How defirable would it not be, fir, if a ftop could be put to any material progrefs in fuch a fyftem of retaliation, which, from step to ftep, may lead to the moft unfriendly fituation between the two countries?

His majefty's government will neceffarily be guided in a great degree by the contents of my firft dispatches, as to the conduct they muft adopt towards America.

Allow me, then, fir, to repeat my request to learn from you whether I may not convey to his royal highnefs what I know would be moft grateful to his royal highnefs' feelings, namely, the hope that he may be enabled, by the fpeedy return of America from her unfriendly attitude towards Great-Britain, to forget altogether that he ever was obliged to have any other object in view befides that of endeavoring to promote the best understanding poffible between the two countries.

I have the honor to be, &c.

Sir.

(Signed)

AUG. J. FOSTER.

Mr. Monroe to Mr. Fofter.

Department of State, July 15, 1811. The reasoning and scope of the two letters I have had the honor to receive from you, dated on the 3d and 14th inftant, reft effentially on a denial that the French decrees of Berlin and Milan are repealed. These decrees comprise regulations effentially differ ent in their principles; fome of them violating the neutral rights of the United States, others operating against Great-Britain without any fuch violation.

In order to understand diftinctly and fully the tenor of your com munications, you will pardon the request I have'the honor to make of an explanation of the precife extent in which a repeal of the French decrees is made a condition of the repeal of the British or ders; and particularly whether the condition embraces the seiz. ure of veffels and merchandife entering French ports in contravention of French regulations, as well as the capture on the high feas of neutral veffels and their cargoes, on the mere allegation that they are bound to, or from British ports; or that they have on board British productions or manufactures. I have the honor to be, &c.

SIR,

(Signed)

JAS. MONROE.

Mr. Foster to Mr. Monroe.

Washington, July 16, 1811. I had the honor to receive the letter which you addreffed to me under yesterday's date, requefting an explanation from me, in confequence of my letters of the 3d and 14th inftant, of the precife extent in which a repeal of the French decrees is, by his ma jefty's government, made a condition of the repeal of the Britifh orders, and particularly whether the condition embraces the feiz ure of veffels and merchandise entering French ports in contravention of French regulations, as well as the capture on the bish

feas of neutral veffels and their cargoes,on the mere allegation that they are bound to, or from British ports, or that they have on board British productions or manufactures; as alfo, ftating that in your view of the French decrees they comprife regulations esfentially different in their principles; fome of them violating the neutral rights of the United States, others operating against GreatBritain without any fuch violation.

You will permit me, fir, for the purpofe of anfwering your questions as clearly and concifely as poffible, to bring into view the French decrees themfelves, together with the official declarations of the French minifter which accompanied them.

In the body of thofe decrees, and in the declarations alluded to, you will find, fir, exprefs avowals that the principles on which they were founded, and the provifions contained in them, are wholly new, unprecedented, and in contradiction to all ideas of juftice and the principles and ufages of all civilized nations.

The French government did not pretend to fay that any one of the regulations contained in thofe decrees, was a regulation which France had ever been in the previous practice of.

They were confequently to be confidered, and were indeed allowed by France herfelf to be, all of them, parts of a new system of warfare, unauthorized by the established laws of nations.

It is in this light, in which France has placed her decrees, that Great Britain is obliged to consider them.

The fubmiffion of neutrals to any regulations made by France, authorized by the laws of nations and practifed in former wars, will never be complained of by Great Britain; but the regulations of the Berlin and Milan decrees do, and are declared to, violate the laws of nations and the rights of neutrals, for the purpose of attacking through them the refources of Great Britain. The ru ler of France has drawn no diftinction between any of them, nor has he declared the ceffation of any one of them in the fpeech which he fo lately addreffed to the deputation from the free imperial Hanfe towns, which was, on the contrary, a confirmation of them all.

Not until the French decrees, therefore, fhall be effectually re. pealed, and thereby neutral commerce be restored to the fitua tion in which it flood previoufly to their promulgation, can his royal highness conceive himself juftified, confiftently with what he owes to the fafety and honor of Great Britain, in foregoing the just measures of retaliation which his majesty in his defence was neceffitated to adopt against them,

I truft, fir, that this explanation in anfwer to your inquiries, will be confidered by you fufficiently fatisfactory; fhould you require any further, and which it may be in my power to give, I thall with the greatest cheerfulness afford it.

I fincerely hope, however, that no further delay will be thought neceffary by the prefident, in reftoring the relations of amity which Thould ever fubfift between America and Great Britain, as the

delufions attempted by the government of France have now been made manifeft, and the perfidious plans of its ruler exposed, by which, while he adds to and aggravates his fyftem of violence against neutral trade, he endeavors to throw all the odium of his acts upon Great Britain, with a view to engender difcord between the neutral countries and the only power which ftands up as a bulwark against his efforts at univerfal tyranny and oppreffion.

Excufe me, fir, if I exprefs my with as early as poffible to dif patch his majefty's packet boat with the refult of our communications,as his majesty's government will neceffarily be most anxious to hear from me. Any fhort period of time, however, which may appear to you reasonable, I will not hesitate to detain her. I have the honor to be, &c.

SIR,

(Signed)

AUG. J. FOSTER.

Mr. Monroe to Mr. Foster.

Department of State, July 23, 1811. I have fubmitted to the prefident your feveral letters, of the 3d and 16th of this month, relative to the Britifh orders in council and the blockade of May 1806, and I have now the honor to communicate to you his fentiments on the view which you have prefented of those measures of your government.

It was hoped that your communication would have led to an immediate accommodation of the differences fubfifting between our countries, on the ground on which alone it is poffible to meet you. It is regretted that you have confined yourself to a vindi. cation of the measures which produced fome of them.

