The Sun. — London, England, 1813-01-11 00:00:00

strPtr‘ttNT TO THE LONDON GAZETTE ‘,31 OR SATURDAY, THE 9TH OF JANUARY. , , I, DECLARATION. 1' The eartiest i endeavours of the Prince Ite,,e , en c t . it pre serve t h e re l at i ons o f peace an d am i ty wt b cie.United States of America having unfortunate i' failed, hi s R oya l Hi g h ness, a ct i ng i n t h e name 1.0 on the behalf o f hi s M a j es ty, d ee m s it proper icitblicly t o d ec l are t h e causes, and origin of the Aar, in whiCh th e G overnment o f th e United ,skates has compelled him to engage. Nu d es i re i f conquest, or other ordniary mo ,'lyQ of egg•re:sisoir has been, or can be with any tio!our of reason, in this case, imputed to Great ;.Britain : That her commercial interests were on ' t he side Of pea ce , if war cou ld h ave b een avoided . t.`'ithout the sacrifice a her maritime rights, 01 r.vithout all injurious s u b m i ss i on t o France, is s i truth which the. American Government will not is ic fly. li His Roval nighties does not however mean to fest on the favourable presumption, to which he ;Jit entitled. Ile is prepared, by an "P siti " of the circumstances \villa have led to the present War, to spewthat G rea t B r i ta i n -h as t h ro ughout acted towa r d s t h e United States of America with is a spi r i t of amity, f or b earance, an d conc ili a ti o n ; oriel to demonstrate the inadmissible nature of those pretensions, which have at length uuhappily, Jnvolved.the two countries in war. $4. It is•well keownt o the world, that it has been ~,,tbe invari a bl e o b ject of the Ruler of France to yestroy the prower and, independence of the ?Iritish Empire, as the chief obstacle to the tic icomplishment of his ambitious designs. Ile first contemplated the possibility of assent , thug such a nava l f orce in the Channel as, com -I.4bilied w i t h a numerous flotilla, should enable him ato disembark in Engla n d an army sufficient, in his ',conception, t o ► subjugate this country ; mid through the convest of Great Britain he hoped to realize his project of universal: empire. . i. Ily fee adoption of an enlarged I , yete m and provident of internal del,:ime, and by the rdour of Otis :Majesty's fleets mei armies, this design was ctitirely frustrated ; and the naval force of Fran& I 0 after the most ii letire loin' the*icsigcenaakii.defeats, was compelled to , An attempt was then made to effectuate tue same purpose by other means : a system was i •!)rotight forward, by which the Ruler of France ' b oDed to anaihilate the commerce of Great .Bri twin, to shake her public credit,, add to destroy ,her ' Revenue ;, to render useless her maritime superio ' l'ity, and so to avail himself in a great measure tile " bite r of the ocean, notwithstanding the de 1, structioa of hi , .; fleets. With tills view, by Decre the fl i low e d by th.t of Milan, he declared the erlin Britis o h' " territories to be in a state of blockade ; and that all (2Britsin onnuerce [' or even correipontlencewith Great was • prohibited. Ile. decreed that every ' vfessel and cave()) which had entered, or was . , mind proceediug to. a British , port, or which': cutle r Rey circumstance, h Ib • n visited bY.3 tish . shi) of should ''s he a( I been 1 ..: . he i eee . .►. ~1 . War, ; o . u .iiis i ed, at :British good s a n d prod uc e, wherever , nt awl however acquired whether coining , from the 1110ther country 1ii,„,,, ' .. colonic., ' atthicet to Cwithea i'm i . °l' ------- h" 1 . •IL bid: er de rlAreti to )c , dellatimialiZed the li 1 - r should I,e font 1 fr a . o f g all nentral ships that he ~. -1 ( ° Mimi!, these his Decrees : a tul f PM.. to thismune . projeet.of universal Tyranny the 1 , of the Conti tiental System. : fi r . 1 or the se attempts to ruin o: conitneree of ' ; t.RI Britein, by means subversive of th e clearesti, i! r v i ,!i lit ' °t neutral n a ti ons , F rance en d eavoured in w ain to rest her justisi,•ation upon the previous contleet of his, :Maje: , ty' s Goverement. ~, Under circumstances of II Ilparallticd provoca ,,, tiou,lkis Mskjesty had abstained from any measure, . 'w l hich th e ordioary rules of th e Lew of X a ti,, ns a , ”tllot fully wurrent. Never wits the maritime superiority of a Belligerent over his enemy more ieoisplete and decided; Never was the opposite i '}eel;y:rep! so formidably daagerous in his power, :mil ie his policy, to the liberties of all ctl.er.na- 1 Thais. Franc e had already trampled so openly and It klyilematically on.the most sacred rights of Neu it: 1 1 """rs, as might well have justified the lilac lit fil e t, ke r , otit of the pale of civilized nations. Yet this est ! . C • - tiß►itain had so used leer . . .eme case, Ilia I . naval 41 5Celith that her enemy could find incy, • no : lust il' CatiSe 'Of complaint : and in order to give . to tiles .1. 