The Sun. — London, England, 1812-01-03 00:00:00

AMERICA N PAPERS. DOCUMENTS, ACCOMPANYING PRESiDENT'S MeSSAGE TO CONGRESS AT THE OPENING OF THE PRESIINT SESSION. [Continued troth ottr Paper of Monday.] MR. MONROE TO MR. FOSTER. • Department of State, Oct.,r, Atr, have had the honour to receive your let, ter of the 26th of July, and to sub►nit it 10 the view . of the President. pnsweritlg that letter, it is proper that.l should notice a complaint that I had omitted -to reply in mine, pit the 23d of July, to your remonstrance sti.ii - bst the: istoclarnation of the President of No vember last, and to the deMand which you. had made by the order of your government of the repeal of the non-irnportatiOn aE of March 2d of the pre- sent year. • My letter has certainly not merited this impu tation. s . Having shewn the injustice of the British Go vernment in issuing the Orders in Council on the pretext assigned, and its still greater injustice in adhering to them after that pretext-had failed, a re spe& for Great Britain, as well. as for the United States, prevented my'placing. in the strong light - in which tbe subje& naturally presented itself, the remonstrance alluded to, and the extraordinary de mand found , d on that, while your Government ec commodated. in nothing, the United States should relinquish the ground, which, by a just regard to the public rights and henouro they bad ,been com pelled to take. Propositions tending to degrade a nation can never be brought into discussion by a Government not prepared to submit to the degrada tion. It was for.this reason that i confined my re ply to those passages in your letter which-involve the china of roe United States, on the principles of justice, to the revocation of the Order in. Council. Your demand, however, was neither unnoticed or / unanswered. In laying before you the, complete, and as was believed', irresistible - proof,..on which 'the United States expelled, and called for the revo cation of the Orders in Council, a very explicit answer was supposed tote given. to that demand , . Equally unfounded is your complaint that I mis understood the passage which claimed,- as a.condi tion of the ,revocation of the Orders in Council, that the trade of Great Britain with the Continent should las, restored to the state in which it_ was be fore the Berlin and Milan Decrees were issued. As this pretension was novel and extraordinary, it was necessary that a distinct idea should be formed of it, and, with that Yiew, I asked such an explznatiOn as would enable me to form one. In the explanation given; you do -not -insist on the right to trade in British property, with British vessels, directly with your enern'es, such a claim, you admit, would be prepOsterods : but you do in sist by- necessary implicetion,. that France has no right to inhibit the importation into her ports of British manufaCtures, or the produce of British soil, when the property of neutrals; and that, un til France removes that inhibition, the United - States are to, be cut off by Greal Britain from ,all trade whatever v ith. tier enemies. 'On such a pretension it is almost impossible to reason. There is, I believe, nn example of it in thehistory of past wars. Great Britain ) the enemy. of France; undertakes to regulate the trade of France : nor is that all ; she tells her that she must trade in British goods, If France and Great Bri tain were at peace, this pretension would not he Set up, Der even thought of,e, Has Great Britain, - then, acquired in this respeet/tY war, rights which she has not in peace ? And does she announce to the neutral nations, that unless they consent tei be come the instruments of this polky, their corn meree shall be annihilated, and their vessels shall be :Ann up in their own ports ? I might ask whether French goods are admitted into Great Britain, even in peace; arid if they are, whether it be of right, or by the consent and policy ,of tire British Government ) ' That the property wouldbe neutralized does not affect the question. If the - UnitedStates have no t:girt. In carry their own prodpctions into France without the consent of the French Government, how can_ they undertake to carry there those of Great Britain ? In all cases it must depend on the interest and the.will of the patty. Nor is it material to what extent, or e by what powers,, the trade ro the Continent is prohibited. If the-powers who prohibit it are at war with Great Britain; the prohibition is a necessary consequence of that state. If at peace, it is their own act ; and at ',ether it be voluntary or compulsive, they alone are answerable for it. It the act be taken at the insti gation and under the influence of Fi'ance, the most that can be' said, is, that it justifies rep`risahagainSt them, by a similar. measure. On r.o principle what ever can it be said to give any sanction to the Con.' d9t:t of Great Britain towards neutral tratiOns. • The United States can have no objections to the .employ ment of their cnannercial capital ill the sup ply of France, and •of, the Continent