Relations with Great Britain. of his decrees, which condition was our renouncing what he calls "our new principles of blockade;" that the demand on the part of America was additional and new, is sufficiently proved by a reference to the overture of Mr. Pinkney, as well as from the terms on which Mr. Erskine had arranged the dispute with America relative to the Orders in Council. In that arrangement nothing was brought forward with regard to this blockade. America would have been contented, at that time, without any reference to it. It certainly is not more a grievance or an injustice now than it was then. Why, then, is the renunciation of that blockade insisted upon now, if it was not necessary to insist upon it then? It is difficult to find any answer but by reference to subsequent communications between France and America, and a disposition in America to countenance France in requiring the disavowal of this blockade, and the principles upon which it rested, as the conditio sine qua non of the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees. It seems to have become an object with America, only because it was prescribed as a condition by France. On this blockade, and the principles and rights upon which it was founded, Bonaparte appears to rest the justification of all his measures for abolishing neutrality, and for the invasion of every State which is not ready with him to wage a war of extermination against the commerce of Great Britain. America, therefore, no doubt saw the necessity of demanding its renunciation; but she will now see that it is in reality vain either for America or Great Britain to expect an actual repeal of the French decrees until Great Britain renounces, first, the basis, viz: the blockade of 1806, on which Bonaparte has been pleased to found them; next, the right of retaliation, as subsequently acted upon in the Orders in Council; further, till she is ready to receive the Treaty of Utrecht, interpreted and applied by the Duke of Bassano's report, as the universal law of nations; and, finally, till she abjures all the principles of maritime law which support her established rights, now more than ever essential to her existence as a nation. Great Britain feels confident that America never can maintain or ultimately sanction such pretensions, and His Royal Highness the Prince Regent entertains the strongest hope that this last proceeding of France will strip her measures of every remnant of disguise, and that America, in justice to what she owes to the law of nations and to her own honor as a neutral State, will instantly withdraw her countenance from the outrageous system of the French Government, and cease to support, by hostile measures against British commerce, the enormous fabric of usurpation and tyranny which France has endeavored to exhibit to the world as the law of nations. America cannot now contend that the Orders in Council exceed, in spirit of retaliation, what is demanded by the decrees, the principles, or the usurpations of Bonaparte. The United States' Government must at last be convinced that the partial relaxations of those decrees in favor of America have been insidiously adopted by France for the mere purpose of inducing her to close her ports against Great Britain, which France cannot effect herself by force; and she must admit that, if Great Britain were now to repeal her Orders in Council against France, it would be gratuitously allowing to France the commerce of America, and all the benefits derivable from her flag, as an additional instrument for the annoyance of Great Britain, and that at a moment when every State is threatened with destruction, or really destroyed, for merely supporting their own rights to trade with Great Britain. I am commanded, sir, to express, on the part of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, that, while His Royal Highness entertains the most sincere desire to conciliate America, yet he can never concede that the blockade of May, 1805, could justly be made the foundation, as it avowedly has been, for the decrees of Bonaparte: and, further, that the British Government must ever consider the principles on which that blockade rested, (accompanied as it was by an adequate blockading force,) to have been strictly consonant to the established law of nations, and a legitimate instance of the practice which it recognises. Secondly, that Great Britain must continue to reject the other spurious doctrines promulgated by France in the Duke of Bassano's report, as binding upon all nations. She cannot admit, as a true declaration of public law, that free ships make free goods; nor the converse of that proposition, that enemy's ships destroy the character of neutral property in the cargo. She cannot consent, by the adoption of such a principle, to deliver absolutely the commerce of France from the pressure of the naval power of Great Britain, and, by the abuse of the neutral of the flag, to allow her enemy to obtain, without the expense of sustaining a navy for the trade and property of French subjects, a degree of freedom and security which even the commerce of her own subjects cannot find under the protection of the British navy. She cannot admit, as a principle of public law, that a maritime blockade can alone be legally ap plied to fortresses, actually invested by land as well as by sea, which is the plain meaning or consequence of the Duke of Bassano's definition. She cannot admit, as a principle of public law, that arms and military stores are alone contraband of war, and that ship timber and naval stores, are excluded from that description. Neither can she admit, without retaliation, that the mere fact of commercial intercourse with British ports and subjects should be made a crime in all nations, and that the armies and decrees of France should be directed to enforce a principle so new and unheard of in war. Great Britain feels that to relinquish her just measures of self-defence and retaliation would be to surrender the