Star. — London, England, 1813-01-11 00:00:00

- made to both Belliger:nts for a respective edicts; but the terms made, were widely different, required a revocation only of the Decrees, although many edicts, neutral commerce of the United Iromulgated by that rower. No Ided, bat the Berlin and Milan ;yoked, should not, under some ystablished ; and a direct engage that upon such revocation the lent would take part in the war tin, if Great Britain did not imme- Orders. Whereas no correspon was offered to Great - Britain, of red, not only that the Orders ip repealed, but that no others of a lci . be issued, and that the block should be also abandoned. This ied and enforced according to ac , had not been objected to by the the time it was issued. fits provi. :ontrary represented b the Arne, went in London at the time, to ted, as to afford, ►n his judgment, 4 ly disposition of the British Cabi, cited States. • was thus called upon to abandon one 'ant maritime rights ; by acknow. of blockade Itfuestion to be one :h violated the commerce of the tough it had never been so tons', sous negociations ; — and although to United States had recently con, the Non-Intercourse Act, op the Orders in Council being revoked; admitting these Orders to be the 11 within the contemplation of the le acted. hostile to Great Britain could not ibly encouraging to the pretensions by thus alledging that the blockade ‘s illegal, the American Govern. : i4ed, so far as depeuded on them, iition had been made, the French ign Affairs, if not in concert with at least in conformity with its dated the sth of August, 1810, the American Minister resident at the Berlin and Milan Decree; were their operation would cease from !mber following, provided his Ma his Orders in Council, and re. inciples of blockade or that the cause their rights to be respect !by, that they would resist the re, of Great Britain. khough the repeal of the French Decrees thus wiped was evidently contingent, either on coo ls to be Made by Great 'Britain (concessions ich it was obvinus Great Britain could not sub. ir on measures to be ;:dopted by the Vnited l of America ; the American President at once i lered the repeal as absolute. Vnder that pre the Non-importation Act wits strictly enforced ! A Great llritain, whilst the ships of war, - and i ;ant ships of the enemy, were received into the I as of America. American Government, assuming the repel , French Decrees to be absolute s and effectual, Post unjustly required Great Britain, in conformity ' o her declarations, to revoke her Orders in Council. The Britith Government denied that the repeal ' ) chick was announced in the latter of the French Mi. l lister for Foreign Affairs, was web as ought to sa., isf . y Great Britain ; and in prder to ascertain the . rue character of the measure adopted by France s the .rue of the United States were called upon iit; produce the instrument, by which the alledged re al of the French pectfts shad been effected. If Giese Decrees were really revoked, such an instru. inent must exist, and no satisfactory reason could be aiven for withholding it. At length, on the 21st of May, 1812, and not he lve, the American Minister in London s c opy, or at least what purported to be a copy, of such an instrument. It professed to bear date the 28th of April, 1811, long subsequent to the dispatch of the French Minis. wen of Foreign Affairs of the sth of August ; 4810, or 'r .. '=ig even the da y named therein, vie. the Ist November effectual manner, the measure of I Allowing, wen the operation of the French Decrees by declaring, in an Order in tams to 'eeaik. This instrument expressly declared, rte the Ilth of November, 1807', that dime" French Decrees were repealed in conse. should proceed to France, or quence of the American Legislature having, by their, ies from which, in obedience to Act of the Ist March, 1811, provided, that British :e, British commerce was exclu- ships and merchandize should be excluded from the :ping at a port in Great Britain, ports and harbours of the United States. At the same time kis Majesty By this instrument, the only document producedl ness to repeal the Orders in Coun- by America as a repeal of the French Decrees, it ap ' Shou'iel rescind her Decree;, and pears'beyond a possibility of doubt or cavil, that the I med principles of maritime war- alledged repeal of the French Decrees was coruli isequent period, as a proof of his tional, as Great Britain had asserted ; and not Aso sire to accommodate, as far tio lute or final, as had been maintained by America; measures to the convenience of that they were not repealed at the time they were peration of the Order's in Coun- stated to be repealed by the American Government : issued in April, 1809, limited that they were not repealed in conformity with a tnce, and of the countries sub- proposition, stimultaneously made to both Bellige (ate dominion. rents, but that in consequence of a previous Act On :e, OppresiiOn t and tyranny 7 can the part of the American Government, they were or even checked, if the Power repealed in favour of one Belligerent ; to the prejudice ;justice is exercised, be debarred of the other : that the American Government having aod adequate retaliation; or, adopted measures restrictive upon the commerce of the retaliating Power, are to be both Belligerents, in consequence of Edicts issued of just offence to neutral na- by both, rescinded these measures, as they affected measures of original aggression and that Power, which was the aggressor, whilst they be tolerated with indifference, sub- put them iq full operation against the party n ,placrncy. grieved ; although