The National Register.
London, England, 1813-01-17 00:00:00

/

0;,..

----r-~

Or bATURDAY, JAN. O.

W-131)LE.11EN7''740 THE LONDON GAZETTE,

• DECLARATION.
•
, The earnest endeavonrs of the Prince Regent to preserve the relai.
tions of peace and amity with the United Stares of Ali erica having
ttofortunately failed, his Royal 'eligeness, acting in the name and on
the, behalf of his Majesty, deems it proper ,publicly to declare the
causes and origin of the war, in which the Government of the United
Shoes has'compelled hiM to engege.
"No desire of conquest, or other ordinary motive of aggression, has
been, or can be with any colour of reason, in this case, iinputed to
Great Britain : that her commercial interests were on the side of
peace, it war could have been avoided, without the sacrifice of her
maritime rights, or without an injurious submission to France, is a
truth which the American Government will not deny.
lift Rclal Highness does not, however, mean to rest on the favour-
able presumption, to which he is entitled. He is prepared by an ex-
position of the circumstances which have led to the present war, to
show that Great Britain has throughout acted towards the United
States of America with a spirit of amity, forbeerance, and conci-
liation ; and to demonstrate the inadmissible nature of those pre-
tensions 'which have at length unhappily involved the two countries
in war.
. It is well known to the world;that it has been the invariable object
of the Ruler of France to destroy the rower aeti independence ot the
Btitish Empire, as the chief obstacle to the accomplishment of his
ambitious designs.
He first conttenplated the possibility of assembline such a naval •
force in the Channel as, combined with a numerous flotilla, should
epable him to disembark in England ar. army sufficient, in his con-
ception, to stih!ugese this cannery i and through the conquest of Great
Britain be :ieued to realize his ineitet of univcraal empire.
By the ioioption of ac enlarged and provident system of internal de-
fence, and l,e rl.e velomeof his Majesty's flsets and armies, this design
we, ',retie:ly frustrated , and the naval tarce of France, atter the most
signal defeats, was cc:opt:lied to retire from the ocean.
An Attempt was the'• made to tefectuare the same purpose by other
means; a system was brought far ward, by which the R uler of France •
Hoped to annihilate the , emmerce of Great Britain, to shake her public
credit, and to den.., y her revenue ; to render useless her maritime
superiority, and to avail of his continental ascee.lanay, as to
constitute himself in a great meaeire the arbiter of the ocean, not-
withstanding Ott d . tructien of his fleets. •
With this sine by the Decree of Bei lin, followed by that of Milan,
he declared the gritish te-r,tories-to in ast of blocka,le ; and
that ill commercs, or ev, t corrole !.:fence, with Great Britain was
prohibited. He decree,: . hat every vees,.l and cargo, which had en-
tered, or was found proc‘e 'ing to a B-' rich port, or which, under any
circumstances, had been visited by a eritish ship or war, should be
lawful prize ;he .lared all British goods -arid produce, wherever
found, and nowev, r acquired, whether coming from the Mother
Country or from her colonies, subject to confiscation : he further de-
dared to be tlenationaized, the fl,,g nf all neutral ships that should be
found ofF:nding aernust thee his Decrees : and he gale to this project
of universal tyranny, the name of the Continental System.
For these attermns to run the CorrunereL f Great 3ritain, by
rneans subversive of the ckatest rights rt neutral nations, France en-
deavoured in vain to rest her justification upon the previous co. duct
of his Majesty's Government. •
theler circumstances of unparalleled provocation, his Majesty had
ahst.iined from any measure which the ordinary rules of the Law ef
Nation: did not fully warrant. Never was the maritime superiority
of a belligerent over iiis enemy more cemplete and decided. Never
was the opposite Belligerent so farmidebly dangerous in his power,
and in his policy, to the liberties elan other nations, France had al-
ready trampled so openly and systematically on the most sacred rights
of .Nentral Pewers, as might well have justified the placing her out
of the pale of civilized nations. Yet in this evreme case, Great Bri-
tain had so used her naval ascendancy, that her enemy could find no
jest canse of conwlanit ; and in order to give to those lawless decrees
the appearance of retaliation, the Ruler ot France wes obliged to ad-
vance principles of maritime law unaaeetior.ed by any other authority
than his j'v.i arbitrary will.
The pretexrs for these Decrees were—first, that Great Britain had
exercised tee rights of seer apiest private persons, their ship, and
eteids ; as if the only object of legitiiseee hostility on the ocean were
the public preperty of a Sti;te,- or as •1 the Ee:m: and the Courts of
France Unit' had not at all times enferced this right with peculiar ri-
gour; secondly, that the British orders 01 blockade, instead of being
eoefincd to tortified towns, had, ere Frame asserted, been unlaw-
fully extended to'ceirenercial towns and netts' and to the mouths of
rivers ; and thirdly) that they had been applied to places, avid to
coasts, which nether were, no; could be actually blockaded. • The
last of these chart;_, i not founded en fact ; whilst the others, even
by the admissca of the Antericar Covc.rnmmt4 are ut:zrly grcund.
less in point of law. • • • , .
Against these Decrees, his Majesty protested and appealed ; he
called upon the United States to assert .thrtr ioV.II riehtse and to vine
41:;3tc their nidependnice, thus mciLLed and a' Int.cd 3 and as franc

Ali. AI rs. 1 itl AN AL n.LGISTEII.

