29th of De cember, about two leagues from the Straits, she was saluted and conducted into Gibraltar by two armed boats, belonging to an English ship, called the Illustrious, riding at anchor in that port. Though destined for a port, said to be blockaded by the English, yet the detention of the Mercury at Gibraltar was of short duration. The perfect regularity of the voyage, and still more the " impossibility that captain Bradford should have " known the order of Council of the llth of November, con- 74 Tinced the ENGLISH captor that he had no right over thisTsel/ These are the words of the French Advocate for this ship, contrasting the conduct of the English cruisers with those of the French captors in. the sequel. The ship had sailed from Boston on the 29th of October : the British orders in Council did not issue till the llth of November following. She could therefore not know them, and she was respected. The decree of Milan did not pass till the 17th of the same month ; and yet this latter was ap plied to her. The Mercury anchored at Gibraltar on the 31st of Decem ber; she remained on Quarantine till the 5th of January, and the next morning was completely liberated, " and this too/ says the French Advocate, " without having been subjected " to the shameful tribute, which the order in Council had " wished to establish." He calls it a " shameful tribute/ not because he thought it so, but because, intending to contrast the conduct of the Eng lish cruisers with that of the French captors, he thought it neces sary for his own safety, to throw in some qualifying expressions. The vessel immediately set to sea : on the 17th of January, she was met across the Gut of Gibraltar by an English frigate, of which an officer went on board and examined the papers. She was met again on the 31st by a privateer under English colours. She was not molested ; at last the Mercury discovered the port of Alicante, the very port of her destination, at the distance of about only two leagues, when she was taken and conducted to Alicante, the very port to which she was origi nally destined, by the French privateer La Josephine. On the very day when the vessel arrived at Alicante, while the captain was detained in quarantine, and could communicate with nobody, it was thought fit to sell 3,280 hundred weight of salt fish, the most valuable part of the cargo. Mr. Roselt, the consignee, went immediately to the consul ad interim of France, to make an opposition to the sale, and at all events to request that he might be present, that it might be made in lots, and with the usual publicity. The French Consul promised an answer ; and the next day an ns wer was given in the negative on all the points. 75 Then came a protest from the consignee ; but this was of o avail. The 3,2SO hundred weight of dried fish were sold wholesale, in one lot, without any public notice, the second day after the prize had entered Alicante ; and to aggravate the injustice, this sale was made to the nephew of the person who had fitted out the privateer. This case came before the Council of Prizes at Paris; but it was in vain that the advocate for the claimants urged the circumstances of the captain being unacquainted with the de crees, and the impossibility of his knowing them at the time of departure from his port of loading; it was in vain that he urged the general principles of law, that no ordinance ought to have a retroactive effect; it was in vain that he urged, that there was no retroactive clause in the decree* themselves: it was equally in vain that he urged, that in the very first title of the Napoleon Code, a retroactive law is formally and in expres* terms proscribed. The ship and cargo were condemned. No. 8. Case of the American Ship Peace and Plenty, Caplain Foster* THIS is a singular case. The vessel, loaded with sugar, pepper, cotton, indigo, and salt fish, set sail on the 3d of De cember, 1807, from Beverley, in the state of Massachusetts, destined for Marseilles. The reader must still keep in mind, that the decree of Milan was dated the J7th of that month, and that it ought to have had .o effect on a vessel which sailed before its date, nor even before d possibly be known to exist. He will recollect, that by the principl^ .of unirmal law, recognized by wo*/ particular 76 laws, a fact in itself not morally wrong, ought not to be punished in consequence of a subsequent decree from whatever authority emanating. He will recollect, that a law not promulgated in due time to permit it to be knoivn to the persons who might ignorantly do that, which, if it had been known, would be a contravention of it, ought not to have a retrospective effect, to punish actions, which, before the knowledge of the law, ought to be considered as innocent. The gentleman, Mr.De laGrange, whose name I have had frequent occasion to mention, has in his memoirs, with respect to the capture of American vessels, urged these topics with great strength of reasoning, though with a prudence which I cannot but admire. But all his reasoning has been in vain : all the vessels have been condemned on the principle that they were taken after the issuing of the Milan de cree, though they were at sea, not only before it could be known, but before it actually existed; the Council of Prizes have uni formly followed the maxim of Mr. Colin, Comptroller of the Customs, to condemn all vessels " tant anterieurement que " posterieurement." It would be tiresome to the reader, and indeed unnecessary for my purpose, to state the documents found on board the re spective ships captured, recognized to be perfectly regular by the French tribunals, and without fraud as to France, however they may have been fraudulently contrived to elude the English cruisers. Snfiice it to say, in the present case, that every document that could be imagined to legalise the voyage of this vessel to MARSEILLES was found on board; that no objection was made to her on this account; but it was urged that she had been visited by an English ship. The decree of Milan, let it be again recollected, was signed, and ONLY signed, on the 17th of December, 1307. Thisship had sailed from Beverley on the 3d. She was on her voyage, when, on the 20th of December, only three days after the date of the decree, passing the Azores, she was met by an English privateer, THE LION. The captain went on board, examined the papers, and wrote on the certificate of the voyage the follow ing words : 77 " 20th Dec. These presents are to attest that the Peace and Plenty, of Beverley, Captain Joshua Foster, has been boarded this day by me, Joseph P. Shorbon, commander of the privateer the Lion; and that I have given information of the restrictions imposed by the blockade, that is to say, France, her allies, and the ports that belong to her, and from which the English flag is excluded Wherefore you musjt go to some English port. The captain was wrong in this, because the orders in council do not require that the vessel thus visited should go into some English port, but that she shall not go into any French port, or any port from which English ships are excluded. This is, how ever, of no importance in the present case. Captain Foster, notwithstanding this prohibition and injunct ion, pursued his course to Marseilles. When he was in the latitude of Ivica, an island belonging to Spain, in the neighbourhood of Majorca and Minorca, he was met by a French privateer, who detained him, and sent sailors on board to secure her. But the captain of the privateer, learn ing that Messrs. Louis Liquier and Co. were concerned in the adventure, which house he said he. knew, permitted the Peace and Plenty to continue her voyage. He continued it, without any other remarkable occurrence, till the 22d of January ; when, having already a pilot on board, and being at no greater distance than half a league from Marseilles, he was taken by a boat from a chebeck in the ser. vice of the customs, and conducted into that port, which was the port of his real destination. It was in vain that the advocate urged that the vessel was visited on the 20th of December, only three days after the issuing of the Milan decree, and of course, that the captain could not know of its existence. The vessel and her cargo were condemned. 78 No. 9. Case of the Calliope^ an American Ship 9 Captain William Taylor. THIS ship and her cargo were consigned to Messrs. Lourde and Co. and to Louis Ferrier and Co. merchants, at Bour. deaux. She sailed from New York for Bourdeaux, on the 29th of No vember, 1807, with a cargo consisting of sugar, cotton, salt fish, fish oil, Campechy wood, staves, coffee, and furs. Let the date of her sailing be remarked. The ship and her cargo were ostensible property of five native Frenchmen settled at New York. It appeared clearly, however, that the whole of the cargo vas for French account. The papers on board the Calliope were acknowledged to be all regular, and conformable to the treaty between France and America, and the regulations prescribed for ascertaining whe ther she was really American. Beside this, Captain Taylor had a certificate delivered the 27th of November, 1807, by the French Consul at New York, by which it was certified that the whole cargo was of the pro duce native or industrial of Guadaloupe, theHavannah, and the United States. The crew consisted of thirteen men, of whom ten were Ame ricans, one an Indian of Macao, another a Swede, and the other an Englishman. The vessel contained dispatches from the American Govern ment, and from the Imperial Minister accredited there; and still further, had on board a particular agent from the colonial 79 prefect of Guadaloupe, bearing dispatches for the French Gc- vernment. She had a quick, though difficult passage. On the 28th of December, she found herself within about thirty leagues from the isle of Oleron, when she discovered a sail towards the east- south-east, and five others to the east-north-east. The first overtook her at half past eight o clock in the morn ing, and was recognized by Captain Taylor as an English fri" gate. The Calliope, without means of resistance, soon found her self under the guns of this frigate : she was ordered to heave to : she was obliged to obey. An instant after a boat from the frigate reached the Calliope, and a lieutenant jumped on board. He said the frigate was the Emerald, Captain Maitland. He examined the papers; but Taylor had the good fortune to conceal the important packets of which he was the bearer, and the circumstance of his hav ing a French agent on board. Every thing appeared regular to the English lieutenant, and he quitted the Calliope, after having written on the back of the log-book words to the following effect : " All the French ports, as well as those under the influence of France, being in a strict state of blockade, you are warned, for the present, not to enter the said ports; and if, after this warning, you be found attempting to enter there, you will be liable to be seized and conducted into England, to be there de clared good prize. Given under my seal, &c." Taylor was necessarily obliged to veer about and steer ano ther course. He eluded the English cruiser, and contrived to get into the road of Port Louis, in the neighbourhood of L Orient. After his quarantine, he was, on the 3d of January, 1808, boarded by the officers of the administration of the marine and of the customs, and made acquainted with the imperial decree of the 17th of December, by virtue of the first article of which they seized his vessel and cargo, and set a guard on board. 