On another very material point, sir, you the view the French government chose to appear to have misconstrued my words; for give of it, and could see in it grounds for the in no one passage of my letter can I discover French decrees was always matter of astonany mention of innovations on the part of ishment in England.

Great Britain such as you say excited a pain- Your remarks on the modifications at variful surprise in your government. There is no ous times of our system of retaliation will new pretentions set up by his majesty's go-require the less reply from the circumstances vernment. In answer to questions of yours of the orders in council of April 1809, having as to what were the decrees or regulations of superceded them all. They were calculated France which Great Britain complained of, for the avowed purpose of softening the efand against which she directs her retaliatory fect of the original orders on neutral commeasures, I brought distinctly into your view merce, the incidental effect of those orders the Berlin and Milan decrees, and you have on neutrals having been always sincerely renot denied, because, indeed, you could not, gretted by his maiesty's government; but that the provisions of those decrees were new when it was found that neutrals objected to ineasures of war on the part of France, ac-them they were removed.

knowledged as such by her ruler, and contra- As to the principle, of retaliation, it is ry to the principles and usages of civilized founded on the just and natural right of selfnations. That the present war has been defence against our enemy; if France is unoppressive beyond example by its duration, able to enforce her decrees on the ocean, it and the desolation it spreads through Europe is not from the want of will, for she enforces I willingly agree with you, but the United them wherever she can do it; Her threats are States cannot surely mean to attribute the only empty where her power is of no avail. cause to Great Britain. The question be- In the view you have taken of the conduct tween Great Britain and France, is that of of America in her relations with the two belan honorable struggle against the lawless ef- ligerents, and in the conclusion you draw forts of an ambitious tyrant, and America with respect to the impartiality of your councan but have the wish of every independent try as exemplified in the non-importation law, I lament to say I cannot agree with you.→→

nation as to its result.

On a third point, sir, I have also to regret That act is a direct measure against the Brithat my meaning should have been mistaken. tish trade, enacted at a time when all the Great Britain never contended that British legal authorities in the United States appearmerchant vessels should be allowed to trade ed ready to contest the statement of a repea! with her enemies, or that British property of the French decrees, on which was founded should be allowed entry into their ports, as the president's proclamation of November 2d, you would infer; such a pretension would and consequently to dispute the justice of the indeed be preposterous; but Great Britain proclamation itself,

does contend against the system of terror put You urge, sir, that the British government in practice by France, by which, usurping promised to proceed pari passu with France authority wherever her arms or the timidity in the repeal of her edicts. It is to be wished of nations will enable her to extend her influ-you could point out to us any step France ence, she makes it a crime to neutral coun-has taken in the repeal of hers. Great Britain tries as well as individuals that they should has repeatedly declared that she would repeal possess articles however acquired which may when the French did so, and she means to have been once the produce of English in-keep to that declaration.

dustry or of the British soil. Against such I have stated to you that we could not conan abominable and extravagant pretension sider the letter of August 5, declaring the reevery feeling must revolt, and the honor no peal of the French edicts provided we revokless than the interest of Great Britain engages ed our orders in council, or America resented her to oppose it. our not doing so, as a step of that nature; and Turning to the course of argument contain-the French government knew that we could ed in your letter, allow me to express my not; their object was evidently while their surprize at the conclusion you draw in con-system was adhered to in all its rigour, to ensidering the question of priority relative to deavor to persuade the American government the French de rees or British orders in coun-that they had relaxed from it, and to induce cil. It was clearly proved that the blockade her to proceed in enforcing the submission of May 1806, was maintained by an adequate of Great Britain to the inordinate demands naval force, and therefore was a blockade of France. It is to be lamented that they founded on just and legitimate principles have but too well succeeded; for the United and I have not heard that it was considered in States' government appear to have considered a contrary light when notified as such to you the French declaration in the sense in which by Mr. Secretary Fox, nor until it suited the France wished it to be taken, as an absolute views of France to endeavor to have it con- repeal of her decrees without adverting to the sidered otherwise. Why America took up conditional terms which accompanied it.

