States at Paris, informing him that the decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked, the revocation to take effect on the 1ft November following: that the measure had been taken by his govern⚫ment in confidence that the British government would revoke its orders and renounce its new principle of blockade, or that the United States would caufe their rights to be refpected, conformably to the act of May 1, 1810.

This measure of the French government was founded on the law of May 1, 1810, as is exprefsly declared in the letter of the. duke of Cadore, announcing it. The edicts of Great Britain, the revocation of which was expected by France, were thofe alluded to in that act; and the means by which the United States fhould cause her rights to be refpected, in cafe Great Britain fhould not revoke her edicts, were likewife to be found in the fame act.They confifted merely in the enforcement of the non-importation act against Great Britain, in that unexpected and improbable contingency.

The letter of the 5th Auguft, which announced the revocation of the French decrees, was communicated to this government; in confequence of which, the prefident iffued a proclamation on the 2d November, the day after that on which the repeal of the French decrees was to take effect, in which he declared, that all the reftrictions impofed by the act of May 1, 1810, fhould ceafe and be difcontinued in relation to France and her dependencies. It was a neceflary confequence of this proclamation alfo, that if Great Britain did not revoke her edicts, the non-importation would operate against her at the end of three months. This actually took place. She declined the revocation, and on the 2d February laft, that law took effect. In confirmation of the proclamation an act of Congrefs was paffed on the 2d of March following.

Great Britain ftill declines to revoke her edicts on the pretenfion that France has not revoked hers. Under that impreffion fhe infers that the United States have done her injuftice by carrying into effect the non-importation againft her.

The United States maintain that France has revoked, her cdicts fo far as they violated their neutral rights, and were contemplated by the law of May 1ft, 1810, and on that ground particularly claimed and do expect of Great Britain a fimilar revocation.

The revocation announced officially by the French minister of foreign affairs to the minifter plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris, on the 5th Auguft, 1810, was in itfelf fufficient to juftify the claim of the United States to a correfpondent meature from Great Britain. She declared that the would proceed pari passu in the repeal with France, and the day being fixed when the repeal of the French decrees fhould take effect, it was reasonable to conclude that Great Britain would fix the fame day for the repeal of her orders. Had this been done, the proclamation of the preíident would have announced the revocation of the edicts of both powers at the fame time; and in confequence thereof, the non

importation would have gone into operation again ft neither. Such too is the natural courfe of proceeding in tranfactions between independent states; and fuch the conduct which they generally obferve towards each other. In all compacts between nations, it is the duty of each to perform what it ftipulates, and to profume on the good faith of the other for a like performance. The United States having made a propofal to both belligerents, were bound to accept a compliance from either, and it was no objection to the French compliance, that it was in a form to take effect at a future day, that being a form not unufual in laws and other public acts. Even when nations are at war and make peace, this obligation of mutual confidence exifts, and must be refpected. In treaties of commerce, by which their future intercourfe is to be governed, the obligation is the fame. If diftruft and jealoufy are allowed to prevail, the moral tie which binds nations together in all their relations, in war as well as in pace, is broken.

What would Great Britain have hazarded by a promp: compliance in the manner fuggefted? She had declared that the had adopted the reftraints impofed by her orders in council with reluclance, because of their diftreffing effect on neutral powers. Here then was a favourable opportunity prefented to her, to withdraw from that meafure with honor, be the conduct of France, afterwards, what it might. Had Great Britain revoked her orders, and France failed to fulfil her engagement, fhe would have gained credit at the expenfe of France, and could have fuftained no injury by it, because the failure of France to maintain her faith would have re-placed Great Britain at the point from which the had departed. To lay that a difappointed reliance on the good faith of her enemy, would have reproached her for fight, would be to feta higher value on that quality than on confiftency and good faith, and would facrifice to a mere fufpicion towards an enemy, the plain obligations of juftice towards a friendly power.

