Star.
London, England, 1812-07-31 00:00:00

efts, 'puler certain qualifications and conditions,
"could never be considered as an actual revocation.—
If any Decree for repealing the Berlin and Milan
Decrees was ever issued, why was it not published to
the world in the same authentic manner that those
Decrees were ? or why, when it was so often called
for, both by our Government and the American Mi.
misters, was not such a Decree. produced, or an' 'vi-

. .
~ --.w .. ly e'.
.Iment. He would be doing -a
great injus-
(fence procured of . its existence ? Surely, nothing tice, indeed, to Mr. Russel, if he were to attribute
hold be more reasonable than the demand for such his silence upon this head to any thing but his com-
evidei
nce on the part of the American Ministers ! . plete gnorancetf the existence of such i document :
The revocation was held out as a boon to America ; : he was the American Minister in France at the date
and when the fate of so much American property i of this decree, and yet he had never made any allu.
depended on the proof of the existence of this revoca- 1 sion pa such a document in answer to the many press.
thin, why was not this proof furnished, if it really' ing solicitations which had been made to him to pro-
existed ? If it had existed, nothing would have been i cure evidence of the repeal. rn the case of a ship
ea: er than to produce it. It must have existed ini taken under our Orders in Council, where the crew
an hundred quarters— in general directions to Prize i afterwards rose upon the captors, and carried the
Cenits—in the instructions to French cruizers—and ' vessel into Havre, giving up nine Englishmen as
in a variety of modes which would be easily proved. prisoners of war to' the enemy, the Captain claimed
. No, proof of that sort was ever attempted. When the liberation of his ship, not in virtue of the pre-
the case of the Fox came to be argued, in the year 1 tended decree of repeal, but for this meritorious ser.
1811, the claimants did not attempt to set up any I vice ; and although the claim was. finally allowed,'
other case except the Duke of Cadore's letter, and ' yet Mr. Russel could never learn whether this Jibe.:
the opinion of the American Government, that -this il ration was not a special exemption from those De.
letter amounted to a revocation, as far as America I trees which had been said to have been repealed for
was concerned. The opinion of the American Go- ! many months. Neither had Mr. Barlow heard of
vernment would, no doubt, regulate their practice ; the existence of this paper, any more than Mr. Russel.
hut it was no evidence to determine him, sitting in a i —lf . even this paper had existed, it would have no
Court of law, to say that this letter amounted to a • validity in law, for want of promulgation. When
repeal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees. The claim- the Ruler of France chose to send this paper into
ants in that case were allowed abundant time to pro- the world, antedated by above a year, it was evi.
cure evidence ; and if they could have procured any dently one of those exorbitant demands which that
evidence sufficient to satisfy the judicial conscience person is in the habits of making on the credulity of
of the Court that those Decrees were repealed, he mankind. It was hardly to be doubted that this
had no doubt but that such evidence would have paper owed its existence to the declaration of the
satisfied the British Government. No evidknee had '2lst of April last • and to claim now under such a
been given of any practice which could induce a be- document from the date it bore; was to require that
lief that the Decrees, even with respect to America, it should have operation long before it existed.—
, bad been revoked at the time mentionxl in the Duke , The Court would not now admit far:her proof of such
of Cadore's letter. On the contrary, there was the a document having been in existence. Such proof
letter of Mr. Russel, the American Minister at Paris, could only be sought in the ?fficina fraudis, whence
dated in May, 1811, which stated, " that no, ship ; the fabrication first issued with every stain of inbred
, brought into the ports of France since the Ist of No- ' corruption on its front. Some auxiliary proof had,
vember, 1810, bad either been released or brought to indeed, been relied on, viz. two letters to the Cour:-
trial." It the Orleans packet was afterwards relea- cil of Prizes in December, 1810. It was a little re-
set!, still,..he should ask, how could it happen that markable, that these letters were not produced in
that vessel should be seized at Bourdeaux some evidence in the case of the Fox ; but it might, pet--
months after the Orders were said to be revoked, and haps, be accounted for, from their affording a cont-
detained for such a considerable time, if ever any plete falsification of the Duke of Cadore's letter.—
revocation of those Decrees had been made public ? They in their turn were falsified by Mr. Rusel's let.
What would be said in this country, if, two months ter of May 8, 1811, which stated, that no American
after the repeal of our Orders in Council, an Amer. vessel brought in since the Ist of November, had
can ship were to be seized under them at Liverpool, either been released or brought to trial. It is true ,
and detained for many months ? The thing was al- that he stated, that two months after, they had all
most impossible. If such a seizure were to take place been restored in the beginning of July. Mr. Russel
here, the owners would immediately know that .they had since come to this country, and had put in an
were entitled, not only to restitution, but to damages affidaVit, in which he states, " that he believed that
for the detention, and to costs. The captors would no American vessel had been condemned in the
aim know it immediately, and would be advised to lose ' French ports since November, 1810, as he is of opi.
no time in offering satisfaction. If the Decrees werenion, that in such case he must have heard of it."—
really revoked, it appeared to him absolutely inspos- This affidavit was only, however, as to his belief and