.TAN. 17.

had declared, that she would confiscate every vessel which should
touch in Great Britain, or be visited- by British ships of war, his
Majesty, having; previously issued the Order of January, 1807, as an
act of mitigated retaliation, was at length compelled, by the perse-
vein; violence of the enemy, and the continued acquiescence of Neu-
tral Powers, -o revisit, upon France, in a more effectual manner, the
measure of her own injustice. by declaring, in an Order ita Council,
bearing date Nov. the 11th. 1807, that no neutral vessel should pro-
ceed to France, or to any of the countries from which, Loa obedience
to the dictator of France, British commerce was excluded, without
first touching at a port in Great Britain; or her dependencies. At
the Same time his Majesty intimated his readiness to repeal the
Orders in Council, whenever France should rescind her Decrees,
and return to the accustoire..! principles of maritime warfare; and
at a subsequeneperind, as a proof of his Majesty's sincere desire to
accommodate, as Gratis possible, his defensive measures to the con-
venience of Neutral Powers, the operation of the Orders in Council
was, by an order issue. pril, 1809, limited to a blockade of France,
and of the cone/ries subjected to her immediate dominion.
Systems of violence, oppression, and tyranny, can never be sup-,
pressed, or even checked, if the Power against which such injustice IS
exercised, be debarred fioni the right of full and dequate retaliatica :
"r, if the measures of the retaliating Power are to be ceesidered as
matters of just °fleece to neutral nations, whilst the measui as of ori-
ginal aggression are! -vi lance arc to be tolerated with indiflrence, sub-
mission, or complacer.cy
The Government of the United State: did not fail to remonstrate
against the Orders in Council of Greit Britain. Altheugh They
knew that these Orders would be reeekcci, if the Decrees of France,
which had occasioned them, were repealed, they resolved at the same
moment to resit the cendle:t of both Belligerents, instead of requiring
France in the first iesernce to rescind her Decrees. Applying, most
unjustly the same measure of resentment to the aggressor, and to the
party ai•grieved, they adopted measures of commercial resistance
against both—a s) stern of resizeatice, which, however varied in the
succesive Acts of Embargo, Nee-Intercourse, or Non-Importation,
was evidently unequal in its operation, and principally levelled against
the superior ceeinrerce and inaritiane power of Great Britain.
The same partiality towards France was observable in their negn,
clarions, as in their measures of alleged resistance.
A pplication was made to both Belligerents for a revocation of their
respective Edicts; but the touts in which they were made, were
widely deferent.
Of eaece was required a revocation only of the Berlin and Milan
Decree., although many other edicts, grossly violating the neutral
coneet -ce of the United hate :re had been promulgated by that Power.
No s, tv was &queered, that the Berlin and Milan Decrees, even
if ref slieeH r at under some other form be re•estatlished: and
direct engegernent was off eel, that upon such revocation, the Ame-
rican Government would take part in the war against Great Britain,
if Gre.e Britain did r••• immediately rescind her 0 e'ers : whereas no
correspeoding engageetent was offered to Great Gritain, of whom it
was required, not only that the Orders in Council should be repealed,
but that no others of a nature should be issued, and that the
btackadc of May, 1806, should be also abandoned. This blockade,
established and enforced according to accustomed practice, had no;
been objected to by the United States at the time it was issued. Its
provisions were, on the contrary, represented by the American Mi-
nister resident in London at the time, to have been so framed, as to
afford in his judgment, a proof of the friendly disposition of the Bri-
ti ac Cabirkt towards the United States. _ _

Great Britain was thus called upon to abandon one of her most im.
portant maritime rights, by acknowledging the order of blockade in
qu:,ticii, to be one of the edicts which violated the commerce of the
United States, although it had Haver been so considered in the previous
negociations; and although the President of the United States hat re-
er.iitly. consented •to abrogate the Non-Intel course Act, on the sole
condition of the Orders in Council bei4g revoked; thereby distinctly
admitting these orders to to the only ediets which fell within the con.
templation of the law under which he acted.
A proposition so hostile to Great Britain could not but be propor.
tionally encourt:ging to the pretensicns of the enemy ; as by thus al-
leging that the blockade of May, 1806, was ill,gal, the American
Government virtually justified, so far as depended on them, the French
Decrees. • •-' •
After this proposition had been made, the 'French Minister for Po..
rzign Ainirs, it not in concert with that Govetiirpent, at !fist in con-
formity with its views, in a dispatch, dated the sth of August, 1810.
and addressed to the American Minister resident in Paris, stated that
the Berlin and Milan Decrees were revoked, and that their operation
would cease from the Ist day of November following, provided his
Majesty would revoke his Orders in Council, and renounce the new
principles of blockade; or that the United States would cause their
rights to be respected ; meaning thereby, that they would resist the
weialiatSry measures of Gren Britain. • •
Although the repeal of the French Decrees thus announced was evi.
dently contingent, either on Concessions to be made by Great Britain,
concessions to which it was obvious Great Britain could not submit,)
or on measures to be adopted' by the United 'States of' America, the
American Pr.:sident at mix consideied the repeal as absolute: Under
that pt.,teace tbe Nov..lmyortation Act Wl6 Ztrictly enforced atzinn

, • - • • r • • 1
4
. ,