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

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had not then repealed her decrees, as 'it was not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 Conse7
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