A letter merely promising the repeal of those decrees under certain qualifications and conditions, could never be considered as an actual revocation. No evidence had been given of any practice which could induce a belief that the decrees, even with respect to America, had been revoked at the time mentioned in the Duke of Cadore's letter. On the contrary, Mr. Russel, the American minister at Paris, in a letter dated in May, 1811, stated, "that no ship brought into the ports of France since November 1st, 1810, bad either been released, or brought to trial." If the Orleans packet had afterwards been released, still he would ask how it was possible that that vessel should have been seized at Bordeaux some months after the decrees were said to be revoked, and detained for such a considerable time, if the revocation had been made public? In March 1812, the Duke of Bassano, in a public paper, asserted that "the Berlin and Milan decrees were in full force, and that they were fundamental laws of the empire." The alleged decree of repeal was stamped with all the characters of fallacy and fraud. It bore date in April 1811, and had never been produced till May 1812. No such document was known by the American ministers in the disputes with this country on the subject, nor to the tribunals or prize courts of France. It was hardly to be doubt ed that it owed its existence to the declaration of the 21st of April last; and to claim now under such a document, was to require that it should have operation long before it existed. The court would not now admit further proof of its

having been in existence, for it could only be sought in the officina fraudis whence the fabrication first issued.

The learned judge then proceeded to consider certain cases which were said to prove that those decrees were in fact repealed with respect to America; and he showed that not one of them had any authority; since acts merely of the grace and pleasure of the ruler of France could never be cited as the law of that country, or the rules which guided their tribunals. He would not allow that even the nonexecution of the decrees could be properly considered as a repeal of them. The cessation in the exercise might arise from some motive of temporary policy; but the cases which would be real authority in favour of the repeal must be the liberation of vessels by the judgment of the proper tribunals, and not by special favour. It might be said by some, that neutrals had no right to prescribe the mode of restitution, provided it was in fact made. He, on the contrary, asserted that they had a right to expect that in France, as in every civilized country, there should be regular tribunals where they might claim redress, ex debito justicia, and not as matter of court favour, caprice, or state-policy. On the whole, it appeared to him, that there was no evidence that any legal revocation of these decrees had taken place; and that the instrument relied on by the claimants had no marks of authenticity, but was evidently fabricated for a particular purpose. He should therefore determine on the case before him, and on all those that depended upon the same principle, that

the

the instrument purporting to be a French decree, dated in April 1811, did not take those cases out of the general operation of the law as described in the orders of

council; and that, consequently, those vessels captured under them before the 20th of May last could not be discharged from their operation.

John Plasket and Samuel Brown, for a method of making or manufacturing of casks and other vessels by improved machinery.

Mr. Edmund Griffith (Bristol) for an improvement in the manufacture of soap, for the purpose of washing with sea-water, hard. water, and other water.

Mr. James Cuparn (Leicester) for preventing chimneys from smoking, Mr. Thomas Willes Cooper (Oldstreet) for an apparatus to be fixed at the naves of wheels and beds of axletrees of carriages, so as to prevent accidents from the axletrees breaking, &c.

Mr. Peter Joseph Brown (Henrietta-street) for an improved construction of buoys for ships or vessels, and for mooring chains.

Mr. Joseph Bagnal (Walsal) for a method of making bridle-bits, snaffles, &c. of iron, steel, or other metal.

Sir Howard Douglas (High Wycomb) for an improved reflecting circle or semi-circle.

Mr. Joseph Bastone (Bridgewater) for improvements applicable to bedsteads and various other things.

Mr. Thomas William Sturgeon (Howland street) for improved

Castors.

Sir Saml. Bentham (Hampstead) for an invention for a secure and economical mode of laying foundations applicable to the projections of wharfs and piers into deep

water.

Mr. William Good (London) for an improvement in valves for various purposes.

Mr. Ralph Sutton (Birmingham) for an improved self-acting curtain or window-blind rack.