'l - th ' t e a W'''SS decrees the appearance of retalia i „).", the Ruler of Fraoce was obliged to advanffe. i; e „ t T' e iPie4 of maritime law unsanctioned by any lel!: :iuthority than his Owl), arbitrary will. Great- ret"ts for these Decrees were, first, that Iritaitt had "g 4 i4t exercised time veer e rights of Privu'e perso n s , t heir l' s and goods; us - if the - 1 s lip. (,: telly object of legitimate hostility on the f . u eean ere th e ihr - f State, or as if i the Fil' lets in lc property 0 ,a ii': tot 4 - , lino the Courts of France itself had e _. at all tunics cid orced this right with peculiar k r .. l se'ur ; secondly, that the 'British orders of block •,`ue, lustetel of being fi Ito fortified towns, t •• tool, „„ i5r ,,,, e.. con net tt 10 40i,n; - i e . na serte,:(l, been unlawfully extend-' mouths . ' been applied to", of e r '. l l4l town.% and ports, Mill to the bad 1; and , thirdly, t ha t they , tho werv, 1 1 utee, and to coasts, h rim wbic ~ .. E iast o f . 101. meld be actually blockaded. 'l' ~, • tbese cha rges ~ .....,.. i d e d on tact .( Nvonst the others, - h 110 t, 1- .' R. . of the " Amer i even by the admissson . . e ln Cr point are utterly groundless la I "nt of I.k f'' A , •w. .' Ramatthes e - protested l' aed ~„,„ , Decrees, • his Majesty ~ ti t ri'ai.,e(l; he Called upon the United States" 1 I assert th • Y inde as 1 , C their g l their OWO rights, and to vindicat . acs I . `i tita ilees thus menaced and attacked ; ~,entlj tv 'ranee, had tiechired, that she would confeZtate , f!, ' I P' vehsel I►' hshouldtouch at Great Britain, si• tic r . , j • 1)1' lie visited hy British ships of war, his illajesty ilavin -11 ! Previously issued .the Order of January 18 07, as " mit i gated t retaliation, was a leer , t , au act of .._ _ ski" " e olupelltal, by the persevering violenee.ot tie . n ,i,„ N 1 4----..16 and the contimied acquiescence of e, aral Ivo' wers, to 1...vi,0t . upon France, in a more efiee i n in IB- A teat manner, the int ~sure of her ow J rice . b ' cil bear . i y declaring, in sin. Order in Coati , In g date the I lth of November 1807, that Jut neutral v - . ' r to any g . „,, essel should proceed to France o f -_,. tb, countries from which, in obedience to the dictates of France, British commerce was ex : th 'led, without first touching at a.port in.,Great - ' Br's • 0 L : 1- am, or her dependencies. At the sarnetime, f: ' "" majesty intithated his teadiness ,to repeal the • orders in Council, whenever France should re scind her Decrees, and return to the accustomed principles of maritime warfare 5 and at a subse-' • quent period, ai n proof of: his :Majesty's sincere desire to accommodate, as far as possible, his de lensiye measures to the convenience of Neutral I.c4vers, the operation of the Orders in Council was, by an order issued in April 1809, limited to a blockade of France, and of the countriessub jeeted to her iinmecliate Systems of violence, oppression, and tyranny, can never be suppressed, or even checked, if the Power 'against which such injustice is exercised, be debarred from the right of full nod adequate retaliation : or, if the meo:sures of the retaliating Power, are to be bOnsidered as, matters of just offence to neutral nations, whilst the measures of original aggression, and violence are to be tolerated with indifference, submission, or coat placen Cy. The' Government of *he United States did not fail to remonstrate against the Orders in Council of Great Britain. Although they knew, that these Orders would be revoked, it' the Decrees of France, which hat'. occasioned theta, were le- , pealed, they resolved at the same moment to re sist the conduct of both Belligerents, instead of requiring France in the first instance to rescind her Decrees. Applying most unjustly the saute measure of- resentment • to the aggressor, and to the party aggrieved, they adopted measures of commercial resistance against both—a system of resistance, which, however varied in the successive, Acts of Embargo, Non-Intercourse, or Non-lin portation, was evidently 'unequal in its opera-- tion, and principally levelled against the - sttpes• - rior