the Rambouillet decree could scarcely be said to be in retaliation of the non-intercourse of March 1809; for that law, when communicated to the French government, was not complained of, and the Rambouillet was not issued for twelve months after.

We have now finished the account of the French decrees till the repeal of the Berlin and Milan in August 1810. The American government carried its love of peace too far, in not declaring war against France, after the promulgation of the Rambouillet decree. There are few public transactions, in the history of this country to be compared to the violence and injustice of that act, and the decree of Bayonne. It was the deliberate proceeding of the French government; and by the influence of France its operation was extended to Spain, Holland and Italy. Those decrees were not issued in the spirit of retaliation. The French government did not allege the same pretext for their promulgation as for those of Berlin and Milan. But in a time of profound peace, in defiance of a solemn convention, and of every principle of good faith, the whole American commerce in the ports of France, Spain, Italy and Holland, was seized and sold for the benefit of the imperial government.*

We now arrive at a period in the history of our connexion with France, remarkable for having ultimately led to the war of 1812 with Great Britain. This was the declaration of M. de Champagny, which we shall presently recite, announcing

* "Was the capture and condemnation of a ship driven on the shores of France by stress of weather and the perils of the sea, nothing? Was the seizure and sequestration of many cargoes brought to France in ships violating no law, and admitted to regular entry at the imperial custom houses, nothing? Was the violation of our maritime rights, consecrated as they have been by the solemn forms of a public treaty, nothing? In a word, was it nothing, that our ships were burnt on the high seas, without other offence than that of belonging to the United States, or other apology than was to be found in the enhanced safety of the perpetrator."-Letter of General Armstrong to the French Minister.

the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees. The act of May 1810, regulating foreign intercourse, having been notified to the French government, an official communication was without delay made to Mr. Armstrong, informing him that the Berlin and Milan decrees would cease to have effect after the 1st day of November 1810, though a copy of the decree was not sent with the document. The notification was in these words: "In this new state of things, I am authorized to declare to you, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, and that after the 1st of November, they will cease to have effect, it being understood, that in consequence of this declaration, the English shall revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce their new principles of blockade, which they have wished to establish, or that the United States, conformably to the act you have just communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected by the English." This mode of revocation in ordinary cases would, perhaps, have attracted no attention. It is the form usually adopted in the diplomatic notifications of the acts of a government; especially it is the uniform manner in which blockades are notified to foreign ministers by the British government. But a vast importance was attached to it from the circumstance, that England refused to receive it as sufficient evidence of the repeal. No formal decree was, however, actually passed at this time, at least, none has ever been published. But the American government considered the declaration of M. de Champagny sufficient and satisfactory, and it possessed the authority of all its diplomatic agents in Europe, that no American vessel was condemned after the revocation for a violation of these decrees, though captures took place and other outrages were committed. Some of these vessels were burnt on the high seas,* and others condemned, on pretence that their cargoes were British property.

* "The undersigned, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, has the honour to transmit, here enclosed, to his excellency the Duke of Bassano, Minister of Foreign Relations, copies of the protests of

On the 2d of November 1810, the President issued a proclamation, announcing the fact of the repeal, and restoring the intercourse with French public armed vessels. The Bayonne and Rambouillet decrees expired with the Berlin and Milan. Not any other of our difficulties, however, with France were removed. No offer was made towards an indemnity for American property unjustly seized, and sold, nor any progress made in renewing the convention of 1800, which had expired in 1808.*

Thomas Holden, master of the American brig Dolly, of New-York, and Stephen Bayard, master of the American ship Telegraph of NewYork, by which his excellency will learn that these vessels have been met with at sea by his imperial and royal majesty's ships, the Medusa, captain Raoul, and the Nymph, captain Plasson, who, after having plundered them of a part of their cargoes, destroyed the remainder by burning the ships. It is a painful task for the undersigned to be obliged so frequently to call the attention of his excellency to such lawless depredations. It appears to him that in the whole catalogue of outrages on the part of the cruisers of the belligerents, of which the United States have such great and just reason to complain, there are none more vexatious and reprehensible than this. Upon what ground can such spoliations be justified? Will it be alleged, that the destruction of these vessels was necessary, in order to prevent their carrying information to the enemy, and thereby endanger the safety of these frigates upon a trackless ocean? This would be a poor defence. After boarding these peaceful traders, they might easily have led their course south, when they intended to go north. They could even have maintained their assumed character of British ships, under which, it seems, they began the commission of these flagrant acts, and thus have prevented all information of cruising in those latitudes. But it appears that plunder, and not safety, was the object, for which they have thus disgraced the imperial flag. For his excellency will probably have learnt from Brest, where the frigates entered, that the twenty boxes of spices and other articles, taken from the Telegraph, were smuggled on shore, and, it is said, were sold for the benefit of the equipage of the Medusa."-Letter of Mr. Barlow to the French Minister.

