the French ministry, and in the continued capture of American ships; and he concludes with urging on the government of the United States the injustice of enforcing its non-importation act against Great Britain. Mr. Monroe, in his answer, communicating the sentiments of the President relative to Mr. Foster's letter, begins with remarking, that though the United States are as little as ever disposed to enter into the question concerning the priority of aggression between the two belligerents, yet that his admission that the blockade of May 1806 would not be legal without an adequate naval force to support it in its whole extent, furnishes an answer to it, since he presumes it will not be alleged that such force was actually applied, and continued till the blockade was superseded by the orders in council. He then expresses his surprise and regret, that the orders in council are still justified by the principle of retaliation, and that this principle is considered as being strengthened by the inability of France to enforce her decrees. Retaliation is returning like for like; but can the blow of the orders in council against one half of the American commerce be regarded as such a return to an empty threat in the French decrees against the other half? It may be a vindicative hostility against the enemy, but is a positive wrong to the neutral. He further remarks that the orders in council went even beyond this plea of retaliation, by extending its operation to states which, like Russia, had not adopted the French decrees, but had merely excluded the British flag. He cannot view the modification originally contained in these orders, of permitting neutrals to trade to the continent through Great Britain, in the favourable light in which Mr. Foster represents it, but rather as an extravagant political pretension, utterly incompatible with the sovereignty and independence of other states. Mr. Monroe then speaks of the early protest made by the United States against this system-of the impartiality they have displayed towards the two belligerents-of the patience with which they have borne injuries from both, and of the pacific nature of the measures which they have opposed to such injustice. He next proceeds to shew the obligation of Great Britain to revoke her orders, according to her own engagement, that she would go pari passu with the French government in the revocation of her edicts. He enters into a narrative of the notification made by the French government of the repeal of those edicts, and of the consequent proceedings of the American government; by which Great Britain, which had not fulfilled her part of the agreement, was left under the operation of a non-importation act; he shews that the repeal was really acted upon by the French, as the detained vessels alluded to by Mr. Foster were not condemned, and their detention was apparently owing to part of their cargoes being prohibited in France; and he replies to the other arguments by which Mr. Foster expressed his disbelief of an actual repeal. He then considers a point contended for by Great Britain, as appears by Mr. Foster's letter that that she ought not to revoke her orders in council, until the commerce of the continent is restored to the state in which it stood before the French decrees were issued; and shows the unreasonable ness of such a condition as applied to the United States. These are the principal topics relating to this subject, which Mr. Monroe discusses in his letter of July 23d, and which concludes with expressing a hope that a more favourable consideration will be taken of the remaining obstacles to a final amiable adjustment. Mr. Foster, in his reply, dated July 26th, begins with setting Mr. Monroe right, as to some points in which his meaning had been misapprehended. The first of these respects the inference drawn from what he had said concerning the blockade of 1806-that should the orders in council be revoked, the blockade would cease with them, Mr. Foster disclaims such an inference, and repeats that its continuance will depend upon the circumstance whether or no the British government choose to sustain it by an adequate force. He then corrects the assumption of Mr. Monroe, that the measures of Great Britain were innovations, and affirms that no new pretensions have been set up by his government. He further alleges, that he had been misunderstood in the supposition that he meant to contend that, before the repeal of the orders in council, the merchant vessels of Great Britain should be allowed to trade with her enemies, or that British property should be admitted into their ports. The remainder of the letter chiefly consists of justi fication of the principle of retaliation, as put in practice by Great Britain; and of arguments to prove that France has not abandoned the system maintained by her decrees, and that no satisfactory proof of their revocation has been brought forward. Mr. Monroe, on Oct. 1st, sends an answer to this letter, in which he reiterates his former reasonings and assertions; and particularly endeavours to show that Mr. Foster insisted, by necessary implication, that France had no right to inhibit the importation into her ports of British manufactures, or the produce of British soil, when the property of neutrals; and that, until France removes that inhibition, the United States are to be cut off from all trade with her enemies; which he treats as an unexampled pretension. From the whole correspondence, of which it is unnecessary here to give a more particular summary, it was evident that the orders in council constituted the main difficulty of the negotiation, and that nothing but their repeal could satisfy the American government, and restore an amicable intercourse between the two countries. Mr. Foster, not having authority to afford the expectation of any compliance in this respect, (as, indeed, our ministry were strenuous supporters of the justice and policy of those orders) when Congress assembled, after a shorter recess than usual, the President delivered to them an address, on Nov. 4th, of which the refusal of Great Britain to repeal its orders in council, is the leading topic, and is represented as directly tending to hostilities. After dwelling on that and other other subjects of complaint against this government, he proceeds to say, "With this evidence of hostile inflexibility in trampling on rights which no independent nation can relinquish, Congress will feel the duty of putting the United States into an armour, and an attitude, demanded by the crisis, and corresponding with the national expectations:" and he goes on to recommend suitable measures of preparation. The complaints in this speech, however, are not confined to England. Much dissatisfaction is expressed with the court of France for its neglect to restore the great amount of American property seized in virtue of its edicts, and for restrictions imposed on their trade in the French dominions. It is also mentioned, that it has been necessary to march a force towards the north-western frontier, in consequence of several murders and depredations committed by the Indians, and especially by the hostile preparations of a combination of them on the Wabash, under the direction of a fanatic of the Shawanese tribe. The affairs of South America are touched upon in a manner which gives an intimation of the part likely to be taken by the United States in the