The Sun. — London, England, 1811-12-23 00:00:00

1. ' I Zed Ilji t ► of t iler bes Sri' 11, . . yasitre of ju s t retaliation on her pert, .occasioned !Oar previous aggression : and the . Freni - h:(;o• lament has insisted, that our system of .. .block 'l existed previou4v to the decree of Berlin, was 'tlanifest violation of the received fiw-of nations. mast, therefore, Sir, refer to the articles oittie b: 17 1 n decree,- to find the principles of our system. u nimlude, which France considers tobe new and , ''ttary to the law of nations. , By the 4th, and the Bth articles it is stated as a Illtification of the French decree, that Great Britain extends to pofortified towns and commercial 'rts, to harbours, and to the months of rivers, those ON of blocka' de, which by reason aid the usage motions are applicable only to fortified places ; td that the rights of blockade ought to be limited i ortress e s really invested' by a sufficient force." • It is add e d , i n the same art i c l es , that Great Britain d i hai decl are d p l aces ' to be in a state of blockade, :tore 1 .0416 she has not a single ship of war , • and at n places which the whote British Once would be !autilcient to blockade :—entireenaits and a whole t_ Neither, the, praclice of Great Britain nor the law of "liens has. ever • sauitioned the rule now laid ° w o by France, t hat no 'place eXcepting fortresses ilcomplete state of investiture, can be dee med ftwfully blockaded by sea. If such a rule Were to be admitted, it would be 7 cn me nearly impracticable ter Great Britain to at tempt the blockade of any port on the Contibent ; and our submicsion to this prcversion of the law of nations,4 while it would destroy one of the p rin. . adyantaaes of our naval supeperiority would "nrifice the conimon tightki end interests of all Ina litime stales. It was evident that the blockade of May, 1806, " 133 the principal pretended justification of the de ".eaef Berlin ; though neither the principles on : hick that blockade was founded , nor i ts practi cal Operation, a tfOrded any colnur for the proceedings el Prince. 11l point of date, the :blockade of May, 1806, e eeded the Berlin Decree ; but it was a; just and legal blockade according to the established law of balions because it was intended to be maintained, and was adually maintained by an adequate fonfe a ppointed to guard the whole coast described in notification, and consequently to enforce the blockade. Great Britain has never attempted to dispute, that t(he ordinary course of the law of nations, .no b lockade can - be justifiable or, valid, unless it be ClPPotted by an adequate force destined to main .aiU it, and*to expose to hazard all vessels attempt 7 'ng to evade its operation. The blockade of I ;g 4 )G, Was notified by Mr. Secretary Fox, on this 'ear principle; nor was that blockade announced ü bttl he had satisfied himself by a communication with his Majesty's Board of Admiralty, that the titniralty posse4cl the means, and would 'employ , (I ',ett), of watchiti the whole coast from Brest, to "ie Elbe • Id f ff ctu ally enforcing the blockade. AI .e e The bleCkaae:of May, 1806, was therefore (ac elrding to the doctrine maintained by Great Britain) Pit and lawful in its origin, because it was sup- Ported by b:ith,, in intention 'and tact, by an tide ckulle naval force. T his was "the j ustification of that bleCkade,:untd the period of acne when the urders it; Council were issued. ' 11 4 7 .0.(10s in Council were founded on a distinet l'l'lnciftle—that of dettosive retaliation. Franc e had ealared 'bi,-, c !). o d : of all the ports add coasts of , Britaio, ifer dlientivociai, without assign-. or being nle. assign, any tbrce .to support that i °c,k 4 de. Such au ao of the elfetm Nvonld have in Ili rted el declaration of,the bl ocka d e of the whole '"coast of France, even without the application of any particular force:-to that service. - Since the prom9l- iVIon of the Order , : Council; the blockaLle cf l y. 180 6, l•as tiul'ained and exti•nde d b y the / l } coo,p rt l ) ,.,, s i ve s ys.eni o f •defensive retaliatinn °n l - I ‘vhic I , 4re founded. the Cnui, , ll shoald abrognted, the blockfide t , .806, co.ild not coli ( in utt under our cqn. ;"'n ttif, 12W of nitinns, unless that blouiode traintatned by a dueapplicatto,, (it an ado. Date naval force. aPoears to conriir Vith France in rissert t,,lbi:eliatitettlda.a:ck,t(4oor:iitiael tßbl talack ,'l,l'e4olt) ttNshlt;3 N:3 : 111(1141 8i71:16k alag4:ll.lel:l4:ll7bair'llitY: it? Stance t)f that aggression un the par) . of Grc:.at Although the doarities of the Berlin d ecree, re► ar t leain g the righls Of blockade , are no t dire&)y as. i by the' Ameri lb Ys correspopdeuce ca d, Government,' Mr. Pink ce would appear to countenance Pritriples on which those do trines are found i:he obi c Cti on direly stated by America ag a i nst thelockade.of May, 1801, rests on a su pp osition ch at u o filit no, naval force wbich Great Brit a i n p ossessed, r , '"ula •Nwe employed for such a purpose, could, e rendefed 'thit blockade effe&ual ; end that , therefore,ot it 'Was necessarily irregu lar, antkcould bb maintained in.conlormity to the law • nati ons. nevi • A „ ewing the course of this statement,' it will deemed that the blockade of May, 1806, cannot, be tl e emed contrary to the law of nations, either under 4 1e , c bieetions urged by the french, or under those ;It:tared or insinuated by the American Govern- Fm e n 2 t .; because that blockade was, maintained by a w ag basal force : that the. Decree of Berlin las not therefore justified either under the pretext I "eged by France, or under those supported by Amer +ca; that the Orders in Council were founded on a Principle of defensive retaliation against the yin i"vl of the law of natiens committed by France in necree.of Berlin ; that the. blockade of May, oGlis now included in the more extensive opera `43€ the Orders in'Council ; and lastly, that the taruerg in s A Council will not be c ontinued beyond the ni duration of the hostile d ec rees of France ; hoe-`4tt will. the blockade of May, 1806, continue after e repeal of the Orders in Council, unless.his Ma ,thstrs Gove rnment s h a ll-think fit to sustai n it b y and fad application of a suffi c i en t naval force. anT;cfaa will not ,e suffered to remain in 4pubt ; the repeal of the Orders in CouncilOpuld Ime ,eplace, the intention of his Majesty's Govern... tespeaing the blockade of May, le o6, ue notified at the same time. . aged .not recapitulate to you the sentiments of , subi : l jesty's vvertfm - eel, so often repeate d, on the A Qf the French minister's note to Gener' . /. Studied awl,tioie haisti;Ct I;een . inik etplained by the conduct. and langrage of the go ' vetnment of France ; cif which one'd the most Le marlable instances is 'to be found in - tlitt speeeh of the chief of the Fr - ench government, on the 17th of ~l4pt4notith, to certain .deputies from the free cities of tiibnrgh, Bremen, and Lubeck ; wherein he ch..clayes that the Berlin and Milan decrees shall be the puolic code of France as long as England main tai ncher Orders in Council of t 806 and 1807. Thus pronouncing as plainly as language will admit that the system of vtolenceand injustice of mhich he'is Ole founder,' will be maintained by him until the. defensive measures of , retaliationto.which they gave rise on the part of Great. Britain shall be 80.311. Boned. If other proofs were necessary to show the con tinued eXistenc , of those obnoxious Decrees, they l ate be discoVered in the_ imperial edict, 'dated at Foutainbteau, in Odober le, 1810—that Mon strous pseduction of violence, in which they are made the i basis el a 'System of general and unexam pled tyranny and oppression overt all countries sub ject to, allied with,' or within the reach of the power of France,•in the Report of the French Mi nister. for Foreign Atlairs, dated last December; and .in the letter of the French Minister of Justice to the President of the Council of Prizes. To this latter, Sir, Y .would wish particularly to invite your attention ; the date is the 25th December, the au thority it conies from is unquestionable,' and you will there find, Sir; the Duke of Massa, in giving instructions to the Council of Prizes, in conse quence of the President of the!United States' Pro clamation of Nov. a, most cautiously avoiding to as sell that the French Decrees were repealed, and ascribing not to such repeal, bUt to tire ambiguous passage e bid). he quotes at length from hant- PagnY'6 letter of Angus 5, the new attitude taken by Aluerica ; and you will also find an evidence in the same 'letter, of the continued'capture of Ameticen ships aVer November, and tinder the . Berlin and Milan Decrees, having beeu' contemplated by the French Gaverninent, since there is a spec'al direc tion given ter judgment on such ships being sus pended in consequence of the American Protilarva tioe,ao for Omit being kept as pleiges fur its en forcement., Can then, Sir, theie decrees be