generally, with manufactures; and to comprise in the supply arose of Great Britain; provided thrise powers will conseni to it. But they cannot-undertake to force such supplies .France. or any '.other power, in • compliance With the claim of the British Govern mew, on principles incompatible with the rights of every independent nation; and they will not demand - f a vour of another power, what they cannot claim fur rhetnselses.. . Alt tha't Great Britain could with reason complain ' of wets, the inhibition, by the French decrees, of the laWful trade . of neutnils• with the British do minions. As soon as that inhibition ceased, her in hititiort of our trade with Fiance ought . in lute manneteno have ceased., Having pledged herself to proceed Jeri pessu with France, in the revocation of their le,pective acts violating neutral rights, it bets afforded just cause of complaint, and even of astortishineie, to the United States, that the British Government should have sanctioned the seizure and contieneuation' of American vessels under the Or ders in Council, after the revocation of the. French decrees was announced, and even in the very ruo. merit when your mission, avowed • to- be: concilia . jury; was to have its effect. LONDON : , Printed by 'I HO MAS WOOD, of - No. 35 ,.IVIaiden-lane, Covent-garden ; and Published•by WILLIAM ARMIG ER. SCIZIPFS, South M At the SUN UFFIcE, I 12, Strand; where Aduerlisenzents, • Orderr for the, Paper, Letters lur the .4ditor,.&c...(post,paid i Vvill only adti, that hail t asppbarod iirally that 'France tailed to perform her engagement, it might at least have been expected, that Great Britain would not .have molested such of the vessels of the United States as alight be entering the. ports of France on the faith of both Governments, till that failure was clearly proved. - To many insinuations in your letter I make no reply, because they sufficiently suggest the, only one that would be proper. It it were necessary to dwell on the' impartiality which has been observed by the United,Stales to. wards the two belligerents, I might -ask, whether,:if Great Britain had accepted the condition which was offered equally .to her and France, by the Act ofl, May 1, 18 10, and France had 'rejected- it, there is eanse to doubt that the non-impoitatibn act would have been carried into effect against France: No such doub4 can possibly exist, because. in a former . instance, when this Governinent, trusting to a ful-' fitment by •your's of an arrangement which: put an end to a non-intercourse with Great. Britain, .the. non-intercourse was continued against Frlitice, who had not then repealed her decrees, as 'it was not doubted England had done,- -Has. it not been re peatedly declared to your Government, that if Great Britain would revoke her Orders in Council, the President would immediately cause the non-impor ration to cease ? You well know that the same declaration has often been made to yourself, and that nothing more is wanting to the removal of the existing obstructions to the commerce between. the two countries, than.a satisfactory assurance, which ; will be received with pleasure from yourself, that the Orders in Council are at an end. By the remark in your letter of the 3d of July, that the blockade of May 180 G, had been included in the more comprehensive system of the Orders in Connell of the following year, and , that, if that blockade should be continued in foice after the re peal of the Orders in Council, it would ,be in Conse 7 quente of the special application of sufficient neva!' force, I could not but infer your idea to be, that the repeal of the Orders in Council would necessarily involve the repeal of the blockade of May: I was the more readily induced to make this inference, from the consideration that if the blockade was not revoked by the repeal of the Orders in Council, there would be no necessity for giving. notice that it would be continued ; as by thu father consideration, that according to the decision 'of your Coon of Ad miralty, a blockade instituted by Proclamation,' does" not cease by the removal of the force applied .►oat, nor without a formal notice by the Governtnent to that effect. • It is not, however, wished to discuss any ,ques- • Lion relative to the mode by which that, blockade may -be terminated. Its actual termination is the • material object for consideration. It is easy to shew, that it has already been abun dantly shewn, that the blockade of May stiti, is inconsistent on any view that- may be taken of it with the law of nations. It ig-also easy to shew, that; as now expounded, it is equally incon4stent with the sense of your Go!ernment - when the order,was issued ; that this charge is a sufficient ,reply" to the remarks which you haVe applied to me per sonally.. If you will examine the order, you will find that it is wrielly: little more than a blockade of. the,Coi3t from the Seine to Ostend. -There is an eXpress servation in it in favour - of neutrals to any part of the coast between Brest and the Seine, and between