resources, a species of warfare unattempted by any ing the operation of the late act of congress procivilized nation before the present period. Not only hibiting all importation from the British dominions. has America suffered her trade to be moulded into There have been repeated avowals lately made by the means of annoyance to Great Britain under the the government of France, that the decrees of Berprovisions of the French decrees, but construing lin and Milan were still in full force, and the acts those decrees as extinct upon a deceitful declaration of that government have corrresponded with those of the French cabinet, she has enforced her non- avowals.

Importation act against Great Britain.

The measures of retaliation pursued by Great Under these circumstances I am instructed by my Britain against those decrees are consequently to government to urge to that of the United States, the great regret of his royal highness still necessa the injustice of thus enforcing that act against his rily continued.

majesty's dominions, and I cannot but hope that a I have had the honor to state to you the light in spirit of justice will induce the United States' gov-which his royal highness, the prince regent, viewed ernment to reconsider the line of conduct they have the proclamation of the president of last November, pursued, and at least to re establish their former and the surprise with which he learnt the subsestate of strict neutrality. quent measures of congress against the British

I have only to add, sir, that on my part I shall trade.

ever be ready to meet you on any opening which American ships scized under his majesty's orders may seem to afford a prospect of restoring complete in council, even after the proclamation appeared, harmony between the two countries, and that it will at all times give me the greatest satisfaction to treat with you on the important concerns so interesting to both. I have the honor to be, &c.

AUG. J. FOSTER.

To the Hon. James Monroe &c. &c. &c.

MR. FOSTER TO MR. MONROF.

Washington, July 11, 1811. SIS,-In consequence of our conversation of yesterday, and the observations which you made respecting that part of my letter to you of the 3d instant, wherein I have alluded to the principle on which his majesty's orders in council were originally founded, I think it right to explain myself in order to prevent any possible mistake as to the present situation of neutral trade with his majesty's enemies.

It will only be necessary for me to repeat what has already, long since, been announced to the American government, namely, that his majesty's orders in council of April 26, 1809, superceded those of November, 1806, and relieved the system of retaliation adopted by his majesty against his ene mies from what is considered in this country as the most objectional part of it; the option given to neutrals to trade with the enemies of Great Britain through British ports on payment of a transit

duty.

were not immediately condemned because it was believed that the insidious profession of France might have led the American government and the merchants of America into an erroneous constructions of the intention of France.

But when the veil was thrown aside, and the French ruler himself avowed the continued existence of his invariable system, it was not expected by his royal highness that America would have re. fused to retrace the steps she had taken.

Fresh proofs have since occurred of the resolution of the French government to cast away all consideration of the rights of nations in the unpre cedented warfare they have adopted.

America, however, still persists in her injurious measures against the commerce of Great Britain, and his royal highness has in consequence been obliged to look to means of retaliation against those measures which his royal highness cannot but consider as most unjustifiable.

How desirable would it not be, sir, if a stop could be put to any material progress in such a system of retaliation, which, from step to step may lead to the most unfriendly situation between the two countries?

His majesty's government will necessarily be guided in a great degree by the contents of my first dispatches as to the conduct they must adopt to wards America.

Allow me then, sir, to repeat my request to learn This explanation, sir, will, I trust, be sufficient from you whether I may not convey to his royal to do away any impressions that you may have re-highness what I know would be most grateful to ceived to the contrary from my observations respec- his royal highness' feelings, namely the hope that ting the effects which his majesty's orders in coun- he may be enabled by the speedy return of America cil originally had on the trade of neutral nations.—from her unfriendly attitude towards Great Britain Those observations were merely meant as prelimina- to forget altogether that he was ever obliged to have ry to a consideration of the question now at issue any other object in view besides that of endeavor. between the two countries. ing to promote the best understanding possible beI have the honor to be, with the highest conside-tween the two countries. ration and respect, sir, your most obedient humble. AUG. J. FOSTER.

servant

To the hon. James Monroe, &c.

MR. FOSTER TO MR. MONROE.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant. AUG. J. FOSTER. The honorable James Monroe, &c. &c. &c.

MR. FOSTER TO MR. MONROE.