80 The next day, the captain made the usual report, and a dou ble protest, before his Consul, and before the President of the Tribunal of Commerce. The vessel was, in the course of the two succeeding days, piloted into the port of L Orient. On the 6 th, the captain, his crew, and his passengers, under went interrogatories. Evei y thing contributed to confirm the facts abovt*mentioned; and one of the French passengers de clared himself the owner of a considerable part of the cargo. On the 20th of January, the captain was summoned to tha Custom-House, when it was notified to him that his ship and cargo were seized, and that a suit for confiscation was to be in stituted before the Council of Prizes at Paris, conformably to the imperial decrees of the 23d of November, and the 17th of December, 1807. Neither of these decrees could apply to him; they did not exist at the time when he set sail from the port from which he was loaded; he could riot be presumed to have had any know ledge of them in the course of his voyage; he knew nothing of them, in fact, till the seizure was made ; and, what is still more important, his cargo was for French account it was French property. He had, at great risk, eluded the English cruisers, in order to carry this property safe into a French porr. He was, however, condemned. Let the reader reflect on the diH erence between ihe conduct of the English cruisers in thijira.se, and that of the Council of Prices. ii No. 10. Case of the American Ship the Brothers^ Fish, Master. THE Brothers sailed from Virginia the 30th of October, 1807, bound to London. Being ofF the Land s End on the 24th of December, she was boarded by an English ship of war. Three days after she was taken by La Revanche privateer, and carried into Calais. The ship and cargo, which consisted of tobacco, were con demned. No. 11. Case of the American Ship the Speculator, Henry Little^ Master. THE Speculator sailed from America in April, 1807, for Liverpool* From thence she went to Christiansand, in Nor. way, and then to Amsterdam; where, not being able to get a cargo, she cleared out in ballast for Savannah, on the 3th of January, 1808. Being, on the llth of the same month, off Calais, she was captured by the privateer L Entreprenant , and carried into Ca lais. This vessel was condemned on the Berlin Decree, for hav ing been in England after its promulgation ! No. 12. the- American Ship the Jersey f , Williams, Master. THE Jersey sailed from New York,, the 26th September, 1 807 ; her cargo consisted of sugar, coffee, pepper, tobacco, *&. bound to Leghorn, with liberty to touch at Palermo, and valued at 44,000 dollars, the property of H. and L. Philips of New York. Her papers were all in due form. On the Bth of December, she was oft Sicily, and being short of pro vision and water, she entered the port of Palermo ; eight days -after she quitted the said port, and proceeded to Leghorn "without even opening her hatches : she was scarcely at anchor in Leghorn, when the French Custom House officers took possession of her. Her cargo was unloaded and deposited in their custom house. Captain Williams was kept prisoner on board of his own ship. The Milan Decree could not be applied to the Jersey, as she did not even see an English vessel during her voyage, but was sequestrated on account of her having touched at Palermo. The counsel for the claimants contended, that the Berlin Decree onlv meant to prevent neutrals coming from or going to the British Isles, or her colonies; but surely Palermo was neither a British isle, or subject to British sovereignty ; even in that case the Decree only excluded her from a French port... Besides, the Jersey sailed from Palermo, on the 1 6th of Decem ber, a day previous to the Milan Lecree. Therefore neither the Berlin or Milan Decree could be applied to her. However the Council of Prizes thought otherwise, and the ship and cargo were condemned. 83 No. 13. Case of the American Ship, the Windham, Paine, Master, THE Windham sailed from New London for Demerary, the 9th of November, 1807: she arrived there the 9th of De cember ; she disposed of her cargo. At Demerary, Captain Paine took in a cargo back for New London, consisting of 104 pipes of rum, molasses, old copper, &c. and sailed from thence the 4th February, 1808. On the 21st of the same month, she was met by the French frigates, LTtalienne and La Sirene, which were returning from Martinico to France. The French commodore sent on board the Windham to examine her papers, and finding that she came from a port in the. possession of the English, ordered the captain, crew, and passengers to be brought on board of his frigate, as also the rum and the copper, and then ordered the Windham and the remainder of the cargo to be burnt. The owners brought the affair before the Council of Prizes vain attempt I The conduct of the French commodore was declared to be just and legal. No. 14. Case of the American Ship Cadas^ Obea Butler^ Master. THE Cadas sailed from New York, the 28th of November, 1807, bound to Marseilles. Her cargo consisted of sugar, coffee, logwood, &c. &c. valued at 63,000 Dollars. The cargo was at the disposal of a supercargo on board, Mr. Joseph Icard, and consigned to Jacques Icarcl at Marseilles. Th third part belonged to Icard, the supercargo, a Frenchman; another third to Rossier and Roulet, likewise Frenchmen established at New York ; and the other third to Mr. Mount- forde, Member of Congress. On the 14th of January, 1808, the Cadas being off Toulon, was boarded by an English *frigate, who examined her papers and suffered her to proceed on her voyage. When she was a league off Marseilles, her port of destination, and had already a pilot on board, she was boarded by the French brig of war La Jalouse, and conducted as a prize into Marseilles. The captors prayed for condemnation on the Milan Decree of the 17th December. The claimants, on the other hand, con tend that the English frigate had done nothing more tha n examined her papers (which right has never been contested) without prescribing any orders to the Cadets; hence, it is evident, that the English frigate respected our neutrality and our flag, and did not violate any of our rights; besides the English frigate was stationed off Toulon in the jurisdiction or territory of France, and was not on the high seas ; how- can therefore a neutral unarmed ship defend itself, when the other belligerent has not the means of keeping her own coasts clear of her enemy ? Ship and cargo were condemned. i No. 15. Case of the American Brig^ James Newman Captain. THIS is so extraordinary a case, that 1 cannot resist the impulse which leads me to give a complete translation of the memoire presented to the Council of Prizes on behalf of the captured. " Of all the seizures," says Monsieur De la Grange, " made in virtue of the Decree of the 17th of December, there is not one in which the excess of zeal*, and the mistakes which followed, are more striking than in this affair. The law which it is wished to apply to the Charleston, would be sufficient to acquit her ; and yet this vessel has been sequestered in the port of Bourdeaux ever since the 15th of January, 1803. FACTS. The Charleston sailed from New York for St. Sebastian, on the 26th of September, 1807, nearly three months before the Milan Decree : she arrived at the port of PASSAGE, a sea port of Spain, in the Bay of Biscay, a few miles to the Eastward of St. Sebastian, her port of destination ; this was on the 23d of November ; she there performed quarantine f for a few days, * This is the modest expression which this learned and prudent Advocate was, from his situation, obliged to use, instead of the most ivicked attack that could be made on the rights of a neutral power* I give the whole of his reasoning, because it justifies what I have said in the preceding sheets, and because I think it will satisfy every impartial reader, that an honest Frenchman feels the same abhorrence that I do, not only to the Milan Decree, but the manner in which it has been applied, or to write more correctly, misapplied. + The reader will have the goodness not to impute to me an ignorance of the word, which means forty days, but to understand that here it was a temporary detention. 86 and tht/n pursued her course to St. Sebastian, where she ar rived on the 1st of December, 1807, more than a fortnight before the issuing of the Milan Decree. Her cargo consisted of sugars, cocoa, and cotton. St. Sebastian not offering any advantageous returns, Captain Newman conformed to the instructions of his owners, and went to take in a cargo at Bourdeaux. He went from St. Sebastian in ballast the 15th of the same month of December 1807, and entered the river of Bourdeaux, the 17th, the very day when his Imperial Majesty signed, at Milan, the Decree which it is wished to apply to this case. After having undergone a new quarantine, the Charleston was admitted to make her entries. Her consignees had procured her a cargo; she was on the point of setting sail for New York,, with our wines, and our brandies, when on the 15th of January 1808, the officers of the customs thought it their duty to sequest her. Thus was lost a voyage advantageous for the owners, and still more advantageous for those from whom Captain Newman had just purchased the commodities. More than eight months have since elapsed : the vessel is losing her value to the owners, by the expenses inseparable frpm so long a detention. We must therefore enlighten the justice of the COUNCIL *, and prove how strange is the abuse which is made of the law. The neutrality of the Charleston neither has been nor can be disputed. She ha> the following documents : A Register, which proves that she is of American built, and that she belongs to two citizens of the United States. A Licence for the voyage from New York to St. Sebastian. A Turkish passport f. * Monsieur De la Grange might have saved hfmself the trouble of this attempt. The Council had no Justice to be enlightened; the ship and her outward bound cargo were at all events i<> ho condemned. + In all cases a Turkish passport is mentioned ; it is intended as a pro tection against the Algerines and other states of Barbary ; but could not have any relation to a question arising before the Council of Prizes in *7 Two certificates, proving that James Newman succeeded the former captain, who died at the Havannah. A journal regularly kept. A muster roil, which proves that of seven men employed on board, six were Americans, and the other a citizen of Bremen. Let us see then how, with documents so complete and so authentic, the Charleston could have been seized in virtue of a laiv made the very day she entered Bourdeaux. It appears, that as a measure of surety, and when the Decree of the 17th of December v\as officially known at Bourdeaux ; the comptroller of the customs ordered the Journals of all th neutral ships then in the port to be presented to him. The motive of this measure was, no doubt, to ascertain what vessels had undergone the visit prohibited by the Decree. So far this measure of authority may be admitted to have been regular, though certainly severe. But to have supposed that neutral vessels, which had entered a French port, BEFORE THE DECREE, could be subject to it, is, we confess, what we can neither comprehend nor explain. However this may be, the Charleston was subjected to the common late. Her journal was submitted to the examination (verification) of the officers of the customs. -A Proces verbal was drawn up the same day, the 15th January, and an investigation made of the articles of the journal of which the result was that, beside the facts above set forth, " the said vessel, during her passage, had neither touched, looked into or stopped at any port of the enemy, nor been occupied by enemy s troops; that she had paid no imposition to the English Government, nor been visited by any ship of that nation." The latter part of this report is not correct. In examining the Journal more minutely, the following note is found : " Sunday, 1st November 1 807;" observe, reader, six weeks before the date of the Milan Decree " Wind NNE. steering towards the ENE. then to the SE. we hauled down, on re in 2 88 ceiving a shot under the wind from a sail, to which we were obliged to bear; and met her. She saluted us under French colours; but being conducted on board, found that she was a privateer from Guernsey of 16 guns, lat. observed 41. 