best means of her own preservation and rights, and with them the rights of other nations, so long as France maintains and acts upon such principles. I am commanded to represent to the Government of America, that Great Britain feels herself Relations with Great Britain. entitled to expect from them an unreserved and candid disclaimer of the right of France to impose on her and on the world the maritime code which has been thus promulgated, and to the penalties of which America is herself declared to be liable if she fails to submit herself to its exactions. America cannot, for her own character, any longer temporize on this subject, or delay coming to a distinct explanation with France as well as with Great Britain, if she wishes to clear herself from the imputation of being an abettor of such injustice. repeal of our Orders in Council can be pressed upon us; or that the repeal could now be warranted upon any other ground than an express abdication of the right itself, which America well knows, whatever may be our desire to conciliate, is a concession which the British Government cannot and will not make. If this be true, for what purpose can she persevere in her hostile attitude towards Great Britain, and her friendly one towards France? Do the American Government really wish to aid France in her attempt to subjugate Great Britain. Does America, as the case now stands, has not a pre- America expect that Great Britain, contending tence for claiming from Great Britain a repeal of against France, will, at the instance of America, her Orders in Council. She must recollect that disarm herself, and submit to the mercy of the opthe British Government can never for a moment ponent? If both these questions are answered countenance the idea that the repeal of these orders in the negative, upon what ground can she, for a could depend upon any partial or conditional re- moment, longer continue the hostile measures peal of the decrees of France. What she always against us? The American non-intercourse act avowed was, her readiness to rescind her Orders in was framed upon the express principle of continCouncil as soon as France rescinded absolutely uing in force against the Power, whether France and unconditionally her decrees. She could not or Great Britain, that should refuse to repeal its enter into any other engagement without the gross-respective laws, of which America thought herest injustice to her allies as well as the neutral self entitled to complain; but the repeal contemnations in general; much less could she do so if plated by that act was a bona fide repeal, and not any special exception was to be granted by France a repeal upon an inadmissible condition; and upon conditions utterly subversive of the most America can never be justified in continuing to important and indisputable maritime rights of resent against us that failure of relief which is the British Empire. alone attributable to the insidious policy of the enemy, that has for the purpose of embarrassing the discussion interwoven the question of the decrees with the exaction of a relinquishment of almost the whole system of our maritime law. America has now a proceeding forced upon her by France, on which, without surrendering any of those principles which she may deem it necessary for her own honor and security to maintain, she may separate herself from the violence and injustice of the enemy. She owes it not only to herself to do so, but she is entitled to resent that course of conduct on the part of France which is the only impediment to her obtaining what she desires at the hands of Great Britain, namely, the repeal of the Orders in Council. It is not for the British Government to dictate to that of America what ought to be the measure of just indignation against the Ruler of France for having originated and persevered in a system of lawless violence, to the subversion of neutral rights, which, being necessarily retaliated by Great Britain, has exposed America, with other neutral States, to losses which the British Government has never ceased most sincerely to de I am authorized to renew to the American Government the assurance of His Royal Highness's anxious desire to meet the wishes of Ame-plore. America must judge for herself how rica upon this point, whenever the conduct of the enemy will justify him in so doing. much the original injustice of France towards her has been aggravated by the fraudulent professions of relinquishing her decrees by the steps adopted to mislead America, in order to embark her in measures which, we trust, she never would have taken, if she could have foreseen what has now happened; and, ultimately, by threatening America with her vengeance. as a denationalized State, if she does not submit to be the instru While America could persuade herself, however erroneously, that the Berlin and Milan decrees had been actually and totally repealed, and that the execution of the engagement made on that condition by the British Government had been declined, she might deem it justifiable, as a consequence of such a persuasion, to treat the interest and commerce of France with preferencement of her designs against Great Britain. and friendship, and those of Great Britain with These are considerations for America to weigh; hostility. But this delusion is at an end; America but what we are entitled to claim at her hands, now finds the French decrees not only in full as an act not less of policy than justice, is, that force, but pointed with augmented hostility against she should cease to treat Great Britain as an eneGreat Britain. Will the Government of the Uni- my. The Prince Regent does not desire retrosted States declare that the measure now taken pect when the interests of two countries so natuby France is that repeal of the obnoxious decrees rally connected by innumerable ties are conwhich America expected would lead to the re-cerned. It is more consonant to His Royal Highpeal of the British Orders in Council? Will the American