Star. — London, England, 1812-02-21 00:00:00

I i heir uld the and Ime ling :e br ilit►S Bill• Ni Fir - • 1111VtqiNG STAR. rr• - ••• LONDOM •ittpAt rEnReAItY 21. nocf OF 3 POCKS THI S DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK sper O. Reduced 62-6 er Cent. 780 per Ct. Cons. for m o oney 6 21-I—Do. for ate. 621 gpf Cs. 99.1i--BondAlsa. 16y. pr.--Omnhuu_A tich. Babas. 10a. pre.—Laud Aims. 16 IMPORTANT INTELLIGENCE FROM AMERICA. The Princess Charlotte Packet has arrived at tai. pa th from New York, after a most remarkably quick ogssa ge of 18 days, with dispatches for Government. Their contents are of a most important, and, perhaps, to wnie of our Readers, they will appear of a most un apecced nature, Mr. Fosvea, it would appear' has r e to the full extent of his powers, as t 4 the modi fication of the Orders in Council, and has applied for i c ouctions to authorize hith to accede to their total abrogation on certain conditions. The terms offered to America, we understand to be of such a descrip tion that there is every probability of the negociadons Virg in a complete reconciliation with that Power ! ilr e believe That we may add, that War betweeh Arica and Fiance is now more likely to take place, than between America and Great Britain. We have also received American Papers, to the ja instant, by several vessels which have arrived at larerpool. One of them, the Milo, came from Non in :Wan days These papers bring down e t pr o ceedings of the House of Representatives to 'heath of January ; and. we must confess that not . withstanding the pacific dispositions manifested in Foam's dispatches, the American Legislature ill :names a warlike attitudes - The arrangements for creating an army have been completed and hare received the Ptesident's sanction, tatt l e Bill for increasing the Navy by building ad dition' frigates has been lost by a majority of Ccegtisa has agreed ' however, to appropriate 200,000 *Res annually for three years for the purchase of father and other materials for slip-building• The progress of the Bill for permitting importation from Nat Britain of goods Contracted for previoUsly to the bt of February, 1811, has been suspended, and trope* prevails that it Will not ?ass. Mr. Gallatin, the Sectetary of the Treasury, has brought forward lit Budget for defraying the expences of the War. A private letter on the oaten says, " Mk. GALLA biI kept h finished this day.—lt has electrified tongten; broken the War fever; and must have a poi Act oti the Atbdriata Ptablic."—The Report s § follows I*. Ast midi** Of 100 par ad. to the ditties of imports 3oissooter-2d. A Lead.kos, tie nice tweetbirti mete than that Wailes lorded under Mr. A d 41111111141U114011 9 which will meet to three ltipiaat of dollais—id. A tom on Auctions -16-1! lootsek—Sid. 41:lialevies--Ith. A Carriege•toz--7tis. Oa win of to cants. par salon co altdomestic distilled spirits." It is curious, that Air. Gu.s.Arts, in his Report to the subject of the Budget, complains loudly of the restrictions laid on American commerce 4,y France, which, added to a war with Great Britain, would annihilate the revenue arising from duties. A loan tf ten millibns of dollars will therefore annually be ranted ! We have given at full length the documents laid before Congress by the PRESIDENT, on the 17th of lanuary. They are the most important cominunica tons which have for a long time appeared on the sub -374 of the intercourse between the two countries.— The Message from the PRESIDENT, with which he in troduces Mr. FosrEn's and Mr. MownoE's cotnmuni- iations, is certainly of a most hostile character, and yet the documents themselves really do not warrant iadi an inference as Mr. MADDISON seetns determined t 3 draw. In a report made by Mr. Marmot to the rittSt- I D% on the 16th of January, which we have not room to give at full length, that Gentleman states rurally, that ig the trade of the United States to France is subjected to very severe restrictions ; but the precise extent and nature of them is not distinctly holm" And, strange to tell, Monsieur SEtteLTRItR, the knurl Ambassador, can give him no informa op the subject ! Mr. Forma ; in a distinct official communication to Mr. Momaor, disavows, in a manly manner, all 4 ttrference on the part of the British in the late dis- Pus between the Indians and the Americans. He tren refers M r . M ONROE t o a communication from 4 'r hhes CRA t,:, from Canada, in-which the General rum ishes the American Govettment with informa toa as to the iutent?ons and movements of their in enemies. Mr. MONROE', in answer, admits that ,nis n an additional proof of the friendly dispositions the British Government. The following is a private coMmunication from Scat of Government; WASHINGTON, JAN. 28. My opinion is that the importers will be released ?n al the present restrictions, i. e. the Orders in Coun cil sad the Non.lmportation Act will be withdrawn a nd repealed. As td commerce generally, it will not, P et ila Ps, enjoy its fetmer latitude. Our carryings trade '(Tippled ; and I cannot predict a epeedy recovery. Believe nothing that may be said, in or