the Edicts of both powers con -of the United States did not fail tinued in force ; and lastly that they excluded the Ist the,Ordprs in Council of Great ships of war, belonging to one Belligerent, whilst they knew, that these Orders they admitted into their ports and harbours the ships the Decrees of France, which of war belonging tel the other, in violation of one of 'm, were repealed, they resased the plainest, and most essential duties of 4 Neutral to resist the conduct of froth Nation, 4 of requiting France in the first Although the Instrument thus produced was by her Decrees. Applying roost un. no means that general and unqualified revocation of sure of resentment to the antes- the Berlin and Milan Decrees, which Great Britain aggrieved, they adopted mea- had continually demanded, and had a full right to resistance against both—a system claim ; and although this Instrument, under all the , however varied in the successive circumstances of its appearance at thatmoment, for Non,lntercourse, or Nornimpor- the first time, was open to the strongest suspicions ly unequal in its operation, and of its authenticity ; yet as the Minister of the United against the superior commerce States produced it, az purporting to be a copy of the of Great Britain. Instrument of revocation, the Government of Great zy towards France was obsess*? Britain, desirous of reverting, if possible, to the an. iations, as in their measures of cient and accustomed principles of Maritime War, determined upon revoking conditionally the Orders in Council. Accordingly in the mouth of June last, His Royal Highness the Prince Regent was pleased to declare in Council, in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, that the Orders in Council should be revoked, as far as respected the ships and property 'of the United States from the Ist of August follow iog. This revocation was to continue in force pro vided the Government of the United States should, within a time to be limited, repeal their Restrictive Laws against British commerce. His Majesty's Mi nister in America was expressly ordered to declare to the Government of the United State;, that " this measure had Iven adopted by the prince Regent in the earnest wish and hope, either that the Government of France, by further relaxations of its sy,stem, might render perseverance on the part of Great Britain in retaliatory measures unnecessary, or if this hope should prove delusive, that his Ma jesty's Government might be enabled, in the absence lof all irritating and restrictive regulations on either side, to enter with the Government of the United States into amicable explanations, for the purpose of ascertaining whether, if the necessity of retaliatory measures should unfortunately continue to operate, the particular measures to be acted upon by Great Britain, could be rendered more acceptable to the American Government than those hitherto pursued." In order to provide for the contingency of a De claration of War on the part of the Uniivd States, previous to the arrival in America of the said Order of Revocation, Instructions were sent to his Majesty's Minister Plenipotentiary accredited. to the United States (the execution of which instructions, in con sequence of the discontinuance of ,Mr. Foster's func tions, were at a subsequent period entrusted to Ad miral Sir John Borlase Warren), directing him to propose a cessation of hostilities, should they have commenced ; and further to offer a simulraneons re peal of the Orders in Council on the one side, and of the Restrictive Laws op British ships and commerce en the other. They were also respectively empowered to acquaint the American Government, in reply to any inquiries with respect to the blockade pf May, 1806, whilst the British Government must continue to maintain its legality, ti that in point of fact this particular block. ade had been discontinued for a length of time, having been merged in the general retaliatory blockade of the enemy's ports under the Orders in Council, and that his Majesty's Government had no intention of recurring to this, or to any other of the blockades of the enemy's ports, founded upon the ordinary and accustomed principles of Maritime Law, which were in force previous to the Orders in Council, without a new notice to Neutral Powers in the usual form." Th: American Government, before they received intimation of the course adopted by the British Go vernment, had in fact proceeded to the extreme mea sure of declaring war, and issuing "Letters of Marque," notwithstanding they were previously in possesuion of the Report of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, of the iqth of March, 1817, pro. toulgating anew the Berlin and Milan Decrees, as fundamentel laws of the• French Empire, under die . false and e;travagant pretext, that the monstrous principles therein contained were to be found in the Treaty of Utrecht, and were therefore binding upon all states. From the penalties of this code no nation was to be exempt which did not accept it, not only as the rule of its own conduct, but as a law, the ob. servance of which it was also required to enforce upon Great I,lritain In a Manifesto, accompanying their Declaration of Hostilities, in addition to the former complaints against the Orders in Council, a long . list of griev ances was brought forward—.some trivial in them selves, others which had been mutually adjusted, but none of them such, as were ever before alleged by the American Government to be groonds for war, As it to throw additional obstacles in the way of peace, the American Congress at the same time passed a law, prohibiting all intercourse