able that such revocation should not hap been known opinion. If any orders in Council were repealed in
at Bourdeaux, or that it should have required such a this country, there would be no doubt or uncertainty
lenbth of time to determine on those cases. In about the matter. He should next proceed to make
March, 1812, the Duke of Bassano mentions, in an some observations on those cases which were said to
official paper, that gg the Berlin 'and Milan Decrees prove that those Decrees were in fact repealed as to
were in full force, . and that they were fundamental America. There was first the case of the Acastus,
laws of the Empire." In this assertion there was bound froM Norfolk to 'ronnino•en ; and which after
no exemption stated with respect to America, al- a very long detention, was at last discharged by the
though that is now by far the most considerable,if not French Emperor, in condition that it should be
the only neutral power likely to be affected by them. proved not to have violated the French navigation
By his Majesty's Declaration of the 21st of April, : laws. On this case lie 'could only say, that it ap.
the Court was empowered to receive evidence from: peared strange how a neutral ship coming directly
the claimants themselves of the repeal of those De- , from its own country to the ports of another neutral,
trusts if they cot.ld procure any evidence to that effect. could, for a moment, be supposed to be violating any
By the Order of the 28d of June, the British Govern- . French navigation laws. The next cases were those
ment remokt d the. Orders in Council, and annulled; of the schooner Fly, from New York, ostensibly
their operation from the 23tb of May last, leaving all , bound to Petersburgb, and which was carried into
the cases of capture before that pet iod to the operation Cowes, but afterwards proceeded to Havre ; and the
of she law. The British Government, however, by , case of the Phoebe, from Boston to France. As to
1.0 means recognized the authenecity of the instru. I the first of those cases, he would say, that as it was
ment lilt iuto their hands on the 20th of May, or ac. a fraud in favour of France, it was not surprising
knowLdged that paper as a bona fide decree of repeal, • that the vessel was not seized ; but both those two
bearing the date prefixed to it; but revoked the Orders cases were cases of vessels sailing with French licenses.
in Council as a measure of conciliation to America. In fact, of the seven cases which had been relied on,
The date of this paper was neither subsequent to his i three were of vessels sailing under French licenses ;
Majelty's declaration of the 21st of April, nor had it two were of vessels restored, not by the judgment of
'been publicly promulgated, nor had it been acted' any .tribunal, but from the mere pleasure of the,Scr.
upon. To meet the terms ef the declaration of April,' vereign ; and one, (that of the Anna Maria), where
it ought to have been a repeal of the Berlin and Mi- Ino proof was given that the French tribunals had
lan Decrees generally, and not merely with respect' any knowledge at all of' that vessel having acted in
to America. It ought to have been unconditional, : violation of those Decrees. There, therefore, did
and its authenticity regularly proved. This was, in ! not remain one single case which had any authority
fact, the title-deed under which the parties claimed ; . at all ; as acts merely of•the grace and pleasure of
and its 'authenticity was therefore the first thing to I the Ruler of France could never be cited as the law
rbe proved by them. The usual proofs of authenticity of that country, or tha rules which guided their tri-
were either from internal good faith, or external le-, bunals. If there had been a practice in the French
gitimacy. What was the external proof ? This do. I courts, founded upon this .supposed decree, there
cument had never been published in the official papers ! must have been numerous cases which would .have
of France ; it had never been communicated to the : been determined by it ; but of such, no evidence had
American or any other Government. The American been given. He would not allow that even the non.
Minister did not say when he got' it, or from whom 1 execution of the Berlin and Milan Decrees could be
he got it. If the Court were to receive it as an act properly considered as a repeal of them. The ces-
of the French Government, it could only be out trfisatien in the exercise might arise from some motive
deference to Mr. Russell. Supposing this to be a; of temporary policy ; but a repeal ought to be pub.'
suffieient external pool, how was it verified inter.; licly promulgated, and the cases which would be real
i
:tally ? Instead of bearing the appearance of good , authority in favour of the repeal must be the fibers.'
faith, it was-stamped with all the characters of fal- ' tion of vessels by the judgment of the proper tribunahr,
lacy and fraud. 'l'lle paper had no appearance of i and not by the special favour of the French Emperor.'
authenticity on the face of it, as it bore date in April, ! It had been stated, that three American vessels bound
1811, and had never been produced or heard of till !to British ports were visited by French cruizers, aced
thins
May, 18!Q. The date of the instrument was of great I suffered to proceed to their destination. Such asp
importance, when it vas considered whether it was ' as that had sometimes happened from particular cm-
or was not a lona Pe instrument. An untrue date cumstances even to British vessels, when the French
being found attached to it was a falsification of a fa- : cruizers had more prizes than they could man, or
tal nature, when the deceptioo was evidently intended; any circumstance made it inconvenient to them to
for the purpose of fraud. There wits every reason to I take possession of'them. The statements, however,
believe that the instrument never had existence until proved rather too much, as two of those three ves-
the French Government had received the Declaration eels were laden with naval stores, which are already
of the 91st of April. There was no individual who contraband of war ; and it might as well be inferred

