Obrazy na stronie


that they would resist the retaliatory mea- | repealed by the American Government : sures of Great Britain.Although the repeal of the French Decrees thus announced was evidently contingent, either on concessions to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. The American Government, assuming the repeal of the French Decrees to be absolute, and effectual, most unjustly required Great Britain, in conformity to her declarations, to revoke her Orders in Council. The British Government denied that the repeal, which was announced in the letter of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, was such as ought to satisfy Great Britain; and in order to ascertain the true character of the measures adopted by France, the Government of the United States was called upon to produce the instrument, by which the alleged repeal of the French Decrees had been effected. If these Decrees were really revoked, such an instrument must exist, and no satisfactory reason could be given for withholding it.At length, on the 21st of May 1812, and not before, the American Minister in London did produce a copy, or at least what purported to be a copy, of such an instrument.- -It professed to bear date the 28th of April 1811, long subsequent to the dispatch of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 5th of August 1810, or even the day named therein, viz. the 1st of November following, when the operation of the French Decrees was to cease. This instrument expressly declared that these French Decrees were repealed in consequence of the American Legislature having, by their Act of the 1st of March 1811, provided, that British ships and merchandize should be excluded from the ports and harbours of the United States.

that they were not repealed in conformity with a proposition simultaneously made to both Belligerents, but that in consequence of a previous Act on the part of the American Government, they were repealed in favour of one Belligerent, to the prejudice of the other: that the American Government having adopted measures restrictive upon the commerce of both Belligerents, in consequence of Edicts issued by both, rescinded these, measures, as they effected that power, which was the aggressor, whilst they put them in full operation against the party aggrieved; although the Edicts of both powers continued in force; and lastly, that they excluded the ships of war, belonging to one Belligerent, whilst they admitted into their ports and harbours the ships of war belonging to the other, in violation of one of the plainest and most essential duties of a neutral nation. though the instrument thus produced was by no means that general and unqualified revocation of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, which Great Britain had continually demanded, and had a full right to claim; and although this instrument, under all the circumstances of its appearance at that moment, for the first time, was open to the strongest suspicions of its authenticity; yet, as the Minister of the United States produced it, as purporting to be a copy of the instrument of revocation, the Government of Great Britain, desirous of reverting, if possible, to the ancient and accustomed principles of maritime war, determined upon revoking conditionally the Orders in Council. Accordingly, in the month, of June last, his Royal Highness the Prince Regent was pleased to declare in Council, in the name and on the behalf of His Majesty, that the Orders in Council should be revoked, as far as respected the ships and property of the United States, from the 1st of August following. This revocation was to continue in force, provided the Government of the United States should, within a time to be limited, repeal their restrictive laws against British commerce. His Majesty's Minister in America was expressly ordered to declare to the Government of the United States, that "this measure had

been adopted by the Prince Regent in "the earnest wish and hope, either that the "Government of France, by further relax"ations of its system, might render perse

By this instrument, the only document produced by America, as a repeal of the French Decrees, it appears beyond a possibility of doubt or cavil, that the alleged repeal of the French Decrees was conditional, as Great Britain had asserted; and not absolute or final, as had been maintain- verance on the part of Great Britain in ed by America: that they were not re- "retaliatory measures unnecessary, or if pealed at the time they were stated to be" this hope should prove delusive, that His

