fought with an energy which put Germany and

Russia to shame.

Such a moment was ill suited for inviting negotiation on American affairs; but Armstrong received instructions a few days after Napoleon left Paris, and with these instructions came a copy of the Nonintercourse Act of March 1, which, while apparently forbidding intercourse with England and France, notified Napoleon that the United States would no longer obey his wishes, or keep their industries from seeking a British market through indirect channels. Armstrong communicated this Act to the French government in the terms of his instructions: 1

"The undersigned is instructed to add that any interpretation of the Imperial Decrees of Nov. 21, 1806, and Dec. 17, 1807, which shall have the effect of leaving unimpaired the maritime rights of the Union, will be instantaneously followed by a revocation of the present Act [as regards France] and a re-establishment of the ordinary commercial intercourse between the two countries."

May 17 Champagny, then at Munich, having received Armstrong's letter of April 29, notified the Minister of Marine,2

"The news of this measure having received an official character by the communication made to me by the

1 Armstrong to Champagny, April 29, 1809; State Papers, iii. 324.

2 Champagny to Decrès, 17 May, 1809; Archives des Aff. Étr. MSS.

United States minister on the part of his Government, I think it my duty to transmit to your Excellency a copy of the law which he has addressed to me."

Armstrong informed Secretary Robert Smith 1 that nothing need be expected from this step, unless it were perhaps his own summary expulsion from France as a result of offence given either by the Non-intercourse Act or by the language of Armstrong's despatches surreptitiously published. Bitterly as Armstrong detested Napoleon, he understood but little the mind and methods of that unusual character. Never in his career had the Emperor been busier than when Armstrong wrote this note to Champagny, but it caught his attention at once. He had fought one battle after another, and in five days had captured forty thousand men and a hundred pieces of cannon; he had entered Vienna May 10, and had taken his quarters at Schönbrunn, the favorite palace of the Austrian emperor. There he was in a position of no little difficulty, in spite of his military successes, when his courier brought him despatches from Paris containing news that the United States, March 1, had repealed the embargo, and that the British government, April 26, had withdrawn the Orders in Council of November, 1807, and had substituted a mere blockade of Holland, France, and Italy. The effect of these two events was greatly increased by their coming together.

1 Armstrong to R. Smith, April 27, 1809; MSS. State De partment Archives.

At first Napoleon seemed to feel no occasion for altering his course. After reading Armstrong's letter, he dictated May 18 a reply which was to serve as the legal argument to justify his refusal of concessions. His decrees were founded on eternal principles, and could not be revoked:

"The seas belong to all nations. Every vessel sailing under the flag of any nation whatever, recognized and avowed by it, ought to be on the ocean as if it were in its own ports. The flag flying from the mast of a merchantman ought to be respected as though it were on the top of a village steeple. . . . To insult a merchant-vessel carrying the flag of any Power is to make an incursion into a village or a colony belonging to that Power. His Majesty declares that he considers the vessels of all nations as floating colonies belonging to the said nations. In result of this principle, the sovereignty and independence of one nation are a property of its neighbors.'

" 1

The conclusion that the sovereignty and independence of every nation were the property of France, and that a floating colony denationalized by the visit of a foreign officer became the property of Napoleon, involved results too extreme for general acceptance. Arbitrary as the Emperor was, he could act only through agents, and could not broach such doctrines without meeting remonstrance. His dissertation on the principles of the jus gentium was sent May 18 to Champagny. Four days afterward, May 22, Napoleon fought the battle of Essling, in which he lost fifteen

1 Correspondance, xix. 21.

or twenty thousand men and suffered a serious repulse. Even this absorbing labor, and the critical situation that followed, did not long interrupt his attention to American business. May 26, Champagny made to the Emperor a report1 on American affairs, taking ground altogether different from that chosen by Napoleon. After narrating the story of the various orders, decrees, blockades, embargoes, and nonintercourse measures, Champagny discussed them in their practical effect on the interests and industries of France:

"The fact cannot be disguised; the interruption of neutral commerce which has done much harm to England has been also a cause of loss to France. The staple products of our territory have ceased to be sold. Those that were formerly exported are lost, or are stored away, leaving impoverished both the owner who produced them and the dealer who put them on the market. One of our chief sources of prosperity is dried up. Our interest therefore leads us toward America, whose commerce would still furnish an ample outlet for several of our products, and would bring us either materials of prime necessity for our manufactures, or produce the use of which has become almost a necessity, and which we would rather not owe to our enemies."

For these reasons Champagny urged the Emperor not to persist in punishing America, but to charge M. d'Hauterive, the acting Minister of Foreign Rela

1 Champagny to Napoleon, May 26, 1809; Archives des Aff. Étr. MSS.

tions at Paris, with the duty of discussing with General Armstrong the details of an arrangement. Champagny supported his advice by urging that England had made advances to America, had revoked her orders of November, 1807, and seemed about to turn the French Decrees against France. "It will always be in your Majesty's power to evade this result. A great step to this end will be taken when Mr. Armstrong is made aware that your Majesty is disposed to interpret your commercial decrees favorably for the Americans, provided measures be taken that no tribute shall be paid to England, and that their efficacy shall be assured. Such will be the object of M. d'Hauterive's mission."

Napoleon, impressed by Champagny's reasoning, fortified by the news that Erskine had settled the commercial disputes between England and America, sent to Champagny the draft of a new decree,1 which declared that inasmuch as the United States by their firm resistance to the arbitrary measures of England had obtained the revocation of the British Orders of November, 1807, and were no longer obliged to pay imposts to the British government, therefore the Milan Decree of Dec. 17, 1807, should be withdrawn, and neutral commerce should be replaced where it stood under the Berlin Decree of Nov. 21, 1806.

This curious paper was sent June 10 to Paris for

1 Napoleon to Champagny, June 10, 1809; Correspondance, xix. 95.