Ostend and the Elbe. • Neutral powers are permit- ted by it to take from their own ports.every kind of produce without distinction as to its origin, and to carry it to the Continent under that limitation, and with the exception* only of contraband of war and enemy's-property, and to bring thence to their own, ports in return whatever articles they think fit. Why were contraband of war and enemy's property exempted, if a commerce even in those articles would nut otherwise- have been permitted under the re strictio'n ? No order was necessary to st.thject them to seizure: They were liable to it by the law of nations. Why, then, .did the British Government inst ,ute a blockade which, with respect to neutrals, was not rigorous as to the greater part of the coast corn prised in it If you will look to the state of things which then existed between the -United States and Great Britain, you vdill find the answer. A contro versy had taken place bet Ween our Government on . a different toric, which was 'still depending. The British Government had interfered with: the trade between France and. her Allies in the produce of their colonies the just claim of the United States was then a subject of negociation ; and 'your Go vern.neni-professing its . wiliingness to make a satis factory arrangement 'of it, issued the Order which allowed the trade, without making any concession as to the-principle reserved for : that adjustment by treaty. It was in this light that I viewed, and in this sense that 1 represented, that order to'rny Go vernment and in no other did I make comment on it. When you reflect that this cutler, - by allowing the, trade of neutrals, in colortial*productions, to all that portion of the coast which was not rigorously block aded, afforded to the United States, an accommoda tion in a principal point then at issue between our Governments, and of which their citizens extensive ly availed themselves, that that trade and - the question of blockade, and. every other question in which the United States 'and Great : Britain were interested, were then in a train of amicable negotiation, you will, I think, see the cause why the Minister who then represented the United States with the British Government; did not make a formal complaint against - it. You have appealed to me, who happened to be . that Minister, and urged my silence as an evidence of my approbation of, or at least acquiescence; in the blOckade. An.e-iplatiation of, the cause of that sup posed silence is not less due to my self, than to the true • character of the transaction with the Minister with whom I had the honour to treat. I may• add, that •an official formal complaint was not likely to be resorted • to, because friendly communications were invited and preferred. The want of such a document is no proof that the. measure was approv ed by rue, or that no complaint-was made. In re— calling to my mind, as the incident naturally dues, the manly character of that distinguished and illus trious Statesman, and the confidence with which he inspired all thtise with whom be had to treat, I shall be permittedto express, as a slight tribute of respect to his thernory, the 'eery high ccitiAei*. tiou in which I havti alw.as held his treat talents and virtues. The United States have not, hot can they ap prove the. blockade of an extensive coast. No- t , thing certainly can be inferred from any thing that. has passed relative to the blockade of Miy 1,806, to countenance such inference. It is seen with satisfaction, that you still admit that the application of an adequate force is necessary to ("rive a blockade a legal cltratier ; and that it will lose that charaeler whenever that adeqUate force ceases . to be applied. As it_ cannot be alleged that the application of any such adequate force has been ,continued, and ritually; exists in the case of the blockade of May 1806, it would seem. to-be a riii• inference, that the repeal of the Orders in Council, will leave insuperable difficulty with respet:t to it. To suppose the contrary, would be to suppose .that the - Orders in Council, said to include that blockade', resting themselves on a ptiticiple of retaliation only, and-not sustained by the application of an adequate force,•would -have the effect of sustaining a-blockade admitted to require the application of an adequate force, until such adequate forCe ,should a&ually take'. the 'place of the Orders in Council. • When ever. any blockade is instituted, it will be a subjeot - _ for consideration; and if the blockade be in' con formity to the law of nations, there will be no dis position in th)s 'Government to contest it. I have the honour to be, &c. (Signed) JAS. N10141t013. • Aug. 1. Foster, Esq. &c. OUTRAGES AT SLOOTHUY —Last winter some villains committed various offences on the premises of Mr. Samuel Taylor,„p! Sloothby,,in the Marsh. They commenced their "base designs by misplaciag his articles of husbandry; and, next, had the bold ness,to enter his beast-shed, and let loose his cattle, which they drove out. Mr. Taylor being