It professed to bear date the 28th of ritime war, determined upon revoking April 1811, long subsequent to the dis- conditionally the Orders in Council. Acpalch of the French minister of foreign cordingly in the month of June last, his affairs of the 5th of August 1810, or even royal highness the Prince Regent was the day named therein, viz. the 1st No- pleased to declare in council, in the name vember following, when the operation of and on the behalf of his Majesty, that the the French Decrees was to cease. This Orders in Council should be revoked, as instrument expressly declared that these far as respected the ships and property of French Decrees were repealed in conse- the United States, from the 1st of August quence of the American legislature hav. following. This revocation was to coning, by their Act of the 1st of March tinue in force provided the government of 1811, provided, that British ships and the United States should, within a time to merchandize should be excluded fronı the be limited, repeal their restrictive laws ports and barbours of the United States. against British commerce. His Majesty's

By this instrument, the only document minister in America was expressly ordered produced by America as a repeal of the to declare to the government of the United French Decrees, it appears beyond a pos. Stales, that “this measure had been sibility of doubt or cavil, that the alleged adopted by the Prince Regent in the repeal of the French Decrees was condi- earnest wish and hope, either that the gotional, as Great Britain had asserted; and vernment of France, by further relaxation not absolute or final, as had been main- of its system, might render perseverance tained by America; that they were not on the part of Great Britain in retaliatory repealed at the time they were stated to be measures unnecessary, or if this hope repealed by the American government; should prove delusive, that his Majesty's that they were not repealed in conformity government might be enabled, in the abwith a proposition, simultaneously made sence of all irritating and restrictive reguto both belligerents, but in consequence of lations on either side, lo enter with the goa previous act on the part of the Ameri-vernment of the United States into amicacan government, in favour of one bellige- ble explanations, for the purpose of ascerrent, to the prejudice of the other : that taining whether, if the necessity of retathe American government having adopted liatory measures should unfortunately measures restrictive upon the commerce continue to operate, the particular measures of both belligerents, in consequence of to be acted upon by Great Britain, could edicts issued by both, rescinded these be rendered more acceptable to the Amemeasures, as they affected that power, rican government, than those hitherto pur. which was the aggressor, whilst they put sued.” them in full operation against the party

In order to provide for the contingency aggrieved ; although the edicts of both of a declaration of war on the part of the powers continued in force; and lastly, United States, previous to the arrival in , that they excluded the ships of war, be. America of the said Order of Revocation, longing to one belligerent, whilst they ad instructions were sent to his Majesty's mimitted into their ports and harbours the nister plenipotentiary accredited to the ships of war belonging to the other, in United States (the execution of which inviolation of one of the plainest, and most structions, in consequence of the discontiessential duties of a neutral nation. nuance of Mr. Foster's functions, were at

Although the instrument thus produced a subsequent period entrusted to admiral was by no means that general and un sir John Borlase Warren), directing him qualified revocation of the Berlin and to propose a cessation of bostilities, should Milan Decrees, which Great Britain had they have commenced; and further to continually, demanded, and had a full offer a simultaneous repeal of the Orders right to claim; and although this instru- in Council on the one side, and of the re-ment, under all the circumstances of its strictive laws on British ships and comappearance at that moment, for the first merce on the other. time, was open to the strongest suspicions They were also respectively empowered of its authenticity; yet as the minister of io acquaiot the American government, in the United States produced it, as.purport reply to any inquiries with respect to the ing to be a copy of the instrument of re- blockade of May 1806, whilst ihe British vocation, the government of Great Britain, government must continue to maintain its desirous of reverting, if possible, to the legality, " that in point of fact this par. ancient and accustomed principles of ma- ticular blockade had been discontinued (VOL. XXIV.)


for a length of time, having been merged namely, that she should abandon the in the general retaliatory blockade of the exercise of her undoubted right of search, enemy's ports under the Orders in Coun. to take from American merchant vessels cil, and that his Majesty's government British seamen, the natural-born subjects had no intention of recurring to this, or to of his Majesty; and this concession was any other of the blockades of the enemy's required upon a mere assurance that laws ports, founded upon the ordinary and ac. would be enacted by the legislature of the customed principles of maritime law, United States, to prevent such seamen which were in force previous to the Or from entering into their service; but inders in Council, without a new notice to dependent of the objection to an exclusive neutral powers in the usual form." reliance on a foreign state, for the conser.

