STATE PAPERS. 



335 



her decrees, and return to the ac- 

 customed principles of maritime 

 warfare ; and at a subsequent pe- 

 riod, as a proof of his majesty's 

 sincere desire to accommodate, as 

 far as possible, his defensive mea- 

 sures to the convenience of neutral 

 powers, the operation of the or- 

 ders in council, was, by an order 

 issued in April, 1809, limited to a 

 blockade of France, and of the 

 countries subjected to her imme- 

 diate dominion. 



Systems of violence, oppression, 

 and tyranny, can never be sup- 

 pressed, or even checked, if the 

 ' power against which such injustice 

 is exercised, be debarred from the 

 right of full and adequate retalia- 

 tion : or, if the measures of the re- 

 taliating power are to be considered 

 as matters of just ofi'ence to neutral 

 nations, whilst the measures of ori- 

 ginal aggression and violence are 

 to be tolerated with indifference, 

 submission, or complacency. 



The government of the United 

 States did not fail to remonstrate 

 against the orders in council of 

 Great Britain. Although they knew 

 that these orders would be re- 

 voked, if the decrees of France, 

 which had occasioned them, were 

 repealed, they resolved at the same 

 moment to resist the conduct of 

 both belligerents, instead of requir- 

 ing France in the first instance to 

 rescind herdecrees. Applying most 

 unjustly the same measure of re- 

 sentment to the aggressor, and to 

 the party aggrieved, they adopted 

 measures of commercial resistance 

 against both — a system of resist- 

 ance, which, however varied in the 

 successive acts of embargo, non- 

 intercourse, or non-importation, 

 was evidently unequal to its opera- 

 tion, andprincipally levelled against 



the superior commerce and mari- 

 time power of Great Britain. 



The same partiality towards 

 France was observable in their ne- 

 gociations, as in their measures of 

 alleged resistance. 



Application was made to both 

 belligerents for a revocation of their 

 respective edicts ; but the terms 

 in which they were made, were 

 widely different. 



Of France was required a re- 

 vocation only of the Berlin and 

 Milan decrees, although many 

 other edicts, grossly violating the 

 neutral commerce of the United 

 States, had been promulgated by 

 that power. No security was de- 

 manded, that the Berlin and iVIilan 

 decrees, even if revoked, should 

 not under some other form be re- 

 established : and a direct engage- 

 ment was offered, that upon such 

 revocation, the American govern- 

 ment would take part in the war 

 against Great Britain, if Great Bri- 

 tain did not immediately rescind 

 her orders: whereas no corres- 

 ponding engagement was offered to 

 Great Britain, of whom it was re- 

 quired, not only that the orders in 

 council should be repealed, but 

 that no others of a similar nature 

 should be issued, and that the 

 blockade of May, 1806, should be 

 also abandoned. This blockade, 

 established and enforced according 

 to the accustomed practice, had 

 not been objected to by the United 

 States at the time it was issued. Its 

 provisions were, on the contrary, 

 represented by the American mi- 

 nister resident in London at the 

 time, to have been so framed as 

 to afford in his judgment, a proof 

 of the friendly disposition of the 

 British cabinet towards the United 

 States. 



