Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

that the General of Division Sernamont, Commander in Chief of the Artillery, has finished his career before Cadiz This worthy and respectable General, whose name was connected with the most memorable exploits of the war, was employed in visiting the formidable works constructed by the 1st corps of the army, when a shell, thrown, from one of the enemy's vessels, struck him in the breast. The same shot also killed Colonel Degennes, Director of the parks of artillery, and Captain Pinondelle, both very distinguished Officers. His Majesty the Emperor will certainly feel for the loss of General Sernamont. There was not in his Majesty's service an officer who was more zealous in the discharge of his duty. Every thought of his was directed to the service, the glory of the Imperial armies, and the improvement in tactics of the illustrious corps of which he was one of the most distinguished Commanders.-The honours due to the rank of General Sernamont will be paid to him by the 1st corps of the army, and also to Colonel Degennes and Capt. Pinondelle. The heart of General Sernamont will be embalmed, to be conveyed to France, and placed at the disposal of the Emperor.-The General of Brigade, Daboville, has been provisionally nominated to the command of the artillery of the army, and the Chief of Battalion, Lignim, to that of the parks, until his Majesty shall have filled up these two vacancies. The Generals and superior officers of artillery, employed with the corps of the army, or on detachments in Spain, are hereby required to obey and cause to be obeyed, such orders as may be issued by Gen. Daboville.

annexed thereto, to the inspection of the before-mentioned Council of Liquidation. 3. These demands and requests must be set out in the Dutch language, with an abstract in French, which abstract must contain briefly an account of the demand and the foundation on. which the party rests his claim.-4. The said claims must be decided on in the course of three months at the farthest, and that period being elapsed, no further claim can be received but by authority from the Emperor, or by the person to whom his Majesty the Emperor shall have granted such authority.-5. In the event of this Council having terminated its duties previous to all the claims being sent in, such further claims cannot afterwards be admitted, but by a decree of his Majesty the Emperor, nor otherwise taken into consideration at all, but by the Court of Public Accounts, at Paris.-6. The principal Secretary and Government is to furnish to the general body of the Secretaryship of this Council the outline of the commission nominated for the purpose of liquidating the balance of the national debt for the year 1807, and previously with all the rates, plans, and particulars annexed, as are to be found in the archives of the Government.-7. The Ministers are to furnish, likewise to the said General Secretaryship all the particulars and accounts relative to the service of the year 1810, with the public orders belonging thereto to that period, which have been drawn up but not distributed, together with a note containing their advice upon the sanie.8. The Court of Finances shall, in like manner, furnish to the said Secretaryship all the ordinances which remain still in their department, and which apply to the said period.-9. The Director-General of furnish them with the Ordinances passed the Public Treasury shall, in like manner, for payment of the demands antecedent We the Prince Arch-Treasurer of the to that period which may not yet have Empire, Duke of Plaisance, General Stadt- been carried into effect.-10. A similar holder of his Majesty the Emperor and proceeding shall take place relative to King, have ordered and do order as fol- the exigencies of all functionaries that are lows-Art. 1. The Council of Liquida- dependant on the Government, and the tion appointed by the Decree of the 23rd same with respect to all persons to whom September last shall commence its func- these Ordinances shall have been delitions on the 1st of November ensuing, at vered, at the time the demands are made. eleven o'clock in the morning.-2. All-11. The Ministers, the Court of Fipersons who may have claims upon or debts due from the State previous to the year 1810, are informed that they must submit their demands, with the particulars

HOLLAND.

·Order of the Duke of Plaisance, relative to the Public Claims. Am sterdam, 28 Oct. 1810.

nances, the Director-General of the Public Debt, and all Officers belonging to Government are charged with the execution of this Decree.

TREATY between Austria and France. His Majesty the Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector, of the, Confederation of the Rhine, Mediator of the Swiss Confederation, and his Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, wishing to consolidate the state of peace. happily, re-established between Austria and the Confederation, of the Rhine, by clacing in Germany eyen, the very traces of the last war, have named. for Plenipotentiaries, viz. his Majesty the Emperor of the French, &c. M. Jean Baptiste Nompere, Count of Champagny, Duke of Cadore, &c. his Minister for Foreign Affairs; and his Majesty the Emperor of Austria, &c. M, Clement Win, ceslaus, Count of Metternich, Winneburg, Ochsenhausen, &c. his Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who after haying exchanged their full powers, have agreed on the following Articles :

Art. I. In execution; of the Treaty of Vienna, his Majesty the imperor of Austria, and the Sovereigns of the Confederation of the Rhine, shall raise, as has been done in France, the sequestrations placed on either part, before and during the late war, and in consequence of that war, on property possessed by individual title. The proprietors, whoever they may be, shall, within the space of two months after the ratification of the present Act, be reestablished in the enjoyment of the said property, which shall be restored to them without exception or reserve, in the state in which it was before the said sequestration.. (To be continued.)