But you assert that no violations of your still further in confirmation of them, and a neutral rights by France occur on the high re-perusal of the letter of the minister of jusseas, and that these were all the violations tice, of the 25th last December, confirms me alluded to in the act of congress of May 1810. in the inference I drew from it, for otherwise I readily believe indeed that such cases are why should that minister make the prospecrare, but it is owing to the preponderance of tive restoration of American vessels, taken the British navy that they are so, when scarce after the first November, to be a consequence a ship under the French flag can venture to of the non-importation and not of the French sea without being taken, it is not extraordi-revocation. If the French government had nary that they make no captures. If such viola-been sincere, they would have ceased infringtions alone were in the purview of your iaw, ing on the neutral rights of America, after there would seem to have been no necessity for the first November-That they violated its enactment. The British navy might have them, however, after that period is notorious. been safely trusted for the prevention of this Your government seem to let it be underoccurrence. But I have always believed, and stood that an ambiguous declaration from my government has believed that the Ameri- Great Britain, similar to that of the French can legislature had in view in the provisions minister, would have been acceptable to them. of their law as it respects France not only her But, sir, is it consistent with the dignity of a deeds of violence on the seas, but all the no- nation that respects itself, to speak in ambiguvel and extraordinary pretensions and practi- ous language? The subjects and citizens of ces of her government which infringed their either country would in the end be the vicneutral rights. tims, as many are already in all probability, We have had no evidence as yet of any of who from a misconstruction of the meaning of those pretensions being abandoned. To the the French government, have been led into ambiguous declaration in Mr. Champagny's the most imprudent speculations. Such connote is opposed the unambiguous and personal duct would not be to proceed pari passu with declaration of Bonaparte himself. You urge France in revoking our edicts; but to descend that there is nothing incompatible with the to the use of the perfidious and juggling conrevocation of the decrees in respect to the trivances of her cabinet, by which she fills United States in his expressions to the depu- her coffers at the expence of independent naties from the free cities of Hamburg, Bremen tions. A similar construction of proceeding and Lubeck, that it is distinctly stated in that pari passu, might lead to such decrees as speech that the blockade of the British islands those of Rambouillet, or of Bayonne, to the shall cease when the British blockades cease, system of exciusion or of licences, all meaand that the French blockade shall cease in sures of France against the American comfavor of those nations in whose favor Great merce, in nothing short of absolute hostility. Britain revokes hers, or who support their It is urged that no vessel has been condeinrights against her pretensions. ed by the tribunals of France on the princi

It is to be inferred from this and the cor- ples of her decrees since the first November, responding parts of the declaration alluded to You allow, however, that there have been that unless Great Britain sacritices her prin- some detained since that period, and that such ciples of blockade which are those authorised part of the cargoes as consisted of goods, not by the established laws of nations, France will the produce of America, was seized, and the still maintain her decrees of Berlin and Milan, other part, together with the vessel itself, on-which indeed the speech in question declares ly released after the president's proclamation to be the fundamental laws of the French became known in France: These circumstanempire. ces surely only prove the difficulty, that

I do not, I confess, conceive how these France is under in reconciling her anti-comavowals of the ruler of France can be said to mercial and anti-neutral system, with her be compatible with the repeal of his decrees desire to express her satisfaction at the meain respect to the United States. If the United sures taken in America against the commerce States are prepared to insist on the sacrifice of Great Britain. She scizes in virtue of the by Great Britain of the ancient and establish- Berlin and Milan decrees, but she makes a ed rules of maritime war practised by her, partial restoration for the purpose of deceivthen indeed they may avoid the operation of ing America.

the French decrees, but otherwise according I have now followed you, I believe, sir, to this document it is very clear that they are through the whole range of your argument. still subjected to them. and on reviewing the course of it, I think I

The decree of Fontainbleau is confessedly may securely say that no satisfactory proof founded on the decrees of Berlin and Milan, has as yet been brought forward of the repeal dated the 19th of October, 1810, and proves of the obnoxious decrees of France, but on their continued existence. The report of the the contrary that it appears they continue in French minister of December 8, announcing full force, consequently that no grounds exist the perseverance of France in her decrees is on which you can with justice demand of