ventured to assert any knowledge of its previous ex-
istence. Every motive of just and honourable policy
required that the greatest publicity should have been
given to such a Decree, if it had really been in exist-
ence, and that it was intended to be acted upon. If
it had existed, and the American Minister knew of
its existence, how could he have kept it back till the
20th of May, 1812 ? Ia the warm controversy which
had taken place between America and this country
on the subject, the correspondence on our part con-
sisted vefy much of a demand for the production of
any authentic document repealing those Decrees.—
No such document was known by the Americ4a Mi-
-1 nisters—no such document was knowq to the 'fribtr
nals or Prize Ctiorts of France, or to those persons

from this, that France meant to abandon her ac-1
knowledged and undeniable maritime rights, as that '
she meant to give up the Berlin and Milan decrees.—
Whatever restitutions were made as mere acts of
State, Land not from the judgments.. of tribunals,
could not be received as any authority to prove howl
the law stood in France. It might be said by sorne,l
that neutrals had no right to prescribe the mode of
restitution, provided the restitution was in fact made,'
He, on the contrary, asserted, that they had a right
to expect that in France,, as well as every civil.zed
country, there should be regular tribunals where they
might claim redress ex &bite jautilis, and not as a
matter of Court favour, caprice, or State policy. It
appeared that-the French Ruler kit the inestinii 041
•

'

P"'''''''''' • s'.` '4f? ''''.'"&" "sfitle..44•3olPieigeaNDMllr,
who were principally•aTecteci by it. Now in this; restitution of American vessels to be determined by
Gountry, every order which was given from the Co- his special pleasure. Now this country did demand,
vernment to the Prize Court was accessible to every 1 and had-a right for demand, that there should be a
body who was interested in it. Allowing to the , clear and definite rule of law, acting in a clear and
French Tribunals as much dishonest secrecrof their definite manner ; and that matters of this girt should
principles as any one could allow them, still it was nut be left in a state of uncertainty or perpetual flue.
evident, from their conduct, that they knew of 'no I tuation. It, therefore, appeared to him, that there
.. . -
such doctr " .