Government, unless upon the principle of denying our retaliatory right of blockade under any imaginable circumstances, declare that there is at this moment a ground upon which the ness's sentiments to contribute to the restoration of harmony and friendly intercourse than to inquire why it has been interrupted. Feeling that nothing has been omitted on his part to relieve America from the inconveniences to which a Relations with Great Britain. vention d'être pris,) and into which a merchant ship could not enter without danger. Such are the obligations of belligerent nations towards neutral nations; such are the reciprocal rights of both; such are the maxims consecrated by the treaties which form the public law of nations. Often has England attempted to substitute for them arbitrary and tyrannical rules. Her unjust pretensions were repelled by all Governments sensible to the voice of honor and to the interests of their people. She saw herself constantly obliged to recognise in her treaties the principles which she wished to destroy, and, when the Peace of Amiens was violated, maritime legislation rested again on its ancient foundation. novel system of warfare on the part of France unfortunately continues to expose her, and that the present unfriendly relations which, to their mutual prejudice, subsist between the two countries, have grown out of a misconception, on the part of America, both of the conduct and purpose of France, His Royal Highness considers himself entitled to call upon America to resume her relations of amity with Great Britain. In doing so, she will best provide for the interests of her own people; and I am authorized to assure the American Government, that, although His Royal Highness, acting in the name and on the behalf of His Majesty, can never suffer the fundamental maxims of the British monarchy, in matters of maritime right, as consonant to the recognised law of nations, to be prejudiced in By the course of events, the English navy behis hands, His Royal Highness will be ready, at came more numerous than all the forces of the all times, to concert with America as to their ex- other maritime Powers. England then supposed ercise, and so to regulate their application, as to that she had nothing to fear; she might attempt combine, as far as may be, the interests of Amer-everything; she immediately resolved to subject ica, with the object of effectually retaliating upon France the measure of her own injustice. I will now terminate this letter by assuring you, sir, as I can with perfect truth, that the most cordial and sincere desire animates the councils of Great Britain to conciliate America as far as may be consistent with the principles upon which the preservation of the power and independence of the British monarchy is held essentially to depend, and which cannot be abandoned without throwing her helpless and disarmed into the presence of her adversary. I have the honor to be, &c. the navigation of every sea to the same laws which governed that of the Thames. It was in 1806 that she commenced the execution of this system, which tended to make the common law of nations yield to the Orders in Council and to the regulations of the Admiralty of London. The declaration of the 16th of May annihilated, by a single word, the rights of all maritime States, and put under interdiction vast coasts and whole empires. From this moment England no longer recognised neutrals on the seas. The orders of 1807 imposed on all vessels an obligation to enter English ports, whatever might be their destination, to pay a tribute to England, and to subject their cargoes to the tariff of her custom-houses. By the declaration of 1806 all navigation was interdicted to neutrals; by the orders of 1807 the faculty of navigating was restored to them; but they could only use it for the advantage of English commerce, by the combinations of her interest. and to her profit. SIRE: The maritime rights of neutrals have been solemnly regulated by the Treaty of Utrecht, The English Government took off thereby the which has become the common law of nations. mask with which it had concealed its projects, This law, expressly renewed in all the subse-proclaimed the universal dominion of the seas. quent treaties, has consecrated the principles I am about to expose. The flag covers the property; enemy's property under a neutral flag is neutral, as neutral property under an enemy's flag is enemy's property. The only articles which the flag does not cover are contraband articles; and the only articles which are contraband are arms and munitions of war. A visit of a neutral vessel by an armed vessel can only be made by a small number of men, the armed vessel keeping beyond the reach of cannon shot. Every neutral vessel. may trade from an enemy's port to an enemy's port, and from an enemy's port to a neutral port. The only ports excepted are those really blockaded; and the ports really blockaded are those which are invested, besieged, and in danger of being taken, (én pre regarded every people as their tributaries, and imposed upon the Continent the expeases of the war which it maintained against it. These unheard-of measures excited a general indignation among those Powers who cherished the sentiment of their independence and of their rights. But at London they carried to the highest degree of elevation the national pride; they displayed to the English people a futurity rich with the most brilliant hopes. Their commerce, their industry, were to be henceforward without competition; the productions of the two worlds were to flow into their ports, do homage to the maritime and commercial sovereignty of England, in paying to her a toll duty; and afterwards proceed to other nations burdened with enormous costs, from which English merchandise alone would have been exonerated. Your Majesty perceived, at a single glance, the Relations with Great Britain. evils with which the Continent was threatened. the tributes which it paid to her industry; her