Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Relations with France.

United States, unconnected with the French repeal.

The French decree of the 28th of April, 1811, was transmitted to the United States by the Wasp, a public vessel, which had been long awaiting, at the ports of Great Britain and France, despatches from our Ministers relating to these very important concerns with both Governments. It was received at the Department of State on the 13th of July, 1812, nearly a month after the declaration of war against Great Britain. Intelligence of the repeal of the Orders in Council was not received until about the middle of the following month. It was impossible, therefore, that either of these acts, in whatever light they might be viewed, should have been taken into consideration, or have had any influence in deciding on that important event.

that they are to be regarded by other Powers. In repealing the Orders in Council on the pretext of the French decree of the 28th of April, 1811, the British Government has conceded that it ought to have repealed them on the declaration of the 5th of August, 1810. It is impossible to discriminate between the two acts, or to separate them from each other, so as to justify, on sound and consistent principles, the repeal of the Orders in Council on the ground of one act, and the refusal to repeal them on that of the other. The second act makes the repeal definitive; but for what reason? Because the non-importation act had been put in force against Great Britain, in compliance with the condition subsequently attached to the former repeal, and her refusal to repeal her Orders in Council. That act being still in force, and the decree of the 28th of April, 1811, being expressly founded on it, Great Britain repeals her Orders in Council on the basis of this latter decree. The conclusion is therefore irresistible, that by this repeal, under all the circumstances attending it, the British Government has acknowledged the justice of the claim of the United States to a repeal on the former occasion. By accepting the latter repeal, it has sanctioned the preceding one. It has sanctioned also the conduct of this Government in carrying into effect the non-importation act against Great Britain, founded on the preceding repeal.

Had the British Government been disposed to repeal its Orders in Council, in conformity with the principle on which it professed to have issued them, and on the condition which it had itself prescribed, there was no reason to delay the repeal until such a decree as that of the 28th of April, 1811, should be produced. The declaration of the French Government of August 5, 1810, had fully satisfied every claim of the British Government, according to its own principles on that point. By it the decrees of Berlin and Milan were declared to be repealed, the repeal to take effect on the 1st of November following; on which Other important consequences result from this day it did take effect. The only condition at- repeal of the British Government. By fair and tached to it was, either that Great Britain should obvious construction, the acceptance of the decree follow the example, and repeal her Orders in of the 28th of April, 1811, as the ground of the Council, or that the United States should carry into repeal of the Orders in Council, ought to be coneffect against her their non-importation act. This strued to extend back to the 1st of November, condition was, in its nature, subsequent, not pre- 1810, the day on which the preceding repeal took cedent; reserving a right in France to revive her effect. The Secretary of State has full confidecrees, in case neither alternative was performed. dence that, if this question could be submitted to By this declaration it was put completely in the the judgment of an impartial judicial tribunal, power of Great Britain to terminate this contro- such would be its decision. He has equal confiversy in a manner the most honorable to herself. dence that such will be the judgment pronounced France had yielded to her the ground on a con- on it by the enlightened and impartial world. If, dition with which she had declared her willing- however, these two acts could be separated from ness to comply. Had she complied, the non- each other, so as that the latter might be made importation act would not have been carried into the basis of the repeal of the Orders in Council, effect, nor could the French decrees have been distinct from the former, it follows that, bearing revived. By refusing to comply, she has made date on the 28th of April, 1811, the repeal ought herself responsible for all that has since followed. to have relation to that date. In legal construcBy the decree of the 28th of April, 1811, the tion, between nations as well as individuals, acts decrees of Berlin and Milan were said to be de- are to be respected from the time they begin to finitively repealed, and the execution of the non-operate; and where they impose a moral or poimportation act against Great Britain was de-litical obligation on another party, that obligaclared to be the ground of that repeal. The repeal, announced by the declaration of the 5th of August, 1810, was absolute and final, except as to the condition subsequently attached to it. This latter decree acknowledges that that condition had been performed, and disclaims the right to revive it in consequence of that performance; and, extending back to the 1st of November, confirms, in every circumstance, the preceding repeal. The latter act, therefore, as to the repeal, is nothing more than a confirmation of the former. It is in this sense that those two acts are to be understood in France. It is in the same sense

tion commences with the commencement of the act. But it has been urged that the French decree was not promulgated or made known to the British Government until a year after its date. This objection has no force. By accepting an act bearing date a year before it was promulgated, it is admitted that, in the interval, nothing was done repugnant to it. It cannot be presumed that any Government would accept from another, as the basis on which it was to found an important measure, an act of anterior and remote date, pledging itself to a certain course of conduct, which that Government had, in the interval, de

