Star. — London, England, 1811-12-21 00:00:00

AMERICA I will proceed to spew, that the obligation on Great Britain to revoke her Orders is cemplete, according to her own engagements, and that the revocation ought not tis be longer delayed. " By the Act of May IE, .18in, it was pmvidl.d, That if either Groat Britain or France should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, which fact the President should • &dare by Procla mation, and the other party should tict, within three months thereat ter, revoke or moiifr it; Edicts in like manner, that then certain sctiolis in a lot mer Act, interdicting the commet ct.il intercourse between the United States and Great Britan and France, and their dependencies, should, front and after the expi. ration of three months from the date of theProclanta don, be revived ) and have foil twee against the for mer, its colonies and dependencies, and against ar ticles the growth and produce, or manufacture of the same.' DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE PRESIDENT'S MR, MOWRog TO MR. FOSTER. 46 Department of State, July 25. 1 817 ? 14 Sits-- I have submitted to the President your se veral letters of 3d and 16th of this month, relative to the British Orders in Council, and the blockade of May, 1806, and I have now the honour to communi cate to you his sentiments on the view which you 'have presented of those measures of your Govern ment. It was hoped that your communication would have led to an immediate accommodation of the dit fesences subsisting between our countries, on the ground on which alone it is possible to meet you. It is regretted that you have confined yourself to a vindication of the measures which produced some of them. 64 The United Stales are as li'tle disposed now as heretofore, to enter into the question concerning the priority of aggression by the two belligerents, which could not be justified by either, by the prierty of those of the other. But as you bring forward that 'plea in support of the. Orders in Council, I must be permitted to remark; that you have yourself furnish. ed a conclusive answer to it, by admitting that the blockade of May, 1806, which was prior to the first of the Decrees, would not be legal, unless supported through the whole of the coast, from the Elbe to ikest, by an adequate naval force. That such a na val fro ce was actually applied and continued in the requisite strictness, until the blockade was comprised in, and superseded by the Orders of November of the following year, or even until the French Decree of the same year, will mit, I presume, be alleged. 46 But waving this question of priority, can it be seen without both surprise and regret, that it is still contended;.-that the Orders in Council are justified by the principle of retaliation, and that this principle is strengthened by the inability of France to enfo-cc her Decrees. A retaliation is in its name, and its essen tial character, a retu-ning like for like. Is the deadly blow of the Orders in Council against one halfefour commerce, return of like for like to an emp ty threat in the French Decrees against the other half ? It may be a vindictive hostility, as far as its efiats f,ll on the enemy. But when falling on a neutral, who; on no pretext, can be liable for mote than the mea mires of injury received through such neutral, it would not be a retaliation, but a pc sitive wronz, by the plea on which it is founded. " it is to be further remarked, that the Orders in Council were even beyeald the plea, such as this ap peared to be, in extending its operation against the trade of the United States, with nations which, like Russia, had not adopted the French Decrees, and with ail nations which had merely excluded the Bri tish flag ; an exclusion resulting as matter of course with respect to whatever nation Great Britain might happen to be at war. " i am far from viewing the modification origi nally contained in these Orders, which permits neu trals to prosecute their trade with the Continent through Great Britain, in the favourable light in which you represent it. It is impossible to proceed to notice the effect of this modification without ex. pressing our astonishment at the extravagance of the political pretension set up by it ; a pretension which is utterly intompatible with the sovereignty and in dependence of other states. In a commercial view it is not less objectionable, as it cannot fail to prove destructive to neutral commerce. As an enemy, Great Britain cannot trade with France. Nor does France permit a neutral to come into her ports from Great Britain. The attempt of Great Britain to force' our trade through her ports would have therefore the commercial effect of depriving the United States al together cf the market of her enemy for their pro. ductions, and of destroying their value in her market by a sunharge of it. Heretofore it has been the usage of belligerent nations to carry on their trade through the intervention of neutrals ; and this had the beneficial effect of extending to the former the advantages of peace, chile suffering under the cala mities of war. To reverse the rule,-and to extend to nations at peace the calamities of war, is a change as novel and extraordinary as it is at variance with jus tice and public law. Against this unjust system, the United States en tered, at an early period, their solemn pr-test. They considered it their duty to evince to the world their high disapprobation of it, and tiley have done so by such acts as were deemed mast consistent with the rights and policy of the nation. Remate from the contentious scene which desolates Europe, it has been their uniform object to avoid becoming a party to the war. With this view, they have endeavoured to cul tivate friendship with both liar ties, by a system of conduct which ought to have produced that effect.