Star. — London, England, 1813-10-07 00:00:00

.Asirikitembibkkoftibßerrole AMERICA 0m.p.0mm..• . -.. SaIPORTANT DOCUMENT.—OUR RELATIONS WITH . FRANCE. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 4 4 widrineron, July It, ISM" • ••• • TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OP THE UNITED STATES. " I transmit to the House of Representatives a Re port of the Secretary of State, containing' the infor 'nation requested by their Resolutions of the 21st of June last. 4' JAMES MADISON." " The SECRETARY of STATE, to whom was referred several Resolutions of the House of Representatives or the 41st ult. requesting information on certain points relating to the French Decree of the 28th of April, 1811, has the honour to make to the President the following Report : " In furnishing the information required by the House of Representative - % the Secretary of State presumes, that it might be deemed sufficient for him to state what is ?tow demanded, what part thereof his been heretofore communicated, and to supply the deficiency. He considers it, however, more conformable to the views of the House, to meet at this time, without regarding what has been already communicated, every inquiry, and to give a dis tinct answer to each, with the proper explanation re lating to it. " The House of Representatives has requested information, when, by whom, and in what manner, the first intelligence was given to this Government of the Decase of the Government of France, bearing date on the 28th April, 1811, and purporting to be . a definitive repeal of •the Decrees of Berlin and Mi [ lan ; whether Mr. Russell, late Charge d'Affaires of the United States to the Government of France, ever admitted or denied to his Government the correct .. ness of the declaration of the Duke of •Bassano, to Mr. Barlow, as stated in Mr. Barlow's letter of the 12th May, 1812, to the Secretary of State, that the said Decree had been communicated to his, Mr. Bar low's predecessor there, and to lay before tjte House any correspondence with Mr. Russell on that subject, which it may not be improper to communicate, and also any correspondence between Mr. Barlow and • Ur. Russell in possession of the Department of State; whether the Minister of France to the United States ever informed this Government of the existence of the said Decree, and to lay before the House any correspondence with the said Minister relative thereto not improper to be communicated ; with any other information in possession of the Executive, which he May nordeem it injurious to the public interest to disclose, relative to the said Decree, tending to shew at what time, by whom, and in what manner, it was I first made known to this Government, or to any of its Representatives or Agents ; and, lastly, to inform the House whether the Government of the United I States hath ever received from that of France any ex , planation of the reasons of that Decree being con cealed from this Government, and its Minister, for so long a time after its date, and if such explanation has been asked by this Government, and has been omitted to be given by that of France, whether this Government has made 4 lny remonstrance, or express . ed any dissatisfaction to the Government of France at such concealment. These inquiries embrace two distinct objects. The first relates to the conduct of the Government of France, in regard to this Decree. The second, to that of the Government of the United States.. In* satisfying the call of the House, on this latter point, it seems to be proper to meet it in a two-fold view r, first, as it relates to the conduct cf this Government in this transaction ; secondly, as it relates to its con dint towards both Belligerents in some important circumstances connected with it. The Resolutions . do not call specially for a Report of such extent, but as the measures of the Executive and the acts of Con gress, founded on communications from the Execu tive, which relate to one of the Belligerents, have by necessary consequences an immediate relation to the other, such a Report seems to be obviously coin- 1 , prised within their scope. On this principle the Re port js prepared, in the expectation, that the more full the information given, on every branch of this subject, the more satisfactory will it be to the House. 44 The Secretary of State has the honour to report, in reply to these inquiries, that the first intelligence which this Government received of the French De cree of the 28th April, 1811, was communicated by Mr. Barlow, in a letter bearing date on the 12th May, 1812, which was received by this department on the 13th July following ; that the first intimation to Mi. Barlow, of the existence of that Decree, at appears by his communications, was given by the Duke of , Bassano, in an informal confetenoe on some day be tween the Ist and 10th of May, 1812, and that the official communication of it to Mr. Barlow, was made on the 10th of that month, at his request ; that Mr. Barlow transmitted a copy of that Decree, and of the Duke of Bassano's letter, announcing it to Mr.l Russell, in a letter of May 11th, in which he also formed Mr. Russell, that the Duke of Bassano had stated that the Decree bad been duly communicated to him ; that Mr. Russell reified, in a letter to Mr. Barlow of the 29th May, that his first knowledge of the Decree was derived from his letter, and. that he has repeatedly stated the same since to this Govern ment. The paper marked A, is