commerce, and maritime power. of Great Britain. The same partiality towards France was 'ob servable, in their negociations, as in their plea sures of alleged resistance. - Application was made td both Belligerentsfor a revocation of their respecthe edicts ; but the terms in which they were made, were widely dii- ferent. Of France was required.a revocation only of the I 'Arlin and Milan Decrees; although many other edicts, grossly violating the neutral commerce-of the United States had been promulgated by that Power. No security 'was demanded, that the Ber lin and Milan Decrees', even if revoked, should not under sonic other coma be re-established : antra direct engagement was offered, that upon such revocation,*the American Government would take part in the war, against, Great Britain,. if Great Britain did not immediately rescind her Whereas no corresponding engagement, was offer ed to Great Britain, of whom it was required., not only that the Orders in Council should be re pealed, but that no others of a• similar nature should be issued, and that the blockade of May, 1806,,should he also abandoned. •This blockade, established and enforced according to accustomed `practice, had apt been objected to by the United' • States at the time it teas issued_ • Its provisions Were, on the contrary, •represented by-the Ante: rican.Minister reside nt in London at the time, to . have been so framed, as Cc? afford, in his judgment, a proof of the friendly disposition of the British. Cabinet towards the United States. Great Britain was thus culled upon ,to alsandon one:Of her most important maritime rights ; by acknowledging the ( )rder of Blockade in question., to be one of the edicts which duetted the 'Cont- coerce of the United States, although it bad ne ver been so considered imm previous negocia- . t i m ' s although the President of the United States had recently Contented to abrogate the Non- Intercourse Act, on the ,sole condition of the 01.- admitting in these or ders Council bei , ',g revoked ; .thereby distinctly. ders to he the only edict which ii N the contemplation of the law, under which he acted. A prof' osition so hostile to Great Britain could not but he proportionably encouraging to the pre tensions of the enemy. As by thus alleging' that the blockade of May, 180fi, was illegal, the Ante 'lean Government virtually justified , so fur as de pended on them, the French Decrees. • After this proposition babeen made,the,French Minister for I?ureign Affairs, if not in cencert with that Government . , at least in conform it y with its, ,views, in •tm. disnatch, dated the rmth of August, 1810, and addretsed to the Anterican Alinister re sident at Paris, stated that the Berlin and Milan Decrees were revoked, maul that their operation would cease from the first dal., of November fol lowing, provided his Majes:l- would revoke his 'Orders in Council, and renounce the new princi jples of blockade ; or that the UnitcdStuteS would cause their rights to be respected; ..meaning there- I by, that they' would resist the retaliatory measures of Great Britain.. Although the repeal of the French Decrees t uns announced. was evidently contingent, either O n concessions to . be made by Great Britain, (conces sions to wbich it wits obvionS Great Britain conld. not submit) or on measures ,to be, adop!ed by m the, United States of America; the American President at once considered the repeal re-; ab:,olute. : Un der that pretestee, the Non-Importation Act Nvafi strictly enforced against Great Brit:.in, whilst the ships of war and merchant ships (Jr the ,cue- my were received into the harbonr . of America. The American Government, assuming the repeal of the Freueb Decrees ,to be absolute and elfee tnal, most unjustly requited Great Britain, in con formity to her declarations, tO revoke her Orders in Council. The 'British Goverumna denied that theyepeal which was announced in 'the letter of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs., was such as oughtto satisfy Great Britain ; and in order to ascertain the tree character of time measure adopt ed by France, the Government of the United States was called upon to produce the iostrument, by which the alleged. repeal of the . French Decrees had been effected. If these Decrees. were really revoked, such an instrument must exist, and no satisfactory reason could be given for withholding it. At length, on the 21st of May, 1812, anti not before, the American Minister in London did pro duce a copy, or