Mr. John Craigie (Craven-street) for improvements on carriages, by which friction may be saved, labour facilitated, and safety ob tained.

Mr. Joseph Baker (Cuckfield, Sussex) for kneading dough by means of machinery.

Mr. Thomas Pearsall (Willsbridge, Gloucester) for a method of constructing iron-work for certain parts of buildings.

Mr. William Fothergill (Greenfield, Flintshire) for a method of making copper-rollers for printing.

Mr. John Miers (Strand, London) for a method of accelerating evaporation, of destroying the noxious effluvia from spent lees, and of generating an increased degree of heat, without additional fuel.

Mr. John Hudson (Cheapside,
London)

London) for a composition for printing or painting on paper, linen, stuccoed walls, boards, &c. : Mr. Jacob Zink (Mile-end) for a method of manufacturing ver. digris.

Mr. Richard Withy (Kingstonupon-Hull) for improvements in his invention for the construction of steam-engines.

Mr. George Dodd (Vauxhallplace) for machinery and the application of steam to communicate heat and motion to wines, porter, &c. in cellars, storehouses, and other places.

Mr. Henry James and John Jones (Birmingham) for an improvement in the manufacture of barrels of all descriptions of fire-arms.

Mrs. Sarah Guppy (Bristol) for tea and coffee urns, &c.

Mr. Thomas Marsh (King-street, Clerkenwell) for improvements in the construction of watches.

Mr. Robert Giles (London) for the invention of a cap or cowl to be placed on the top of chimneys.

Mr. Michael Logan (Paradisestreet, Rotherhithe) for an instrument for the generation of fire, and various purposes in chemical and experimental operations.

Mr. Andrew Patten (Manchester) for a discovery and improvements in the tanning of leather, by the use of pyroligneous or wood

acid.

Mr. William Strachan (Chester) for a method of preparing the ore of cobalt for trade, manufacture, and painting.

Mr. Jeremiah Steel (Liverpool) for a new apparatus, and for distilling and rectifying spirits.

Doornik (Wells-street) for an improvement in the manufacture of soap to wash with sea-water, with hard-water, and with soft-water.

Mr. James Adams (Pitkellony, in the county of Perth) for a method of drying malt and all kinds of grains and seeds.

Mr. George Smart (Westminster) for an improved method of preparing timber so as to prevent its shrinking.

Mr. Blenkensop (Middleton, Yorkshire) for mechanical means by which the conveyance of coals, minerals, and other articles is facilitated, and the expense attending the same is rendered less than heretofore.

Messrs. Peter Moore and Co. (London) for a vertical bond in buildings, &c.

Mr. Lawrence Drake (Cloaklane, London) for a method of preparing the various sorts of isinglass from river and marine fish.

Sir Saml. Bentham (Hampstead) for a new mode of excluding water of the sea, of rivers, or of lakes, during the execution of under water works of masonry, or for the security of foundations, applicable to the construction of seawalls, wharfs, piers, &c.

Mr. William Hardcastle (Abingdon) for improved cranes, to prevent accidents from the goods attached to the pulley overpowering the person at the winch, or in the walking wheel.

Mr. George Dolland (London) for an improved method of lighting the binnacle compass, used for steering ships at sea.

Mr. Benjamin Milne (Bridlington) for an improved double bell gun alarm.

Mr.

Mr. Frederic Albert Winsor (Shooter's Hill) for a method of employing raw or refined sugars in the composition of certain articles of great demand.

Mr. John Justice (Dundee) for an improvement in the construction of stove-grates, calculated to prevent the smoking of chimnies, or to effect their cure.

Mr. Johm Simpson (Birming

ham) for improvements in the construction of lamps.

Mr. Robert Bill Rathboneplace) for an apparatus to facilitate the operation of washing clothes, and other processes necessary in family and other establishments.

Mr. Richard Waters (Fore-street, Lambeth) for a new method of manufacturing pottery-ware.

LONDON