Star.
London, England, 1812-09-14 00:00:00

•- . .
.; -,
11
. .
i.„ areaarea*vowed thine for non.intereoarse, embargoi
sn.i.wart is a blockade only of the places on thydi
french-coast trom Ostend to the Seine, and even as
to doe it is merely, as it professes to be, a'continu.
;•„ce a a:fort:her and existing blockade. For with re-,
im.l:•,,t vs
,tberesidue of. the coast, trade of neutrals is.
;omitted, with the viception only of enemy's property'
.flj articles contraband of war, which ate liable to be
:2ken se,thont a hlOckade,; and except the direct co.
Toioai trade of the enemy; which Great Britain. denied
to(' r the lain of nations. Why the order was
tue bY
thiiiciienied. in its Form, while in effect it added
limning te ordure and regulations, already existing,
*air known by idveinntrO papers which are be-
fore the world.. In 1806,
„trance. hafi yet colonies,
ilia the woind inflicted, on our feelings, by the inter.
fereaee of tire British Government in our trade with
*se eilortiess had been :the cause of remonstrance
sad mgociation. . . ,
• h At the moment When the order of May 1806 was
01,414 Mr. Monroe, the present Secretary of State,
ty') . or Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of
Great Britain, .was in treaty on the subject of the
carrying trade, and judging on the spot, and at the
time, he, unhesitatingly, gave his opinion, that the
order was made to favour American views and in-
terests. Tiiis idea is unequivocally expressed, in Mr.
Monroe's letters to Mr. Madison of the 17th, and
foal • ~I May, and of the 9th of June,.lBo6.
" And as late as October, 1811, the same .Gentle-
lean, writing as Secretary of State to the British mi-
nister, speaking of the same order of blockade of May,
nott,says, ' it strictly was little mote than a blockade
' of the coast from Seine to Ostend.' ' ' The object was
'to afford :o the United States an accommodation
• respecting the colonial trade.'
" It appears, then, that this order was, in point of
fact, made to favour our trade and was so understood
and admitted by the Government of this countryt at
that time and since ; that instead of extending prior
blockades it lessened them ; that tire country from
seine to Brest, and from Ostend to Elbe was inserted
to open them to our ioleaiial trade, and for our accom. I
modation, and that it was never made the subject of
complaint, by the American Government, during its ,
ptactical continuance—that is,-irnt until the first order
in Council ; and indeed not-until after the Ist of May,
1810; and until after the American Government was
apprised of the ground, which it was the will of France
should be taken upon the subject.
" Of this we have the most decisive proof, in the
offers made under the administration of Mr. Jefferson,
for the discbminuance of the Embargo as it related
to Great Britain }none of which required the repeal
oldie blockade of May, 1806 ; and also in the ar-
rangement made during the administration of Mr.
Ishdison, and under his eye sdith Mr. Erskine. The i
Non-intercourse Act of March, 1809, and the Act i
"concerning commercial intercourse" of May 1810,
vest the President of the United States with the very ;
same Power, in the very same tetrad. Both autho-
rise
him " in case either Great Britain or France
shall so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they
dull cease to violate the neutral commerce of the
United States" so declare the same by proclamation.
And by the pro Visions of one law in such case, non-
intercourse was,tocease; by those of the other it was i
to be revived. In consequence of power vested, by i
the tilt act, the arrangement with Erskine was made
and•thirevbcation of the Orders in Council of Ja. r
uteri and November 18117, was considered as a full
compliance with 'the law, and as. retnoving all the',
eilh-neutratedicts. The blOckade'of May, 1806, was
Ed included in the arrangeinent, anent does not v.!
pier that it was deemed' of sufficientlMPortance to I
enrage even a thought. Yet uridei the Act of May, 1
1810, which vests the very same,power; it revocation 1
of this bloekadesof May, 1806, is made bt our Cabi- I
net a si,e gild min—an indispensible requisite. And
taii.P, after the British Minister has directly avowed
that shii Ordertet blnektlide-would net continue after
.% revocation of the .fOrders in Council, without a due
aF7Ptieati4nf in adetiMite force,. the existanee of thii
blockade is insisteet,upon as a justifiable cause of
war, notwithstanding, that our Government admits
a blockade" is lefital;-:&41d-tnainteriaitee of wtieh an
adequate force It applied. •
" The- Undersigned are aware, that, in justlfication
of this new ground, it is now said that the extension
on paper, for whatever purpose intended, favours the
Principle of paper blockades. This, however, caw
hardly be urged, since the British -t. formally dis-
avow the ptiiiciple $ and since they acknowledge the
"et doctrine of the law of nations for_Whiclt the
Aintrican AdMinistiation contend, henceforth, the
stikence of' a blockade becomes a nuestion of fact :
it insist depend upon the evidence adduced, in tuli-
prt of the adequacy of fhe blockading force.
