of the decrees liable to objections of another kind, it lies with the United States alone to decide on the mode of proceeding with respect to them.

In explaining the extent of the repeal, which, on the British side, is required, you will be guided by the same principle. You will accordingly let it be distinctly understood, that it must necessarily include an annulment of the blockade of May, 1806, which has been avowed to be comprehended in, and identified with the orders in council; and which is palpably at variance with the law of nations. This is the explanation which will be given to the French government on this point by our minister at Paris, in case it should there be required.

But there are plain and powerful reasons why the British government ought to revoke every other blockade, resting on proclamations or diplomatic notifications, and not on the actual application of a naval force adequate to a real blockade.

1st. This comprehensive redress is equally due from the British government to its professed respect for the laws of nations, and to the just claims of a friendly power.

2d. Without this enlightened precaution, it is probable, and may indeed be inferred from the letter of the duke of Cadore to general Armstrong, that the French government will draw Great Britain and the United States to issue on the legality of such blockades, by acceding to the act of Congress, with a condition, that a repeal of the blockades shall accompany a repeal of the orders in council, alleging, that the orders and blockades, differing little, if at all, otherwise than in name, a repeal of the former, leaving in operation the latter, would be a mere illusion.

3d. If it were even to happen, that a mutual repeal of the orders and decrees could be brought about without involving the subject of blockades, and with a continuance of the blockades in operation, how could the United States be expected to forbear an immediate call for their annulment, or how long would it probably be before an appeal by France to the neutral law of impartiality would bring up the same question between the United States and Great Britain? and from whatever circumstances the issue on it may arise, the impossibility of maintaining the British side, with even a colour of right or consistency, may be seen in the view taken of the subject, in the correspon

386

dence with Mr. Thornton and Mr. Merry, already in your hands.

If the British government should accede to the overture, contained in the act of Congress, by repealing or so modifying its edicts as that they will cease to violate our neutral rights, you will transmit the repeal, properly authenticated, to general Armstrong, and if necessary, by a special messenger, and you will hasten to transmit it also to this department.

With great respect, &c.

William Pinkney, Esq. &c. &c.

R. SMITH.

Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney. Department of State, July 17, 1810.

SIR,-You will herewith receive duplicates of my letters to you of the 13th, 16th and 30th June, and 2d and 5th July.

This despatch you will receive from lieutenant Spence, of the navy, who is to proceed from New York, in the sloop of war the Hornet. This publick vessel has been ordered to England and to France, not only for the purpose of transmitting despatches to you and to our functionaries at Paris, but for the further purpose of affording you, as well as him, a safe opportunity of conveying to this department, before the next meeting of Congress, full infor mation of the ultimate policy, in relation to the United States, of the governments of England and France. And with a view to ensure her return to the United States in due season, her commanding officer has received orders not to remain in any port of Europe after the first day of October next. With respect therefore to the time you will detain Mr. Spence in London, you will be influenced by the information which you may receive from him, as to the orders he may have from the commanding officer of the Hornet.

I have the honour, &c. &c.

William Pinkney, Esq. &c. &c. &c.

R. SMITH.

Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney. Department of State, Oct. 19, 1810.

SIR,-Your despatch of the 24th of August, enclosing a newspaper statement of a letter from the duke of Cadore to general Armstrong, notifying a revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, has been received. It ought not to be doubted that this step of the French government will be followed by a repeal, on the part of the British. government, of its orders in council. And if a termination of the crisis between Great Britain and the United States be really intended, the repeal ought to include the system of paper blockades, which differ in name only from the retaliatory system comprised in the orders in council. From the complexion of the British prints, not to mention other considerations, the paper blockades may however not be abandoned. There is hence a prospect that the United States may be brought to issue with Great Britain on the legality of such blockades. In such case, as it cannot be expected that the United States, founded as they are in law and in right, can acquiesce in the validity of the British practice, it lies with the British government to remove the difficulty. In addition to the considerations heretofore stated to you in former letters, you may bring to the view of the British government the retrospective operation of those diplomatic notifications of blockades, which consider a notice to the minister as a notice to his government, and to the merchants, who are at a distance of three thousand miles. It will recur to your recollection, that the present ministry, in the debates of parliament, in opposition to the authors of the orders of January, 1807, denied that they were warranted by the law of nations. The analogy between these orders and the blockade of May, 1806, in so far as both relate to a trade between enemy ports, furnishes an appeal to the consistency of those now in office, and an answer to attempts by them to vindicate the legality of that blockade. It is remarkable, also, that this blockade is founded on "the new and extraordinary means resorted to by the enemy for the purpose of distressing the commerce of British subjects." What are those means? In what respect do they violate our neutral rights? Are they still in ope