— They have done justice to each party by every trans action in which they have been separately engaged. They have observed the impattiality whi c h w a s due to both as belligerents standing on equal groiusd, ha ving in no instance given a preference to either at the expence of the other. 64 They have borne too with equal indulgence in juries from both, being willing while it was possible, to impute them to casualties inseparable from a cause 0f war, and not to deliberate intention to violate their rights.—and even when that intention could not be mistaken, they have not lost sight of the ultimate object of their policy. Jn the measures to which they have been compelled to resort, they have in all re saects maintained pacific relations with both parties. 4he alternative presented by their late acts was of fered equally to both, and could opetate on neither no longer than it should persevere in its egression on our neutral rights. The Embargo and Non-inter course were peaceful measures, The re g ulati on s which they imposed on our trade were such as any cation might adopt in peace or war, witiv.ut offence to any other nation. The Nun importation is of the sante character, and if it makes a distinction at this time, in its operation between the belligerents, it ne. cess irily results from a compliance of one with the offer made to both, and which is still open to the compliance of the other. In tie di.iensstoos which have taken place on the subject of the Orders in Council, Apd blockade of Mey, 1806, the Blieisli Government, its confor mity t 9 the principle pa which the Ord; io Cimin o are s id to be tesinded, declared that trey should cease to o f erate as soon as France rcrro,ked her Eelietet " The violations of neutral commerce alluded to in this Act were such as were committed on the high seas. It was in the trade between the United States and theßrilish dominions that France had violated the neutral rights of the United States by her blockading Edicts. 'lt was with the trade of France and her al lies that Great Britain had committed similar viola. Cons by similar Edicts. It was the revocation of those Edicts, so far as they committed such viola tions, which the United States had in view when they passed the law of May Ist, 1810. On the sth of August, 1810, the French Minister of Foreign 'Af fairs addressed a Note to the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris, informing him that the Decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked, the revo cation to take effect on the Ist of November follow ing : that the measure had been taken by his Govern ment in confidence that the British Government would revoke its Orders and renounce its new princi ples of blockade, or that the United States would ause their rights to be respected, conformably to the Act of May Ist, 1810. " This measure of the French Government was founded on the law of May Ist, 1810, as it expressly declared in the letter of the Duke of Cadore announ cing it. The Edicts of Great Britain, the revocation • of which were expected by France, were those allud ed to in that Act ; and the means by which the Uni ted States should cause their rights to be respected, in case Great Britain should not revoke her Edicts, were likewise to be found in the same Act. They con-' sired merely in the enforcement of the Non-importa tion Act against Great Britain, in that unexpected and imprcbable contingency. " The letter of the sth of August, which announ ced the revocation of the French Decrees, was com municated to this Government, in consequence of which the President issued a Proclamation on the 2d of November, the day after that on which the French Decrees were to take effect, in which he declared, that all the restrictions imposed by the Act of May 1, 1810, should cease and be discontinued in relation to France and her dependencies. It was a nee , ssary consequence of this Proclamation, also, that if Great Britain did not revoke her Edicts, the Non-importa tion would operate on her at the end of three months. This actually took place. She de - dined the revoca. lion, and on the 2d of February last the law took ef fect. In confirmation of the Proclamation, an Act of Congreis was passed on the 2d March following. " Great Britain still declines to revoke her Edicts, on the pretension that France has not revoked hers. Under that impression, she infers that the United States have done her injustice, by carrying into effect the Non-importation against her. " The United States maintain that France has re voked her Edicts, so far as they violated their neutral rights, and were contemplated by the law of May Ist, 1810, and have, on that ground, particularly claimed, and do expect of Great Britain, a similar revocatii n. 4 , The revocation announced of f icially by the.l French Minister of E reign Affairs to the Minister Plenipotentiary of the Untval Stites at Paris, on the sth of August, 1810, was in itself sufficient to justify the claim of the United States to a correspondent measure from Great Britain. She had declared that she