N the 24th of November, the house O of lords having assembled, a commission was appointed for the new 1812. parliament. The attendance of the commons was then requested, the commission was read, and they proceeded to elect Mr. Abbot for their speaker. On the 30th, the prince regent came to the house of lords in state, and delivered a speech from the throne. After touching on his majesty's lamented indisposition, and the diminished hopes of his recovery, his royal highness adverted to the successes in the peninsula, under the conduct of lord Wellington, and their final good effects, notwithstanding his retreat from Burgos, and the evacuation of Madrid. He then mentioned the restoration of peace and friendship with the courts of Russia and Stockholm, and spoke in terms of eulogy of the resistance made by Russia to the arms of the invaders, auguring a happy termination of the contest. He informed parliament of a supplementary treaty concluded with his Sicilian majesty, lamented the commencement of hostilities with America, and noticed the defeat of the attempts against Canada. He expressed his sincere desire for the restoration of peace; but until this object should be obtained, relied on their support for a vigorous prosecution of the war. The conclusion of the speech recommended an early consideration of a provision for the early government of the Indian provinces,

in consequence of the approaching expiration of the East India company's charter. It adverted to the late disturbances in the manufacturing districts, and, after expressing a hope that atrocities so repugnant to the British character would never recur, ended with the usual declaration of confidence in the wisdom of parliament and the loyalty of the people. In the debates on the address, lord Wellesley, in conformity with his former declarations, accused the ministers of having caused the protraction of the war in Spain by the timidity and weakness of their conduct. He characterized their system as timid without prudence, and narrow without economy, profuse without splendor, and slow without the benefits of caution. Lord Liverpool observed, in reply, that it was extremely easy for the noble lord to sit down in his closet and wish for or imagine a particular effort of any given magnitude, endeavored to prove by various statements, that all had been done to which the resources of the country were equal, and asserted that no request had been made by lord Wellington which had been refused. A similar line of argument was. adopted in the lower house by lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning; and Mr. Whitbread, after ridiculing the high-wrought descriptions and sanguine expectations of those who preceded him, proposed an amendment to the address, recommending to his royal highness the prince regent, in

the present state of affairs when no dishonorable object could be imputed to Great Britain, Russia, of France, 1812. the commencement of overtures for the general pacification of Europe. The original address was voted without a division.

On the 10th of December lord Folkstone rose in the house of commons, to call the attention of the house to an important subject. He had in the last session complained of an infraction of the Jaw by the employment of foreign of ficers in the British army, and a return had been ordered which was incomplete as it only contained those at home and not those on foreign-service. His lordship then adverted to an order in the Gazette, relative to German officers which stated that in consideration of their services, particularly at the battle of Salamanca, they should receive, instead of temporary, permanent rank in the army. This appeared to him an attempt to introduce permanently and for ever in our army those officers who were, under an act of parliament, serving only in a temporary way. Lord Palmerston observed, that the arguments of the noble lord were founded on misconception. Temporary and permanent rank in the army were terms that merely designated two different services. Permanent rank meant the ordinary rank and promotion of the army. Temporary rank signified an exception, and was generally given to those who raised men for rank, and for other reasons which occasioned the grant of these high commissions. All these officers, however, were serving under a law which declared a limit to their services, and when the operation of the law ceased, the commission must fall to the ground with that act in which they originated. Their honors and titles would still be retained, and their names would remain for the encouragement of others, on the list of permanent and ordinary rank. The discussion on lord Folkestone's inquiries was succeeded by a vote of £200,000 to his majesty, to be applied to the relief of the Russian sufferers, an object which so powerfully exeited the sympathy of every class of the

British people, that £110,000 were col lected by subscription in addition to the parliamentary grant. After several financial discussions and arrangements, the two houses adjourned for the Christmas recess.

The day after the reassemblage of parliament lord Castlereagh presentment to the house of commons, the papers relative to the discussions with America on the subject of the French decrees, and the orders of council, together with the following declaration from the prince regent, respecting the origin and causes of the war with America.

DECLARATION.

The earnest endeavors of the prince regent to preserve the relations of peace and amity with the United States of America having unfortunately failed, his royal highness, acting in the name and on the behalf of his majesty, deems it proper publicly to declare the causes and origin of the war, in which the government of the United States has compelled him to engage.

No desire of conquest, or other ordinary motive of aggression, has been, or can be with any colour of reason, in this case, imputed to Great Britain: that her commercial interests were on the side of peace, if war could have been avoided, without the sacrifice of her maritime rights, or without any injurious submission to France, is a truth which the American government will not deny.

His royal highness does not, however, mean to rest on the favorable presumption, to which he is entitled. He is prepared by an exposition of the circumstances which have led to the present war, to show that Great Britain has throughout acted towards the United States of America with a spirit of amity, forbearance, and conciliation; and to demonstrate the inadmissible nature of those pretensions which have at length unhappily involved the two countries in war.

It is well known to the world, that it has been the invariable object of the ruler of France to destroy the power and independence of the British empire, as the chief

obstacle to the accomplishment of his ambitious designs.