with Great Britain, of such a tenous as deprivo.d the Executive Government, according to the President's own con struction of that Act, of all power of restoring the relations of friendly intercourse between the two . States, so far at least as concerned their commercial intercotise, until Congress slioltld4assemble. The ?resident of the United States has, it is true, since proposed to Great Britain an Alpistice ; not, however,' on the admissivit i gist thc came of was 1 iiiinite 'Prance, in a more efTe her own injustice • bi Council, bearing date that no neutral vessel to any of the countrie! the dictates of France, led, without first touch sr her dependencies. • intimated his readiness - fil, whenever France sl return to the accustoms are ; and at a subset Majesty's sincere desk. ›ossihle, his defensive i Neutral Powers, the op :11 was, by au order i: o a blockade of Franc ilet,4 to her immediat systems of violence, lever be suppressed, o against which such ill ✓om the right of frill f the measures of th :onsidered as matters jells, whilst the measc riolence are , to be to uission, or complacrn The Government of o remonstrate against lritain, Although tl could be revoked, if lad, occasioned them, it the same moment lelligerents, instead o nuance to rescind her Way the same measut or, and to the party urea of commercial re! ►f resistance, which, h acts of Embargo, Ni ation, was evidently wipcipally levelled al tAd maritime power o The same partiality Me, in their pegociai aimed resistance. 1 Application was,m: *vocation of their TI A which they were ms Of Prance was rec Derlin and Milan Di kTosair violating the i Pates. had been pro security was 4.mand Pecrees l even if revs *her form, be re-est men; was eftered, tl American Governme against Great Britain diately rescind her 0 Oing engagement wa whom it was requires Council should be re similar nature should p 0 pf May, IBM sl lockade, establisheC Oustomed practice, h %sited States at the Signs were on the co opn Minister reside baye been so framed, proof of the friendly alet towards the Unh Great pritain was ictf her most import a, edging th e Order o f the edicts which nited States, althoi ,erect in the previm President of the nted to abrogate t , e condition of the ( 1 e thereby distinctly act einly edicts which fell aw, tinder which he ( A proposition so h but be proportionabl: ' • the enemy. As by Fif May, 1806, was ment virtually justifi the French Decrees. After this proposit Minister for Foreigr that Government, views, in a dispatch, and addressed to the Paris, stated that the voiced, and that th Ile Ist day of Noven sty would revoke 1 ounce the new prin jnited States would :d ; meaning thereb , Aliatoty measures of Although the repe innounced was evide ,ssions to be Made 4;) which it was obvic nit) or on measures hates of America ; :onsidere the repeal ence the Non-impor gainst Great lAritai aerchant ships of thi larbours of America The American Gc I if the French Decree Post unjustly requiri o her declarations, ti The Britith Goveri chicle was announce lister for Foreign A: ;di, Great Britain IeNOMIMIMPMPIIMINIMPI 7 1 ' hitherto relied on was removed; but on condition, that Great. Britain, as a preliminary step, should do away a eause of war ; pow brought forward as such for the first time ; namely, that she should abandon the exercise of her undoubted right of search, to take from American merchant vessels Wish seamen, the natural-born subjects of his Majesty; and this con cession was required upon a mere assurance that laws would be enacted by the Legislature of the United States, to prevent such seamen from entering into their service; but independent of the objection to an exclusive reliance on a Foreign State, for the conservation of so vital an interest, no explanation was, or could be afforded by the Agent who was charged with this overture, either as to the main principles upon which such laws were to be founded, or as to the provisions which it wa proposed they should contain, This proposition having been objected to, a second proposal was made, again offering an armistice, pro vided the British Government would secretly stipu-' late to renounce the exercise of this right in a Treaty of Peace. An immediate and formal abandonment of its exercise, as preliminary to a cessation of hosti lities, was not demanded ;—but his Royal Highness the Prince Regent was required, in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, secretly to abandon, what the former overt ire had proposed to him publicly To concede, This most offensive proposition was also rejected, being accompanied, as the former had been by other demands of the most exceptionable nature, and espe cially of indemnity for all American vessels detained and condemned under the Orders in Council, or un der what were termed illegal blockades—a compli ance with which demands, exclusive of all other.ob jections, would have amounted to an absolute sur render. of the rights, on which those Orders and Blockades were fonnded. Had the American Government been sincere in representing the Orders in Council as the only sub ject of difference between Great Britain and the United ,States calculated to lead to hostilities ; it might have been expected, so soon as the revocation of those Orders had been officially made known to them, that they would have spontaneously recalled their gi letters of marque," and manifested a disposi tion immediately to restore the relations of peace and amity between the two Powers. But the conduct of the Government of the United States by no means corresponded with such reason able expectations. The Order in Council of the 