out of Con. either about attacking Canada, or that the Bri t's assist the 4 Prophet' and his Indians against us. Those are lies ; and if you think a vote to raise men looks like war, quiet your apprehensions. In ti do not understand what is here called manage hens. There will, Is I believe, to nt? tsar. The War whoop, the Orders in Coiineih the Non-importation, And Presidential Citucussing, Will vanish before next summer. Here you have clearly my/eh:ion ; and as you stated, lam not ivithout some opportunities of judging." WA31141/40,T0N CITE, MN. 17. IN The following Message Was yesterday transmit ted by the President to both Hotises of Congress : 44 To TIM MATZ AND lIOUSk OF RIPRESNNTATIVES OF THB bNITRD STATE!. g g I conummicate to Congress a letter from the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Great Britain to the Sedretary of State, with the answer of the latter. " The continued evidence, afforded in this corres pondence, of the hostile policy of the British Govern ment against our national rights, strengthens tht con sidetations recoMmending and Urging the preparation of adequate Meant for Maintaining them." (Signed) 44 JAMES MADISON." Washington, Jan. 16, 1812." 1118. FOSTER TO Mt. SIONROE. " Washington, Dec. 17, 1811. " Stir—i did not mean to have written to you at this moment on the subject of 'onr late correspon dence, but that I have had the mortification to per ceive statements, circulated from high respectable sources, which give a view to the pretensions of Great Britain relative to the United States not warranted by any of the letters which I had the honour to ad dress to you, and which at a time when discussions are continuing so important to the two countries, might, if left unrectified, produce an effect highly to be lamented by both the American and British Go vernments, inasmuch as toy creating unnecessary ir ritation, they might throw obstacles in the way of a restoration of a friendly understanding between them. " I find it asserted in the staiement reierred to, that I have, in the name of my Government, demanded that the United States Government should pass a law for the introduction of British goods into the American ports, and also that the United States should undertake to force France to receive into her harbours British manufactures. I beg permission, Sir, to declare that neither of these demands have been made by me, and that my meaning must not have been understood, if such was conceived to have been its import. I could not have demanded the passage of such a law as above stated, because my Govern ment does not pretend to interfere with the internal Goveinment of a frendly power, nor did I mean to demand that America should furce Prance to receive our manufactures. 64 All I meant to say was, that the admission •f French commerce while that of England has been excluded from the United States' ports, was regarded by Great Britain as highly unfriendly in America, and that a continuation of such policy would be re taliated upon by Great Britain with similar restric tions on her part, which was so far merely an offering tif like for like. But while the American Non-impor tation Act excludes British trade from the United States' ports, it must be recollected that it goes still further, and excludes also British armed ships from American ports, while it admits those of the enemies of Great Britain. ' A neutral nation is responsible ,'for the quality of its rules of conduct towards the bel- Oigereot powers' (to use the words of an American Secretary of State in the year 1796) and therefore the 'part of the law which establishes an inequality was I justly an object of more serious complaint on the part of Great Britain. You are aware, Sir, of the advan tage which his Majesty's enemies have derived from this state of inequality, which enables them, though possessing no port in this hemisphere, continually to prey on th . e trade of his Majesty's subjects, secure of a refuge tor their cruisers and their prizes. gg 1 he prohibition of entry to his Majesty's ships under these circumstances, might, perhaps, justify Great Britain in asserting, that whatever reason she may have for repealing or modifying her Orders in Council, so as to lessen or entirely remove the pres sure now unavoidably laid on the trade of America as a neutral nation, she might yet refuse to enter into any discussion on that subject with the United States, until either by the revocation of the prohibition above stated, or the placing all the belligerents under the same prohibition, America should cease to violate the duties of a neutral nation. With respect, however, to.the supposed demand that America should force the entry of British manufactures into France, it is most particularly necessary that I should explain my self, as a total misconception appears to have taken place upon this point. The question cf retaliation on the French decrees is directly one between England and France. In consequence of the extraordinary blockade of England, we have in our defence been obliged to blockade France, and prohibit all trade in French articles, in return