"Majesty's Government might be enabled, Treaty of Utrecht, and were therefore in the absence of all irritating and re-binding upon all States. From the penal"strictive regulations on either side, to enter ties of this Code no nation was to be "with the Government of the United States exempt, which did not accept it, not only "into amicable explanations, for the pur- as the rule of its own conduct, but as a law, 66 pose of ascertaining whether, if the ne- the observance of which it was also re❝cessity of retaliatory measures should un- quired to enforce upon Great Britain."fortunately continue to operate, the parti- In a Manifesto, accompanying their De"cular measures to be acted upon by Great claration of hostilities, in addition to the "Britain, could be rendered more accept- former complaints against the Orders in "able to the American Government, than Council, a long list of grievances was brought "those hitherto pursued."- -In order to forward; some trivial in themselves, others provide for the contingency of a Declara- which had been mutually adjusted, but none tion of War on the part of the United States, of them such as were ever before alleged previous to the arrival in America of the by the American Government to be grounds said Order of Revocation, instructions were for war. As if to throw additional sent to His Majesty's Minister Plenipoten- obstacles in the way of peace, the Ametiary accredited to the United States (the rican Congress at the same time passed a execution of which instructions, in conse-law, prohibiting all intercourse with Great quence of the discontinuance of Mr. Foster's Britain, of such a tenor, as deprived the functions, were at a subsequent period in- Executive Government, according to the trusted to Admiral Sir John Borlase President's own construction of that Act, Warren), directing him to propose a ces- of all power of restoring the relations of sation of hostilities, should they have com- friendly intercourse between the two States,, menced; and further to offer a simulta- so far at least as concerned their commercial neous repeal of the Orders in Council on Intercourse, until Congress should re-asthe one side, and of the Restrictive Laws on semble. -The President of the United the British ships and commerce on the other. States, has, it is true, since proposed to -They were also respectively empowered Great Britain an Armistice; not, however, to acquaint the American Government, in on the admission, that the cause of war reply to any inquiries with respect to the hitherto relied on was removed: but on blockade of May, 1806, whilst the British condition that Great Britain, as a prelimiGovernment must continue to maintain its nary step, should do away a cause of war, legality," That in point of fact this now brought forward as such for the first "particular Blockade had been discontinued time; namely, that she should abandon "for a length of time, having been merged the exercise of her undoubted right of in the general retaliatory blockade of search, to take from American merchant the enemy's ports under the Orders in vessels British seamen, the natural-born Council, and that His Majesty's Govern-subjects of His Majesty; and this conces"ment had no intention of recurring to "this, or to any other of the blockades of "the enemy's ports, founded upon the or"dinary and accustomed principles of Maritime Law, which were in force pre"vious to the Orders in Council, without a new notice to Neutral Powers in the "usual form.". -The American vernment, before they received intimation of the course adopted by the British Government, had in fact proceeded to the extreme measure of declaring war, and issuing "Letters of Marque," notwithstanding they were previously in possession of the Report of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, of the 12th of March, 1812, promulgating anew the Berlin and Milan Decrees, as fundamental laws of the French Empire, under the false and extravagant pretext, that the monstrous principles therein contained were to be found in the

[ocr errors]


sion was required upon a mere assurance that laws would be enacted by the Legisla ture of the United States, to prevent such seamen from entering into their service; but independent of the objection to an exclusive reliance on a Foreign State, for the conservation of so vital an interest, no exGo-planation was, or could be afforded by the Agent who was charged with this Overture, either as to the main principles upon which such laws were to be founded, or as to the provisions which it was proposed they should contain.This proposition having been objected to, a second proposal was made, again offering an Armistice, provided the British Government would secretly stipulate to renounce the exercise of this Right in a Treaty of Peace. An immediate and formal abandonment of its exercise, as a preliminary to a cessation of hostilities, was not demanded; but his

Royal Highness the Prince Regent was required, in the name and on the behalf of His Majesty, secretly to abandon what the former Overture had proposed to him publicly to concede.This most offensive proposition was also rejected, being accompanied, as the former had been, by other demands of the most exceptionable nature, and especially of indemnity for all American vessels detained and condemned under the Orders in Council, or under what were termed illegal blockades-a compliance with which demands, exclusive of all other objections, would have amounted to an absolute surrender of the rights on which those Orders and Blockades were founded. Had the American Government been sincere in representing the Orders in Council, as the only subject of difference between Great Britain and the United States, calculated to lead to hostilities; it might have been expected, so soon as the revocation of those Orders had been officially made known to them, that they would have spontaneously recalled their "letters " of marque," and manifested a disposition immediately to restore the relations of peace and amity between the two Powers.But the conduct of the Government of the United States by no means corresponded with such reasonable expectations.The Order in Council of the 23d of June being officially communicated in America, the Government of the United States, saw nothing in the repeal of the Orders in Council, which should of itself restore Peace, unless Great Britain were prepared, in the first instance, substantially to relinquish the right of impressing her own seamen when found on board American merchant ships.The proposal of an Armistice, and of a simultaneous Repeal of the restrictive measures on both sides, subsequently made by the commanding officer of His Majesty's naval forces on the American coast, were received in the same hostile spirit by the Government of the United States. The suspension of the practice of impressment was insisted upon in the Correspondence which passed on that occasion, as a necessary preliminary to a cessation of hostilities:-Negociation, it was stated, might take place without any suspension of the exercise of this right, and also without any Armistice being concluded; but Great Britain was required previously to agree, without any knowledge of the adequacy of the system which could be substituted, to negociate upon the basis of accepting the Legislative

