The National Register.
London, England, 1811-09-15 00:00:00

point. The British Minister c,
tiation by startil!g at the very
ances. • Supposing a removal .legs,
as the origination of our commercial embarrass•
ments would render adjustment certain, he evidently%
proposed to withdraw the, obnoxious blockade. 'lt.
being. the pretext and justification of the Berlin De-
'cree, it was just to expect and demand a consequent'
repeal of that Edict ; the Order in Council would
then be withdrawn, which would take away the
foundation of the Milan Decree. In this orier and
arrangement of time, all the obnoxious edicts would
in turn he disposed rf. But no ! our Government
explicitly requires that Mr. Foster, presuming
against evidence and undeniable fact, should pro-
ceed upon the erroneous and inadmissible concession
. that the Berlin and Milan Decrees Were already
• _bria fide repealed.—Let us see how these points
have been heretofore regarded by Administration.
TXTLLACT OF A LETTACR. FROM MR. ARMSTILONG TO
MR. SMITH; DATED

" Paris, Jan. 28, 1910.
41 In conformity to the suggestions contained in
your letter of Ist December, 1809, I demanded
whetlivr it Great Britain revoked her blockades of a
date anterior to a decree commonly called the Berlin
Decree, his Majesty the Emperor would consent to
revoke the sa'd Decree ? To which the Minister
answered, that the only condition required for the
revocation by his Majesty, of the Decree of Berlin,
• will be a previous !evocation by the British Govern-
- mem of her blcickade France, or part of France
• (such as that from the Elbe to Brest , .rf a date ante-
rior to that of the aforesaid Decree, *ei 41 ti: thit.if the
British Government would then recall the Orders in
Council, which had occasioned the Decree of Mi-
lan, that decree should also-be annulled.'
" It is manifest, although Administration has re-
peatedly admitted, by the strongest implicaticn, that
France was first to be resorted to as the aggressor,
in applications to obtain a repeal of the edicts
against neutr:il commerce, they have hitherto con-
sidered themselves bound to proceed in the mode
suggested by Mr. Foster, could such a concession
be obtained from England. They have gone one
very essential point further, and required the only
kind of proof deemed sufficient and adMissible, of
the repeal of the French decrees, which is desiisrated
in the following extvact

MR. 041111 10 MR. ARMSTROVO.

" June 5, 1810.
11 If the French Government sitotild accede to
the overture contained in the Pitt of Congress
(Non-Intercourse Law), by repealing or so modi.
Eying its Decrees as that they will csee to viplate
our neutral sights, you will, if neejtssiry, transmit
the repeal, properly authenticated, to Mr. Pinkney,
by a special messenger," &c.
By this it appears, Government, prior to tile
period of issuing the false Proclamatr, required
positive proof of the repeal of the Fiench Decroef•
as entitling them to a repeal of the British Orders.
It was never dreamt that England w uld proceed
to repeal unless proof was furnished ; hence the ea-
plicit instructions to Gen. Armstrong, to °train
and transmit to Mr. Pinkney the • repeal properly
authenticated.' And what pray is kne4nt 1?y proper
authentication. but a forsnalat4 solonarevacation.

repeal obtained
Pinkney Has it been since
.obtained
vernment It will not be said. With what
then is it demanded of Mr. F .ster to take the
for granted, and c.impromise the honour and int.-
rest of his Government ; and yet the n'-gotiati n
with that Minister has been broken off upon II s
point. His conduct is adjudged to be contuma-
cious, and he will be accused of wilful blindness
and obstinacy for not seeing and admit-..ing what
notoriously does not exist.
" But notwithstanding our very upright, just,
and impartial administration have succeeded in
effecting a rupture upon the point-of the-blockade
of 1806, there exists proofs furnished by themselves,
of their having long since abandoned this point,
and viewing it as merged in the greater point-of the
Orders in Council of 1809. The ensuing extract
establishes the fact :

MR. SMITH TO MR. ARMSTRONG.
" Junc.Sth,
gi Among the considerations which belong to
this subject, it may be remarked, that it might bays
been reasonably ex6ected by the United States, that
a repeal of the French Decrees 'would have re-
sulted from the Order in Council of Apt il, 1809.
This order expressly revoked the preceding Orders
of November, 1607, h, retol()re urged by France in
justification of her Decrees, and was not only dif-
ferent in its extent and its details, but was essentially
different in its policy."
France is here clearly and unequivocally placed
upon the footing of the aggressor. Great Britain,
by acknowledgment, hiving revoked her Orden of
1807, by the Order of 1809, France is stripped of
every excuse for continuing herzetallatory Decrees.
But did she gratify the just expectations of Go-
vernment r It'will not be said. And yet our Go-
vernment requires of England to sanction the false-
hood set up by Mr Madison, atid proceed in the
negotiation as if France had actually and 'bona/de
revoked her Decrees.
There exists still further documental proof among
the archives of. State, explaining the kind of revo-
cation alone to be accepted ft on.) 'France.

Ma. SMITH TO MR. YINKNEY.

" July Ott,, IMO.

" If the British Government should be dispqfed
tc meet in a favourable manner the arrangement
tendered, and should ask for explanations, as to the
extent. of the repeal of the French Decrees, which
will be required, your answer will he as obvi-
ous as it mist be satisfactory. The repeal must
embrace every part of the French Decrees which
violate the neutral rights guatantsiod to us by the
law of Nations, Stc.
We may here demand of the Executive whe-
ther any repeal has been obtained, much less such
as is required by the above instructions. Has
France promulgated any edict, verbal or written
declaration, if such would suffice without the form-
ality of Law being to it, tiefrning the • extent' of
the repeal ! What do we kw qv of the extent of the
pretended repeal, -further than the mere liberation
of some'iyAt dozen inconsiderable vessels ? What
sitsvariiy has been given to 6 00 neutral rightsgua-

TUE NATIONAL REGNTER.
ter commenced the nego- in the legal ani accustomed' mode adx)pld by 111
very source of our griev Governments in enacting or rekinding lasVsl liT4s
oval of the cause alleged this authenticated repeal obtained and sent tQ
r commercial embarrass. Pinkney Has it been since
.obtained -by Our Gp-
tment certain, he evidently. vernment It will not be said. With what force
obnoxious blockade. It I then is it demanded of Mr. F .ster to take the f<< t