He first contemplated the possibility of assembling such a naval force in the channel as, combined with a numerous flotilla, should enable him to disembark in England an army sufficient, in his conception, to subjugate this country; and through the conquest of Great Britain he hoped to realize his project of universal empire.

By the adoption of an enlarged and provident system of internal defence, and by the valor of his majesty's fleets and armies, this design was entirely frustrated; and the naval force of France, after the most signal defeats, was compelled to retire from the ocean.

An attempt was then made to effectuate the same purpose by other means; a system was brought forward, by which the ruler of France hoped to annihilate the commerce of Great Britain, to shake her public credit, and to destroy her revenue; to render useless her maritime superiority, and to avail himself of his continental ascendency, as to constitute himself in a great measure the arbiter of the ocean, notwithstanding the destruction of his

fleets.

With this view, by the decree of Berlin, followed by that of Milan, he declared the British territories to be in a state of blockade; and that all commerce, or even correspondence, with Great Britain was prohibited. He decreed that every vessel and cargo, which had entered, or was found proceeding to a British port, or which, under any circumstances, had been visited by a British ship of war, should be lawful prize: he declared all British goods and produce, wherever found, and however acquired, whether coming from the mother country or from her colonies, subject to confiscation: he further declared to be denationalized, the flag of all neutral ships that should be found offending against these his decrees: and he gave to this project of universal tyranny, the name of the continental system.

For these attempts to ruin the commerce of Great Britain, by means subversive of the clearest rights of neutral nations, France

VOL. II.

endeavored in vain to rest her justification upon the previous conduct of his majesty's government.

Under circumstances of unparalleled provocation, his majesty had abstained from any measure which the ordinary rules of the law of nations did not fully warrant. Never was the maritime superiority of a belligerent over his enemy more complete and decided. Never was the opposite belligerent so formidably dangerous in his power, and in his policy, to the liberties of all other nations. France had already trampled so openly and systematically on the most sacred rights of neutral powers, as might well have justified the placing her out of the pale of civilized nations. Yet in this extreme case, Great Britain had so used her naval ascendency, that her enemy could find no just cause of complaint: and in order to give to these lawless decrees the appearance of retaliation, the ruler of France was obliged to advance principles of maritime law unsanctioned by any other authority than his own arbitrary will.

The pretexts for these decrees were, first, that Great Britain had exercised the rights of war against private persons, their ships, and goods; as if the only object of legitimate hostility on the ocean were the public property of a state, or as if the edicts and the courts of France itself had had not at all times enforced this right with peculiar rigor; secondly, that the British orders of blockade, instead of being confined to fortified towns, had, as France asserted, been unlawfully extended to commercial towns and ports, and to the mouths of rivers; and thirdly, that they had been applied to places, and to coasts, which neither were, nor could be actually blockaded. The last of these charges is not founded on fact; whilst the others, even by the admission of the American government, are utterly groundless in point of law.

Against these decrees, his majesty protested and appealed; he called upon the United States to assert their own rights, and to vindicate their independence, thus menaced and attacked; and as France

4 B

had declared, that she would confiscate every vessel which should touch in Great Britain, or be visited by British ships of war, his majesty, having previously issued the order of January, 1807, as an act of mitigated retaliation, was at length compelled, by the persevering violence of the enemy, and the continued acquiescence of neutral powers, to revisit upon France, in a more effectual manner, the measure of her own injustice; by declaring, in an order in council, bearing date the 11th of November, 1807, that no neutral vessel should proceed to France, or to any of the countries from which, in obedience to the dictates of France, British commerce was excluded, without first touching at a port in Great Britain or her dependencies. At the same time his majesty intimated his readiness to repeal the orders in council, whenever France should rescind her decrees, and return to the accustomed principles of maritime warfare; and at a subsequent period, as a proof of his majesty's sincere desire to accommodate, as far as possible, his defensive measures to the convenience of neutral powers, the operation of the orders in council was, by an order issued in April, 1809, limited to a blockade of France, and of the countries subjected to her immediate dominion.

Systems of violence, oppression, aud tyranny, can never be suppressed, or even checked, if the power against which such injustice is exercised, be debarred from the right of full and adequate retaliation: or, if the measures of the retaliating power are to be considered as matters of just offence to neutral nations, whilst the measures of original aggression and violence are to be tolerated with indifference, submission, or complacency.

The government of the United States did not fail to remonstrate against the orders in council of Great Britain. Although they knew 'that these orders would be revoked, if the decrees of France, which had occasioned them, were repealed, they resolved at the same moment to resist the conduct of both belligerents, instead of requiring France in the first instance to rescind her decrees. Applying most un

justly the same measure of resentment to the to the aggressor, and to the party aggrieved, they adopted measures of commercial resistance against both-a system of resist ance, which, however, varied in the suc cessive acts of embargo, non-intercourse, or non-importation, was evidently unequal in its operation, and principally levelled against the superior commerce and maritime power of Great Britain.

The same partiality towards France was observable in their negotiations, as in their measures of alleged resistance.

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

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-establish-ed 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.

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