24. " The 2d November, 1807, at two o clock P. M. the priva teer s people sent the Captain back, and we made sail." It is on account of this incident, it is because the Charleston had been visited on the 1st of November, that the administration of the Customs have thought fit to put this vessel under seques tration : and as no law anterior to the Decree* of the 17th of December, had declared the visit a ground of sequestration or of confiscation, we must conclude, and the proces- verbal of sei zure says in direct terms, that it is in execution of this Decree, that it has been supposed regular to have recourse to a measure so severe. The only question to be decided therefore is, whether the Decree of the \7th of December can be applied to a visit made the 1st of November. It would be to insult the magistrates to agitate seriously such a question before them. Some opinions may have been given in favour of the retro action relative to the knowledge which the ships visited may have had of the law: in other words, it may have been pretended, that a ship visited since the Decree, was submitted to its dispo-. sitions, notwithstanding they could not be known to those to whom they were applied : but nobody has hitherto either said or thought that the law could have anv operation on a visit which had taken place before its existence; that, as in the pre sent case, the Decree could be applied to a fact which happened forty-seven days before its promulgation. But further, the visit not only preceded the existence of the law; it was even anterior to the motive which the Sovereign has alleged for promulging it. "Considering," says.-the pream ble to the Decree, f the measures adopted by the British Go- * In France, an arbitrary Derive of Bonaparte is a law superseding all preceding laws, and has a retroactive effect : what would our Democrats, as they are falsely called, say to the King s assuming a dispensing power I 89 vernment, of the date of the 1 1th of November last : consider ing that, by these acts, the British Government has denation alised the ships of all the nations of Europe." Such are the motives expressed by the Legislator himself; they are exclusively founded on the tyrannical * dispositions of the llth of November. But our visit took place 10 days before. It is, therefore, true, not only that the fact to which it is wished to apply the De cree, is anterior to its existence, but further, that it preceded that attack upon the law of nations, without which the Decree would never have existed f . To apply this to the Charleston, it would be more than to make the Decree have a retro-active effect; it would be to place the effect before the cause, and to say that these disposi tions could govern an epoch at which they could not EVEN PXIST. Thus falls to the ground, so far as respects the present case, the forced argument of those who have said, that " the Decree of the 17th of December was so much a necessary consequence of the English Orders of the 1 1th of November, that the mere simple knowledge of the latter, ought to have put neutrals on their guard against the just reprisals which the Decree has established." Yes, this reasoning, if reasoning it can be called, must fall before the evidence in the present cause; and we shall answer to those who have hazarded it f< It was on the 1st of November that we were visited/ What then could Captain Newman do at this period ? We do not examine whether he could have prevented the visit. The law of force, and of necessity, has long ago given a solution to this question ; "that a neutral without arms, and without means pf defence, cannot resist the guns of an armed ship J." * These are the/orcerf, not the voluntary words of Mr. De la Grange. t Here Mr. De la Grange again acts the prudent part. The Decree would probably have existed, if the Order of the llth of November had **rver been issued. t The whole reasoning in this case consists in a chain of truisms, which i 90 But we say further, that he ought not to have resisted, and that, at the time of the visit, he could not kr*ow or observe any other laws than those which were in force on the Jst of Novem ber; that is, the common law of Europe, the dispositions of our ordonnance of 1681, and the arrete of the 2d Prairial, which pu nished the refusal to submit to be visited, with the same penalty of confiscation, which the custom-houseofBourdeaux would wish to apply to us to-day, " for having been visited." We may then say, with that statesman who presented to the Legislative Body the 2d Article of the CODE NAPOLEON ; "Far be from us the idea of those laws with two faces (having a double aspect) which, having incessantly one eye upon the past, and the other on the future, would dry up the sources of confi dence, and become an eternal principle of injustice, of general destruction, and of disorder." To conclude, the Decree is so evidently inapplicable to the present case, that it is impossible to conceive how the Officers of the Customs could see in it any foundation for a measure so fatal to Captain Newman, But this foreigner has not been the only victim of a zeal car ried beyond its natural limits. There is another case which we must cite, on account of its analogy to the present, and of the irresistible authority with which it furnishes us. It is that of the Charleston-packet, of which the voyage pre sented the same incidents as that of the Charleston. This vessel also sailed from the United States for St. Sebas tian, in September 1807 ; she was visited by an English frigate cm the 22 d of October. Like the Charleston, she sailed in bal last from St. Sebastian for Bourdeaux, was visited the 3d of De cember, in the course of this second passage; and, like the Charleston, entered the Gironde before the promulgation of the Decree* sometimes ridiculed as superfluous ;. but Mr. De la Grange knew to whom he addressed his MEMOIRE ; and yet he found his truisms were disregarded. 91 The Customs had also seized this Charleston-packet ; they had also deprived her of an advantageous voyage; but what was the result of this measure ? By the decision of the 18th of May, 1808, the Council order the seizure of the Charleston- packet lo be annulled. Surely, if there exist, between the two cases, any difference, it is altogether in favour of the Charleston, as she went from St. Sebastian to Bourdeavix, without having been visited, a circum stance of good fortune which had not happened to the Charleston* packet. As to other circumstances, the two cases present the most striking conformity, since the two ships, on the same voyage, were both, before the ] 1th of November, visited in going from the United States to St. Sebastian. Eadem ratio, idem jus : the magistrates who acquitted the Charleston-packet, will regret that they have not sooner rendered the same justice to the ship on the fate of which they are going to pronounce *. All this reasoning was without effect; the vessel, and her eutward-bound cargo were condemned. * No! they will not regret it: from the natural impulse of justice, had acquitted the Charleston-packet ; but from the displeasure expressed by his Imperial Majesty and King on that decision, the Council felt no repug nance ut condemning the Charleslon. No. 16. Case of the American Brig Sally, consigned to Messrs. Ridgway, Merlins, and Co. Mer chants, at Antwerp, Captain Brown. THIS ship, loaded with sugar, coffee, cocoa, and staves, set sail from Philadelphia for Bourdeaux, the 9th of November, 1807. No question was made as to the regularity of her voyage ; and it was admitted that her cargo was for the account of Ame rican citizens. She had on board every document that could be required. She had a dangerous voyage. Several leaks were sprung a very short time after her departure; she was only in the 62 of longitude, when she was obliged to work the pumps every half hour. At last Captain Brown hoped that he should soon come to the end of this dangerous voyage ; on the 29th of December he was within twenty leagues of Cordova, when he was stopped by two English frigates, the Tribune and the Indefatigable. These frigates accosted the Sally, arid the Captain of the first indorsed what follows on one of the ship s papers: " You are warned, by these presents, not to enter into any f the ports of France, or her dependencies, also into those of Portugal, of Spain, Italy, of the Mediterranean, or the colo nies of France or of Spain ; but on the contrary, to go to some one of the ports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Given, &c. 29th of December, 1807." It is easy to perceive the extreme embarrassment of Captain Brown: stopped by an obstacle which it had not been in his 93 power to overcome; obliged to retire to some shelter, since his hip could no longer keep the sea; being necessarily ignorant of the Decrees of November and December, he was compelled to take the only step which could save his brig and crew ; he made sail for the first English port. He was fortunate enough to reach Plymouth, where he anchored the 7th of January, 1808. Authentic papers found on board, prove that in fact there were no other means of safety for the Sally : beside the leaks of which we have spoken, her sails, rigging, tackle, furniture, all had considerably suffered in the course of this dangerous passage. A long and expensive repair was necessary. The vessel could not go to sea again before the 18th of February. On that day she cleared out for Rotterdam, the port which her owners had pointed out to her, in the case that had happened, of her destination forBourdeaux being frustrated. This first attempt was not successful; contrary winds and squally weather prevented the Sally from continuing her course; she put into Portsmouth the 20th of February. A struggle of two days against the elements had produced new- damage; it had become again necessary to repair the brig, and she could not quit Portsmouth till the 1st of April. The very next day she encountered a dreadful tempest, and Captain Brown thought himself fortunate in finding shelter in the port of Dover. He put to sea again the 7th of April; but new misfortunes still attended him. He experienced the most contrary wea ther. He wished to anchor; he lost his anchors. In short, there remained to him but one, and his vessel was in the most perilous situation ; when, on the 9th of April, he sought safety in the road of Flushing. He had been there four days, occupied in repairing his damages, when he was seized by the Commissioners of the Customs. The vessel was conducted to Antwerp, and unloaded. The N goods had suffered so much, that the Comptroller of the torn?, anticipating the intentions of the consignees, demanded provisionally permission to sell. This permission was granted by the COUNCIL on the -1th of May, 1808, and it is on the produce of this sale that they have now to determine. To understand properly the applicability of the decrees in this case, it must be recollected, that the Sally sailed from Philadelphia the 9th of November, 1807, and consequently before the existence of either of the decrees. Whence it results, that persons interested in this voyage could have no knowledge of these new dispositions; that they know not, and could not know any thing further than the decree of the 21st of Novem ber, 1806 (the Berlin decree) ; and even, that they only knew this with the interpretation given to it by his Excellency the Mi nister of Marine, the 24-th of December in the same year. The circumstance of having been in an English port, even if it had been voluntary, could not constitute, according to this de cree, a ground of condemnation. The mere exclusion from French ports, or confiscation in cast of a fraudulent attempt to enter, were the only penalties pro nounced by the decree against the ships and merchandize of neutral origin, which came to France after having touched in England. This was all that Captain Bro:*n knew, and all that he could know, when, on the 29th Dec. he adopted the forced resolutioa of taking shelter in an English port. He could not know the more severe dispositions that hav.e followed, since they were only taken on the 23;! of November, fourteen days after his de parture from Philadelphia. Much less could he know the pro hibition relative to the visit, since the latter, of a still more recent date, was created only by the decree of the 17th of De- cember, thirty-nine days after the departure of the Sally. The captain did not, and could not know, on this subject, any thing but the common law of nations, the ordonnance of the marine, and the arrete of the 2d Prairial* authorities whicb, 95 far from indicating a contravention in the visit t comrnande,d hint to submit to it, under pain of confiscation. The facts thus established, and independently of the supe rior force and the care of his own safety, which constrained Captain "Brown, it must be felt, that it was his duty to act, and his legal right to act .as he did. To punish him for this conduct, would be to presuppose that ; he could contravene laws which it was impossible for him to .know. Moral laws