The Sun.
London, England, 1812-02-21 00:00:00

LOCAL MILITIA BILL.

Mr. Secretary RYDER moved the second reading
of the Local Militia Bill.

Mr.
.G.. VANSITTART objected to the clause by
which the Widows and Children of the Local Mi-
litia were to be paid out of the PoOr Rates.only.,
Lord A. HAMILTON condemned the inconsistency
which Parliament had exhibited With respect to bal-
lot; and stated a variety of objections to the 'mea.
sure, which he said he would detailit greater length
in the Committee. ,

Mr. 'WHITBREAD did 'not agree with the .Noble
Lord in all his obje6tions but he reprubsted the
the abandoriMent of 'that system of tiaibing the
whole population to arms, which this Bill went to
occlsion. • .

Mr. Secretary RYDER contended, in answer to the
Hon. Gentlemen, that the present measure was c:►l=
culated to produce a mareetlicient force, a►►d to re-
lieve the country from great burdens and inconve-
nience: l'he saving to the state• would be at, least
10(1,0001. a-year.
Mr. N. CA t.v ita• ltghly approved of the Bill.
The motion was then agreed to. The Bill was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed

L 0 N D 0 IV,

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, ISI2.

We this' morning received American Papers to
the 2,d inst. we have only time to make' the follow-
ing Ext ratis. •
We understand that•the Bill permitting.the im-
portation of g00d3,• porchased.previous to
Feb. 181 0, was not likely-to pa,s.

TO TIIS SENATE AND HOUSE OF REFESENTATIVES OF

THE UNITED STATES.

" I communicate to Congress a letter from the
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipoten-
tiary of Gteat Britain to, the Secretary of State, with
the'ariswer of the latter. The continued evidence
afforded in this correspondence of the hostile policy
of the British Government against onr national rights,
stpngt hens the considerations, tecommending
.and
urging the preparation of adequate means tar main-
taining them..

Washington, lan. 19, IS 12."

cc JAMES MADISON.

The letter from Mr. FOSTER is dated the 17th
Dec. 1811. It complains of a statement in circula-
tion which tends to create unnecessary irtitation;and
which he thinks it right to novice.
" I find it Asserted in the statement referred to,
that I have, in the name of my Government,' de-
inanded that the United States Government .should
pass a law ,for the introdution of British goods
_into
the American ports; and also that the United States
Shp('ld undeitak.e.to force Pune to.reCeive into her
harbours British-md.nufaBures.

" I beg permission, Sir, to declare, that neither
of these demands have been made by me, and that
my meaning must not have 'been understood, if such
was conceived to have been it, import: could'
not have demanded the passage iof such a law as
above stated, because my Government does not
pretend to interfere with the internal Government
of a friendly power, nor do I mean to demand that
America should force France to receive our tnanu-
filatures.

" All I meant to say was, that the admission
of French commerce, while that Of England has
been excluded }rpm the United States' ports, was
regarded by Great Britain as highly unfriendly in
America, and that a continuation of such polity
would be Tetali3ted upon by Great Britain with si-
milar restri6tions on her part,_ which was so far
merely an offering of like for like. But while the
American Non-importation A6t excludes British
trade from the United States' ports, it must be re—
collealed that it goes still farther, el/eludes also
British armed ship's from American ports, while it
admits those of the enemies-of Great Britain."

In the 'continuation
.of. his letter, . Mr. FOSTER.
says, " We complain that America does. not resist
the regulation of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, or
objet to permi,tting the French to trade with her
during the continuance of the prohibition against.
the commerce of England, but this is not exa& ing,
as has,been represented, that America should force
British manufiEtures into Franee :: it is pursuing
only a just course of retaliation on our enemy.
.1C
America wishes to trade with France; if French com-
merce is of importance to petl she should
exalt of France to trade .with. her, as she ha's a right
to ,demand.. in her quality of neurr,l ; but it she
does not choose to exercise this right, all tAe
that she shduld abstain from lending her assistance
to the trade of France, and cot a:low 'her commerce
to be a medium of undermining the resources of
Great Britain.

" 1 %t ill now, Sir, take the opportunity of stating.
to you, that t have received frOm his Majesty's
Secretary of State, the correspondence of which you
did me the honour to transmit to me a copy in your
letter dated 041obcr 17th. My Government have
not been able. to see hi. it satislaoory proof of the
repeal of the French decrees,• and doubt whether
the trade carried on by licenses between France and
America will not be regarded, event' here, as prbot
of the continuation of them in• their-fullest extent,
for if they were to any' extent repealed, to that ex-•
tent .at least no license should be, necessary, a li-
cense being given to allow what, but for that license,
would be prohibited. ,
The continued absi.nce hitherto of any instru-
ment by which, the repeal has been effeaed, is a ,
matter also of surp►ise, for if there were any fair
dealing in the transaaion, no reason can be given by
France for not producing it; it is verydesirable that it
should be produced, if such an instrument be in exr •
istence, in order that we may know to what extent
the decrees have been repealed, if they really have

eitle§ hot aptit'tir to hAte beeti in poisejsion of it at
the dme a his letter of lust fnly. ft is, indeed,
become particularly/ in.te:esting, that we should
s,ie this instrument sin,..e the publication of Mr.
ItussF.t.L's correspondence with his own Govern-

mcnt, by which it appears that really, and in. fact,
the French Cloven-)Ment did not. release any Arne-
.ricsn ships-taken after November "until they had
become acquainted with the President's Proclamaa
tinni a:td that vessels hive been taken so late as De-
cember 2!, in the diieci voyage from the country
to London.

Mr. MUNROE'S answer to. Mr. FOSTER is dated
the 14th January. It is too long to be inserted irs
our Paper of today. He says, in one part of
But you still insist that the 'French DecreeS.are.
unreioked, and urge; in proof of it, a faCt drawn
from Mr. ItussELL's correspondences, that some
American-vessels have beeo.taken since the first of
Novetuber, in their route to England. It is a satis—,
factory answer to this remark; that it appears by
the same correspondence, that every American veisel,
which had been taken in that trade, the seizure of
itich rested on the Berlin and Milan deere.es on y,
were, as soon as that Oa was ascerialned, denvered
up la. c heir owners."

Mr. Mu N Itoz conclnde.s by saying : " On a fail
view of c...ncinCt of tip:. British povrrnment in
;hese tralsattions, iinpossible.,o see in it airy
thing 41ort of a spirit of detertninvd itostiii,,y to thra
I;gitts and inter6ts of t rle :States."

A second trorn the '.Pre: dent, dated on
the I7th January, carvains.a itttcr from Mr.
TER, dated on the 2E(th December, Is tl, rerai:,ng
to iris recollection, ' that so far from -split n,4 01)
the indi'an-fig-aliist the United States, Sit .1 NiNlliS
CRAIG, the Governor of Canada, did comutoriott':
to Mr. Moarart, for the purpose of its being corn-
inunicaled to the American 'Government, whicll
Mr. MORIER did do, from the fermentation among
the Indian tribes, he apprehended it to be their
intention to make an attack on the United States.
The answer to Mr. FOSTER is delayed to the 9(11
January 1812. It merely states, that it is satisfac-
tory..to the President to know that no countenance
was given to the Indians by the British Government.