Newspapers / The Weekly Raleigh Register … / Nov. 29, 1811, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Weekly Raleigh Register (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
VoiTXlII. ::-i-,f if- -U. V ... -,- - - - .. - . if: g?tnfr$apets DOCUMENTS , GWv-j, v ... COnUFiVo.SDENCE rwra Ht. Mmtm nJ Mr. rt. ' ike ujct f rt ORDERS ' cdirwiz M1UT0STER TO'M R M NR 0 E. Sm Having been up-ble to ascer tain distinctly;- front jour letter to me of yesterday's date, whether it tvas tlic de termination of thePresident to rst sa ti ficd with the partial repeal o.the Ber. lin andXlilan Decrcci, which y u .be lieve has taken placed so as to. tee no reason in she conduct of France for ai ming thr relations between this coun try and Great Britain by exercising his p.iwerf suspending the opeiation of the non importation act,, allow, roe tb repeat rr.y question to you on thu point, as con'Mincd in my letter of thr 14 h, inst. bof-rc I proceed 10 make any com ments on yur anther, . ?t. FOSTF.R TO MR. MONROE.' . WtUUxtQn.3fuj 26, 1811. Sib I hsve had the-honorto receive your letter of July 23 in answer to mine olihe 3 md 14 instant, which you will permit mrt'y were not merely rela live to his Majesty's .orders in council and the blockade of May ISOfl, but.also in the 'President's proclamation of last Xar. nod to the consequent act of Con grr' of March 2,s well as to the just complaints tvhich his Jloyal Highness the Piii-cc Bcgent had commanded me to inai;e to yur government with re spect io the proclamation and tothal act. ' If the United SutfV Rovcrnment had exited that I shuwld have made com munications which would hate enabled them to coe to an accommodation ih Grrat Britain on the ground on which alrne you say it was pcssible to meet us, and that y.n mean by that ex pression a "departure from our system of defence agVtnst the new kind of warfare still practiced by France, 1 am at a los t d sc ver fiom whit source they could har- drrivd th sr expecta!kns,certain. lv nrt horn th- corrrspondrnce between the Mirquis WcHesUy Sc Mr.Pinkney. Ik fore I proceed to . reply to the er- pumei.ts which are brought forward by you to shew that the decrees of Ber lin and Milan arc repealed. J must nrs? enter into an explanation upon some puints on which ynu hve etidently ms apprehendtd, "o; I will not supp se you could h ve wished to misinterpret my meaning. And firs in rrgnnl to the blockade f Mav 1806 1 mit vo thai I am whU ly at a los to findou from what part of my letter it is 'that. the. 'President has drawn the unqualified .Infcience that shoul the orders in council rf 1807 be rev;.k d, the biockde of May JE06, would cc se with them. It is most ma terial that on this pciat no mist k'e shou'd txist b-tween us. From vour letter it u!d p;ear as if on theque. tinn f blockade which America had so inexprc!edly coonectedwi'h her de tand for a repeal of our orders in coun. cl. G eat Bfiiain-hjd made the concrs- . r 11.1 . sirn r-quirrdorher ;asii.arerau mai has parsed on the subject, af erle as nd rcpretofhis Miesty'a covernmentaWhe. United Stafes' hav ing i-kn up the view which the t rench v-ove-nment presented of our. 'just and I--i-:mate principles of blockade which pLSed in the blockade of Mnv 1305, ihe whole ground taken by his M jesty's government was at. once a bamlnned. ' Whm I had the honor to exhibit to you my instructions, and to draw up as 1 conceived according to your wishes and those of the President, a aJatcmcnt of the mode in which tnat blockarte would probably disappear, I never meant to authorise such a conclu sion! and 1 wjw beg most.unequivocally to disclaim it. The Mockade.bf 'May 1S06, wi'.l nct continue after the repeal of thi Oedrrs in Council, unless hu Ma jesty's government shMl think fit to sus Uin it by the special application of & sufn ient rav 1 force, and the fact ofits birj; so continued or not, will be noti fied at the tirr e. If in this view of the T.