History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 2 (of 4)

by W. S. Lindsay

Negotiations for another treaty.

The scope of this work will not admit of entering into all the details of the conferences in respect of the treaty which was shortly afterwards entered into between Great Britain and the United States, and which had become the more necessary after the unfortunate encounter[328] between the Chesapeake and H.M.S. Leopard in Hampton Roads, where England was held by various authorities to be in the wrong. It is now generally admitted that the commissioners on both sides were animated by a sincere desire to establish a firm and lasting friendship between the two countries, on terms mutually advantageous, though it is deeply to be lamented that their efforts at negotiation were at times much thwarted by popular clamour on both sides the water.[329] Considering the state of public opinion in America, and the instructions which they appear to have received from their government, the American commissioners, in particular, evinced in the strongest manner their disposition to conciliation, when, after many fruitless conferences held in the hope of devising some adequate substitute for the practice of impressing on the high seas, they consented, contrary to their instructions, to proceed with the other articles of the treaty, pledging the government of Great Britain “to issue instructions for the observance of the greatest caution in the impressment of seamen, and of the greatest care to preserve citizens of the United States from any molestation or injury, and to afford immediate redress upon any representation of injury sustained by them;” engaging besides at any future period “to entertain the discussion of any plan that should be devised to secure the interests of both States, without any injury to rights to which they are respectively attached.”

Circuitous route.

In the other questions between the two countries, the negotiators were more fortunate in bringing their labours to a successful issue. On the subject of the circuitous trade permitted to the United States, between the colonies of the enemy and other parts of the world, an article was framed which satisfied the American commissioners. A clear rule for the regulation of that commerce was substituted in place of the uncertain and variable system under which it had been previously conducted. The principle was taken from Lord Hawkesbury’s communication, to which reference has just been made, which defined the difference between a continuous and an interrupted voyage; but, besides requiring that the goods should be landed and the duties paid in the neutral country, this article expressly stipulated that, on re-exportation, there should remain, after the drawback, a duty to be paid of one per cent. ad valorem on all articles of the growth, produce, and manufacture of Europe; and on all articles of colonial produce a duty of not less than two per cent. The maritime jurisdiction of the United States was guaranteed by the 12th article, against the alleged encroachments and violations of his Majesty’s cruisers; and on account of the peculiar circumstances of the American coast, an extension of maritime jurisdiction, to the distance of five miles from shore in American waters, was mutually conceded by both parties, with certain limitations, having reference to other powers, expressed in the treaty.[330]

Commercial stipulations.

The commercial stipulations contained in this treaty seem to have been framed on the fairest and most liberal principles of reciprocal advantages to both countries; but before the treaty reached the United States for the requisite ratification, and indeed before it was signed in London, the celebrated Berlin Decree[331] had been issued, and the position of England was thereby very greatly altered in respect to neutrals.

Violation of treaties.

But treaties, in those days of national convulsions, were of little avail; they were too frequently made only to be broken; and from the experience of the past, and the wholesale destruction of the private property alike of neutrals and belligerents during periods of hostility, we may learn that it is unsafe to rely, in similar cases, on the validity and security of any paper pledges without the general guarantee of nations. Although France, as well as England, had entered into treaties of amity with the United States, which were in force between 1803 and 1809 inclusive, no less than thirteen hundred and three American merchant vessels were captured between those dates by the cruisers of both nations.

Although nominally captured under the operations of the French Decrees and English Orders in Council, many of these captures were made in direct violation of existing treaties, and not a few in obedience simply to the will of the Emperor on the one hand, and that of the English Council on the other. Of the five hundred and thirteen American merchantmen taken by the French, and the forty-seven by the Neapolitans, antecedent to the Berlin and Milan Decrees, one hundred and seventy-four were condemned and burnt, four were compromised, and twenty-one acquitted; while two hundred and nine captured during the operation of these decrees were condemned and burnt, thirty-three released or compromised, and eighty-eight altogether acquitted. Of the vessels captured by the Neapolitans, forty-one were confiscated or condemned, two restored, and four not accounted for. In the category of the vessels burnt at sea no fewer than thirty-seven were destroyed in order to keep secret the movements of the French squadron; and a large number because they had touched at ports in England on their way to continental ports, some of them having done so only through stress of weather. To recompense the losses thus sustained, the Americans claimed from the French government eighty millions of francs, a demand which proved so serious a cause of dispute as almost to embroil the two countries in war.

But the captures by the English of American merchant vessels in the same period amounted to seven hundred and forty-five, and of those taken before the issue of the Orders in Council two hundred and forty-three were condemned, one hundred and fifty acquitted, and eighty-eight released; while out of the number subsequently taken two hundred were condemned, one hundred and ninety-one acquitted, and ninety-three restored to their owners.