Relations with France.

parted from and violated. If any Government had violated an act, the injunctions of which it was bound to observe, by an anterior one in relation to a third party, and which it professed to have observed before its acceptance by the other, it could not be presumed that it would cease to violate it after the acceptance. The conclusion is irresistible, that, if the other Government did accept such act, with a knowledge of its antecedent violation, as the foundation of any measure on its own part, such act must have been the ostensible only, and not the real, motive to such

measure.

Had a similar declaration been made by the Minister of France in the United States to this Government, by the order of his own, would it not have been entitled to respect, and been respected? By the usage of nations such respect could not have been withheld. The arrangement made with Mr. Erskine is a full proof of the good faith of this Government, and of its impartiality in its transactions with both the belligerents. It was made with that Minister on the ground of his public character, and the confidence due to it; on which basis the non-intercourse was removed as to England, and left in full force against The declaration of the Prince Regent of the France. The failure of that arrangement was 21st of April, 1812, is in full confirmation of these imputable to the British Government alone, who, remarks. By this act of the British Government, in rejecting it, took on itself a high responsi it is formally announced, on the authority of ability, not simply in regard to the consequences report of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the attending it, but in disavowing and annulling the Conservative Senate of France, that the French act of its Minister, without showing that he had decrees were still in force and that the Orders in exceeded his authority. In accepting the declarCouncil should not be repealed. It cannot fail to ation of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, excite considerable surprise that the British Gov- in proof of the French repeal, the United States ernment should immediately afterwards, that is, gave no proof of improper credence to the Govon the 23d of June, repeal its Orders in Coun- ernment of France. On a comparison of both cil, on the ground of the French decree of the transactions it will appear, that if a marked con28th of April, 1811. By this proceeding the Brit-fidence and respect was shown to either Governish Government has involved itself in a manifest inconsistency. It has maintained by one act that the French decrees were in full force, and by another that they were repealed during the same space of time. It admits, also, that by no act of the French Government, or of its cruisers, had any violation of the repeal, announced by the declaration of the French Government of the 5th of August, 1810, been committed, or, at least, that such violation had not had sufficient weight to prevent the repeal of the Orders in Council.

It was objected that the declaration of the French Government of the 5th August, 1810, was not such an act as the British Government ought to have regarded. The Secretary of State is thoroughly satisfied that this objection is altogether unfounded. It was communicated by the Emperor through his highest official organ, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, to the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris. It is impossible to conceive an act more formal, authentic, or obligatory on the French Government than that alluded to. Does one Government ever ask or expect from another to secure the performance of any duty, however important, more than its official pledge, fairly and fully expressed? Can better security be given for its performance? Had there been any doubt on this subject, the conduct of Great Britain herself, in similar cases, would have completely removed it. The whole history of her diplomatic intercourse with other Powers, on the subject of blockade, is in accord with this proceeding of the French Government. We know that when her Government institutes a blockade, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs announces it to the Ministers of other Powers at London, and that the same form is observed when they are revoked. Nor was the authenticity of either act, thus announced, ever questioned.

ment, it was to that of Great Britain. In accepting the declaration of the Government of France, in the presence of the Emperor, the United States stood on more secure ground than in accepting that of a British Minister in this country.

To the demand made by the United States of the repeal of the British Orders in Council, founded on the basis of the French repeal of August 5, 1810, the British Government replied, by demanding a copy of the orders issued by the French Government for carrying into effect that repeal; a demand without example in the intercourse between nations. By this demand it ceased to be a question whether the French repeal was of sufficient extent, or was founded on justifiable conditions. The pledge of the French Government was doubted; a scrutiny was to be instituted as to the manner in which it was to be discharged, and its faith preserved, not by the subsequent conduct of its cruisers towards the vessels of the United States, but by a copy of the orders given to its cruisers. Where would this end? If the French Government intended a fraud by its declaration of repeal, announced to the Minister of the United States, and afterwards to this Government, might it not likewise commit a fraud in any other communication which it might make? If credit was refused by the British Government to the act of the French Government, thus formally announced, is it probable that it would have been given by it to any document of inferior character, directed to its own people? Although it was the policy, and might be the interest of the British Government to engage the United States in such a controversy with the French Government, it was far from comporting with their interests to do it. They considered it their duty to accept the repeal already made by the French Government of its decrees, and to look to its conduct, and to that of