at least what purported ; to be a copy of such an instrument. , It professed to bear date the 28th April, 1811 Ali, long subsequent to the dispatch of fhe French nister of Foreign Affairs of the sth of August, 1810, or even the (lay named therein, wiz. the lst of November following, when the operlition of ibe French DecreeS teat to cease. `flils instimiht expreisly declared these French Decrees were re , pealed'in nsequence of time American tegislatnre having by their Act the lit March, 1811, provid ed, that British ships and. merchandise should be excluded front the ports , and liarbOUrS of the United, States. By this instrument,.the only document pro dtiaed by America as.mi repeal of the French Des' crees,-it appears beyond a possibility of doubt cavil, that.thenlleged repeal of the French De crees was conditional, as Great Britain bad assert ed.; and not absolute or final, its had beeiOnain - tabled by America': that they. were not repealed thUrtiine.they were, stated to he repealed by the American Government that theysvcreinit. repealed iii conformity with a proposition simultaneously matte to both belligerent 3, but that in conse quence Of a previous Act on the part of the Aitie , ;• riean Government, they were repealtalin favour of one Belligerent to the .prejinlice 'of the other :, that the American Government having. adopted measurefirestactive upon the commeice of both Belligerents, in consequence of . Edicts issued by both, rescinded these measures, as they affected that Power which was the aggressor, whilst they put then; in' full operation against the party aggrieved ; although the Edicts , of both Powers continued in force ; and lastly that they - excluded the ships of , war belonging to one Belligerent, whilst they admitted into their ports and harbours the ships of -War belonging to the other, in viola tion of one of the plaineat and most essential ditties of #,neutral nation, Although the instrument thus produced was by no Means that general and unqualified revocation of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, which Great Britain had continually demanded, and had a fall right to claim ! and although this instrument, ander all the circumstances of its appearance at that moment, for the first time, was open to the strongest suspicions of its authenticity; yet as the Minister of the United States produced it as pm !minting to be a copy of the instrument of revoca tion; the Government of Great Britain, desirous o f reverting, it' possible to the ancient and aectistoni ed principles of 'maritime war, determined upon r evoking conditionally the Orders in Council: — Accordingly in the month of Ju ne last his. Royal highness the Prince Regent was pleased to de c lare inCounell, in the name and on the behalf of Ids" Majesty, that the Orders in Coun cil should be re voked, as fast as respected ttic ships and property of the:United States from the Ist of Aug. follow-, •ing: This reyoeation was to :Continue in force pro vided the Government of tbe United Siate should with irt sa tiltte to he limited, repeal their Restrict ' ire Lawi against British conmierce. Majes ' ty's Minister in America was expressly ordert d to ;slrelare to the . Government of the United States, r that " this measure bad been ad o p te d by the Prince. Regent in the earnest Wish and hope, either that the ,Government of France, by further relaxations its system, might render perseverance on the part of Great Britain in retaliatOry measures sin r uecosary, or "if this hope•shoteld prove delusive, that his Majesty's Government might he enabled, Wthe abSence of all irritating and restrictive re gulations on either side, to cuter with the Co vert-ncut of the. United States into amicable ex planations, for the parpose,of, ascertaining whe ther, if the necessity of retaliatory Measures ahould nnfortunately continue to operate, 'the , particular measures to lie - mietei neon . by (iretit Britain, could be rendered more acceptable to the American GovernMent, than those hitherto pur stied.'.