The Sun.
London, England, 1811-12-30 00:00:00

PARTNERSWIPS DISSGLPED.

Raynes and W. Bawtree, 131ue Anclior.rord, Bormond.
say, Surrey, glut .manufacturers.
D. Vicher and Sons, Providence-row, Finsbury, INliddleex,

Ivatch•manufacturers. '
H. Richardson and R. Clark,, jun. Southampton-place,
NeW-road, Middlesex, brick,makers.
. .
3:Gibbons. 13.1.1ibbons, jun. and C. Phillips, Bilston,
stairord, iron masters.
S. Hunter/. and 1. Brown, Brown, Macclesfield, Chester,
iron-founders.
G. W. Gravencr, Dover, and It. Matson, Deal, atrnrnies.

AltbitedN PdPt.ng.

DOCVNIENTSi

ACCOMPANYING THE ISM ES,IIIENT.g i4ESgAOh
CONCIteSS AT Tug opaNING O[ THE PRESENT
tHI3,ION.
[Continued from our I'er of Montby.l

MR, FIZOTER 'TO MR.:...IONROS.
wahhington, tuty 26, a r.
have bad the honour to recEive your letter ,of
July .23, in answer to mine of the ad and 14tb inst,
which, you will permit me to say were not merely
relative to his Majesty's Orders in Conocil, and the
blockade of Mily, iFlo6,,but also to the President's
proclamation of last November; and to the conse= •
quellt act of Congress of March .2, as well as to the
just complaints which his Royal Highneiis the
hinco Regent bad commanded me to m ,ke to your
Government, with respet.t to the Piochtnation and
to that acl.

If the United States' Government has expeaed
that I should have made communicatioes wirch
would have enabled Ihem to coice to an aecommo•
dation with Great Britain on the giound on which
alone you say it was'possible to meet us, and that
you mean by that expression, a departure from r ur
system of defence against the new kind of warfare
still praaised by France; I am at a less to discover
from what source they could have dented those
exaectations; certainly. not from the correspond-
ence between the Marquis Wellesky and Mr.
Piokney.
Before I proceed tO reply to the arguments which
are brought forward by you to shew that the de-
ciees of,Berlin and Milao are repealed, I must enter
into,an explanation upon some points on which you
have evidently inisaporehe, tied, for I will not. so p.
pose you could have %visited to misinterpret, my
meaning.
And first, in regard to the blockade of May 1806,
I Must avow, that I am wholly at a loss to find out
fronwhat partlif my tatter' ic is that the Piesident
has drawn the unqualified iuferenee, that should
the Orders in Council of tBO7 be 'revoked, the
blockaded May, iBOO, would cease with them. It
is most material, , that on this point, no mistake
should exist between' us. From your letter, it \Vieth]
appear as if on the question of blockade ,which Arne-
riea had so unexpectedly connected with her de•
wands for a repeal of our Orders in Council, Great
Briedo had made the-concesiinn requiriad of her
as if, after all that,has passed on the subjeet,-.--after
the. astonishment and regret of his Majesty's Go-
vernment at the United States haying taken up the
'iew which the French Governmem presented- of
our just 'apt' legitimate principles of blockade which
are exemplified in the blockade of May, 1806, the
whole ground taken by' his INiajest)'l3 Government
was at once abandoned. When I had the honour
to exhibit to you my instructions, and to draw up,
as I conceived, aceordingio'youtewishes and those
of the President, a statement of the mode in which
that blockade would probably,disappear, I .11dVer
meant to authorise such a conclusion ; and I now
beg most uneqt.Avocally to disclaim. it. The block-
ade of MAy 1,806, wilt not continue teter the repeal
of the Orders in Council,, unless his Majesty's, Go-
yernmenfshall think fit to atilit4llll it by the special
application of a statkient naval force, and the tact
Of its being so continued or not, wit! lie noticed at
the time. If in thk view of time matter, %Zilch is
certainly presented in a conciliatory spelt IMO 01
the obstacles to a complete understanding between
our-countries can be removed by the United States'
Government waving ell farther reference to that
blockade when tliicy can 1 Justified in asking a
repeal of the Ceders, 'and I may communicate
this to my Government; it will undoubtedly, be
very satisfactory; but I beg distinctly to disavow
having made any acl:nowledgment that the blockade
would cease, timely in consequence of a revocation
of the 'Orders in Council': Whe.fievcr it does cease,
it will cease, because there be`'no adequate
force applied to maintain it.