-rtter, which is certainty presented ir c crnciliatcry piriS one of te ol)t.icle to a complete onrtcrstanding hetwen er countries can be removed by the U ij:?trxt government waving all further Ttlrrcic- o hat blofkdc, when they c:n bi justified in asking a repeal of -A e3ly he very saatifacory ; but I distinctly tb cKskvow -having made I beg any frcuxfAcrrrrnnt that thr. blockade' wouldlcease. merely in conse quence of a ( revocation of ihe Orders in Council;; whenever It does cease, it. will cease bn. cause there will be no adequate force ap plied to maintain it. On another very material point, sir, you-appeAr to haVe misconstrued my wonls; for in no one passage of my let ter canI discover any mention of inno-rationaorithdpartofGreat-Britain-such1 as yoU say excited a partial 'surprise in your' government! aThere :s no new uretension set up by, his Mnjesty's go- vrnmrr In nnnwrr to O'SestlonS OI yours as to "what were .thr Decrees or recuKitions of France which Great-Bri tain complained of, and aga;nst which she directs her retaliatory measures," I brought diiinct!y into your view ihe Berlin nd Milan decree?, atxl yoU have not dtnicd, because, indeed, you cou'd n-it, that the provision of those decree? were new measures of war on the par' of France, acknowledged as such by her ruler, and contrary to the pr inciples ajd usace of civilized nations. , That le present-war has been oppressive beyond example by its duration, and the dsst lation it spreads' through 'Europe J wi'- iingly agree with you, but the XJhited States cannot surely mean to jatiribute the ChUse to Great-Britain. The (ques tion between Great Britain and Fiance., hthat of an honorable struggle against he -lawless tfibrts of an ambitious ty rant, and America can bat h ye the wish of every independent nation as to its result. On a third point, sir, I have also to regret that my meaning should have been mistaken. Great. iJntain never contended .hat Brj.ish merchant vessels sli'.Mild be allowed to trade with her e temics, or that British property shoold e allowed entry into their ports, as you would infer ; such a pretension would indeed bz preposterous : bu Great Bri tain dos contend aai-.st the system f terror put in practice by France, b which, usurping authority wherever lui arms br'the timidity of nations wilil en able her to extend her Influence, shr makes it a crime to neutral cpuntnes as fellas individuals that they should pos sess articles however acquired which may have been once the prcduceofE; -i;lish industry or of ihe Bitih sojl. Against such an ab min ble an.1, ex travagant pretension cyety fcclirig.ntu?: rvrvo'.t, and the honor ho less thin the in erest of Great Britain engages Jcr to oppose it. .Turning :o "h? course of argiinun. contained io your letter, allow me to t press my surprz at the conclusion you draw in cons'ideiiog th- question of pri ority relative to ih Fr-tuh decrees or Biitish Orders in C';U.cil. It was clear ly proved that the blockade of Mav 1806,' was maintained by an ad quale naval force, and herefore was a bl k id, fmndedon just and legi imntepfiTS ciples,and'I have notjheard that it was considered in a contrary light when no tified as such to you, by Mr. S-crcta y Fox,inor until it su'r.ed the views of France to endeavor to have it con skier ed otherwise Why America took up the view 'the French KOvernmeju close to give of it. and ccuM see in it grou .uV for the French decrecs.was always m -ter of astonishmeot in England. Your remarks on the modifications at various times of our system of retalia-l fion will require the les. reply, from th circumstaoce of the Order in Council of April 1809,; having. 'superseded them all. The were calculated for the a vowed purpose of" softening the tff.ct of the original orders' tin neutral com merce, the incideriUT effect or th(se or dcrs on neutrals having been always; sincerely regreiicu. oy. nis irtjtaj a Government j but, when' it was founq that neutrals objected to them they were removed- ' A c ' , As to the principle of retaliation, it, isj founded on the just "and natural right pfjl seif-defepes against otir enemy if II France is unable to enforce her decrees on the ocean, it is pot from the want of i!I, for she enforces them whet ever, he can do h ;her threats .are only empty bere her power is. of no avaii..v . ' In,ihe sicw ycu have pkebof the conduct of America, in her -relattoa with the two belligerents, and in thecon- clusion s ou draw with'respect to, the im partiality,! your country at exemplified J :n the non-unportation law, I larrent to av I cannot arre with VOU. That act 1 th '.prtleTSi 'land '. may communicate, this to my gdverhmcnt, it, will undoubt-; v - - . .1 1 is a direct measur against the British tradeenacted. at a time when all the le- gal authorities in the Uoittd States ap . rr ' . i r . . "j peafrd ready to contest the statement of a repeal of the French decrees, on which Tas,fourrd-'d the President's proclarm, tion