*On the subject of these decrees, acts of the French cruisers on the ocean, and spoliations by that government in general, we beg to refer the reader to the correspondence of Mr. Gallatin, while resident mi

The French declaration of November 1810, was attended with many embarrassing circumstances; captures were still made under the decrees, and the trials, being much delayed and ultimately referred to the tribunals at Paris, great expenses awaited the recovery of the property. These captures continually threw doubts on the actual situation of the decrees, and afforded pretexts to England to maintain her orders. The United States were, accordingly, dissatisfied with this equivocal conduct in France. Even many of the official acts of the French government at this period combined to prove that the decrees were not repealed. The emperor declared, himself, that he should not abandon his continental system; and, in the celebrated report of the Duke of Bassano, concerning neutral rights, no notice was taken of the repeal, or the modification of the decrees, or of their ceasing to apply to the United States. It was far, indeed, from being an act of courtesy and frank conduct in the French government, to withhold the promulgation of a formal instrument, announcing the revocation, as it respects this country. On this subject, we shall quote part of a dispatch of November 1811, from Mr. Munroe to the minister at Paris :

"It is not sufficient, on the final decision of a cause brought before the French tribunal, that it should appear, that the French decrees are repealed. An active prohibitory policy should be adopted to prevent seizures on the principles of those decrees. All that is expected, is, that France will act in conformity to her own principles. If that is done, neutral nations would then have an important object before them, and one belligerent, at least, prove that it contended for principle rather than for power, that it sought the

aid

nister at Paris, with the French ministers, Messrs. de Richelieu, de Pasquier, de Montmorency, de Vilelle, and M. de Chateaubriand, from 1816 to 1823. This correspondence was published in February, 1824, by order of the House of Representatives. We also refer to two articles in the North American Review, Nos. 24, 25, (new series), on the claims on the European governments in general.

aid of neutral nations in support of that principle, and did not make it a pretext to enlist them on its side to demolish its enemies. The abuses that are practised by French privateers in the Baltic, the Channel, Mediterranean, and wherever else they cruise, have, of late more especially, reached an enormous height. In the Baltic, they have been the more odious, from the circumstance, that it was expected that they had been completely suppressed there. Till of late, these abuses were imputed to the privateers of Denmark, which induced the President to send a special mission to the Danish government, which it was understood was producing the desired effect. But it is now represented, that the same evil is produced by a collusion between the privateers of Denmark and those of France. Hence it assumes a worse character. To seizures equally unlawful, is added, by carrying the causes to Paris, still more oppressive delays."-"What advantages does France derive from these abuses? Vessels trading from the United States can never afford cause of suspicion on any principle, nor ought they to be subject to seizure. Can the few French privateers, which occasionally appear at sea, make any general impression on the commerce of Great Britain? They seldom touch a British vessel. Legitimate and honourable warfare is not their object. The unarmed vessels of the United States are their only prey."

General Armstrong having obtained, leave to return home, Joel Barlow, of Connecticut, was appointed Minister Plenipotentiary to St. Cloud, and arrived in Paris in September 1811. Mr. Barlow died in Poland, in October 1812, having gone there on an invitation from the Duke of Bassano, for the purpose of completing a treaty with France, on the principle of complete reciprocity. We have no means of ascertaining whether he could have accomplished this object. It is, at any rate, certain that Mr. Barlow made no progress in the negotiation the year he was in France. A serious discussion of the business was postponed month after month, it is probable, partly, in consequence of the vast mass and variety of affairs, pressing upon the emperor and his ministers, preparatory to the expedition to Russia, though the government appeared to