greatly astonished at such treatment, and nut knowing what the consequence might be, did, for the safety Of his person and property, set a Watch on his premises for several succeeding nights ; :but there being then no disturbance, he was in hopes the villains had declined, coming any longer. To his great surprise, however, he was shortly of er alarmed, in the dead of the night, by some villains, who destroyed nearly the whole of the windows about his. house, with large stones, &c. Mr. Taylor and his family then. thought their lives were in danger, and were determined, if possible, to discoveethe offender. They according ly, on the following night, bad their house and-pre mises well guarded, and continued this precaution for several nights ; but no person coming to disturb the house, Mr. Taylor again ventured himself with his family to prote& them: They remained undis turbed the'whole of the last slimmer; but, alas, to the horfor of all the fatnily,' their barn was broken open on Tuesday nighty the 17th ult. and on the Saturday lollosiving, about half past ten at night,' their house was again beset•by a gang of villains, whq attempted to break in through a chanahet- Window, by . means of a ladder, which they reared against the wall; 'but in this they were disapPoint ed, for the Almighty forewarned . the family of their danger, by Mr. Taylor's eldest son. (aged eighteen years) dreaming that some villain had broken into the house, and was going to murder him. The perturbation of mind occasioned by the dream awoke him; and, to his great astonishment, the first thing he saw, was-a man at the top of the lad der, endeavouring to take out the chamber window. The young man, without giving the least alarm, got out of bed, took his. gun (which he had by his bed side ready loaded) and flied it. Instantly .the Man upon the ladder dropped down ; and the re port of the gun alarMing the father, the whole fa mily were - soon up; but no one dare open thd dOor, as the son saw two men about the home, and was aftaid, - it the villains got admittance, the whole fal naily would be murdered. With great impatience they waited for day-break ; and the first thing they saw Was a quantity of blood on the ladder, and several places in the road leading from the front of the `house into the yard stained with bloody but tio'trace of the wounded man could be found, so as to Wad to any discovery. Mr. Taylor is perfealy well satisfied that the villain was severely wounded, and believes that he was taken off by his • Yesterday morning, at one o'clock. a gentleman, who lives in Market-street, Newport-market, from his window observed five men and a boy of suspici ous appearance, in the street. They continued loi tering, near the house of Mr., 'Watkins, butcher, ,at the corner of Market-street, facing Gerrard-sneer; till three o'clock, during all which time he watched them from his window, as it was a clear-moonlight night:. When the watchman went his usual round they retired out of,sight, but always came to the spot after he had passed ; at three o'clock they be gan to break open the parlour window, the gentle man then descended and procured assistance; . but we presume theY had one of the, party on the look out, as they made off, putsued by the watchman rind patrole, but unfortunately all escaped; they only took a few books of little value. On Monday last, about five o'clOck in t!se after noon, a man, about five feet eight inches high, black coat and waistcoat, blue worsted striped pan taloons, and Hessian boots, with a pair of white horse-soldier's gloves on, and a black crape over his face, with a horse-pistol in one hand, and a broad sword stick in 'the other, entered the chambers of Mr, Holship, solicitor, £2, Clement's-inn, when 'he immediately forced the mouth of - the pistol against the head of a youth about I-3 years of age (being at this time the Only person in the Chain hers), and - threatened, in case he gave the least alarm, - that he would -immediately blow out his brains ; he then compelled him to sit down in a chair, which he placed in :a particular part . of ahts room (turning the youth's face froth him); when, after tying his hands behind him, he bound him securely to the chair. After he had so done, he proceeded to examine Mr. H.'s desk 'for. notes and cash ; at this 'moment a person in the chambers over Mr. H.'s, in removing a box, made a consider able noise, and immediately walked a quick pare across the room ; this, it is•supposed, alarmed-the villain, as he made a precipitate retreat without taking any -ihing of material value. Mr. H. re. turned about ten minutes after, the man had es caped, when he found the youth bound as before described. . t EnINBURGII, D 8. COURT OF SESSION-SECOND DIVISIO CESSIQ BONORUht. r. CHINIMAN V. HIS CREDITORS. This is i case of great gtneral .importance to ti.. 6 taliabitants of Scotland. The question . was,•" Whether.art vied of gross and culpable extravagance; one who; for a nUrnbzr of years, lived in a tnanne,r totally ur:;• suitable io his . rank and station