Page images
PDF
EPUB

ritime 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 relaxation of its system, might render perseverance on the part of Great Britain in retaliatory measures unnecessary, or if this hope should prove delusive, that his Majesty's government might be enabled, in the absence of all irritating and restrictive regulations on either side, to enter with the government of the United States into amicable explanations, for the purpose of ascertaining whether, if the necessity of retaliatory measures should unfortunately continue to operate, the particular measures to be acted upon by Great Britain, could be rendered more acceptable to the American government, than those hitherto pursued."

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 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 This instrument expressly declared that these French Decrees were repealed in consequence of the American legislature having, by their Act of the 1st of March 1811, provided, that British ships and merchandize should be excluded from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. 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as Great Britain had asserted; and not absolute or final, as had been maintained by America; that they were not repealed at the time they were stated to be repealed by the American government; that they were not repealed in conformity with a proposition, simultaneously made to both belligerents, but in consequence of a previous act on the part of the American government, in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 affected 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.

[ocr errors]

In order to provide for the contingency of a declaration of war on the part of the United States, previous to the arrival in. America of the said Order of Revocation, instructions were sent to his Majesty's minister plenipotentiary accredited to the United States (the execution of which instructions, in consequence of the discontinuance of Mr. Foster's functions, were at a subsequent period entrusted to admiral sir John Borlase Warren), directing him to propose a cessation of hostilities, should they have commenced; and further to offer a simultaneous repeal of the Orders in Council on the one side, and of the restrictive laws on British ships and commerce on the other.

Although 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 They were also respectively empowered of its authenticity; yet as the minister of to acquaint the American government, in the United States produced it, as purport-reply to any inquiries with respect to the ing 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 ma(VOL. XXIV.)

blockade of May 1806, whilst the British government must continue to maintain its legality, "that in point of fact, this particular blockade had been discontinued (2 B)

in the general retaliatory blockade of the
enemy's ports under the Orders in Coun-
cil, and that his Majesty's government
had no intention of recurring to this, or to
any other of the blockades of the enemy's
ports, founded upon the ordinary and ac-
customed principles of maritime law,
which were in force previous to the
ders in Council, without a new notice to
neutral powers in the usual form."

for a length of time, having been merged | namely, that she should abandon the exercise of her undoubted right of search, to take from American merchant vessels British seamen, the natural-born subjects of his Majesty; and this concession was required upon a mere assurance that laws would be enacted by the legislature of the United States, to prevent such seamen Or-from entering into their service; but independent of the objection to an exclusive reliance on a foreign state, for the conser. The American government, before they vation of so vital an interest, no explanareceived intimation of the course adopted tion was, or could be afforded by the agent by the British government, had in fact who was charged with this overture, either proceeded to the extreme measure of de- as to the main principles, upon which such claring war, and issuing "Letters of laws were to be founded, or as to the proMarque," notwithstanding they were pre-visions which it was proposed they should viously in possession of the Report of the contain.

French minister for foreign affairs, of the This proposition having been objected 12th of March, 1812, promulgating anew to, a second proposal was made, again ofthe Berlin and Milan Decrees, as funda-fering an armistice, provided the British mental laws of the French empire, under the false and extravagant pretext, that the monstrous principles therein contained were to be found in the treaty of Utrecht, and were therefore binding upon all states. From the penalties of this code no nation was to be exempt, which did not accept it, not only as the rule of its own conduct, but as a law, the observance of which, it was also required to enforce upon Great Britain.

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 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 overtore had proposed to him publicly to concede.

This most onffesive proposition was also In a Manifesto, accompanying their rejected, being accompanied, as the former declaration of hostilities, in addition to had been, by other demands of the most the former complaints against the Orders exceptionable nature, and especially of in Council, a long list of grievances was indemnity for all American vessels debrought forward; some trivial in them-tained and condemned under the Orders selves, others which had been mutually adjusted, but none of them such, as were ever before alleged by the American government to be grounds for war.

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.

As if to throw additional obstacles in the way of peace, the American Congress at the same time passed a law, prohibiting Had the American government been all intercourse with Great Britain, of such sincere in representing the Orders in a tenor, as deprived the executive govern- Council, as the only subject of difference ment, according to the President's own between Great Britain and the United construction of that Act, of all power of States, calculated to lead to hostilities; it restoring the relations of friendly inter- might have been expected, so soon as the course between the two states, so far at revocation of those Orders had been offileast as concerned their commercial inter-cially made known to them, that they course, until Congress should re-assemble. would have spontaneousty recalled their The President of the United States has," Letters of Marque," and manifested a it is true, since proposed to Great Britain disposition immediately to restore the rean armistice; not, however, on the ad- lations of peace and amity between the mission, that the cause of war hitherto re- two powers. lied on was removed; but on condition, that Great Britain, as a preliminary step, should do away a cause of war, now brought forward as such for the first time;

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 relin quish 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 the 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 negociate it has, on the contrary, uniformly professed its readiness to receive and discuss any proposition on this subject, coming from the American government: it bas 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 of 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 moment: this proposition was therefore necessarily declined.

