Star.
London, England, 1812-02-21 00:00:00

heir
uld
the

and
Ime

ling

:e br
ilit►S

Bill•
Ni

Fir- •
1111VtqiNG STAR.

rr•-•••

LONDOM

•ittpAt rEnReAItY 21.
nocf OF 3 POCKS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK
sper O. Reduced 62-6 er Cent. 780
per Ct. Cons. for mooney 621-I—Do. for ate. 621
gpf Cs. 99.1i--BondAlsa. 16y. pr.--Omnhuu_A
tich. Babas. 10a. pre.—Laud Aims. 16

IMPORTANT INTELLIGENCE FROM
AMERICA.
The Princess Charlotte Packet has arrived at tai.
path from New York, after a most remarkably quick
ogssage of 18 days, with dispatches for Government.
Their contents are of a most important, and, perhaps,
townie of our Readers, they will appear of a most un-
apecced nature, Mr. Fosvea, it would appear' has
re to the full extent of his powers, as t 4 the modi-
fication of the Orders in Council, and has applied for
icouctions to authorize hith to accede to their total
abrogation on certain conditions. The terms offered
to America, we understand to be of such a descrip-
tion that there is every probability of the negociadons
Virg in a complete reconciliation with that Power !
ilre believe That we may add, that War betweeh
Arica and Fiance is now more likely to take place,
than between America and Great Britain.
We have also received American Papers, to the
ja instant, by several vessels which have arrived at
larerpool. One of them, the Milo, came from
Non in :Wan days These papers bring down
et proceedings of the House of Representatives to
'heath of January ; and. we must confess that not-
. withstanding the pacific dispositions manifested in
Foam's dispatches, the American Legislature
ill :names a warlike attitudes
- The arrangements for creating an army have been
completed and hare received the Ptesident's sanction,
tattle Bill for increasing the Navy by building ad-
dition' frigates has been lost by a majority of
Ccegtisa has agreed' however, to appropriate 200,000
*Res annually for three years for the purchase of
father and other materials for slip-building• The
progress of the Bill for permitting importation from
Nat Britain of goods Contracted for previoUsly to
the bt of February, 1811, has been suspended, and
trope* prevails that it Will not ?ass. Mr. Gallatin,
the Sectetary of the Treasury, has brought forward
lit Budget for defraying the expences of the War.
A private letter on the oaten says, " Mk. GALLA-
biI kept h finished this day.—lt has electrified
tongten; broken the War fever; and must have a

poi Act oti the Atbdriata Ptablic."—The Report

s § follows
I*. Ast midi** Of 100 par ad. to the ditties of imports
3oissooter-2d. A Lead.kos, tie nice tweetbirti mete than that
Wailes lorded under Mr. A d 41111111141U1140119 which will
meet to three ltipiaat of dollais—id. A tom on Auctions-
-16-1! lootsek—Sid. 41:lialevies--Ith. A Carriege•toz--7tis.

Oa win of to cants. par salon co altdomestic distilled spirits."
It is curious, that Air. Gu.s.Arts, in his Report
to the subject of the Budget, complains loudly of the
restrictions laid on American commerce 4,y France,
which, added to a war with Great Britain, would
annihilate the revenue arising from duties. A loan
tf ten millibns of dollars will therefore annually be
ranted !

We have given at full length the documents laid
before Congress by the PRESIDENT, on the 17th of
lanuary. They are the most important cominunica-
tons which have for a long time appeared on the sub-
-374 of the intercourse between the two countries.—
The Message from the PRESIDENT, with which he in-
troduces Mr. FosrEn's and Mr. MownoE's cotnmuni-

iations, is certainly of a most hostile character, and
yet the documents themselves really do not warrant
iadi an inference as Mr. MADDISON seetns determined
t 3 draw.
In a report made by Mr. Marmot to the rittSt-
ID% on the 16th of January, which we have not
room to give at full length, that Gentleman states
rurally, that ig the trade of the United States to
France is subjected to very severe restrictions ; but
the precise extent and nature of them is not distinctly
holm" And, strange to tell, Monsieur SEtteLTRItR,
the knurl Ambassador, can give him no informa-
op the subject !
Mr. Forma; in a distinct official communication
to Mr. Momaor, disavows, in a manly manner, all
4ttrference on the part of the British in the late dis-
Pus between the Indians and the Americans. He
tren refers Mr. MONROE to a communication from
4'r hhes CRA t,:, from Canada, in-which the General
rum ishes the American Govettment with informa-
toa as to the iutent?ons and movements of their
in enemies. Mr. MONROE', in answer, admits that
,nis n
an additional proof of the friendly dispositions
the British Government.
The following is a private coMmunication from
Scat of Government;

WASHINGTON, JAN. 28.
My opinion is that the importers will be released
?nal the present restrictions, i. e. the Orders in Coun-
cil sad the Non.lmportation Act will be withdrawn
and repealed. As td commerce generally, it will not,
Petila Ps, enjoy its fetmer latitude. Our carryings trade
'(Tippled; and I cannot predict a epeedy recovery.
Believe nothing that may be said, in or out of Con.
either about attacking Canada, or that the Bri-
t's
assist the 4 Prophet' and his Indians against us.
Those are lies ; and if you think a vote to raise
men looks like war, quiet your apprehensions.
Inti do not understand what is here called manage-

hens. There will, Is I believe, to nt? tsar. The War-
whoop, the Orders in Coiineih the Non-importation,
And Presidential Citucussing, Will vanish before next
summer. Here you have clearly my/eh:ion ; and as
you stated, lam not ivithout some opportunities of
judging."
WA31141/40,T0N CITE, MN. 17.
IN The following Message Was yesterday transmit-
ted by the President to both Hotises of Congress :

44 To TIM MATZ AND lIOUSk OF RIPRESNNTATIVES OF

THB bNITRD STATE!.
gg I conummicate to Congress a letter from the
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary
of Great Britain to the Sedretary of State, with the
answer of the latter.

" The continued evidence, afforded in this corres-
pondence, of the hostile policy of the British Govern-
ment against our national rights, strengthens tht con-
sidetations recoMmending and Urging the preparation
of adequate Meant for Maintaining them."
(Signed) 44 JAMES MADISON."
Washington, Jan. 16, 1812."

1118. FOSTER TO Mt. SIONROE.
" Washington, Dec. 17, 1811.
" Stir—i did not mean to have written to you at
this moment on the subject of 'onr late correspon-
dence, but that I have had the mortification to per-
ceive statements, circulated from high respectable
sources, which give a view to the pretensions of Great
Britain relative to the United States not warranted
by any of the letters which I had the honour to ad-
dress to you, and which at a time when discussions
are continuing so important to the two countries,
might, if left unrectified, produce an effect highly to
be lamented by both the American and British Go-
vernments, inasmuch as toy creating unnecessary ir-
ritation, they might throw obstacles in the way of a
restoration of a friendly understanding between them.
" I find it asserted in the staiement reierred to, that
I have, in the name of my Government, demanded
that the United States Government should pass a
law for the introduction of British goods into the
American ports, and also that the United States
should undertake to force France to receive into her
harbours British manufactures. 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
its import. I could not have demanded the passage
of such a law as above stated, because my Govern-
ment does not pretend to interfere with the internal
Goveinment of a frendly power, nor did I mean to
demand that America should furce Prance to receive
our manufactures.

64 All I meant to say was, that the admission •f
French commerce while that of England has been
excluded from the United States' ports, was regarded
by Great Britain as highly unfriendly in America,
and that a continuation of such policy would be re-
taliated upon by Great Britain with similar restric-
tions on her part, which was so far merely an offering
tif like for like. But while the American Non-impor-
tation Act excludes British trade from the United
States' ports, it must be recollected that it goes still
further, and excludes also British armed ships from
American ports, while it admits those of the enemies
of Great Britain. ' A neutral nation is responsible
,'for the quality of its rules of conduct towards the bel-
Oigereot powers' (to use the words of an American
Secretary of State in the year 1796) and therefore the
'part of the law which establishes an inequality was
I justly an object of more serious complaint on the part
of Great Britain. You are aware, Sir, of the advan-
tage which his Majesty's enemies have derived from
this state of inequality, which enables them, though
possessing no port in this hemisphere, continually to
prey on th. e trade of his Majesty's subjects, secure of
a refuge tor their cruisers and their prizes.
gg 1 he prohibition of entry to his Majesty's ships
under these circumstances, might, perhaps, justify
Great Britain in asserting, that whatever reason she
may have for repealing or modifying her Orders in
Council, so as to lessen or entirely remove the pres-
sure now unavoidably laid on the trade of America
as a neutral nation, she might yet refuse to enter into
any discussion on that subject with the United States,
until either by the revocation of the prohibition above
stated, or the placing all the belligerents under the
same prohibition, America should cease to violate the
duties of a neutral nation. With respect, however,
to.the supposed demand that America should force
the entry of British manufactures into France, it is
most particularly necessary that I should explain my-
self, as a total misconception appears to have taken
place upon this point. The question cf retaliation on
the French decrees is directly one between England
and France. In consequence of the extraordinary
blockade of England, we have in our defence been
obliged to blockade France, and prohibit all trade in
French articles, in return for the prohibition by
France of all trade 'in English articles. This mea-
sure of retaliation, it is wished, should operate on
France alone, but from the trade carried on with
France by America, it unavoidably operates also on
her ; it is a measure to destroy the French trade is
return for the similar measure of France, on which it
is retaliatory, and its acting on neutrals is an inciden-1
tal effect of it, consequent upon the submission of,
neutrals to the original measures of the enemy against
Great Britain. It is, indeed, melancholy that the
unnatural situation of Europe should ptoduce such a
result, but I cannot see how this can be considered as
war on American commerce, when all other Ameri-
can trade, but that which is carried on with our ene-
my's ports in defiance of a blockade authorised by
the laws of retaliation, is unaffected by it. We com-
plain that America does not resist the regulations of
the Berlin and Milan decrees, and object to permit-
ting the French to trade with her during their conti-
nuance against the commerce of England; but this
is not exacting, as has been represented, that America
should force British manufactures into France ; it is
pursuing only ajust course of retaliation on our enemy.
16 If America wishes tb trade with France, if
French commerce is of importance to her—we expect
she should exact of France td trade with her at she
has a right to demand in her qualitf of neutral; but
if she does not choose to exercise this right, all we
ask is, that she should abstain from lending het as-
sistance to the trade of France, and not allow het
commerce to be a medium of undermining the re-
sources of Great Britain.
44 I have thought it necessary thus to endeaeour to
set these two points in their true light i tip repeal of

die law was asked, As being an unfriendly Inasufe,
partial in its operation against Great Britain, and a
prospect of retaliation was held out On its tommertial
operation if continted. This is no demand on the
United States to adniit British manufactures : tLey
are at liberty to continue that law, only as it is of an
unfriendly nature, some restriction of a similar kind
wan m be expected from England ; and with respect
to the alledged demand for forcing British goods, the
property of neutrals, into French ports, if the United
States are willirg to acquiesce in the regulations of
the French decrees, unlau fully affecting England
through them; they cannot, surely, be surprised if
consider ourselves as at liberty tb refuse permis.-
sion to the French to profit by that acquiescence.
I will now, Sir, take the opportunity of stating
to you, that I have received from his Majesty's Se-
cretary of State, the correspondence of which yota
did me the honour to transmit to me a copy in your
letter, dated October 17. My government have not
been able to see in it satisfactory proof of the repeal of
the French decrees, and doubt whether the trade
carried on by licences between trance and America,
will not be regarded, even here, as a proof of the
continuation of them in their fullest extent, for if
they were to any extent repealed, to that extent at
least no licence should be necessary, a licence being
given, to allow what, but for that licence, would be
prohibited.

" The continued absence hitherto of any instrument
by which the repeal has been effected, is a matter also
of surprise, for if there were any fair dealing in the
transaction, no reason can be given by France for not
producing it ; it is very des:rable that it should be
produced if such an instrument be in existence, in
order that we may know to what extent the decrees
have been repealed, if they really have been so in any
respect. Mr. Russel, however, does not appear to
have been in possession of it at the date of his letter
of last July. It is, indeed, become particularly in-
teresting, that we shoull see this instrument since the
publication of Mr. Russel's correspondence with his
own Government, by which it appears that really,
and in fact, the French Government did not release
any American ships taken after November 1, until
they had become acquainted with the President's Pro-
clamation, and that vessels have been taken so late
as December 21, in the direct voyage from this coun-
try to London ; for, until a copy of such instrument
is produced, it is impossible to know whether any
other trade is allowed by France than that between
her own dominions and the ports of the United States.
" I have the honour to be, with the highest consi-
deration, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,

AM. J. POSTER.

" To the Hon. James Monroe, &c."

lifit. MONROE TO MR. FOSTER.
" Department of State, January 14, 1812.
" SIR—I have had the honour to receive your let-
ter of December 17th, and I embrace the first moment
that [ could command to make the observations
which it suggests.
44 It would have afforded great satisfaction to the
President, to have found in the communication some
proof of a disposition in the British Government to
put an end to the differences subsisting between our I
countries. lam sorry to be obliged to state, that it
presents a new proof only of its determination to ad-
here to the policy to which they are imputable.
" You complain, that the import of your former,
letters has been misunderstood in two important cir- '
cumstances : that you have been represented to have
demanded of the United States a law for the intro-
duction
of British goods into their ports ; and that
they should also undertake to force France to receive
British manufactures into her harbours.
" You state that on the first point, it was your in-
tention only to remonstrate against the non-importa- I
tion act, as partial in its operation, and unfriendly to
Great Britain, on which account its repeal was claim- 1
ed, and to intimate that if it was persevered in Great 1
Britain would be compelled to retaliate on the com-
merce of the United States, by similar restrictions on'
her part. And on the second point, that you intended
only to urge, that in consequence of the extraordinary'
blockade of England, your Government had been
obliged to blockade France, and to prohibit all trade
in French articles, in return for the prOhibition by 1
France of all trade in English articles.
" It is sufficient to remark on the first point, that
on whatever ground the repeal of the non-importation
act is required, the United States are justified in ad-
hering to it, by the refusal of the British government'
to repeal its orders in council ; and if a distinction is'
thus produced between Great Britain and the other
belligerent, it must be referred to the difference in the
conduct of the two patties.
" On the second point, I have to observe that the
explanation given cannot be satisfactory, because it
does not meet the case now existing. France did, it is'
true, declare a blockade of England against the trade
of the United States, and prohibited all trade in Eng-
E.% articles on the high seas ; but this blockade and .
prohibition no longer exist. It is true also, that a part
of those decrees did. prohibit a trade in English arti-
cles, within her territorial jurisdiction—but this pro-
hibition violates no national rights cr neutral tom- I
inerce of the United States. Still your blockade and
prohibition are continued, in violation of the national
and neutral rights of the United States, on a pretext'
of retaliation, which, if even applicable, could only
be applied to the former, and not to the latter inter-
dicts ; and it is required' that France shall change her ,
internal regulations against English trade before Eng-
land will change her external regulations against the
trade of the United States.
II But you still insist
,that the French decrees are
unrevoked, and urge in proof of it, a fact drawn from
Mr. Russell's correspondence, that some American
vessels have been taken since the Ist of November,
in their route to England. It is a satisfactory ansner
to this remark, that it appears by the same corres-
pondence, that every American vessel which had
been taken in that trade, the seizure of which rested
on the Berlin and Milan Decrees only, were, as soon
as that fact was ascertained, delivered up to their
owners. Might there not be other ground also, on
which seizures Might be made ? Great Britain
claims a right to seize for other causes, and a' l flattens
admit it in the case of Contraband of war. If by the
law of nations, one belligerent has a right to seize
neutral property in any case, the other belligerent
has the same right. Nor ought Ito overlook that the
= ice of counterfeiting American papers its Eng-
' which is well known to the Continent, bas by
_ .

ithpatting the faith due to Arndt-ken dointnentt, done
to the Unites essential injury.
Against this practice the Mittistei ofthl United
States at Undon, as will Appear by iefereti• e td hit
letter to the Martinis Wellesley of the 3d ,t NI2Yi
181% Made a formal representation, in pur,uance of
instructions from his Government, with a offer Of
every infottnation ptiSsef.sed by hith, which mght
contribute to detect and suppress ft. It is paiisflif
add this communication was entirely disreBarde,h That
Great Britain should complain of acts in France to
which by her neglect, she was instrumental, and draw
from them proof in topport•of her Orders ht Coutcd,
ought 9p-wilily not to have been expected.
" Your remark also, that the practice r f the French
Government to grant licences to cart on Am( rican
vessels, engaged in the trade betfee,:n the United
States and France, is an additional prof that the
French Decrees still operate in their fullest •:: tent.
On what principle this inference is drawn trom that
fact it is impossible for me to conceive. It was not
the object of the Berlin and Milan Decrees to prohi-
bit the trade of the United States with Great Britain
which violated our neutral rights, and to prohibit the
trade of Great Britain with the Continent, with which
the United States have nothing to do.
a If the object had been to prohibit the trade be-
tween the United States and France, Great Britain
could never have found in thenrany pretext for Com-
plaint. And if the idea of tetaliation could in any
respect have been applicable, it would have been by
prohibiting our trade with herselta To prohibit it
with France woult_not have been a retaliation, but
a co-operation. If licensed by Plaice the trades in
certain instances, prove any thing, it proves nothing
more than that the trade with France, in other in-