COBBETT'S.

COMPLETE COLLECTION OF

State Trials:

London, Dec. 1, 1810. The Subscribers to this Work are respectfully informed, that, in future, it will be published, not in PARTS, but IN. VOLUMES ONLY: and such is the progress which has been made in it, that the Ninth Volume will be ready for delivery on the first day of January, 1811, and one Volume on the first day of every alternate Month, until the whole is completed. Of the Two HUNDRED and EIGHTY-EIGHT Trials or Proceedings, of which the first Eight Volumes consist, ONE HUNDRED and SIXTEEN never before came into

any

Collection. The following is a List of the Articles contained in the Eighth Volume: ** The new Articles are marked [N.] 273. Proceedings against Richard Thompson, Clerk, for a High Misdemeanour against the Case of James Skene, for treasonable Privilege of Parliament, A. D. 1680 [N.] Opinions and Declarations, A. D. 1680. [N.] Case of John Niven, Captain of the Ship Fortune of London, for Leasing,making against James Duke of Albany and York, A. D. 1690 [N.]

273.

274.

275.

Proceedings in Parliament against Edward Seymour, esq. a member of the House of Commons, and Treasurer of the Navy, upon an Impeachment of High Crimes, Mis demeanors, and Offences, A. D. 1680. 276. Proceedings against Lord Chief Justice Scroggs before the Privy Council; and against the said Lord Chief Justice and other Judges in Parliament, . D. 1680. 277. Proceedings in Parliament against Edward Fitzharris, upon an Impeachment for High Treason, a. b. 1681.

278. The Trial of Dr. Oliver Plunket, Titular Primate of Ireland, at the King's Bench, for

High Treason, A. D. 1631,

279. The Trial of Sir Miles Stapleton, bast. at York Assizes, for High Treason, A. D

1681.

280.

The Trial of George Busby, at Derby Assizes, for High Treason, being a Rumah Priest, A. D. 1081.

281.

The Trial of Stephen Colledge, at Orford, for High Treason, a. D. 1681. 282. The Trial of Slingsby Bethel, es, at the Bridge-House in Southwark, for an As sault and Battery on Robert Mason, at the Election of Members of Parliament for the Borough of Southwark, A. D. 1681. 283. Proceedings at the Old Bailey, opdi a Bill of Indictment for High Treason, against Anthony Earl of Shaftesbury, A, D. 1681. 284. The Trial of the Bark of Argyle, in Scotland, for Treason, a D. 1681

285. Proceedings before the King in Council, against Arthur Earl of Anglesey, Lord Privy Seal, upon account of a Book reflecting on the Conduct of James Duke of Ormond, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, A. D.: 1682 (N.] 286. Proceedings against Temperance Lloyd, Mary Trembles, and Susanna Edwards, for

Witchcraft, A. D. 1682 [N.]

287. Proceedings between the King and the City of London, on an Information in nature of a Quo Warranto, in the King's Bench,

[blocks in formation]

Published by R. BAGSHAW, Brydges-Street, Covent Garden →Sold also by J. BUDD, Pall-Mall,

LONDON:-Printed by T. C. Hansard, Peterborough-Court, Fleet-Street..

VOL. XVIII. No. 37.] LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1810. [Price 15%

"Look before you leap."

-OLD PROVERS.

1185].

[1186

the Neutrals (or, rather, the Neutral, America being the only nation really in that state), that, as long as she submitted to the regulations of the one party, she must expeet to be obliged to submit to those of the other party. -We will now see what those regulations, or restrictions were.-—— The first measure of this sort was adopted by England, and is described in the subsequent Papers, No. 1 (I have numbered them for the purpose of easy reference), which is a letter from MR. Fox, 8th April, 1806, to MR. MUNROE, then American Minister in England. In this letter it is stated, that the king of Prussia having taken possession of various parts of the Electorate of Hanover, and other dominions belonging to his Majesty, in a forcible. and hostile manner, and having done other things injurious to English commerce, in violation of the just rights of his Majesty, and contrary to the established law and practice of nations in amity with each other; that for this cause, his Majesty had ordered a blockade of the entrances of the Ems, the Weser, the Elbe, and the Trave; and that all Neutrals would be treated accordingly, if they attempted to enter those rivers. Thus these restrictions began, then, in a measure for which the conduct of the king of Prussia towards his Majesty's German dominions was the ground.From Nos. 2 and 3, being Letters from Mr. Fox and Lord HowICK to Mr. MUNROE, dated 16 May, and 25 Sept. 1806, it will appear that these restrictions were modified; but, Napoleon having conquered Prussia, or, at least, having overrun it, and taken possession of it, in the following month of November, he issued from BERLIN, the Decree, No. 4, in. which Decree he declared the British Islands in a State of Blockade; he de

