states the right of the United States to the AMERICA AND ENGLAND.-Latter from Mr. Nov. 1810. your dis rities necessary for the accomplishment of so desirable an event, and moreover, that if the attainment of this object through your agency should be considered more expeditious, or otherwise preferable, it would be a course entirely satisfactory to the United States.-I am now charged by the President to transmit to you the enclosed letter subjoined, authorising you to resume the negociations with the British Government, under the full power that had been given, severally and jointly, to you and Mr. Monroe. And in cussion therein, you will be regulated by the instructions heretofore given to Mr. Monroe and yourself. It is, however, not Sir, From a view of the conduct of intended, that you should commence this the British Government, in relation to a negociation, until the requisite adjustment Plenipotentiary, successor to Mr. Jackson, shall have been made in the affair of the as presented in your several communica- Chesapeake. And in the adjustment of this tions, including even those brought by case, you will be guided by the instructhe Hornet, at which date, and on which tious which you have heretofore received inviting occasion the subject does not ap froin this department in relation to it.— pear to have been within the attention of It is moreover desirable, that preparatory Government, the President thinks it imto a treaty upon all the points of difference proper, that the United States should conbetween the two countries, an arrangeLinue to be represented at London by a ment should be made for the revocation of Minister Plenipotentiary.-In case, therethe Orders in Council. As it is uncertain fore, the appointment of a successor to what may be the ultimate measures of Mr. Jackson, of that grade should have taken place at the receipt of this letter, Congress at the present Session, it cannot be expected that the President can, at this you will consider your functions as sustime, state the precise condition to be anpended, and you will accordingly take nexed to a repeal of the Orders in Counyour leave of absence, charging a fit person cil. But, in general, you may assure the with the affairs of the Legation. Considering the season at which this instruc- British Government of his cordial disposition to exercise any power which may tion may have its effect, and the possi-be invested, to put an end to Acts of Cónbility of a satisfactory change in the system of our relations with Great Britain, the time of your return to the United States is left to your discretion and convenience. for the Orders in Council, and at the same Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney, Department of Sir; The President, anxious to adjust the existing differences between the United States and Great Britain, and deeming it expedient to make another effort for that purpose, has given it in charge to me to instruct you to renew negociations in London under the commission, dated 12th of May, 1806, authorising Mr. Monro and yourself, severally, as well as jointly, to treat with the British Government relative to wrongs committed between the parties on the high seas, or other waters, and for establishing the principles of navigation and commerce between them. I have the honour, &c. &c. R. SMITH. Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney. Department of inference drawn from the letter of Lord occasion, and consequently justifying the State, May 22, 1810. Wellesley, the respect which the United States owe to themselves will require that you return to the United States, according to the permission hereby given by the President, leaving charged with the business of the Legation such person as you may deem most fit for the trust. With this view a commission, as required by a statute of the last session, is hereby enclosed, with a blank for a Secretary of Legation. But this step you will not consider yourself as.instructed to take, in case you should have commenced, with a prospect of a satisfactory result, the negociations authorised by my letter of the 20th of January.-In a letter of the 4th of this month, I transmitted to you a copy of the Act of Congress, at their last Session, concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Bri Sir; Your dispatch of the 27th of March, by the British packet, was received on the 17th of this month -The President has read with surprise and regret the answers of Lord Wellesley to your letter of the 2nd of January, and also his reply to your note requiring explanations with respect to the blockades of France. The one indicates an apparent indifference as to the character of the diplomatic intercourse between the two countries, and the other evinces an inflexible determination to persevere in their system of blockade.