" Fri:4h the preceding statement it is apparent that
trhateVer there is objectionable,. in the principle of
die Order of May' 1806, (11- in the practice under it,
tattooed: meiely American, it cannot be set up as.
a sufficient cause newer; for until France-pointed it
out Ai a Cause of dintroveraY, it was so fir from be-
ing regarded, as iitaurce of any new, or grievous
cobv.lant, that it via, .actually considered, by 'our
uetrarnent, in a favourable light. -
" The Ontith•Oiders hi Council are the remain-
ing *lice of discontent, andivewed cause of war. ,
• • The tollowing arc extracts from these letteri. In that of the
l 'lth May, 11,06, he thus speaks of the Noeisde : It is • couched
In terms uf rntnint,atidoefessetto extend the blockade fur.her
than was heretofore done; nev-rtbeless It tapes fruit it many
ports already tdockathet, indeet4 tont all East of Ostend sad'
West V the Seize, except In articlis eotittahitiif of wit bad etse.
Ti,fie,t` property, which are seizatik without Unclad*. And in
Mee torso of million, considering every enemy as one power,it
a isthi'll'e trade of nte'rals, wi.hht the bathe littiltso et be free 4 ,
theeodactiona of enemies' colonies, In every, but ilk direct 7,
tou;e between the colony and the parvnt.coun rt-' A4r. Monroe
ite
wick • it cannot be doubted t4t-the note Was drawn leyst n tits Co. in refertnce to the'que4tioni ad if intended as tt e
/011pda:ion of a treaty must be viewed in a favouraiihe light.'—
tin the 2011) of May Mr. ?Amy writes to 'Mr. Madison, that
helGd heett.•• serer; May,
. iu the opinion ibat the:Order of the
!Oth_ was drawn saws tire view to the question of our trade with
re?lues colonies; andlitst ii promises- to be:highly satisfactory
te Ott xinnintretal interests:
f Mt. Foster, initialing'. of the ad July, 111 I, to Mr. Man-
recoil"s states the doctrine maintained by hies Government :
' Great Britain has never tinctured to dispute, fret in the or-
&nary course of the law bf nations, no blockade caa be just:ha-
ble or valid, utiless it be supported by an adequate force destined
to main'a'n it and to expose to hazard all vessels attempting to
evade its 'operation: „: . • •

!These have, hiketoftiest;iiiei ittieiiikeetAiy air to-
t vernment in connexion with the Wend Decrees.
Certainly, the Briton Orders in Council and French
.
Decrees form n systeni subversive tif.noutral iights,
and..constitutb fat groundi of complaint, yet, view-
ed relatively to the Condition of then* poiv'en to-
wards each other, and of the United States ttwardit
both, the undersigned cannot persuade themselves
that the Orders m Council, as they now ei:eact and
with their pethent effect 'and operation, justify the
selection of Great Britain' is onr enettiyi and-hinder
necessary a declaration of unqualified war. .
" Every consideration of MoirikldutY, 'ant% phlitio
cal expedience, seem to concur in Warping the Unl-
ted States not to mingle in this hopeless, ,and to-hti- •
man eye, interminable European contest. Neither
France, not England, pretend that their aggressions
can be defended, on the ground of any other bellige- ;
rent right than that of particular necessity.
•' Both attempt to justify their encroachments on 1
the general law of nations by the plea of retaliation.
In the relative position and proportion of strength of i
the United States to either belligerent, there appear. j
ed little probability that we could compel the one or 1
the other, by hostile operations, to abandon this plea.
66 And as the field of commercial enterprise, after I
allouing to the Decrees and Orders their full prac-
tical effect, is still rich and extensive, there seemed :
as little wisdom as obligation to yield solid and cer- !
