[287] The French will not suffer a Power which seeks to found its prosperity upon the misfortunes of other states, to raise its commerce upon the ruin of that of other states, and which, aspiring to the dominion of the seas, wishes to introduce everywhere the articles of its own manufacture and to receive nothing from foreign industry, any longer to enjoy the fruit of its guilty speculations.—Message of Directory to the Council of Five Hundred, Jan. 4, 1798.

[288] Message of Directory to Council of Five Hundred, Jan. 4, 1798.

[289] The act imposing these duties went into effect Aug. 15, 1789. Vessels built in the United States, and owned by her citizens, paid an entrance duty of six cents per ton; all other vessels fifty cents. A discount of ten per cent on the established duties was also allowed upon articles imported in vessels built and owned in the country. (Annals of Congress. First Congress, pp. 2131, 2132.)

[290] Am. State Papers, vol. x. 502.

[291] Ibid., p. 389.

[292] Ibid., p. 528.

[293] Ibid., p. 584.

[294] Macpherson's Annals of Commerce, vol. iv. 535.

[295] Am. State Papers, vol. i. 243.

[296] Annual Register, 1793, p. 346*.

[297] Am. State Papers, i. 240. A complete series of the orders injuriously affecting United States commerce, issued by Great Britain and France, from 1791 to 1808, can be found in the Am. State Papers, vol. iii. p. 262.

[298] Am. State Papers, i. 240, 241. How probable this result was may be seen from the letters of Gouverneur Morris, Oct. 19, 1793, and March 6, 1794. State Papers, vol. i. pp. 375, 404.

[299] Am. State Papers, vol. i. p. 679.

[300] Wheaton's International Law, p. 753.

[301] Monroe to the British Minister of Foreign Affairs. Am. State Papers, vol. ii. p. 735.

[302] Reply to "War in Disguise, or Frauds of the Neutral Flag," by Gouverneur Morris, New York, 1806, p. 22.

[303] Russell's Life of Fox, vol. ii. p. 281.

[304] Letter to Danish Minister, March 17, 1807. Cobbett's Parl. Debates, vol. x. p. 406.

[305] A letter from an American consul in the West Indies, dated March 7, 1794, gives 220 as the number. This was, however, only a partial account, the orders having been recently received. (Am. State Papers, i. p. 429.)

[306] By the ordinance of Aug. 30, 1784. See Annals of Congress, Jan. 13, 1794, p. 192.

[307] The National Convention, immediately after the outbreak of war, on the 17th of February, 1793, gave a great extension to the existing permission of trade between the United States and the French colonies; but this could not affect the essential fact that the trade, under some conditions, had been allowed in peace.

[308] In fact Monroe, in another part of the same letter, avows: "The doctrine of Great Britain in every decision is the same.... Every departure from it is claimed as a relaxation of the principle, gratuitously conceded by Great Britain."

[309] Mr. Jay seems to have been under some misapprehension in this matter, for upon his return he wrote to the Secretary of State: "The treaty does prohibit re-exportation from the United States of West India commodities in neutral vessels; ... but we may carry them direct from French and other West India islands to Europe." (Am. State Papers, i. 520.) This the treaty certainly did not admit.

[310] See letter of Thos. Fitzsimmons, Am. State Papers, vol. ii. 347.

[311] The pretexts for these seizures seem usually to have been the alleged contraband character of the cargoes.

[312] Am. State Papers, vol. ii. 345.

[313] It will be remembered that the closing days of May witnessed the culmination of the death struggle between the Jacobins and Girondists, and that the latter finally fell on the second of June.

[314] Am. State Papers, vol. i. pp. 284, 286, 748.

[315] Ibid., p. 372.

[316] One of these complaints was that the United States now prohibited the sale, in her ports, of prizes taken from the British by French cruisers. This practice, not accorded by the treaty with France, and which had made an unfriendly distinction against Great Britain, was forbidden by Jay's treaty.

[317] Speech of M. Dentzel in the Conseil des Anciens. Moniteur, An 7, p. 555.

[318] Am. State Papers, vol. ii. p. 28.

[319] Ibid., vol. ii. p. 163.

[320] Letter to Talleyrand, Am. State Papers, vol. ii. p. 178.

[321] Ibid., vol. i. pp. 740, 748.

