Thus provided, the vessel set forth from London to encounter the manifold perils of the sea. The most respectable houses in London made application for similar licences, and every merchant who, with the privity of his clerks, sailed a vessel under such circumstances was compelled to become conversant with the humiliating mysteries of this fraudulent trade. But to make matters still worse, the forgeries were confirmed by the solemn oaths of the captain and the crew when they arrived at their destined port. Indeed it had become so common a practice that perjury under such circumstances was not dealt with as a crime, nor was it considered a crime on their part, as their owners compelled them to swear that all their letters and documents were genuine. Every sort of interrogatory was put to the captain and the crew calculated to discover the real port whence the vessel had sailed, and these questions the captain and crew were obliged to evade by numerous false oaths. The feeling that they were doing no wrong could alone have induced them thus to act. They were even obliged to declare from what quarter the wind blew when they left Rotterdam and took a pilot on board, although they were never near the place, together with many other particulars, all confirmed by oath, perjuring themselves at every stage. To such an extent did these frauds prevail that at last they were reduced to a regular system. Individuals formed themselves into established mercantile agencies, in order to facilitate the simulation of these papers. Indeed they openly issued circulars avowing their object. One of these extraordinary productions has been enshrined in a parliamentary debate, Mr. Brougham having published to the world the following “atrocious circular.”[288]
“Liverpool, ——
“Gentlemen,
“We take the liberty herewith to inform you that we have established ourselves in this town for the sole purpose of making simulated papers, which we are enabled to do in a way which will give ample satisfaction to our employers, not only being in possession of the original documents of the ships’ papers and clearances to various ports, a list of which we annex, but our Mr. G. B. having worked with his brother, Mr. I. B., in the same line for the last two years, understands all the necessary languages, and knows what is required.
“Of any changes that may occur in the different places on the continent in the various custom-houses and other offices, which may render a change of signatures necessary, we are careful to have the earliest information, not only from our own connections, but from Mr. I. B., who has proffered his assistance in every way, and who has for some time past made simulated papers for Messrs. B. and P. of this town, to whom we beg leave to refer you for further information.
“We remain,” etc.
This singular document was accompanied by a list of about a score of places, for which these agents had clearances all ready at the instant for disposal to those merchants who, from the exigencies of the times, found themselves compelled to resort to such practices. Indeed these knaves knew perfectly well that if the merchants of England refused to participate in this “filthy commerce,” the traders in Boston would not have any such scruples, still less those of Pappenburg, or some of the ports of Danish Holstein.
FOOTNOTES:
[264] France asserted, and America seems to have admitted that the first departure from the Law of Nations was this Act of Mr. Fox’s Administration, and that this Act led to the Berlin Decree; but this is a pretence (see ‘Key to Orders in Council,’ p. 1). It is worth while to give briefly here the dates and order of these different decrees, etc. (1.) Mr. Fox’s Order for blockade of French coast, April 8, 1806. (2.) Berlin Decree, Nov. 10, 1806 (recapitulated, Nov. 24, 1806). (3.) Lord Grey’s Order in Council, Jan. 7, 1807. (4.) Orders in Council of Nov. 11, 1807, by the Portland administration. (5.) Milan Decree, Dec. 17, 1807. (6.) Bayonne Decree, April 17, 1808. (7.) Rambouillet Decree, March 23, 1810. (8.) Fontainebleau Decree, March 23, 1810. The Bayonne and Rambouillet Decrees were those most directly issued against the Americans.
[265] We cannot read with patience such denouncements of barbarism, and such professions of liberty and justice from one who about this period ordered a poor bookseller of Nuremburg, by name of Palm, to be arbitrarily arrested, and brought before a military tribunal at Bremen, where he was condemned to be unceremoniously shot, because he had published and distributed a pamphlet, which questioned the “justice” of Napoleon’s acts, as the conqueror of Germany. If ever there was a martyr in the cause of “liberty” it was this poor man, whose most unjustifiable execution in August 1806, was regarded with horror throughout Europe.
[266] Alison, vol. xi., p. 105, in a note, mentions a striking instance of how the Berlin decree was opposed even to Napoleon’s own interests. Shortly after its issue there arrived at Hamburg an urgent order for the immediate delivery of a very large amount of clothing for his army; but the resources of the Hanse Towns were so totally unable to provide within the specified time the requisite supply, that Bourrienne, the French diplomatic agent, after trying in vain every other expedient, was obliged to contract for it with English houses. Thus while the Emperor was boasting that by the continental system he had excluded British goods from the continent, 50,000 to 60,000 of his half-naked soldiers were, in the depth of winter, clothed by the manufacturers of Halifax, Leeds, and other English towns.