in life, and_ without the slightest prospect of being abte'to discharge the, debts he was contra Ling, is entitled to the bt:nefit of the Cessio;" „ . . ' , The Creditors oppood the Cessio, on the grouttii that a man who hai, by, a " 'vein of extravaga , nce, l ° without having tnct With any losses, or been rethicect to indigepcehy innoCent Misiwittines, is not-entitled to the nem:fit of it ; on the other hand, the peti. tioner contended, that mere extravagance of living; widi his fitfully, in the. degiee alluded to by his Cre ditors, Ad especially in similar circumstances to those. in Which - he was placed, never had been in any one instance considered as a bar to the granting of 1- ,Cessio; and that if he should now be refused the benefit of that process, it would have the effect of introducing a rule into the proc-:ss of Cessio widely different from what had been acted upon in, all lor4 mer practices of the Court of Session. The COOl4 (22d June, 181 " Refused to the Pursuer the benefit. of the.process. of Cessio Bohol,liln -in hoc stain." • The pursuer gave in a petition to the Court against this judgment ; and,. The Court (,►6th Nov, 1811) "Adhered to their fortes judgment." Some of the Judges expressed an opinion; that it appeared-to be a new kind of morality to say, that a man is justifiable for . running into every sort of ex travagance, provide'd . he makes his wife and childrea share in that extravagance. AGRICULTURE, &c, SECOND REPORT FOR DECEMBER. The limited 'Operations in the course of ,th montli,•have yielded but Hale matter for agriciti tural detail. Ihe dry frost, towards the latter end of it, afforded afavourablecpportunity for carrying out manure, in which the teams in all distri6ts seetu attively einployed. , The Wheat plants have geneally benefited by this seasonable turn of weather, Although- the marketable produce of grain, of most kinds, has riot been large for the season of the year, the speculations on a stoppage of the distilla 7 . Oon from corn has happily kept the prices from the ad 4 vatice which might otherwise have been look ed for. The serious inquiry into the defalcation of ,so many Brewelies, in various counties, has ll:Aurally . cootri&uted to keepßatleys dOixn. The Oat trade is brisk. The Turnip crops have suffered no injury from the sudden change of weather. r ce nso. Wool trade. • Hay and Strawcontinue nearly at our last re- , thing has been done of late i n a ny p b o ra rL t t l ei C d l l l l'l) o or f i the The Meat markets hare had a fine supply Of good. Beef, Muttnn, and Pork, on fair terms b....tween thc Grazier and Butcher. No shows of Lean Cattle have been made in the course of the month, troon which any•rise or fall of stuck could be well aseerCeincd ; but. neither Beasts not Sheep, in the midland or northern counties, aria .stated to be dearer. • COINAGE .OF ENGLAND.--The whole money coined in England since the beginning of the feigit of Queen ELIZABETII, up to the year 1793, was as follows 13y. Queen Elizabeth King lames I. Charles I. Cromwell King Charles 11. lames I I • 45. 8 3 2, 933 • 2,53,,0c0 10, 4 ( 09.544 7,5 2 4 , 4-5 3.7.'7,657 . Before the Revolution . By King William, including re-coinage- 3 1, 1, 5 9 11,;6 3 ; Queen Ann . - 2,691,626 King George 1. - - 8 ,7 2 ;•9 21 George 11. - ... ii,966676 Total during the present Reign till March 25th, 1793, ins;ludingFecoinage 5i,073,36z Gold and Silver coined in 1793 1794 • 1795 1796 only 1 797 • i16,c63,666 2, 747,430 o 2,5j3,894 12 co 49/.7 1, 5 6 39 1 ,7 8 9 z o 2,000,297 0 0 ‘8,14z,12z o DAVENANT'eStiMated the Coin in the kingdom is 1711, to be about 12,000,000: ANDEI'SON estimates it in the year 1762, at 16„000,000. - Mr.CH,ALmEas snpposes it in 1736, to amount to 20,000,0001 and at plestnt at 37,000,0001:- MARRIED. On the 17th ult. at St Faneras, Major-General Thawlee; of the lion. East-India Company's Service, to Mrs. Altibusi °flipper Fitzroy -street. Ori ifie,24th oit. at Cheltenham . , E. L. Savage, Esq. to Miss Emma Harrison, tnncl,daughter o; the late Thomas Hai s tison, "F..iq. of fultord, near York. On "Monday list, at St. George's, Hanover.square, Mr. Joseph Crane, of New Bond street, Upholder,, to Sarah. only- daughter of M. B. Crane., of, Tottemharri.court.road. (Sithe Ist inst. by special license, at 8C,10.11 Lodge, York.: shix, (:hailes' Thcrold Wood, Esq. of Thoresly, iii 00 Cowity of Lincoln, to lane, only daughter of Sir j. Tho- , rojd, Hart. of Syatdn Paris. •Nesiettlay, at St. Geoige's, Hanover-square, Robert Gam ble, Esq. of His Majesty's snip VlCiory-, ) to Saran, youngest daulthier of Thomas Bidwell, Esq. of fl,yde P ar k Lode,, DIED. o_ll-Wednesday last, in his soth year; Mr. James Stewart, of Chambers-street. On the i . st inst. Mrs. lelougharn, wife of Solomon Moll,: hani, Esq. or Charter-house-square. . • esterday morning, Mr. Witham Ruspini, son o f th e . Cheyalier ttuspirri, pt Pall-Mall. [UGH WATER PT LONDON JJRJOGL TO.MOR- ROW Morning, 5o min, after 5. j Evening, zi min. atter 6. lolton-street, Grosvenor-scivarc, )i must b ncicire:,sed, _