[322] The day after the news of Rivoli was received, Mr. Pinckney, who had remained in Paris, though unrecognized, was curtly directed to leave France.

[323] Am. State Papers, vol. ii. p. 13.

[324] Ibid., p. 14.

[325] American State Papers, vol. ii. p. 14.

[326] Moniteur, An v. pp. 164, 167.

[327] March 1, and October 8, 1793. Ibid.

[328] Speech of Lecouteulx; Moniteur, An v. p. 176.

[329] Macpherson's Annals of Commerce, vol. iv. 463.

[330] Macpherson's Annals of Commerce, vol. iv. 413, note.

[331] Of the imports into Germany, three fifths were foreign merchandise re-exported from Great Britain.

[332] These figures are all taken from Macpherson's Annals of Commerce, vol. iv.

[333] See Am. State Papers, vol. x. p. 487.

The significance of these figures lies not only in the amounts set down directly to the West Indies, but also in the great increase of exports to Germany, and the high rate maintained to France, Belgium, and Holland, with which war existed. Of these exports 25 per cent in 1792, and 43 per cent in 1800, were foreign merchandise, chiefly West Indian—re-exported.

[335] In 1800 the captured islands sent 9 per cent of the British imports.

[336] Moniteur, An vii. pp 478, 482.

[337] Am. State Papers, vol. ii. p. 8.

[338] Moniteur, An vii. p. 502.

[339] Ibid., p. 716; Couzard's speech.

[340] Moniteur, An vii. p. 555; Dentzel's speech.

[341] Ibid.; Lenglet's speech.

[342] Ibid., pp. 582, 583. The figures are chiefly taken from the speech of M. Arnould. A person of the same name, who was Chef du Bureau du Commerce, published in 1797 a book called "Système Maritime et Politique des Européens," containing much detailed information about French maritime affairs, and displaying bitter hatred of England. If the deputy himself was not the author, he doubtless had access to the best official intelligence.

[343] In consequence of the law of Jan. 18, 1798, the British government appointed a ship-of-the-line and two frigates to convoy a fleet of American vessels to their own coast.—Macpherson's Annals of Commerce, vol. iv. p. 440.

[344] Moniteur, An vii. p. 564; Cornet's speech.

[345] Annals of Congress, 1798, p. 3733.

[346] Ibid., p. 3754.

[347] Ibid.

[348] Speech of February 2, 1801.

[349] Speech of March 25, 1801.

[350] Annual Register, 1801; State Papers, p. 212.

[351] Ibid., p. 217.

[352] The principle of the Rule of 1756, it will be remembered, was that the neutral had no right to carry on, for a belligerent, a trade from which the latter excluded him in peace.

[353] By a report submitted to the National Convention, July 3, 1793, it appears that in the years 1787-1789 two tenths only of French commerce was done in French bottoms. In 1792, the last of maritime peace, three tenths was carried by French ships. (Moniteur, 1793, p. 804.)

[354] Moniteur, An vii. p. 582; Arnould's speech.

[355] Annual Register, 1804. State Papers, p. 286.

[356] The exports of the French West India islands in 1788 amounted to $52,000,000, of which $40,000,000 were from San Domingo alone. (Traité d'Économie Politique et de Commerce des Colonies, par P. F. Page. Paris, An 9 (1800) p. 15.) This being for the time almost wholly lost, the effect upon prices can be imagined.

[357] An American vessel arrived in Marblehead May 29, landed her cargo on the 30th and 31st, reloaded, and cleared June 3. (Robinson's Admiralty Reports, vol. v. p. 396.)

[358] In the case of the brig "Aurora," Mr. Madison, the Secretary of State, wrote: "The duties were paid or secured, according to law, in like manner as they are required to be secured on a like cargo meant for home consumption; when re-shipped, the duties were drawn back with a deduction of three and a half per cent (on them), as is permitted to imported articles in all cases." (Am. State Papers, vol. ii. p. 732.)

In the case of the American ship "William," captured and sent in, on duties to the amount of $1,239 the drawback was $1,211. (Robinson's Admiralty Reports, vol. v. p. 396.) In the celebrated case of the "Essex," with which began the seizures in 1804, on duties amounting to $5,278, the drawback was $5,080. (Ibid., 405.)

[359] The text of the Berlin decree can be found among the series beginning in American State Papers, vol. iii. p. 262.

