Newspaper Page Text
ment of August 5, 1810,
had fully fatisfied every
claim of the British govern
ment sccording to its own
principles on that point.
Bv it the decrees of Berlin
and Milan were declared* to
be repealed,. the repeal to :
take eßeft on the ill Nov. !
following, on which day it;
did take effect. * The only
condition attached to it was
either that G. Britain should
foHow the example, and
repeal her orders in council,
or that the United States
should carry into effeft a.
gainft her their non-impor
tation aft. This condition
was in its nature fubfeqoent,
not precedent, reserving a j
right in France to revive her
decrees in case neither alter
native W7IS performed: By
this dclaration it was put
completely in the power of
Great Britain to terminate
this in a manner
the mod honorable to her
iclf. France has yielded to
her the ground on a condi
tion with which the had de
clared her willingness to
comply. Had flic complied,
the non-irnportation aft
would not have been carried
into effeft, nor could the
French decrees have been
revived. By refusing to
comply, she has made her
felf responsible for all that
has iince followed.
By the decree of the 28th
April, 1811, the decrees of
Berlin and Milan were said
to be definitively repealed ;
and the execution of the
non-importation aft against
Great Britain was declared
to be the ground of that re -
peal. The repeal announ
ced by the declaration of
the sth August, 1810, was
absolute and final, except
as to the condition subse
quent attached to it. This
latter decree acknowledges
that the condition had been
performed, and disclaims
the right to revive it, in con
fequenceof that performance
and extending back to the
ift November, confirms in
every circumstance the pre
ceding repeal. The latter
adt, therefore, as to the re
peal, is nothing more than
a confnmation of the former.
It is in this sense that those
two adls are to be under
flood in France. It is in
the fame sense that they are
to be regarded by other
powers.
In repealing the orders ir.
council on the pretext of
the French decree of the
28th April, ion, the Bri
tt fl* government has con
ceded that it ought to have
repeated them on the decla
ration of the sth of August,
ISIO. Ir is impossible to
diferiminate * between the
two acts, or to separate them
from each other, fu> as to
j'Blify, °n lound 2nd con
fident principles, the repeal
*>t the orders in council on
toe ground of on:' aft, ar.fi
the retutal to repeal them
M 1 th “ r oi lie other. The
lecond aft makes the ie-
P tai definitive, but tor what
realon ? Becaufo urn'
..ij non.
importation aft had been ,
put in force against Great j
Britain, in compliance with |
the conditions subsequent
attached to the former re
peal, and her refulal to per
form it. .That aft being
■ Hill in force, and the decree
!of the 28th April, 1811,
j being expressly founded or
it, Great Britain repeals her ,
orders in council on the ba.
sis of this latter decree.
The conclusion is therefore
irrefiflible, that by (his re
peal, Under all the circum
ilanccs attending it, the Brir i
tifh government hasacknow. j
ledged the justice of the ;
claim of the United States !
[J a repeal on the former oc- j
'onion. By accepting the
latter repeal, it has lancti.
oned the preceding one, it
has fanftioned also the con
duft of this government in |
carrying into eflfeft the non
importation aft against G.
Britain, founded on the pre
ceding repeal.
Other impoitant confequen.
ccs reluli from this repeal of the ;
Briufh government. By fair & ;
obvious confiruttion the accep
tance of the decree cf the 28 b
April, 1S1 1, as the gtound of
he repeal of the orders in coun
cil, ought to be construed to
extend back to the lit Novem.
her, 1810, the day on svhich
he preceding repeal took effeft.