,tain realities for unattainable pretensions. The right i
of retaliation, as existing in either belligerent, it was ,
impossible for the United States, consistent with ei- 1
ther its duty or interest, to admit. Yet such was the
state of the Decrees and Orders of the respective bel. 1
ligerents, in relation' to the rights of neutrals, •that,
while, on the one hand, it formed no justification to I
either, so, on the other, concurrent circumstances, I
formedd-a complete justification to the United States, i
in maintaining, notwithstanding these encroachments,
provided it best comported with their interests, that
system of impartial neutrality which is so desirable to
their peace and prosperity. For if it should be ad-
mitted,wthich no course of argument can maintain,, 1
that the Berlin Decree, which was issued on the 21st
,of November, 1806, was justified by the antecedent
Orders of the British Admiralty, respecting the colo-
nial
trade, and by the.erder of blockade of the 16th
of May, preceding. yet, on this account there result-
ed
no right ofretaliation to France, 'as it respected
the United States. They had expressed n s acquies-
cence
either in the British interference with the colo-
nial trade, or- in anv extension of the principles of
blockade. Besides, had there been any such, neglect
on the part of the United States as warranted the 1
French Emperor in adopting his principle of retalia- 1
tion, yet, in the exercise of that pretended right, he ,
passed the bounds of both public law and decency ; ,
and, il the very extravagance of that exercise, lost
the adva.itage of whatever colour the British had af'.
forded to his pretences. Not content with adopting
a principle of retaliation in terms limited and appro
priate to-the injury of which he complained, he de-
clared, " all the British Islands in a state-of block-
ade ; prohibited all commerce and correspondence
with them—all trade in their manufactures ; and
made lawful prize of all merchandize belonging to
England, or coming from its manufactories and colo-
nies.' The violence of these encroachments was equal-
, led only by the insidiousness of the terms and manner
in which they were promulgated. The scope of the
expressions cf the Berlin Decree was so general, that
it embraced within its sphere the whole commerce of
I neutrals with England. Yet Decres, Minister of the
Marine of France, by a formal note of the 24th De-
' cember, 1806, assured our Minister Plenipotentiary,
I that the imperial decree of the 21st November 1806,
16 was not to affect our commerce, which would still
I be governed by the rules of the Treaty established
between the two countries.' Notwithstanding this
- assurance, however, on the 18th September follow-
ing, Regnier, Grand Minister of Justice, declared-
-4 that the intentions of the Emperor were, that, by
virtue of that decree, French armed vessels might
seize in neutral vessels, either English property or
merchandize proceeding from the Englar manufac-
tories; and that he had reserved for-future cl:cision
the question, whether they might not possess them-
selves
of neutral vessels g•ing to or from England, I
although they had no English manufactures on ,
board' Pretensions so obviously exceeding any mea-
sure
of retaliation, that if the precedent acts of the
British Government had afforded to such a resort
any colour of rgbt, it was lost in the violence and
extravagance of these assumed principles.
To the Berns Decrees • Succeeded the British Or-
ders•in Council of the 7th. of January, 1807, which
were merged in the Orders of November 11 following.
These declared ' all ports and places belonging to
France and its allies, from which the British flag was
excluded, all, in the colonies of his Britannic Ma-
jesty's enemies, in a state of blockade ; prohibiting
all trade in the produce and manufactures of the
said countries or colonies, and making all vessels tra-
ding to or from them, and all merchandize on board
subject to capture and condemnation, with an excep-
' tion only in favour of the direct trade; between neu-
i tal countries and the colonies of his Majesty's ene-

mies.'
14 These extravagant pretensions on the part of
Great Britain, were immediately succeeded by others
still more extravagant on the part of France. With-
out waiting for any knowledge of the course the
American Government would take in relation to the
British Orders in Council, the French Emperor issu-
ed, ou the 17th of December following, his Milan
' Decree, by which every ship, of whatever nation,
winch shall have submitted to search by an English
ship, or to a voyage to England, or paid any tax to
that Government, are declared denationalised, and
lawful prize—The British Islands are declared in a
state of blockade, by Seel and land, and every ship, of
whatever nation, or whatsoever the nature of its cargo
may be, that sails. from England, or those of the
English colonies, or of countries occupied byEnglisit
troops, and proceeding togngland, or to the English
colonies, or to countries Occupied by the English, to
be good prize.'