[360] A curious indication of the dependence of the Continent upon British manufactures is afforded by the fact that the French army, during this awful winter, was clad and shod with British goods, imported by the French minister at Hamburg, in face of the Berlin decree. (Bourrienne's Memoirs, vol. vii. p. 292.)

[361] Am. State Papers, vol. ii. p. 805.

[362] Cobbett's Parl. Debates, vol. xiii. Appendix, pp. xxxiv-xlv.

[363] Thiers, Consulat et Empire, vol. vii. pp. 666-669.

[364] Letter of Lord Howick to Mr. Monroe, Jan. 10, 1807; Am. State Papers, vol. iii. p. 5.

[365] President's Message to Congress, Oct. 27, 1807; Am. State Papers, vol. iii. p. 5.

[366] Correspondance de Napoléon.

[367] British Declaration of September 25, 1807,—a paper which ably and completely vindicates the action of Great Britain; Annual Register, 1807, p. 735.

[368] Annual Register, 1807. State Papers, p. 771.

[369] Ibid., p. 739.

[370] Lanfrey's Napoleon (French ed.), vol. iv. p. 153.

[371] Corr. de Nap., vol. xv. p. 659.

[372] Annual Register, 1807, p. 777.

[373] See, for example, Cobbett's Parl. Debates, vol. viii. pp. 636 and 641-644; vol. ix. p. 87, petition of West India planters; p. 100, speech of Mr. Hibbert, and p. 684, speech of Mr. George Rose.

[374] See ante, p. 273.

[375] Am. State Papers, vol. iii. pp. 245-247.

[376] Cobbett's Parl. Debates, vol. xiii. Appendix, pp. xxxiv-xlv.

[377] Am. State Papers, vol. iii. pp. 23, 24.

[378] Annals of Congress, 1807, p. 2814.

[379] Annals of Congress, 1808-1809, p. 1824.

[380] There were three Orders in Council published on the 11th of November, all relating to the same general subject. They were followed by three others, issued November 25, further explaining or modifying the former three. The author, in his analysis, has omitted reference to particular ones; and has tried to present simply the essential features of the whole, suppressing details.

[381] The attention paid to sustaining the commerce of Great Britain was shown most clearly in the second Order of November 11, which overrode the Navigation Act by permitting any friendly vessel to import articles the produce of hostile countries; a permission extended later (by Act of Parliament, April 14, 1808) to any ship, "belonging to any country, whether in amity with his Majesty or not." Enemy's merchant ships were thus accepted as carriers for British trade with restricted ports. See Am. State Papers, vol. iii. pp. 270, 282.

[382] Gibraltar and Malta are especially named, they being natural depots for the Mediterranean, whence a large contraband trade was busied in evading Napoleon's measures. The governors of those places were authorized to license even enemy's vessels, if unarmed and not over one hundred tons burthen, to carry on British trade, contrary to the emperor's decrees.

[383] On March 28, 1808, an Act of Parliament was passed, fixing the duties on exportations from Great Britain in furtherance of the provisions of the Orders. This Act contained a clause excepting American ships, ordered into British ports, from the tonnage duties laid on those which entered voluntarily.

[384] In a debate on the Orders, March 3, 1812, the words of Spencer Perceval, one among the ministers chiefly responsible for them, are thus reported: "With respect to the principle upon which the Orders in Council were founded, he begged to state that he had always considered them as strictly retaliatory; and as far as he could understand the matter they were most completely justified upon the principle of retaliation.... The object of the government was to protect and force the trade of this country, which had been assailed in such an unprecedented manner by the French decrees. If the Orders in Council had not been issued, France would have had free colonial trade by means of neutrals, and we should have been shut out from the Continent.... The object of the Orders in Council was, not to destroy the trade of the Continent, but to force the Continent to trade with us." (Cobbett's Parl. Debates, vol. xxi. p. 1152.)

As regards the retaliatory effect upon France, Perceval stated that the revenue from customs in France fell from sixty million francs, in 1807, to eighteen and a half million in 1808, and eleven and a half in 1809. (Ibid. p. 1157.)

[385] Correspondance de Napoléon, vol. xvii. p. 19.