The Secretary of Siate has full
confidence, that if the quellion
could be fubmiUed to thejudg
ment of an impartial judicial trb
ounal, such would be its deci.
lion. He has equal confidence
that such will be the judgment
pronounced on it by the enligh
tened ?nd impartial world. If,
however, thele two afts could
be ftparated from each other,
lo as that the latter might be
made the balls of the repeal of
‘he orders in council, diftinft
from the former, it follows that
beating dale on the 28th of A
prd, 1811, the repeal ought to
have relation to that date. In
legal conftruftion, between na.
lions as well as individuals, afts,
are 10 be refpefted from the time
ihey bsgin to operate, & where
they impole a moral or politi*
cal obligation on another party,
that obligation commences wi h
the commencement of the aft.
but it has been urged that the
trench decree was pot promul*
gated or made known to the
Briufh government, Until a year
after its date. This objection
has no force. By accepting an
att bearing date a year before
it was promulgated, it is admit,
ted that in the interval, nothing
was done repugnant to it. It
. cannot be prt fumed that any go
• . u
vermnc.ji would accept ftom
another, as the balls on which
is was to found an important
meaiure, an aid of anterior and
remote dae, pledging itfed to a
certain course of concfud which
shot government l ad in the in
terval departed from and viola
ted. If any government had
violated an ad ihe itvjtirtdions
of which it was bound to oh*
lc»ve by an anterior one, in re.
lation 10 a third party, Sc which
it proftfTed 10 have obfeived,
bciote jis acceptance by the o
tbtr, it could not be piefunud
that it would c.t .ife jo violate it
al cr the acceptance. Ihe con,
clulion i> triesiuihle, that if the
oiner government did accept
• u< -b ad with a knowledge of us
antecedent violation, at the
foundation of anv mealure on
“sown pan, that luch ad mult
hove oeeu the ohei liblc cnlv,
• f
and not the real motive of such ■
i mealure.
The declaration of the Prince
Regent of the 21st April, 1811,
is in full confirmation of ihefe
remarks,' l’iy this aft of the
Britifli government it is-formal
ly announced, on ihe authority j
of a report of the Secretary of !
Fo r e : gn Affairs to the Confer,
vaitive Senate of France, that
the French decrees were ftiil in
( force, and that the orders in
council should not be repealed,
it cat not fail to excite conside
rable fuiniife that the Eritifh
government should immediate
ly afterwards, that is, on the
:23d June, repe.il its orders in
j council, on the ground of the
j French decide Gs the 28th Aptil
j 1811. By this proceeding the ;
j Biitifh government has involved \
itfelf in mauifefl incorfiftency. j
It has maintained by one aft,
that- the French decrees were in
full force, and by another that
they were repealed during the
! fame [pace cf time. It admits
1 ailo, that by no act of the French
government or its cruizers, had
i any vio ation ©f ihe tepeal ari. i
nounced by the declaration of j
the French government of the
s'h Angutt, 1810, been com.
j mittedi or at lead, that such vi
olation had not had fufficient i
weight!to prevent the repeal of !
the orders in council,
Jtt* 1 f } . <
It was objected that the decla.
ration of the French government
of ihe sth of August, IS 10, was
not such an act as the British go«-
veinmtnt ought to have regarded.
Tht Stcretary of State is thoro
ughly satisfied that this objection
1# unfounded. It was communis
cated by the Emperor through his
highest official organ, the Secreta..
ry of Foreign Affairs, to the n»in»
ister Plenipotentiary of the Uni
ted States at Paris, It is impossi
ble to conceive an act more for
mal, authentic or obligatory on the
French government than that allu
ded to. Does oue government e
ver atk or expect from another to
secure the performance of any du
ty, however important, more than
ite official pledge, fairly and fully
ex pressed ? Can better security
be given for its performance? Had
there been any doubt on this sub
joct, the conduct of Greats Britain,
herself, in similar cases, would
have removed i f . The whole hi»_
tory of her diplomatic intercourse
with other powers, on the subject
of blockade, is in accord with this
proceeding of the French govern*,
uient. We know that v/hen her
I government institutes a blockade,
the Secretaiy of Foreign Affair*
announces it to die ministers of o
ther powers at London j and that
the rione form is observed when
they are revoked. Nor was the
authenticity of either act, thus an.
I nounced, ever questioned.
Had a similar declaration been
tmde by the miaisier of France in
the Unfed States to this govern*
! mem, by the order of his own,
, would it not have been entitled to
1 respect, and been respected ? By
j the iwge ot na ions such respect
! could not have been withheld.