for the prohibition by France of all trade 'in English articles. This mea sure of retaliation, it is wished, should operate on France alone, but from the trade carried on with France by America, it unavoidably operates also on her ; it is a measure to destroy the French trade is return for the similar measure of France, on which it is retaliatory, and its acting on neutrals is an inciden-1 tal effect of it, consequent upon the submission of, neutrals to the original measures of the enemy against Great Britain. It is, indeed, melancholy that the unnatural situation of Europe should ptoduce such a result, but I cannot see how this can be considered as war on American commerce, when all other Ameri can trade, but that which is carried on with our ene my's ports in defiance of a blockade authorised by the laws of retaliation, is unaffected by it. We com plain that America does not resist the regulations of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and object to permit ting the French to trade with her during their conti nuance against the commerce of England; but this is not exacting, as has been represented, that America should force British manufactures into France ; it is pursuing only ajust course of retaliation on our enemy. 16 If America wishes tb trade with France, if French commerce is of importance to her—we expect she should exact of France td trade with her at she has a right to demand in her qualitf of neutral; but if she does not choose to exercise this right, all we ask is, that she should abstain from lending het as sistance to the trade of France, and not allow het commerce to be a medium of undermining the re sources of Great Britain. 44 I have thought it necessary thus to endeaeour to s et these two points in their true light i tip repeal of die law was asked, As being an unfriendly Inasufe, partial in its operation against Great Britain, and a prospect of retaliation was held out On its tommertial operation if continted. This is no demand on the United States to adniit British manufactures : tLey are at liberty to continue that law, only as it is of an unfriendly nature, some restriction of a similar kind wan m be expected from England ; and with respect to the alledged demand for forcing British goods, the property of neutrals, into French ports, if the United States are willirg to acquiesce in the regulations of the French decrees, unlau fully affecting England through them; they cannot, surely, be surprised if consider ourselves as at liberty tb refuse permis . - sion to the French to profit by that acquiescence. I will now, Sir, take the opportunity of stating to you, that I have received from his Majesty's Se cretary of State, the correspondence of which yota did me the honour to transmit to me a copy in your letter, dated October 17. My government have not been able to see in it satisfactory proof of the repeal of the French decrees, and doubt whether the trade carried on by licences between trance and America, will not be regarded, even here, as a proof of the continuation of them in their fullest extent, for if they were to any extent repealed, to that extent at least no licence should be necessary, a licence being given, to allow what, but for that licence, would be prohibited. " The continued absence hitherto of any instrument by which the repeal has been effected, is a matter also of surprise, for if there were any fair dealing in the transaction, no reason can be given by France for not producing it ; it is very des:rable that it should be produced if such an instrument be in existence, in order that we may know to what extent the decrees have been repealed, if they really have been so in any respect. Mr. Russel, however, does not appear to have been in possession of it at the date of his letter of last July. It is, indeed, become particularly in teresting, that we shoull see this instrument since the publication of Mr. Russel's correspondence with his own Government, by which it appears that really, and in fact, the French Government did not release any American ships taken after November 1, until they had become acquainted with the President's Pro clamation, and that vessels have been taken so late as December 21, in the direct voyage from this coun try to London ; for, until a copy of such instrument is produced, it is impossible to know whether any other trade is allowed by France than that between her own dominions and the ports of the United States. " I have the honour to be, with the highest consi deration, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, AM. J. POSTER. " To the Hon. James Monroe, &c." lifit. MONROE TO MR. FOSTER. " Department of State, January 14, 1812. " SIR—I have had the honour to receive your let ter of December 17th, and I embrace the first moment that [ could command to make the observations which it suggests. 