struggles for independence made by their fellowsharers of the new world. The President, in alluding to them, says, "An enlarged philanthropy, and an enlightened forecast, concur in imposing on the national councils an obligation to take a deep interest in their destinies; to cherish reciprocal sentiments of good will; to regard the progress of events; and not to be unprepared for whatever order of things may be ultimately established." The report of the committee, to whose consideration that part of the President's speech which relates to foreign affairs was committed, is drawn up both in a superior style to the speech, and in a tone of more asperity and decision against this country. "To wrongs so daring (say they) we must now tamely and quietly submit, or we must resist by those means which God has placed within our reach:" and they assume credit for their nation in not having " rushed to battle like the nations who are led by the mad ambition of a single chief, or the avarice of a corrupted court." They add, "but we have borne with injury until forbearance has ceased to be a virtue." They recommend the raising of 10,000 regulars, and 50,000 militia, repairing the vessels of war for service, and advising merchant ships to arm in their own defence. The finances of America, however, from Mr. Gallatin's budget, seem little fitted to meet the expense of a war; and the friends of peace, though outvoted in the legislative assemblies, put some confidence in the prospect of loans and taxes to cool the ardour for war among a people unaccustomed, like those of Europe, to acquiesce in such burdens. Such was the aspect of affairs in this part of America about the close of the year. CHAPTER CHAPTER XIX. Transactions in Spanish America.-West India Islands. WHILST old Spain was main taining a sanguinary conflict for her independence against a powerful and unprincipled invader, her colonies beyond the Atlantic were involved in the horrors of civil war ; one party taking advantage of the situation of the mother country to assert an independence to which they thought they had an equal claim with herself; the other, resisting the infraction of that allegiance which had been always hitherto paid, and which it seemed peculiarly ungenerous in such an emergence to refuse. The Creoles, or American natives of Spanish blood, who had long smarted under the indignities to which they were subjected by the political system adopted with respect to the colonies, were generally of the former party; the natives of Spain, and those who were dependent on the constituted authorities, and who profited by the subsisting commercial monopolies, supported the latter cause. As in the dispute between Great Britain and her colonies, so in these contests, the adherents to the established government assumed the title of loyalists, and stigmatized their antagonists with the appellation of rebels. Having in the history of the last year given a general account of the rise and progress of these troubles, we shall now confine ourselves to a brief narrative of those events in the different provinces of Spanish America, which have been reported in the course of the present year. The bloody executions which took place at Quito in August 1810, and by which the projects of the revolutionists were entirely defeated, were found to have been concerted with the viceroy of Santa Fe, who was in consequence apprehended by order of the junta of that province, tried, convicted, and executed. From Mexico, an account of the defeat and dispersion of the insurgents of that kingdom was communicated in a Mexican Gazette Extraordinary, containing a dispatch from Don Felix Calleja to his Excellency Don Francisco Venegas, viceroy of New Spain. That commander states that he attacked the insurgent army near Aculco on Nov. 7th, and entirely routed them with the loss of all their artillery and ammunition, and a number of killed and prisoners, adding the incredible circumstance, that his own loss was only one killed and two wounded. After the battle, he issued a proclamation offering an amnesty to all who should quit the insurgents and retire to their houses, which was confirmed by the viceroy. Another Mexican gazette of Dec. 5th, gives a rela tion of a battle in which the insurgents were again defeated, but it seems to have been an affair of small small importance. It is further mentioned, that the government had ordered every tenth man concerned in the insurrection in the town of Guanaxuato, where the disturbances first broke out, to be put to death. An action of much greater consequence took place on Jan. 17th, at the bridge of Calderon, near Zapotelnejo. Its result was General Calleja's obtaining possession of a camp of the insurgents, almost impregnable by situation, and garrisoned with 100,000 men, and more than 80 pieces of artillery, all of which fell into the hands of the victor. From circumstances subsequently related, it appears that the contest was severe; and if the number of insurgents be not exaggerated, they must still have remained in great force. After the battle, Callejas's army entered Guadalaxara, where they found the General-Commandant and a number of other Europeans concealed in a convent of nuns, where they had preserved their lives when all the other Europeans were massacred by the insurgents. Further accounts from Mexico, down to the middle of February, represent the insurrection as nearly extinguished in that province. A body of insurgents, commanded by a priest, had been dislodged, after repeated attacks, from a strong post, with a considerable loss of men, and that of the greatest part of their artillery; and the remainder of that party in arms had surrendered on promise of pardon, which was granted them. In the province of Venezuela, or the Caraccas, the civil war which raged with peculiar violence, had an opposite termination. In the month of December, the independent party, directed by the junta of Caraccas, made an attack by sea and land upon Coro, which held for the regency of Cadiz, but were repulsed with considerable loss. General Miranda, who had left England to return to South America, of which he is a native, now began to take a leading part on the independent side, and was intrusted with the chief military command. So well confirmed did that party find their authority to be, that on July 5th, the representatives of the following provinces, Caraccas, Cumana, Barinas, Margalta, Barcelona, Merida, and Truxillo, constituting the confederation of Venezuela, assembled in congress, issued a declaration of independence, drawn up in language scarcely less comprehensive and energetic than the celebrated declaration of the North American Congress on its first separation from Great Britain. They say, "It is contrary to the order of nature, impracticable in relation to the government of Spain, and has been most afflicting to America, that territories so much more extensive, and a population incomparably more numerous, should be subjected to and dependant on a peninsular corner of the European continent." And they conclude with solemnly declaring to the world," that these united provinces are and ought to be from this day forth, in fact and of right, free, sovereign and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance and dependance on the crown of Spain, and of those who call or may hereafter call themselves its represen. tatives or agents; and that they hold |