are known, or must, in the nature of things, be supposed to be known to all men, and he who tr.ans- gresses them cannot save himself from punishmem by pleading ignorance of them; but positive laws, which have only a par ticular interest in view, cannot be transgressed, while it is im possible they should be known. This would be to fall into the fatal error of retroaction f since it is a principle consecrated by the laws themselves, that they can have 220 operation on those who cannot know them. This species of retroaction relative to the knowledge that may have been had of the law, is expressly consecrated by the first article of the Napoleon Code, and by the arrte of the 2jth of Thermidor, year 11, which, in execution of the law, has determined the periods of time, after the expiration of which the laws shall be considered as known and obligatory. What the civil code has judged necessary and just with re spect to the mutual relations of citizens, must be equally just and necessary in the relations between nation and nation. The law which fixes these relations, is not indeed written: but it is not the less certain or immutable; it consists in the code of natural equity, which says, that in order to contravene, we must have the intention, and that to have the intention to contra vene, we must know the prohibition. The treaties, which we might consider as detached chapters of this grand code of natural Jaw, have also consecrated the theory of distances, relating to the retroaction of laws, We might cite a number of examples; but as this is an American *hip, it is more simple to draw our authority from the contract 96 which guarantees the rights and the obligations of the two powers. The 15th article of the convention of the year 9 says, that in case of war between one of the two states and another power, the property of the state remaining neuter cannot be confiscated, though found under an enemy s flag, if more than two months have not elapsed between the declaration of war and the time of loading. What force ought not this disposition to have, when applied to the decrees of November and December, 1807 ? Here all is in favour of a justice at least equal ; for, in short, a declaration of war is never so unexpected, as that a multitude of preced ing symptoms may not enable us to calculate upon it, and fore see it : whereas, the decrees provoked by English tyranny *, \veresomuchthemoreunforeseen, that their dispositions are in direct opposition to that common right, and that liberal le gislation which they were destined to re-establish among inde pendent states. But to assimilate the two cases, it must be concluded that the decrees, in terms of the treaty, cannot be applied but to ships sailing from America two months after their promulga tion. It has been just observed, that the Sally sailed fourteen days before one of the decrees, and thirty-nine days before the other : they cannot then be applied without producing a retroaction of seventy-four days for the dispositions of the decree of November, and ninety-nine for those of the decree of the 17th of December. Surely this misfortune cannot be reserved for those interested in the Sally ; they have a sure guarantee from this in the juris, prudence of the COUNCIL, and in the will solemnly pronounced of the SOVEREIGN. The first results from all the decisions of the COUNCIL, since they have applied the decree of the 21st of November, 1806. Such has been, on this point, their respect for the protecting * Let the reader not forget, that this is the forced language of a French advocate, to whom it would have been fatal not to have pretended to find *ome excuse for the decrees. 97 i f principle of non-retroaction, that they have acquitted even the ships, which, by forced entries into the enemy s ports, have remained there long enough to have known the penal disposi tions of the decree. The Sovereign himself applied the law in the same manner, when, in the case of the capture of the Vermont, he said that the ship was subject to confiscation, because between the 21st of November and her departure from the American port, a SUFFICIENT TIME had elapsed for her to have known the decree. Then applying the rule to a contrary case, the law cannot have any operation when a sufficient time has not existed. On these principles the Sally must be restored, even if there were nothing extraordinary in her favour; but there are cir. cumstances in her case which cannot but add force to her recla mation. We have seen that she had a most painful passage ; she was sinking from her leaks, when she was met and stopped by the English frigates ; that then she had no option ; that she could neither return to the United States, nor attempt to get into any port of France ; that when she arrived in England, it was ne cessary to undergo repairs; that this happened to her twice, and each time to have to repair considerable damages ; that, in short, always persecuted by the elements, she went to seek an asylum in Flushing, when the public authority thought fit to seize her. From hence it must be concluded, that Captain Broivn never followed the impulse of his own will; and that, under all the circumstances under which he found himself, he only yielded to a superior force which he could not resist, The chief conclusion from this is, that this captain had a right to the protection, or, if you please, to the compassion which the French laws and French magistrates have always granted to those whom misfortune has conducted to our hospfr table shores. In such cases French generosity has always made general and rigorous principles and laws bend to the particular case of hardship and distress. Thus, notwithstanding that a French or allied ship is considered to belong to the enemy, if the latter has had 98 hr in his possession for more than twenty-four hours, the law- has never taken advantage of this circumstance. It has been said, that the ship which, in such circumstances, shall have been thrown upon our coasts, ought to be restored to her for mer owners. (Ordonn. de la Marine, tit. des Prises, Art. 9 ; Arretc du 2 Pr atria I, Art. 55 J We find in this disposition the principle of the inviola bility of misfortune* Nothing could better prove the spirit of French legislation, and nothing can be more justly applicable to the present case, since in this, as well as in that which the Jaw has foreseen, we have no other interest to combat than that of the State *. And since, in the case of shipwreck, the state renounces the property legally acquired to her, it seems natural to conclude, that even on the supposition that there were a denationalisation in the present case, the State would feel the same motives for not enriching itself with the spoils of misfortune. There is a perfect parity here ; for the Sally, if the decrees \vere applicable to her, could not be more denationalised than the French ship which had been in possession of the enemy for more than four-and-twenty hours. How strong soever may be the analogy here, let us prove that generosity has gone farther still ; let us recall to the COUN CIL, that they have respected the rights of misfortune, even when tfrey have had* to judge of enemies, The affair of the Diana is within the recollection of every body. The Diana had been condemned by the two subordi nate tribunals ; because, although she was under the Prussian flag, she was without a passport ; because her muster-roll was irregular ; because there was a false destination ; in short, be cause she was loaded with merchandize proscribed by the law of the 29th Nivose. This ship was, therefore, denationalised, or, what was still worse, could not justify her nationality. The COUNCIL had to decide definitively on her fate, the 25th Ventose, year 9. * Observe, that in this case the captors were the Commissioners of the Customs at Fhishing, and not a French privateer or ship of war at sea. 99 After having discussed the different heads of condemna tion, the magistrate entrusted with the public ministry, the only adversary of the claimants, developed, on the right of asylum, principles which we cannot abridge, without weakening them. " But a more powerful motive still," said this enlightened officer, " ought to determine this decision : it is the respect due " to misfortune. " The Diana was cast upon our shores by a tempest. It was 4o zsithdraiv herself from an imminent danger, that she sought an asylum in a French port. " The danger which induced her to enter, and the Prussian colours, the respected signal of a constant neutrality, promised her, on our coasts, protection and surety. " Yet, with respect to her, the rights of hospitality and of asylum, are violated; her confiscation is urged with bitterness; it has even been pronounced. " The exercise of such a rigour is contrary to the rights of nations, to our laws, and to the constant usage of nations. " A law of Constantino ordered that a vessel wrecked should be restored to the owner. " An edict of Henry III. ef England, ordered that the re^ mains of a shipwreck, aod all the effects saved, should be restored to the owners, and freed from all right of ship^ wreck. " It was agreed, by a treaty of peace and commerce which took place between Henry VII. and Philip, Archduke of Aus tria, in 14-95, that the remains of a shipwreck should not be subject to confiscation. <f An ordonnance of Francis I. made in 154-3, declared, that in case of shipwreck, in default of a claim within a year and a day, one-third should belong to the salvors, a third to the ad miral, and the last third to the king *. * If this worthy magistrate had been acquainted with our statute-book, fce would have found, from the 3d Edw. I. down to the 26th Geo. II. mauy laws to strengthen hit argument. 100 " The first article of the title Shipwreck, in the Ordonnance of the Marine, puts under the protection and safeguard of the king, the ships, their crews, and their cargo, which shall be thrown by tempest on the coast of France. " The second article of the law of 29th March, says, that no foreign ship, which, in the course of her voyage, shall have entered an English port, shall be admitted into a port of the French Republic, except in a case of necessity; in which case, she shall be obliged to leave such port as soon as the causes of her having entered shall have ceased. " The King of Denmark has issued a declaration, importing that even ships of war of hostile powers, which shall have been stranded on his coasts, or shall have been obliged to enter his ports by the dangers of the sea, shall go out freely after the danger past. " Let me be permitted," continued this humane and enlight ened magistrate, " to bring to your recollection a circumstance preserved to us by the author of the Philosophical and Political History of the ^European Establishments and Commerce in the two Indies. " The Elizabeth, an English ship of war, was on the point of foundering, when she preferred entering the port of the Havannah : this was an enemy s port; and war raged in all its fury. " I come," said Captain Edward to the Governor of the place, " to deliver to you my ship, my sailors, my soldiers, and myself. I only ask you the Jives of my people." " I shall not," said the Spanish Commandant, "do a dishonourable action: if we had taken you in battle, in the open sea, of upon our coasts, your ship would have been ours, and you would have been prisoners. But, beaten by the tempest, and driven into this port from the fear of shipwreck, I forget, as I ought to forget, that my nation is at war with yours. You are men, and we are men too ; you are unfortunate, and we ought to have compassion. Unload then in confidence, and repair your vessel. Trade, if it be necessary, in this port, to the extent of the ex- penses you have to pay. You shall immediately after depart, and you shall have a passport beyond the Bermudas. If you be taken after that time, the right of war will have put you into our hands. But at this moment, I see in the English only foreigners for whom humanity claims our relief/ " I should think," concluded this magistrate, " that I were wanting to my own character, and to my duty to the COUNCIL, before whom I have thf honour to represent the government, if / insisted farther on principles so solemnly recognized by our laivs and those of all nations." " Let the probity displayed on all