Washington, July 14, 1811. SIR-His majesty's packet boat having been so Washington, July 16, 1811. long detained, and a fortnight having elapsed since SIR-I have the honor to receive the letter which my arrival at this capital, his royal highness the you addressed to me under yesterday's date request. prince regent will necessarily expect that I shoulding an explanation from me, in consequence of my have to transmit to his royal highness some official letters of the 3d and 14th instant, of the precise excommunication as to the line of conduct the Ame tent in which a repeal of the French decrees is by rican government mean to pursue. I trust you his majesty's government made a condition of the will excuse me therefore, sir, if without pressing repeal of the British orders, and particularly whe for a detailed answer to my note of the third instant, ther the condition embraces the seizure of vessels I anxiously desire to know from you what is the and merchandize entering French ports in contrapresident's determination with respect to suspend-vention of French regulations, as well as the cap

Excuse me, sir, if I express my wish as early as ture on the high seas, of neutral vessels and their cargoes, on the mere allegation that they are bound possible to dispatch his majesty's packet boat with to or from British ports, or that they have on board the result of our communications, as his majesty's British productions or manufactures; as also, government will necessarily be most anxious to stating that in your view of the French deerees, hear from me. Any short period of time, however, they comprise regulations essentially different in which may appear to you to be reasonable, I will their principles, some of them violating the neutral not hesitate to detain her. rights of the United States, others operating against | Great Britain, without any such violation.

You will permit me, sir, for the purpose of an swering your questions as clearly and concisely as possible, io bring into view the French decrees themselves, together with the official declaration of the French ministers which accompanied them.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration and respect, sir, your most obedient humble AUG. J. FOSTER. servant, To the honorable James Monroe, &c. &c. &c.

MR. MONROE TO MR FOSTER.'

Department of State, July 23, 1811. SIR,-I have transmitted to the president your In the body of those decrees, and in the declarations alluded to, you will find, sir, express avowals several letters to the 3d and 16th of this month rethat the principles on which they were founded, [lative to the British orders in council and the blockand the provisions contained in them, are wholly ade of May, 1806, and I have now the honor to new, unprecedented, and in direct contradiction to communicate to you his sentiments on the view all ideas of justice and the principles and usages of which you have presented of those measures of all civilized nations. your government.

The French government did not pretend to say that any one of the regulations contained in those decrees was a regulation which France has ever been in the previous practice of.

It was hoped that your communication would have led to an immediate accommodation of the differences subsisting between our countries, on the ground, on which alone it is possible to meet you. They were consequently to be considered, and It is regretted that you have confined yourself to a were indeed allowed by France herself to be, all of vindication of the measures which produce some them, parts of a new system of warfare, unauthori of them. sed by the established law of nations.

It is in this light in which France herself has placed her decrees, that Great Britain is obliged to consider them.

The United States are as little disposed now as heretofore to enter into the question concerning the priority of aggression by the two belligerents, which could not be justified by either, by the priority of But as you bring forward that The submission of neutrals to any regulations those of the other. made by France, authorised by the laws of nations plea in support of the orders in council, I must be and practised in former wars, will never be com- permitted to remark that you have yourself furplained of by Great Britain; but the regulations of nished a conclusive answer to it, by admitting that the Berlin and Milan decrees do, and are declared the blockade of May, 1806, which was prior to the to violate the laws of nations and the rights of neu- first of the French decrees, would not be legal, trals, for the purpose of attacking through them unless supported through the whole extent of the the resources of Great Britain. The ruler of coast, from the Elbe to Brest, by an adequate France has drawn no distinction between any of naval force. That such a naval force was actually them, nor has he declared the cessation of any one applied and continued in the requisite strictness of them in the speeeh which he so lately addressed until that blockade was comprised in and superced to the deputation from the free imperial Hanse ed by the orders of November of the following year,' Towns, which was on the contrary a confirmation or even until the French decree of the same year, will not I presume be alleged.

of them all.

But waving this question of priority, can it be Not until the French decrees therefore shall be effectually repealed, and thereby neutral commerce seen without both surprise and regret, that it is still be restored to the situation in which it stood previ contended, that the orders in council are justified ously to their promulgation, can his royal highness by the principle of retaliation, and that this princiconceive himself justified, consistently with what ple is strengthened by the inability of France to A retaliation is in its name, he owes to the safety and honor of Great Britain, enforce her decrees.

in foregoing the just measures of retaliation which and its essential character, a returning like for his majesty in his defence was necessitated to adopt like. Is the deadly blow of the orders in council against them.