* In order' to provide for the contingency of • a Declaration of War on .the part of the United States, previous to the arrival in America of the said Order of Revocation, instructions were sent to his*Majesty's Minister Plenipotentiary accre dited to the' United States (the execution of which instructions; in consequence of the discontinuance of Mr. Foster's 'functions, were at a subseqUent period. entrusted to Admiral Sir John . Bor:sse Warren), directing:him to propose a cessathin of hostilities, should they have . commenced ; and further to offer is simultaneous repeal of the Or tiers in Council on the one tide, and of the Re atrictive Laws on British ships and commerce" on .he otlker. They were also respectively empowered to ac plaint the American Government, in reply to any inquiries with respect to time blockade of May I 80G, whilst the British Government must con tinue to maintain its legality, " that in ,point of fact, this particular Blockade had been discon tinued 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 Ma lesty'sti Overnment had no intention of recurring to this, Pr to any other Of the blockadeS of the enemy's yorts, founded upon the ordinaly and accustomed vinciples of Maritime Law, which were in force previous' to the Orders in Council, without a new notice to Nentral Powers in the usual form." The American Goverlinient, before they . rectived intimation . "cmf the 'course adopted . by the British ciovernment, had in fact proceeded to the extreme. Speisitre of declaring svar, - ind issuing " Letters of !ora t or,'" notwithstanding they %vele previously in possession of the &port of the FIT C h Minister ,f o r FOreign Affairs, ot"the 12th of March, 1812, promulgating anew the Berlin and Milan De crees, fundamental laws of the French Empire, wader tie fake and extravagant pretext,, that the • Monstrous prinriples'-therein contained, were to he found in the treaty of Utrecht, and Were there fare binding 'Tom:rail States. Front the penalties of thia . Code no nation was to he , exemp t 'h alid not accept it not only as the rule of its own etniduct,tut as- a law,- the observance of which, it was . also - required to enforee upon Great Britain. In a Manifesto, accompanying their Declara thin of fl ostilities, in addition to the former com plaints against the Orders in Council, a long list of (rrievanees was brought tom art! ; some trivial in Themselves, others which bad been mutually ad justed, but none of theta such, as ever before alleged by theAmeriran Government to be grounds for war. As if to throw additional obstacles in the way • of pe ace , th e A m erican Congress at the saute time passed a law, prohibiting all intercourse with Great Britain, of such a tenor as deprived the,Exe cutiveGuvernment,according to the President's own construction of that Ace, orall power of restoring the relations td friendly intertontst between the two States ) so fur at least as contettid theft` conthiercial Intercourse, until Congress should re* assemble. The President of the United.. States has, It is true, since - propoied . to Great. Britain UTI Arun , stiee; not, however, on the adtnission, thatthe • cause of4a;rchitherto relied on' . what was rolio‘:ff, but ofrantditiim . , .that Great Britain,• as preliminary step, should do away a came Of War, -now brought forwardas_such for the first tittli2 ; namely, that site ,should abandon the exercise of her undoubted right , of search,,t6 tike from Ame riemi injrchantvessels 1,34-itish :3e,rinien the tßitn , ; . ral-born subjecrg.,:pf :hi); Xiajestv : and this co:)- ce.ssion was required mere assrirmice that laws ‘vind(l.be,..enacted s ,hy the I".4‘.. , ,isiature of the • Uniteti'.§tikte, to‘piev-Ott . stich!,:eml;l:l fivmh emer mg i n to t1 : 161' service but indeliendent of th; . (th-_, jectiim to All-exclitaiv,e reliance ou a Foreign. State,, for the conseryation of SO vital au interest, tiO plapatioll could-he afforded by the agent, who was eh recd with thiS' *Overture, either as to, the mainpitinelples; upon .which such laws Iverc to :be lotiadedluia , as to the provisions Which it was propostyk.the.ty should contain. 'This pr , opositiein having been .obit ter,se7 ; cond proposal Wiis made, again offering .an armi stice, provided the British Gov:eminent would se , cretly stipulate to renounce the exercise of this right in a Treaty of Petiee. An immediate anti formarlabandoninent Of its exercise, as preliminary to fi ees . sation of hostilities, was not demanded ; but. his Royal tlighness the Prince Regent was required, in the name and': on the behalf of his Majesty, secretly' to abandon What the . former overture had proposed to him publicly to concede. This ti iist offensive • : Iroposition was also re-. jected, , heing accompanied as the former had been, by other demands of the most exceptionable •na-. : tore, and especially orindeinnity for all Anle!iean, vessels detained and condemned under the Orders. in Council, or