actually blockaded by his majesty's naval forces in the most strict and rigorous manner and it is hereby further ordered and declared, that all trade in articles, which are of the produce or manufacture of the said countries or colonies, together with all goods and merchandise on board, and all articles of the produce or manufacture of the said countries or colonies, shall be captured and condemned as prize to the captors."

The order contained various other provisions, not necessary to the object of this work, all professedly founded upon the idea of retaliation for the French decree alluded to, and to the extravagant assumptions of power, and gross violation of principle, and the rights of neutrals.

To meet this measure of the British government, the Emperor of France, on the 11th of December, 1807, issued a new decree from his imperial palace at Milan, which from that circumstance has been called the Milan Decree. After a preamble, it declares

"Art. 1. Every ship, to whatever nation it may belong, that shall have submitted to be searched by an English ship, or on a voyage to England, or shall have paid any tax whatsoever to the English government, is thereby and for that alone, declared to be denationalized, to have forfeited the protection of its king, and to have become English property.

2. Whether the ships thus denationalized by the arbitrary measures of the English government, enter into our ports, or those of our allies, or whether they fall into the hands of our ships of war, or of our privateers, they are declared to be good and lawful prizes.

3. The British islands are declared to be in a state of blockade, both by land and sea. Every ship of whatever nation, or whatsoever the nature of its cargo may be, that sails from the ports of England, or those of the English colonies, and of the countries occupied by English troops, and proceeding to England, or to the English colonies, or

to countries occupied by English troops, is good and lawful prize, as contrary to the present decree, and may be captured by our ships of war, or our privateers, and adjudged to the captor.

4. These measures, which are resorted to only in just retaliation of the barbarous system adopted by England, which assimilates its legislation to that of Algiers, shall cease to have any effect with respect to all nations who shall have the firmness to compel the English government to respect their flag. They shall continue to be rigorously in force, as long as that government does not return to the principle of the law of nations, which regulates the relations of civilized states in a state of war. The provisions of the present decree shall be abrogated and null, in fact, as soon as the English abide again by the principles of the law of nations, which are also the principles of justice and of honour."

These British orders in council, and French decrees, were all in force at the time the negotiation with Mr. Erskine commenced, and were just subjects of uneasiness, complaint and remonstrance, on the part of the United States. Property to a large amount, belonging to American citizens, and not liable to condemnation or capture under the well established principles of the laws of nations, was taken and confiscated by both parties; and it almost seemed as if the warfare which was raging between the two most refined and civilized nations in Europe, would degenerate into downright piracy and barbarism.

On the 18th of December, 1807, Mr. Jefferson communicated to both houses of Congress the following message"The communications now made, showing the great and increasing dangers with which our vessels, our seamen, and merchandise, are threatened on the high seas and elsewhere, from the belligerent powers of Europe, and it being of the greatest importance to keep in safety these essential resources, I deem it my duty to recommend the

subject to the consideration of Congress, who will doubtless perceive all the advantages which may be expected from an inhibition of the departure of our vessels from the ports of the United States.

"Their wisdom will also see the necessity of making every preparation for whatever events may grow out of the present crisis."

The only documents published in the state papers as having accompanied this message, were,

1. An "Extract of a letter from the (French) Grand Judge, Minister of Justice, to the Imperial Attorney General for the Council of Prizes ;"-of which the following is a translation—

"Paris, Sept. 18, 1807.

"SIR,-I have submitted to his majesty the emperor and king the doubts raised by his excellency the minister of marine and colonies, on the extent of certain dispositions of the imperial decree of the 21st of November, 1806, which has declared the British isles in a state of blockade. The following are his majesty's intentions on the points in question :

1st. May vessels of war, by virtue of the imperial decree of the 21st November last, seize on board neutral vessels either English property, or even all merchandise proceeding from the English manufactories or territory?

Answer. His majesty has intimated, that as he did not think proper to express any exception in his decree, there is no ground for making any in its execution, in relation to any whomsoever (a l'égard de qui que ce peut être.)

2dly. His majesty has postponed a decision on the question whether armed French vessels ought to capture neutral vessels bound to or from England, even when they have no English merchandise on board.

REGNIER."

And 2. A document cut from an English newspaper, the London Gazette of October 17, purporting to be a proclamation by the king of Great Britain, "for recalling and prohibiting British seamen from serving foreign princes and states," and dated October 16, 1807. This document concluded in the following manner—

"And we do hereby notify, that all such our subjects as aforesaid, who have voluntarily entered, or shall enter, or voluntarily continue to serve on board of any ships of war belonging to any foreign state at enmity with us, are and will be guilty of high treason: and we do by this our royal proclamation declare, that they shall be punished with the utmost severity of the law."

In a speech of Mr. Pickering, a member of the Senate of the United States from Massachusetts, on a resolution to repeal all the embargo laws, on the 30th of November, 1808, in allusion to the act, of Congress of December, 1807, laying the embargo, the following remarks are to be found

"Of the French papers supposed to be brought by the Revenge, none were communicated to Congress, save a letter dated September 24th, 1807, from General Armstrong to M. Champagny, and his answer of the 7th of October, relative to the Berlin decree, and a letter from Regnier, minister of justice, to Champagny, giving the emperor's interpretation of that decree. These three papers, with a newspaper copy of a proclamation of the king of Great Britain, issued in the same October, were all the papers communicated by the President to Congress, as the grounds on which he recommended the embargo. These papers, he said, "showed the great and increasing dangers with which our vessels, our seamen and merchandise were threatened on the high seas and elsewhere, from the belli gerent powers of Europe."

These remarks of Mr. Pickering were made in debate in the Senate, within less than a year from the date of the

message recommending an embargo, and of course, as they were not denied or questioned, they must be taken to be correct. It is certainly a singular circumstance, if they were correct, that none of the documents alluded to are published with the message recommending the embargo, except Regnier's letter, and the British proclamation recalling their seamen.) In the same volume of "state papers," published by Wait & Sons, four hundred pages farther advanced in the volume, are to be found Regnier's letter of the 18th of September, 1807, General Armstrong's letter of September 24th to the minister of foreign relations, and Champagny's answer of October 7th. Why they were not published with the message with which they were communicated to Congress, and more especially how they came to be placed where they are, are matters that we cannot explain. General Armstrong's letter is as follows

"Paris, Sept. 24, 1807.

"SIR,-I have this moment learned that a new and extended construction, highly injurious to the commerce of the United States, was about to be given to the imperial decree of the 21st of November last. It is therefore incumbent upon me to ask from your excellency an explanation of his majesty's views in relation to this subject, and particularly whether it be his majesty's intention, in any degree, to infract the obligations of the treaty now subsisting between the United States and the French empire? "JOHN ARMSTRONG.

"His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Relations.”

The following is M. Champagny's answer

"Fontainbleau, Oct. 7, 1807.

"SIR,-You did me the honour, on the 24th of September, to request me to send you some explanations as to the