The United States are as little difpofed now as heretofore to enter into the queftion concerning the priority of aggreffion by the two belligerents, which could not be juftified by either, by the priority of thofe of the other. But as you bring forward that plea in fupport of the orders in council, I must be permitted to remark that you have yourself furnished a conclufive answer to it, by admitting that the blockade of May 1806, which was prior to the first of the French decrees, would not be legal, unlefs fupported through the whole extent of the coaft, from the Elbe to Breft, by an adequate naval force. That fuch a naval force was actually applied and continued in the requifite ftrictnefs until that blockade was comprifed in and fuperseded by the orders of November of the following year, or even until the French decree of the fame year, will not I prefume, be alledged.

But waving this queftion of priority, can it be feen, without both furprise and regret, that it is ftill contended that the orders in council are juftified by the principle of retaliation, and that this principle is ftrengthened by the inability of France to enforce her decrees. A retaliation is in its name, and its effential character, a returning a like for like. Is the deadly blow of the orders in council against one half of our commerce, a return of like for like to an empty threat in the French decrees against the other half? It may

be a vindictive hoftility, as far as its effect falls on the enemy: but when falling on a neutral, who on no pretext can be liable for more than the measure of injury received through fuch neutral, it would not be a retaliation, but a pofitive wrong, by the plea on which it is founded.

It is to be further remarked, that the orders in council went even beyond the plea, fuch as this has appeared to be, in extending its operation against the trade of the United States with nations which, like Ruffia, had not adopted the French decrees, and with all nations which had merely excluded the British flag; an exclufion refulting as matter of courfe with refpect to whatever nation Great Britain might happen to be at war.

I am far from viewing the modification originally contained in thefe orders, which permits neutrals to profecute their trade with the continent, through Great Britain, in the favorable light in which you reprefent it. It is impoffible to proceed to notice the effect of this modification without expreffing our aftonishment at the extravagance of the political pretenfion fet up by it: a pretenfion which is utterly incompatible with the fovereignty and independence of other ftates. In a commercial view it is not lefs objectionable, as it cannot fail to prove deftructive to neutral commerce. As an enemy, Great Britain cannot trade with France. Nor does France permit a neutral to come into her ports from Great Britain. The attempt of Great Britain to force four trade through her ports, would have, therefore, the commercial effect of depriving the United States altogether of the market of her enemy for their productions, and of deftroying their value in her market by a furcharge of it. Heretofore it has been the ufage of belligerent nations to carry on their trade through the intervention of neutrals, and this had the beneficial effect of extending to the former the advantages of peace while fuffering under the calamities of war. To reverfe the rule, and to extend to nations at peace the calamities of war, is a change as novel and extraordinary as it is at variance with juftice and public law.

Against this unjuft fyftem, the United States entered, at an early period, their folemn proteft. They confidered it their duty to evince to the world their high difapprobation of it, and they have done fo by fuch acts as were deemed moft confiftent with the rights and the policy of the nation. Remote from the contentious fcene which defolates Europe, it has been their uniform object to avoid becoming a party to the war. With this view they have endeavored to cultivate friendship with both parties by a fyftem of conduct which ought to have produced that effect.They have done juftice to each party in every tranfaction in which they have been feparately engaged with it. They have obferved the impartiality which was due to both the belligerents ftanding on equal ground, having in no inftance given a prefer ence to either at the expense of the other. They have borne too, with equal indulgence, injuries from both, being willing, while

it was poffible, to impute them to cafualties infeparable from a ftate of war, and not a deliberate intention to violate their rights. And even when that intention could not be miftaken, they have not loft fight of the ultimate object of their policy. In the measures to which they have been compelled to refort, they have in all refpects maintained pacific relations with both parties. The alternative presentedby their late acts was offered equally to both, and could operate on neither no longer than it should perfevere in its aggreffions on our neutral rights. The embargo and non-intercourse were pacific meafures. The regulations which they impofed on our trade were fuch as any nation might adopt in peace or war without offence to any other nation. The non-importation is of the fame character; and if it makes a diftinétion at this time in its operation between the belligerents, it neceffarily results from a compliance of one with the offer made to both, and which is ftill open to the compliance of the other.

In the difcuffions which have taken place on the fubject of the orders in council and blockade of May, 1806, the Britith government, in conformity to the principle on which the orders in council are faid to be founded, declared that they fhould ceafe to operate as foon as France revoked her edicts. It was ftated also that the British government would proceed pari passu with the government of France in the revocation of her edicts. I will proceed to fhew that the obligation on Great Britain to revoke her orders is complete, according to her own engagement, and that the revocation ought not to be longer delayed.

By the act of May 1ft, 1810, it is provided that if either Great Britain or France fhould ceafe to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, which fact the Prefident thould declare by proclamation, and the other party fhould not within three months thereafter revoke or modify its edicts in like manner, that then certain fections in a former act interdicting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great-Britain and France and their dependencies, fhould, from and after the expiration of three months from the date of the proclamation, be revived and have full force against the former, its colonies and dependencies, and against all articles the growth, produce or manufacture of the fame.

The violations of neutral commerce alluded to in this act, were fuch as were committed on the nigh feas. It was in the trade between the United States and the British dominions that France had violated the neutral rights of the United States by her blockading edicts. It was in the trade with France and her allies that Great Britain had committed fimilar violations by fimilar edicts. It was the revocation of thofe edicts, fo far as they committed fuch violations, which the United States had in view, when they pafsed the law of May 1, 1810.

On the 5th Auguft, 1810, the French minifter of foreign af fairs addreffed a note to the minifter plenipotentiary of the United