under wtat were termed illegal, blockades---a eomplinnee ‘vith which demands,, exclusive. of all other objections,. trould ,haye amounted to au absolute surreuder of the rights, on *Mai those Orders and Blockades Were. foumitAU: , llad the. American GoVernment been sincere, in representing the Orders ,in Co..acil, as the, only subject of difference between Great Britain and the United States, ;calculated to lead to hos tilities ; it might have, been expected, so soini as: the revocation of those Orders had been ofkially made known to them, that they would leave sport taneou6ly reca,llo their letters of marque," and manifested sa disposition. immediately •to restore the relations of peace and amity between the two • Powers; lint the conduct of the Government of the Unit ed„§p),W, by no.means corresponded with su ch reasonable expect atiom. rtiVe l Oi.der in Council Of the •23d of June being, OtTiciailpecnumunicat; . (i in America, the ooV'ern ment the United States, saw. nothiug in the. Repeal of the Orders in Council, which should. of itself restore Peace, tiolei Great ltritain were prepared, in the first instance, Substantially to relinquish the right of impresr , ing her' own, .scamen, when found on board American merchant ships. - • The proposiTa au armistice, and of a shunita iskorts-repeal of the -restrintivesneasttees on both sides, subsequently made by the .commanding oftii eer of his ..Majestrs naval forces on the American coast, were received in the settle liostile spirit by.the Government of the Unitetk States.' The suspensiott of die practice of impressitent was insisted upon, itt the correspondence which passed on that occasion, os a necessary nieliminary to a cessation of s negociation, a was stated, might take place without , any suspension of the exercise of this tight, and also without any armistice being eon 7 eluded ; but Great Britain was required, previously to agree, without any knowledge of the adequacy of the system which could be substituted, to ne gociate upoo the basis of accepting the legislative Regulations 04 a foreign State as the sole equi vnlent for the exercise of a right, which she has felt to be essential to the support of her maritime power. If America, by demanding this Prelimintify con' cession, 'intends to deny the validity of that Right, in that denial Great Britain..eannot acquiesce ; nor will she give . countenance, to such a preten sion, by acceding to its stipepsion, 11111011 Less to its abandonment, as a basis on which to treat. ---s If th(PAnterienn Government has devised, or con ceivesit- ems devise, regulattoits t'aieb may Safely be accepted' by Great Britain, as a subStitute for the exercise' of the . r:ght in question,. it is for theth to'bring forward such a plan for considees t ion. The British Government has never attempt- to exclude this question ' amongst those on which the two States might have to negociate : it has, on the contrary, uniformly professed its rea diness to. receive and diseuss:any proposition' this subject, ,corning Isom the American tiove:l , - meta : it has never asserted any exclusive rie;ht, as to the inipressment of British'scattiett from American 'vessels, which it was not propare.i to acknowledge G as appertaining equally to the o vernment of_ the 'United States, with respect to Ames lean seamen when found ,on board .British merchmitships :--'r-But it cannot, by steeedlng to such a basis in the first instance, either aSstimi, or actinit that to lie visteticalsts,•s which, when at temptkir on fortneri oesasioos ) has always been Afton! to he attended with gre!st ditlieulties; such diffitssilties, as the tritish Commissioners in I t74oti exnrcssly declared, lifter •attentive consideration dif lie4fiqggettiOns brought forward by the Com missioners-on the part of America, they were un able to surmount. Whilst this proposition,- transmitted through the British' Admiral, was pending in America, un commtmication on the snbject of atl armi stice WO unofficially made to the British-Govern ment in this country. The Agent,: from whons this proposition was received, acknowledged thst he did not consider that lie lout any authority himself to sign nn agreement on the part of his Government. It was obvious thatstrty stipulations entered into, in consequence of this overture, would have been binding On the British Govern- Anent,, whilst the Government of the United States , 'lave been free to refuse or accept them, eeeolaling to the eircurnity aces of 'he moment