occasions by the French Government serve as a basis for your decision* Our enemies recognize and respect its magnanimity ; let us prove that it is always generous and just." These conclusions were adopted. The COUNCIL restored the Diana and her cargo. Are the principles then consecrated, now changed ? Are sentiments so noble now effaced ? Magistrates ! consult your hearts ; they will tell you, that an immense increase of glory and of power ought to redouble the generosity which directed you in the decision in the case of the Diana. We should then have nothing more to urge for the Sally, even if she were in the case of confiscation foreseen by the decrees. How can this vessel become an acquisition to the domain, when, to the safeguard which compassion assures to her, is added the certainty that the decrees cannot be applied to her ? These unanswerable arguments on the justice of the case, and this pathetic and authoritative appeal to the code of huma nity, hitherto recognized and acted upon by the tribunals of all civilized nations, had no effect. The boasted justice and gene rosity of the French seem to have fallen prostrate at the feet of their great enslaver Napoleon. The same COUNCIL, though not probably composed of the same MEN which RELEASED the Diana } CONDEMNED the Sally. d 102 NO, ir. Case of the Octavie, J. G. Collins Master. THE above ship sailed from Charlestown, in America, on the 30th of December, 1807, and bound for London; but having been spoken to, and nothing more, by two English ships of war, she was captured by the French privateer Le Grand Napo leon, and carried into Calais. The ship and cargo con, demned. No. 18. Case of the American Ship the United Captain Harding, Maritime Agent of the United States at Cadiz, Consignee of the Cargo. THIS is a case of some interest ; but I do not mean to give much of the arguments, because they are in truth nothing more, or not much more, than those urged in the case of the Sally, and pome others which I have before given at full length. I shall 103 tontent myself with stating the facts, and a few observations more particularly applicable to this case. This vessel sailed from Norfolk, in Virginia, for Algesiras, a seaport in the Bay of Gibraltar, and about ten miles to the north of that fortress. This was on the 25th of December, 1807, only eight days after the promulgation of the Milan Decree, at a period when it was impossible the existence uf that decree could be known in. America, supposing America to have been bound by it, if it had been known. It is necessary to state the contents of her cargo, to shew that it was impossible. I beg pardon for the expression " impos sible !" because no transgression of the law of nations and of moral justice is impossible to Bonaparte ! nothing but physical impossibilities can stop his career. I say impossible, according to every acknowledged principle of the iavv of nations, or of justice, to condemn this ship. Her cargo consisted of 2,000 barrels of flour, on freight, for the account of a house in Philadelphia, and 11,500 staves, for the account of the o-ners of the .ship. The neutrality of the ship was justified by every document found on board ; in fact it was not disputed by the captors: but they said she was denationalized by the terms of the Decree of the 17th of ecember, 1807. They further alleged, but without semblance of proof; but they alleged that she was for enemy s account, or at least, that she was insured in an enemy s country. And further they alleged, but still merely alleged, for all the proofs were against these allegations, that she had attempted fraudulently to get into Gibraltar ; and that she carried provi sions to an enemy s fortress in a state of blockade. It is true she carried provisions, not for an enemy s fortress in a state of blockade, but for the allies of Bonaparte. The vessel was just on the point of entering Algesiras, the place of her destination, when she was descried by twelve pri vateers, one French (the Diablotin] and eleven Spanish. She was captured and conducted into Algesiras. She was in the o 2 10* first instance sequestered ; but a dispute arose between the eleven Spanish privateers and the Diablotin, who was intitied to her. The Diab/otin grounded his pretensions on the circum stance that it was he who had put men on board to take care of her. The cause was remored to the COUNCIL of Prizes at Paris ; a long argument was held as to the right of jurisdiction, with which I shall not trouble the reader, because she was afterwards simply condemned on the principle that she had been visited by English cruizers. The advocates for the vessel insisted on the principle they had, to use their own language, so often invoked in vain, that if she had in fact been visited in the sense of the Decree, the latter could not be applicable to her, because she could not know of the existence of the Decree when she sailed the non retroactive principle. But they insisted that she had not in fact been visited. Captain Harding, they said, (and they were not contradicted) on his interrogatories on this pretended visit (search), answered, " that about the latitude of Cadiz, he had been hailed by a ship of the English squadron, which ordered him to go and speak to the Admiral; that in the interval there came two or three boats on board, toa&k/.iin whether they might buy flour for their use ; that he REFUSED to sell them, any, telling them that he was consigned to dlgesuas : that a long time after, as lie was sailing at a small distance from the squadron, he was hailed by another bark, with an Officer, who asked him for three or four barrels of flour, to which he answered as before ; that having asked the Officer what he wished with him, the latter answered that he .-hould return to his Commander and make his report; that seeing nobody give himself any trouble about him, he veered about, and made his way to Algesiras," when he was taken by the Diablotin and the eleven Spanish privateers. Such are the facts, says the French advocate, which prove that there was no vv-.it, in the sense of the Decree, and he goes- on to argue upon the subject ; but with the same effect as ht might have reasoned to the winds. 4 105 On the other two points it would be a waste of pen and ink to say a single syllable further than that there was not the most distant pretence on the part of the captors for making the alle gations. The ship and her cargo were, however, condemned. No. 19. Case of the American Brig the Thomas Jeffer son^ Goodrick Master. THE above brig sailed from Boston to Baltimore on the 10th of August,, 1805, there she took a cargo of American produce for Hamburgh, at which port she arrived on the 26th of Novem ber, in the same year ; sailed from thence for Bourdeaux, where she arrived the 2d of April, 1806. From thence she went to Lisbon with a cargo of wine, and returned to Bourdeaux the 20th July, 1806 ; took in another cargo of wine for Tonningen ; from thence she went again to Bourdeaux, where she arrived on the 23d of October, 1806. After which, and till she was captured, this vessel made five voyages from Bourdeaux to Mor laix, with wines. She arrived last at Morlaix on the 27th of December, in the same year ; and after having discharged her cargo of wine, belonging to a French house, she took in ballast to go back again to Pourdeaux, when Captain GOODRICK was ar rested by the Commissure de P&lice, and sent to Paris under an escort. On his arrival there, he was interrogated by Mr. Le Gonseillcr d Etat RHAL, and was liberated; but the ship was. 106 fcy order of the Senator, Minister of Police FOUCHE, seques tered provisoirement. The reasons were : that the Captain not having been visited by the English, is a proof that he was protected by them. And also, that the Captain perhaps gave them some information of what was going on in France. And lastly, that the mate was an Englishman, &c. &c. Notwith standing all these ridiculous charges, The ship was condemned. The Captain was even obliged to maintain his ship s company during the ten months that they were detained as prisoners of \var, from the time of the sequestration of the ship till it was definitively decided by the Council of Prizes in Paris. No. 20. Case of the American Brig the Edward^ S Lewis Master. THE Edzvard sailed from Philadelphia the 2 1st of Novem ber 1807, and bound for Nantes, laden with cotton, sugar, and indigo. When she was of} the Loire, she was hailed by a cutter under French colours, which however proved to be an English man of war. Being stormy and foggy, the Syren was obliged to go into the Isle dt Rhe. On the same day, the 6th of Fe bruary, a pilot came on board, and brought the ship to an anchor in the roads of St. Martin. Captain Lewis was immediately ordered to go on board the French guard-ship, where he was informed of the Milan De- 107 cree, and the Orders of Mr. Colin, Comptroller General of the Customs, which were, as has already been related,, to seize all American ships which were visited by the English, either an- Jerior or posterior to the Milan Decree. Ship and Cargo condemned. No. 21. Case of the American Ship the Phoenix , Captain Warner. THE above ship sailed from Baltimore for Trinity, in th island of Cuba, on the first of November, 1805! ! (consequently at twelvemonth before the Berlin Decree) loaded with American produce. The owner of the ship and cargo, Mr. GEORGE ERICH, merchant of New York, was himself on board. She was near her port of destination, when she was met on the 15th of the same month by a French privateer, La Jeune Estelle, of Santo Domingo, who captured her, and sent her into the port of Samana, in the said island. The charges brought forward against the Phoenix were, that the cargo, which amounted to about 26,000 piastres, was too rich to be destined to Cuba, and they suspected that she was bound to St. Domingo, then in a state of revolt against France. The second charge was, that Mr. GEORGE ERICH, the owner, was by birth an HanoTerian^ consequently an enemy. 108 To the first charge there could be no reply, as it was only a suspicion ; and as to the second, it was proved that Mr. Erich had been in America since 1799; and in the year 1804-, was naturalized a citizen of America; and if that even had not been the case, yet at the time of the capture of the Phoenix, Hanover had ceased to belong to the King of Great Britain, and was en tirely in the possession of the French. However just the cause of the claimants, the ship and cargo were condemned in Santo Domingo, and confirmed by the Council of Prizes at Paris. No. 22. Case of the Sally Ann^ W. Nichols Master. (This is a contest between Bonaparte and his brother Louis, of Holland.) THE Sally Ann sailed from Boston, and bound to Beverley. From thence she proceeded to Amsterdam, on the 1 4th of November, 1807. She was taken by the Diana English privateer, and carried into Bristol, where she arrived on the 25th of December. She was permitted to depart from thence ten days after her arrival, and prosecuted her voyage to her original place of destination. She had already entered the Tcxel, when a French privateer, Le Dunkerquois, came out to meet her, boarded her, and carried her in as a prize. This vessel having been captured on the Dutch territory, the Government of that country claim her, and if she is given up 109 by France, she will be restored to her owners: for I must giVe the Dutch Government credit for their just conduct in similar cases, which is to prevent vessels from entering their ports, if they had been visited by the English, or coming from that country ; but they never confiscate them, unless the neutrals enter by fraud. In May last the cause was not decided ; but there is every reason to suppose that she will be condemned, as other vessels which had been captured in a similar way were condemned. Of course the Council of Prizes durst not decide any cause against the interests of their Master. No. 23, Case of the Two Marys^ Captain Riley. THE Two Marys, laden with cotton, sugar, &c. sailed from New York on the 26th of December, 1807, and bound for Nantes*. She was visited by an English frigate shortly after she put into the roads of BELLE ISLE. As there were English ships of war cruizing off the Loire, there she took a pilot on board, who would take the opportunity in the night to enter the river; however, a