Star.
London, England, 1810-07-21 00:00:00

sill 1111!"""
AMERICAN PAPERS.
CORRESPONDENCE.
(Concluded front yesterday': STAI
!strict of a Letter to the same from the same,
have at length received a verbal messa
to my note of the .21st ult. It was from
of Foreign Relations, and in the followit
" His Majesty has determined to sell th
property seized in Spain, but the money 2
t from shall remain in depot." This messa
occasion to a letter from me, marked No.
(No. 22 ) Path
Sllt—l had yesterday the honour of rec
gal message from your Excellency, static
Majesty had decided, that the American p
o ed in the ports of Spain should be sold,
( money arising therefrom should remain it
On receiving this information two quest
ed themselves-Ist Whether this decision
not extended to ships as well as to cargo
Whether the money arising from the sales
be made under it, would, or would not,
the issue of the pending negociation ?
The Gentleman charged with the deli'
message not having been instructed to
questions, it becomes my duty to present
Excellency, and eo request a solution of tl
I it a less duty on my part, to examine the
which his Majesty has been pleased totake
which I understand to he that of reprisa
;
for the first time in the note you did me t 1
write to me on the loth ult. In the 4th p
this note, it is said, that " his Majesty co
calculated on the measures taken by theU
who, having no grounds of complaint ag:
I , have comprised her in their acts of ex,
since the month of May last, Lave prohibi
into their ports of French vessels, by sub'
to confiscation."
It is true that the United States have s
of May last, forbidden the entry of Frenc
their harbours, and it is also true that ti
confiscation attaches to the violation of 0
in what respect dies this offend France
refuse to us the right of regulating corn
our own ports ? or will she deny that the
tine isa regulation merely municipal? Ex:
as to object any,means ; what does it TY
bid American ships from going into the pc
and French ships from coming into those
States ? And why this prohibition ? To
and insult ; to escape that lawlessness wh
ed to be " a forced consequence of the I
British Council." If then its object be
sive, what are its means ? Simply a kw, pi
generally promulgated, operating solely v
ritorrof the United States, and punishini
fractors of it, whether citizens of the sa
others. And what is this but the exerci
common to all nations, of excluding, at I
reign commerce, and of enforcing that ex,
this be deemed a wrong to France ? Can tl
ed as a legitimate cause of reprisal on
power, who makes it the first duty of nazi,
their sovereignty, and who even dena
ships of those who will not subscribe to th
But it has been said that the " Unite
nothing to complain of against France."
Was the capture and condemnation of
on ate shores of France by stress of weal
perils of the sea—nothing ? Was the se
questratlon of many cargoes brought
ships violating no law, and admitted to
at the Imperial cust-m-houses—nothing
violation of our m'aritime rights, consec
have been by the solemn forms of a pt
nothing ? In a word, was it nothing 1
were burnt on the high seas, without an)
than that of belonging to the United.St:
apology than was to be found in the en
of the perpetrator ? Surely if it be a
United States to resent the theoretical
- the British Orders of November 1807,
less their duty to complain of the daily
outrages on the part of France ! It is in(
were the people of the thrited States desti
of honour, and of energy (as has.been ins
mighthave adopted a system ofdiscrimir
the two great belligerents : they migl
imaginary lines between the first andseci
they might have resented in the one a co
they tamely submitted in the other, at
have patched up a compromise between
terest equally weak and disgraceful. Bu
the course they pursued, and it is perha
consequence of the justice of their mea:
are at this day an independent nation.
press this part of my subject ; it would 1
your Excellency (knowing as you do,
not less than one hundred American sl
Majesty's possession or that of• his allie
proofs that the United States have gr
plaint against France.
My attention is necessarily called to
the same paragraph, which immediate
quotation already made As' sooi
Excellency, " as his Majesty was inf
measure (the non-intercourse law), it b,
to retaliate upon the American vessels
his own territories, but also in the cow
influence. In the ports of Holland, Sp
Naples, the American vessels have b,
cause the Americans seized French vessek
These remarks divide themselves into
heads:
Ist, The right of his Majesty to seiz,
American vessels within his own territ
2d, The right to do so within the ti
allies ; and
3d. The reason of that right, viz.
sans had seized French vessels. •
The first of these subjects has bee
mined ; and the second must be decide
since his Majesty's rights within the lit
cannot be greater than within his own
been shewn, that the Non-intercourse
defensive in its object ; that it was
guard against that state of violence w
prevailed ; that it was restricted in o
territory of the United States, and t
promulgated there and in Europe bele
will be almost unnecessary to repeat,
such description cannot authorise a- xr
- sal, equally suddea and *tit_ in it,