said to have been repealed at the period When the proclamation of the President of the United States appeared, or when America enforced her Non-importation Ad against Great Britain I Aresthey so at this moment I To the first question, the state papers which l have referred to, appear to give a sufficient answer ; for, even supposing that the repeal has since taken place, it is clear that'en November ad there was no question as to that not beieg then the case ; the capture of the' ship NeW-Orleans Packet seized at Bouide.anx, and the Grace Ann e Green, seized at or carried into Marseilles;,being cases arising under the French de crees of Berlin and Milan, as is very evident. Great Britain might therefore complain , of being treated with injesticebs America, eveu suppusiee that the conduit Of France had since been unequivocal. , • • America contends, that the French decrees are revoked as it respects her ships upon the high seas : and,you, Sir, inform me, that the only two Ame rican ships taken under their maritime 'operation, as you ate pleased 'to term it, since November, t, have been restored but may they not have been restored in consequence of ,the satisfaction felt in France at.the pJ,sitig of _the Non-i•uportation Act in the Arncricart Congress, an event so little to be exp...cted ; for, otherwise having been captured in ranee contra - diction to the supposed revocation, why were they not restored immediately ? The, fears of the French navy, however, prevent many cases of elle kind occurring on the ocean un der 'the decrees of Berlin and. Milan ; but the Most ob noxious and destructive parts 'of these decrees are ;exereised with full violence, not only in the ports `ot . France, but • in those of ail other countries to which France thinks she can commit injustice .with impunity, • Great Britain has• a right to complain that neutral nations should 'oVerlook 'the very vt orst features of • those extraordinary ads, and attouldsutfer their trade to be Made a Medium of an unprecedented, violent, and monstrous system of attack upon her resources ; a species of warfare , unsttempted by any' civilised nation befute the present period. .Not only has Antelicasnirered her .trade converted into the-means of annoyance to Great Britain euder the proytsions of the French decrees; but JPI construing those de crees. as extinct upon a deceittill deciaiatien of the Frenclilabinet, she has enforced het Nou-itopurta. tion Act against Great; Britain. Under these citcumstanees, I am ioStruaed by my Goveinment to urge to that of the United States, the injusticeof thes enforcing that Ad agaiest his Majesty's dominions ; and I cannot ( but hope that a spirit of justice will induce the United States Go, vernment to re-consider the line of 'conduct they ' have pursued,' and at least to re-establish their former slate of stria eeutrality. , I have only to add, Sir, that On - my part I ishalt ever be ready to meet you On any opening which may seem to afford a proaped of restoring complete harmony between the two countries, a nd t hat i t will at all tides give the the greatest satistadioe to treat with you on the important concerns so lutee resting to both. .1 have the honour to be, See. . Atlo. 3. FOSTER. To the lion. lames Munroe, AC. r yos.fEß TO MR. MUNROE. SIR, washiagton, luty it, ISt t. In conseqnence of our conversation of yesterday, and the observations which .you made respelling that part of my let ter to you of the ad instan:, where in I have alluded to the principle on which his Ma jesty's Orders in Council were ori g inall y founded, I think it right to explain myself, in order to prevent any possibleinistake as ,to the present situation of neutral trade with his Majesty's enemies. It will only be necessary for me to repeat what has already; tong since, been announced to the. American Government, namely, that hii Majesty's Order in Conned, of April 26, 'so, superseded those of-November, !Sub and relieved the system of retaliation adopted.by >his Majesty against his enemies . from 'what was considered in tips country as the, must objectionable part of it—the option given to neutials to trade - with the enemies of 'mat Britain through British ports, on payment of a transit duty. e 1 This exula illation, Sir, will; I trust, be sufficient to do axxaf3ny that yOo lure received to the.controry from my,observations respecting the effetistwhich his Miljesty's Orders ih.6)!.incii* or igi. r,aliy had on • the trade of neutral nations. Those ohs.ervationS were merely meant as premilibary to a consideration of the question now at ifine between the two countries. I hoile the horour to . he, With the highest consideraihin and respeEt, Sir, 'Tour moat obedient humble Servant, Au 6. J. Fthitatt. To the Hon. 1. - Monroe, &c.