The arrangement made with ft]r.
E» thine is a tali proof of the good
lauh of th? ; } government, atul of
its irnpartialuv in ith transactions,
with bu:h the belligerents It was
nude wjth that minister on the
ground of his public character,
ai d the corhfence due t®it; on
which basis the non-intercourse
was r* moved as to Fegland and left
in fail force against France. The
| failure of that arrangcist nt was
i unputtble to the lirhi»h gove-it-.
; «nent alon*, who, in rejecting it,
j took on iise!f a high respomibi ity,
not sinsply in rrgard to the conse.
quences amending it, but in dirr
avowing and aomiilinc the act of
its minister, wt bout shewing that
he hnd exceeded hts authority. In
accepting the declaration of the
Fiench R.miatcr ot Foreign ;\ffairs
in prn. t t f the Fret-ch repeal, the
United iS ate a gave no pi oof of iw
pioptr credt nee to .he goveintnent
of France. On a comparison of
both transactions it will appear that
it .1 marked ccatrienci and re pect
tv a» sln\v II foei'.hci' tr ove‘-a.nents,
rlt v,;>?, to •h it ofGreat Britain. In
accepting the det araticn of the go
vrrnmpnt of France in th* presence
* fthe Emperor, the United Srates
otcorl on more secure g-conci, than
in acce ptir g that of a British min
ister in this conntry.
To the demand made by the U,
j S’arts of ihe repeal nf the British
| orders in council founded ~n the
basis of the French repeal, of An*
gust 5, 1810, the Bri’isk govern
ment replied, by demanding a co
py of the orders issued by the
French government for carrying
in o effect that repeal; a demand
without example in the intercourse
between nations. By this demand
it ceased tube a question whether
the French repeal was of sufficient
extent, or was founded on j .siifi
able conditions. The pledge of
the French government was doubt- j
t’d ; a.scrutiny was to !> e instituted 1
’as to the manner in which it W as j
I to be discharged, and it» faith pr e- \
< «erved, not by the subsequent
i conduct of its cruizers towards 1
the v«Bsejs of the United States,
but by a copy of ih« orders given to
its cruizers. Where would this
end? If the French government
intended a frauJ, by it» declara
tion of repeal, announced to the
minister of the United Slates, and
afterwards to this government,
might it not fkewise commit a
! in any other communication
which it might n.akc ? If credit
was lefuntd by tbe fin ish govern
ment to the act cf the French go.
i VK rnmentj thus fotmahy announced i
I Js it p.obabie that it would have
Jeen given by it, to any document
of inferior eharace;, directed to
us own people? Although it was
the po ; icy and might be the interest
ot the Biiti-h government to tn.
gage the United S.ates in such a
controversy wiih the French gov.*
ernmenr, it wa3 tar from comport
ing with their interest to do ir.
They considered it their duty to
accept the repeal already made by
the French government, of its de.
Ciees and to lock toils conduct 8c
to that of its cruizers, sanctioned
by the government, for the faithful
performance or violation of it. •
t ht United States having been in
jured by both powers, were un
willing, in their exertions to obtain
justice of either, to become the
j instrument of the ether. They
were the let*s inclined to it in the
; present instance, from the consirl- \
1 eraticn that the pat ty making the ;
pressure on them maintained in
j lull ft >rce its unlawful edicts against
the American commerce, while it
; could not deny that a considerable
advance, at least had been made
by the other towards a complete
accommodatian, it being manifest
to the world, not only that the faith
01 the trench government stood '
| pledged for the repeal of i's de.
| ert es, but that the repeal did take !
i fff «t on the Ist November ISIO, j
j in regard to the U. S. that several
! American vessel* i?ktn under (turn ;
had been delivered up, and judicial j
decisions suspended on ali, by its
order, and that it a'so continued to
j g’ve the most postitve assurances j
j mat the repeal should be faithfully j
j observed.
