not "empowered to entertain, as connected with this topic, any proposition respecting the search of merchant vessels."

In October, a proclamation was issued by the British king, authorizing and commanding officers of his ships of war "to seize upon, take, and bring away" all his natural-born subjects found serving in merchant vessels of any foreign state. On receiving information that such subjects were serving on board a foreign armed vessel, his officers were to require their delivery, and if it was refused, to so report to the commander-in-chief of the squadron: and the last-named officer was to transmit the fact immediately to the British minister at the "seat of government of that state to which the said foreign ship of war should belong, to demand reparation for the injury," etc.

On it being objected by the American minister that this closed the door to negotiation, Canning replied that it was merely a declaration of the existing law, necessary to be made for the information of his majesty's commanders, since the disavowal of Berkley's conduct in the case of the Chesapeake left them without a guide to their proper action. Towards the close of October, he made a final reply to the proposition of the American ministers, to renew negotiations on the basis of the rejected treaty; and he declined to do so.

Monroe, considering all the objects of his particular mission now at an end, asked his audience of leave, and returned home. Pinkney remained to discharge the duties of a resident minister.

On the 11th of November, 1807, the King of Great Britain issued orders in council, which showed that the interests which were in favor of plundering our commerce had completely triumphed. These orders declared all ports and places belonging to France and her allies subjected to the same restrictions as if in a state of rigorous blockade, with the exception that neutral vessels might trade in them on clearing from the ports of Great Britain or her allies, "under such regulations as his majesty might think fit to prescribe," and on the condition, also, that on their return voyages they sail directly to the ports of Great Britain or her allies, again submitting to the prescribed "regulations." But if neutrals were found, under any circumstances, carrying French "certificates of origin," the vessel and

"Certificates of origin" were certificates obtained of French agents at the ports of shipment, declaring that the articles of the cargo were not of the produce or manufacture of his Britannic majesty's dominions.

cargo were declared lawful prize. The "regulations" included an onerous "transit duty," and required neutrals to take out a British "license" to trade with the enemies of Great Britain.' Napoleon determined that England should not be benefited by this system, whatever wrongs he might inflict on neutrals, to prevent it, and he issued his "Milan decree" (December 17th, 1807), declaring every vessel denationalized and forfeited which submitted to be searched by British cruisers, or paid duties or license money to that Government, or which was found sailing to or from British ports. These regulations were to be annulled as soon as Great Britain should return to the principles of the laws of nations.

The consequences of all these measures were that American

These "regulations" were established by an additional order in council, November 25th, 1807; and by an act of parliament of March 25th, 1808.

The direct war on neutral rights had been commenced by the British orders in council of May 16th, 1806, which declared the whole coast of France and Germany, from Brest to the Elbe-a distance of about eight hundred miles-in a state of blockade! This was retaliated by Napoleon's "Berlin decree," of November 21st, 1806, which declared the British Islands in a state of blockade. The second British order of January, 1807, and the third and crushing one of November, the same year, were avowedly made in retali ation of the Berlin decree. Yet, when that of January was made, it was not pretended that "any injury had accrued to or was apprehended by Great Britain, from an execu tion of the French decree against the commerce of the United States on the theatre of their neutral rights." (See Madison to Erskine, March 25th, 1808.) In fact, it was notorious that the Berlin decree was not enforced against the United States until about a year after its date and until long after the retaliatory order in council. Alexander Baring (since Lord Ashburton) a distinguished member of the British Parliament, truly said: "No condemnation of an American vessel had ever taken place under it; and so little did the French privateers interfere with the trade of America with this country, that the insurance on it has been but very little higher than in time of profound peace; while that on the American trade with the Continent of Europe has at the same time been doubled and even trebled by the conduct of our cruisers.' (Inquiry into the Causes and Consequences of the Orders in Council, etc., by Alexander Baring, M.P. London, Feb. ruary, 1808.) There appears, therefore, to be but one explanation of the conduct of England towards the United States. She began a species of naval aggression peculiarly injurious to them and profitable to herself. When France retaliated, making an excep tion in favor of the United States, England made that retaliation a pretext for a new and more serious aggression on the United States! She occupied then the miserable attitude of a power taking advantage of her own wrong to push on a war of commercial regulations in order to plunder an innocent third party.