I trust, sir, that this explanation in answer to your enquiries will be considered by you sufficiently satisfactory; should you require any further, and which it may be in my power to give, I shall with the greatest cheerfulness afford it.

founded.

But

against one half of our commerce, a return of like for like to an empty threat in the French decrees, against the other half? It may be a vindicative hostility, as far as its effects fall on the enemy. when falling on a neutral who on no pretext can be liable for more than the measure of injury received I sincerely hope, however, that no further delay through such neutral it would not be a retaliation, will be thought necessary by the president in re-but a positive wrong, by the plea on which it is storing the relations of amity which should ever It is to be further remarked that the orders in subsist between the United States and Great Britain, as the delusions attempted by the govern council went even beyond the plea, such as this has ment of France have now been made manifest, and appeared to be, in extending its operation against the perfidious plans of its ruler exposed; by which, the trade of the United States, with nations which, while he adds to and aggravates his system of vio-like Russia, had not adopted the French decrees, lence against neutral trade, he endeavors to throw and with all nations which had merely excluded the all the odium of his acts upon Great Britain with a British flag; an exclusion resulting as matter of course with respect to whatever nation Great Briview to engender discord between the neutral coun tries, and the only power which stands up as altain might happen to be at war. bulwark against his efforts at universal tyranny and oppression,

I am far from viewing the modification originally contained in these orders, which permits neutrals to

prosecute their trade with the continent, through the revocation of her edicts. I will proceed to shew Great Britain, in the favorable light in which you that the obligation on Great Britain to revoke her represent it. It is impossible to proceed to notice orders is complete, according to her own engagethe effect of this modification without expressing ments, and that the revocation ought not to be our astonishment at the extravagance of the politi longer delayed. oal pretension set up by it: a pretension which is By the act of May 1st, 1810, it is provided, "that utterly incompatible with the sovereignty and inde if either Great Britain or France should cease to pendence of other states. In a commercial view it violate the neutral commerce of the United States, is not less objectionable as it cannot fail to prove which fact the president should declare by procladestructive to neutral commerce. As an enemy,mation, and the other party should not within three Great Britain cannot trade with France. Nor does months thereafter revoke or modify its edicts in like France permit a neutral to come into her ports manner, that then certain sections in a former act from Great Britain. The attempt of Great Britain interdicting the commercial intercourse between to force our trade through her ports, would have the United States and Great Britain and France and therefore the commercial effect of depriving the their dependencies, should from and after the expiUnited States altogether of the market of her enemy ration of three months from the date of the proclafor their productions, and of destroying their value mation, be revived and have full force against the in her market by a surcharge of it. Heretofore it former, its colonies and dependencies, and against has been the usage of belligerent nations to carry all articles the growth, produce or manufacture of on their trade through the intervention of neutrals; the same.

and this had the beneficial effect of extending to The violations of neutral commerce alluded to in the former the advantages of peace, while suffering this act were such as were committed on the high under the calamities of war. To reverse the rule, seas. It was in the trade between the United States and to extend to nations at peace the calamities of and the British dominions, that France had violated war, is a change as novel and extraordinary as it is the neutral rights of the United States by her blockat variance with justice and public law. ading edicts. It was with the trade of France and

