conflicts to which the injustice of both subjected them, will be to posterity one of the most astonishing events of these astonishing times. A higher eulogy could hardly be pronounced upon them than what is here brought against them. If Great Britain found the only possible measure of equal resistance by the exclusion of both France and England to bear hard upon her superior commerce, she should have been the first to have withdrawn her hostile edicts, and retreat from the crusade in which she had joined her forces to those of her enemy, to invade the rights of her Friend.

Par. 15.-" The same partiality towards France was observable in their negociations, as in their measures of alleged resistance."

Vide note on paragraph 12, and we will not dispute what is here asserted.

Par. 16.-" Application was made to both Belligerents for a revocation of their respective edicts; but the terms in which they were made, were widely different."

Here is an assertion, not only without proof, but directly in the face of proof most palpable. Nothing more is requisite to satisfy any impartial inquirer of this, from the most careless to the most inquisitive, than a simple inspection of the terms proposed equally to each.-They are in fact a circular letter requiring of each Belligerent the simple removal of those existing edicts, which violated the Neutral rights of the United States, or such modification of them that they should no longer violate those rights; and promising to each the precise consequences of such revocation that were promised to the other.

Par. 17.—“ Of France was required a revocation only of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, although many other edicts, grossly violating the neutral commerce of the United States, had been promulgated by that power. No security was demanded, that the Berlin and Milan Decrees, even if revoked, should not under some other form be re-established; and a direct engagement was offered, that upon such revocation, the American Government would take part in the war against Great Britain, if Great Britain did not immediately rescind her Orders; whereas no corresponding engagement was offered to Great Britain, of whom it was required, not only that the Orders in Council should be repealed, but that no others of a similar nature should be issued, and that the blockade of May, 1806, should be also abandoned. This blockade, established and enforced according to accustomed practice, had not been objected to by the United States at the time it was issued. Its provisions were, on the contrary, represented by the American Minister resident in London at the time, to have been so framed, as to afford, in his judgment, a proof of the friendly disposition of the British Cabinet towards the United States."

What has England to do with what violates the Neutral Com❤ merce of the United States, unless it be their own proper commerce with England? If any such violation exist, America is fully competent to adjust the matter herself. She never found fault with the immense tax that England has always gathered upon her chief staple, Tobacco, nor with her shutting out the manufactures of her Enemies or even of her Friends, from her ports. And it is not more impossible, than unreasonable, that America should force the French ⚫ to wear English coats and waistcoats. But we cannot help remarking here, that in the resolution to maintain the most rigid impartiality in respect to the restoration of intercourse with the Belligerent who should first revoke what each called his retaliatory edicts upon the other, and in confining the proffer to this object, we did not even stipulate the restoration of our impressed seamen, whose fate no mortal man can behold without shuddering with horror; yet if France should upbraid us with this forbearance, we would answer her as on a former occasion, "That the United States have a right to clect their own policy with regard to England, as they have with regard to France; and that it is only while they continue to exercise this right, without suffering any degree of restraint from either power, that they can maintain the independent relation in which they stand to both." It may be added indeed, that we could not anticipate the new injuries of France, but we knew those that England had already inflicted; yet we did not mix them with this new question of mutual recrimination and pretended retaliation of cach Bellige rent on the other, and if "no security was asked, that the Berlin and Milan decrees, even if revoked, should not be re-established under some other form," neither was any such security demanded of England in the revocation of her obnoxious Orders in Council. It is utterly impossible to discover any symptom of difference between the proposals made to the different Belligerents.

"And a direct engagement was offered that upon such revocation the American Government would take part in the war against Great Britain, if Great Britain did not rescind her Orders, whereas, no corresponding engagement was offered to Great Britain."-Now in the first place, we deny, and challenge the British Ministry to show, that any direct engagement was offered to either Belligerent to take part in the war against the other. We might show indeed that no such engagement could be offered without a previous act of Congress; for the constitution does not leave it in the power of the executive Government of the United States. In the next place we aver that every proposition leading to such a consequence, was

made equally to either, with the single exception in favor of Great Britain, "That on her rescinding her Orders in favor of the United States, their Trade should be opened with her, and remain shut to her enemy in case of his failure to rescind his Decrees also ;" whereas, to France, the offer was made subject to the contingency of the previous consent of England.

How far the propositions menacing war can be said to have favored France to the prejudice of Great Britain will be seen by the following extracts from Mr. Madison's instructions, viz.

To Mr. Pinkney, 30th April, 1808.

The relation in which the revocation of its unjust decrees by either, (Belligerent) will place the United States to the other, is obvious, and ought to be a motive to the measure proportioned to the desire which has been manifested by each, to produce collision between the United States and its adversary, and which must be equally felt by each, to avoid one with itself.

Should France revoke, "it will be impossible to view the perseverance of Great Britain in her retaliating Orders, in any other light than that of war, without even the pretext now assumed by her."

To General Ármstrong, 2d May, 1808.

The relation in which a recal of its retaliating decrees, by either power, will place the United States to the other, is obvious, and ought to be a motive to the measure, proportioned to the desire which has been manifested by each, to produce collisions between the United States and its adversary, and which must be equally felt by each, to avoid one with itself.