44 It would have afforded great satisfaction to the President, to have found in the communication some proof of a disposition in the British Government to put an end to the differences subsisting between our I countries. lam sorry to be obliged to state, that it presents a new proof only of its determination to ad here to the policy to which they are imputable. " You complain, that the import of your former, letters has been misunderstood in two important cir- ' cumstances : that you have been represented to have demanded of the United States a law for the intro duction of British goods into their ports ; and that they should also undertake to force France to receive British manufactures into her harbours. " You state that on the first point, it was your in tention only to remonstrate against the non-importa- I tion act, as partial in its operation, and unfriendly to Great Britain, on which account its repeal was claim- 1 ed, and to intimate that if it was persevered in Great 1 Britain would be compelled to retaliate on the com merce of the United States, by similar restrictions on' her part. And on the second point, that you intended only to urge, that in consequence of the extraordinary' blockade of England, your Government had been obliged to blockade France, and to prohibit all trade in French articles, in return for the prOhibition by 1 France of all trade in English articles. " It is sufficient to remark on the first point, that on whatever ground the repeal of the non-importation act is required, the United States are justified in ad- hering to it, by the refusal of the British government' to repeal its orders in council ; and if a distinction is' thus produced between Great Britain and the other belligerent, it must be referred to the difference in the conduct of the two patties. " On the second point, I have to observe that the explanation given cannot be satisfactory, because it does not meet the case now existing. France did, it is' true, declare a blockade of England against the trade of the United States, and prohibited all trade in Eng- E.% articles on the high seas ; but this blockade and . prohibition no longer exist. It is true also, that a part of those decrees did. prohibit a trade in English arti cles, within her territorial jurisdiction—but this pro- hibition violates no national rights cr neutral tom- I inerce of the United States. Still your blockade and prohibition are continued, in violation of the national and neutral rights of the United States, on a pretext' of retaliation, which, if even applicable, could only be applied to the former, and not to the latter inter dicts ; and it is required' that France shall change her , internal regulations against English trade before Eng land will change her external regulations against the trade of the United States. II But you still insist ,that the French decrees are unrevoked, and urge in proof of it, a fact drawn from Mr. Russell's correspondence, that some American vessels have been taken since the Ist of November, in their route to England. It is a satisfactory ansner to this remark, that it appears by the same corres pondence, that every American vessel which had been taken in that trade, the seizure of which rested on the Berlin and Milan Decrees only, were, as soon as that fact was ascertained, delivered up to their owners. Might there not be other ground also, on which seizures Might be made ? Great Britain claims a right to seize for other causes, and a' l flattens admit it in the case of Contraband of war. If by the law of nations, one belligerent has a right to seize neutral property in any case, the other belligerent has the same right. Nor ought Ito overlook that the = ice of counterfeiting American papers its Eng ' which is well known to the Continent, bas by _ . ithpatting the faith due to Arndt-ken dointnentt, done to the Unites essential injury. Against this practice the Mittistei ofthl United States at Undon, as will Appear by iefereti• e td hit letter to the Martinis Wellesley of the 3d , t NI2Yi 181% Made a formal representation, in pur,uance of instructions from his Government, with a offer Of every infottnation ptiSsef.sed by hith, which mght contribute to detect and suppress ft. It is paiisflif add this communication was entirely disreBarde,h That Great Britain should complain of acts in France to which by her neglect, she was instrumental, and draw from them proof in topport•of her Orders ht Coutcd, ought 9p-wilily not to have been expected. " Your remark also, that the practice r f the French Government to grant licences to cart on Am( rican vessels, engaged in the trade betfee,:n the United States and France, is an additional prof that the French Decrees still operate in their fullest •:: tent. On what principle this inferenc e is dra wn tr om that fact it is impossible for me to conceive. It was not the object of the Berlin and Milan Decrees to prohi bit the trade of the United States with Great Britain which violated our neutral rights, and to prohibit the trade of Great Britain with the Continent, with which the United States have nothing to do. a If the object had been to prohibit the trade be tween the United States and France, Great Britain could never have found in thenrany pretext for Com plaint. And if the idea of tetaliation could in any respect have been applicable, it would have been by prohibiting our