/ 0;,.. ----r-~ Or bATURDAY, JAN. O. W - 1 3 1)LE.11EN7''7 4 0 THE LONDON GAZETTE, • DECLARATION. • , The earnest endeavonrs of the Prince Regent to preserve the relai. tions of peace and amity with the United Stares of Ali erica having ttofortunately failed, his Royal 'eligeness, acting in the name and on the, behalf of his Majesty, deems it proper ,publicly to declare the causes and origin of the war, in which the Government of the United Shoes has'compelled hiM to engege. "No desire of conquest, or other ordinary motive of aggression, has been, or can be with any colour of reason, in this case, iinputed to Great Britain : that her commercial interests were on the side of peace, it war could have been avoided, without the sacrifice of her maritime rights, or without an injurious submission to France, is a truth which the American Government will not deny. lift Rclal Highness does not, however, mean to rest on the favour able presumption, to which he is entitled. He is prepared by an ex position of the circumstances which have led to the present war, to show that Great Britain has throughout acted towards the United States of America with a spirit of amity, forbeerance, and conci liation ; and to demonstrate the inadmissible nature of those pre tensions 'which have at length unhappily involved the two countries in war. . It is well known to the world;that it has been the invariable object of the Ruler of France to destroy the rower aeti independence ot the Btitish Empire, as the chief obstacle to the accomplishment of his ambitious designs. He first conttenplated the possibility of assembline such a naval • force in the Channel as, combined with a numerous flotilla, should epable him to disembark in England ar. army sufficient, in his con ception, to stih!ugese this cannery i and through the conquest of Great Britain be :ieued to realize his ineitet of univcraal empire. By the i o ioption of ac enlarged and provident system of internal de fence, and l,e rl.e velomeof his Majesty's flsets and armies, this design we, ' , retie:ly frustrated , and the naval tarce of France, atter the most signal defeats, was cc:opt:lied to retire from the ocean. An Attempt was the'• made to tefectuare the same purpose by other means; a system was brought far ward, by which the R uler of France • Hoped to annihilate the , emmerce of Great Britain, to shake her public credit, and to den.., y her revenue ; to render useless her maritime superiority, and to avail of his continental ascee.lanay, as to constitute himself in a great meaeire the arbiter of the ocean, not withstanding Ott d . tructien of his fleets. • With this sine by the Decree of Bei lin, followed by that of Milan, he declared the gritish te-r , tories - to in ast of blocka , le ; and that ill commercs, or ev , t corrole !.:fence, with Great Britain was prohibited. He decree,: . hat every vees,.l and cargo, which had en tered, or was found proc‘e 'ing to a B-' rich port, or which, under any circumstances, had been visited by a eritish ship or war, should be lawful prize ;he .lared all British goods -arid produce, wherever found, and nowev , r acquired, whether coming from the Mother Country or from her colonies, subject to confiscation : he further de dared to be tlenationaized, the fl, , g nf all neutral ships that should be found ofF:nding aernust thee his Decrees : and he gale to this project of universal tyranny, the name of the Continental System. For these attermns to run the CorrunereL f Great 3ritain, by rneans subversive of the ckatest rights rt neutral nations, France en deavoured in vain to rest her justification upon the previous co. duct of his Majesty's Government. • theler circumstances of unparalleled provocation, his Majesty had ahst.iined from any measure which the ordinary rules of the Law ef Nation: did not fully warrant. Never was the maritime superiority of a belligerent over iiis enemy more cemplete and decided. Never was the opposite Belligerent so farmidebly dangerous in his power, and in his policy, to the liberties elan other nations, France had al ready trampled so openly and systematically on the most sacred rights of .Nentral Pewers, as might well have justified the placing her out of the pale of civilized nations. Yet in this evreme case, Great Bri tain had so used her naval ascendancy, that her enemy could find no jest canse of conwlanit ; and in order to give to those lawless decrees the appearance of retaliation, the Ruler ot France wes obliged to ad vance principles of maritime law unaaeetior.ed by any other authority than his j'v.i arbitrary will. The pretexrs for these Decrees were—first, that Great Britain had exercised tee rights of seer apiest private persons, their ship, and eteids ; as if the only object of legitiiseee hostility on the ocean were the public preperty of a Sti;te, - or as •1 the Ee:m: and the Courts of France Unit' had not at all times enferced this right with peculiar ri gour; secondly, that the British orders 01 blockade, instead of being eoefincd to tortified towns, had, ere Frame asserted, been unlaw fully extended to'ceirenercial towns and netts ' and to the mouths of rivers ; and thirdly ) that they had been appl ied to places, avid to coasts, which nether were, no; could be actually blockaded. • The last of these char t ;_ , i not founded en fact ; whilst the others, even by the admissca of the Antericar Covc.rnmmt 4 are ut:zrly grcund. less in point of law. • • • , . Against these Decrees, his Majesty protested and appealed ; he called upon