Against this unjust system, the United States en her allies that Great Britain had committed similar tered, at an early period, their solemn protest.-violations by similar edicts. It was the revocation of They considered it their duty to evince to the world those edicts, so far as they committed such violatheir high disapprobation of it, and they have done tions, which the United States had in view, when so by such acts as were deemed most consistent they passed they law of May 1st, 1810. On the 5th with the rights and the policy of the nation. Re-August, 1810, the French minister of foreign affairs mote from the contentious scene which desolates addressed a note to the minister plenipotentiary of Europe, it has been their uniform object to avoid the United States at Paris, informing him that the becoming a party to the war. With this view they decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked, the revohave endeavored to cultivate friendship with both cation to take effect on the first of November parties by a system of conduct which ought to have following: that the measure had been taken by his pro luced that effect. They have done justice to government in confidence that the British governeach party in every transaction in which they have ment would revoke its orders and renounce its new been seperately engaged with it. They have observ principles of blockade, or that the United States ed the impartiality which was due to both as belli-would cause their rights to be respected, conforma. gerents standing on equal ground, having in nobly to the act of May 1st, 1810. instance given a preference to either at the expence This measure o the French government was of the other. They have borne too with equal in- founded on the law of May 1st, 1810, as is expressly dulgence injuries from both, being willing while declared in the letter of the duke of Cadore announit was possible to impute them to casualties insepacing it. The edicts of Great Britain, the revocation rable from a cause of war, and not to a deliberate of which were expected by France, were those alintention to violate their rights, and even when the luded to in that act: and the means by which the intention could not be mistaken, they have not lost United States should cause their rights to be ressight of the ultimate object of their policy. In the pected, in case Great Britain shonld not revoke her measures to which they have been compelled to re-edicts, were likewise to be found in the same act. sort, they have in all respects maintained pacific re- They consisted merely in the enforcement of the lations with both parties. The alternative present non-importation act against Great Britain, in the ed by their late acts, was offered equally to both, and unexpected and probable contingency. could operate on neither, no longer than it should The letter of the 5th of August, which announced persevere in its aggressions on our neutral rights. the revocation of the French decrees was commuThe embargo and non-intercourse, were peaceful nicated to this government, in consequence of which measures. The regulations which they imposed on the president issued a proclamation on the 2nd of our trade were such as any nation might adopt in November, the day after that on which the repeal of peace or war, without offence to any other nation the French decrees was to take effect, in which he The non-importation is of the same character, and declared, that all the restrictions imposed by the act if it makes a distinction at this time, in its operation of May 1st, 1810, should cease and be discontinued between the belligerents, it necessarily results from in relation to France and her dependencies. It was a compliance of one with the offer made to both, and a necessary consequence of this proclamation, also, which is still open to the compliance of the other. ¡that if Great Britain did not revoke her edicts, the In the discussions which have taken place on the non-importation would operate on her at the end of subject of the orders in council and blockade of May three months. This actually took place. She de1806, the British government in conformity to the clined the revocation, and on the 2d of February principle on which the orders in council are said to last, the law took effect. In confirmation of the be founded, declared that they should cease to ope- proclamation an act of congress was passed on the rate as soon as France revoked her edicts. It was d of March following.

stated also, that the British government would pro- Great Britain still declines to revoke her edicts on ceed pari passu, with the government of France, in the pretension that France has not revoked hers

Under that impression she infers that the United those decrees, since the 1st of November last. The States have done her injustice by carrying into ef New Orleans Packet from Gibraltar to Bordeaux fect the non importation against her. was detained but never condemned. The Grace

The United States maintain that France has re- Ann Green, from the same British port to Marvoked her edicts so far as they violated their neutraseilles, was likewise detained but was afterwards derights and were contemplated by the law of May livered up unconditionally to the owner, as was such 1st, 1810, and have on that ground particularly part of the cargo of the New Orlerns Packet as conclaimed, and do expect of Great Britain a similar sisted of the produce of the United States. Both revocation. these vessels proceeding from a British port, carti The revocation announced officially by the French ed cargoes, some articles of which in each, were minister of foreign affairs to the minister plenipo prohibited by the laws of France, or admissible by tentiary of the United States at Paris, on the 5th of the sanction of the government alone. It does not August, 1810, was in itself sufficient to justify appear that their detention was imputable to any the claim of the United States to a correspondent other cause. If imputable to the circumstance of measure from Great Britain. She had declared passing from a British to a French port, or on acthat she would proceed pari pass in the repeal count of any part of their cargoes, it affords no with France, and the day being fixed when the re- cause of complaint to Great Britain, as a violation, peal of the French decrees should take effect, it was of our neutral rights. No such cause would be reasonable to conclude that Great Britain would afforded, even in a case of condemnation. The fix the same day for the repeal of her orders.- right of complaint, would have belonged to the UniHad this been done the proclamation of the president ted States. would have announced the revocation of the edicts In denying the revocation of the decrees, so far of both powers at the same time, and in consequence as it is a proper subject of discussion between us, thereof the non-importation would have gone into it might reasonably be expected that you would operation against neither. Such too is the natural course of proceeding in transactions between inde pendent states; and such the conduct which they generally observe towards each other. In all com pacts between nations it is the duty of each to perform what it stipulates, and to presume on the good faith of the other, for a like performance. The United States having made a proposal to both belli gerents were bound to accept a compliance from either, and it was no objection to the French com pliance, that it was in a form to take effect at a future day, that being a form not unusual in laws and other public acts. Even when nations are at war and make peace, this obligation of mutual confidence exists and is respected. In treaties of com merce, by which their future intercourse is to be governed, the obligation is the same. If distrust and jealousy are allowed to prevail, the moral tie which binds nations together in all their relations, in war as well as in peace, is broken.