of NJvember 2d, arid consequently todispufethe justiceof the proclamation itself. , , a ' . : You urge, sir, that the British govei n- 1 meni 'pTomhed to proceed part passu I wi h Frlnce in tnV rene d of tier edicts.' I' is to b wished ycu 'could printout to. us any step France has t-ken in the re p-al of hers. Geat Britain has repeat edly- decla'red that she. would repeal when the French dip so, and she means to ktep to that declaration I!have stated to you that we ccuM not consider the letter ot Anguit 5, de daring the repeal of the French edicts provided we revoked ourOrdet stn Coun cil, qrlAmerica resented our not doing so, as a step ot that, nature ; and the French" goverement knew hat we couM not ; their objectwas; evidently while thtir system was adhered to in all its ngour, to endeavor to persuade the A mcrican government that "they-had re laxed from it, and to induce her'to pro ceed in enforcing the submission of G. Britain to the inordinate demands of France. It is to be lamented that they have but too well succeeded j for the United States' government appear . to have considered the r rench declaration in the sens- in which France wished i o be taken, as an absolute repeal of her decrees without adverting to the condi tional terms which eccompmied it. But you assert that no violations of your neutral lights by France occur on 'he nigh seas, and that these were all he viola ii.ns alluclvd to in the act of Congrtss of May, iSlO. I readily be heve, indeed, that such cases are rare but it is ow:ng to the preponderance of the British navy (hat they are si, whe i scarce a ship under -the French flag can ventpre to s a with ut be ng taken, it is not extraordina y that they make-no cap'ures. If such violations alone were wi'hin th purview of your law, there would seem to have been no necessity for it enactment. The British Navy might have been safely trusted for the prevention of this occurrence. ButT have always believed,' and my govern, oient has believed, that the American gislators had in view in the provisions of their law, as.it respects Fiance, no only her deeds of violence on the seas, but all the novel and ex.iraordinary pre hensions and prac ices.of her govern ment which infringed their neutral right. We have had no evidence as yet of any of ihose pretensions being abandon ed. ,To the ambiguous declaration in Mr. Champagny's note, is opposed the unambiguous declaration of Bonaparte himself. ' You urge that there is no thing incompatible with the revocation of the decrees in respect to the U. S. in his expressions to the Deputies from ihe free ci'ies of Hamburgh, Bremen and Lubeck; that it is distinctly stated ;n that speech that the blockade of thr Bri tish Islands shall cease when the British blockades eta te and thu French block ade shall cease in favor of those nations in whone favor G. B?ita:n revokes hers, or who support their righis against her pretensions. It is to bt inFerred from this and the corresponding parts of the declaration al luded to, that unless G. Btitain sacrifi ces her 'principles of blockade, which . le those authorised by the established laws of nations, France wlil still main tainher etrees of Berlin .and Milan,, which indeed the speech in question declares to be the fundamental' laws of the French empire. " : I do not, TconfessT conceive how these; avowals of the ruler of France can be said to be compatible with the repeal of his uYcfe'es ih respect to the U. States. If the -'United States are prepared to in-J sist on the sacrifice hy .GT3ritain of the ancient apu esiaonsncu , ruic ui, man time war practised by her, then indeed they may :avoid the operation of the French decrees but otherwise, accord ing to this document, it is very clear that they are atill - subjecte'd to them. The decree of Fontninbleati is co'nfes sedlvfounded on the decrees of Berlin and Milan, dated ihe 19th of October, 1810, and proves their continued exis tence. I The report of the. French'Mi tiUlcr of'Dec 8, armouecmg the perse verance of France in her decrees is still further lnMcQnfirrroattpo"bFr them . and a 'reperusal of the letter of the Minister oi Justice, of 2 5th last Dec. confirms me J 1 , i ' )- for - (V mister -w. l. - .: . . : i A make, t he jirdspecti ve .restoration of A- merican vessels, taken after the 1st Nov. to pe a oonsequence of e non-impqr' tation and not of theVFrench revocation. If the French' goVernlnent had beenrsin cerc. th'eywppld have ceased infringing on the nentiFal rights of : America, after the 1st of Nov. That they violated ihem, howpyer, after that period is notorious iVour government seeititoleX.it be un derstood, that an ambiguous declaration from Grtat-ritain, similar to tharof the "renrh Minister would '-have rbie'TV ac ceptable to, them. ) Bu, Sir,' is it qol sisient with the dignity offtatjon that respects itself, to speak jnj afnbuous SanguTge ? The subjects and citizens i eitncr country wouiu in toe end oe the Victims, as many are already, in all probability, who fipm'a miscons rucirQn of the meaning of the French govern- ntent, have been ted into the most im prudent speculations. $uch conduct would not be to prpceed pari passu with France in reyok-ng our edicts- but to descend to ths use tjf the, perfi dious and juggljng ccutrjvances of her cabinet, by which, she fiJIs. her coffers at the expence of independent nations. A simikr construction of proceeding pari passu might lead to such decrees as those ot .KambouuIet, or ot Lsayone, to the system of exclusion or of licentes all measures of Frarrce against the 'A- merican commerce, in nothing short of aosoiute nostuuy. It is urged that no vessel has been condemned by the tribunals of France, on the principles of her decrees since the IstNov. You allow, however, that there, have been some detained since that period, and that such part of the cargoes as consisted of goods not the prod.uce of America, was seized, and the other part, together with the vessel it self, only released after the Presidents proclamation became known in France. These circumstances surely only prove the difficulty that France js under in re conciling her anti-commercial and anti neutral system, -with; her desire to ex press her satisfaction at the measures taken in America against the commerce of Great-Britain. She seizes in virtue of tbe Berlin and Milan decrees, but sh, makes a partial restoration for the purpose of deceiving merica.1 I haye now followed you, I believe. Sir, through the whole, range of your argument, and oh reviewing the course of it, I think I may securely ..-say, that no satisfactory proof has as yet been bro't forward of the repeal of the obnoxious decrees of France, but on the contrary, that it appears they still continue in full f rce, consequently that no grounds ex ist on which you can with justice, de mand of Great Britain a revocaiiqnf of her orders in Counqil ; that jwe have a right to complain of the conduct of the American government jn enforcing the provisions of the. act of May, 18 10. to uie exclusion oi me jou isn iraae, ana afterwards in obtaining a special law Tot the same purpose, though it was notbri- ous at the' time that, France stdl conti-i nued her aggressiohs upon American com me rce, a:; d had recent ly prom u ga7 ted anV her decrees, suffering no trade from this country, buj through licences publicly sold by . her agents ; and that all the suppositions you have formed of in novations on the partof Great-Britain or of her pretensions to trade with her ene mies are wholly groundl(?ssJ.have also stated to you the view hs Majesty's go vernmeht has tak- n of . tfie question of the blockade of May, 1805, and it now only remains that.l urge afresh the in- I justice Vof the' Ui States' government persevering in' their 4 union with ' the French1 .systemj for, the ' purposer of crushing the commerce of G4 Britain. , r rom every consideration which equi ty, good policy or interest can 'suggest. uiei c appears oc rsucn acau uporr i merica togiy,rupth!ts!Uy favorsFrance vto Vhe-injury oi '-.JBrU tain ;f that I cannot,"hpwcver ;littie sa tisfactory your com m unicationsr arei , as yet abandon all hopes that even before Jhe tngress meet, ne w jisWmay be laKen oi inc auojfci . oy. ine.rresiuent,, which will leatl id a more 'hVpjpy result. ,v s. v-; a. j.FosTkii. ; r MR. MOVEOE TOMI?; FOSTER. ? , Department of State, tilyZTtlMW f Sir 1 had the Honoipfo receive ; vour letterbf y esterday 'sdatej Mn tfme fb submit it to die vieyKof thfe President ,t in -the inference, I dreMfronr tt fc j oihejrtyise , hyr suidnat, Minist oeiore ne leu lown.tr- , ; j ; It was my Ibbject to state tblybuinl thy letter of the 23d in st, that under e: V istihg circumstabcest was impossible S. ior ine rreaiumt to, terminate me ope ration of the non-im porta tion lawiof ihe d March last tba Frjace hayg ac-j ceptejrtherositiori marlc by apre vi ousIawcrquallytoreaBri