5th of August, 1810, the French Minister | expect of Great Britain a similar revoca of Foreign Affairs addressed a note to the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris, informing him that the decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked, the revocation to take effect on the 1st of November following; that the measure had been taken by his government in confidence that the British government would revoke its orders and renounce its new principles of blockade, or that the United States would cause their rights to be respected, 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 expressly declared in the letter of the Duke of Cadore announcing it. The edicts of Great Britain, the revocation of which were expected by France, were those alluded to in that act; and the means by which the United States should cause their rights to be respected, in case Great Britain should not revoke her edicts, were likewise to be found in the same act, They consisted merely in the enforcement of the Non-importation Act against Great Britain, in that unexpected and improbable contingency. The letter of the 5th of August, which announced the revocation of the French Decrees, was communicated to this Government; in consequence of which the president issued a proclamation on the 2d of November, the day after that on which the repeal of the French decrees was to take effect, in which he declared, that all the restrictions imposed by the act of May 1, 1811, should cease, and be discontinued in relation to France and her dependencies. It was a necessary consequence of this proclamation, also, that if Great Britain did not revoke her edicts, the Non-importation would operate on her, at the end of three months. This actually took place. She declined the revocation, and on the 2nd of February last that law took effect. In confirmation of the proclamation, an act of Congress was passed on the 2nd of March following.-Great Britain still declines to revoke her edicts on the pretension that France has not revoked her's. Under that impression she infers, that the United States have done her injustice by carrying into effect the Non-importation against her.-The United States maintain that France has revoked her edicts so far as they violated their neutral rights, and were contemplated by the law of May 1, 1810; and have on that ground particularly claimed, and do tion.-The revocation announced officially by the French Minister of Foreign affairs to the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris, on the 5th of Aug. 1810, was in itself sufficient to justify the claim of the United States to a correspondent measure from Great Britain. She had declared that she would proceed pari passu in the repeal with France; and the day being fixed when the repeal of the French decrees should take effect, it was reasonable to conclude that Great Britain would fix the same day for the repeal of her Orders. Had this been done, the proclamation of the President would have announced the revocation of the edicts of both powers at the same time, and in consequence' thereof the Non-importation would have gone into operation against neither. Such, too, is the natural course of proceeding in transactions between independent states, and such the conduct which they generally observe to each other. In all comparts between nations, it is the duty of each to perform what it stipulates, and to presume on the good faith of the other for a like performance. The United States having made a proposal 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 unusual in laws and in other public acts. Even when nations are at war, and make peace, this obligation of neutral confidence exists and is respected. In treaties of commerce, by which their future intercourse is to be governed, the obligation is the same. If distrust and jealousy is allowed to prevail, the moral tie which binds nations together in all their relations, in war as well as in peace, is broken.-What would Great Britain have hazarded by a prompt compliance in the manner suggested? She had declared she had adopted the restraints imposed by her Orders in Council with reluctance, because of their distressing effect on neutral powers. Here, then, was a favourable opportunity presented to her, to withdraw from that measure with honour, be the conduct of France afterwards what it might. Had Great Britain revoked her orders, and France failed to fulfil her engagement, she would have gained credit at the expence of France; and could have sustained no injury by it, because the failure of France to maintain her faith would have replaced Great Britain at the dated in December last; and a letter of the Minister of Justice to the President 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 respect to the United States. It is distinctly declared by the Emperor in his Speech to the Deputies of the Hanse Towns, that the blockade of the British Islands shall cease when the British blockades cease; and that the French blockade shall cease in favour of those nations in whose favour Great Britain revokes her's, or who support their rights against her pretensions, as France admits the United States will do by enforcing the non-importation act. The same sentiment is expressed in the report of the Minister of Foreign affairs. The decree of Fontainbleau having no effect on the high seas, cannot be brought into this discussion. It evidently has no connection with neutral rights. The letter from the Minister of Justice, to the Presi point from which she had departed. To say that a disappointed reliance on the good faith of her enemy would have reproached her foresight, would be to set a higher value on that quality than on consistency and good faith, and would sacrifice to a mere suspicion towards an enemy the plain obligations of justice towards a friendly power.