ration? It is believed that true answers to these questions will enforce the obligation of yielding to our demands on this subject. You may also refer the British government to the characteristick definition of a blockaded port, as set forth in their treaty with Russia, of June, 1801, the preamble of which declares, that one of its objects was to settle an invariable determination of their principles upon the rights of neutrality."

Should the British government unexpectedly resort to the pretext of an acquiescence on the part of the United States in their practice, it may be remarked, that prior to, as well as during the present administration, this government has invariably protested against such pretensions; and in addition to other instances heretofore communicated to you, I herewith transmit to you an extract of a letter to the department of state, of July 15, 1799, from Mr. King, our minister at London, and also such part of Mr. Marshall's letter to him, of the 20th September, 1800, as relates to the subject of blockades. And it may moreover be urged, that the principle now contended for by the United States was maintained against others, as well as Great Britain, as appears from the accompanying copy of the letter to our minister at Madrid in the year 1801. To this principle the United States also adhered when a belligerent, as in the case of the blockade of Tripoli, as will be seen by the annexed letter from the navy department. You will press on the justice, friendship and policy of Great Britain, such a course of proceeding as will obviate the dilemma resulting to the United States from a refusal to put an end to the paper blockades, as well as the orders in council.

The necessity of revoking the blockade of Copenhagen, as notified to you in May, 1808, will not escape your attention. Its continuance may embarrass us with Denmark, if not with France.

Your answer as to the Corfu blockade is approved; and should the answer to it render a reply necessary, the President directs you to remonstrate against such a blockade, availing yourself, as far as they may be applicable, of the ideas in the letter to Mr. Charles Pinkney, of October, 1801, and particularly of the proof it affords of our early remonstrance against the principle of such blockades.

No communication having yet been made by general Armstrong of a letter to him from the duke of Cadore, declaring that the Berlin and Milan decrees will cease to be in force from the first day of November next, I can at this time only inform you, that if the proceedings of the French government, when officially received, should correspond with the printed letter of the duke of Cadore, enclosed in your despatch, you will let the British government understand, that on the first day of November the President will issue his proclamation, conformably to the act of Congress, and that the non-intercourse law will consequently be revived against Great Britain. And if the British government should not, with the early notice received of the repeal of the French decrees, have revoked all its orders which violate our neutral rights, it should not be overlooked that Congress, at their approaching session, may be induced not to wait for the expiration of the three months, (which were allowed on the supposition that the first notice might pass through the United States) before they give effect to the renewal of the non-intercourse. This consideration ought to have its weight, in dissuading the British government from the policy, in every respect misjudged, of procrastinating the repeal of its illegal edicts.

If the British government be sincerely disposed to come to a good understanding, and to cultivate a friendly intercourse with the United States, it cannot but be sensible of the necessity, in addition to a compliance with the act of Congress, of concluding at this time a general arrangement of the topicks between the two countries; and, above all, such an one as will upon equitable terms, effectually put a stop to the insufferable vexations to which our seamen have been, and yet are exposed, from the British practice of impressment; a practice which has so strong a bearing on our neutrality, and to which no nation can submit consistently with its independency. To this very interesting subject you will therefore recall the attention of the British government, and you will accordingly consider yourself hereby authorized to discuss and adjust the same separately, conformably to the instructions in my letter to you of the 20th January last, on the condition, however, contained in that letter, namely, that the requisite atonement shall have been previously made in the