It was the well settled law of England that there could be no such thing as a paper or mere declaratory blockade, which would authorize confiscation for violating it. In the case of the Betsey, December 18th, 1798, Sir William Scott held: "On the question of blockade, three things must be proved; first, the existence of an actual blockade; second, the knowledge of the party; third, some act of violation, either by going in or coming out with a cargo, laden after the commencement of the blockade." (Rob. Adm. Rep. vol. i. p. 93.) This opinion was confirmed in repeated cases extending down to the interpolations in international maritime law, commenced by the earlier orders in council. So scrupulous was England in 1800, that the Maria Schroeder, a neutral vessel, was ordered to be restored for violating the blockade of Havre-it being shown that that blockade was not strictly maintained. (Rob. vol. iii. p. 147.) In 1807, a paper blockade of nearly the whole European continent authorized confiscation, and carrying a "certificate of origin," authorized the condemnation of ship and cargo! Even Reddie, perhaps the most blind apologist of England who has ever written on maritime law, refuses to justify the "regulations" under the British order in council of November, 1807. (Reddie on Maritime International Law, vol. ii. p. 28-31.) Bynkershoek thus, in consonance with reason and justice, lays down the rule which limits the right of retaliation to the aggressor: "Diceres id edictum, jure retorsionis subsistere. Sed retorsio non est, nisi adversus eum, qui ipse damni quid dedit; ac deinde patitur; non vero adver sus communem amicum." Qui injuriam non fecit, non recte patitur."

commerce with any European power (unless we should practically except England) was mostly excluded from the ocean. If it attempted to reach the Continent in violation of British orders, it became the almost certain prey of British cruisers in going or returning. If it stopped and paid the required tribute to England, confiscation awaited it when it reached continental ports.

Congress assembled on the 26th of October. The Federalists were reduced to a still smaller minority than in the preceding Congress. In the Senate, William H. Crawford, of Georgia, soon took the place of Baldwin, deceased;' John Pope, of Kentucky, the place of Clay; Jesse Franklin, of North Carolina, the place of Stone; Andrew Gregg, of Pennsylvania, the place of Logan; Jonathan Robinson, of Vermont, the place of Smith; Chauncey Goodrich, of Connecticut, the place of Tracy, deceased; Elisha Matthewson, of Rhode Island, the place of Fenner; and Nahum Parker, of New Hampshire, the place of Plumer. There were but six Federal senators in all: Hillhouse and Goodrich, of Connecticut; Bayard and White, of Delaware; and Pickering and Adams, of Massachusetts. The number was soon to be reduced to five, by Mr. Adams going over to the Republicans.

Among the most prominent Administration members in the House of Representatives were W. C. Nicholas, Eppes and Burwell, of Virginia; Macon and Alston, of North Carolina; Campbell, of Tennessee; Varnum, Crowninshield and Bacon, of Massachusetts; Findley and Smilie, of Pennsylvania; Sloan, of New Jersey; Clinton, Mumford, and Van Cortlandt, of New York; R. M. Johnson and Desha, of Kentucky; and Troup, of Georgia. The most prominent Federalists were Quincy, of Massachusetts; Dana and Davenport, of Connectient; Key, of Maryland; and Gardenier and Van Rensselaer, of New York. The Quids were represented by three or four members of considerable ability, with John Randolph at their head.

The President's message was calm in its tone. After alluding to the causes which induced the extraordinary mission to Great Britain, he said:

To be more particular, he took the place of George Jones, who was appointed by the Governor, on the decease of Baldwin, August 27th, 1807, and who held until Novem ber 7th, 1807.