produce some examples of vessels taken at sea, in voyages to British ports, or on their return home, and condemned under them by a French tribunal. None such has been afforded by you. None such are known to this government,

You urge only as an evidence that the decrees are not repealed, the speech of the emperor of France to the deputies from the free cities of Hamburg, Bremen and Lubeck, the imperial edict dated at Fontainbleau on the 19th October, 1810; the report of the French minister of foreign affairs dated in December last, and a letter of the minister of justice to the president of the council of prizes of the 25th of that month.

There is nothing in the first of these papers incom patible with the revocation of the decrees, in respect to the United States. It is distinctly declared by the emperor in his speech to the deputies of the Hanse Towns, that the blockade of the British islands shall cease when the British blockades cease; What would Great Britain have hazarded by a and that the French blockade shall cease in favor of prompt compliance in the manner suggested? She those nations in whose favor Great Britain revokes had declared that she had adopted the restraints im hers, or who support their rights against her preposed by her orders in council with reluctance, be tension, as France admits the United States will do cause of their distressing effect on neutral powers. by enforcing the non-importation act. The same Here then was a favorable opportunity presented sentiment is expressed in the report of the minister to her, to withdraw from that measure with honor, of foreign affairs. The decree of Fontainbleau havbe the conduct of France afterwards what it might. ing no effect on the high seas, cannot be brought Had Great Britain revoked her orders, and France into this discussion. It evidently has no connection failed to fulfil her engagement, she would have with neutral rights. The letter from the minister gained credit at the expence of France, and could of justice to the president of the council of prizes, have sustained no injury by it, because the failure is of a different character. It relates in direct terms of France to maintain her faith would have repla- to this subject, but not in the sense in which you ced Great Britain at the point from which she had understand it. After reciting the note from the departed. To say that a disappointed reliance on duke of Cadore of the 5th of August last, to the the good faith of her enemy would have reproached American minister at Paris, which announced the her foresight, would be to set a higher value on that quality than on consistency and good faith, and would sacrifice to a mere suspicion towards an ene mythe plain obligations of justice towards a friendly power.

repeal of the French decrees, and the proclamation of the president in consequence of it, it states that all causes arising under those decrees after the 1st of November, which were then before the court, or might afterwards be brought before it, should not Great Britain has declined proceeding pari passu be judged by the principles of the decrees, but be with France in the revocation of their respective suspended until the 2nd of February, when the Uni edicts. She has held aloof the claims of the United ted States having fulfilled their engagement, the capStates' proof not only that France has revoked her tures should be declared void, and the vessels and decrees, but that she continues to act in conformity their cargoes delivered up to their owners. This with the revocation. paper appears to afford an unequivocal evidence of

To shew that the repeal is respected it is deemed the revocation of the decrees, so far as relates to the sufficient to state that not one vessel has been con- United States. By instructing the French tribunal demned by French tribunals, on the principles onto make no decision till the 2d of February, and then [b]