Regulations of a foreign State, as the sole equivalent for the exercise of a right which she has felt to be essential to re support of her maritime power. If America, by demanding this preliminary concession, intends to deny the validity of that right, in that denial Great Britain cannot acquiesce; nor will she give countenance to such a pretension, by acceding to its suspension, much less to its abandonment, as a basis on which to treat. If the American Government has devised, or conceives it can devise, regulations, which may safely be accepted by Great Britain, as a substitute for the exercise of the right in question, it is for them to bring forward such a plan for consideration. The British Government has never attempted to exclude this question from amongst those on which the two States might have to negotiate: It has, on the contrary, uniformly professed its readiness to receive and discuss any proposition on this subject, coming from the American Government: It has never asserted any exclusive right as to the impressment of British seamen from American vessels, which it was not prepared to acknowledge as appertaining equally to the Government of the United States, with respect to American seamen when found on board British merchant ships :-But it cannot, by acceding to such a basis in the first instance, either assume, or admit that to be practicable, which, when attempted on former occasions, has always been found to be attended with great difficulties; such difficulties as the British Commissioners in 1806, expressly declared, after an attentive consideration of the suggestions brought forward by the Commissioners on the part America, they were unable to surmount.Whilst this proposition, transmitted through the British Admiral, was pending in America, another communication on the subject of an armistice was unofficially made to the British Government in this country. The Agent, from whom this proposition was received, acknowledged that he did not consider that he had any authority himself to sign an agreement on the part of his Government, It was obvious that any stipulations entered into, in consequence of this overture, would have been binding on the British Government, whilst the Government of the United States would have been free to refuse or accept them, according to the circumstances of the monent: this proposition was therefore necessarily declined.


-After this exposition of the circum

stances which preceded, and which have | vious, that to abandon this ancient right of followed the Declaration of War by the Great Britain, and to admit these novel United States, His Royal Highness the pretensions of the United States, would be Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of His Majesty, feels himself called upon to declare the leading principles by which the conduct of Great Britain has been regulated in the transactions connected with these discussions.His Royal Highness can never acknowledge any blockade whatsoever to be illegal, which has been duly notified, and is supported by an adequate force, merely upon the ground of its extent, or because the ports, or coasts blockaded, are not at the same time invest ed by land.

His Royal Highness can never admit that neutral trade with Great Britain can be constituted a public crime, the commission of which can expose the ships of any power whatever to be denationalized.- -His Royal Highness can never admit that Great Britain can be debarred of its right of just and necessary retaliation, through the fear of eventually affecting the interest of a neutral.-His Royal Highness can never admit, that in the exercise of the undoubted and hitherto undisputed right of searching neutral merchant vessels in time of war, the impressment of British seamen, when found therein, can be deemed any violation of a neutral flag. Neither can he admit, that the taking such seamen from on board such vessel, can be considered by any Neutral State, as a hostile measure, or a justifiable cause of war.

There is no right more clearly established, than the right which a Sovereign has to the allegiance of his subjects, more especially in time of war. Their allegiance is no optional duty, which they can decline, and resume at pleasure. It is a call which they are bound to obey: it began with their birth, and can only terminate with their existence.- -If a similarity of language and manners may make the exercise of this right more liable to partial mistakes, and occasional abuse, when practised towards vessels of the United States, the same circumstances make it also a right, with the exercise of which, in regard to such vessels, it is more difficult to dispense. But if, to the practice of the United States, to harbour British seamen, be added their assumed right to transfer the allegiance of British subjects, and thus to cancel the jurisdiction of their legitimate sovereign, by acts of naturalization and certificates of citizenship, which they pretend to be as valid out of their own territory, as within it, it is ob

to expose to danger the very foundation of our maritime strength.--Without entering minutely into the other topics, which have been brought forward by the Government of the United States, it may be proper to remark, that whatever the Declaration of the United States may have asserted, Great Britain never did demand that they should force British manufactures into France; and she formally declared her willingness entirely to forego, or modify, in concert with the United States, the system by which a commercial intercourse with the enemy had been allowed, under the protection of licenses; provided the United States would act towards her, and towards France, with real impartiality.--The Government of America, if the differences between States are not interminable, has as little right to notice the affair of the Chesapeak. The aggression in this instance, on the part of a British officer, was acknowledged, his conduct was disapproved, and a reparation was regularly tendered by Mr. Foster on the part of His Majesty, and accepted by the Government of the United States.It is not less unwarranted in its allusion to the mission of Mr. Henry; a mission undertaken without the authority, or even knowledge of His Majesty's Government, and which Mr. Foster was authorized formally and officially to disavow.

