S34 ANNUAL REGISTER, IS13. 



Great Britain was thus called 

 upon to abandon one of her most 

 important maritime rights, by ac- 

 knowledging the order of blockade 

 in question, to be one of the edicts 

 which violated the commerce of 

 the United States, although it had 

 never been so considered in the 

 previous negociations: and al- 

 though thepresident of the United 

 States had recently consented to 

 abrogate the non-intercourse act, 

 on the sole condition of the orders 

 in council being revoked ; thereby 

 distinctly admitting these orders to 

 be the only edicts which fell within 

 the contemplation of the law under 

 which he acted. 



A proposition so hostile to Great 

 Britain could not but be propor- 

 tionally encouraging to the preten- 

 sions of the enemy; as by thus al- 

 leging that the blockade of May, 

 i806, was illegal, the American 

 government virtually justified, so 

 far as depended on them, the French 

 decrees. 



After this proposition had been 

 made, the French minister for fo- 

 reign affairs, if not in concert with 

 that government, at least in con- 

 formity with its views, in a dis- 

 patch, dated the 5th of August, 

 1810, and addressed to the Ame- 

 rican minister ret^ident at Paris, 

 stated that the Berlin and Milan 

 decrees were revoked, and that 

 their operation would cease from 

 the 1st day of November follow- 

 ing, provided his majesty would 

 revoke his orders in council, and 

 renounce the new principles of 

 blockade; or that the United States 

 would cause their rights to be re- 

 spected ; meaning thereby, that 

 they would resist the retaliatory 

 measures of Great Britain. 



Although the repeal of the 



French decrees thus announced was 

 evidently contingent, either on 

 concessions to be made by Great 

 Britain (concessions to which it 

 was obvious Great Britain could 

 not submit), or on measures to be 

 adopted by the United States of 

 America, the American president 

 at once considered the repeal as 

 absolute. Under that pretence the 

 Non-importation act was strictly 

 enforced against Great Britain, 

 whilst the ships of war and mer- 

 chant ships of the enemy were re- 

 ceived into theharbours of America. 

 Ti)e American government, as- 

 suming the repeal of the French 

 decrees to be absolute and effec- 

 tual, most unjustly required Great 

 Britain, in conformity toher decla- 

 rations, to revoke her orders in 

 council. The British government 

 denied that the repeal, which was 

 announced in the letter of the 

 French minister for foreign affairs, 

 was such as ought to satisfy Great 

 Britain ; and in order to ascer- 

 tain the true character of the mea- 

 sure adopted by France, the go- 

 vernment of the United States 

 was called upon to produce the 

 instrument, by which the alleged 

 repeal of the French decrees had 

 been effected. If these decrees 

 were really revoked, such an in- 

 strument must exist, and no satis- 

 factory reason could be given for 

 withholding it. 



At length, on the 21st of May, 

 1812, and not before, the Ame- 

 rican minister in London did pro- 

 duce a copy, or at least what pur- 

 ported to be a copy, of such an 

 instrument. 



It professed to bear date, the 

 2Sth of April, 1811, long subse- J 

 quent to the dispatch of the French m 

 minister of foreign affairs of. the 