The American government, before they vation of so vital an interest, no explanareceived intimation of the course adopted tion was, or could be afforded by the agent by the British government, had' in fact who was charged with this orerture, either proceeded to the extreme measure of de- as to the main principles, upon which such claring war, and issuing « Letters of laws were to be founded, or as to the proMarque," notwithstanding they were previsions which it was proposed they should viously in possession of the Report of the contain. French minister for foreign affairs, of the This proposition having been objected 12th of March, 1812, promulgating anew to, a second proposal was made, again ofthe Berlin and Milan Decrees, as funda-fering an armistice, provided the British mental laws of the French empire, under government would secretly stipulate to rethe false and extravagant pretext, that the nounce the exercise of this right in a monstrous principles therein contained treaty of peace. An immediate and forwere to be found in the treaty of Utrecht, mal abandonment of its exercise, as preand were therefore binding upon all states. liminary to a cessation of hostilities, was From the penalties of this code no nation not demanded; but his royal highness the was to be exempt, which did not accept Prince Regent was required, in the name it, not only as the rule of its own conduct, and on the behalf of his Majesty, secretly but as a law, the observance of which, it 10 abandon, what the former overtore had was also required to enforce upon Great proposed to him publicly to concede. Britain.

This most onffesive proposition was also In a Manifesto, accompanying their rejected, being accompanied, as the former declaration of hostilities, in addition to had been, by other demands of the most the former complaints against the Orders exceptionable nature, and especially of in Council, a long list of grievances was indemnity for all American vessels debrought forward; some trivial in them- tained and condemned under the Orders selves, others which had been mutually in Council, or under what were termed iladjusted, but none of them such, as were legal blockades a compliance with which ever before alleged by the American go demands, exclusive of all other objections, vernment to be grounds for war.

would have amounted to an absolute surAs if to throw additional obstacles in render of the rights, on which those Orders the way of peace, the American Congress and blockades were founded. at the same time passed a law, prohibiting Had the American government been all intercourse with Great Britain, of such sincere in representing the Orders in a tenor, as deprived the executive govern- Council, as the only subject of difference ment, according to the President's own between Great Britain and the United construction of that Act, of all power of States, calculated to lead to hostilities; it restoring the relations of friendly inter- might have been expected, so soon as the course between the two states, so far at revocation of those Orders had been offileast as concerned their commercial inter- cially made known to them, that they course, until Congress should re-assemble. would have spontaneousty recalled their

The President of the United States has, " Letters of Marque," and manifested a it is true, since proposed to Great Britain disposition immediately to restore the rean armistice; not, however, on the ad-lations of peace and amity between the mission, that the cause of war hitherto re- two powers. lied on was removed ; but on condition, But the conduct of the government of that Great Britain, as a preliminary step, the United States by no means corresshould do away a cause of war, now ponded with such reasonable expectations. brought forward as such for the first time; The Order in Council of the 23d of June. being officially communicated in America, board British merchant ships :--but it canthe government of the United States saw not, by acceding to such a basis in the nothing in the repeal of the Orders in first instance, either assume, or admit that Council, which should of itself restore to be practicable, which, when attempted peace, unless Great Britain were prepared, on former occasions, has always been in the first instance, substantially lo relin- found to be attended with great difficul. quish the right of impressing her own ties; such difficulties, as the British Cornseamen, when found on board American missioners in 1806 expressly declared, merchant ships.

after an attentive consideration of the sogThe proposal of an armistice, and of a gestions brought forward by the Commissimultaneous repeal of the restrictive mea. sioners on the part of America, they were sures on both sides, subsequently made by unable to surmount, the commanding officer of his Majesty's Whilst this proposition, transmitted naval forces on the American coast, were through the British admiral, was pending received in the same hostile spirit by the in America, another communication on government of the United States. The the subject of an armistice was unofficially suspension of the practice of impressment, made to the British government in this was insisted upon, in the correspondence country: The agent, from whom this which passed on that occasion, as a neces proposition was received, acknowledged sary preliminary to a cessation of hostili. that he did not consider, that he had any ties: negociation, it was stated, might authority himself, to sign an agreement take place without any suspension of the on the part of his government. It was exercise of this right, and also without any obvious that any stipulations entered into, armistice being concluded; but Great in consequence of this overture, would Britain was required previously to agree, have been binding on the British governwithout any knowledge of the adequacy ment, whilst the governinent of the United of the system which could be substituted, Stales would have been free to refuse or to negociate upon the basis of accepting accept them, according to the circumthe legislative regulations of a foreign stances of the moment: this proposition state, as the sole equivalent for the exer- was therefore necessarily declined. cise of a right which she bas felt to be After this exposition of the circumessential to the support of her maritime stances which preceded, and which have power.