44 The nature and extent of these injuries, thus ac-
cumulated by mutual efforts of both belligerents,
seemed to teach the American statesman this Impor-
tant lesson--not to attach the cause of his country to
one or the other, but, by systematic and solid provi-
sions for sea-coast and maritime defence, to place",
intoteiti as far as situation and resources permit,
beyond the taidhi.efthe rapacity( or ambition of an'
European power. Itappy woUltit have interacit our

14r. Poster, in his letter to Mr Monroe of the 49thly-1811,
11504;1' The b/ockade4rMay lig76, will not continue after '
the 1 lid the-Orders% Cotincil, unless bit Majestislevem.
merit s6h:dl think 6i to siTtain it by-the skeelsl application of
sußi,iltt navel tl.rca; 'JO thi Lid of its so ceotiOued,' or"
be Ootllletr tbelighe

... • .... ; I • - ... • , - •. . • ' wa---... .`-. • z';.• ..: .
`et:matey-ire wale of polka', so simple and obvious, The nature of this wrong. issentiani,ediVsied in th,
had been adrpted. authority given to French shipsof -war sae privateers
t N UnfOrtunitiely, AdMiniatratton bad recourse to to make prize at sea-or every neutral vessel. s tiling
n'elsteni, compliested in its tatane and ilestructive to or from any of the English Po-sessions, The mi-
ld sus effects; which, instead of relief fro
•the *eta-' awaitr tb.eapaunt was the very,essence la the wrong.
inflated injudes of foreign governments, served ally' I It foliate therefore;&Wait tactual! rgocation re-
to MU op whit was wanting in the measure of eel' *tired that the authority to caPtuYelhonld- be an.
abroad, by Artificial embattgasii&fits ay l* me.- As I nulled: Granting, therefore, far the a eke of argu.
long ago as the year 179 a, Mr.Madiaort, the present' ment, (what from its terms WWl:ad:l,-e was cm: ,
President of the United‘States, then a member ofthe tainly not the case) that the noted' letter of the Doke .
House of Representatives, devised and proposed a . of Cadore, of the sth of August, 1810, held forth a
system of commercial restrictions, which had for its revocation, good in paint of form, and unetanditiontl, „
object the coat-civil of Great Britain, by a denial to ' Yet it was not that effectual revocation For which tl4 F
her of our produtts and our market 1 asserting, that act of Ist May; 1810; akine-authorisecrthe President r
the former was in a manner essential to her prespes . of the United State.- to ism* his Pentlathetion, en-
tity, either as necessaries of life, or as raw materials lass in consequence of that letter; the authority ti t
for her manufactures; and that without the latter, a capture was annulled. The letter-itself is no aunt&
great proportion of her labouring classes could not ment of the authority to-rapture, and it is notosions,
subsist. In that day of sage anclatirtuods forethought, that no evidence of the annulment, of !this entai-kr
the proposition was rejected.-It remained, however, to capture, ever has been adduced. It his not eyed
a theme of unceasing panegyric among an active been pretended : on the contrary, aftete• is daels?aei,
class of American politicians, who; with a systematic and almost daily evidence of the continued existence
pertinacity, inculcated among the people that tom- of this authority to capture.
mercial restrictions were a species of warfare, which I " The charge of executing the decrees of Berlin 3
would ensure success to the United States and humi. and Milan was, so far as concerned his department, i
liation to Great Britain. 'liven by the terms of those decrees to the French '
" There were two circumstances inherent in this 'Minister of Marine. According to established prin.
system of coercing Great Britain by commercial re- ciples of general law, the Imperial act which gave
strictions, which ought to have made practical poll. the authority, must be annulled by another Imperial
ticians very doubtful of its result, and very cautious act, equally formal and solemn ; or, •at least, the
of its trial. These were the state of opinion in rela. authority to capture must be eountermanded by soli*
don to its efficacy among commercial men in the order or instruction from the Muistei of M trine.
United States, and the st rte of feeling which a resort " Nothing short of this could annul the authority'
to it would unavoidably produce in Great Britain.—; according to the rule of the sea service. Was such'
On the one hand, it was undeniable that the great , annulling act ever issued by the French Emperor a
body of commercial men in the United States had no Were any such countermanding orders, or instruce
belief in such a dependance of Great Britain upon dons, ever given by the French Minister of Marine F
the United States, either for our produce or our mar. I In exercising a trust, committed to him, by the Leel
ket, as the system implied. I gislature, on a point, so interesting to the neutral''
64 Without the hearty co-operation of this class of , commerce of the United States, and so important tee-
men, success in its attempt was obviously unattain- ! the peace of the nation, was it not the duty ot the
able. And as on them the chief suffering would fall, , President to have the evidence of such 'annulments
it was altogether unreasonable to expect that they before the issuing of any Proclamation ? Has he ever'
-would become co-operating instruments -in support I insisted upon such evidence? Was it of no cons&
of any system, which was ruin to them, and without quence in the relative situation of this country, as to ,
hope to their country. On the other hand, as it re. foreign powers, that the regular evidence should be
spects Great Britain, a system proceeding upon the received by our Administration and made known a
avowed principle of her dependance upon us was Why has a matter of evidence, so obviously proper& '
-among the last to which a proud and powerful nation i so simple in its nature, so level to general apprehen.'
would yield. • ision, and so imperiously demanded bythe circuits.
" Notwithstanding these obvious considerations, in . stances of the case, been wholly omitted ? And why, •
April 18a6, Mr. Madison being then Secretary of 1 if the Berlin and Milan. Decrees are annulled. as is -
II State' a law passed Congress, 'prohibiting the irnpor- I pretended, does the French Emperor withhold this •
tation of certain specified manufactures of Greatßri. ! evidence of their annulment ? Why does he withhold
tain and her dependencies, on the basis of Mr. Medi- I it when the question of revocation is presented under
son's original proposition. Thus the United States circumstances of so much urgency ? i
entered en the system of commercial hostility against " Not only has it never been pretended that any '
Great Britain. such imperial. act of annulment has issued, or that
" The Decree of Berlin was issued in the ensuing any such orders, or instructions, countermanding the
November (1806). The Treaty, which had been authority to capture, were ever given, but there is ,
signed at London, in December, 1805, having been decisive evidence of the reverse in the, conduct of the "
rejected by Mr. Jefferson, without being presented to' French public armed ships and privateers. At all
the Senate Jro ratification, 'and the non-importation, times since November 1810, these ships and privateers
act not being repealed, but only suspended, Great have continued to capture our vessels and property
Britain issued her Orders in Council on the 11th No-, on the high seas, upon the principles of the Berlin ,
umber, 1807. and Milan Decrees. A numerous list of American
"On the 21st of the same month, of November,' vessels, thus taken, since the lst of November 1810, ,
Champagny, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, I now exists in the Office of the Secretary of State: '
wrote to Mr. Armstrong the American Minister, in I and among the captures are several vessels with their
the words following : ' All the difficulties, which ' cargoes, lately taken and destroyed at sea, without '
have given rise to your reclamations, Sir, would be the formality of a trial, by the Commander of a
removed with ease, if the Government of the United French squadron, at this moment cruizing against
' States, after complaining in vain of the injustice and ! our commerce, under orders, given by the Minister -'
violations of England, took, with the whole conti- iof Marine, to whom the execution ot the Decrees
rent, the part of guaranteeing it therefrom.' I was committed ; and these too issue.. in January last,..
4, On the 17th of the ensuing December, the Milan I In the l3altic and Mediterranean seas, captures by
Decrees were issued on the part of France, and five ! French privateers are known to us, by official dotal-
days afterwards the embargo was passed on the part I meats, to have been made under the authority of •
of the United States. Thus was completed, by acts' these decrees. How then are they revoked ? Hod-
nearly cotemporaneous, the circle of commercial hos- have they ceased to violate our neutral commerce ?.. •
tilities. After an ineffectual trial of four years to con- " Had any repeal or twidification of chose decrees ;
troul the policy ot the two belligerents by this sys. in truth taken place, it must have been communist(
tem, it was on the part of the United States for a cated to the Prize Courts, and would have Ewen evt.
