1804. CASE OF THE AURORA. 247 back by armed sailors.* For this gross outrage the captain of the Cambrian condescended to apologize. His people, he explained, were ignorant of the law. They were not aware that an English ship could ever be subject to the authority of the United States. But he would not give up the impressed sailors till the British Consul informed him that he must. The United States complained, the captain was recalled and promoted, and Congress, justly incensed, passed the act of March, 1805, for the more effectual preservation of peace in the ports and harbors of the United States. This law Monroe was to explain most carefully, for the English Minister had remonstrated against the strong language of the sixth section. At the same time he was to protest against the decision in the case of the Aurora.† While Spain was at war with Great Britain the Aurora brought a cargo of Spanish goods from Havana to Charleston, landed the produce, and paid the duty according to law. After three weeks the cargo was reshipped, the duty drawn back, save the three and a half per cent. retained on articles exported after importation, and the ship cleared for Barcelona in old Spain. On the way an English cruiser searched and sent her for trial to Newfoundland, where the cargo was condemned by the Court of Vice-Admiralty. Breaking bulk and paying duty at Charleston did not, in the opinion of the Court, break the voyage. It was continuous, and, being continuous, was direct and illegal. The decision was startling, for, should it be confirmed by the Court of Appeals, a trade valued at thirty-two millions of dollars and yielding a revenue of one hundred and eighty-four thousand annually was ended. In the cases of the Essex, the Rowena, the Enoch, and the Mars, the decision of the Newfoundland court was more than affirmed, and, when Monroe appeared before Lord Mulgrave in August, had become the settled policy of England. Again the old troubles were gone over. Again delay followed delay, and 1805 ended with nothing done. In January, 1806, Pitt died. In February Charles James Fox was called Gazette of the United States, June 19, 20, 21, 1804. to power, and to him, in turn, Monroe presented the timeworn complaints and remonstrances, and once more waited patiently while the old mummery of considering them was gone through with. In April the Non-importation Act was passed, and almost immediately William Pinkney was joined with Monroe, and the two made Commissioners Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to settle all matters of difference between the United States and Great Britain. They were to They were to condition on Their instructions were full and explicit. explain the Non-importation Act just passed. insist that impressment be given up, as the which the act would be repealed. They were to abandon the principle "free ships make free goods" if they could secure the neutral right to colonial trade. They were to insist that contraband goods taken by a ship on an outward voyage did not taint the goods in the ship on its return voyage. On no account were they to yield to the rule of 1756, or to the order in council concerning broken voyages, or to the claim that notice of blockade served on a neutral minister might take the place of warning to a neutral ship by a blockading vessel. Captures and searches were not to be made west of the Gulf Stream, or at least not within four leagues of shore. While Madison was making ready these instructions at Washington-indeed, on the very seventeenth of May on which he dated and signed them-Monroe at London received from Fox formal notice of a new order in council laying new restrictions on the neutral trade. The whole coast of Europe, from the river Elbe to the port of Brest, both inclusive, was now blockaded. So much of the coast as lay between Ostend and the river Seine had already been blockaded, and into the ports and rivers of this region no neutral ship could under any circumstances go for purposes of trade. In any other port or river from Brest to the Elbe his Majesty was graciously pleased to decree, neutrals might still trade if they did not come from, and did not intend to go to, a port in the possession of any of his enemies. Vessels bearing the flag of the United States might therefore continue to enter Brest or Embden, Amsterdam or the Elbe. But the cargoes which they carried must have been made or grown in the United States, or 1806. THE BRITISH TREATY OF 1806. 249 be the product of British looms or factories. Greatly alarmed at the character of this new order in council, Monroe again pressed for a settlement of affairs. Again he was met with excuses and delays, and again delay was followed by more complications. Word came that the Non-importation Act had passed; that Pierce had been killed by a shot from the Leander in the harbor of New York; that Pinkney was coming out to join Monroe. Eager for any excuse for delay, Fox seized on the appointment of Pinkney, and declared that nothing could be done till the new commissioner arrived. In June the new commissioner reached London. But in June Fox was stricken with gout, and in a few weeks was carried to his grave. The illness of Fox brought up the question who should present the commissioners to the King, and a whole month went by before it was settled. Then came the question who should attend to the business of the American commissioner, and another month sped by ere that duty was given to Lord Auckland and Lord Holland. It was now the twentieth of August; but it was not till the