Great Britain a revocation of her orders in It is in the power of the British government. council, that we have a right to complain at this time to enable the president to set the of the conduct of the American government in non-importation law aside by rendering to the enforcing the provisions of the act of May, 1810, United States an act of justice. If Great to the exclusion of the British trade, and af Britain will cease to violate their neutral wards in obtaining a special law for the same rights by revoking her orders in council, on purpose though it was notorious at the time which event alone the president has the powthat France still continued her aggressions er, I am instructed to inform you that he will, upon American commerce, and had recently without delay, exercise it by terminating the promulgated anew her decrees, suffering no operation of this law.

trade from this country, but through licences It is presumed that the communications publicly sold by her agents, and that all the which I have had the honor to make to you, suppositions you have formed of innovations of the revocation by France of her decrees, on the part of Great Britain or of her preten- so far as they violated the neutral rights of sions to trade with her enemies are wholly the United States, and of her conduct since groundless. I have also stated to you the the revocation, will present to your governview his majesty's government has taken of ment a different view of the subject from that the question of the blockade of May, 1806, which it had before taken, and produce in its and it now only remains that I urge afresh councils a correspondent effect. the injustice of the United States' governI have the honor to be, &c. ment persevering in their union with the (Signed) JAS. MONROE. French system for the purpose of crushing Augustus J. Foster, Esq. &c. &c. &c.

the commerce of Great Britain.

MR. MONROE TO MR. FOSTER.

From every consideration which equity, good policy or interest can suggest, there appears Department of State, Oct. 1, 1811. to be such a call upon America to give up this SIR-I have had the honor to receive your system which favors France to the injury of letter of the 26th of July, and to submit it to Great Britain; that I cannot, however little the view of the president.

satisfactory your communications are, as yet! In answering that letter, it is proper that I abandon all hopes that even before the con- should notice a complaint that I had omitted gr ss meet, a new view may be taken of the to reply in mine of the 23d of July, to your subject by the president, which will lead to a remonstrance against the proclamation of the more happy result. president of November last, and to the demand

I have the honor to be, with very high con-which you had made, by the order of your gosideration and respect, sir, your most obedient vernment of the repeal of the non-importation humble servant, AUG. J. FOSTER, act of March 2d of the present year.

To the hon. James Monroe, &c. &c. &c.

MR. MONROE TO MR. FOSTER.

Department of State, 27th July, 1811.

My letter has certainly not merited this imputation.

Having shewn the injustice of the British government in issuing the orders in council on the pretext assigned, and its still greater SIR-I had the honor to receive your letter injustice in adhering to them after that preof yesterday's date, in time to submit it to text had failed, a respect for Great Britain, as the view of the president before he left town. well as for the United States, prevented my It was my object to state to you in my let-placing in the strong light in which the subter of the 23d inst. that under existing cir-ject naturally presented itself, the remoncnmstances, it was impossible for the presi-strance alluded to, and the extraordinary de dent to terminate the operation of the non-im-mand founded on it, that while your govern portation law of the 2d of March last; that ment accommodated in nothing, the United France having accepted the proposition made States should relinquish the ground, which by by a previos law equally to Great Britain a just regard to the public rights and honor, and to France; and having revoked her de they had been compelled to take. Proposicrees, violating our neutral rights, and Great tions tending to degrade a nation can never Britain having declined to revoke hers, it be- be brought into discussion by a government came the duty of this government to fulfil its not prepared to submit to the degradation. engagement and to declare the non importa- It was for this reason that I confined my reply tion law in force against Great Britain. to those passages in your letter, which inThis state of affairs has not been sought volved the claim of the United States, on the by the United States. When the proposition principles of justice, to the revocation of the contained in the law of May 1st, 1810, was orders in council. Your demand, however, offered equally to both powers there was cause was neither unnoticed or unanswered. In layto presume that Great Britain would have ac-ing before you the complete, and as was becepted it, in which event the non-importation l'eved, irresistible proof on which the United lavy would not have operated against her." States expected, and called for the revocation

