STATE PAPERS. 



6G3 



to llie council of prizes by the mi- 

 nister of justice, by which that 

 court was informed, that French 

 armed vessels were authorized, un- 

 der that decree, to seize, without 

 exception, in neutral vessels, either 

 English property or merchandize of 

 Eni^iish groivth or manufacture. 



An immediate explanation hav- 

 ing been asked from the French 

 minister of foreign relations, he 

 confirmed, in his answer of the 

 7th of October, 1807, the deter- 

 mination of his government to 

 adopt that construciion. Its first 

 application took place on the lOlh 

 of the same month, in the case of 

 the Horizon, of which the minister 

 of the United States was not in- 

 formed until the month of Novem- 

 ber ; and on the 12th of that 

 month, he presented a spirited re- 

 monstrance against that infraction 

 of the neutral rights of the United 

 States. He had, in the meanwhile, 

 transmitted to America the instruc- 

 tion to the council of prizes of the 

 18th of September. This was re- 

 ceived in the month of December: 

 and a copy of the decision in the 

 case of the Horizon, having at the 

 same time reached government, the 

 president, aware of the conse- 

 quences wliich would follow that 

 new state of things, communicated 

 immediately to Congress the altera- 

 tion of the French decrees, and re- 

 commended the embargo, which 

 was accordingly laid on the 22nd 

 of December, 1807 ; at which time 

 it was well understood, in this 

 country, tiiat the British orders in 

 council of November preceding 

 had issued, although they were not 

 officially communicated to our go- 

 vernment. 



On the 1 1th of liiat month, those 

 orders did actually issue, declaring 



that all the ports of France, of her 

 allies, and of any other country at 

 war with England, and all other 

 ports of Europe, from which, al- 

 though not at war with England, 

 theBritish flag wase>icluded, should 

 thenceforth be considered as if the 

 same were actually blockaded — that 

 all trade in the articles of the pro- 

 duce or manufacture of the said 

 countries should be deemed unlaw- 

 ful ; and that every vessel trading 

 from or to the said countries, to- 

 gether with all goods and merchan- 

 dize on board, and also all articles 

 of the produce or manufacture of 

 the said countries, should be liable 

 to capture and condemnation. 



These orders cannot be defend- 

 ed on the ground of their being in- 

 tended as retaliating on account of 

 the Berlin decree, as construed and 

 uniformly executed from its date to 

 the ISth of September, 1807, its 

 construction and execution having 

 till then infringed no neutral rights. 

 For certainly, the monstrous doc- 

 trine will not be asserted, even by 

 the British government, that neu- 

 tral nations are bound to resist not 

 only the acts of belligerent powers 

 which violate their rights, but also 

 those municipal regulations, which, 

 however they may injure theenemy, 

 are lawful and do not effect the le- 

 gitimate rights of the neutral. The 

 only retaliation to be used in such 

 cases, must be such as will operate 

 on the enemy without infringing thu 

 rights of the neutral. If solely in- 

 tended as a retaliation on the Beilin 

 decree, as executed prior to the 

 month of September, the British 

 orders in council should have been 

 confined loforbiddingthe introduc- 

 tion into Great Britain, of French 

 or enemy's mercliandize, and the 

 admission into British ports of neu- 

 tral 