French row-boat, which came from Belle Isle, saved them the trouble of going to Nantes. The Two Marys was taken into Belle Isle, where she was seques tered with her cargo, and afterwards condemned by the Council of Prizes in Paris. P2 no No. 24. Case of the American Brig the Syren, J. Snow, Master. THE Sj/ren was originally bound for Lisbon, when she sailed from the port of Wilmington in North Carolina, in the month of November 1807 ; she was at St. Lucar in Spain, where she was chartered to go to Petersburgh with fruit on Russian account. She sailed from St. Lucar the 8th Decem ber 1807. She was met a few days after by an English Frigate, the captain of which gave her the usual notice not to proceed to a French port, &c. In the evening of the 26th of December, being off Calais, she experienced a storm, and was driven on shore. The captain made signals of distress ; a pilot came on board th next morning, who brought the ship off, and then came to an anchor, when two boats with armed men came from the shore* One was a boat s company of one of the French ships of war at Calais ; the other belonged to a French privateer, Le Rodeur Here a battle took place between the man of war s people and those of the privateer ; however, both parties remained or* board j she was taken into Gravelines, where she was se questrated, and afterwards* by a decision of the Council e Prizes, ship and cargo were condemned. Ill No. 25. Case of the American Brig the Violet, James Merrit^ Master. THE Violet sailed from Philadelphia for Oporto, in July 1807. On her arrival there, she was chartered for Leghorn ; her cargo consisted of sugar, indigo, &c. &c. and sailed for her port of destination the 13th October 1807. On the 18th, she met an English brig of war, and was allowed to prosecute her voyage ; on the 25th she was boarded by an Algerine frigate, and owing to a misunderstanding which then existed between the two governments, the Violet was sent into Algiers, where she arrived on the 29th. On the 19th of December following, she was released by order of the Dey, and was permitted to proceed to her port of destination, where she arrived on the 3d of January 1808*. Immediately on her arrival she was taken possession of by she French custom house officers, and ship and cargo were sequestered (provisoirement) for not having a certificat d origine, which was originally on board when first captured, but which no doubt those who were in possession of the ship, thought it their interest to purloin. But the owner of the cargo, who was a French citizen, Monsieur Zignago, merchant of Genoa f, pro duced a certificate, which luckily was written on the back of the manifest, and signed by the French consul at Oporto, and which supplied the place of the certiftcat d origine; however it did not avail. Condemnation of the ship and cargo was pronounced by the Council of Prizes in Paris. * Dcy Napoleon should take lessons on the Laws of Nations, and on the observance of treaties, from the Dey of Algiers. f I make no doubt but Mr. Zignago would rather be a subject of 1 Dey of Algiers than of Napoleon; at least he found more justice from the one" than the other, as the ship was released from Algiers, on account her cargo belonging to a French citizen. F 2 No. 26. MESSRS. FAESCH, Merchants at Amsterdam, and Co. pur .chased in November 1807, 614 hhds. of Havannah sugars, from Messrs. Hope and Co. of that city, by means of Sworn Brokers ; 302 hogsheads (caisses) of which, with the certificat d origine> .were sent by land to the house of J. D. Schroder at Hamburgh ; some of the sugar, however, remained at Bremen, and 108 hogsheads were forwarded to their original destination. On the arrival of the sugars at Hamburgh, the Inspector of the French custom houses there, in the absence of the consignee, sent for their Expert, to examine the goods, who declared that the sugars came from the English Colonies ; upon the declaration of this Expert, they were consequently sequestered, and the samples were taken out of each hogshead to be sent to, the custom houses at Paris. The consignee contended against the illegality of the pro ceedings, alleging that the Law allowed two Experts, that is, one of his own chusing ; he also desired that the samples of sugar which were to be forwarded to Paris, should be taken out of the hogsheads in his presence; but finding all remonstrances ineffectual, he sent for a Notary to protest against their conduct. But the consignee as well as the Notary were threat ened with a jail if they attempted to make a protest. On the arrival of the sugars at Paris, the custom house officers of course declared them to be from the English colonies; but the case was referred to the Council of Prizes, to examine the documents which were produced by Messrs. Faesch, to prove that the sugars were lona fide from the Havannah. These were a cer tificate from Messrs. Hope and Co. accompanied with the bills of lading and invoices from America. A certificate from the ship broker at Amsterdam, proving that the aforesaid sugars were landed from American ships coming from America, was 113 also produced. However these proofs were of no avail. Th 108 hogsheads of sugar were confiscated. MR. DE LA GRANGE., Counsel for the Claimants. MR. LE PROCURE UR GENERAL for the Government. EXTRACTS OF THE CONVENTION Between the French Republic and the United States of America, signed at Paris the 8th VEN- DEMIAIRE, year 9, (30th Sept. 1800) by JOSEPH BONAPARTE, FLEURIEU, and ROEDERER, on the one part, and Messrs. ELLSWORTH, MUK- and DAVIE, on the other. AFTER the usual preamble and three articles, which have po relation with the subject before us, we will begin with ART. IV. On both sides, proofs of the neutrality of property hall be required by a passport in the following form : " To all to whom these presents shall come. Be it known that freedom and permission have been granted to , master or commander of the ship , of , bound to , laden with ; that after his ship has been visited, and before his departure, he shall make oath before the officers authorized for that purpose, that the said ship belongs to one or more of the subjects of , whose agreement shall be sub joined at the bottom of the passport; likewise, that he will observe, and make be observed by his crew, the maritime ordinances and regulations; and he shall deliver a list, signed and attested by witnesses, contain ing the names of the crew of the ship, and of all those vyho shall embark with him, &c. &c." And this passport shall of itself be sufficient, notwithstanding all regulations to the contrary, without any necessity of renew ing or revoking it, With regard to the cargo, the proofs shall be certificates containing an account of the place from which the vessel has sailed, and that to which she is bound, so that prohibited and contraband goods may be distinguished by certificates, which certificates shall have been made by the o Ulcers of the place from which the vessel shall have sailed in the usual form of the country ; and if these passports or certificates, or either of them, have been destroyed by accident, or seized by violence, the want of them may be supplied by ail the other proofs of property admissible according to the general usage of nations. ART. V. VI. and VII. Foreign to our subject. ART. VIII. In order mutually to promote the operations of commerce, it is agreed, that if (which the Lord forbid !) war should break out between the two countries, there shall be allowed mutually to the merchants and other citizens, or respec tive inhabitants, six months after the declaration of war, dur ing which period they will have the permission to retire with *nch goods and effects as they may be able to carry ofT, or to sell the whole, agreeably to their own option, without the inter position of any restraint. Not only their goods, much less their persons, can be seized on, during the prescribed, period of six months. On the contrary, they shall be furnished with passports to secure their safe reiui n home ! These passports shall avail them as guarantees against every insult aud seizure on the part of privateers, who may attempt to capture their goods and their persons; and if, during the above term, they shall have re. ceived any injury or damages from any of the parties, abet tors, &c. they shall receive complete satisfaction. ART, IX. X. XL Foreign to the subject. AHT. XII. The citizens of the two nations D)ay convey their ships and merchandize, excepting always contraban^ goods, into any port belonging to the enemy of the other country. They may navigate and trade, in full freedom and security, with their merchandize and ships, in the country, 115 ports, &c. of the enemies of either party, without encountering any obstacle or controul, and not only pass directly from the ports and fortresses of the enemy above-mentioned into neutral ports and fortresses; but moreover, from any place belonging to an enemy into any other appertaining to another enemy, whether it be or be not subjected to the same jurisdiction, un less these ports or fortresses be actually besieged, blockaded, or invested. (The remainder of this article enjoins vessels not to enter any port actually besieged or blockaded, but to veer off.) ART. XIII. Describes what is contraband, but stipulates that the ship with which they were freighted, as well as the rest of the cargo, shall be regarded as free, and in no manner ahall be vitiated by the contraband goods, whether they belong to many, or to one and the same proprietor. ART. XIV. It is stipulated by the present treaty, that free ships shall likewise ensure the freedom of goods, and that all things on board shall be reckoned free belonging to the citizens of one of the contracting parties, although the cargo, or part of it, should belong to the enemies of the two; it being understood nevertheless, that contraband goods will always be excepted. It is likewise agreed, that this freedom shall extend to the persons of those who shall be found on board the free ships, although they should be enemies to one of the two contracting parties; and it shall not be lawful to take them from the said free ships, at least if they are not soldiers, and actually in the service of the enemy. ART. XV. It is agreed on the other hand, that all good* found, put by the respective citizens on board ships belonging to the enemy of the other, or to their subjects, shall be confis cated without distinction of prohibited or non-prohibited ; and, likewise, if they belong to the enemy, to the exception always of effects and merchandizes which shall have been put on board the said ships before the declaration of war, or even after the above declaration, if it could not be known at the moment of lading ; so that the merchandizes of the citizens of the two parties, whether they are contraband or otherwise, whicj,, a . 116 has been said, shall have been put on board a vessel belonging to an enemy before the war, or even after the declaration of war, when it was not known, shall in no w^ays be subject to confiscation, but shall faithfully and bona fide be restored, without delay ; to their proprietors, who shall claim them; it being nevertheless understood, that it is unlawful to carry into the enemy s ports any goods that are contraband. The two contracting parties agree, that two months having elapsed after the declaration of war, their respective citizens, from whatever part of the world they come, shall not be allowed to allege the ignorance in question in the present article. ART. XVI. Foreign to the subject. ART. XVII. And to avoid captures upon frivolous suspi cions, and to prevent the mischief which results from them, it is agreed, that when one of the two parties shall be at war, and the other neutral, the vessels of the neutral party shall be fur nished with passports similar to .those specified in Article IV. so that it may thus appear that the vessels belong truly to the neutral party. These passports shall be valid for any number of voyages; but they shall be renewed every year if the vessel returns home during the course of a year. If these ships are laden, they shall be furnished not only with the passports above-mentioned, but likewise with the certificates described in the same article, so that it may be known whether auv contraband merchandize is on board. There shall not t>e demanded any other document, notwithstanding all usages to the contrary ; and if it does not appear by these certificates that there is any contraband merchandize on board, the vessels shall be allowed to proceed on their voyages. If, on the con trary, it appears by these certificates that the vessels have con traband merchandizes on board, and the masters offer to deli ver them up, the offer shall be accepted, and the ship shall be left at liberty to proceed on her voyage, at least, if the quan tity of the contraband merchandize is not too great to be con veniently taken on board a ship of war or privateer ; in that case, it shall be lawful to take the ship into a harbour, there to deliver the said merchandize. 