Orders in council.
On Nov. 6. 1793, a British Order in Council was issued, but was not made public until the end of the year, directing British cruisers to stop, detain, and bring in for legal adjudication all ships laden with goods the production of any French colony, or carrying provisions or other supplies for the use of such colony.
The order, which was calculated to destroy all neutral trade with the
French colonies, even that which had been allowed in times of peace, was issued simultaneously with the despatch of a great expedition for the conquest of the
French West Indies.
Martinique, Guadaloupe, and
St. Lucia all fell into the hands of the
English.
The news of the
British order produced great excitement at
Philadelphia, where Congress was in session, and public feeling against
Great Britain ran high.
It was manifested in and out of Congress by debates and discussions, and while these were in progress the feeling against the
British was intensified by the publication in New York papers of what purported to be a speech of Lord Dorchester to a certain Indian deputation from a late general council at the
Maumee Rapids, in which he suggested the probability of a speedy rupture between the
United States and
Great Britain.
[
31]
The British order and
Dorchester's speech caused resolutions to be introduced by
Sedgwick, March 12, 1794, into the House of Representatives for raising fifteen regiments of 1,000 men each, for two years, and the passage of a joint resolution, March 26, laying an embargo for thirty days, afterwards extended thirty days longer, having in view the obstructing of the supply of provisions to the British fleet and army in the
West Indies.
Sedgwvick's resolutions were rejected, but a substitute was passed suggesting a draft of militia.
It was proposed to detach from this body 80,000 minute-men, enlist a regiment of artillery, and raise a standing force of 25,000 men. While debates were going on, news came that a second Order in Council had been issued, Jan. 8, 1794, superseding that of Nov. 6, restricting the capture of French produce in neutral vessels to cases in which the produce belonged to Frenchmen, or the vessel was bound for
France; also, that no confiscations were to take place under the first order.
This allayed the bitterness of feeling in the
United States against
Great Britain.
In 1807 and 1810 Orders in Council were issued to meet the effects of the
French decrees (
Berlin and
Milan). These remained in force, and bore heavily upon American commerce until after the declaration of war in 1812.
Joel Barlow, who had been appointed American ambassador to
France in 1811, had urged the
French government to revoke the decrees as to the
Americans.
This was done, April 28, 1811, and a decree was issued directing that, in consideration of the resistance of the
United States to the Orders in Council, the
Berlin and
Milan decrees were to be considered as not having existed, as to American vessels, since Nov. 1, 1810.
Barlow forwarded this decree to
Russell, American minister at the British Court.
It arrived there just in time to second the efforts of the
British manufacturers, who were pressing the government for a revocation of the Orders in Council.
A new ministry, lately seated, being in danger of the desertion of a portion of their supporters, yielded, and on June 23, 1812, they revoked the orders of 1807 and 1810, with a proviso, however, for their renewal in case the
United States government, after due notice, should still persist in its non-importation and other hostile acts.
Efforts were immediately made by both governments for a settlement of existing difficulties, but failed.
The British minister (Lord Castlereagh) declined to make any stipulation, formal or informal, concerning impressments.
The war finally proceeded on the matter of impressments alone.
See
Berlin decree;
embargo acts. 