would proceed Jari tam in the repeal with ! France, and the day being fixed when the repeal of 1 the French Decrees should take effect, it was reason able to conclude that Great Btitain would fix the same day for the repeal of her Orders. ~ Had this been done, the Proclamation of the President would have announced the revocation of the Edict of both powers at the same time, and in comcquence thereof the Non importation would have .gone into operation against neither. Such too is the natural course cdproc;:eding in transactions between ! independent Statts, and such the conduct which they generally observe towards each other. In all corn. pacts between nations, it is the duty of each to per-1 form what it stipulates, and to presume on the good faith of the other for a like performance. The Uni ted States having made proposals to both belligerents, Were bound to accept a compliance from either, and it was no ebjection to the French compliance, that it WAS in a form to take effect at a future day, that lie ling a form not unusual in laws and other public acts. Even when nations are at war and make peace, this obligation of mutua confidence exists, and is respet. ted. In treaties of commerce, by which their futilre intercourse is to be governed, the obligation is the same. If distrust and jealousy are allowed to prevail, the moral tie which binds nations together in all their relations, in war as well as in peace, is broken. 4 , What would Great Britain have hazarded by a prompt compliance in the manner suggested ? She had declared that she had adopted the restraints posed by her Orders in Council with reluctance, be-. cause of their distressing effects on neutral powers. Here then was a favourable opportunity presented to her to withdraw from that measure with honour, be* the conduct of France afterwards what it might. Ha& Great Britain revoked her Orders, and France failed to, fulfil her engagement, she would have gained cre t at the expence of France, and could have sustained no injury by it, because the failure of France to main tain her faith would have replaced Great Britain at the point from which shehad departed. To say that a disappointed reliance on the &pod faith of her ene my would have reproached her foresight, would be to have set a higher value on that quality than on consistency and good faith, and would sacrifice to a mere suspicion towards an enemy the plain obliga tions of justice towards a friendly power. (rent Britain has declined weeding periparre francf, W the roTowion of their S Edicts. She has held aloof, and claims of the tfnited which Subsists between them, which, especially hi the States proof not only that France has revoked her . circumstance under consideration, are inveriable.— Decrees, but that see continues to act in coutOrmity They were the same in times the most remote that with the revocation. they now are. even if peace had taken place between 4 4 To chew that the repeal is respected, it issleemed I Great Britain and the Powers of the Continent, she sufficient to rate, that not one vessel has been con- could ant trade with them without their consent. Or, demned by French tribunals, on the principles of i does Great Britain contend, that the United States, those Decrees, since the Ist of November lest. The as a Neutral 'fewer, nu ht to open the Continent to Now Orleans packet, from Gibraltar to Bourdeaux, her commerce, on such terms as she may designate ? was detained, butt never condemned. The Greco ,On what principles tau she set up such a claim ? N. Ann Green, liom the same Brit sir fort to Marseilles, • example of it. can be found in the history ofirest wars, was likewise deteined, but aftet wards delivered up, nor is it founded in any recogninid principle cf ware unconditionally, to the owner, as was such part of the or in any semblance of reason or eght. cargo of the New Orleans packet as consisted of the I 64 The United States could not maintain such a produce of the United States. Both these vessels claim in their own favour, though neotral. Wheu proceeding from a British port, carried cargoes, some I advanced in favour of an enemy, it would be the articles ot which, in each, were prohibited by the most preposterous and extravagant claim ever beard laws of France, ev admissible by the sanction of the of. Every Power, When not restrained by treattehas Government alone. It does not appear that their a right to regulate its trade with other nations :, in retch detention was imputable to any other cause. If im- ' a manner as it finds most consistent with as interest ; potable to the circumstance of passing from a British to admit, and on its own conditions, or to prohibit to a French port, or on account of any pan of their the importation of such articles as are necessary to cargoes, it a ff ords no cause of complaint to Great su pply th e w a nt s or encourage th e indust ry its Britain, as a violation of our neutral rights. No such people. In what light would Great Britain view an cause would be afforded, even in a case of condem- application from the United States, for the repeal of nation. The right of complaint would have belonged right of any Act ()flier Pashement, which prohibited to the United States. the importation of any article from the United States, 64 In denying the revocation of the Decrees, so far such as their fish or their oil ? or which claimed the as it is a proper subject of discussion between us, it diminution of the