SUMMARY OF POLITICS. AMERICAN STATES.-Heavy as are the blows, which commerce has lately received, a blow greater than any of the rest seems now to await her. The dispute with the American States, relative to our restrictions upon their maritime trade, is of so long standing, and has been rendered so confused by the prodigious volumes, which the lawyer-like statesmen, on both sides of the water, have piled together upon the subject, that, in order to render the matter intelligible to my readers, and to furnish them with the means of coming to a just decision thercon, I think it necessary to go back to the origin of the dispute, to trace it down to the present time, and to subjoin to these my statements and observations all the anthentic documents necessary to be referred to. The public have seen the Proclamation of MR. MADISON, the President of the American States, whence they will have perceived, that, unless we remove certain of our Orders in Council (which, indeed, are now in part become laws), all intercourse between this country and the States of America will be interdicted after the 2nd of February next, while the commércial communication between France and those States will be open, but will still be exposed to our obstructions.The question for us to decide upon, is, whether the Orders of Council, of which America complains, ought now to be revoked by us. This is the question; and, as there is no time to be lost in deciding upon it, as the dispute is now come to a crisis, as there appears now to be nothing left but an immediate choice between accommodation and hostility, a decision is pressed upon us by considerations of interest as well as of honour. The dispute originated in cer-clared that all commerce with them tain restrictions, imposed by us upon Neu- was interdicted; that every thing belong. tral Commerce, contained in regulations ing to English subjects should be confis.. of Blockade; which regulations the Em-cated; that no vessels (including Ameperor of France answered by others of a ricans, of course) coming from England similar, or more violent sort. These drew or her colonies should be admitted into other regulations from us. These pro- any port; and that all vessels contraduced others from him. We rejoined in vening, or attempting to contravene this the same sort of way. Both sides told Decrec, should be confiscated.

Such

was the famous Berlin Decree, which, when the intelligence of its being issued reached England, drew forth (No. 5) the first of those measures of our government, which have become equally famous, under the name of the ORDERS IN COUNCIL. It was dated on the 7th of January, 1807, and it set forth, that, in consequence of the violation of the rights of nations committed by Napoleon, and expressed in his Orders, as given in the city of Berlin Decree, England would be justified in going much further, but that she contented herself with ordering, that no vessel should be permitted to trade from one port to another, both which should belong to, ot be in possession of, Napoleon or his allies, or should be so far under their controul as that British vessels might not trade freely thereat; and that neutral vessels at tempting to act contrary to this order, after being duly warned not to do it, should be captured, brought in, and considered as lawful prize.In this state things continued during the remainder of the time that the late ministry remained in power. But, after their successors took the reins of government, more rigorous measures were adopted; and, under the dates of the ith and 25th of November, 1807, (Nos 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) nine Orders of Council were issued, laying new restrictions upon the commerce of Neutrals with the ports of France and countries depending upon, or under the influence of France. Indeed, these Orders put an end to all Neutral commerce, except by licence from England.

-By way of retaliation for these new and additional restrictions, Napoleon issued, from MILAN, dated 17th December, 1807, the Decree known by the name of the Milan Decree (No. 15;) and, as our Orders had declared, that they should be continued in force till the Berlin Decree was revoked; so this Decree from Milan declared, that its restrictions and penalties should remain in force, till the Orders in Council should be revoked.- -Both the hostile nations made an appeal to America (for she was the only Neutral in fact) in this way each said to her: it is your fault for suffering our enemy to enforce such restrictions; it is for you to compel our enemy to respect your flag, and, until you do that, I will enforce against you my measure of retaliation, which I do, not in hostility towards you, but as my only means of self-defence against the tyrannical measures of my enemy.America, as was

"