117 If a ship is found without the passport, or the certificates thus demanded, the affair shall be examined by the judges or the competent tribunals ; and if it appears, by other documents or proofs admissible by the usage of nations, that the ship be longs to the citizens of the neutral party, she shall not be con demned, but shall be set at liberty with her cargo, the con traband goods excepted, and shall be at liberty to proceed on her voyage. If the captain, named in the passport of the ship, should die, or cease to command her from any cause, and another is appointed in his stead, the ship and her cargo shall not be less secure, and the passport shall remain in all its force. ART. XVIII. If the ships of the citizens of either party are met on the coast, or on the high seas, by any ship of war or privateer of the other, to prevent all disorder, the said ships of war or privateers shall keep out of cannon shot, and shall send their boats to the merchant vessel they shall meet; and it shall not be lawful for more than two or three to go on board, and ask the master to produce the passport concerning the property of the ship, drawn out according to the formula prescribed in Ar ticle IV. as well as the certificates above-mentioned, with re. gard to the cargo. It is expressly agreed, that the neutral shall not be obliged to go on board the visiting vessel, there to pro duce his papers, or give any information whatever. ART. XIX. Foreign to our subject. ART. XX. Where vessels shall be taken or stopped, under pretence of carrying some contraband article to the enemy, the captors shall give a receipt of the papers of the ship which he shall retain; which receipt shall be joined to a correct in- Toice of the said papers. It shall not be permitted to force nor to break open drawers, chests, trunks, boxes, bales, cr vases, found on board of the said ship, nor to carry of} the least article of the effects before the cargo has been disembark ed in presence of the competent officers, who shall make an inventory of the said effects. They cannot in any manner be sold, exchanged, or alienated, at least till after a legal prb- cefs, the competent judge or judges have passed sentence of us confiscation, (always excepting, however, the ship and othet articles which she contains.) ART. XXI. That the ship and cargo may be watched over with care ; and, to prevent waste, it is determined that the master, captain, or supercargo, of the captured vessel shall not be removed from on board, either while the ship shall be at sea, after having been taken, or during the proceedings which take place against her, her cargo, or something relating to her. When the ships belonging to the citizens of either of the parties shall be taken, seized, or detained, to be tried, her offi cers, passengers, and crew, shall be treated with humanity. They shall not be imprisoned nor stripped of their cloaths, nor of money for their private use, which must not exceed, for the cap tain, supercargo, or mate, 500 dollars each, and for the sailors and passengers 100 dollars each. The remaining Articles of the Convention are foreign to our subject. CONCLUSION A PERUSAL of the cases before mentioned, I have no doubt, will satisfy every impartial reader that I have not, in the previous statement, asserted any thing that is not supported by facts. The contrast between the conduct of Great Britain and of France towards America, will appear in a striking point of view. It will not only appear that the Orders in Council were extorted by the Decrees of the French ruler as a measure of self-defence against those decrees ; that they were, under all the circumstances, not only moderate, but even passives and that the mode in which they have been acted upon, contrasted with the conduct of the French cruizers, and the subsequent decisions of the Council of Prizes, deserves, in an exemplary degree, the praise of forbearance. In two cases, in particular, I have given the general substance of the discussion, which will shew the little regard felt by the Council of Prizes to the general law of nations, to solemn treaties between nation and nation, and even to the equit able interpretation of the tyrannical and absurd decrees of their pwn imperious master. 120 The other cases contain little more than a short statement of facts, on which the discussion was always to the same purpose, and always with the same effect, condemnation. I could have added double the number of similar cases ; but I did not wish to tire the patience of the reader. If to the above cases any further proof be required of the existence of a depredatory system of the French government against the commerce of America, and of the SERVILE SUBMISSION of the government of the latter to the wanton oppression of the former, let the following statement be read and considered with attention. About 18 months ago a general embargo was put on all American vessels then in the ports of France and Italy. It is true that about six months ago, the embargo was proposed to be raised; but it was on a condition the most extraordinary that ever entered into the contemplation of any go vernment to suggest. It was proposed to General Armstrong, that he should sign a bond, by which he should gua rantee the performance of the voyage of the em bargoed vessels directly to America, and their not touching at any British port or going to any of the English colonies. Let those who pretend to ex cuse the Decrees of Bonaparte, and to stigmatize the British Orders in Council in answer to these decrees, state, if they can, any instance of such a proposition having ever before been made to th accredited ambassador of an independent state. It was, perhaps, expected, that General Arm. strong would sign such a bond, in order to procure the liberation of his countrymen. He was, how ever, too cautious to fall into the snare. He pro bably saw, that even if all these ships should arrive in America, and proof could have been furnished, a negative proof, that not one of them had touched at a British port, or at any of the English colonies, yet still the ingenuity of the French government would have invented some pretence for calling upon him for the penalty of his bond. This gen tleman declined the proposition, and not one of the American vessels was released from the em* bargo, except the Fair American , which was per mitted to sail from Dunkirk last May, with a mes senger and dispatches This embargo approached very nearly to a declaration of war by the French government against America: but what remonstrance did the American government make against it; nay, what notice have they taken of it at all *? * I am persuaded that most of the governments who have their ministers in Paris, receive hut little information from them as to the real character of the tyrant. The members of the Corps diplomatique n\ that city blend the entertainments of every kind with which it abounds, and the agreeable manners of its inhabitants, with the diplomacy of the J huiileries. The pla- 122 But this is not a singular instance of the for bearance of the American and other governments falsely called neutral, in respect to the enormities committed against them by the tyrant of the con tinent and his agents. A French Admiral, Wil- laumez, about three years ago, burned all the ships of neutral nations which he met with at sea, and their cargoes : he had indeed the humanity not. to burn ilieir crews ; but took them on board his own ships, to prevent their giving information to the English. But we have not heard that any remon strance has been made against this, though the Con^ tinents both of Europe and America resound with complaints against the predominancy of England, and she is called the tyrant of the seas. She is indeed the mistress of the seas, and may she long preserve that prerogative; but, in proportion as she is powerful, she is just : let those who are ac quainted with the modes of proceeding, and the decisions given in the Court of Admiralty in Doctors Commons, compare them with those of the Council of Prizes at Paris, and then pronounce who is the tyrant of the seas. I have given in the preceding pages some of the articles verbatim of the treaty of the year 9, sures which they derive from the former, make them, in a great measure, forget the horrors of the latter ; indeed, it can scarcely be credited that, in one of the most delightful cities in the universe, where there is so much learning and civilization, a Foreign tyrant is agitating and organizing the misery of mankind/ who is endeavouring to bring Frenchmen back to the dark ages, and to "denationalise" one of the most polished nations of the Universe. 123 bet ween France and America, on which the learned advocate reasoned so ably in the cases which I have detailed. That I have not suppressed any thing that might contribute to a contrary con clusion to that which I have drawn, will be evident to any one who will take the trouble to read the treaty at full length as given in the Annual Register for the year 1800. Were Napoleon conscious that he is bound by the ordinary rules of justice between man and man, and between nation and nation, I might attempt to reason with him on the enormity of his conduct; but from an insatiable ambition to rule, a desire of plunder, and a hardly interrupted progress in those objects, he has adopted the maxim per fas et nefas mere: it is not with \i\mjiatjustitia rttat ecelum, but quocunque modo rein. SINCE the greater part of these sheets have beeu put to press, a diplomatic letter from the French Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed to the Ameri can Minister at Paris, has appeared in the London papers of the 16th Oct. last. This document commences with assuring the Americans, " that France admits the principle that the Flag protects the Trade/ After plunder ing the Americans, not in flagrante bdlo, but while 124 peace subsisted between the two countries, to the amount of 4 millions sterling; now that no further booty is likely to present itself under the Berlin and Milan decrees, the Americans are now told that ic free bottoms make free goods:" This suits the present purpose of the Grand Usurpateur. But I am sure the Americans will find as little security from this, as they did from the letter of the Minister of Marine, by which it was declared that the decree of Berlin was not intended in contra vention of the existing treaties with America*. The letter goes on thus : J udge, you who have a knowledge of the history of the few last years: (C In cc all her conquests, France has considered sacred^ <r private property, deposited in the warehouses " of the vanquished States, and such have had the te complete disposal of matters of trade ; and at this " moment convoys by land of merchandize, and * The letter alluded to is signed by Monsieur Cham- pagny, the present Minister for Foreign Aftairs ; but I am convinced, from internal evidence, that it is the produc tion of Monsieur Le Conscillcr d Etat Hauterive. In the year 1800, I translated into English his book, intitled " L Etat de la France a la fin de I an Vlll" which contains the very principles now held out to the world in the letter in question. During the first twelve months of my residence in Pans, I was Tery intimate with Monsieur Hauterive : and from that in- timacy I take upon myself to say, that, though he published such opinions to the world, he is far from approving of them. He is too enlightened a statesman, and too well acquainted with the writings of Grotius, Puttendorft , Vattel, &c. to say that " free bottoms ought, to make free goods." i I suppose the writer borrowed this word from the Latin tacnirn, the original meaning of which is something devoted to the Gods, something with which nobody must interfere, but the vicegerent of Europe. 