a copy of an extract of Mr. Barlow's letter to the Department of State, of May 12, 1812 ; B, of the Duke of Bassano's letter to Mr. Barlow, of the 10th of the same month ; C, of an extract of Mr. Barlow's letter to Mr. Russell of May 11th I D, of an extract of Mr. Russell's an swer of the 29th May; and E, of Mr. Russell's letter to the Department of State of the SOth. " The Secretary of State reports also, that no communication of the Decree of the '2Bth April, 1811, was ever made to this Government by the Minister of France, or t cher person, than 'as is above stated, and that no explanation of the cause of its not having been communicated to this Go vernment, and published at the time of its date, was ever made to this Government, or, so far as it is informed, to the Representatives or Agents of the United States in Europe. The Minister of France has been asked to explain the cause of a proceeding apparently so extraordinary and exceptionable, Hho , replied, that his first intelligence of that Decree was received by the Wasp, in a letter from the Duke of Bassano, of May 10, 1812, in which he expressed his , lurprise, excited by Mr. Barlow's communication, that a. prior letter of May, 1811, in which he had -- transmitted a copy of that don ut this Government,- t 64 Further explanations Barlow, but none were this transaction was viewed !indeed by the President in , and communicated ajso to . the 14th of July, 1812, with explanation from the . French 9th day of May, 1812, the Emperor left 'Paris fortlit North, andinisro days thereafter the buke of Bas sano follovied film. A negociation fur the adjustment 'of in juries, and the arrangement of our commerce, with the Government of France, long depending, and said to have been brought nearly to a conclusion at the time of Mr. Barlow 's death, was suspended by' ' that event. His successor, lately appointed, is au thorised to resume the negociation, and to conclude it, He is instructed to demand redress of the French Government for every injury, and an explanation of its motive for withholding from this Government a knowledge of the Decree for so long a time after its adoptitat. ss It appears by the Documents referred to, that Mr. Barlow lost no time, after having obtained a knowledge of the existence of the French Decree of ithe 28th April, 1811, in demanding a copy of it, and transmitting it to Mr. Russell, who immediately laid it before the British Government, urging, on the ground of this new proof of the repeal of the French , Decrees, that the British Orders in Council should • be repealed. Mr. Russell's note to Lord Castlereagh bears date on the 20th of May—Lord Castlereagh 's reply on the 28J, in which he promised to submit the Decree to the consideration of the Prince Regent. It appears, however, that no encouragement was given at that time to hope that the Orders in Council would be repealed in consequence of that Decree ; and that although it was afterwards made the ground of their repeal, the repeal was nevertheless to bin as cribed to other causes. 44 Their repeal did not take effect until the 23d of ! June, more than a month after the French Decree had been lad before the British Government—a delay ' indicating in itself, at a period so momentous and critic.il, not merely neglect but disregard of the French Decree. That the repeal of the British Or ders in Council was not produced by the French De cree, other proofs might be adduced. I will state one, which, in addition to the evidence contained in the t letters from Mr. Russell, herewith communicated, marked G. is deemed conclusive. In the conimu nication of Mr. Baker to Mr. Graham, on the 9th of August, 1812, which was founded on instructions from his Giveinment, of as late date as the 17th of June, in which he stated, that an official declaration would be sent to this country, proposing a conditio nal repeal of the Orders in Council, so far as they affected the United States; no notice whatever was taken of the French Decree. One of the conditions then co.templated was, that the Orders in Council should be revived at the end of eight months, unless the conduct of the French Government, and the re sult of the communications with the Government of the United States should be such as, in the opinion el the British Government, to render their revival unne cessary ; a condition which proves inctnitestibly that the French Decree was not considered by the British" Government a sufficient giound on which to repeal' the Orders in Council. It proves also that on that day the British Government had resolved not to re peal the Orders on the basis of that Decree—since the proposed repeal was to depend not on what the French Government had already done, but on what' it might do, and on arrangements to be entered into with the United States, unconnected with the French repeal. 44 The French Decree of the 28th of April, lAII, was transmitted to the United States by the Wasp, a public vessel, which had been long awaiting, at the ports of Great Britain and France, dispatcues trum our Ministers, relating to these very important con cerns with both Governments. It was teceived at the Department of State on the 13th July, 1812, nearly a month after the Declaration of ;War against Great Britain. Intelligence of the repeal of the Or ders in Council was not received until about the mid dle of the following month. It was impossible, there fore, that either of diose acts, in whatever light they may be viewed, should have been taken into consi deration, or have had any influence iu deciding upon that important event. 4 4 Bad the British Government been disposed to' repealits Orders in Council, in conformity with the principle on which it professed to have issued them, and on the condition which it had itself prescribed, there was no reason to delay the repeal until such a Decree as that of the 28th of April, 1811, should be produced. The DecParation of the French Govern ment of August 5, 1810, had. fully satisfied every claim of the British COvernment according to its own principles on that point. By it,'the Decree's at Berlin and Milan were declared to be repealed, theJepeal to take effect on the Ist of November following, on which day it did take effect. The only condition attached to it was, either that,Great Britain should follow the example, and repeal her Orders in Coun cil, or that the United States should carry into effect against her their Non-Importation Act. This con dition was in its nature subsequent, not precedent, reserving a right in France to revive her Decrees in case neither alternative was performed. By this De claration it was put completely in the power of Great Britain to terminate this controversy in a manner the most honourable to herself. France had yielded to her the ground on a condition with which she had declared her willingness to comply. Had she com plied, the Non-Importation Act would not have been carried into effect, nor could the French Decrees have been revived. By refusing to comply, she has made herself responsible for all that has since follow ed.—By the Decree of the 28th April, 1811, the De crees of Berlin and Milan were said to be definitely repealed : and the execution of the NGn-Importation Act against Great Britain was declared to be the ground of that repeal. The repeal announced by the Declaration of the sth of August, 1810, was absolute and final, except as to the condition subsequently at tached to it. This latter Decree acknowledges that that condition had been perfoi wed, and disclaims the right to revive it in consequence of that performance, and extending back to the first of November, con firms in every circumstance the preceding repeaL— The latter act, therefore, as to the repeal, is nothing more than a confirmation of the former. It is in this sense that those two acts are to be understood in in the same sense that they pikje be other Powers. ling the Orders in Council on the pre. :reach Decree of the 28th April, 1811, . Government has conceded that it ou.ght repealed thesn'on the Declaration of the sth 1810. It is impossible to discriminate ...e two acts, or .to separate them from, each other, so as to justify, on sound and consistent principles, the repeal of the Orders in Council on the ground of one act, and the refusal to repeal them to that of the other. The second act m.tkes the repeal definitive ; but for what reason ? Because the IsIoii; Importation Act has been put in force against Great Britain, in compliance with the condition suhrquent attachW to-the former repeal, and her rdlusal 10 re peal her. Orders in Council. That Act being still in force, and the Decree of the 28th April, 1811, being expressly founded on it, Great Britain repeals her Orders in Council on the basis of this latter Decree. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible, that by this repeal, under all the circumstances attending it, the British Government has acknowledged the justice of The claim of the United States to a repeal on the for mer occasion. By accepting the latter repeal, it has sanctioned the preceding one ; it has sanctioned also the conduct of thispovernment in carrying into effect the Non-Importation Act against Great Britain, founded on the preceding repeal. 1 4 Other important consequences result from this repeal of the British Government. By fair and ob. irtous construction the acceptance of the Decree of the 28th of April, 1811, as the ground of the repeal ,of the Orders in Council, ought to be construed to extend beck to the first of N.)vember, 1810, the day on which the preceding repeal rook effect. The Se cretary of State has full confidence, that if the ques- tin could be submitted to the judgment of an im partial judicial tribunal, such would be its decision. He has equal confidence that such will be the judg ment pronounced on it by the enlightened and im partial world. If, however, these two acts could be -separated from each (,ther,,bo as that the latter might be made the basis of the renewal of the Orders in 'Council, distinct from the former, it follows that. bearing date on the 28th of April, 1811, the repeal ought to have relation to that date. i‘ In legal ck nstruction, between nations as well as' individuals, acts are to be respected from the time they begin to operate, and where' they impose a mofal r political obligation on another party, that obligation commences with the commencement of the act. But it has been urged that the French Decree was net promulgated, or made known to the British Government until a year after ixdate. This objec— tion has no force. By accepting an act bearing date a year before it was promulgated, it is admitted that in the interval nothing was done rerugnant to it. It cannot be presumed that any Government would accept from another, as the basis on which it was to found an important measure, an act of anterior and remote date, pledging itself to a certain course of conduct, which that Government had in the inter. val departed him and violated. If any Government had violated an act, the injunctions of which it was bound to observe by an anterior one, in relation to a third party, and which it professed to have observed, before its acceptauce by the other, it could not be presumed that it would case to violate it idler the acceptance. The conclusion is irresistible, that if the other Government did accept arc!) act with i know ledge of its antecedent violation, as the foundation of any measure on its own part, that such act mtist have been the ostensible only, and not the real motive of such measure. The Declaration of the Prince Regent of the 21st of April, 1812, is in full confirmation of these remarks. By this act of the British Government it is formally announced, on the authority of a Report of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Conserva tive Senate of France, that tlic French Decrees are still in force, and that the Orders in Council shteld not be repealed. It cannot fail to excite considerable surprise, that the British Government 'should imme diately afterwards, that is, on the 23d of June, repeal its Orders in Council, on the ground of the French Decree of the 28th April, 1811. By this proceeding the British Government has involved itself in mani fest inconsistency. It is maintained by one act, that the French Decrees were in full force, and by another that they were repealed during the same space of time. •It admits also, that by no act of the French Government or its cruisers, had any violation of the repeal announced by the Declaration of the French Government of the sth of August, 1810, been com mitted, or at least, that such violation had not had sufficient weight to prevent the repeal of the Orders. di It was objected that the Declaration of the French Government of the sth of August, 1810, was net such an act as the British Government ought to have regarded. The Secretary of State is thoroughly sa tisfied that this objection is altogether unfounded. It was commutlicated by. the Emperor through his highest official organ, the Secretary for Foreign Af fairs, to the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris. It is impossible to conceive an act More formal, authentic, or obligatory on Vie French Government than that alluded to. Does one Go vernment ever ask or expect from another to secure the performance of any duty, however important, more than its official pledge, fairly and fully ex pressed ? Can better , security be given for its perfor mance? Had there been any doubt on this subject, the conduct of Great Britain herself, in similar cases, would have completely removed it. The whole his tory of her diplomatic intercourse with other Powers on the subject of blockade, is in accord with this pro. seeding of the French Government. We know that when I,er Government institutes a blockade, the Se cretary of Foreign Affairs announces it to the Mi- nisters of the other Powers at London ; and that the same form is observed when they ate revoked. Nor was the authenticity of either act ever questioned. Had a similar Declaration been made by the Mi nister of France in the United States to this Govern ment, by the order of his own, would it not have been entitled to respect, and been respected ? By the usage of nations such respect could not have been withheld. The arrangement made with Mr. Erskine. is a full proof of the good faith of this Government, and of its impartiality, in its transactions with' both the Bel ligerents. It was made with that Minister on the ground of his public character, and the confidence dile to it : oa which basis the Non-Intercourse was removed as to England, and left in full force against Trance. The failure of that arrangement was impu• tat Deetee for the inforMa- France. It is bad not been reartled by of were expeceeri zreeth 144 et la,tepeali ;i‘en. The-light is 1444 - ten af the Fre ml by this Goveritwhent - Vae4o - the Irritish Ga n his Message to Oisdnikf tb have repeal D Mr. Barlow, in a fattel bt fr`of A ugus t, 1 ith a view to the requisite between the nch Government. On the each other, si tabb o the British doitsitinferti itionC irthei, In ft. jetting it, took on itself a high tesponsibility, not simply in regard tothe coniequenees attending it, but in dis. , vowing and annulling 'the act of its Minister, iviiheut showing that he had etceeded his authority. In accepting the Declaration of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, in proof of the French repeal, ;ahe United States gave no proof of improper credence o the Government of France. Op a comparison of both trank . actioltkikWill appear that if a marked con • idence and respect was sliewrito either Government, it was to that of Geadt Britain. In acceptill the De. 'claration of the Government of France in the pre: nine of the Emperor, the United States storm on moot secure ground, than in accepting that of a J3ritith Mfr. 'Aster in this country. 