it

to restore the property to the owners, on a particular neutral. When advanced in favor of an enemy, event which has happened, all cause of doubt on that would be the most preposterous and extravagant point seems to be removed. The United States may claim ever heard of. Every power when not rejustly complain of delaying the restitution of the pro-strained by treaty, has a right to regulate its trade perty, but that is an injury which affects them only. with other nations, in such manner as it finds most Great Britain has no right to complain of it. She consistent with its interests; to admit, and on its was interested only in the revocation of the decrees own conditions, or to prohibit the importation of by which neutral rights would be secured from fu- such articles as are necessary to supply the wants, ture violation; or if she had been interested in the or encourage the industry of its people. In what delay it would have afforded no pretext for more than light would Great Britain view an application from a delay in repealing her orders, till the 2d of Febru- the United States for the repeal of right of any act ary. From that day at farthest the French decrees of her parliament, which prohibited the importawould cease. At the same day ought her orders to tion of any article from the United States, such as have ceased. I might add to this statement, that their fish or their oil? Or which claimed the dimi every communication received from the French go-nution of the duty on any other, such as their tovernment, either through our representatives there, bacco, on which so great a revenue is raised? In or its representatives here, are in accord with the what light would she view a similar application actual repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees, in re-made at the instance of France, for the importation lation to the neutral commerce of the United States. into England, of any article the growth or manuBut it will suffice to remark that the best, and only, facture of that power which it was the policy of adequate evidence of their ceasing to operate, is the the British government to prohibit. defect of evidence that they do operate. It is a case If delays have taken place in the restitution of where the want of proof against the fulfilment of a American property, and in placing the American pledge is proof of its fulfilment. Every case occur commerce in the ports of France on a fair and ring, to which, if the decrees were in force, they satifactory basis, they involve questions, as has would be applied, and to which they are not applied, already been observed, in which the United States is a proof that they are not in force. And if these alone are interested. As they do not violate the proofs have not been more multiplied, I need not revocation by France, of her edicts, they cannot remind you that a cause is to be found in the numer impair the obligation of Great Britain to revoke hers; ous captures under your orders in council, which continue to evince the rigor with which they are en-to have taken place. Had that been duly followed,it is nor change the epoch at which the revocation ought forced, after a failure of the basis on which they more than probable that those circumstances, irre were supposed to rest. lative as they are, which have excited doubt in the But Great Britain contends, as appear by your British government of the practical revocation of last letters, that she ought not to revoke her orders the French decrees, might not have occurred. in council, until the commerce of the continent is Every view which can be taken of this subject inrestored to the state in which it stood before the Ber-creases the painful surprise at the innovations on fin and Milan decreas were issued; until the French all the principles and usages heretofore observed, decrees are repealed not only as to the United States, which are so unreservedly contended for, in your but so as to permit Great Britain to trade with the letters of the 3d and 16th inst. and which, if percontinent. Is it then meant that Great Britain sisted in by your government, present such an obshould be allowed to trade with all the powers with stacle to the wishes of the United States, for a rewhom she traded at that epoch? Since that time moval of the difficulties which have been connectFrance has extended her conquests to the north and ed with the orders in council. It is the interest of raised enemies against Great Britain, where she belligerents to mitigate the calamities of war, and then had friends. Is it proposed to trade with them neutral powers possess ample means to promote notwithstanding the change in their situation? Be that object, provided they sustain with impartiality tween the enemies of one date and those of another, and firmness, the dignity of their station. If bellno discrimination can be made. There is none in gerents expect advantages from neutrals, they reason nor can there be any, of right, in practice. should leave them in the full enjoyment of their Or do you maintain the general principle and con rights. The present war has been oppressive betend that Great Britain ought to trade with France yond example, by its duration, and by the desolation and her allies? Between enemies there can be no it has spread throughout Europe. It is highly imcommerce. The vessels of either taken by the portant that it should assume, at least, a milder chaother are liable to confiscation and are always con-racter. By the revocation of the French edicts, so fiscated. The number of enemies or extent of far as they respected the neutral commerce of the country which they occupy, cannot effect the United States, some advance is made towards that question. The laws of war govern the relation desirable and consoling result. Let Great Britain which subsists between them, which especially in follow the example. The ground thus gained will the circumstances under consideration are invaria soon be enlarged by the concurring and pressing ble. They were the same in times the most remote interests of all parties, and whatever is gained, that they now are. Even if peace had taken place will accrue to the advantage of afflicted humanity. between Great Britain and the powers of the con- I proceed to notice another part of your letter of tinent, she could not trade with them without their the 3d inst. which is viewed in a more favorable consent. Or does Great Britain contend, that light. The president has received with great satisthe United States as a neutral power, ought to open faction the communication, that should the orders the continent to her commerce, on such terins as in council of 1807, be revoked, the blockade of May she may designate On what principle can she set of the preceding year, would cease with them, and up such a claim? No example of it can be found that any blockade which should afterwards be instiin the history of past wars, nor is it founded in any tuted, should be duly notified and maintained by an recognized principle of war, or in any semblance adequate force. This frank and explicit declara. of reason or right. The United States could not tion, worthy of the prompt and amicable measure maintain such a claim in their own favor though adopted by the prince regent in coming into pow