125 w especially of cotton*, are passing through the e< French army and Austria, to proceed to the desti* tc nation which commerce directs." Never was there a more impudent assertion made in the face of the world, than that con tained in the first part of this paragraph ; facts which have happened within these two or three years give it the complete lie ! When the French entered Leipzig, after the battle of Jena, goods purchased from England, paid for by the mer chants of Leipzig, and of course their property, were confiscated as English property, because they had come originally from England, as it was pre tended ; but more probably because they were a valuable object of plunder. At Hamburgh, at Bremen, at Rostock, and at Weimar, all neutral cities, the satellites ofNapoleon not only seized as British, property bona fide be longing to the merchants of those towns, and long before paid for, but even made them pay a penalty for having dealt in British goods; when this mea sure was submitted to, and when another Go vernor was appointed, a new penalty was inflicted on the merchants of those unfortunate Hanseatic * Yes, especially of cotton, because that article is wanted for the manufacturers of Paris, but the moment it arrives on the frontiers it will be seized by the officers of the Custom Houses, as contraband, and confiscated to the State, a.s was the caie with the cottons of Messrs. Buff and Co. 126 towns, and a third time they were compelled to yield to the extortions of the French Satraps*! " Private property sacred ! " What is sacred to a man who has reduced MURDER TO RULE, AND * I cannot avoid taking notice of a well written and spirited letter of a Mr. Charles Viilarsf , which was circulated in print among the Author s friends about the time of the transaction-s at Lubec, addressed to Madame Fanny Beauharnois, aunt of General Beauharnois^ first husband of the Empress Josephine. After the battle of Jena (says Mr.Vi liars), the Prussian General Blucher retreated from that scene of carnage, and got to Lubec, whither he was pursued by three corps d annees commanded by Soulf, Bernadoite, and Marat. Lubec, though a fortified town,, was but ill prepared to resist the entrance of the Prussians; the latter got possession of it by a coup de main. They then put it in a stale of defence. The French got possession of it, and in violation of a capitulation, by which the lives of the Prus sians were to be spared, all of that nation who could be found were massacred. Had the matter rested here, Mr. Villars would not have exposed his life by publishing the letter in question ; but horrible to relate, the harmless and inoffensive city of LubeCj for not having made an impossible defence against the Prussians, was given up for three days to be plun dered, and submitted to every kind of cruelty that could dis grace the history of modern times. Not a female of the most tender age escaped violation. Even the hospitals and the very madhouse were not respected ! Mr. Villars observes that for thirty years to come, every family of that unfortunate city will have reason to recollect the three days that the French army passed there. He bestows great eulogiums on Bernadotte ; but says that Soutt and Murat gave every encouragement to their licentious followers. I have entered into these details, because I know there are some persons in this country very little disposed to believe any thing against the Philanthropy of their demi-god Napoleon. t Mr. Charles Villars was originally of Metz, but was at this time resident at Lubec, and an inmate of Mr. Matthias Rodde, a senator and respectable merchaat of that city for twenty years. Mr. Villars is a corresponding member of the National Institute, and about seven years ergo, obtained from that learned body a prize for a work, which he published, " On the good Effects of iha Reformation of Luther," and which has been translated into EnglLh. 127 HOBBERY TO SCIENCE ? Are treaties and alliances respected by him ? Are monarchs safe who have even been forced into an alliance with him ? Is there an honest heart which does not still burn with indignation at his conduct towards the deluded Royal Family of Spain ? He was not content with depriving them of their kingdom, but even plun dered them of their private property. The following case, I think, deserves attention, to shew how Bonaparte respects private property. When he was at Burgos, he published in one of his bulletins *, that he found there many thou sand bags of wool which he said had been pur chased for English account. It is true, he did find wool at Burgos, but the whole of it be longed to French merchants, among others, to Mr. Oberkampf, an eminent manufacturer of wool len cloth in Paris, but it was no protection against confiscation, because it was alleged that it was found upon enemy s territory ! And what does Bonaparte think of territory ? Every place is enemy s territory where a person resides who disapproves of his conduct, or is ob- * To shew what degree of credit is attached in France to Bonaparte s Bulletins, the fish, women of Paris ( Les fem?&:s dc la Halle} when they call in question a person s veracity say to them, " Vous mentez comnp un Bulletin!!!" (You lie like 4 Bulletin) Hear this, ye Quidnuncs of the Stock Exchange ! 128 noxious to him ! Thus Baden was violated when the Due D Enghien was arrested and murdered ! so was Ulm, when the patriotic bookseller Palm was seized and executed, because he, as a Ger man, published a German Patriot s Opinions on the tyrant s conduct in that unfortunate coun try. He held out a pardon to him, if he would give up the author. The man refused. His firm ness and patriotism would have saved him, if his persecutors had had an. exalted mind; however, he who delights in blood and cruelty would add that murder to the long catalogue of his crimes ! I cannot conclude without expressing my hope, founded upon an intimate knowledge of the Eonapartean System, that no English Minis ter will be found who will ever recommend his Majesty to make a peace with the man who is at the head of the French Populace! Yes, and I repeat the word populace, because no honest Frenchman regards Bonaparte as his Sovereign. In no respectable family in Paris is his name ever mentioned but with horror and disgust. And were a foreigner in France to speak well of him, the Police would lock him up and suspect him to be a foreign spy, as they are persuaded that no man who is sane or honest can speak well of such a fiend ! Let the peo ple of England be prepared then to continue this glorious struggle pro aris etfocis until his exter mination, which may not be far off! The peo- 129 pie of Rome endured Nero s and Domitian s cru elties for a time ; at last however these tyrants fell! The people of England are taxed, it is true, but let them consider that it is only an annuity ice must pay to Providence on the life of Bonaparte, and our war taxes should be termed, BONAPARTE S LIFE; ANNUITY ! ! P. S. Accounts have just been received from America, that the British Envoy, Mr. Jackson, on his arrival in that country, was hooted by the populace, that he was burnt in effigy, and that the people called out, " No Copenhagen Jackson," &c. Newspapers have related it, and I must believe it, but really it is scarcely credible, that because the measures which the British Government adopted towards the Danes are disapproved of by the peo ple of America, that an Envoy who executed the orders of his Government is to be mal-treated by the Populace of another country. As it is possible that this pamphlet may fall into the hands of the enliglitened citizens of the United States, I will make them acquainted with ISO the character of Monseigncur Le General Tiiurrcau, Grand Officier de la Legion d Honncur, Ambassadeur dc Sa Majestc I Empereur dcs Franc ais et Roi d Italic prs Ics Etatis Unis d Amerique ! EXTRACTED FROM THE MONITEUR. No. 11. Year 3. General Thurrcau was accused in the Convention by Merlin of Thionville, that he in the absence of the representative Carrier, caused the inhabitants of several districts to be assembled, and then had them all shot to the number of twelve thousand men, women and chil dren !!! No. 12. Year 3. Alquier, a Deputy., produced an order signed by General Tkurreau, addressed to General Moulins, and sent to him by his Aide de Camp Dodum, which ran thus * General Moulins is to proceed with his column to Montague, to disarm its inhabitants and annihilate (egorger] every soul without distinction of age or sex In this sitting his accusation was decreed." No. 57. Year 4. In the Council of Five Hun* dred, on a debate which took place whether Thur rcau should be tried by a Council of War or by the Civil Law, Chapelain a Deputy said, " Thur- reau has committed the most unheard of crunesiu 131 La Vendte ; by his orders, even old men, women and children were massacred I " Official, a Deputy, observed, that entire parishes (municipalities) were shot by his orders ! No. 92. Year 3. In the trial of Carrier the Deputy, for committing cruelty in La Vendee, Thurreau is accused of having signed orders for murdering men, women, and children ! In the course of that trial several witnesses deposed that General Thurreau, after an excursion in La Vendee, returned in triumph to Rennes, and wore as trophies the ears and hearts of Chouans pinned to hit coat, and in the loop of his hat* !!! Thiwreauwzs tried in the time of the Directory : he was suspended from his functions and never employed by that Government, but was brought again into notice by Napoleon Bonaparte; he is one of his Grand Officers of the Legion of Honour and a Monseigneur III Which of the two Ministers deserves most to be hooted by the enlightened Re public a?i$ of the United States ? I cannot let this opportunity pass without * See the Moniteur containing the proceedings againit Carrier and the Revolutionary Committee of Nantes ! taking notice of the Copenhagen expedition, which a French Minister in my hearing termed a " Coup de Maitre en Politique" After the peace of Tilsit, Bonaparte wished to occupy the Danish Islands, Zealand among the rest. Two of his naval officers, viz. Rear-Admiral Majendie, who was in Portugal when Junot capi tulated, and formerly captain of Admiral Ville- neuve s shin, at the battle of Trafalgar, and Captain Bergeret, many years a prisoner of war in this country in the time of the Directory, and who was four years ago made prisoner by the British in the East-Indies, and sent to France on his parole, but not exchanged to this day, were appointed Com missaries to superintend the equipment of the Danish Fleet : To every Danish ship there was a French captain appointed ; a great number of Danish and Prussian seamen, the former taken on board of British ships, and the latter, which were prisoners of war, confined at different depots in France, were sent from thence to Copenhagen es corted by French gens d Armes ! ! ! The Danish fleet would have been in the hands of Bona parte either by treaty, by ruse, or by robbery. The foresight of an active English ministry pre vented it: Had no measures been taken to pre vent it, and had the Danish fleet fallen into Bonaparte s power, the same persons who now ac cuse the English Ministers for taking the Danish 133 Fleet would then have accused them with the want of foresight. If Bonaparte s partizans in England raise a clamour against our government for this " Coup de Maitre" Bonaparte himself knows they were right. A question may arise, can Bonaparte have partizans ? to which I reply in the words of the Deputy Courtois, who made a report to the Convention on the papers found in the possession of Maximilian Robertspierre, " Si la Peste avail des Pensions d donner, elle trouverait ses adorateitrs ///" THE END, Printed by Mcrcicr and Chervet, No. 32, Little Bar tholomew.Cloe, London. RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT TO ^ 202 Main Library LOAN PERIOD 1 HOME USE 2 3 4 5 6 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY FORM NO. DD6 BERKELEY, CA 94720 @$ ^n - -Pv-UWL.*-: / ^ * bt -e^^ U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES . : > THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY