664 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1809. 



tral vessels, coming from a French 

 or other enemy's port. Indeed, the 

 ground of retaliation on account of 

 any culpable acquiescence, of neu- 

 trals in decrees, violating their 

 rights, is abandoned by the very 

 tenor of the orders; their operation 

 being extended to those countries 

 from which the British flag was ex- 

 cluded, such as Austria, although 

 Buch countries were neither at war 

 with Great Britain, nor had passed 

 any decree in any way affecting or 

 connected with neutral rights. 



Nor are the orders justifiable on 

 the pretence of an acquiescence on 

 the part of the United States, in the 

 French decree as construed and ex- 

 ecuted subsequent to the 18th Sept. 

 1807, when it became an evident 

 infraction of their rights, and such 

 as they were bound to oppose. For 

 their minister at Paris immediately 

 rnadc the necessary remonstrances, 

 and the orders were issued not only 

 without having ascertained whether 

 the United States would acquiesce 

 in the injurious alteration of the 

 French decree, but more than one 

 month before that alteration was 

 known in America. It may even be 

 asserted that the alteration was not 

 known in England when the orders 

 in council were issued ; the instruc- 

 tion of the 18th September, 1807, 

 which gave the new and injurious 

 construction, not having been pro- 

 mulgated in France, and its first 

 publication having been made in 

 December, 1807, and by the Ame- 

 rican government itself. 



The British orders in council are, 

 therefore, unjustifiable on the prin- 

 ciple of retaliation, even giving to 

 that principle all the latitude which 

 has ever been avowedly contended 

 for. 



They are in open violation of the 



solemn declaration made by the Bri- 

 tish ministers in December, 1806; 

 thai retaliation on the part of Great 

 Britain would depend on the execu- 

 tion of an unlawful decree, and on 

 the acquiescence of neutral nations 

 in such infraction of their rights. 

 And they were also issued, notwith- 

 standing the official communication 

 made by the ministers of the United 

 States, that the French decree was 

 construed and executed so as not 

 to infringe their neutral rights, and 

 without any previous notice or in- 

 timation, denying the correctness 

 of that statement. 



The Berlin decree as expounded 

 and executed subsequent to the 18th 

 September, 1807, and the British 

 orders in council of the 11th Nov. 

 ensuing, are therefore, as they af- 

 fect the United States, cotempora- 

 neous aggressions of the belligerent 

 powers, equally unprovoked and 

 equally indefensible on the presum- 

 ed ground of acquiescence. These, 

 together with the Milan decree of 

 December 1807, which filled the 

 measure, would, on the principle 

 of self-defence, have justified im- 

 mediate hostilities against both na- 

 tions on the part of the United 

 States. They thought it more eli- 

 gible in the first instance, by with- 

 drawing their vessels from the 

 ocean, to avoid war, at least for a 

 season, and at the same time to 

 snatch their immense and defence- 

 less commerce from impending de- 

 struction. 



Another appeal has in the mean 

 time been made, under the autho- 

 rity vested in the president for that 

 purpose, to the justice and true in- 

 terests of France and England. The 

 propositions made by the United 

 States, and the arguments urged by 

 their ministers, are before Con- 