ta Francej ajnd liavingoj-e'voktd'he r iflecrees yiolatmur;betttrafrih G Bri-; tain;havjpg de'clined fb rtVoke h'er it riee"treutyf tKtsymertt to fulfil i ts venga ge rn e ri tf and to de c lare the I noh-irn;portatibnJn force srgainst G. B. This -stat eof affairs has not beeri sought, by the U States. When the? prbpo'sitiohcohtamed ip the law of May 1 sK 'tm&ffitk : ' offered equally to b ntf powers," there was cause1 to presume that preif Britain would TiaVe accepted it, ri,:jwhlcn, eve n't' the hon-i'rrtrjortatioril law wm-ldrfbtr 'have Operated aiost her J I It is : in, t He ; powe r 7 of t HeBr it fsh go vernment at this time to enable the Pre siVe f it rt4jset asi cie Hhe pop -i fn porta t ion latv; by fehderinj Jo tHefeiC Si an act of justice., lit G Britain will cease to vio late their,nutral . rights by revoking her orders in council, bh which event alonei the Pjresrdeufhaslie jpcfwerV ljarn in- structed to1nf.rm vou that lie w II with out delay exercise it rtermiQ acting the opeitf6hTfthisna wif1 i ; I. It is presumed thdtuhe .communica ttbshitfh haV n.de'-hblior to make to 'you of thrrbcation by Fiance! of her decrleesso far as f hey violated they neutral ritjhis t q he NjUniteqStaievjahA of her cdddiict since ihe revocation, will present to ygur government a different view of the subject ' from that which it had ' before takep, and produce in its councils a correspondent effect. ' ! ? j. nave me noricr to pe, etc. ? -if- - Mrmonroe to kn: FOSTER.- ' 1 - 'Department oS?aie, OctdSe'r 1, 1811. j i Sir I have had the honor to receive ' your letter of the 26th of Julyyand tb bbmil'it to the viewiiofthe President f In answering that letter,rtt is proper that I should notice, a complaint that I rad omitted to r eply in mine f t he iSd of July, xq you? remonstrance agaipit r the proclamation of x the president q-f ; -November last,' Sc to the demand which you had made, by the order, cf your rj vernment of the : repeal of the riivim- , portation act of March; 2d "of the present yeaf.- fj" ; - ' j : r 4My' lelter has ceitainly riot merited this imputation.' 4 1 Havhig she wn the injustice bf the Bri- -tish government in issuing the Orders' in Council on the pretext assigned. and", its. stilf greater injustice In adhering b therp after tfik'pretext had failed a re spect for G. Britain, aswell es for the U. States prevented my placing n iU strong liht in which the subject natu rally presented itself,-the iertjonstrart-e , alluded to, and the extraordinary mand founded on it, that while your jq vernraerit a'cebmrhbdated in nothing, 1 1 e U. Stktes should relincjuish the grovittd, which by si - just regard 'to the piblfe rights, and honbr, they bad beerreoin?EN Ipd to lake Propositions tending to xfe- ' grade tnatidn can never be' brppght in-J r pared to submit to the degradation. l x. una mat j.counneu mv - reply to thbse passages in ybar letter, ' whieiv involved he clat mof the V- S ates, on the principles ofjustice, to the' rttfi. catibri pf the Ordersm Council. TYptif de rnd;hbweVer7 was neithe' unnoticed pr?an'T::in laying before joii Ihe cbmpleterandVs was believed; StTe silribleprbpf on which the Unites x- , "m waiicmur me revocaiionj i the Orders in Counctli a verv4rexbll cit : : t. .Til 'answer was supposbd ro beVeb; tp that demand. i; ' A .ff ii' Equally hfbunded U your complaint Bi ttiatTmisujriderstobd that passage whtch i claimed, as.a conditiob,bf thd revocatibb i '.. of theT Orders in Councilharthelrade ft ofi G; Britaux with thexoinent should f ' bexrestoredto the state jn which it was ? before he Berlin TahfcMiian5dec rtes- - r ,v , f'.vu. xxn mis preiension W2 , 1 novel and extraordinary, it was ncessa- iy;thataidisttnctideaJshb ' J of itahd withhat'viewj Tasked M1' y&& an explanalibhs: tQ fbrrti-pbel;;? ": sv j. -H.,- '4 :'' ' VIn this esqManatton given, ycu do, not ' jl insist w therightto trade in Brii h I : propeTty 'with British vessels, directly admit, Would pe preposterous. But y uuiusisi. vj iicccaary uupiicaiion, that ? France. has no right to inhibit the impor tation intb her ports 6fSritishmpnutar- ; turs, brjhe produce bfaoeBri(isEoi ! , when the property 'of neuYralsVand iha', tltintil France removes that inhibition 'the J d j-t '.-..!?--- - ' .-' v . ' -. vm '11 ' I 1 k 'if Ms i' - 1 v ir-
The Weekly Raleigh Register (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Nov. 29, 1811, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75