-The charge of exciting the Indians to offensive measures against the United States, is equally void of foundation. Before the war began, a policy the most opposite had been uniformly pursued, and proof of this was tendered by Mr. Foster to the American Government. Such are the causes of war which have been put forward by the Government of the United States. But the real origin of the present contest will be found in that spirit, which has long unhappily actuated the Councils of the United States; their marked partiality in palliating and assisting the aggressive tyranny of France; their systematic endeavours to inflame their people against the defensive measures of Great Britain; their ungenerous conduct towards Spain, the intimate ally of Great Britain; and their unworthy desertion of the cause of other neutral nations. It is through the prevalence of such councils that America has been associated in policy with France; and committed in war against Great Britain.And under what


conduct on the part of France has the Government of the United States thus lent it

self to the enemy? The contemptuous vio-Report from General Count Wittgenstein to

His Imperial Majesty, dated Berisow,
Nov. 28.


(Continued from page 64.)

The loss on our side is not great. I am to-day going to attack Napoleon at the town of Studentzy. Admiral Tschitschagow and Count Platow will attack him on the other side of the river Berisena.

The same General reports, under date of 12th (24th) November, from the village of Tschvuga, as follows:

lation of the Commercial Treaty of the year 1800 between France and the United States; the treacherous seizure of all American vessels and cargoes in every harbour subject to the control of the French arms; the tyrannical principles of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, and the confiscations under them; the subsequent condemnations under the Rambouillet Decree, antedated or concealed to render it the more effectual; the French commercial regulations, which render the traffic of the United States with Admiral Tschitschagow arrived on the France almost illusory; the burning of their 22d at Berisow, from whence the General merchant ships at sea, long after the al- of infantry, Langeron, reports to me in leged repeal of the French Decrees-all two letters of the 10th (22d) instant, that these acts of violence on the part of France, Adjutant-General Count Lambert took posproduce from the Government of the United session of Berisow on the 9th (21st) and States, only such complaints as end in ac- there defeated the whole of Dombrowski's quiescence and submission, or are accompa- corps, taking six cannon and two stands of nied by suggestions for enabling France to colours, and making 3,000 prisoners; the give the semblance of a legal form to her remainder of this beaten corps marched off usurpations, by converting them into muni- on the road to Orscha.--Count Lambert cipal regulations.- -This disposition of the also took two pieces of artillery at Kaidenow, Government of the United States-this com- and made about 3,000 prisoners, and had plete subserviency to the Ruler of France in all, in the course of eight days, made this hostile temper towards Great Britain about 11,000 prisoners, including the sick are evident in almost every page of the offi- that were found in the hospitals at Minsk, cial correspondence of the American with and taken 24 cannon. Victor and Oudithe French Government. Against this not are retreating before me towards Bericourse of conduct, the real cause of the pre- sow. I am in pursuit of them, and yessent war, the Prince Regent solemnly pro- terday took upwards of 800 prisoners and Whilst contending against France, a number of baggage waggons. The Gein defence not only of the liberties of Great neral of cavalry, Count Platow, is already Britain, but of the world, His Royal High-in pursuit of the enemy's grand army toness was entitled to look for a far different result. From their common origin-from their common interest-from their professed principles of freedom and independence, the United States were the last power in which Great Britain could have expected to find a willing instrument, and abettor of French tyranny.Disappointed in this his just expectation, the Prince Regent will still The same Paper contains a dispatch from pursue the policy which the British Govern- Prince Kutusow, dated Lanniku, 23d Noment has so long, and invariably maintain-vember, stating that Napoleon left Orscha ed, in repelling injustice, and in support- on the 20th November, and detailing the ing the general rights of nations; and, unmeans he had adopted for pursuing him. der the favour of Providence, relying on the justice of his cause, and the tried loyalty and firmness of the British nation, His Royal Highness confidently looks forward to a successful issue to the contest, in which he has thus been compelled most reluctantly to engage.

Westminster, Jan. 9, 1913.

wards Totoschin. Your Imperial Majesty will please to perceive by this statement, that we are compressing the enemy on three sides. General Count Platow pursues them on the rear; I act on their flank ; and Admiral Tschitschagow will receive him at Berisow.-Petersburgh Gazette, Dec. 1.

Petersburgh, Dec. 1.

Intercepted Letter from the Prince of Neufchatel to Marshal Davous!, Prince of Eckmuhl.

It is the wish of the Emperor, that you support the Duke of Elchingen in the re

« PoprzedniaDalej »