I it has also been urged that the i
j I* reach repeal wa» conditional, &
lor that reason could not be accept,
cd. 1 his objection has already
been fully answered. It irertts
attention, however, that the acts
; ol Xilt British government relating
I to this subject, particularly the de
j cUration of the i'lst April 1812,
and the repeal of the 23d June of
j ‘husame year, are equally end in
iike manner condnional. It is not
» duie surprising that the Biitish
J j government should havu tbjccted
i to a measure in an another govern
’ I trtmt, to which it has itself giveu
’ a “ a <>ctiou by its c*m acts. It :s
j j- l opr.r, however, to tem.trk tha r
i thia objection has been comj leu }y
I waved aiui given up by the accept
’ once of the decree of tne i'b h A.
’ ! pr l fail.
The Britilh government h*B urged all's,
i that it could tut confide in the faithful ntr
f lormauce Oy the French government of any
t engagement it might enter into relative to
the repeal of lio decree*. 1 hi* objection
1 would De equally applkably to any other j
' compact to De enieicd into with Frauce.— !
4 While maintained it weald be a bar to any
. treaty, even to a trea'y of peace between
tUun. But itSalfo ha* been admitted to be
unfounded by the acceptance ot the decree
t ; of the 28th of April 1811
j j Ihe laecretary ol Itate prefume* that these
j. Istit* add explanation*,lupported a* they ate
by authentic dccuincnts, prove, (irft, that
f ; the rc.pi.ai «>1 tht B.tiilh t tetr* in co’iocii
, v*iiot tv *>.• o.tf.i.ico to ti# Frct.ch due c*
bcarlr ? date on the :Bth April 18U- and
fecondiy, that in making the decree the ba
fi. of their repeal, the B'itilh government
ha» conceded that it ought to hare reanlJ
them on the ground of the declaration of
the French government of the s th Aup,ft
1010, lo a .»take effcCt on the firft Nu Vem .‘
Iber fe.lawntg. ro what caul* the reoea!
tof the Bmifh orders in council wa* i ifttv
j uttribui-ble, cannot now. remain a dcu 't
j w,t ” an J' wl >° have mar Iced with a ; u ft aw'
, cernmeut the course of events, h mu( y . "
I ford great conlolation to the good people of
these dates, to know that they have not
Ifubmirted to privations in vain-
The difeuflion of other wrong,, part ; Cil _
latly that relating to tmpreffmen!, had been
closed some time before the peiicd alluded to
It was unworthy the chaia&er of then’
State, to peruse the difeuflionon that d.fT er '
eoce, when it wa, evidem that no adyj„’
tage could be derived from it. The rieht
was reierved, to be brought forward and
urg°d again, when it might be done with
ffted*. In the mean time the pratfice of
impreflinent was perfevtred in with vh 0r
At the time war was declared egaiiTlta.
Britain, no fatisGCFory arrangement was f
sered, or likely to be obtained, refpedine
impieffinent, and nothing was more remote
from the expectation of this government’
than the repeal of the orders m council. £ r !
try ciicumftancc which had occuried tend!
iog to illustrate the policy anu view, of th*
Bii.ifli government, rendered such au even:
altogether improbable. From tile com
mencement 0 f that fyft.m of haftility, which
Great Britain had adopted against the Uni
ted States, her pretentions had gradually m
creafed, or at least become more fully un
folded, according to circumstance?, until at
the moment when war was declared they
had -ffumed a character which dispelled ail
profpeCt of accommodation. The orders in
council were laid to have been ad pted on a
principle of retaliation on France, altho' at
the time when the order ol May 18, 6 w,.s
ifTued, no meafnre of Fi ance had Occurred
on which it could be retaliatory, ana ar tlie
date of the next order January 1807, it was
hardly pofhbie that this government lhould
have even heard of the oecree of Berlin to
which it related. It was Hated at the time
of their adoption, and for L me time after
wards, that they Ihouid he revoked as fson
as France revoked her decrees, and that the
B'itilh government would proceed with the
government ol France pari PAseo in the re
vocation. After the declaration, however,
of the French government of the sth Aug.