-- SIR.? MR. MONROE TO MR. FOSTER. Department of State, July 23, 031 t, I have submitted to the President your s•-yveral letters of the 3t.t. and Wilt of this month,. relative to the British Orders . in Council, and the blockade of May, tsOti ; and I have now the honour to com municate to you his sentiments on the vie v which you have presented of those measures of yout Go vernment. It was hopedlhat your communication would have led to an immediate OCCOITPTIOCIaticiII of the, differ ences subsisting between other entiturit.a, on the ground on which alone it is possible to. inert you. It is regretted that you have confined yourself to A vindication of those measures which produced some of them. The United 'States are as little disposed,noW beretofOre to enter into the question concerning the priority of aggression by the two belligerents, ;loco could not be justified by either by the prioriv of Those of the other; but as you bring forward that plea in support of the Orders in Council, I 'llll.lil be per mitted to (=ark, that you have yoursell furnished, a conclusive answer. to it, by admitting that the blockade .of May, ,1806, which was prior to Ge first of the Drench decrees, would not be legal, tat,- less supported throng') the whole extent of t he coast from the Elbe to Brest by an adequate naval .force. That such a naval foiCe* was :actually applied continued in the requisite strictness until that block ade was comprised in and superseded' by the Orders Of November in the follo&ing year, or even waif the French decree of the. 'same: year, will not, I presume, be alleged. But waving this question'of priority, can it be seen . without serprise and regret,, that it is still contend-, ed that the Orders in Council are justified hy the - principle of retaliation, and that this principle 'IS' strengthened by the inability of France to enforce her decrees? A. retaliation is in its name, and • its' essential 'cliaratAer, returning like tar like. Is the. deadly blow of the Orders in Council, against one half ot our commerce, a return of like for like, an enipty threat like that in the French Decrees against the other half ? It must be a vindictive hostility, as-far as its effects fall on the enemy, hut when falling"on a neutral, who on no pretext can be liable to mote than the measure of injury receised through such neutrals would not be a retaliation, but a positive wrong, by the plea on which it is founded. It is to be fartheriemarked, that the Orders in Council went even beyond the plea, such as has ap peared to de, in extending the-operation against the trade of the United States,.with nations, which like Russia, had not adopted the French Decrees, and with all nations which had merely excluded the lit i tish flag—au exctosion resultiog as twitter of course with tesped to whatever nation Great Britain might happen le be nt , war. I am fir from viewing the modification originally Contained in -these orders,. which permits neuttals to prosecute their trade with the! Continent , through Great Biitaiu, in the favourable light which you re present it. It, is impossible to proceed to nutlet the . effect of 019 modification, without expressing our astonishment at the exttavagancte of the political pretension Set up by it : a, pretension which is' ut terly Incompatible with the sovereignty and inde pendence of other states. In a commercial view it is . not less objectionable, as it cannot tail to prove de sitectie to note oil commerce. As an enemy, Great Boutin cannot trade with Fratice. Nor can .France permit a menu' to come into, her ports, from Great Britain. The attempt of Great Britain to force our trade through her ports would have therefore the commerciat effect of depriving tune United States al together Of the market ot her enemy for their pro ductions, and,of destroyiog their' value in her mar ket by a set charge of it. Heretofore it has been the usage. at belligerent nations to carry 'ort their trade thrOugh the intervention 'of 'neutrals; and this bad the beneficial oiled of extending to the tanner the advantages of peace. white suffcring under the cala mities or war. To reverse the same, and to extend to natierisat peace the calateittes of war, is a charge as novel and.extraerdinary, as it is at variance with justice end public law, • Against this unjust system, the untied States en tered, at an early period, their' Solemn protest... They considered it their duty to esince to the , woild their high disapprobation of it,. and they have dene by such' acts aS-were deemed . most .consistent. with the rights and the policy of the nation. Remote froluthe contending scene which desolates Europe, it has been then uniform object. to avoitlibecoming a party' ter the war. • : With this view they have en deavoured to cultivate friends tip with both parties system of conduct ,‘ Inch ought to have pro duced Jhat etlecr„:•. 