23d, of June being officially communicated in America, the Govern ment of the United States saw nothing in the Repeal of the Orders in Council which should of itself re store peace, unless Great Britain were prepared, in the first instance, substantially to relinquish the right of impressing her own seamen, when found on board American merchant ships. The proposal of an Armistice ; and of a simulta neous Repeal of the restrictive measures on both sides, subsequently made by the Commanding Offi cer f his Majesty's naval forces on the American coast, were received in the same hostile spirit by the Government of the United States. The suspension of the practice of impressment was insisted upon, in the correspondence which passed on that occasion, as a necessary preliminary to a cessation of hostilities: Negociation, it was stated, ,night take place without any suspension of the exercise of this right, and also wiihout any armistice being concluded ; but Great Britain was required previously to agree, without any knowledge of the adequacy of the system which could be substituted, to negotiate upon the basis of accepting the legislative Regulations of a foreign State, as the sole equivalent for the exercise of a right, which she has telt to be essential to the support of her maritime power. If America, by demanding this preliminary con cession, intends to deny the validity of that Right, in that denial Great Britain cannot acquiesce ; nor will she give countenance to such a pretension, by acceding to its suspension, much less to its abandon. ment, as a basis on which to treat, if the American Government has devised, or conceives it can devise, Regulations, which may safely be accepted by Great Britain, as a substitute for the exercise of the right in question, it is for them to bring forward such a plan for consideration. The British Government has never attempted to exclude this question from amongst those, on which the two States might have to nego tiate ; It has, on the contrary, uniformly professed its readiness to receive and discuss any proposition on this subject, coming from the American Govern. ment it has never asserted any exclusive right, as to the impressment of British seamen from American vessels, which it was not prepared to acknowledge, as appertaining equally to the Government of the United States, with respect to American seamen when found on board British merchant ships But it cannot, by acceding to such a basis in the first in stance, either assume or admit that to be practicable which, when attempted on former occasions, has always been found to be attended with great diffi culties I such difficulties, as the British Commis sioners in 1806 expressly declared, after an attentive consideration of the suggestions brought forward by the Commissioners on the part of America, they were ample to surmount. Whilst this proposition, transmitted through the British Admiral, was pending in America, another communication on the subject of an armistice was unofficially made to the British Government in this country. The Agent, from whom this proposition was received, acknowledged that he did riot consider that he had any authority himself to sign an agree ment on the cart of his Government. It was obvious that any stipulations entered into, in consequence of this overture, would have been binding on the Bri tish Government, whilst the Government of the United States would have bees free to refuse or ac cept them, according to the circumstances of the moment ;—This propositiop was, therefore, necessa rily declined. After this exposition of the circumstances which preceded, and which have followed the declaration of war by the United States, his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, feels himself called upon to declare the leading principles, by which the conduct of Great Britain has been regulated in the uansactions con nected with these discussions. His Loyal Highness can never acknowledge any blockade whatsoever to be illegal which has been duly notified, and is supported by an adequate force, Rerel4 . upou the vound 9f its extent ; or because tic pone or ciaasts blockaded are not at th same tim e invested by land, His Royal Highness ten never admit, that neutral trade with Great Britain can be constituted a public / crime, the commission of which can expose the ships of any power whatever to be denationalized. His Royal Highness can never admit that Great Britain can be debarred of its right of just and ne. cessary retaliation, through the fear of eventually affecting the interest of a neutral. His Royal Highness can never admit, that in the exercise of the undoubted and hitherto undisputed right of searching neutral merchant vessels in time of war, the impressment of British seamen, isle:, found therein, can be deemed any violation of a rel.. tral flag. Neither can he admit, that the taking such seamen from on board such vessels, can be consider. ed by any Neutral State as a hostile measure, or 4 justifiable cause of war. There is n 0 right more clearly established, than the right which a Sovereign has to the allegiance of ii;fi subjects, more especially in time of war. Their alle giance is no optional duty, which they can decline, and resume at pleasure. It is a call which they are bound to obey: it began with their birth, and can only terminate with their existence. If a similarity of language and manners may make the exercise of this right more liable to partial mis takes, and occasional abuse, when practiced towards vessels of the United States, the same circumstances make it also a right, with the exercise of which, in regard to such