-The provision made for the Diplomatic Agency which is to succeed that of Mr. Jackson, manifests a dissatisfaction at the step necessa rily taken here with regard to that Minister, and at the same time a diminution of the respect heretofore attached to the dipio-tain and France. You will herewith rematic relations between the two countries. However persevering the President may be in the conciliatory disposition which has constantly governed him, he cannot be inattentive to such an apparent departure from it on the other side, nor to the duty imposed on him by the rules. of equality and reciprocity applicable to such cases. It will be very agresable to him to find that the provision in question is intended merely to afford time for a satisfactory choice of a Plenipotentiary successor to Mr. Jackson, and that the mode of carrying it into effect may be equally unexceptionable. But whilst, from the language of the Marquis Wallesley, with respect to the designation of a Charge d'Afiairs, and from the silence, as to any other successor to the recalled Minister, it is left to be inferred that the former alone is in contemplation, it be comes proper to ascertain what are the real views of the British Government on the occasion, and should they be such as they are inferred to be, to meet them by a correspondent change in the diplomatic establishment of the United States at London. The President relies on your dis- Sir-Your several letters of the 8th and cretion for obtaining the requisite know- 9th of April, and 2d and 3d of May have ledge of this subject, in a manner that been received.-Whilst it was not known will do justice to the friendly policy which on the one hand, how far the French Gothe United States wish to be reciprocal in vernment would adhere to the apparent imevery instance between the two nations. port of the condition as first conimunicated, But in the event of its appearing that the on which the Berlin Decrees would be substitution of a Charge d' Affairs for a revoked, and on the other hand, what exMinister Plenipotentiary, is to be a conti-planations would be given by the British nuance not required or explained by the Government with respect to its blockades ceive another copy of the same Act. In Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney. Department of prior to that Decree, the course deemed proper to be taken was that pointed out in my letter to you of Nov. 11, and in that to Gen. Armstrong of the 1st of Dec. The precise and formal declaration since made by the French Government, that the condition was limited to the blockades of France, or ports of France, of a date prior to the Berlin Decree, and the acknowledgment of the British Government of the existence of such blockades, particularly that of May, 1806, with a failure to revoke it, or even to admit the constructive extinguishment of it, held in your letter to the Marquis Wellesley, give to the subject a new aspect and a decided character. As the British Government had constantly alledged that the Berlin Decree was the original aggression on our neutral commerce; that her Orders in Council were but a retaliation on that Decree, and had, moreover, on that ground asserted an obligation on the United States to take effectual measures against the Decree, as a preliminary to the repeal of the Orders, nothing could be more reasonable than to expect, that the condition, in the shape last presented, would be readily accepted. The President is therefore equally disappointed and dissatisfied at the abortiveness of your correspondence with Lord Wellesley, in this important subject. He entirely approves the determination you took to resume it with a view to the special and immediate obligation lying on the British Government to cancel the illegal blockades; and you are in structed, in case the answer to your letter of the 30th of April should not be satisfactory, to represent to the British Government, in terms tentperate but explicit, that the United States consider themselves authorised by strict and unquestionable right, as well as supported by the principles heretofore applied by Great Britain to the case, in claiming and expecting a revocation of the illegal blockades of France, of a date prior to that of the Berlin Decree, as preparatory to a further demand of the revocation of that Decree. It ought not to be presumed that the British Government in reply to such a representation, will contend that a blockade, like that of May, 1806, from the Eibe to Brest, a coast of not less than 100 miles, proclaimed four years since, without having been at any time attempted to be duly executed by the application of a naval force, is a blockade conformablé to the law of nations, and consistent with the neutral rights. Such a pretext is completely barred, not only by the unanimous authorities both of writers and treaties on this point, not excepting even British treaties; but by the rule of blockade communicated by that Government to this, in the year 1809, in which it is laid down that orders have been given hot to consider any blockade of those islands (Martinique and Guadaloupe) as existing, unless in respect to particular ports which may be actually invested; and then not to capture any vessels bound to such port, unless they shall have previously been warned not to enter them, and that they (the Lords of the Admiralty) had also sent the necessary directions on the subject to the Judges of the Vice-Admiralty Courts in the West Indies and America.