of the orders in council, a very explicit an- give any sanction to the conduct of Grea swer was supposed to be given to that demand. Britain towards neutral nations. Equally unfounded is your complaint that I The United States can have no objection misunderstood that passage which claimed, as to the employment of their commercial capia condition of the revocation of the orders in tal in the supply of France, and of the conticouncil, that the trade of Great Britain with nent generally, with manufactures, and to the continent should be restored to the state comprise in the supply those of Great Britain, in which it was before the Berlin and Milan provided those powers will consent to it. But decrees were issued. As this pretention was they cannot undertake to force such supplies novel and extraordinary, it was necessary that on France or on any other power, in coma distinct idea should be formed of it, and, pliance with the claim of the British governwith that view, I asked such an explanation ment, on principles incompatible with the as would enable me to form one. rights of every independent nation, and they

In the explanation given, you do not insist will not demand in favor of another power, on the right to trade in British property, with what they cannot claim for themselves. British vessels, directly with your enemies. All that Great Britain could with reason. Such a claim, you admit, would be prepos- complain of, was the inhibition by the French terous. But you do insist by necessary im-decrees, of the lawful trade of neutrals with plication, that France has no right to inhibit the British dominions. As soon as that inhi the importation into her ports of British tion ceased, her inhibition of our trade with manufactures, or the produce of the British France ought in like manner to have ceased, soil, when the property of neutrals; and that, Having pledged herself to proceed pari passu until France removes that inhibition, the with France, in the revocation of their reUnited States are to be cut off by Great Bri- spective acts violating neutral rights, it has tain from all trade whatever with her enemies. afforded just cause of complaint, and even On such a pretension it is almost impossi- of astonishment, to the United States, that ble to reason. There is, I believe, no exam-the British government should have sanctionple of it in the history of past wars. Great ed the siezure and condemnation of AmeriBritain, the enemy of France, undertakes to can vessels under the orders in council, after regulate the trade of France; nor is that all, the revocation of the French decrees was she tells her that she must trade in British announced, and even in the very moment goods. If France and Great Britain were at when your mission, avowed to be conciliatopeace, this pretention would not be set up, ry, was to have its effect.

nor even thought of. Has Great Britain then I will only add that had it appeared finally, acquired in this respect, by war, rights which that France had failed to perform her engageshe has not in peace? And does she announcement, it might at least have been expected, to neutral nations, that unless they consent to that Great Britain would not have molested become the instruments of this policy, their such of the vessels of the United States as commerce shall be annihilated, and their ves- might be entering the ports of France, on the sels shall be shut up in their own ports. faith of both governments, ill that failure was I might ask whether French goods are ad- clearly proved.

Saitted into Great Britain, even in peace, and To many insinuations in your letter I make if they are, whether it be of right, or by the no reply, because they sufficiently suggest the consent and policy of the British government? only one that would be proper.

That the property would be neutralized If it were necessary to dwell on the impardoes not affect the question. If the United tiality which has been observed by the United States have no right to carry their own pro- States towards the two belligerents, I might ductions into France without the consent of ask, whether if Great Britain had accepted the French government, how can they under-the condition which was offered equally to take to carry there those of Great Britain? her and France, by the act of May 1st, 1810, In all cases it must depend on the interest and and France had rejected it, there is cause to the will of the party. doubt that the non-importation act would Nor is it material to what extent, or by have been carried into effect against France ? what powers, the trade to the continent is pro- No such doubt can possibly exist, because in hibited. If the powers who prohibit it, are a former instance, when this government, at war with Great Britain, the prohibition is trusting to a fulfilment by yours of an ara necessary consequence of that state. If at rangement which put an end to a non-interpeace, it is their own act; and whether it be course with Great Britain, the non-intercourse voluntary or compulsive, they alone are an- was continued against France, who had not swerable for it. If the act be taken at the then repealed her decrees as it was not doubt, instigation and under the influence of France, ed England had done. Has it not been rethe most that can be said, is, that it justifies peatedly declared to your government, that if reprisal against them, by a similar measure. Great Britain would revoke her orders in On no principle whatever can it be said to council, the president would immediately