46 To the demand made by the United States of the repeal of the British Orders in Council, -totioded on the basis of the French repeal, of August 5, itilo; the British Government replied, by demanding a :copy of the orders issued by the French Government for carrying into effect that repeal; a demand with. out example in the intercourse between nations. By this demand it ceased to be a que.tion whether the French repeal was of safficient extent, or was founded on justifiable conditions. The.pledge of the French Government was doubted ; a scrutiny was to be in. aimed as to the manner in which it was to be dis. charged, and its faith' preset wed, not by the subse. quent conduct of its cruisers towards the vessels of the United States, but by a copy of the orders gist* to its cruisers. is Where would this end ? If the French Govern. ment intended a fraud by its declaration of repeal, announced to the Mi istcr of rlo United. States, and afterwards to this Government, might it not like% ise commit a fraud in any oiler como.unication which it might make? It credit was refused by the British G ivernment to the act of the French Government. thus formally announced, is a probable that It would have been given by it to .toy di tument of inferior character, directed to its man people? 6 6 Although it was the policy, and might be the interest of the British Government to engage the United States in such a c , ntioversy with the French. Government, it was far from comporting with their interest to do it. They considered it their duty to ac cept the repeal already made by the French Govern ment of its Decrees, and to look to its conduct arid to that of its cruizers, sanctioned by the Government, for the faithful performance or violation of it. The United Stites having . been injured by both Powers, were unwilling, in their exertions to obtain justice of either, to become the instrument of the other. They were the less inclined to it in the present instance l ; from the consideration that the party making the pressure on them maintained in full force its unlaw. ful Edicts against the American commerce, while it could not deny that a considerable advance, at least, had been made by the other towards a complete a$ commodation, it being manifest to the yeoija a not only that the faith of the French 6 . overniment stood pledged for the repeal of its Decrees, but that the repeal did take effect.on the Ist of November, 1810, in regard to the United States; that several Ameri can vessels taken underthem bad been aelivereclatp, and judicial decisions suspended on all, by its order, and that it also continued togive the most positive assurances that the repeal should be faithfully ob. . , served. - It has altos been urged, . that the French repent was eondittonat'ind for that reason could not be ac cepted. This objection has alreadt been fully an swered._ It merits attention, however, thlrthe Acts of {he British Government relating td' thii tiulsject particularly the Declaration of the 21st of Apriii, 1812, and the repeal of the 23d June of the same year, are equally and in like manner conditional...- It is not a little surprising that the British Govern• ment should have objected to a measure in another Government, to which it has itself given a sanction. by its own acts. It is proper, however, to rema.ic,. that this objection has .been completely waived as given up by the acceptance of the Decree of the 2dtha April, 1811. 46 The British Government has urged also, that it could not confide in the faithful performance by the French Government of any engagement it might ea. ter into relative to the repeal of. its Decrees. This objection would be equally applicable to any other compact to be entered into with France. While maintained, it would be a bar to any treaty, even to a treaty of peace between them. But it also has been admitted to be unfounded, by the acceptance of the Decree of the 28th AprJ, 1811. " The Secretary of State presumes that these facts and explanations, supported as they are by authentic documents, prove, firgt, that the repeal of the British Orders in Council was not to be ascribed to the French Decree, bearing date on the 28th of April, 1811 ; and secondly, that in making that decree the basis of their repeal, the British Government has conceded, that it ought to have repealed them on the ,Declaration of the French Government of rte sth of August, 1810, so as to take effect on the Ist of No vember following. —• 44 To what cause the repeal of the British Orders in Council is justly attributable, cannot now remain, a doubt with any, who have marked with a just dis cernment, the course of events. It Must afford great consolation to the good people of these States, to know that they have not submitted to privations in vain. " The discussion of other wrongs, particularly that relating to impressment, had been closed some time before the period alluded to. It was unworthy of the character of the United States, to pursue the discus 'ion on that difference, when it was evident that no advantage could be derived from it. The right was reserved, to be brought forward and urged again when it might be done with effect. In the mean time, the practice of impressment was persevered in with vigour. 44 At the time when war was declared against. Great Britain, no satisfactory arrangement was of . fered, or likely to be obtained, respecting impress ment ; and nothing was more remote from the expec tation of this Government than the repeal of the Or. tiers in Council. Every circumstance which had oc curred, tending to illustrate the policy and the views of the British Government, rendered such an event altogether improbable. Flom the commencement of that system of hostility which Great Britain had adopted against the United States, her pretension' had gradually increased, or at least become more fully unfolded, according to circumstances, until at moment whin war was declared, they had asst.),