'They have done justice' to each party M. eves) , tlBll9 . Ciioll in which they have been 'separately engaged with it. They have ob sered the imperil:oov Which was due to both as belligeients standing on equal hav ing in no instance givtin a prefere4 to either at the expence of the other. They have twine, too, with equal indulgefice, injuries from both; being witting, st bile it was possible to impute them to easoalties inseparable from a cause of war, not to a delibeyate intention to violate their right's) and even when that intent'on could not be mistaken, they have not best sight .of the . ultimate 'objeet.of their policy. In the measures to which they have been:c.ompelle.d to resort, they have in all respOs Maintained. pelfie relations eith both partitw The alternative present.ed by 'their late ads was referred equally to both, and 'could operate OD neither no longer than it should persevere .io its aggressions cel our neutral rights. The embargo and N . orri alum) were peaceful measures, The regulations Which they imposed on our trade were such as tiny natien.might adept peacti or war, without offence to any other nation. 'the Non-importation is of the sarnechiraeler ; and it iCrnakes a distinetion at this Wild in its operation between the belligerents, it nueettolrily results from a compliance of tune with the otter made to both, and fitiii the coinplianpe of the nth , r.. • In the discuqsions whirl) lutre taken place subject of, the : Orders ii Conitcil and b kado of . May, 6'66, ilie British G. ve rnmett ; , in At for fy tO,tlll pi nciple on whiCh the Orders i.l outi..ll at'4.l gaid to -be totinded; declared, that they d.oti! Lea,4 to operate as soon as Fiance revoked het:l:Ai:6s., It was stattd also, that the British Goveronnt sold proceed' pari polu,with tba GOvern men t of .Frif Ice; 0 the revdeation of her edi&s. I wpi - proceva to 'hew that .the obligation on Great Britain to tevtike her orders:is.comniete, according to her own m omenta; and that th e revocation ought not to bo longer delayed. - ~ By the Ad of May 1, 1810, it is provided c That if either Great Britain or France slicl.ld.c.erie to-co. late the neutral commerce 91 the United St ites, Which Ito the. President should declare by procla.; ttiatirit, pod tho other party 3110uld n o t . three m:otAhs therciffer revoke or modify its edias-in mannL\r, th,a then certain sections in a former ad interiiiiiing the commercial intert ourf4e bet tl n United.giates and Great Britain and -.Fiance, and tl►eir dependencies, should froin.and after ►he ex►%i• ration of three tr.ontlii from the date of the procia:. matins, be reVived.and have full f“rceitg - aihst the it 4 colonies and dependent:v.l, and against all &rides of .ihe growth, produce,' or manutaCture of the same. The riolai;Ons of neutral commerce alluded to in thii set were such as were committed ,on the high se is. • It %:VEIS in the trPde between the Utlited S:aie•y .'.atid tile British dominions, that France hod violated thC - nentral rights pt the irilittd States bv her blockading edicts. It %.va. wiili the mule i France tknd-her allies tivot Great Britain hod conitmitrd si - 1/I.lar violations by similar edicts. It was the revo.. cation of those ecicts, so Inr a4.thgy.cominitled stiAt violations, Which the United Stotts had in \‘ it e they pabsett the law of May :i „Is i 0. ..uo the 5: h .Ann tilt, 1 8 10, the French: IV!i►►ister of fairs' addres4ed note to the-hlittlater Pleopotentimy of itieUnited . Bl . ate4.Ht Park, infortniog bin) that ihi decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked, i b.e vocation to take cited on the Ist of November lowing: that the measure teen taken by his Government in t ontidence Thao he Britis4 c.ioverti. inent would revoke its - circlets and renounce its tie piitteiples of blockade ; or that the ljnited Slates. would canie their