twenty-eighth of August that an exchange of powers took place and the business began in earnest. During four months the commissioners went on holding interviews, exchanging notes and drawing up projects and counter-projects of articles. At last, early in December, a treaty, based on the despised, condemned, and hated work of Jay, was almost completed. Indeed, the day on which it would be signed seemed at hand when a few words, written by order of Napoleon, threw the negotiation into confusion. That he would never tamely submit to the orders in council of May sixteenth was certain from the day they issued. But he bided his time and chose for retaliation that moment when the battle of Jena, the humiliation of Prussia, and the triumphant entry into her capital made him master of the continent. Then, when the whole civilized world was anxiously waiting to see what he would do next, he signed that paper now famous as the Berlin decree.* In it he charged England with violating the law of nations, with making prisoners of non-combatants, *November 21, 1806. with seizing private property, with blockading unfortified towns and mouths of rivers, whole coasts and empires. He declared that till she mended her ways the whole coast of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales was in a state of blockade. All trade with the British islands was forbidden. Englishmen and property belonging to them were to be seized wherever found. All goods, wares, and merchandise, the product of England or her colonies, were made lawful prize, and half the profits of such seizures set apart to indemnify merchants despoiled by English cruisers. No vessel which had so much as touched at an English port was to be suffered to enter any port or colony of France. The decree was directed against all neutral trade. But the only neutral trade worthy of consideration was that carried on in American bottoms. In London, therefore, men of business read it with the deepest interest. At Lloyd's CoffeeHouse, where the underwriters gathered; on the Stock Exchange; at the Bank; at the Foreign Office in Downing Street, the questions of the hour were, Will the decree be enforced? If it be enforced, will the Americans submit? Will the Americans resist? And if they resist will they fight, and if they fight will they join us in the war? So serious did the matter seem that Monroe and Pinkney were informed that no treaty could be made till it was known what the United States would do. The treaty which is being made, said in substance the British commissioners, binds us to observe the neutral rights of the United States. Nay, more; it yields to the United States much of what we believe to be our unquestionable rights of war. To sign such a treaty after reading the Berlin decree would be to hinder ourselves from counteracting the policy of France. To do this would be unwise unless the United States will agree to uphold her neutral right against the decrees of Napoleon. Will your Government do this? Will you consent to draw up a treaty and send it to the United States with this understanding: the treaty to become binding when your Government formally agrees to maintain her rights on the sea against the aggressions of France? We cannot, said the American commissioners, think of 1806. THE BRITISH TREATY OF 1806. 251 such a thing. To make such a proposition would be saying to our Government, Which will you have, a treaty with Great Britain, or a war with France? For you tell us if such an agreement be not made the treaty is lost. We know very well that if such an agreement be made France will go steadily on in her aggressions, and that war will follow inevitably. His Majesty's government, again, ought not to suppose for a moment that the United States will fail to support her right with any power. Nor should you fail to see that such an agreement made with you would amount to a threat, and would cut off all hope of coming to any understanding with France. Lords Holland and Auckland admitted that there was much truth in this, and reported what had been said to the Cabinet. While the Cabinet deliberated, negotiations went on until the twenty-seventh of December, when it was agreed to put the treaty into writing. On December thirty-first it was signed. As the commissioners from the United States were about to affix their names a note was placed in their hands by the commissioners on the part of Great Britain. This informed them that his Majesty would not recede from his position on the Berlin decree, and that if, before the treaty came back from the United States, Napoleon did not abandon his unjust pretensions, or the United States give assurance that these pretensions should be withstood, the signatures of the English commissioners would not be binding, and Great Britain. would take such measures to counteract the decree as seemed best. It was too late, however, to go back, and Monroe and Pinkney, with many solemn protestations that the note had no approval from them, signed. Before the treaty left England it became apparent that the note had no approval from the King. His commissioners had in his name promised to make no retaliation for the Berlin decree unless the United States failed to resist. He was therefore in duty bound to wait a reasonable time for the United States to act. He waited just one week, and then, on the seventh of January, 1807, put forth an order in council most ruinous to our carrying trade. No neutral vessel, it was decreed, should be permitted to trade between two ports both of which were in possession of France |