very natural in her situation, complained of both. She talked of war, to which she, however, had always a hearty dislike; and, after having tried negociation in vain, she fell upon this expedient. She protested against the grounds of justification taken by both parties; she declared that both had violated her rights; but, she, at last, determined to submit, for the present, while she endeavoured to prevail upon one party or the other to give way first, and to revoke their Orders or Decrees.After long and fruitless ef forts in this way, she passed, on the 1st of May, 1810, an Act, which she expected would have the effect desired. In this Act it was provided, that, if either Great Britain or France should, before the 31st of March, 1811, so revoke or modify her edicts, that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of America, the fact should be declared by the President by Proclamation, and that, then, if the other nation should not, in three months from that time, revoke or modify her edicts in like manner, the NON-INTERCOURSE ACT should be revived against that nation.Thus things stood previously to the 5th of August 1810, on which day the French minister for foreign affairs communicated officially to MR. ARMSTRONG, the Ame rican Minister at Paris, that the Decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked, and that, from the 1st of November, 1810, they would ecase to be in force, it being understood, that, in consequence of this revocation, the English should revoke their Orders in Coun cil, and renounce the new principles of Blockade which they had attempted to establish. (See this Letter, in the present Volume, page 700.)Mr. ARMSTRONG having communicated this notification to M. PINKNEY, the American Minister in Logdon, the latter wrote on the 25th of August last (No. 16) to Lord WELLESLEY, Our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, informing him of what had been done France, and, at the same time observed, that he took it for granted, that the revo cation of the British Orders in Council would follow as a matter of course, and that he hoped to be enabled to announce to his government, that such revocation had taken place.--LORD WELLESLEY, (No. 17) answered, that, whenever the re peal of the French decrees should have actually taken effect, and the commerce of neutral nations should have been restored to the condition in which it stood previous to the promulgation of those decrees, the King would

have the highest satisfaction in relinquishing a system, which the conduct of the enemy had compelled him to adopt. This answer does not appear to have been relished much in America. It has a reservation in it, which does not seem to promise a full and unequivocal revocation, on our part, even when the revocation of the French Decrees shall have actually taken place; and, we know, that a revocation did not take place in England.--The French notification having been communicated to MR. MADISON, the President of the American States, he issued his Proclamation, (No. 18.) agreeably to the above-mentioned Act of Congress passed on the 1st of May, 1810, which Proclamation, together with the Circular Letter of the Secretary of the American Treasury, have just been received, and they form the last document in the series which I now insert. --In consequence of the revocation of the French Decrees, and of the notification thereof in America, several ships have sailed from America for France, and have met (at least, so it is said) with the same treatment as they would have met with if those Decrees bad never been passed; in short, that they have been received as Neutrals, carrying on a lawful commerce; have unladen their cargoes, and haye sailed away unmolested in any manner whatever.- Others of them are said, in our public papers, to have been captured by our cruisers, and brought in for condemnation, and that they now await their fate, the Admiralty Judge, SIR WILLIAM SCOTT, having suspended his decision on them. Thus, then, when we have read the subjoined documents, we have the case fairly before us; for, though there have been other Orders in Council, modifying, or in some respects altering the Orders, here inserted, still, if these latter had never existed, those which are here inserted would have produced the , dispute in its present shape.We necil not now agitate the question whether the making of our Orders in Council was just or unjust, expedient or inespedient; they were made, they have been enforced to this day, and the question for us now to decide upon, is, whether they ought now to be revoked.My opinion is that they ought to be revoked, and, indeed, that they ought to have been revoked in August last, upon the notification of the revocation of the Berlin and Milan, decrees having been made to our government.The reasons upon which is opinion is founded, I will

now state in as short and clear a manner as I am able, just observing first, that I am viewing the matter as a matter of justice; as a thing wholly depending upon particu lar compact, and not at all as a matter of policy or of general principle. I always thought the Orders in Council just and wise also, as far as they went. They did not go so far as I would have extended them; nor were they bottomed in a true and sound principle, the principle that SELDEN justified with the pen and that CROMWELL proclaimed from the cannon's mouth; that principle, which, when England can no longer maintain, and openly act upon, she may as well at once surrender her fleets and her dock-yards into the hands of Napoleon.--But, the question now before us is altogether of a dif ferent nature. It arises out of a particular compact or agreement, which, though not embodied into a single instrument, with the appendages of Dates, Signatures, and Seals, is, and ought to be, as binding as any treaty, made, like that Jately made with the Prince Regent of Portugal, «in the name of the Most Holy and undivided Trinity."- -How then stands the case?

We make certain maritime regulations, which induce Napoleon to issue the Berlin Decrce. This Decree brings forth our Orders in Council These produce the Milan Decree.. America complains, of us both. Neither of us, the belligerent parties, attempt to stand by what we have done as acts just in themselves. We both expressly declare them to be acts of retaliation; and both declare, upon every occasion that presents itself, that, as soon as America shall have prevailed upon our opponent to revoke his regulations, we will revoke ours. Each party said to America: by submitting to the Decrees or Orders of my enemy, you injure me and I must, therefore, in self-defence make you submit to similar Decrees or Orders, which I shali impose. But each declared, that, whenever the other party should revoke his Decrees or Orders, he would instantly revoke his.Well, then, there appeared nothing wanting to accomplish the wishes of America but a beginning in this work of revocation. That it never could begin, unless one of the belligerent parties took the lead, was certain. This, at last, Napoleon (who is obstinate only when bis interest requires it) did, and, apparently without any reluctance, as we have seen in the letter of the French Minister of Foreign, Affairs to Mr. Armstrong. In that letter.

« AnteriorContinuar »