the United States to assert .thrtr ioV.II riehtse and to vine 41:;3tc their nidependnice, thus mciLLed and a' Int.cd 3 and as franc Ali. AI rs. 1 itl AN AL n.LG ISTEII. .TAN. 17. had declared, that she would confiscate every vessel which should touch in Great Britain, or be visited - by British ships of war, his Majesty, having; previously issued the Order of January, 1807, as an act of mitigated retaliation, was at length compelled, by the perse vein; violence of the enemy, and the continued acquiescence of Neu tral Powers, -o revisit, upon France, in a more effectual manner, the measure of her own injustice. by declaring, in an Order ita Council, bearing date Nov. the 11th. 1807, that no neutral vessel should pro ceed to France, or to any of the countries from which, Loa obedience to the dictator of France, British commerce was excluded, without first touching at a port in Great Britain; or her dependencies. At the Same time his Majesty intimated his readiness to repeal the Orders in Council, whenever France should rescind her Decrees, and return to the accustoire..! principles of maritime warfare; and at a subsequeneperind, as a proof of his Majesty's sincere desire to accommodate, as Gratis possible, his defensive measures to the con venience of Neutral Powers, the operation of the Orders in Council was, by an order issue. pril, 1809, limited to a blockade of France, and of the cone/ries subjected to her immediate 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 fioni the right of full and dequate retaliatica : "r, if the measures of the retaliating Power are to be ceesidered as matters of just °fleece to neutral nations, whilst the measui as of ori ginal aggression are! -vi lance arc to be tolerated with indiflrence, sub mission, or complacer.cy The Government of the United State: did not fail to remonstrate against the Orders in Council of Greit Britain. Altheugh They knew that these Orders would be reeekcci, if the Decrees of France, which had occasioned them, were repealed, they resolved at the same moment to resit the cendle:t of both Belligerents, instead of requiring France in the first iesernce to rescind her Decrees. Applying, most unjustly the same measure of resentment to the aggressor, and to the party ai•grieved, they adopted measures of commercial resistance against both—a s) stern of resizeatice, which, however varied in the succesive Acts of Embargo, Nee-Intercourse, or Non-Importation, was evidently unequal in its operation, and principally levelled against the superior ceeinrerce and inaritiane power of Great Britain. The same partiality towards France was observable in their negn, clarions, as in their measures of alleged resistance. A pplication was made to both Belligerents for a revocation of their respective Edicts; but the touts in which they were made, were widely deferent. Of eaece was required a revocation only of the Berlin and Milan Decree., although many other edicts, grossly violating the neutral coneet - ce of the United hate :r e had been promulgated by that Power. No s , tv was &queered, that the Berlin and Milan Decrees, even if ref slieeH r at under some other form be re•estatlished: and direct engegernent was off eel, that upon such revocation, the Ame rican Government would take part in the war against Great Britain, if Gre.e Britain did r••• immediately rescind her 0 e'ers : whereas no correspeoding engageetent was offered to Great Gritain, of whom it was required, not only that the Orders in Council should be repealed, but that no others of a nature should be issued, and that the btackadc of May, 1806, should be also abandoned. This blockade, established and enforced according to accustomed practice, had no; 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 Bri ti ac Cabirkt towards the United States. _ _ Great Britain was thus called upon to abandon one of her most im. portant maritime rights, by acknowledging the order of blockade in qu:,ticii, to be one of the edicts which violated the commerce of the United States, although it had Haver been so considered in the previous negociations; and although the President of the United States hat re er.iitly. consented •to abrogate the Non-Intel course Act, on the sole condition of the Orders in Council bei4g revoked; thereby distinctly admitting these orders to to the only ediets which fell within the con. templation of the law under which he acted. A proposition so hostile to Great Britain could not but be propor. tionally encourt:ging to the pretensicns of the enemy ; as by thus al leging that the blockade of May, 1806, was ill,gal, the American Government virtually justified, so far as depended on them, the French Decrees. • •-' • After this proposition had been made, the 'French Minister for Po.. rzign Ainirs, it not in concert with that Govetiirpent, at !fist in con formity with its views, in a dispatch, dated the sth of August, 1810. and addressed to the American Minister resident in Paris, stated that the Berlin and Milan Decrees were revoked, and that their operation would cease from the Ist day of November following, 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 respected ; meaning thereby, that they would resist the weialiatSry measures of Gren Britain. • • Although the repeal of the French Decrees thus announced was evi. dently 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 Pr.:sident at mix consideied the repeal as absolute: Under that pt.,teace tbe Nov..lmyortation Act Wl6 Ztrictly enforced atzinn , • - • • r • • 1 4 . ,