Should Great Britain revoke, France could not persist in the illegal part of her decrees, if she does not mean to force a contest with the United States.

To Gen. Armstrong, 22d July, 1808.

"If France does not wish to throw the United States into the WAR against her, for which it is impossible to find a rational or plausible inducement, she ought not to hesitate a moment in revoking, at least, so much of her decrees as violate the rights of the sea, and furnish to her adversary the pretext for his retaliating measures."

Your Ministers must have short memories, if they have forgotten the documents from which these extracts are made, which were printed by order of the British Parliament; and little feeling, if they forget the use made of them by a statesman of the first celebrity in the opposition, when the idea now reiterated, was attempted to be im posed upon the public.-Strictly speaking, indeed, the menace to take part in the war against her enemy, was made to Great Britain only. Such is the fair construction of the words, the War against

2 K

France; whereas, in the contrary event, no conjunction with France is intimated, neither has any such taken place; but on the contrary, to the last document that was before the British Government, when this declaration was issued, to wit, the President's Message of the fourth of November, such conjunction was still deprecated.God forbid that we should take sides with either of you; but if the events of war should require a combination; you have only to do us justice, and there can be no doubt on which side we should prefer it.

In this important Paragraph, too, we find the uncandid advantage that has been so often taken of the liberal construction, that the pleasing anticipation of an adjustment of all the differences between the two nations, had induced Mr. Monroe to affix to the notification Blockade of May 1806.-When it is asserted that "he represented it to have been so framed as to afford in his judgment a proof of the friendly disposition of the British Cabinet towards the United States;" it should have been added, for it appeared in the same letter, that he made up that judgment hastily: "I have been too short a time in possession of this paper to trace it in all its conse quences." And the public should also have been informed of the still higher evidence, that he had misconceived its purport, in the non-admission of his inference by Mr. Fox, printed in the same correspondence. "He did not seem willing to give his sanction to the inference I had drawn:" but it is less the Blockade that Mr. Fox promulgated, and less still the acts of the Government under it, during the discussion of a treaty which was daily expected to put an end to all the disputes between the two countries, than the distorted construction given to it by his successors in office, and the pretensions that they have derived from it, that have disgusted and dissatisfied us-a construction which was denied by every member of the administration that issued the decree; and accordingly we find Mr. Monroe saying to Mr. Foster (Oct. 1st, 1811,)" that as now expounded it is inconsistent with the sense of his Government when the order was issued."

Par. 18.-" Great Britain was thus called upon to abandon one of her most important maritime rights, by acknowledging the Order of Blockade in question to be one of the edicts which violated the commerce of the United States, although it had never been so considered in the previous negociations; and although the President of the United States had recently consented to abrogate the Non-Intercourse Act on the sole condition of the Orders in Council being revoked; thereby distinctly admitting these orders to be the only edicts which fell within the contemplation of the law under which he acted."

The Order of Blockade in question was supposed at this time to be merged in the Orders in Council, and it is in the face of all fair infer ence, therefore, that it is here asserted that it had never before been considered as violating the commerce of the United States. It was not suffered in the Fox administration to operate any actual injury to the United States. And it is notoriously known that a modification of this, as well as the Order of the 7th of January, 1807, so as to satisfy the demands of the United States, was in a course of amicable and satisfactory discussion at the time that that administration went out of office, which alone put an end to it.

Par. 19.-" A proposition so hostile to Great Britain could not but be proportionally encouraging to the pretensions of the enemy; as by thus alleging that the blockade of May, 1806, was illegal, the American Government virtually justified, so far as depended on them, the French Decrees."

We care not a pin whether your enemy were pleased or displeased with our measures, as long as our only motive was our own redress.— God knows that we have no special desire to please either of you, until we see better occasion in your conduct towards us.

Par. 20 and 21.-" After this proposition had been made, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, if not in concert with that Government, at least in conformity with its views, in a dispatch, dated the 5th of August, 1810, and addressed to the American Minister resident at Paris, stated that the Berlin and Milan Decrees were revoked, and that their operation would cease from the 1st day of November following, provided his Majesty would revoke his Orders in Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade; or that the United States would cause their rights to be respected; meaning thereby that they would resist the retaliatory measures of Great Britain.

"Although the repeal of the French Decrees, thus announced, was evidently contingent, either on concessions to be made by Great Britain, concessions to which it was obvious Great Britain could not submit, or on measures to be adopted by the United States of America, the American President at once considered the repeal as absolute. Under that pretence, the Non-Importation Act was strictly enforced against Great Britain, whilst the ships of war and merchant ships of the enemy were received into the harbours of America."

This document of the 5th of August revoked the Berlin and Milan Decrees from the 1st of the following November. Its prospective operation gave to England the opportunity of adopting similar measures, or, to use her own words, of proceeding pari passi with her enemy, so as to have the intercourse restored to her at the same time as to France. The contingency of its looking forward for three months was so far advantageous to England, as it gave her all that time to consider of the proposition for adopting the like measure. And the Pres