On another very material point, Sir, you appear to
have misconstrued My words; for in no one passage
of My letter can I discover:any mention of innova-
tions on the part of Great f3ric,iirf, Welt as you say
excited a painful surprise in your Government.' In
answer to grreStion, of vonrs as to what were the cis....
crees or regulations of if,atice which Groat Britain
complained of, and, againSt she (beets her re-
taliatory measures, 1 brought distinctly into your
view the Berlin and Milan decrees ;
.and you
have nut denied;:becauqc, indeed, you could not,
that the provisions of tliose decrees: were-new mea-
sures of war ran the pad of France,. acknowledged:
as such by her Ruler, and'contrary to the:principles
and usages of civilisei nations.

That the present war has been_ oppressive-beyond
example by its duratio.a, and the desolation it spreads
through torope*,'l willingly agree withleu ; but
the United States cannot tnurely. mean to attribute
the cause to Gra Britain. The qUestion between
Great Bs itain sod !frame_ is. that of an honourable
struggle against the lawless efforts Of an aUdacieus ty-
rant; and. America cannot but have the with of
every independent nation as to its result.
On a third point, Sir, I have also to regret that
my meaning should have been mistaken. Great
Britain- never contended that British merchant ves-
sels should be allowed to trade with her enemies, or
that Bt itish- property should be allowed entry into
their ports, as you would infer ; such a. pretension
would, indeed, be preposterous ;' but Great Britain
cues' contend against the system of terror pht in
praniee' by France, by which usurping
,authotity,
wherever her arms or the timidity of nations, will en-
`able her to extend her influence, she makes it a crime
to neutral enuntries-ap well as individuals, that they
should possess' articles, however acquired, which
have neon once the pi-tapes! English industry,
-or of the British Soil. Against such an 'abominable.
and extravagant pretension every feeling must re 4
Tole,and the honour 'no less than the interest of
Great.Britinn engages her to oppose it.
'Diming to the course of argument contained in
your letter, allow 'Me to express my surprise at the*
,conclusion you draw in considering the question of
'priority rekive to the 'French DeCreea or British
'Orders ill'Councij., It was clearly proved{ that the
blockade ol MayABofi, .was maintained by an. ina.:
rkquate naval force; and theferore was a blociiade

1 • '
tdiitided ati jtis Etna teelitmalo • t and I
have not beard .that it was cdhsidered iu a contrary
light When notified as'such to you by Mr. Secretary
Fox, nor until it suited the vies of France to en-
deavour to have it considered otherwise. Why
Attierica took up the,view the French Government
chose to give of it, and could see in it gt minds for
the French decrees; was always matter or astonish-
ment in England.
You! remarks on the modifications at various times
of our system of retaliation will require dirt less re-
ply, from the circumstance of thd" Orders in Coun-
cil of April, I sop, having superseded then alt. They
vt ere calculated for, the avowed put ~:ose Eot.softening
the erfed of the original orders on new ral commerce,
the incidental effett of those orders en neutrals bay-
ing been always -sincerely •revetted by his Majesty's
Government : but when-it was found that neutrals
objected to. them they were removed. -
As to the principle of retaliation, it is founded on
the just and natural right of self-defence against our
enemy. If France is unable to enforce her decrees
on the ocean, it is not from the want of will, for
She enforces them wherever she can do it—her
threats are only empty where her power is of no
avail. " .

