point. The British Minister c , tiation by startil!g at the very ances. • Supposing a removal .legs, as the origination of our commercial embarrass• ments would render adjustment certain, he evidently% proposed to withdraw the, obnoxious blockade. 'lt. being . the pretext and justification of the Berlin De- 'cree, it was just to expect and demand a consequent' repeal of that Edict ; the Order in Council would then be withdrawn, which would take away the foundation of the Milan Decree. In this orier and arrangement of time, all the obnoxious edicts would in turn he disposed rf. But no ! our Government explicitly requires that Mr. Foster, presuming against evidence and undeniable fact, should pro- ceed upon the erroneous and inadmissible concession . that the Berlin and Milan Decrees Were already • _bria fide repealed.—Let us see how these points have been heretofore regarded by Administration. TXTLLACT OF A LETTACR. FROM MR. ARMSTILONG TO MR. SMITH ; DATED " Paris, Jan. 28, 1910. 41 In conformity to the suggestions contained in your letter of Ist December, 1809, I demanded whetlivr it Great Britain revoked her blockades of a date anterior to a decree commonly called the Berlin Decree, his Majesty the Emperor would consent to revoke the sa'd Decree ? To which the Minister answered, that the only condition required for the revocation by his Majesty, of the Decree of Berlin, • will be a previous !evocation by the British Govern - mem of her blcickade France, or part of France • (such as that from the Elbe to Brest , .rf a date ante rior to that of the aforesaid Decree, *ei 41 ti: thit.if the British Government would then recall the Orders in Council, which had occasioned the Decree of Mi lan, that decree should also - be annulled.' " It is manifest, although Administration has re peatedly admitted, by the strongest implicaticn, that France was first to be resorted to as the aggressor, in applications to obtain a repeal of the edicts against neutr:il commerce, they have hitherto con sidered themselves bound to proceed in the mode suggested by Mr. Foster, could such a concession be obtained from England. They have gone one very essential point further, and required the only kind of proof deemed sufficient and adMissible, of the repeal of the French decrees, which is desiisrated in the following extvact MR. 041111 10 MR. ARMSTROVO. " June 5, 1810. 11 If the French Government sitotild accede to the overture contained in the Pitt of Congress (Non-Intercourse Law), by repealing or so modi. Eying its Decrees as that they will csee to viplate our neutral sights, you will, if neejtssiry, transmit the repeal, properly authenticated, to Mr. Pinkney, by a special messenger," &c. By this it appears, Government, prior to tile period of issuing the false Proclamatr, required positive proof of the repeal of the Fiench Decroef• as entitling them to a repeal of the British Orders. It was never dreamt that England w uld proceed to repeal unless proof was furnished ; hence the ea plicit instructions to Gen. Armstrong, to °train and transmit to Mr. Pinkney the • repeal properly authenticated.' And what pray is kne4nt 1?y proper authentication. but a forsnalat4 solonarevacation. repeal obtained Pinkney Has it been since .obtained vernment It will not be said. With w h at then is it demanded of Mr. F .ster to take the for granted, and c.impromise the honour and int.- rest of his Government ; and yet the n'-gotiati n with that Minister has been broken off upon II s point. His conduct is adjudged to be contuma cious, and he will be accused of wilful blindness and obstinacy for not seeing and admit-..ing what notoriously does not exist. " But notwithstanding our very upright, just, and impartial administration have succeeded in effecting a rupture upon the point-of the - blockade of 1806, there exists proofs furnished by themselves, of their having long since abandoned this point, and viewing it as merged in the greater point - of the Orders in Council of 1809. The ensuing extract establishes the fact : MR. SMITH TO MR. ARMSTRONG. " Junc.Sth, gi Among the considerations which belong to this subject, it may be remarked, that it might bays been reasonably ex6ected by the United States, that a repeal of the French Decrees 'would have re sulted from the Order in Council of Apt il, 1809. This order expressly revoked the preceding Orders of November, 1607, h , retol()re urged by France in justification of her Decrees, and was not only dif ferent in its extent and its details, but was essentially different in its policy." France is here clearly and unequivocally placed upon the footing of the aggressor. Great Britain, by acknowledgment, hiving revoked her Orden of 1807, by the Order of 1809, France is stripped of every excuse for continuing herzetallatory Decrees. But did she gratify the just expectations of Go vernment r It'will not be said. And yet our Go vernment requires of England to sanction the false hood set up by Mr Madison, atid proceed in the negotiation as if France had actually and 'bona/de revoked her Decrees. There exists still further documental proof among the archives of . State, explaining the kind of revo cation alone to be accepted ft on . ) 'France. Ma. SMITH TO MR. YINKNEY. " July Ott,, IMO. " If the British Government should be dispqfed tc meet in a favourable manner the arrangement tendered, and should ask for explanations, as to the extent. of the repeal of the French Decrees, which will be required, your answer will he as obvi ous as it mist be satisfactory. The repeal must embrace every part of the French Decrees which violate the neutral rights guatantsiod to us by the law of Nations, Stc. We may here demand of the Executive whe ther any repeal has been obtained, much less such as is required by the above instructions. Has France promulgated any edict, verbal or written declaration, if such would suffice without the form ality of Law being to it, tiefrning the • extent' of the repeal ! What do we kw qv of the extent of the pretended repeal, - further than the mere liberation of some'iyAt dozen inconsiderable vessels ? What sitsvariiy has been given to 6 00 neutral rightsgua- TUE NATIONAL REGNTER. ter commenced the nego- in the legal ani accustomed' mode adx)pld by 111 very source of our griev Governments in enacting or rekinding lasVsl l i T4s oval of the cause alleged this authenticated repeal obtained and sent tQ r commercial embarrass. Pinkney Has it been since .obtained -by Our Gp- tment certain, he evidently. vernment It will not be said. With what force obnoxious blockade. It I then is it demanded of Mr. F .ster to take the f<< t It 1 .• a j p -1/14,100'1! ) • Si