Star.
London, England, 1813-10-07 00:00:00

--

transmitted a copy of that
don ut this Government,- t
64 Further explanations
Barlow, but none were
this transaction was viewed
!indeed by the President in
, and communicated ajso to .
the 14th of July, 1812, with
explanation from the . French
9th day of May, 1812, the Emperor left 'Paris fortlit
North, andinisro days thereafter the buke of Bas-
sano follovied film. A negociation fur the adjustment
'of injuries, and the arrangement of our commerce,
with the Government of France, long depending,
and said to have been brought nearly to a conclusion
at the time of Mr. Barlow 's death, was suspended by'
' that event. His successor, lately appointed, is au-
thorised to resume the negociation, and to conclude
it, He is instructed to demand redress of the French

Government for every injury, and an explanation of
its motive for withholding from this Government a
knowledge of the Decree for so long a time after its

adoptitat.
ss It appears by the Documents referred to, that
Mr. Barlow lost no time, after having obtained a
knowledge of the existence of the French Decree of
ithe 28th April, 1811, in demanding a copy of it,
and transmitting it to Mr. Russell, who immediately
laid it before the British Government, urging, on the
ground of this new proof of the repeal of the French
, Decrees, that the British Orders in Council should
• be repealed. Mr. Russell's note to Lord Castlereagh
bears date on the 20th of May—Lord Castlereagh 's
reply on the 28J, in which he promised to submit
the Decree to the consideration of the Prince Regent.
It appears, however, that no encouragement was
given at that time to hope that the Orders in Council
would be repealed in consequence of that Decree ;
and that although it was afterwards made the ground
of their repeal, the repeal was nevertheless to bin as-
cribed to other causes.
44 Their repeal did not take effect until the 23d of
! June, more than a month after the French Decree
had been lad before the British Government—a delay
' indicating in itself, at a period so momentous and
critic.il, not merely neglect but disregard of the
French Decree. That the repeal of the British
Or-
ders in Council was not produced by the French De-
cree, other proofs might be adduced. I will state one,
which, in addition to the evidence contained in the
tletters from Mr. Russell, herewith communicated,
marked G. is deemed conclusive. In the conimu-
nication of Mr. Baker to Mr. Graham, on the 9th of
August, 1812, which was founded on instructions
from his Giveinment, of as late date as the 17th of
June, in which he stated, that an official declaration
would be sent to this country, proposing a conditio-
nal repeal of the Orders in Council, so far as they
affected the United States; no notice whatever was
taken of the French Decree. One of the conditions
then co.templated was, that the Orders in Council
should be revived at the end of eight months, unless
the conduct of the French Government, and the re-
sult of the communications with the Government of
the United States should be such as, in the opinion el
the British Government, to render their revival unne-
cessary ; a condition which proves inctnitestibly that
the French Decree was not considered by the British"
Government a sufficient giound on which to repeal'
the Orders in Council. It proves also that on that
day the British Government had resolved not to re-
peal the Orders on the basis of that Decree—since
the proposed repeal was to depend not on what the
French Government had already done, but on what'
it might do, and on arrangements to be entered into
with the United States, unconnected with the French
repeal.
44 The French Decree of the 28th of April, lAII,
was transmitted to the United States by the Wasp, a
public vessel, which had been long awaiting, at the
ports of Great Britain and France, dispatcues trum
our Ministers, relating to these very important con-
cerns with both Governments. It was teceived at
the Department of State on the 13th July, 1812,
nearly a month after the Declaration of ;War against
Great Britain. Intelligence of the repeal of the Or-
ders in Council was not received until about the mid-
dle of the following month. It was impossible, there-
fore, that either of diose acts, in whatever light they
may be viewed, should have been taken into consi-
deration, or have had any influence iu deciding upon
that important event.
44 Bad the British Government been disposed to'
repealits Orders in Council, in conformity with the
principle on which it professed to have issued them,
and on the condition which it had itself prescribed,
there was no reason to delay the repeal until such a
Decree as that of the 28th of April, 1811, should be
produced. The DecParation of the French Govern-
ment of August 5, 1810, had. fully satisfied every
claim of the British COvernment according to its own
principles on that point. By it,'the Decree's at Berlin
and Milan were declared to be repealed, theJepeal to
take effect on the Ist of November following, on
which day it did take effect. The only condition
attached to it was, either that,Great Britain should
follow the example, and repeal her Orders in Coun-
cil, or that the United States should carry into effect
against her their Non-Importation Act. This con-
dition was in its nature subsequent, not precedent,
reserving a right in France to revive her Decrees in
case neither alternative was performed. By this De-
claration it was put completely in the power of Great
Britain to terminate this controversy in a manner the
most honourable to herself. France had yielded to
her the ground on a condition with which she had
declared
her willingness to comply. Had she com-
plied, the Non-Importation Act would not have been
carried into effect, nor could the French Decrees
have been revived. By refusing to comply, she has
made herself responsible for all that has since follow-
ed.—By the Decree of the 28th April, 1811, the De-
crees of Berlin and Milan were said to be definitely
repealed : and the execution of the NGn-Importation
Act against Great Britain was declared to be the
ground of that repeal. The repeal announced by the
Declaration of the sth of August, 1810, was absolute
and final, except as to the condition subsequently at-
tached to it. This latter Decree acknowledges that
that condition had been perfoi wed, and disclaims the
right to revive it in consequence of that performance,
and extending back to the first of November, con-
firms in every circumstance the preceding repeaL—
The latter act, therefore, as to the repeal, is nothing
more than a confirmation of the former. It is in this
sense that those two acts are to be understood in

in the same sense that they pikje be
other Powers.
ling the Orders in Council on the pre.
:reach Decree of the 28th April, 1811,
. Government has conceded that it ou.ght
repealed thesn'on the Declaration of the sth
1810. It is impossible to discriminate
...e two acts, or .to separate them from,
each other, so as to justify, on sound and consistent
principles, the repeal of the Orders in Council on the
ground of one act, and the refusal to repeal them to
that of the other. The second act m.tkes the repeal
definitive ; but for what reason ? Because the IsIoii;

Importation Act has been put in force against Great
Britain, in compliance with the condition suhrquent
attachW to-the former repeal, and her rdlusal 10 re-
peal her. Orders in Council. That Act being still in
force, and the Decree of the 28th April, 1811, being
expressly founded on it, Great Britain repeals her
Orders in Council on the basis of this latter Decree.

The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible, that by this
repeal, under all the circumstances attending it, the
British Government has acknowledged the justice of
The claim of the United States to a repeal on the for-
mer occasion. By accepting the latter repeal, it has
sanctioned the preceding one ; it has sanctioned also
the conduct of thispovernment in carrying into effect
the Non-Importation Act against Great Britain,
founded on the preceding repeal.
14 Other important consequences result from this
repeal of the British Government. By fair and ob.
irtous construction the acceptance of the Decree of
the 28th of April, 1811, as the ground of the repeal
,of the Orders in Council, ought to be construed to
extend beck to the first of N.)vember, 1810, the day
on which the preceding repeal rook effect. The Se-
cretary of State has full confidence, that if the ques-

tin could be submitted to the judgment of an im-
partial judicial tribunal, such would be its decision.
He has equal confidence that such will be the judg-
ment pronounced on it by the enlightened and im-
partial world. If, however, these two acts could be
-separated from each (,ther,,bo as that the latter might
be made the basis of the renewal of the Orders in
'Council, distinct from the former, it follows that.
bearing date on the 28th of April, 1811, the repeal
ought to have relation to that date.
i‘ In legal ck nstruction, between nations as well as'
individuals, acts are to be respected from the time
they begin to operate, and where' they impose a
mofal r political obligation on another party, that
obligation commences with the commencement of the
act. But it has been urged that the French Decree
was net promulgated, or made known to the British
Government until a year after ixdate. This objec—
tion has no force. By accepting an act bearing date
a year before it was promulgated, it is admitted that
in the interval nothing was done rerugnant to it.
It cannot be presumed that any Government would
accept from another, as the basis on which it was
to found an important measure, an act of anterior
and remote date, pledging itself to a certain course
of conduct, which that Government had in the inter.

val departed him and violated. If any Government
had violated an act, the injunctions of which it was
bound to observe by an anterior one, in relation to a
third party, and which it professed to have observed,
before its acceptauce by the other, it could not be
presumed that it would case to violate it idler the
acceptance. The conclusion is irresistible, that if the
other Government did accept arc!) act with i know-
ledge of its antecedent violation, as the foundation of
any measure on its own part, that such act mtist have
been the ostensible only, and not the real motive
of such measure.
The Declaration of the Prince Regent of the
21st of April, 1812, is in full confirmation of these
remarks. By this act of the British Government it
is formally announced, on the authority of a Report
of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Conserva-
tive Senate of France, that tlic French Decrees are
still in force, and that the Orders in Council shteld
not be repealed. It cannot fail to excite considerable
surprise, that the British Government 'should imme-
diately afterwards, that is, on the 23d of June, repeal
its Orders in Council, on the ground of the French
Decree of the 28th April, 1811. By this proceeding
the British Government has involved itself in mani-
fest inconsistency. It is maintained by one act, that
the French Decrees were in full force, and by another
that they were repealed during the same space of
time. •It admits also, that by no act of the French
Government or its cruisers, had any violation of the
repeal announced by the Declaration of the French
Government of the sth of August, 1810, been com-
mitted, or at least, that such violation had not had
sufficient weight to prevent the repeal of the Orders.
di It was objected that the Declaration of the French
Government of the sth of August, 1810, was net
such an act as the British Government ought to have
regarded. The Secretary of State is thoroughly sa-
tisfied that this objection is altogether unfounded. It
was commutlicated by. the Emperor through his
highest official organ, the Secretary for Foreign Af-
fairs, to the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United
States at Paris. It is impossible to conceive an act
More formal, authentic, or obligatory on Vie French
Government than that alluded to. Does one Go-
vernment ever ask or expect from another to secure
the performance of any duty, however important,
more than its official pledge, fairly and fully ex-
pressed ? Can better, security be given for its perfor-
mance? Had there been any doubt on this subject,
the conduct of Great Britain herself, in similar cases,
would have completely removed it. The whole his-
tory of her diplomatic intercourse with other Powers
on the subject of blockade, is in accord with this pro.
seeding of the French Government. We know that
when I,er Government institutes a blockade, the Se-
cretary of Foreign Affairs announces it to the Mi-nisters of the other Powers at London ; and that the
same form is observed when they ate revoked. Nor
was the authenticity of either act ever questioned.
Had a similar Declaration been made by the Mi-
nister of France in the United States to this Govern-
ment, by the order of his own, would it not have been
entitled to respect, and been respected ? By the usage
of nations such respect could not have been withheld.
The arrangement made with Mr. Erskine. is a full
proof of the good faith of this Government, and of
its impartiality, in its transactions with' both the Bel-
ligerents. It was made with that Minister on the
ground of his public character, and the confidence
dile to it : oa which basis the Non-Intercourse was
removed as to England, and left in full force against
Trance. The failure of that arrangement was impu•

tat Deetee for the inforMa- France. It is
bad not been reartled by of
were expeceeri zreeth 144 et la,tepeali
;i‘en. The-light is 1444 - ten af the Fre
ml by this Goveritwhent-Vae4o- the Irritish Ga
n his Message to Oisdnikf
tb have repeal
D Mr. Barlow, in a fattel bt fr`of August, 1
ith a view to the requisite
between the
nch Government. On the
each other, si