The remedy was immediately resorted to; you manufacturing cities have become deserted; disannihilated by your decrees this arrogant and un-tress has succeeded to a prosperity, until then injust enterprise, so destructive to the independence of all States, and of the rights of every people. The decree of Berlin replied to the declaration of 1806. The blockade of the British isles was opposed to the imaginary blockade established by England. The decree of Milan replied to the orders of 1807; it declared denationalized every neutral vessel which submitted to English legislation, known to have touched at an English port, known to have paid a tribute to England, and which thereby renounced the independence and the rights of its flag. All the merchandise of the commerce and of the industry of England were blockaded in the British isles; the Continental system excluded them from the Continent. Never did an act of reprisal attain its object in a manner more prompt, more certain, or more victorious. The decrees of Berlin and Milan turned against England the weapons which she had directed against universal commerce. The source of commercial prosperity, which England thought so abundant, became a source of calamity for English commerce; in the place of those exactions which were to have enriched her funds, a depreciation, continually increasing impairs the wealth of the State and that of individuals. When the decrees of your Majesty appeared, the whole Continent foresaw that such would be the result, if they received their entire execu tion; but as much as Europe was accustomed to see your undertakings crowned with success, they were at a loss to conceive by what new prodigies your Majesty would realize the great designs which have been so rapidly accomplished. But armed with all your power, nothing could turn your Majesty from your object. Holland, the Hanseatic cities, the coast which lies between the Zuyder Zee and the Baltic, were to be united to France, subject to the same administration and the same regulations-the immediate and inevitable consequence of the legislation of the English Government. Considerations of no kind were able to balance in the mind of your Majesty the first interests of your Empire. I will not stop to recapitulate the advantages of this important resolution. After fifteen months, that is to say, after the senatus consultum of re union, the decrees of your Majesty press with all their weight upon England. She flattered herself to invade the commerce of the world, and her own commerce became a mere stock-jobbing affair, (agiotage,) which could not be carried on but by means of twenty thousand licenses issued every year. Forced to obey the law of necessity, she thereby renounced her navigation act, the original foundation of her power. She aspired to the universal dominion of the seas, and navigation is interdicted to her vessels; repulsed from all the ports of the Continent, she wished to enrich her funds with the tributes that Europe was to pay; and Europe has withdrawn itself not only from her injurious pretensions, but likewise from creasing; the alarming disappearance of specie, the absolute privation of business, daily interrupt the public tranquillity. Such for England are the results of her imprudent attempts; she thence learns, and she will every day learn more fully, that there is no safety for her but in a return to justice and to the principles of the law of nations, and that she will not be able to participate in the benefits of the neutrality of ports, unless she will suffer neutrals to profit of the neutrality of their flag. But until then, and so long as the British Orders in Council are not revoked, and the principles of the Treaty of Utrecht in relation to neutrals put in force, the decrees of Berlin and Milan ought to subsist for the Powers who suffer their flag to be denationalized. The ports of the Continent ought to be opened neither to denationalized flags nor to English merchandise. It cannot be concealed, that to maintain, beyond the reach of attack, this great system, it is necessary that your Majesty should employ the powerful means which belong to your Empire, and find in your subjects that assistance which you never have asked in vain. All the disposable forces of France must be directed whithersoever the English flag and flags denationalized, or convoyed by English vessels of war, may wish to enter. A particular army, exclusively charged with guarding our vast coasts, our maritime arsesals, and the triple row of fortresses which cover our frontiers, ought to answer to your Majesty for the security of the territories confided to its valor and its fidelity; it will restore to their high destiny those brave men, accustomed to fight and to conquer under the eyes of your Majesty for the defence of political rights and the exterior security of the Empire. Even the depots of corps will no longer be diverted from the useful destination of keeping up the numbers and the strength of your active armies. The forces of your Majesty will be thus constantly maintained on the most formidable footing; and the French Territory, protected by a permanent establishment, which is recommended by the interest, the policy, and dignity of the Empire, will find itself in a situation which will make it more deserving of the title of inviolable and sacred. It is a long time since the actual Government of Great Britain proclaimed perpetual war; a frightful project, which the most unbridled ambition would not have dared to form, and which a presumptous boasting could only have avowed; a frightful project, which might, however, be realized, if France could hope for nothing but engagements, without guaranty, of an uncertain length, and even more disastrous than war. Peace, sire, which your Majesty, in the midst of your great power, has so often offered to your enemies, will crown your glorious labors, if England, excluded with perseverance from the Continent, and separated from all the States whose independence she has violated, consents, at length, to enter upon the principles which form the ba Relations with Great Britain. sis of European society, to acknowledge the laws of nations, and the rights consecrated by the Treaty of Utrecht. In the mean time, the French people must remain in arms. Honor commands it; the interests, the rights, the independence of the nations engaged in the same cause, and an oracle still more certain, which has often been pronounced by your Majesty, makes it an imperious and sacred law. Mr. Foster to the Secretary of State. WASHINGTON, June 1, 1812. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 30th ultimo, in reply to my note of April 15, relating to a seaman who had been encouraged to desert from His Majesty's schooner Gleaner, by certain of the inhabitants of the city of Annapolis, and containing an offer, which I shall always be very happy to repeat, of using my best exertions to procure the discharge of such seamen as have been impressed on board His Majesty's ships, and can be legally claimed by the Government of the United States. The circumstances which attended the instance mentioned in my former letter of April 5th, when several seamen of the same vessel (the Gleaner) were, under the very eyes of their officer, and in a manner exceedingly insulting to his feelings, assailed by the endeavors of the same people, to engage them to desert, and not adverted to in your letter; but, I suppose I am to conclude, from the tenor of it, that no remedy can be applied in such cases by the constituted authorities of the country, which is very much to be regretted, as it leaves the commanders of ships of war, who may have despatches to convey on shore in American ports, continually exposed to have their boats' crews seduced from them with impunity, and tends to show more than ever the disagreeable necessity under which they are of endeavoring to recover them from on board of the merchant ships in which such seamen afterwards engage themselves. I do not pretend, sir, to justify the captain of the British ship of war who refused to deliver the American deserter mentioned in your letter, not knowing the circumstances under which he acted. It will, no doubt, however, occur to you that, if you could state a single instance where crowds have collected round an American officer, on his landing in England, with a view to insult him and entice his men to abandon him, as is too often the practice in the United States, such an instance would be more directly in point. I have now, sir, the honor to lay before you, by order of His Royal Highness, the Prince Regent, the enclosed papers, (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,) relating to English seamen who have been detained against their will on board of certain ships of war of the United States, which have of late visited Great Britain, and to express His Royal Highness's sincere belief that these sources of complaint have originated without the concurrence or participation of a State with which he is so anxious to preserve an amicable intercourse, as Iwell as his conviction that the Government of America has only to be informed of the fact, to take prompt and satisfactory measures for the correction of the practice. The American Government will perceive, from this friendly communication, that is is not on this side of the water alone that the inconvenience necessarily resulted from the similarity of habits, language, and manners, between the inhabitants of the two countries, is productive of subjects of complaint and regret. These are, however, at the same time, natural and strong inducements for a conformity of interest, and most particularly for a readiness to give and receive mutual explanations upon all subjects of difference. I have it in charge to repeat to you, sir, for the information of your Government, that the Government of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent will continue to give the most positive orders against the detention of American citizens on board His Majesty's ships, and that no difficulties, beyond what are requisite for clearly ascertaining the national character of individuals whose cases are brought before the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, will be interposed to prevent or delay their immediate discharge. The Earl of Liverpool, while he held the office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ad interim, was commanded to make known the case of William Bowman, stated, by the affidavit of his wife, to be forcibly detained on board the United States' ship the Hornet. The departure of this vessel precluded Mr. Russell from making the necessary representation to the commanding officer of the Hornet. As, however, Mr. Russell will have probably stated the circumstances of the case to this Government, I am in hopes there will be no difficulty in obtaining his release. Of the papers enclosed, those marked No. 1 consist of a copy of a letter from Admiral Sir Roger Curtis, Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, to Mr. Croker, the Secretary to the Admiralty, enclosing a copy of the deposition, upon oath, of Charles Davis, an Irishman by birth, who was lately serving on board the United States' frigate Constitution, under the name of Thomas Holland; and of a letter from Captain Hall, of His Majesty's ship Royal William, to Admiral Sir Roger Curtis, giving an account of the same Charles Davis, and his escape from the Constitution frigate. No. 2 contains the copy of a letter from Captain Hall to Sir Roger Curtis, transmitting a statement of the names and descriptions of twentyeight British seamen on board the Constitution and the Wasp. No. 3 contains a copy of a letter from Sir Roger Curtis, to Mr. Croker, stating the real name and birthplace of William Smith, who ran away from the United States' frigate Constitution, and who proves to be a native of England, and whose name is John Taylor. No. 4 contains the copy of another letter from |