duty on any other, such as their to might reasonably be expected that you would produce bacce, on which so great a revenue is raised ? la some examples of vessels taken at sea, in veyages to . , what lista would ehe view a similar application made British ports, or on their return home, and condemnY at the instance of France, for the importation into ed under them by a French tribun a l. Nene such lets England of any article the growth or manufacture of been afforded by you. None such are known to this that power, which it was dee policy of the 13ritieh Cc- Government. vemraent to prohibit ? You urge only as an evidence that the Decrees 4. If delays have taken place in the meditation of are not repealed, the speech of the Emperor cf Franca American . property, and . in placing the American to the Deputies from the free cities of Hamburgh, commerce in the ports of France on a lair and satin. Bremen, and Lubeck ; the Imperial Edict, dated at factory basis, they involve questions, as has already Fontainbleau on the 19th October, 1810; the Report been observed, in which the United States alone ars et the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated in interested. As they do net violate the revocation by December last ; and a letter of the Minister of Jus- France direr Ed:cts, they cannot impair the o bli ga . tice to the President of the Council of Prizes of the . tion of Great Britain to revoke hers) nor change the 25th of that month. epoch at•which the revocation ought to have :abet 64 There is nothing in the first of these papers in- place. Had teat duly. Bowed, it is more than pro compatible with the revocation of the Decrees, in re- bable that those circumstances, irrelative as they are, spect to the United Slates. It is distinctly declared which have excited doubt in the British Government by the Emperor, in his speech to the Deputies of the cfthepractical revocation of the French decrees, might Hanse Towns, that the blockade of the British Mends not have occurred. shall cease when the British blockades cease, aid that 41 Every view which can be taken of this subject the French blockade shall cease in favour of those increases the p .inful surprize at the innovations on nations in whese favour Great Britain revokes het's, ail the principles and usaess heret.fute observed, or who suppixt their rights against her pretensiens, es which are so uaierervediy coa:ead:d for its your let- France admits the United States will do by enforcing tern of the &l and 15th instant, and which, if persis:ed the Non-Importation Act. The same sentiment is ex- in by your Government, present such an obstacle to pressed in the Report e f the Minister of Foreign Al- the wish es of the United States, for a renewal ot .he fairs. The Decree of Fontainbleau having no effect difficulties which have been connected with the Or on the high seas, cannot be brought into this decision.. ders in Coutic.l. It is the interest of be lltgerents to It evidently has no connection with neutral rights.— mitigate the calamities of war, and nentrel powers The letter from the Minister of Justice t • the Presi- possess ample means to promot e that object, prev .led dent of the Council of Prizes is of a different cha- they sustain with impartiality and firmness. the dig. racier. It relates in direct terms to this subject, but nary of their statoin. It aelligertnts expect advan. not in the sense in which you understand i.. Atter cage from neutrals, they should leeve them in the full reciting the Note from the Duke of Cadore, of the enjoyment "(their rights. Tare present war has been sth August last, to the American Minister at Paris, oppressive beyond example, by its duration, and by which announced the repeal of the French Decrees, the desolation which it has spread though ou Europe. and Proclamation of the President in conseqUence of It is highly important that at should assume at wed a it, it states, that all causes arising under those De- milder character. By the revocation of the French . erect, after the Ist of November, wt. ich were then Edicts, so far as they respect the neutral o imm er ca of before the Court, or might afterwards be brought the United States, some advance is made toWardsthat before it, should not be judged by the principles of most desirable and consoliog result. Let Great Bri. the Decrees, but be suspended until the 2d February, tein.follow the example. The ground tetra gained when the United States having fulfilled their engage." will soon be enlarged by the concurring and pressing went, the captures should be declared void, and the interests of all parties, and whatever is gained, will vessels and their cargoes delivered up to.tieeir owners. accrue to — the advantage of afflicted humenity. a. This paper appears to afford an uogquivocal " I proceed to notice another part of your letter of evidence of the revocation of the Decrees, sci far as the Sd instant, which is viewed a more tavoureble !relates to the United States. By instructing. the light. The President has received with great SAVSIAC• French Tribunal to make no decision till the 24,1 of teen the communication, that should the Orders in February, and then to restore the property to the i Council of 1807 be revoked,, .the bloceade c f May of owners, on a particular event which has happened, the preceding year, would coast wit: them, and that all cause cf doubt on that point seems to be removed. any bleckede which should afterwards