Relations with France.

its cruisers, sanctioned by the Government, for the faithful performance or violation of it. The United States having been injured by both Powers, were unwilling, in their exertions to obtain justice of either, to become the instrument of the other. They were the less inclined to it in the present instance, from the consideration that the party making the pressure on them maintained in full force 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 accommodation; it being manifest to the world, not only that the faith of the French Government stood pledged for the repeal of its decrees, but that the repeal did take effect on the 1st of November, 1810, in regard to the United States; that several American vessels taken under them had been delivered up; and judicial decisions suspended on all, by its order; and that it also continued to give the most positive assurances that the repeal should be faithfully observed.

It has also been urged that the French repeal was conditional, and for that reason could not be accepted. This objection has already been fully answered. It merits attention, however, that the acts of the British Government relating to this subject, particularly the declaration of the 21st April, 1812, and the repeal of that of the 23d June of the same year, are equally and in like manner conditional. It is not a little surprising that the British Government should have objected to a measure in another Government to which it has itself given a sanction by its own acts. It is proper, however, to remark, that this objection has been completely waived and given up by the acceptance of the decree of the 28th of April, 1811.

they have not submitted to privations in vain. The discussion of other wrongs, particularly that relating to impressment, had been closed some time before the period alluded to. It was unworthy the character of the United States to pursue the discussion on that difference, when it was evident that no advantage could be derived from it. The right was reserved to be brought forward and urged again when it might be done with effect. In the meantime, the practice of impressment was persevered in with rigor.

At the time when war was declared against Great Britain, no satisfactory arrangement was offered, or likely to be obtained, respecting impressment; and nothing was more remote from the expectation of this Government than the repeal of the Orders in Council. Every circumstance which had occurred tending to illustrate the policy and views of the British Government rendered such an event altogether improbable. From the commencement of that system of hostility which Great Britain had adopted against the United States, her pretensions had gradually increased, or at least become more fully unfolded, according to circumstances, until, at the moment when war was declared, they had assumed a character which dispelled all prospect of accommodation. The Orders in Council were said to have been adopted on a principle of retaliation on France, although at the time when the order of May, 1806, was issued, no measure of France had occurred on which it could be retaliatory; and at the date of the next order, (January, 1807,) it was hardly possible that this Government should have even heard of the decree of Berlin to which it related. It was stated at the time of the adoption, and for some time afterwards, that they should be revoked as soon as France revoked her decrees, and that the British Government would proceed with the Government of France pari passu in the revocation. After the declaration, however, of the French Government of the 5th August, 1810, by which the Berlin and Milan decrees were declared to be repealed, the British Government changed its tone, and continued to rise in its demands to the moment that war was declared. It objected, first, that the French repeal was conditional and not absolute: although the only condition attached to it was, that Great The Secretary of State presumes that these Britain should follow the example, or the United facts and explanations, supported as they are by States fulfil their pledge, by executing the nonauthentic documents, prove: First, that the re-importation act against her. It was then depeal of the British Orders in Council was not to manded that France should repeal her internal be ascribed to the French decree bearing date on regulations, as a condition of the repeal of the the 28th April, 1811; and, secondly, that in mak- British Orders in Council; next, that the French ing that decree the basis of their repeal, the Brit- repeal should be extended to all neutral nations ish Government has conceded that it ought to as well as to the United States; and, lastly, that have repealed them on the ground of the declar- the ports of her enemies, and all ports from which ation of the French Government of the 5th the British flag was excluded, should be opened August, 1810, so as to take effect on the 1st No- to British manufactures in American vessels; vember following. To what cause the repeal of conditions so extravagant as to satisfy all dispasthe British Orders in Council was justly attrib- sionate minds that they were demanded, not in utable cannot now remain a doubt with any who the expectation that they would or could be comhave marked, with a just discernment, the course plied with, but to terminate the discussion. of events. It must afford great consolation to the good people of these States to know that

The British Government has urged, also, that it could not contide in the faithful performance by the French Government of any engagement it might enter into relative to the repeal of its decrees. This objection would be equally applicable to any other compact to be entered into with France. While maintained, it would be a bar to any treaty, even to a treaty of peace, between them. But it also has been admitted to be unfounded by the acceptance of the decree of the 28th April, 1811.