-
In the view you. have taken of the . conden of
America in her relations with the two belligerents,
and in the conclusion you draw with respect to the
impartiality of your country as exemplified in the
non-importation law, I lament to say I cannot agree'
with you. That a6t is a direct meesore against the
British trade, errs errar a time wharf all die legal
authorities in the Uttite:t Sates appeared !Oily to
contest the statement of a- repeal of the French de-
crees, on which Was founded the .President's pro-
claniation of Nov. 2, and consequently to dispute
the justice of the proclamation iu elf.
You urge, Sir, that' she British Government' pro-
mised to proceed pffi:liassu with France in the re-
veal of her. edits. It is to be wished you could
point out to us any step France has taken in the rc-
peal of hers.' Great Britain has repeatedly declared
that she would repeal when the French did so, and.
she means to keep to that declaration.
I have stated to you that we could not consider
the letter of Augem the sth, declaring the repeal .01
the French edicts provide!' we revoked our Orders
in Centred, or Aelerica resented our not doing so,
as a step of that mturee and • the French Govern-
ment knew that we could not.; their object was
evidently,. white their system was adhered to in all
its rigour to endeavotir to persuade the American
Government that they had relaxed from it, and to
induce her to prsiceed in enforcing the submission
of Great Britain to the inordinate demands of Franc.
It is to be lamented that they have but too well
reiccO.ded ; for the united States Government ap-
pear to have considered the French declaration in
the sense in which France wished. it to be taken, as
an abtoltite repeal of her decrees; without advert-
ing to the conditionatterms Which accompanied it.
Bat you assert that no violations of your neutral
rights by 'France occur on the high seas,'and that
there were all the violations alluded to in the Act of
emagress of May, t 8 to. I readily believe, indeed,
that such cases ere rare, but, it is owing to the pre•
ponderance of the British navy that they are so :
when scarce a ship under. the French tug can ven-
ture so sea without being taken, it is not extraor-
dinary that they make no eaprerea. If such viola-
tions alone were within the purview of your Jew,
there would seem to have been no necessity for its
.enactment. The British navy might haVe. been
safely trusted for the prevention of this occurrence.
lint. I have always believed, and my GovernMent
has believed, that. the American Legislatots had in
view in the provisions of their law .as it respects
France, not only' her deeds, of violence on the sea's,'
but alt the novel and extraordinary pretensions and
practices of her Government which infringed their
neutral rights. We have had no evidence as yet of
any of thosepreterisions being abandoned. To the
ambiguous declaration in Mr. -cham.iiagny's note, is
opposed the nnambigueus and personal' declaration
of Buonaparte himself: You'urge that there is no-
thing incompatible with she revocation of the De-
crees in respect to the United Slate, in his exeres;
sions to the. Deputies butt; the free cities of Elam-
burgh, Bremen, and Lubeck ; that
,it is distinctly
stated in that Speech that the Blockade of the Bri-
tish-Islands cease when the Bviti.h BloekadeS ease ;
and, that the French Blockade shall cease in lavOur
of thnse nations in Mime Worn. Greet.Brhain re•
yokes hers, or who support their rights against her
pretensions:

It ib to he inferred from this and the corresponding
parts of the deciarhtiOn alluded to, that otdess
Britain socrifices her principles of blockade, w hich
are those authorised by the established laws of na-
tions, France will IMO maintain her Decrees of Ber-
lin and Milan, which, indeed, the Speech in ques-
tion ddclares to be the fundathental laws of the French
Empire.
I do not,- I confess, conceive how these avowals
of the Ruler of France can be said to be compatible
with the repeal of his decrees. in 'respect to the
United States. If the United States are prepared
to insist on the sacrifice by Qreat Britain of thean-
cient and established rules of Maritime war prac-
tised by her, then, indeed, they may avoid the
operation of the French decrees ; bui, otherwise,
according to this document, it is very lear that they
are still subjected to them.

The decree of Fontainbleau is'confessedly founded
on the decrees of Milan and Berlin, dated the igth
of Oct. 1810, and proves their continued existence.
'The report of the French Minister of December 8,
announcing the perseverance of France in her de-
crees, is still farther in confirrnatiott of them ; and
a re-perusal of the letter of the Minister of Justice
of, the 25.111 of last December, confirms; me in the
inference I drew from it : (or, otherwi,e, why
should that Minister make the proSpective .restora-
tion of American vessels, taken, after the first of
November, to be ,a consequence of the tion-int-
portation and,not of the French revocation.; It the
French Government had been sincere, they .would
have-ceased infringing on the neutral rights of Acne-
rice, after the first of NOvember,—that they vio-
lated them, however, after that period, is no-
torious.

Your Government seem to let it be understood
that an ambiguous declaration from Gredt Britain,
similar to that-of the French Minister, would.have
been acceptable to them. Rat, Sir,. is it Consistent