vessels, it is more difficult to dispense. jut if, to the practice of the United States, to has. 110111 e British seamen, be added their assumed right, t• ,transfer the allegiance of British subjects, and thus to cancel the jurisdiction of their legitimate Sovereign, iby acts of naturalization and certificates of citizen ship, which they pretend to be as valid not of their own territory, as within it, it is obvious that to aban don this ancient right of Great Britain, and to admit these novel pretensions of the United States, would be to expose to danger the very foundation of our marl, time strength. Without entering minutely into the other topics, which have been brought forward by the Goyern. merit of the United States, it may be proper to re. mark, that whatever the Declaration of the United States. may have asserted, Great Britain never did demand that they should force British manufactures into France ; and she formally declared her willing. ness entirely to forego, or modify, in concert with the United States, the system by which r. commercial intercourse with the enemy had been allowed, under the protection of licences : provided the United States would act towards her, and towards France, with weal impartiality. The Government of America, if the digerencet between States are not interminable, has as little right to notice the affair of the Chesapeak. The aggro. sion, in this instance on the part of a British Officer, was acknowledged, his conduct was disapproved, and a reparation svas regularly tendered by Mr. Foster on the pan of his Majesty, and accepted by the Go. vernment of the United States. It is not less unwarranted in its allusion to th, mission of Mr. Henry ; a mission undertaken with out the authority, or even knowledge of his Majesty's Goyernment, and which Mr. Foster was authorised formally and officially to disavow. The charge of exciting the Indians to offensitit measures against the United States is ects},ll7 of foundation. Before the war began, 4 policy the most oppoSite had been uniformly pursued, and proof' of this was tendered by Mr. Foster to the American Government. Such are the causes of war which have been pia forward by the Government of the United States. — But the real origin of the present contest will be found in that spirit, which has long unhappily ac coated the Councils of the United States : their mrrlo, ed partiality in palliating and assisting the aggressive tyranny of France ; their systematic endeavours to inflame their people against the defensive measure% of Great Britain : their ungenerous conduct towards Spain, the intimate ally of Great Britain ; and theft unworthy desertion of the cause of other neutral na tions. It is through the prevalence of such ceancils, that America has been associated in policy with France, and committed in war against Great Britain. And under what conduct on the part of France has the Government of the United States thus lent iticlf to the enemy ? The contemptuous violation of the Commercial Treaty of the year 1800 between France and the United States ; the treacherous seizure of all American vessels and cargoes in every harbour sub ject to the contronl of the French arms; the tyranni cal principles of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, and the confiscations under them ; the subsequent cons demnatious under the Rambouillet Decree, anteda ted or concealed to render it the more effectual ; the French commercial regplations which render the traf fic of the United States with France almost illusory: the burning of their merchant.shi!tsea, long after the alleged repeal of the French Decrees—ale these ago of violence on the part of France produce front the Government of the United States only such com plaints as end in acquiescence and stibmiuion, or are accompanied by suggestions for enabling France to give the semblance of a legal form to her usurpations, by converting them into municipal regulations. The disposition of the Government of the United States---this complete subserviency to the Ruler of France—this hostile temper towards Great Britain —are evident in almost every page of the official correspondence of the American with the French Government. Against this course of conduct, the real cause of the present war, the Prince Regent solemnly pro tests, Whilst contending against France, in defence not only of the liberties of Great Britain, but of the world, His Royal Highness was entitled to look for a far different result. From their common origin —from their common interest—from their professed principles of freedom and independence, the United States were the last Power, in which Great Britain could have expected to find a willing instrument, and abettor of French Tyranny. Disappointed in this his just expectation, the Prince Regent will still pursue the policy, which the Bri• tisli Government has so long, and invariably main caused, in repelling injustice, and in supporting the general rights of nations ; and, under the favour or . Pnoviovxce, relying on the justice of his cause, and the tried loyalty and firmness of the British nation, his Royal Highness confidently looks forward to a successful issue to the contest, in which he has Ono been compelled most reluctantly is engage. WcsUlgoltir ) January 9,1513. tl :c , it e. le .ci :e It a le ;fi e- e, re In ce s- is es in e. t• us O. n. it n. kit be ri, Cs, re. ed lid •es P; al er :es Clt 1 es ht !f• n 4 . :er is h. .h- -is ed ire he 'of an 514 blt IC. rk. ! to re% rds et ils, ith in. las ?If he ice ail lb. ni- nd iRs ;he af- -7; ter !se m. to ns, ted of sin ch of ro• ice the polt din ied ted ain nt, ice in- the of nh