On full consideration of all circumstances, it appeared that the period had arrived when it

Relations with France.

became the duty of the United States to take that attitude with Great Britain which was due to their violated rights, to the security of their most important interests, and to their character as an independent nation. To have shrunk from the crisis would have been to abandon everything valuable to a free people. The surrender of our seamen to British impressment, with the destruction of our navigation and commerce, would not have been its only evils. The desolation of property, however great and widely spread, affects an interest which admits of repair. The wound is incurable only which fixes a stigma on the national honor. While the spirit of the people is unsubdued, there will always be found in their virtue a resource equal to the greatest dangers and most trying emergencies. It is in the nature of free Government to inspire in the body of the people generous and noble sentiments; and it is the duty of the constituted authorities to cherish and to appeal to those sentiments and to rely on the patriotic support of their constituents. Had they proved themselves unequal to the crisis, the most fatal consequences would have resulted from it. The proof of their weakness would have been recorded; but not on them alone would its baneful effect have been visited. It would have shaken the foundation of the Government itself, and even of the sacred principles of the Revolution, on which all our political institutions depend. Yielding to the pretensions of a foreign Power, without making a manly effort in defence of our rights; without appealing to the virtue of the people or to the strength of our Union, it would have been charged, and believed, that in these sources lay the hidden defects. Where would the good people of these States have been able to make another stand? Where would have been their rallying point? The Government of their choice having been dishonored, its weakness, and that of their institutions demonstrated, the triumph of the enemy would have been complete. It would also have been durable.

The constituted authorities of the United States neither dreaded nor anticipated these evils. They had full confidence in the strength of the Union, in the firmness and virtue of the people. and were satisfied, when the appeal should be made, that ample proof would be afforded that their confidence had not been misplaced. Foreign pressure, it was not doubted, would soon dissipate foreign partialities and prejudices, if such existed, and unite us more closely together as one people.

In declaring war against Great Britain, the United States have placed themselves in a situation to retort the hostility which they had so long suffered from the British Government. The maintenance of their rights was the object of the war. Of the desire of this Government to terminate the war on honorable conditions, ample proof has been afforded by the proposition made to the British Government, immediately after the declaration of war, through the Chargé d'Afaires of the United States at London, and by the promptitude and manner of the accept

ance of the mediation of the Emperor of Russia. It was anticipated by some that a declaration of war against Great Britain would force the United States into a close connexion with her adversary, much to their disadvantage. The Secretary of State thinks it proper to remark, that nothing is more remote from the fact. The discrimination in favor of France, according to law, in consequence of her acceptance of the proposition made equally to both Powers, produced a difference between them in that special case, but in that only. The war with England was declared without any concert or communication with the French Government; it has produced no connexion between the United States and France, or any understanding as to its prosecution, continuance, or termination. The ostensible relation between the two countries is the true and only one. The United States have just claims on France for spoliations on their commerce on the high seas, and in the ports of France; and their late Minister was, and their present Minister is, instructed to demand reparation for these injuries, and to press it with the energy due to the justice of their claims, and to the character of the United States. The result of the negotiation will be communicated to Congress in due time. The papers marked I contain copies of two letters, addressed from this Department to Mr. Barlow; one of the 16th June, 1812, just before the declaration of war; the other, of the 14th July following, which show distinctly the relation existing between the United States and France at that interesting period. No change has since occurred in it.

All which is respectfully submitted.
JAMES MONROE.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Copy of a letter from the Minister of Finance to the Count of Sussy, Counsellor of State, Director General of the Customs.

DECEMBER 15, 1810.

On the 5th of last August the Minister of Foreign Relations wrote to Mr. Armstrong, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and that, after the 1st of November, they would cease to have effect; it being well understood that, in consequence of this declaration, the English would revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade which they wished to establish, or that the United States, in conformity to the act communicated, should cause their rights to be respected by the English.

On the communication of this note, the President of the United States issued, on the 2d of November, a proclamation, which announces the revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees after the 1st of November; and which declares that, in consequence thereof, all the restrictions imposed by the act of the 1st of May, 1809, should cease with respect to France and her dependencies.