was no evidence that any legal revocation of those
decrees had taken place; and that the instrument
relied upon by the claimants as their title deed, had
no marks of authenticity about it, but was evidently
fabricated for a particular purpose. There were
many considerations connected with these transactions
which he did not feel himself now called upon to
give an opinion on. He should not, therefore, say ,
how far a nation calling itself neutral was justified
by the law of nations in separating itself from the ge-
neral society of neutral nations, and accepting as a
boon fur itself an eaemptinn from a principle which-
went to the direct subversion of all neutral rights t•--•
nor would he say to what extent this selfis!‘ favour
would justify them, for not res;qing such violations
of the law of nations. He should determine on the
case before him, and on all those that depended on
the same principle,, that the instrument purporting to
be a French Decree, dated in April, 1811, did not
take those cases out of the general operation of the
law, as described in the Orders in Canned ; and that, •
therefore, those vessels captured under them before
the 20th of May last, could not be discharged frogs
their operation. It was only to the vessels captured
after the 20th of May, that the revocation of the Or-
ders in Council applied. He felt peculiaf satisfaction
in thinking, that if his opinion on this important
question should be erroneous, there was another
Tribunal (the Court of Appeals) in which it might
be reconsidered.
COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 29.
SIR I'. CLAROES, BART. V. ANNESLEY.
Sir S. ROMILLY stated, that this was a motion for
an injunction to prevent the defendant from ejecting
the tenants of the plaintiff, and to oblige, him to give
up a certain paper of settlement between them. It
appeared that the plaintiff became the proprietor of
the Theatre and Crcus at Brighton, w:iere he met
the defendant. The former aas a Baronet, posses.
sing vast estates in the North of England, and the
latter an Attorney. He became acquainted with the
defendant in 1808, and gave him up the manage-
ment of his estates. On the 13th of June, 18-9, the
plaintiff and the defendant came to a settlement of
their accounts, when a paper was produced by the
defendant, by which it appeared that the plaintiff
was indebted to him the sum of £5,571. The plain-
tiff gave him a mortgage on certain parts of his
estate ; shortly after the defendant gave notice to the
tenants that they should pay their rents to him as the
mortgagee, on which the plaintiff filed a bill of dis-
covery, and prayed now for an injunction, and that
the paper should be produced. The 'plaintiff also
empowered the defendant to receive from his trus-
tees, Lady Clarges, his mother, and the Bishop of
Durham, his uncle, £16,000, which were lodged in
the Funds, which he received. The Learned Coun-
sel observed, the injunction was only asked on the
terms that the plaintiff should pay the interest due on
the mortgage.
Mr. RICHARDS, for the defendant said, the paper
applied for was not in the possession of his client, who
had sworn in his affidavit on the file, that he believed
it was in the hands of the plaintiff, as he had at dif.
ferent times come to his chambers, and had taken se.
veral documents away. The defendant had no wish
to proceed on the deed of mortgage if the interest
WAS paid up, which would make an injunction un-
necessary. As to the other part of the motion, he
thought it would be too much fur the Court to order
a man to produce a paper not in his posession.
The LOUD CHANCELLOR—" I will look at the an.
swer, and give my opinion on an early day. An At..
turney may take a mortgage of his client, but the
Court will look at it with most anxious jealousy."
JULY 30.
hhe LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment on the mg)•
tion made by Sir Samuel Romilly in this cause yes-
terday. His Lordship observed, he had read the
bill and answer with the greatest attention, and was
of opinion that the defendant had not a right to in-
terfere with the plaintiff's tenants, but that the plain-
tiff ought to pay up the interest due on the mortgage.
He also observed, it would be an easy matter for the
plaintiff th amend his bill; if he did so, he (his Lord-
ship) would expect the most full and explicit answer
from the defendant. He perceived that the mort-
gage was not only for a debt due, but it contempla-
ted bills of costs, that might become due. The Court
would look at that with a most jealous eye.
HaeraaßaEr THEATRE.--WINSTON V. mottam,
The discussion of the disputes between the Pro.
prietors, Managers, and Treasurer of the Haymarket
Theatre, occupied the attention of the LORD CHAN.
CELLOR during a considerable part of the morning.--
His Lordship expressed himself quite wearied nut by
the continual motions on this subject, and observed,
that if the duty of managing Theatres was to be irna
Ilposed upon the Court of Chancery, it would not only
be necessary far the Chancellor to have Assistants,
but a branch of the Court must be transferred to the
east and west side of the Haymarket. As the parties
seemed disposed to ruin each other by litigation,, he.
should look into the affidavits and papers with a view
of putting an end to the suit altogether, if possible.
The name of the unfortunate Gentleman who owl.
denly expired in the Haymarket-Theatre on Monday,
evening was WARNER. He filled a situation in his Ma.
jesty's Household, and was much respected. The
attention paid by Mr. MORRIS, one of the Proprie-
tors and Treasurer of the Theatre, to the deceased
Gentleman, is beyond all praise. With great piompd.
_ _
accident -

tude, Mr. lvionats, when the .t -was made
known to him, instantly di.patched a messenger for
medical assistance, and after it was ascertained that
the spark of lite had fled, he ordered two men to pass
the night beside the body, lest the Medical Gentlemen
might have been deceived by appearances. After '
the Cormier's Jury had sat open the body,l4r. Mot-
ets accompanied it the residence of
land•strect,,and delivered r
the various anti
of the deceased.
. Yesterda-
dreadfully ..
and the wall
WaVeie4 Ir


.


npanied it to the residetwe of the &veiled in •
sect,,and saw it delivered to his sifter, with •
as articles which were fount in the poetess. •
:eascd.
tay a tradesman in Drury-blue was mpbg
y . rasned between the wheel of post-cl•ai,e
rail of a stable-yard in Holboist. He was
home with little signs of life.
•