[386] Mr. Henry Adams (History of the United States, 1801-1817) gives 134 as the number of American ships seized between April, 1809, and April, 1810, and estimates the value of the vessels and cargoes at $10,000,000 (Vol. v. p. 242.) The author takes this opportunity of acknowledging his great indebtedness to Mr. Adams's able and exhaustive work, in threading the diplomatic intricacies of this time.

[387] December 26, 1805.

[388] Metternich's Memoirs, vol. i. p. 82.

[389] Metternich to Stadion, Jan. 11, 1809; Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 312.

[390] Letter of Napoleon to Louis, dated Trianon, Dec. 20, 1808; Mémoires de Bourrienne, vol. viii. p. 134. Garnier's Louis Bonaparte, p. 351. The date should be 1809. On Dec. 20, 1808, Napoleon was at Madrid, in 1809 at Trianon; not to speak of the allusion to the Austrian war of 1809.

[391] Napoleon issued orders to this effect in August, 1807. Cargoes of goods such as England might furnish were sequestrated; those that could not possibly be of British origin, as naval stores and French wines, were admitted. All vessels were to be prevented from leaving the Weser. No notification of this action was given to foreign agents. See Cobbett's Political Register, 1807, pp. 857-859.

[392] Thiers, Consulate and Empire (Forbes's translation), vol. xii. p. 21.

[393] Mémoires de Bourrienne, French Minister at Hamburg, vol. viii. pp. 193-198.

[394] Annual Register, 1809; State Papers, 747.

[395] April 1, 1808; Naval Chronicle, vol. xxi. p. 48. May 7, 1809; Annual Register, 1809, p. 698.

[396] Napoleon saw, in 1809, that his work at Tilsit was all to be done over, since the only war Russia could make against the English was by commerce, which was protected nearly as before. There was sold in Mayence sugar and coffee which came from Riga.—Mémoires de Savary, duc de Rovigo (Imperial Chief of Police), vol. iii. p. 135.

[397] D'Ivernois, Effects of the Continental blockade, London, Jan., 1810. Lord Grenville, one of the leaders of the Opposition, expressed a similar confidence when speaking in the House of Lords, Feb. 8, 1810. (Cobbett's Parl. Debates, vol. xv. p. 347.) So also the King's speech at the opening of Parliament, Jan. 19, 1809: "The public revenues, notwithstanding we are shut out from almost all the continent of Europe and entirely from the United States, has increased to a degree never expected, even by those persons who were most sanguine." (Naval Chronicle, vol. xxi. p. 48.)

[398] Monthly Magazine, vol. xxi. p. 195.

[399] Ibid., vol. xxii. p. 514.

[400] Ibid., vol. xxi. p. 539.

[401] Monthly Magazine, vol. xxii. p. 618.

[402] Ibid., vol. xxiv. p. 611.

[403] Ibid., vol. xxvi. p. 11.

[404] Ibid., vol. xxvii. pp. 417, 641.

[405] Ibid., p. 135.

[406] Tooke's History of Prices, vol. i. pp. 300, 301.

[407] Salgues, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de la France, vol. viii. pp. 350-355. Mémoires de Marmont, due de Raguse, vol. iii. p. 365. Mémoires de Savary, due de Rovigo, vol. v. p. 115.

[408] Quarterly Review, May, 1811, p. 465.

[409] For instance, a license was necessary for a British subject to ship any articles to an enemy's port, though in a neutral vessel. In principle, licenses are essential to trade with an enemy. In 1805 and 1807 Orders in Council dispensed with the necessity of a license in particular instances; but even then merchants preferred to take out a license, because it cut short any questions raised by British cruisers, and especially by privateers. See Cobbett's Parl. Debates, vol. x. p. 924.

[410] Cobbett's Parl. Debates, vol. x. p. 406.

[411] For an interesting account of the neutralizing trade, see Naval Chronicle, vol. xxxi. pp. 288-295, and vol. xxxii. p. 119. On the License System, the Parliamentary Debates (table of contents), and the Quarterly Review of May, 1811, may be consulted.

[412] Quarterly Review, May, 1811, p. 461. Lindsay's History of Merchant Shipping, vol. ii. p 316.

[413] Petition of Hull merchants, 1812; Cobbett's Parl. Debates, vol. xxi. p. 979.

[414] Am. State Papers, vol. iii. p. 341.

[415] Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates, vol. xxi. p. 1113.

[416] Ross's Life of Admiral Saumarez, vol. ii. pp. 196, 241.