lB:o, by which the Berlin and Milan decrees
were declared to be repealed, the Bii.iih
government changed its tone, and continued
to rife in its demands td the moment that
war was declared. It objected firft that the
Fi eDch repeal was conditional, and not ab
ioluie; although the only condition at
tached to it was, that Great Buitaiu Ihouid
follow the example, or the Uuiitd etates
fulfil their pledge by executing the non im
portation aCt again!! her. It was then de
manded, that France Uiculd repeal her in
ternal regulations as a condition of the repeal
of the Britiflt orders in council. Ntxt, that
the French repeal lhould be extended to all
neutral nations, as well as to the U. States,
and lastly, that the ports ol her enemies, and
all ports from which the Britilh flag was ex
cluded, ihouid be opened to Biiiilli manufac
tures, in American veflels; conditions lo ex
travagant as to fatisfy all dilpaflionate miuds
that they were demanded, not in the ex
pectation that they would or could be com
plied with, but to terminate the difcuffiun.
On full confidcration of all circumltances,
l appeared that the peiiod hsd arrived,
: whea it became the duty of the U. States
to take the attitude with Gieat Britain,
which was due to their violated rgfrs, to
the iecnnty of their most important n.terefts
and to their character as au independent na
tion. To have flirunk from the erifis v.oulti
have been to abaucon every thug valuable
so a free people. ’I he lurrender ol out fra
men to Briiiih impressment, with thedeftruc
-1 tion of our navigation and commcice, would
. not have been its only evils, Ihe defecti
on of property, however great and widely
spread, affects an inteielt w hich admits of
repair. The wound is incurable cnly, which
fixes a fligma on the national honor. While
the spirit of the people is ui.fubdued, there
will always be found in their virtue a re
j source equal to the greati ft dangers and me ft
I trying emergencies It is in the nature of
1 free government, to inspire in the bony of
I the people generous and noble sentiments,
and it is the duty cf the couftituted autho
rities to cherish appeal to thofo sentiments,
I and rely on the pattiotic fuppoit of their
! conlli uents- H, d tuey proved themleiv-s
j uutqual to the erifis, the most fatal confe
qutnees Would have reluited from it. The
proof of their weakuels wi uld have been
recorded ; but not on the* alone would it*
baneful efferts have been v;lited, It wcnli
have thaken the foundation of the gov ro
ment itfelf, and even cf the sacred principles
of the revolution, on which all our political
iuftitutions depend. Yielding to tne pre
tenlions of a foreign power, without making
a manly effort in defence of our rights, with
out appealing to the virtue of the people, of
to the strength of our Union, it would h»vs
been charg.il and belitvid that 011 tht! •-*
fourccs lay the hidden deteCta. Where would
the good people of thele Halts have.her#
able to make another (land ? Where wen d
1 have been their rallying point? The govern
ment of their choice having been dishonor
ed, its iveakntfs and that ol their inhibition*
denruuftrated, the triumph of the tocmf
would have been complete, it would
been durable. . .
Ihe o nfliteted authorities of the Units
ttates, neither dre*ded or anticipatedln
evil*. ’l’hcy had lull confidence io l •
strength of the Union, in the fi.nincls :
virtue of the people, and were fatisfied, wn f *J 1
the appeal lhould be made that ample p r *
wouid be afforded, that their coofijer.ee u ’
net been milplaccd. Foreign preflure. 1
was d uhtrd, would loon d.lflpate
partialiiics and prtju.lccs, it lucli c* ■“***
and unite us more tUitly together <* 6
In cliclai ing war against Great Britain, the
. U_ States bave plteed ibcmfc’ves in a 11
ti nto retort the hoftitity, which t.i 7*
so long buffered from the BriuHi
j The maintenance ofrheir rights wast-.r *
jeiftof the war. ttf thedelite ot th '* * s ; c
erumei tto terminate the war “ l ' n h ‘
cond.'.iona, ample proof has oevn a'-i
the or pefi'.ion made to the
n,: . immediately after the dem -'