Great Britain has declined proceeding pari passu with France in the revocation of their refpective edicts. She has held aloof and claims of the United States proof not only that France has revoked her decrees, but that the continues to act in conformity with the revocation.

To fhew that the repeal is refpected, it is deemed fufficient to ftate that not one veffel has been condemned by French tribunals, on the principle of thofe decrees, fince the 1ft November laft.The New Orleans packet from Gibraltar to Bordeaux, was de tained, but never condemned. The Grace Ann Green, from the fame British port to Marfeilles, was likewife detained, but afterwards delivered up unconditionally to the owner, as was fuch part of the cargo of the New Orleans Packet, as confifted of the produce of the United States. Both thefe veffels proceeding from a British port, carried cargoes, fome articles of which in each, were prohibited by the laws of France, or admiffible by the fanction of government alone. It does not appear that their deten

tion was imputable to any other caufe. If imputable to the cir. cumftance of paffing from a British to a French port, or on ac. count of any part of their cargoes, it affords no caufe of complaint to Great Britain, as a violation of our neutral rights. No fuch caufe would be afforded, even in a cafe of condemnation. Th right of complaint would have belonged to the United States.

In denying the revocation of the decrees, fo far as it is a proper fubject of difcuffion between us, it might reafonably be expected that you would produce fome examples of veffels taken at fea, in voyages to British ports or on their return home, and condemned under them by a French tribunal. None fuch has been afforded by you. None fuch are known to this government.

You urge only as an evidence that the decrees are not repealed, the fpeech of the emperor of France to the deputies from the free cities of Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck; the imperial edict dated at Fontainbleau, on the 19th of October, 1810; the report of the French minifter of foreign affairs dated in December laft, and a letter of the minifter of juftice to the prefident of the council of prizes of the 25th of that month.

There is nothing in the first of these papers incompatible with the revocation of the decrees, in refpect to the United States. It is diftin&tly declared by the emperor in his fpeech to the deputies of the Hanfe towns, that the blockade of the British islands fhall ceafe when the British blockades ceafe; and that the French blockade fhall ceafe in favor of thofe nations in whofe favor Great Britain revokes hers, or who fupport their rights against her pretenfion, as France admits the United States will do by enforcing the non-importation act. The fame fentiment is expreffed in the report of the minifter of foreign affairs. The decree of Fonsainbleau having no effect on the high feas, cannot be brought into this difcuffion. It evidently has no connection with neutral rights.

The letter from the minifter of justice to the prefident of the council of prizes, is of a different character. It relates in direct terms to this fubject, but not in the fenfe in which you understand at. After reciting the note from the duke of Cadore of the 5th Auguft laft, to the American minifter at Paris, which announced the repeal of the French decrees, and the proclamation of the prefident in confequence of it, it ftates that all caufes arifing under thofe decrees after the 1ft November, which, were then before the court, or might afterwards be brought before it, fhould not be judged by the principles of the decrees, but be fufpended until the 24 February, when the United States having fulfilled their engagement, the captures fhould be declared void, and the veffels and cargoes delivered up to their owners. This paper appears to afford an unequivocal evidence of the revocation of the decrees, fo far as relates to the United States. By inftructing the French tribunal to make no decifion until the 24 February, and then to restore the property to the owners on a particular event,

which has happened; all cause of doubt on that point seems to be removed. The United States may justly complain of delay in the restitution of that property, but that is an injury which affects them only. Great Britain has no right to complain of it. She was interested only in the revocation of the decrees by which neutral rights would be secured from future violation; or if she had been interested in the delay, it would have afforded no pretext for more than a delay in repealing her orders till the 2d February. From that day, at farthest, the French decrees would cease. At the same day ought her orders to have ceased. I might add to this statement that every communication received from the French government, either thro' our representative there, or its representative here, are, in accord with the actual repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees, in relation to the neutral commerce of the United States. But it will suffice to remark that the best and only adequate evidence of their ceasing to operate, is the defect of evidence that they do operate. It is a case where the want of proof against the fulfilment of a pledge is proof of the fulfilment. Every case occurring, to which, if the decrees were in force, they would be applied, and to which they are not applied, is a proof that they are not in force. And if these proofs have not been more multiplied, I need not remind you, that a cause is to be found in the numerous captures under your orders in council, which continue to evince the rigor with which they are enforced, after a failure of the basis on which they were supposed to rest.