"The instructions given to our ministers were framed in the sincerest spirit of amity and moderation. They accordingly proceeded, in conformity therewith, to propose arrangements which might embrace and settle all the points in difference between us, which might bring us to a mutual understanding on our neutral and national rights, and provide for a commercial intercourse on conditions of some equality. After long and fruitless endeavors to effect the purposes of their mission, and to obtain arrangements within the limits of their instructions, they concluded to sign such as could be obtained, and to send them for consideration, candidly declaring to the other negotiators, at the same time, that they were acting against their instructions, and that their Government, therefore, could not be pledged for ratification. Some of the articles proposed might have been admitted on a principle of compromise, but others were too highly disadvantageous, and no sufficient provision was made against the principal source of the irritations and collisions which were constantly endangering the peace of the two nations. The question, therefore, whether a treaty should be accepted in that form could have admitted but of one decision, even had no declarations of the other party impaired our confidence in it. Still anxious not to close the door against friendly adjustment, new modifications were framed, and further concessions authorized than could before have been supposed necessary; and our ministers were instructed to resume their negotiations on these grounds."

He declared that we were "reposing in confidence" in "this new reference to amicable discussion," when, "by a formal order from the British Admiral," the Chesapeake was attacked. He then stated the steps taken in consequence, but that no answer had yet been received from the British Government.

He complained that the aggressions thus began had been continued by the British commanders remaining in our waters, in defiance of our authority, by habitual violations of our jurisdiction, and by putting to death one of the persons taken from the Chesapeake. He said, these aggravations necessarily led to the policy of admitting no foreign armed vessels into our harbors, or maintaining a force sufficient to control them, and that the expense of the last and its "inconsistence with our principles "would "dispense with those courtesies which would necessarily call for it," and leave us as free to exclude the navy as the army of a foreign power from our limits.

The British order in Council of January 7th, 1807, was thus alluded to:

"To former violations of maritime rights, another is now added of very extensive effect. The government of that nation has issued an order interdicting all trade by neutrals between ports not in amity with them; and being now at war with nearly every nation on the Atlantic and Mediterranean seas, our vessels are required to sacrifice their cargoes at the first port they touch, or to return home

without the benefit of going to any other market. Under this new law of the ocean, our trade on the Mediterranean has been swept away by seizures and condemna tions, and that in other seas is threatened with the same fate."

"Our differences with Spain," he said, "remained still unsettled." To former grounds of complaint, was now added "a very serious one"-a decree conforming with that of the French Government of November 21st, 1806 (the "Berlin decree"), but whether it "would also be conformed to that in its" favorable "construction and application in relation to the United States," had not been ascertained.

With all other foreign powers, he declared our relations were on their usual footing. A fermentation had been observed among the Northwestern Indians, but had apparently so far subsided as to require no new measures. The appropriations of the last session had been mostly expended on the fortification of New York, Charleston, and New Orleans, as the most exposed points, and, for the same reasons, the gunboats had been chiefly assigned to New York, New Orleans, and the Chesapeake. "Whether our movable force on the water, so material in aid of the defensive works on the land, should be augmented in this or any other form, was left to the wisdom of the Legislature." For manning the gunboats in case of sudden attacks on our harbors, he suggested for consideration, whether our seamen might not justly be formed into a special militia, "to be called on for tours of duty in defence of the harbors where they shall happen to be." When our peace was threatened, the President said he had, without waiting for a law, incurred expenses in laying in stores, and in calling all our gunboats into service, which he trusted would meet the approbation of Congress. "Whether a regular army was to be raised, and to what extent," must depend on the information so shortly expected. In the meantime, he had called on the States for their quotas of militia, and encouraged the acceptance of volunteers; and they were ordered to be organized and ready at a moment's warning.

After alluding to the measures resorted to to break up Burr's enterprise, their complete success, but the defeat of all measures to convict him before the courts, he added:

"You will be enabled to judge whether the defeat was in the testimony, in the law, or in the administration of the law; and wherever it shall be found, the legislature alone can apply or originate the remedy. The framers of our Constitution VOL. III.-16