followed the declaration of war by the If America, by demanding this prelimi- United States, his royal bighness the nary concession, intends to deny the va- Prince Regent, acting in the name and on lidity of that right, in that denial Great the behalf of his Majesty, feels himself Britain cannot acquiesce; nor will she called upon to declare the leading pringive countenance to such a pretension, by ciples, by which the conduct of Great acceding to its suspension, much less to its Britain has been regulated in the transabandonment, as a basis on which to treat. actions connected with these discussions. If the American goveroment has devised, His Royal Highness can never acknowor conceives it can devise, regulations, ledge any blockade whatsoever to be illewhich may safely be accepted by Great gal, which has been duly notified, and is Britain, as a substitute for the exercise of supported by an adequate force, merely the right in question, it is for them 10 upon the ground of its extent, or because bring forward such a plan for considera- the ports or coasts blockaded, are not at Lion. The British government has never the same time invested by land. attempted to exclude this question from His Royal Highness can never admit, amongst those, on which the two states that neutral trade with Great Britain can might have to negociate : it has, on the be constituted a public crime, tbe com. contrary, uniformly professed its readiness mission of which can expose the ships of to receive and discuss any proposition on any power whatever to be denationalized. this subject, coming from the American His Royal Higbness can never admit government: it bas never asserted any that Great Britain can be debarred of its oxclusive right, as to the impressment of right of just and necessary retaliation, British seamen from American vessels, through the fear of eventually affecting which it was not prepared to acknow- the interest of a neutral. ledge, as appertaining equally to the go- His Royal Highness can never admit, vernment of the United States, with re- that in the exercise of the undoubted and: spect to American seamen when found on hitherto undisputed right of searching neutral merchant vessels in time of war, British officer, was acknowledged, his the impressment of British seamen, when conduct was disapproved, and a reparation found therein, can be deemed any violation was regularly tendered by Mr. Foster on of a neutral flag. Neither can he admit, the part of his Majesty, and accepted by that the taking such seamen from on board the government of the United States. such vessels, can be considered by any It is not less unwarranted in its allusion neutral state as a hostile measure, or a to the mission of Mr. Henry; a mission justifiable cause of war.

undertaken without the authority, or even There is no right more clearly estab- knowledge of bis Majesty's government, lished, than the right which a sovereign and which Mr. Foster was authorised has to the allegiance of his subjects, more formally and officially to disavow. especially in time of war. Their alle. The charge of exciting the Indians to giance is no optional duty, which they offensive measures against the United can decline, and resume at pleasure. it States, is equally void of foundation. Beis a call which they are bound to obey : fore the war began, a policy the most op: it began with their birth, and can only posite had been uniformly pursued, and terminate with their existence.

proof of this was tendered by Mr. Foster If a similarity of language and manners to the American government. may make the exercise of this right more Such are the causes of war which have liable to partial mistakes, and occasional been put forward by the government of abuse, when practised towards vessels of the United States. But the real origin of the United States, the same circumstances the present contest will be found in that make it also a right, with the exercise of spirit, which has long unhappily actuated which, in regard to such vessels, it is more the councils of the United Siates: their difficult to dispense.

marked partiality in palliating and assistBut, if to the practice of the United ing the aggressive iyranny of France; States, to harbour British seamen, be their systematic endeavours to inflame added their assumed right, to transfer their people against the defensive meathe allegiance of British subjects, and sures of Great Britain; their ungenerous thus to cancel the jurisdiction of their le conduct towards Spain, the intimate ally gitimate sovereign, by acts of naturaliza- of Great Britain ; and their unworthy de. tion and certificates of citizenship, which sertion of the cause of other neutral nathey pretend to be as valid out of their lions. It is through the prevalence of own territory, as within it, it is obvious such councils, that America has been asthat to abandon this ancient right of Great sociated in policy with France, and comBritain, and to admit these novel preten- mitted in war against Great Britain. sions of the United States, would be to ex. And under what conduct on the part of pose to danger the very foundation of our France has the government of the United maritime strength.