cause the non-importation to cease? You stitute a blockade which with respect to neuwell know that the same declaration has often trals was not rigorous as to the greater part of been made to yourself, and that nothing more the coast comprised in it? If you will look is wanting to the removal of the existing ob-to the state of things which then existed bestructions to the commerce between the two tween the United States and Great Britain, countries, than a satisfactory assurance, which you will find the answer. A controversy had will be received with pleasure from yourself, taken place between our governments on a that the orders in council are at an end. different topic, which was still depending. By the remark in your letter of the third The British government had interfered with of July, that the blockade of May, 1806, had the trade between France and her allies in the been included in the more comprehensive produce of their colonies. The just claim of system of the orders in council of the follow-the United States was then a subject of negoing year, and that, if that blockade should be ciation; and your government professing its continued in force after the repeal of the or-willingness to make a satisfactory arrangeders in council, it would be in consequence of ment of it, issued the order which allowed the the special application of a sufficient naval trade, without making any concession as to the force, I could not but infer your idea to be, principle, reserving that for adjustment by that the repeal of the orders in council would treaty. It was in this light that I viewed, and necessarily involve the repeal of the blockade in this sense that I represented that order to of May. I was the more readily induced to my governmment; and in no other did I make this inference, from the consideration make any comment on it.

that if the blockade was not revoked by the When you reflect that this order by allowrepeal of the orders in council, there would ing the trade of neutrals, in colonial producbe no necessity for giving notice that it would tions, to all that portion of the coast which be continued; as by the further consideration, was not rigorously blockaded afforded to the that according to the decision of your court United States an accommodation in a princiof admiralty, a blockade instituted by pro-pal point then at issue between our governclamation does not cease by the removal of ments, and of which their citizens extensively the force applied to it, nor without a formal availed themselves that that trade and the notice by the government to that effect question of blockade, and every other question

go

It is not, however, wished to discuss any in which the United States and Great Briquestion relative to the mode by which that tain were interested, were then in a train of blockade may be terminated. Its actual termi- amicable negociation, you will, I think, see nation is the material object for consideration. the cause why the minister who then repreIt is easy to shew, and it has already been sented the United States with the British abundantly shewn, that the blockade of May, vernment did not make a formal complaint 1606, is inconsistent on any view that may be against it. You have appealed to me, who taken of it with the law of nations. It is also happened to be that minister, and urged my easy to shew that, as now expounded, it is silence as an evidence of my approbation of, equally inconsistent with the sense of your or at least acquiescence in the blockade. An government, when the order was issued; and explanation of the cause of that supposed sithis change is a sufficient reply to the remarks lence is not less due to myself, than to the which you have applied to me personally. true character of the transaction with the If you will examine the order, you will find minister with whom I had the honor to treat. that it is strictly little more than a blockade I may add, that an official formal complaint of the coast from the Seine to Ostend. There was not likely to be resorted to, because is an express reservation in it in favor of neu-friendly communications were invited and trals to any part of the coast between Brest preferred. The want of such a document is and the Seine, and between Ostend and the no proof that the measure was approved by Elbe. Neutral powers are permitted by it to me, or that no complaint was made. In retake from their own ports every kind of calling to my mind as this incident naturally produce without distinction as to its origin, does, the manly character of that distinguished to carry it to the continent under that limi- and illustrious statesman, and the confidence tation, and with the exception only of contra-with which he inspired all those with whom band of war and enemy's property, and to bring he had to treat, I shall be permitted to express, thence to their own ports in return, whatever as a slight tribute of respect to his memory, articles they think fit. Why were contraband the very high consideration in which I have of war and enemy's property excepted, if a always held his great talents and virtues commerce even in those articles would not The United States have not nor can they otherwise have been permitted under the re-approve the blockade of an extensive coast, servation? No order was necessary to sub- Nothing certainly can be inferred from any ject them to seizure. They were liable to it thing that has passed relative to the blockade by the law of nations. of May, 1806, to countenance such an infer,

Why then did the British government in-lence.