If such, sir, were the principles admitted by the council on the 25th of March last, with what correctness can it be now said, "that at no period have they partaken of the opinion of the minister ?"

The second fact asserted by the council is, that the interpretation of the decree in question, given on the 24th of December, 1806, was private, not publick; or, in other words, that it was the interpretation of the man, not that of the minister, and as such, cannot outweigh the more recent declaration coming directly from his majesty himself.

On the comparative weight of these declarations, I shall say nothing, nor shall I do more to repel the first part of the insinuation (that the minister's declaration was that only of the individual) than to submit to your excellency my letter of the 20th of December, 1806, claiming from that minister an official interpretation of the decree in question, and his answer of the 24th of the same month, giving to me the interpretation demanded.

To your excellency, who, as late as the 21st of August last, considered the minister of marine as the natural organ of his majesty's will, in whatever regarded the decree aforesaid, and who actually applied to him for information relating to it, this allegation of the council of prizes, and the reasoning founded upon it, cannot but appear very extraordinary, and will justify me in requesting that his majesty may be moved to set aside the decision in question, on the ground of errour in the opinion of the council.

If, in support of this conclusion, I have drawn no arguments from the treaty of 1800, nor from the laws of nations, your excellency will not be at a loss to assign to this omission its true cause. It would surely have been a useless formality to appeal to authorities, not only practically, but even professedly extinct. In the letter of the minister of justice, of the 18th of September, we are told by his majesty himself, that since he had not judged proper to make any exception in the letter of his decree, there was no room to make any in its execution.”—And in the report of your excellency's predecessor, of the 20th of November, 1806, we have these memorable words:

"England has declared those places blockaded, before which she had not a single ship of war.

"She has done more, for she has declared in a state of blockade, places, which all her assembled forces were incapable of blockading-immense coasts, and a vast empire.

“Afterwards, drawing from a chimerical right, and from an assumed fact, the consequence that she might justly make her prey of every thing going to the places laid under interdiction, by a simple declaration of the British admiralty, and of every thing arising therefrom, and carrying this doctrine into effect, she has alarmed neutral navigators, and driven them to a distance from ports whither their interests attracted them, and which the law of nations authorized them to frequent.

"Thus it is, that she has turned to her own profit, and to the detriment of Europe, but more particularly of France, the audacity with which she mocks at all rights, and insults even reason itself.

"Against a power which forgets to such a pitch all ideas of justice, and all humane sentiments, what can be done, but to forget them for an instant one's self?”

Words cannot go farther to show the extinguished authority, in the one case, of the treaty subsisting between the United States and his imperial majesty, and, in the other, of the law of nations: to appeal to them, therefore, would be literally appealing to the dead.

Accept, sir, &c. &c. &c.

(Signed)

JOHN ARMSTRONG.

To his excellency the Minister of Foreign Relations.

SIR,

General Armsirong to Mr. Madison.

PARIS, DEC. 1, 1807.

I HAVE this moment received a letter from his majesty's minister of foreign relations, of which I subjoin a copy, and am, sir, &c.

(Signed)

JOHN ARMSTRONG.

SIR,

M. Champagny to General Armstrong.

[TRANSLATION.]

MILAN, NOV. 24, 1807.

THE execution of the measures taken against the English commerce has frequently caused reclamations on your part. The intention of his majesty, without doubt, is, that every particular abuse may be repressed: but the federal government cannot make any complaint against the measures themselves; and while the United States allow that their vessels may be visited by England, that she may drag them into her ports, and turn them from their destination; while they do not oblige England to respect their flag, and the merchandise which it covers; while they permit that power to apply to them the absurd rules of blockade which it has set up with the view of injuring France; they bind themselves by that tolerance towards England to allow also the application of the measures of reprisals which France is obliged to employ against her. His majesty regrets, without doubt, to have

been forced to recur to such measures: he knows all that the commercial classes may have to suffer in consequence of them, particularly those, who, having habitual relations with England, using a common language, and often mixing their interests, might more frequently occasion an apprehension of some commercial connivance with the English, inasmuch as they would have greater facilities in covering it. This circumstance made it necessary to use towards them precautions more exact, and an unceasing watchfulness, in order not to be exposed to abuses, which might result from a less constant vigilance. But it is not to France, it is to England, that these inconveniences to individuals ought to be imputed. She it is who has given the example of measures unjust, illegal, and infringing on the sovereignty of nations. To oblige her to renounce them, it has become necessary to combat her with her own arms in violating the rights of all nations, she has united * VOL. III.

32

them all by a common interest, and it is for them to have recourse to force against her; to forbid her the search (la visite) of their vessels; the taking away of their crews; and to declare themselves against measures which wound their dignity and their independence. The unjust pretensions of England will be kept up as long as those, whose rights she violates, are silent; and what government has had more to complain of against her than the United States? All the difficulties which have given rise to your reclamations, sir, would be removed with ease, if the government of the United States, after complaining in vain of the injustice and violations of England, took with the whole continent the part of guaranteeing itself therefrom. England has introduced into the maritime war an entire disregard for the rights of nations: it is only in forcing her to a peace that it is possible to recover them. On this point the interest of all nations is the same. their honour and their independence to defend. Accept, sir, &c. &c. &c.

(Signed)

All have

CHAMPAGNY.

Extract from a Letter of General Armstrong to Mr. Madison, dated Paris, February 17, 1808.

“ENCLOSED is a copy of the answer from the minister of marine to my letter of the 13th instant, in relation to the sale of a part of the cargo of the ship James Adams. It would now appear, that the promises of forbearance made by another department, are applicable only to vessels sequestered in the ports, and not to such as have been captured at sea."

[5th division of prizes.]

Extract from a Letter of the Minister of Marine to General Armstrong, dated Paris, Feb. 15, 1808.

[TRANSLATION.]

"I OBSERVE to you moreover that the question now is not as to a vessel sequestered in port; but as to a prize made

at sea, and seized for a contravention of the decree of the 17th Dec. last: that the provisional sale ordered on account of the "average" is for the interest as well of the captured, as of the captors, and it is directed according to the case provided for by the regulation of the 2d Prairial, 11th year."

[EXTRACT.]

General Armstrong to Mr. Madison.

PARIS, APRIL 5, 1808.

"I RECEIVED the despatches you did me the honour to address to me by Mr. Lewis, on the 26th ultimo.

"Though I had complained often and earnestly of both the principles and operation of the emperour's decrees of November, 1806, and December, 1807-(having written at least twenty notes on the different cases which have arisen under them) yet, as the President's orders were express, that on receipt of your letter I should superadd to whatever representations might have been previously made, a formal remonstrance against those decrees, I did not lose a moment in writing and presenting the enclosed note; the terms of which will, I hope, appear to be such as were proper or necessary to the case, and calculated, either to obtain a recall of the illegal measures, or to leave in full force the rights accruing to the United States from a failure on the part of France to recall them. To this note I have not yet received an answer, nor have I reason to expect one soon, as the emperour has left Paris (it is said for Spain) and had, at no time before he set out, indicated any alteration in the views which originally produced the decrees in question.

"Mr. Pinkney found means (in the return to the continent of M. d'Alopeus) to communicate the President's views on the subject of the general embargo, and particularly the desire he had, that it should not be considered as a measure of hostility against any foreign nation. Some explanations of this kind were perhaps necessary in Eng