— In this communication it is expressly stated that the rule to the British courts of cruizers was furnished in consequence of the representations made by the Government of the United States against blockades, not unlike that now in question, and with the expression of redressing the grievance complained of. Nor ought it to be presumed that the British Government will formally resort to the plea that her naval force, although unapplied, is adequate to the enforcement of the blockade of May, 1806, and that this forms a legal distinction between that and the Berlin Decree of November following. Were it admitted that an adequate force existed, and was applicable to such a purpose, the absurdity of confounding the power to do a thing, with the actually doing of it, speaks for itself. In the present case, the absurdity is peculiarly striking-a port blockaded by sea, without a ship near it, being a contradiction in terms, as well as a perversion of law and of common sense. From the language of Lord Wellesley's two letters, it is possible he may endeavour to evade the measure required, by subtle comments on the posture given to the blockade of May, 1806, by the succeeding orders of 1807. But even here he is met by the case of blockade of Copenhagen and other ports of Zealand in the year 1808-at a time when these with all Danish ports were embraced by these orders of 1807-a proof that, however the orders and blockades may be regarded as in some respects the same, they are regarded in others as having a distinct operation, and may consequently co-exist, without being absolutely merged in, or superseded, the one by the other. In the difficulties which the British Go- | holders of them without the jurisdiction of vernment must feel in finding a gloss for the United States? Do they confine the the extravagant principles of her paper permitted intercourse to two ports only of blockades, it may perhaps wish to infer the United States; and do they enjoin an acquiescence on the part of this Go- that all the shipments be made on French vernment, from the silence under which account exclusively Is it his Majesty's they have, in some instances passed. will that the seizures made in the ports of Should a disposition to draw such an in- Spain and other places on the principle of ference shew itself you will be able to reprisal, shall become a subject of present meet it by an appeal, not only to success- or future negociation between the two Goful remonstrance in the letter to Mr. vernments?-1 need not suggest to your Thornton above cited, but to the answer Excellency the interest both Governments given to Mr. Merry, of June, —, of the have in the answers that may be given to notification of a blockade in the year these questions, and how nearly connected 1806, as a precise and authentic record of they are with the good understanding the light in which such blockades and the which ought to subsist between them. notification of them were viewed by the After the great step lately taken by his United States; copies of the answer have Majesty towards an accommodation of been heretofore forwarded, and another is differences, are we not at liberty to supnow inclosed, as an additional precaution pose that any new consideration will arise against miscarriage,-Whatever may be which shall either retard or prevent the the answer to the representation and re-adoption of measures necessary to a full quisition which you are instructed to make, restoration of the commercial intercourse you will transmit it without delay to this and friendly relations of the two powers? Department. Should it be of a satisfactory-I cannot omit expressing on this occanature you will hasten to forward it also to the diplomatic functionary of the United States at Paris, who will be instructed to make a proper use of it for obtaining a repeal of the French Decree of Berlin, and to proceed, currently with you, in bringing about successive removals by the two Governments of their predatory Edicts.I avail myself of this occasion to state to you, that it is deemed of great importance that our Ministers of Foreign Courts, and especially at Paris and London, should be kept, the one by the other, informed of the state of our affairs at each. R. SMITH. General Armstrong to the Duke of Cadore. Paris, Sept. 7, 1810. sion, the sense I shall carry with me of the The Duke of Cadore to General Armstrong.-- Sir-I have received your letter of the 7th of September, that which I wrote to you the same day, answered the first questions you put to me. I will add to what I had the honour to write to you, that the Decree of the 23d of March 1810, which Act of Congress of the 1st of March, 1809, ordered reprisals in consequence of the was repealed as soon as we were informed Sir-Your Excellency will not think me of the repeal of the Act of Non-intercourse, importunate if I should employ the last passed against France.-On your second moments of my stay in Paris, in seeking question, I hasten to declare to you, that an explicit declaration of the following American vessels loaded with merchanpoints-1st. Has the decree of his Ma- dize, the growth of the American Projesty, of the 23d March last, enjoining vinces, will be received without difficulty acts of reprisal against the commerce of in the ports of France, provided they have the United States, on account of their late not suffered their flag to lose its national law of Non-Intercourse, been recalled?