After this exposition of the circumstances which preceded, and which have followed the declaration of war by the United States, his royal highness the 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 invested 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 vessels, can be considered by any neutral state as a hostile measure, or a justifiable cause of war.

[ocr errors]

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 obvious that to abandon this ancient right of Great Britain, and to admit these novel pretensions of the United States, would be to expose to danger the very foundation of our maritime strength.

[ocr errors]

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 authorised 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 itself to the enemy? The contemptuous violation 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 controul 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

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 pro-traffic of the United States with France tection of licences: provided the United States would act towards her, and towards France, with real impartiality.

The government of America, if the difference between states are not interminable, has as little right to notice the affair of the Chesapeake. The aggression, in this instance, on the part of a

almost illusory; the burning of their merchant ships at sea, long after the alleged repeal of the French Decrees-all these acts of violence on the part of France produce from the government of the United States, only such complaints as end in acquiescence and submission, or are accompanied by suggestions for

377] Petitions against the Claims of the Roman Catholics. FEB. 5, 1813.

enabling France to give the semblance of a legal form to her usurpations, by converting them into municipal regulations. This disposition of the government of the United States-this complete subserviency to the ruler of France-this hostile temper towards Great Britain-are evident in almost every page of the official correspondence of the American with the French government.

[378

question, but it would be desirable to
know from his noble friend at the head of
the Board of Controul, in what shape it
was intended to bring it forward.

The Earl of Buckinghamshire stated, that
it was impossible for him at the present
moment to give a definitive answer to his
noble friend's question, as he happened to
know from unquestionable authority, that
the East India Company had not yet de-
termined whether or not they would pe-

charter. Until, therefore, they had come to some decision on that point, it was impossible for government to determine in what shape the question should be brought before parliament. It was, however, of great importance that the subject should be commenced early in the session.

Against this course of conduct, the real cause of the present war, the Prince Re-tition parliament for a renewal of their gent solemnly protests. Whilst contending against France, in defence not only of the liberties of Great Britain, but of the world, his Royal Highness 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 pursue the policy, which the British government has so long, and invariably maintained, in repelling injustice, and in supporting the general rights of nations; and, under 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, 1813.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Friday, February 5. Petitions against the Catholic Claims were presented by marquis Camden from the corporation of Bath; the duke of Rut land from the corporation of Wenlock; the earl of Harewood from Huddersfield; and the earl of Liverpool from Beverley.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.] Two Petitions against the East India monopoly were presented by lord Grenville from the corporation of Bristol and the merchants and other inhabitants of that city.

Marquis Wellesley wished to know about what time it was likely the East India question would be brought under discussion. He did not rise for the purpose of extracting from ministers any information on the topics connected with that

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 5.

PETITIONS AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS-FROM THE DEAN AND GREAT CHAPTER OF EXETER-THE FREEHOLDERS OF OXFORD -FROM SUDBURY TORRINGTON-WENLOCK-AND BATH.] A Petition of the dean and chapter of the cathedral church of Exeter, and of the archdeacons and clergy of the diocese of Exeter, was presented and read; setting forth,

"That whilst the petitioners place the firmest reliance on the wisdom of parlia ment, the lawful guardian of the constitu tion of their country, they feel it their duty, as ministers of the Protestant Established Church, humbly to offer their sentiments upon the recent claims of the Roman Catholics to a full admission to the highest offices of of legistrust in the state, and to the power lation for these Protestant kingdoms; and that the petitioners are the zealous friends of every toleration in religion, which is not inconsistent with the maintenance of one national Church, in full vigour and security; that in the provisions adopted by parliament, at the period of the accession of king William in 1688, the maintenance of the Protestant Church is secured by law, as an essential part of the constitution; and it appears to the petitioners to be attended with the greatest danger to remove those safeguards which our ancestors thus wisely provided, and which the experience of more than a century has confirmed; and that the petitioners have seen with satisfaction the concessions granted by the legislature to the Roman Catholics during

« PreviousContinue »