be instituted, The United States may justly complain of delay in should beduly notified and maintained by an adequate the restitution of the property, but that is an injury force. This frank and explicit declaration, worthy which affects them only. Great Britain h.s no right of the promprand amicebleineasure adopted by the to complain of it. She was interested only in the re- Prince Regent' In coming into power, seems to re vocation cs the Decrees, by %%Lich neutral rights move a material obstacle. to an accommeddien a would be secured from future violation ; or if she had differences between our countries, and when followed been interested in the delay, it would have afforded .by the revocation of the Orders in Council, will, as I no pretext for more than a delay to repealing her Or- am authorised , o inform pane produce an immediate ders till the 2d of February. From that day attar s . termination of the Non-Importation Law, by an excite chest the French Decrees wind'? cease. At the same else of the power invested in the President fur that day ought her orders to have ceased. 1 might add purpose. • to this statement, that every communication received 64 I conclude with remarking, thn if I have eon from the French Government, either through our fined this letter to theaubjects broteght into view by Representatives there, or i‘s Representatives here, are rues, it is not because the United States have lost in accord with the actual repeal of the Berlin and sight, in any degree, of the other very serious causss of Milan Decrees, in relation to the neutral commerce , complaint, on which theyhave receiveJ no satisfaction, of the United States. But it will suffice to remark, but because the conciliatory policy of this Government that the best and only adequate evidence of their has thus far separeted the ease itif rite Orders in Council ceasing to operate, is the detect of evidence that they from others, end because, with respect to those others, do operate. It is a case where the want of proof your communication has net afforded any reasonable against the fulfilment of a pledge is proof of the ful- prospect f resuming them at ti.is time with success. filment. Every case occurring, to which, if the Dc.. It is presumed that the Lime liberal view of the true crees were in force, they would I e applied, and to interests of Great Britiin, nod' f.kndey disposition which they are not applied, is a proof that they are towards the United States, which neuced the Prince not in fore. And if these proofs have not been more Regent to remove so material a difficulty as had multiplied, i need not remind you, that a cause is to arisen in relation to an appeal of the Orders in Coon. be found in the numerous captures under your Orders oil, will lead to a more levoureble further considena in Council, which continue to evince the rigour with don of the remaining difficulties cm that subject, and which they are enforced, atter a failure of a basis on that the advantages of an amicable adjustment of which they were supposed to rest. every question depending between the two countries, " But Great Britain contends, as appears by your will be seen by your Government in the same light lest letters, that she ought not to revoke her Orders as :hey are by that of the United States. in Council until the commerce of the Continent is re- 64 1 here the honour to be, &c. stored to the state in which it stood before the Berlin (Signed) - 66 JAMES MOVROz." and Milan Decrees issued ; until the French Decrees l are repealed, not only as to the United Staos, but so ORDERS IN COUNCIL . as to permit Great Britain to trade with the Conti-' In our paper - of the sth inst we gave a short ac nent. Is it then meant that Great Britain should be count cf thlose documents, as far as they related to allowed to trade with all the Powers with whom she the Orders in Caned. Mr. Foster, in his letters of traded at that epoch ? Since that time, France has the Sd, lath, 15th, and 16th July, 1811, to Mr. Mon extended her conquests to the North, and raised etre- roe, the Americanedipister, insists that the Bed nand mies againstGreetßritain where she then had friends. • Milan decrees had not been effectually repealed, and Is it proposed to trade with them, notwithstandarg that the Regent could not therefore forego the just the change in their situation ? Between the enem:es measures ot retaliation, which his Majesty, In his de of one date and those of another, no discrimination fence, had found it necessary to have recourse to. can be made. There is none in reason, nor can there Mr. Monroe, in a reply to Mr. Foster, dated 23d be any, of right, in practice. Or do you maintain the July, considers that his Government was bound to general principlag e eend contend that Gem Britain respect the solemn declaratit nof the French Govern ought to trade pith France and her Allies ? Between I meht,August 5,1810. shat the Decrees wererepealed ; enemies there can be no commerce. The vessels of argues that they are repealed from the release of the either taken by the other are liable to confiscation,l New Orleans packet, the Grace. Anne, and other yes end are always confiscated. The number of enernies, l ; endeavours to avoid the meaning Mr. Foett r et extent of country sleigh they oc;tipy, cannot affect gives to the declaration made to the . Dramatic:in front the question . The Litre of w ar gam the relation ti* Haase Towns bj Bonaparte (Tu. LAW he, Boat .