-character, by submitting to the Acts of 2d. What will be the operation (on the vessels of the United States) of his Majesty's decrees of July last, forbidding the departure of neutral ships from the ports of France, unless provided with Imperial licences? Are ship licences merely substitutes for clearances; or do they prescribe regulations to be observed by the the British Council. They may in like manner, depart from the ports of France. The Emperor has given licences to American vessels. It is the only flag which has obtained them. In this his Majesty has intended to give a proof of the respect he loves to shew the Americans. If he is somewhat dissatisfied [peu satisfait] that they have not as yet been | able to succeed in causing their flag to be respected, at least, he sees with pleasure that they are far from acknowledging the tyrannical principles of English Legislation. The American vessels which may be loaded on account of Frenchmen or on account of Americans, will be admitted into the ports of France.-As to the merchandize confiscated, it having been confiscated as a measure of reprisal, the principles of reprisal must be the law in that affair. I have the honour to renew to you, Sir, the assurances of my high consideration.-CHAMPAGNY, Duc de Cadore. From Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney. Department of State, Oct. 19th, 1810. 1806, in so far as both relate to a trade be tween enemy's ports, furnishes an appeal to the consistency of those now in office, and an answer to attempts by them to vindicate the legality of that blockade. It is remarkable, also, that this blockade is founded on the new and extraordinary means resorted to by the enemy, for the purpose of distressing the commerce of British subjects. What are those means? In what respect do they violate our neutral rights? Are they still in operation? It is believed that true answers to these questions will enforce the obligation of yielding to our demands on this subject." You the characteristic definition of a blockaded may also refer the British Government to port, as set forth in their Treaty with RusSIR; Your dispatch of the 24th of Au-sia, June, 1801, the preamble of which gust, enclosing a newspaper statement of declares, that one of its objects was to seta letter from the duke of Cadore to gen. tle an invariable determination of their Armstrong, notifying a revocation of the principles upon the rights of neutrality. Berlin and Milan Decrees, has been re-Should the British Government unexceived. It ought not to be doubted that this step of the French Government will be followed by a repeal on the part of the British Government of its Orders in Council. And if a termination of the crisis between Great Britain and the United States be really intended, the repeal ought to include the system of paper blockades, which differ in the name only from the retaliatory system comprised in the Orders in Council. From the complexion of the British prints, not to mention other considerations, the paper blockades may, however, not be abandoned. There is hence a prospect that the United States may be brought to issue with Great Britain, on the legality of such blockades. In such case, as it cannot be expected that the United States, founded as they are, in law and right, can acquiesce in the validity of the British practice, it lies with the British Government to remove the difficulty. In addition to the considerations heretofore stated to you in former letters, you may bring to the view of the British Government the retrospective operations of those diplomatic notifications of blockades, which consider a notice to the minister as a notice to his Government and to the merchants who are at the distance of 3,000 miles. It will recur to your recollection, that the present ministry, in the debates of parliament, in opposition to the authors of the Orders of January, 1807, denied that they were warranted by the laws of nations. The analogy between these Orders and the blockade of May pectedly resort to the pretext of an acquiescence on the part of the United States, in their practice, it may be remarked, that prior to as well as during the present administration, this Government has invariably protested against such pretensions; and, in addition to other instances heretofore communicated to you, I herewith transmit to you an extract of a letter to the department of State, of July 15, 1799, from Mr. King, our Minister in Londen, and also such part of Mr. Marshall's letter to him of the 20th September, 1800, as relates to the subject of blockades. And it may, moreover, be urged, that the principle now contended for by the United States, was maintained against others, as well as Great Britain, as appears from the accompanying copy of a letter to our Minister at Madrid, in the year 1901. To this principle the United States also adhered, when a belligerent, as in the case of the blockade of Tripoli, as will be seen by the annexed letter from the navy department. You will press on the justice, friendship, and policy of Great Britain, such a course of proceeding as will obviate the dilemma resulting to the United States, from a refusal to put an end to the paper blockades as well as the Orders in Council.The necessity of revoking the blockade of Copenhagen, as notified to you in May 1908, will not escape your attention. Its continuance may embarrass us with Denmark if not with France.-Your answer to the Corfu blockades is approved; and should the answer to it |