-Great Britain has declined proceeding pari passu with France in the revocation of their respective edicts. She has held aloof, and claims of the United States proof not only that France has revoked her decrees, but that she continues to act in conformity with the revocation. To shew that the repeal is respected, it is deemed sufficient to state, that not one vessel has been condemned by French tribunals, on the principles of those decrees, since the first of November last. The New-Orleans Packet from Gibraltar to Bordeaux was detained, but never condemned. The Grace Ann Green, from the same British port to Marseilles, was likewise detained, but afterwards de-dent of the Council of Prizes, is of a diflivered up unconditionally to the owner, as was such part of the cargo of the NewOrleans Packet as consisted of the produce of the United States. Both these vessels proceeding from a British port, carried cargoes, some articles of which in each were prohibited by the laws of France, or admissible by the sanction of the government alone. It does not appear their detention was imputable to any other cause. If imputable to the circumstance of passing from a British to a French port, or on account of any part of their cargoes, it affords no cause of complaint to Great Britain, as a violation of our neutral rights. No such cause would be afforded, even in a case of condemnation. The right of complaint would have belonged to the United States.-In denying the revocation of the decrees, so far as it is a proper subject of discussion between us, it might reasonably be expected that you would produce some examples of vessels taken at sea, in voyages to British ports, or on their return hoine, and condemned under them by a French tribunal. None such has been afforded by you.-None such are known to this government.-You urge only as an evidence, that the decrees are not repealed; the Speech 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 Minister of foreign affairs, ferent character. It relates in direct terms to this subject, but not in the sense in which you understand it. After reciting the note from the Duke of Cadore, of the 5th of August last, to the American Minister at Paris, which announced the repeal of the French decrees, and the Proclamation of the President in consequence of it, it states, that all causes arising under those Decrees after the first of November, which were then before the Court, or might afterwards be brought before it, should not be judged by the principles of the Decrees, but be suspended until the 2d of February, when the United States having fulfilled their engagement, the captures should be declared void, and the vessels and their cargoes delivered up to their owners. This paper appears to afford an unequivocal evidence of the revocation of the Decrees, so far as relates to the United States. By instructing the French tribunal to make no decision till the 2d of February, and then to restore the property to the owners, on a particular event which has happen. ed, all cause of doubt on that point seems to be removed. The United States may justly complain of delay in the restitution of the 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 | which, especially in the circumstance delay in repealing her orders, till the 2d of 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 through our Representatives there, or its Representatives 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 rigour 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 letters, that she ought not to revoke her Orders in Council, until the commerce of the Continent is restored to the state in 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 allow ed 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; under consideration, are invariable. They were the same in times the most remote that they now 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 recognised principle of war, or in any semblance of reason or right. The United States could not maintain such a claim in their own favour, though neutral. When advanced in favour of an enemy, it would be the most preposterous and extravagant claim ever heard of. Every power when not restrained by treaty, has a right to regulate its trade with other nations, in such manner as it finds most consistent with its interests; to admit, and on its own conditions, or to probibit 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 Parlia ment, 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 would she view a similar application made at the instance of France, for the importation into England, of any article the growth or manufacture 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 obliga tion of Great Britain to revoke her's; 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 oc curred. Every view which can be taken into view by your's, it is not because the of this subject increases the painful sur- United States have lost sight in any deprise at the innovations on all the princi- gree of the other very serious causes of ples and usages heretofore observed, which complaint on which they have received are so unreservedly contended for, in your no satisfaction, but because the concilialetters of the 3d and 16.h instant, and tory policy of this Government has thus which, if persisted in by your Government, far separated the case of the Orders in present such an obstacle to the wishes of Council from others; and because, with. the United States, for a removal of the respect to these others, your communicadifficulties which have been connected tion has not afforded any reasonable proswith the Orders in Council. It is the in- pect of resuming them, at this time, with terests of the belligerents to mitigate the success. It is presumed, that the same licalamities of war; and neutral powers beral view of the true interest of Great Bripossess ample means to promote that obtain, and friendly disposition towards the ject, 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 is made towards that most desirable and United States, which induced the Prince Sir,-Having been unable to ascertain distinctly from your letter to me of yesterday's date, whether it was the determination of the President to rest satisfied with the partial repeal of the Berlin and taken place, so as to see no reason in the Milan decrees, which you believe has conduct of France for altering the rela tions between this country and Great Britain, by exercising his power of suspending the operation of the Non-importation Act, allow me to repeat my question to letter of the 14th instant, before I proceed you on this point, as contained in my to make any comments on your answer. Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. London, consoling result. Let Great Britain follow the example. The ground thus gained will soon be enlarged, by the concurring and pressing interest of all parties; and whatever is gained will accrue to the advantage of afflicted humanity.-I proceed to notice another part of your letter of the 3d instant, which is viewed in a more favourable light. The President has received with great satisfaction the communication, that should the Orders in Council of 1807 be revoked, the blockade of May of the preceding year would cease with them and that any blockade which should afterwards be instituted, should be duly notified and maintained by an adequate force. This frank and explicit declaration, Sir, I had the honour to receive, on worthy of the prompt and amicable mea- the 5th instant, while I was confined by a sure adopted by the Prince Regent in severe illness, your letter of the 15th of coming into power, seems to remove a ma- November; and as soon as I was able, terial obstacle to an accommodation of dif- prepared a note to Lord Wellesley, in ferences between our countries; and, conformity with it.-On the 3d inst. I when followed by the revocation of the had received a letter from Lord WellesOrders in Council, will as I am autho- ley, bearing date the 29 ult. on the subrised to inform you, produce an imme- ject of the Orders in Council, and the diate termination of the non-importa- British blockades, to which I was anxious tion law by an exercise of the power vest- to reply, at the same time that I obeyed ed in the President for that purpose.-I the orders of the President signified in conclude with remarking, that if I have confined this letter to the subjects brought your Jan. 17, 1811. letter above-mentioned. Published by R. BAGSHAW, Brydges-Street, Covent Garden. VOL. XXI. No. 2.] LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 11, 1812. 33] SUMMARY OF POLITICS. PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.-On Tuesday, the 7th instant, the parliament was opened by a Speech delivered to the two Houses by Lords Commissioners, in the name of the Prince Regent. The publie, who had witnessed so many of these openings, always conducted in the same way, seemed to expect nothing at all interesting upon the present occasion. Greatly, however, were they deceived; and greatly do the parliament seem to have been surprised, by a step taken by Sir Francis Burdett, who himself offered an Address for the adoption of the House, which Address, if it failed in the usual requisite of pleasing the venal writers, seems to have been thought by the mover to possess another requisite not less important: namely, that of being an echo to the sentiments of the people.It is my intention to make a faithful record of the proceedings of this remarkable sitting; and therefore it will be necessary to begin with the insertion of the Speech of the Lords Commissioners, which was as follows. [Price 18. [34 exercise of His Royal Authority in the happy event of His recovery, so earnestly desired by the wishes and the prayers of His Family and His subjects.-The Prince Regent directs us to signify to you the satisfaction with which his Royal Highness has observed, that the measures which have been pursued for the defence and security of the kingdom of Portugal have proved completely effectual; and that on the several occasions in which the British or Portuguese troops had been engaged with the enemy, the reputation already acquired by them has been fully maintained.-The successful and brilliant enterprize, which terminated in the surprise, in Spanish Estramadura, of a French corps by a detachment of the Allied Army under Lieutenant-General Hill, is highly creditable to that distinguished Officer, and to the troops under his command, and has contributed materially to obstruct the designs of the enemy in that part of the Peninsula.-The Prince Regent is assured, that while you reflect with pride and satisfaction on the conduct of His Majesty's troops, and of the Allies, in these various and important services, you will render "My Lords and Gentlemen,-We are justice to the consummate judgment and commanded by his Royal Highness the skill displayed by General Lord Viscount Prince Regent to express to you the deep Wellington, in the direction of the cam. sorrow which he feels in announcing to paign. In Spain, the spirit of the people you the continuance of His Majesty's la- remains unsubdued; and the system of mented indisposition, and the unhappy warfare so peculiarly adapted to the disappointment of those hopes of his Ma- actual condition of the Spanish nation has jesty's early recovery which had been been recently extended and improved, cherished by the dutiful affection of his under the advantages which result from family and the loyal attachment of his the operations of the allied armies on the people.-The Prince Regent has directed frontier, and from the countenance and copies of the last Reports of Her Ma- assistance of His Majesty's Navy on the jesty the Queen's Council to be laid be- coast. Although the great exertions of fore you, and he is satisfied that you will the enemy have in some quarters been adopt such measures as the present melan- attended with success, His Royal Highness choly exigency may appear to require.is persuaded, that you will admire the In securing a suitable and ample provision for the support of His Majesty's Royal Dignity, and for the attendance upon His Majesty's sacred Person during His illness, the Prince Regent rests assured, that you will also bear in mind the indispensible duty of continuing to preserve for his Majesty the facility of resuming the personal perseverance and gallantry manifested by the Spanish armies. Even in those Provinces principally occupied by the French forces, new energy has arisen among the people; and the increase of difficulty and danger has produced more connected efforts of general resistance.-The Prince Regent, in the name and on the behalf of C |