But Great Britain contends, as appears by your last letter, that she ought not to revoke her orders in council, until the commerce of the continent is restored to the state on which it stood before the Berlin and Milan decrees issued; until the French decrees are repealed, not only as to the United States, but so as to permit Great Britain to trade with the continent. Is it then meant that Great Britain should be allowed to trade with all the powers with whom she traded at that epoch? Since that time, France has extended her conquests to the north, and raised enemies against Great Britain, where she then had friends. Is it proposed to trade with them notwithstanding the change in their situation? Between the enemies of one date and those of another, no discrimination can be made. There is none in reason, nor can there be any of right, in practice. Or do you maintain the general principle, and contend that Great Britain ought to trade with France and her allies? Between enemies there can be no commerce. The vessels of either, taken by the other, are liable to confiscation, and are always confiscated. The number of enemies or extent of country which they occupy, cannot affect the question. The laws of war govern the relation which subsists between them, which, especially in the circumstance under consideration, are invariable. They were the same in times the most remote, that they Dow are. Even if peace had taken place between Great Britain and the powers of the continent, she could not trade with them without their consent. Or does Great Britain contend, that the United

States, as a neutral power, ought to open the continent to her commerce, on such terms as she may designate? On what principle can she set up such a claim? No example of it can be found in the history of past wars, nor is it founded in any recognized principle of war, or in any semblance of reason or right. The United State could not maintain such a claim in their own favor, though neutral. When advanced in favor of an enemy, it would be the most preposterous and extravagant claim ever heard of. Every power, where not restrained by treaty, has a right to regulate its trade with other nations, in such manner as it finds most consistent with its interest; to admit, and on its own conditions, or to prohibit the importation of such articles as are necessary to supply the wants or encourage the industry of its people. In what light would Great Britain view an 'application from the United States, for the repeal, of right, of any act of her parliament, which prohibited the importation of any article from the United States, such as their fish or their oil; or which claimed the diminution of the duty on any other, such as their tobacco, on which so great a revenue is raised? In what light wou'd she view a similar application, made at the instance of France, for the importation into England, of any article the growth or manufac ture of that power, which it was the policy of the British government to prohibit?

If delays have taken place in the restitution of American property, and in placing the American commerce in the ports of France on a fair and satisfactory basis, they involve questions, as has already been observed, in which the United States alone are interested. As they do not violate the revocation,, by France, of her edicts, they cannot impair the obligation of Great Britain to revoke hers, nor change the epoch at which the revocation ought to have taken place. Had that duly followed, it is more than probable that those circumstances, irrelative as they are, which have excited doubt in the British government, of the practical revocation of the French decrees, might not have occurred.

Every view which can be taken of this subject, increases the painful surprize at the innovations on all the principles and usages heretofore observed, which are so unreservedly contended for in your letters of the 3d and 16th instant, and which, if persisted in by your government, present such an obstacle to the wishes of the United States, for a removal of the difficulties which have been connected with the orders in council. It is the interest of belligerents to miti gate the calamities of war; and neutral powers possess ample means to promote that object, provided they sustain with impartiality and firmness the dignity of their station. If belligerents expect advantage from neutrals, they should leave them in the full enjoyment of their rights. The present war has been oppressive beyond example, by its duration, and by the desolation which it has spread throughout Europe. It is highly important that it should assume, at least, a milder character. By the revocation of the French edicts, so far as they respected the neutral commerce of the United States, some advance