The same day the Treasury Department addressed to the collector of the customs a circular,

Relations with France.

which directs them to admit into the ports and waters of the United States armed French vessels, and enjoins it on them to apply, after the 2d of February next, the law of the 1st of May, 1809, prohibiting all commercial relation to English vessels, of every description, as well as to productions of the soil, industry, or commerce of England and her dependencies.

His Majesty having seen in these two pieces the enunciation of the measures which the Americans propose taking on the 2d of February next, to cause their rights to be respected, has ordered me to inform you that the Berlin and Milan decrees must not be applied to any American vessels that have entered our ports since the 1st of November, or may enter in future; and that those which have been sequestered, as being in contravention of these decrees, must be the object of a special report.

On the 2d of February I shall acquaint you with the intention of the Emperor with regard to the definitive measures to be taken for distinguishing and favoring the American navigation. I have the honor to salute you.

The Minister of Finance,

THE DUKE OF GAETE.

Copy of a letter from his Excellency the Grand Judge, Minister of Justice, to the Counsellor of State, President of the Council of Prizes.

French Empire.

ocation of the English Orders in Council, and of all the acts violating the neutrality of the United States, should not be announced by the Treasury Department.

In consequence of this engagement, entered into by the Government of the United States to cause their rights to be respected, His Majesty orders that all the causes that may be pending in the Council of Prizes of captures of American vessels made after the 1st of November, and those that may in future be brought before it, shall not be judged according to the principles of the decrees of Berlin and Milan, but that they shall remain suspended; the vessels captured or seized to remain only in a state of sequestration, and the rights of the proprietors being reserved for them until the 2d of February next, the period at which the United States having fulfilled the engagements to cause their rights to be respected, the said captures shall be declared null by the council, and the American vessels restored, together with their cargoes, to their proprietors.

Receive, Mr. President, the new assurances of my most distinguished consideration, THE DUKE OF MASSA.

C.

Extract of a letter from Mr. Barlow to Mr. Russell.
PARIS, May 11, 1812.

I have concluded to despatch the Wasp to England, expressly to carry to you the documents

herewith enclosed. PARIS, Dec. 26, 1810. Mr. President: The Minister of Foreign Relations, by order of His Majesty the Emperor and King, addressed on the 5th of August last to the Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, a note containing the following words:

"I am authorized to declare to you that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, and that after the 1st of November they will cease to have effect; it being well understood, that in consequence of this declaration the English will revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade which they wished to establish; or that the United States, in conformity to the act you have just communicated, will cause their rights to be respected by the English." In consequence of the communication of this note, the President of the United States issued, on the 2d of November, a proclamation, o announce the revocation of the decrees of Berlin and Milan, and declared that, in consequence thereof, all the restrictions imposed by the act of the 1st May must cease with respect to France and her dependencies. On the same day the Treasury Department addressed a circular to all the collectors of the customs of the United States, which enjoins them to admit into the ports and waters of the United States, armed French vessels; prescribes to them to apply, after the 2d of February next, to English vessels of every description, and to the productions arising from the soil and industry or the commerce of England and her dependencies, the law which prohibits all commercial relations, if at that period the rev

laration of the Prince Regent in Council, of the I was not a little surprised to learn by the dec21st of April, that it was still believed by the British Government that the French decrees of Berlin and Milan yet remained in force, as applicable to the United States. On reading that decBassano a note bearing date the 1st of May, of laration, I therefore addressed to the Duke of which I enclose you a copy.

This drew from him the answer of which I likewise hand you a copy, with the three documents that accompanied it. The most remarkable of these is the decree of the 28th April, 1811. This piece I had never before seen; it appears that it had not been published at the time of its date, and, not finding it among the archives of this Legation, I suspect that, by some omission or neglect, it was not communicated to you as it ought to have been. The Duke, however, assures me that it was so communicated. Be this as it may, I am convinced it has not been made known

to the British Government.

D.

Extract of a letter from Mr. Russell to Mr. Barlow.

LONDON, May 29, 1812.

Your letter of the 11th of this month, with its enclosures, was handed me on the 20th, and I immediately communicated copies of the letters from the French Minister of the 21st of December, 1810, and also of the decree of the 28th of April, 1811, to this Government. The letters were already known; but the decree, from th

« ZurückWeiter »