stances, is under restraint. It seems impottble to
extract from it, in any respect, that the Berlin and
Milan Decrees are in force, so far ac they prohibit the
trade between the United States and England; I
might here repeat, that the French practice of grant-
ing licences to trade between the United States and
France may have been intended, in part at km, as
a security against the simulated papers, the forging
of which was not suppressed in England. It is n t
to be inferred from these remarks, that a trade by li-
cence is one with which tilt United States are Lai:-

fied: they have the strongest objntions to it ibut
these are founded on other principles than those sug-
gested in your note.
" It is a cause of great surprise to the Fresis'ent,
that your government has not seen in the correspon-
dence of Mr. Russel, which I had the honour to com-
municate to you on the 17th of October last, and
which has been lately transmirecl to you by your
government, sufficient proof of the repeal of the Ber-
lin and Milan decrees, independent of the conclusive
evidence of the fact, which that correspondence af-
forded, it was not to be presumed from the intim t-
don of the Marquis of Wellesley, that if it was to be
transmitted to you, tr be taken into consideration in
the depending discussions, that it was of a nature
have no weight in these discussions.
41 The demand which you now mike of a view of
the crder given by the French government to its
cruisers, in consequence of the repeal of the Frenth
decrees, is a new proof of its indisposition to repeal
the orders in council. Ihe ifeclaration of the French
government was, as has been heretofore observed, a
11 solemn and obligatory act, aril as such entitled to
the notice and retpxt of tarter governmentsr It was
incumbent on Great Britain, therefore, in fulfilment
of her engagement, to have provided that bet orders
in council- shculd not have effect, after the time fixed
for the cessation of the French decrees. .

" A pretension in Great Britain to keep her orders
in force till she received satisfaction of the practical
compliance of France, is utterly incompatible with
her pledge. A doubt, founded on any single act,
however unauthorised, committed by a French pri-
vateer, might, on that principle, become a motive for
delay and refus tl. A suspicion that such acts would
be committed might have the time effect • and in
like manner her compliance might be withhell as
long as the war continued. But let me here remark,
that if there was room for a question, whether the
French repeal did or did not take effect, at the date
announced by France, and required by the United
States, it cannot be alledged that the decrees have
not ceased to operate since the 2d of February last,
as heretofore observed. And as the actual cessation
of the decrees to violate out neutral rights, was the
only essential fact in the case, and has long been
known to your.Gavernment, tit.: Orders is Council,
from the d 'te o!. that knowledge, ought to have
ceased, according to its own principle and pledges.
" But the question whether and when tae repeal
of the Berlin and Milan decrees took effect in relation
t.) the neutral commerce of.the United States, is su-
perseded by the novel and extraordinary claim of
Great Britain to a trade in British articles, with her
enemy for supposing the terra! to hate taken place,
in the fullest extent claimed by the United States, it
could, according to that claim, have no effect in red
moving the Order in Council.
On a full view of the crnduct of the British Cd•
vernment in these transactions, it is impossible to set
in it any thing short of a spirit of determinei hosti-
lity to the rights and interest of the United States.
I have be honour to be, &e. w iAites NOWltelk
" Augustus I. Foster, Esq. Ike'

• The report of yesterday that a Swedish einister
had landed in England, arose from the follow 4
circumstance :—The last packet front Anholt brought
over ashlt. Guinoun, an Englishmerthact, who left
Petersburgb on the 16th ult. He travellatlworigh
Sweden, and embarked in the Gist instance at Got-
teaburgh ; this is the Gentleman to whiAn report
has given the character of Minister Eetraordioary
from Sweden. It is true, however, that it Messenpr
from Sweden also arrived by the last conveyance with
letters for the Swedish lttsident in London, which, we
understand, contain some important communications.

In addition to tbe rumours circulated yesterday, of
a pacific tendency, it is rumoured this day, in the
City, that the Earl of CHICIIISTEK is going out on a
secret mission to Paris. Vfe have nut been able to
ascertain the source of this rumour.
The.,Gazelle Frr.nch brig privateer, of and from
St. Maloe's, carrying 11. guns, And 65 men, has, at
length, been captured. She was taken by his Ma•
jesty's ship Xeosioss, on Monday morning last, after
a smart chart of tv<o hours.