trade with herselta To prohibit it with France woult_not have been a retaliation, but a co-operation. If licensed by Plaice the trades in certain instances, prove any thing, it proves nothing more than that the trade with France, in other in- stances, is under restraint. It seems impottble to extract from it, in any respect, that the Berlin and Milan Decrees are in force, so far ac they prohibit the trade between the United States and England; I might here repeat, that the French practice of grant ing licences to trade between the United States and France may have been intended, in part at km, as a security against the simulated papers, the forging of which was not suppressed in England. It is n t to be inferred from these remarks, that a trade by li cence is one with which tilt United States are Lai:- fied: they have the strongest objntions to it ibut these are founded on other principles than those sug gested in your note. " It is a cause of great surprise to the Fresis'ent, that your government has not seen in the correspon dence of Mr. Russel, which I had the honour to com municate to you on the 17th of October last, and which has been lately transmirecl to you by your government, sufficient proof of the repeal of the Ber lin and Milan decrees, independent of the conclusive evidence of the fact, which that correspondence af forded, it was not to be presumed from the intim t don of the Marquis of Wellesley, that if it was to be transmitted to you, tr be taken into consideration in the depending discussions, that it was of a nature have no weight in these discussions. 41 The demand which you now mike of a view of the crder given by the French government to its cruisers, in consequence of the repeal of the Frenth decrees, is a new proof of its indisposition to repeal the orders in council. Ihe ifeclaration of the French government was, as has been heretofore observed, a 1 1 solemn and obligatory act, aril as such entitled to the notice and retpxt of tarter governmentsr It was incumbent on Great Britain, therefore, in fulfilment of her engagement, to have provided that bet orders in counci l - shculd not have effect, after the time fixed for the cessation of the French decrees. . " A pretension in Great Britain to keep her orders in force till she received satisfaction of the practical compliance of France, is utterly incompatible with her pledge. A doubt, founded on any single act, however unauthorised, committed by a French pri vateer, might, on that principle, become a motive for delay and refus tl. A suspicion that such acts would be committed might have the time effect • and in like manner her compliance might be withhell as long as the war continued. But let me here remark, that if there was room for a question, whether the French repeal did or did not take effect, at the date announced by France, and required by the United States, it cannot be alledged that the decrees have not ceased to operate since the 2d of February last, as heretofore observed. And as the actual cessation of the decrees to violate out neutral rights, was the only essential fact in the case, and has long been known to your.Gavernment, tit.: Orders is Council, from the d 'te o! . that knowledge, ought to have ceased, according to its own principle and pledges. " But the question whether and when tae repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees took effect in relation t.) the neutral commerce of.the United States, is su perseded by the novel and extraordinary claim of Great Britain to a trade in British articles, with her enemy for supposing the terra! to hate taken place, in the fullest extent claimed by the United States, it could, according to that claim, have no effect in red moving the Order in Council. On a full view of the crnduct of the British Cd• vernment in these transactions, it is impossible to set in it any thing short of a spirit of determinei hosti lity to the rights and interest of the United States. I have be honour to be, &e. w iAites NOWltelk " Augustus I. Foster, Esq. Ike' • The report of yesterday that a Swedish einister had landed in England, arose from the follow 4 circumstance :—The last packet front Anholt brought over ashlt. Guinoun, an Englishmerthact, who left Petersburgb on the 16th ult. He travellatlworigh Sweden, and embarked in the Gist instance at Got teaburgh ; this is the Gentleman to whiAn report has given the character of Minister Eetraordioary from Sweden. It is true, however, that it Messenpr from Sweden also arrived by the last conveyance with letters for the Swedish lttsident in London, which, we understand, contain some important communications. In addition to tbe rumours circulated yesterday, of a pacific tendency, it is rumoured this day, in the City, that the Earl of CHICIIISTEK is going out on a secret mission to Paris. Vfe have nut been able to ascertain the source of this rumour. The.,Gazelle Frr.nch brig privateer, of and from St. Maloe's, carrying 11. guns, And 65 men, has, at length, been captured. She was taken by his Ma• jes t y's ship Xeosioss, on Monday morning last, after a smart chart of tv<o hours.