As it was not until the _11th of May, 1812_, that Mr. Barlow received “FOR THE FIRST TIME”[297] a copy of the decree of the _28th of April, 1811_, by which the Berlin and Milan Decrees were revoked, it is clear that this fact affords a complete justification for the course pursued by the English government; the United States choosing to rely and to insist upon the verbal assurances of Napoleon that the decrees were revoked, when at the very moment new seizures and confiscations were being made by his orders.[298] It was not until the 21st of May that the American minister in London produced a copy, or what purported to be a copy, of an instrument which professed to bear date the 28th of April, 1811. This decree, by which the American vessels were protected, recites “that whereas Congress has established a non-intercourse with England, and excluded her vessels, merchandise, and those of her colonies from entering the ports of the United States, therefore we decree,” etc. It is self-evident that the moment relations were renewed between the United States and England, Napoleon reserved to himself the right to take ulterior measures. But his object was now effected, war had been declared, and, as the French said triumphantly, “England had a new enemy.” [Sidenote: England revokes her Orders in Council.] The English ministers, although they considered the document produced most unsatisfactory, decided on revoking the Orders in Council, conditional upon the Non-intercourse Act being also rescinded; but, the Americans having pre-determined on war, frustrated the pacific measures which had previously been taken by England. To crown the unwarrantable conduct of the American government, it afterwards was shown that when they proclaimed the declaration of war, and the extreme measure of issuing “letters of marque,” they were actually in possession of the report of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs of the 12th of March, 1812, promulgating anew the Berlin and Milan Decrees, as fundamental laws of the French empire, under the false pretext that their monstrous principles were found in the treaty of Utrecht, and were therefore binding upon all nations.[299] Indeed the whole intrigue seems to have been a masterpiece of perfidy, and their reasons for war were so untenable that the Americans, in their speeches and diatribes, were compelled to make the most of the English impressment system and the original blockade of 1806, which they denounced as a paper blockade, perhaps conscious that if they had made a treaty with Napoleon, the blockade of the French coasts might have proved a fresh obstacle to their monopolizing the whole trade of the continent, under the colour of a neutral flag. [Sidenote: Condemnation of the conduct of the United States.]