It is asserted by the opponents of this policy of the British government, that the result was a diminution, in the course of the following year, of the foreign trade of this country, to the extent of fourteen millions sterling. It is even contended that, but for some counteracting causes which happened to operate at the same time, the falling off would have been nearly twice as great. (Edin. Bev., vol. xiv. p. 442, &c.) The principal branch of trade affected was that with America, which was at this time the only great neutral power in ex istence ; and which in that capacity had, previous to the Berlin decree, been an annual purchaser of British manufactures to a large amount, partly for home con sumption, but to a much larger extent for the supply of the Continent. Both the Americans, therefore, and the various parties in this country interested in this export trade, exclaimed loudly against the edicts of the two belligerent powers. It appears that the American government, on application to that of France, obtained an assurance which was deemed satis factory, though not in an official form, that the Berlin decree would not be put in force against American vessels ; but when this was urged as a sufficient reason for the revocation of the English orders in council, the English government re fused to pay any attention to it, main taining that America should insist upon a public renunciation of the obnoxious French decree.
The subject was brought before parlia ment in March, 1808, by motions made in both houses asserting the illegality of the orders in council. On the 1st of April the merchants of London, Liverpool, and other towns, who had petitioned for the repeal of the orders, on the ground of their injurious operation upon the com mercial interests of the country, were heard at the bar by their counsel, Mr. Brougham, whose speech, as has been already mentioned, was afterwards pub lished. The result was, that ministers consented to the institution of an inquiry into the effect of the orders, in the course of which many witnesses were brought forward both by the petitioners and by the ministers in support of their respec tive views. But no immediate result fol lowed, either from this inquiry, or from a motion made in the House of Commons on the 6th of March, 1809, by Mr. Whit bread, declaratory of the expediency of acquiescing in the propositions made by the government of the United States.
On the 26th of April, however, a new order in council was issued, which, it was contended by the opponents of the policy hitherto pursued, did in fact amount to an abandonment of the whole principle of that policy. On the pretext that the state of circumstances, so far as the Con tinent was concerned, had undergone a complete change by the insurrection of the Spaniards, the blockade, which had formerly extended to all the countries under the authority of France, was now confined to France itself; to Holland, to part of Germany, and to the north of Italy; and the order which condemned vessels for having certificates of origin on board was rescinded. On the other hand,
the interdict against trading with the blockaded ports was apparently made more strict and severe by the revocation of the liberty formerly given, in certain eases, to neutral vessels to sail for an enemy's port after having first touched at one in Great Britain. Upon this point, however, some important modifications were made by subsequent orders. A sys tem was introduced of licensing certain vessels to proceed to hostile ports after having first touched and paid custom-dues at a British port; and this was eventually carried so far, that at last the number of such licences granted is said to have ex ceeded 16,000.
The position, however, in which Ame rica was still placed was such as almost to force her to go to war either with England or France. In this state of things, in the spring of 1812 a vigorous effort was again made by the opposition in parliament to obtain the entire removal of the orders in council. In the Lords, a motion was made by the Marquis of Lans downe on the 28th of February for a select committee of inquiry into the effect of the orders, but was negatived by a majority of 135 to 71. On the 3rd of March a similar motion made in the Commons by Mr. Brougham was also rejected by a majority of 216 to 144. On the 3rd of April, however, an order of the prince regent in council appeared in the Gazette,' revoking entirely the for mer orders in so far as regarded Ame rica, but only on the condition that the government of the United States should also revoke an order by which it had some time previously excluded British armed vessels from its ports, while it admitted those of France. This condi tional revocation being still considered unsatisfactory, Lord Stanley, on the 28th of April, moved in the Commons for a committee of inquiry into the subject generally, and the discussion ended by ministers giving their assent to the mo tion. Many witnesses were in conse quence examined, both by this committee and by another of the Lords, which sat at the same time, having been obtained on the 5th of May on the motion of Earl Fitzwilliam. When the examinations had been brolight to a close, Mr. Brougham, on the 16th of June, moved in the Com mons, that the crown should be addressed to recall or suspend the orders uncouth tionally. At the termination of this dis cussion ministers intimated that they were prepared to concede the question; and accordingly, on the 23rd of the same month, an unconditional suspension of the orders, in so far as America was con cerned, appeared in the Gazette.' By this time, however, the government of the United States had declared war, on the ground, as is well known, not only of the orders in council, but of other alleged acts of injustice on the part of the British government.