, time relinquished. The act of the Ist of May, 1810, denced by some variation, either in their rules or in
gave the authority, however, to the President of the the principles of their decisions. In vain, however,
will this nation seek"! such proof of the revocation
Unified States to revive it against Great Britain, in
case France revoked her decrees. Such revocation, of the decrees. No acquittal has ever been had, .it
'I on the part of France was declared by the President's any of the Prize Courts, upon the ground that . is
proclamation on the 2d November, 1810, and, in
Berlin and Milan Decrees had ceased, even as it re.
l consequence, non-intercourse was revived by our ad-
specks the United States. On the contrary, the evi-
I ministration against Great Britain. dente is decisive that they are considered by the
~ At all times the undersigned have looked with French Courts as existing.
much anxiety for the evidence of this revocation.— " There are many cases corroborative-of this posi.
tion. It is enough' to state only two, which appear ill
IThey wished not to question what, in various forms,
the official reports. The American ship Ili ito was
has been so often asserted by the administration and
1 its agents, by their directions. But neither as public captured by a French privateer, en the 4th of July
men nor as citizens, can they consent that the peace 1811, and on the 10th of September, 1811,.the ves-
•
and prosperity of the country should be sacrificed, in sel seed cargo were condemned by the Council of
maintenance of a position, which on no principle of Prizes at Pans, among other reason., ,because she
was visited by several English vessels.' On the same
evidence they deem tenable. They cannot falsify or
conceal their conviction, that the French Decrees-nei-
day the Hercules, an American ship, was condemned
ther have been nor are revoked. by the Imperial Court of Prizes, alledging, , that it
44 Without pretending to occupy the whole field was impossible that she was not visited by the enemy's
of argument, which the question of revocation has ships of war.' So familiar to them was the existence
'opened, a concise statement seems inseparable from of the decrees, and such their eagerness to give them
the occasion: effect against our commerce, that they feigned a vi.
44 The condition on which the non-intercourse, ac-
sitation to have taken place, and that notwithstanding .
cording to the act of Ist May, 1810, might be revived the express declaration of the Captain-and crew to the
. !
against Great Britain, was, on the part of France, an contrary. In addition to which evidence, Mr. Rues
effectual revocation of her decrees. What the Presi-
sell's letter to the Secretary of State, dated Bth Mayo
1811, says 4 it may not be improper to remark that
dent of the United States was bound to require from I
the French Government was, the evidence of such
no American vessel captured since the Ist Novem. -
, '
effectual revocation. Upon this point both the right I' be*, 1810, has yet been released.'
of the United States and the duty of the President I " Frt m this it is apparent, that the Commanders et.
„seem to be resolvable into very distinct and unde-
•of the National vessels, the privateersmen, and the :
niable principles. The object to be obtained, for the 'Judges of the Prize Courts, to which may be added
also the Custom-house Officers, who, as the instru-
United States from France, waken effectual revoca-
'
tion of the decrees. A revocation to be effectual, must meats of carrying into effect the decrees, must have ' /
include, in the nature of things, this essential requi-
been made acquainted with the repeal had it ex seed,'
have been from first to last, ignorant of any revoca. S
site—the wrongs done to the neutral commerce of the
United States, by the operation of the decrees, must lion; and uniformly acted upon the principle of their
be stopped. Nothing short of this could be an effec- exist en
ce.
tual revocation. , "If other evidence of the continued existence of
I sg Without reference to the other wrongs resulting those decrees were requisite, the acts Of the French
from those decrees to the commerce of the United Government afford such as is full and explicit. Chaml
States ; it will be sufficient to state the prominent pagny, Duke of Cadore, Minister or Foreign Rent-
t
wrong done by the Sci Article of the Milan Decree*. lions, in his report to his Majesty the Emperor and
M
Kin^ dated Paris, Sd December, 1810, speaking of
This article is in these words a
•
' the decrees of Berlin and Milan, says expressly, • As
•
- . .
se
ed
b. :kAat:ltooth hTbhyr lanßridtitniadan.d., aErevedry
ship:of° b:vhfclataevletirteasci. log as England shall persist in her Orders in Cone-
lion, or whatsoever the nature of its cargos matte, that sal a cif, your Majesty will meat in yomrideereeil Than
Aloia the ports of England, or those of the finglials colonies, and which no declaration can be more direct not only that
Op/ commies occupied by else Englids troops end proceeding thi Berlin
toialglaad, or to the English cotoeses, or to cosntriss occupied .1- wilt
Ity blinds troops is good and Willful prize aS COiMArt to. the riwer and Milan decrees are unreeolsesl. bat (has,.
so remain, until the- English Orders 4
present Dstrae, ad may tte staptored by prise,
rural' ".°ll6""ire Wibildn."o.• :4 con.ifinia. 7.4
'II 44...31
*''' -.
47..
our plevateors, and adjudgod to the saptot."