States thus lent itself to the enemy? The Without entering minutely into the contemptuous violation of the commercial other topics, which have been brought treaty of the year 1800, between France · forward by the government of the United and the United States; the treacherous

Siates, it may be proper to remark, that seizure of all American vessels and care whatever the declaration of the United goes in every harbour subject to the con. States may have asserted, Great Britain troul of the French arms; the tyrannical never did demand, that they should force principles of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, British manufactures into France; and and the confiscations under them; the she formally declared her willingness en subsequent condemnation's under the Ramtirely to forego; or modify, in concert bouillet Decree, antedated or concealed to with the United States, the system, by

nder more effectual: the French which a commercial intercourse with the commercial regulations which render the enemy had been allowed under the pro- traffic of the United States with France tection of licences : provided the United almost illusory; the burning of their States would act towards her, and towards merchant ships at sea, long after the alFrance, with real impartiality.

leged repeal of the French Decrees-all The government of America, if the these acts of violence on the part of difference between states are not inter France produce from the government of minable, has as little right to notice the the United States, only such complaints affair of the Chesapeake. The aggres

as end in acquiescence and submission, or aion, in this instance, on the part of a are accompanied by suggestions for


enabling France to give the semblance of question, but it would be desirable to a legal form to her usurpations, by con- know from his noble friend at the head of verting them into municipal regulations. the Board of Controul, in what shape it

This disposition of the government of was intended to bring it forward. the United States—this complete subser- The Earl of Buckinghamshire stated, that viency to the ruler of France—this hostile it was impossible for him at the present temper towards Great Britain-are evi. moment to give a definitive answer to his dent in almost every page of the official noble friend's question, as he happened to correspondence of the American with the know from unquestionable authority, that French government.

the East India Company had not yet deAgainst this course of conduct, the real termined wbether or not they would pecause of the present war, the Prince Re-tition parliament for a renewal of their gent solemnly protests. Whilst contendo charter. Until, therefore, they had come ing against France, in defence not only of to some decision on that point, it was imthe liberties of Great Britain, but of the possible for government to determine in world, bis Royal Highness was entitled to what shape the question should be brought look for a far different result. From their before parliament. It was, however, of common origin–from their common inte great importance that the subject should rest—from their professed principles of be commenced early in the session. freedom and independence, the United States were the last power in which Great

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Britain could have expected to find a willing instrument, and abettor of French

Friday, February 5. tyranny.

PETITIONS AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF THE Disappointed in this his just expectation, Roman CATHOLICS-PROM The DEAN AND the Prince Regent will still pursue ine CHAPTER Of Exeter—THE FREEHOLDERS policy, wbich the British government has

OXFORD - FROM SUDBURY GREAT so long, and invariably maintained, in TORRINGTON-WENLOCK-AND Bath.) A repelling injustice, and in supporting the Petition of the dean and chapter of the general rights of nations; and, under the cathedral church of Exeter, and of the favour of Providence, relying on the jus- archdeacons and clergy of the diocese of tice of his cause, and the tried loyalty and Exeter, was presented and read; setting firmness of the British nation, his Royal forth, Highness confidently looks forward to a “That whilst the petitioners place the successful issue to the contest, in which firmest reliance on the wisdom of parlia. he has thus been compelled most re- ment, the lawful guardian of the constituluctantly to engage.

tion of their country, they feel it their duty, Westminster, Jan. 9, 1813.

as ministers of the Protestant Established Church, humbly to offer their sentiments

the recent claims of the Roman Catho. HOUSE OF LORDS.

lics to a full admission to the highest offices of Friday, February 5.

trust in the state, and to the power of legisPetitions against the Catholic Claims lation for these Protestant kingdoms; and were presented by marquis Camden from that the petitioners are the zealous friends the corporation of Bath; the duke of Rut of every toleration in religion, which is land from the corporation of Wenlock; not inconsistent with the maintenance of the earl of Harewood from Huddersfield one national Church, in full vigour and seand the earl of Liverpool from Beverley. curity; that in the provisions adopted by

parliament, at the period of the accession East India COMPANY's Charter) Two of king William in 1688, the maintenance Petitions against the East India monopoly of the Protestant Church is secured by were presented by lord Grenville froin the law, as an essential part of the constitution ; corporation of Bristol and the merchants and it appears to the petitioners to be ate and other inhabitants of that city.

tended with the grealest danger to remove Marquis Wellesley wished to know those safeguards which our ancestors thus about what time it was likely the East In- wisely provided, and which the experience dia question would be brought under dis- of more than a century has confirmed ; cussion. He did not rise for the purpose and that the petitioners have seen with saof extracting from ministers any infor- tisfaction the concessions granted by the mation on the topics connected with that legislature to the Roman Catholics during


« ForrigeFortsett »