rights to bc rot+peacd, conforms ably to the Att of May I, It no. mettgure of the Vrendt Govt.romeot was founded On the.law of May t, 1.410, as ib tryteti,lf, declared in the lettet of die Duke'.: of Cadore an—, nonliving it. .; The etlicis of Grell 13611110 i the re vocation of „which we'le'expeelr,;.Ll by Frohce,, we re those Ander, to 'in dial ad 5 and the, means by which the Untied States i hoitld cause their ; righ ts to be respotted, in case .Great stioul4i not rovot,e 'her edicts, .wete likewise to be found the bittno, Aid. They consisted merely in, the enforcement of , the Non-importation Ad : against Great Britain, in that unexpected and improbable contingency. The letter of the sth of August, which announced , thn revocation of the, French Decrees, was commu nicated to this. Government ; in .consequence of which the President issued a Pioclamation on tile 2d of November , .the day after that on which the repeal of the French Decrees was to take till:0, in which he declated, that all the resttialotta Impost d by the Act of May 1,1811 r should cease, and be discontinued in relation to France and her . clepen. dencies. It was a necessary consequence. of this • proclamation, also, that if Great Britain did not re vok e her editls, the Non-importation Att would operate on her, at the end of three months. This actually took plade. She decliiied the revocation, and on the tad Of February last, that law took effect. In confirmation of the piockimastion, n A& of Coti greys was .passed on the Stl of March ')lluwing.. Great Britain still - declines to revoke her edicts on the pretensiOn that France has not revoked her's.' Under that impression she infers, that tint United , States have done her injustice by carrying into of feet the non-importation against her. The .United,Stltes maintain that France has re.; yoked her edicts so far as they violated tltcir tAttrat rights, and were coriteMplated by the law on ,May 1, 1810, and have on that ground particularly claimed, and do expect, of Great Britain a similar revocation. The revocation announced officially by the French , Minister of Foreign Affairs to .the Minister po!ertintry of the United States at Paris, on the of August, 1810, was in itself sufficitnat to justify thociaim of the ',United States to a corresp,onclent measure from Great Britain. Site had derAareo that she would+ proceed pari passu in the repeil Fiance ; nand the .day being fixed when the rep4l of the French decrees should take effect., it was'rea, sonable to conclude that Great Britain would fix the same day ter the repeal of her Were. this been'done, the Proclamation of the President would' have announced the - revocation of the E,lias of both Powers'at the same time, and in consequence there. fore, of the non4inpurration would have goile into operation against neither. Such, too, is the.tratural course of 'proceeding in transaelions between hide. penclent.S.ates, awl Such ,the,cotiduit which they generally observe to etch. other. In all compacla between. nations, it is the duty of each other to per, form what it stipulates, and to presume on the gond faith of the other for the like perlormance: United State's lAving made a propthat to both ha.. . ligerents, were bound to actetpt a compliance, from either ; and it was do objection to the French corn pli.ance ; that it was in a form to take etlea at a future day, that being alarm not minimal in laws and . in other public aCts. Even, when nmibos are 'at war, and make . peace, this obligation of neutral con lidence exists, and is respelied.. In treaties of win armee, by which their future intercourse is to be governed, the obligation . is. the same, .11' distrust and jealousy is allowed to prevail, the moral tie which tilods.rtatiorni together in -all their relations, in war as well as in peace, is broken. ' What would-Great Britain have hazars'o by a prOmpt compliance in the manner suggested i She had declared she had adopted the restraints 41 , 4)044 by her Orders in Connell with reluctance, bcausio of their distressing effect on (lento) puvh l rs. Hore,' then, was a favourable opportunity presented to - her, , to withdraw from that measure with honour, be the conduct of France afterwards what it alight.' nal Great Britain revoked her Oiders, and l?rance fatted to fulfil her engagement; she would have gain e d credit at the expence of France, and sustained no injury try- it,. biopic,* *the failure 141' ••.-• rgei and test ihip tnd, )0.; ' Ilpt pua it rd un tory the un rliri