another communication, on the subject of an armistice, was unofficially made to the British government in this country. The agent from whom this proposition was received, acknowledged that he did not consider that he had any authority himself to sign an agreement on the part of his government. It was obvious that any stipulations entered into, in consequence of this overture, would have been binding on the British government, whilst the government of the United States would have been free to refuse or accept them, according to the circumstances of the moment. This proposition was, therefore, necessarily declined.

"After this exposition of the circumstances which preceded, and which have followed the declaration of war by the United States, his royal highness the prince regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his majesty, feels himself called upon to declare the leading principles by which the conduct of Great Britain has been regulated in the transactions connected with these discussions.

"His royal highness can never acknowledge any blockade whatsoever to be illegal, which has been duly notified, and is supported by an adequate force, merely upon the ground of its extent, or because the port or coasts blockaded are not at the same time invested by land.

"His royal highness can never admit, that

neutral trade with Great Britain can be constituted a public crime, the commission of which can expose the ships of any power whatever to be denationalized.

"His royal highness can never admit, that Great Britain can be debarred of its right of just and necessary retaliation, through the fear of eventually affecting the interest of a neutral.

"His royal highness can never admit, that in the exercise of the undoubted, and hitherto undisputed, right of searching neutral merchantvessels in time of war, the impressment of British seamen, when found therein, can be deemed any violation of a neutral flag. Neither can he admit, that the taking such seamen from on board such vessels, can be considered by any neutral state as a hostile measure, or a justifiable cause of war.

"There is no right more clearly established, than the right which a sovereign has to the allegiance of his subjects, more especially in time of war. Their allegiance is no optional duty, which they can decline and resume at pleasure. It is a call which they are bound to obey; it began with their birth, and can only terminate with their existence.

"If a similarity of language and manners may make the exercise of this right more liable to partial mistakes, and occasional abuse, when practised towards vessels of the United States,

the same circumstances make it also a right with the exercise of which, in regard to such vessels, it is more difficult to dispense.

"But if to the practice of the United States to harbour British seamen, be added their assumed right to transfer the allegiance of British subjects, and thus to cancel the jurisdiction of their legitimate sovereign, by acts of naturalization and certificates of citizenship, which they pretend to be as valid out of their own territory as within it, it is obvious, that to abandon this ancient right of Great Britain, and to admit these novel pretensions of the United States, would be to expose to danger the very foundation of our maritime strength,

"Without entering minutely into the other topics which have been brought forward by the government of the United States, it may be proper to remark, that whatever the declaration of the United States may have asserted, Great Britain never did demand that they should force British manufactures into France: and she formerly declared her willingness entirely to forego, or modify, in concert with the United States, the system by which a commercial intercourse with the enemy had been allowed under the protection of licenses; provided the United States would act towards her, and towards France, with real impartiality.

"The government of America, if the differ

ence between states are not interminable, has as little right to notice the affair of the Chesapeake. The aggression, in this instance, on the part of a British officer, was acknowledged ; his conduct was disapproved; and a reparation was regularly tendered by Mr. Foster on the part of his majesty, and accepted by the government of the United States.

"It is not less unwarranted in its allusion to the mission of Mr. Henry; a mission undertaken without the authority, or even knowledge, of This majesty's government, and which Mr. Foster was authorized formally and officially to dis

avow.

"The charge of exciting the Indians to offensive measures against the United States is equally void of foundation, Before the war began, a policy the most opposite had been uniformly pursued, and proof of this was tendered by Mr. Foster to the American government.

"Such are the causes of war which have been put forward by the government of the United States. But the real origin of the present contest will be found in that spirit which has long unhappily actuated the councils of the United States: their marked partiality in palliating and assisting the aggressive tyranny of France; their systematic endeavours to enflame the people against the defensive measures of Great Britain; their ungenerous conduct towards

Spain, the intimate ally of Great Britain; and their unworthy desertion of the cause of other neutral nations. It is through the prevalence of such councils that America has been associated in policy with France, and committed in war against Great Britain.

"And under what conduct, on the part of France, has the government of the United States thus lent itself to the enemy? The contemptuous violation of the commercial treaty of the year 1800 between France and the United States; the treacherous seizure of all American vessels and cargoes in every harbour subject to the controul of the French arms: the tyrannical principles of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and the confiscations under them; the subsequent confiscations under the Rambouillet decree, antedated or concealed to render it the more effectual; the French commercial regulations, which render the traffic of the United States with France almost illusory; the burning of their merchant-ships at sea, long after the alleged repeal of the French decrees-all these acts of violence, on the part of France, produce from the government of the United States, only such complaints as end in acquiescence and submission, or are accompanied by suggestions for enabling France to give the semblance of a legal form to her usurpations, by converting them into municipal regulations.