the principle on which it was founded had been frankly disavowed, as soon as known, by his government, I was persuaded that there could be no serious objection on its part to any of the acts which it was desired should constitute the proposed reparation that to the first act, the restoration of the men, there could doubtless be none, as the least that could be done, after such an outrage, would be to replace the United States, as far as it might be practicable, on the ground they held before the injury was received: that the punishment of the officers followed, as a necessary consequence, to the disavowal of the act: that. the suppression of the practice of impressment from merchant vessels had been made indispensable by the late aggression, for reasons which were sufficiently well known to him. I stated to him that the mode in which it was desired that the reparation should be made, by a special mission, was that which had been adopted by other powers, and by Great Britain herself, for injuries less severe than the one alluded to, of which I gave him the examples furnished me in your letter of July 6th.-Mr. Canning took a note of what I had stated, and made some general remarks on the whole subject, which were intended to give his view of it on each point, but without compromitting himself in a positive manner on any one. He said that, by the proclamation of the President, and the seizure and detention of some men who had landed on the coast to procure water, the government seemed to have taken redress into its own hands; he complained of the difference which he said we had made between France and England, by restoring deserters to the vessels of the former, and not the latter: he insisted that the late aggression was an act different in all respects from the former practice, and ought not to be connected with it, as it shewed a disposition to make a particular incident, in which they were in the wrong, instrumental to an accommodation in a case where his government held a different doctrine. I urged in reply, that the proclamation could not be considered as an act of hostility or retaliation for injuries, though the aggression had provoked and would have justified any, the strongest, áct of reprisal, but as a mere measure of police, which had become indispensable for the preservation of order within the limits of the United States; informed him that the men who had landed from

the squadron, in defiance of the proclamation, and of the law on which it was founded, had been restored to it: that with respect to the other point, the difference said to be made in the case of deserters from British and French ships, I was unacquainted with the fact, but was satisfied, if the statement was correct, that the difference was imputable to the local authorities, and not to the national government, because, as the United States were not bound by treaty to restore deserters from the service of either nation, it was not presumable that their government would interfere in the business. I observed, however, that, if such a preference had been given, there was a natural and justifiable cause for it, proceeding from the conduct of the squadrons of France and England, on the coast of the United States, and on the main ocean, it being a well known fact that the former did not maintain as a right or adopt in practice the doctrine of the latter, to impress seamen from our merchant vessels. I then discussed at length, and urged with great earnestness the justice and policy of his terminating at this time all the differences which had arisen between our governments from this cause, by an arrangement which should suppress the practice on the part of Great Britain, and remedy the evil of which she complained.

In aid of those reasons which were applicable to the merits of the question, I urged the example given by the late ministry, in the paper of November 8th, presented to Mr. Pinkney and myself, by the British commissioners, which had, as I thought, laid the foundation of such an arrangement. I stated that as it was stipulated by that paper, that the negotiation should be kept open for the purpose of arranging this great interest, without prejudice to the rights of either power, it was fairly to be understood as the sense of both parties, that our rights were to be respected, till that arrangement was concluded; whence it would follow that the same effect would be produced in practice, as if it had been provided for by treaty. I relied on this paper and the construction which I thought it admitted, with which, however, the practice had since in no degree corresponded, to show the extent to which the former ministry had gone in meeting the just views of our government, and thereby to prove that the present ministry in improving that ground had nothing to apprehend

from the preceding one. Mr. Canning admitted that the view which I had taken of this paper derived much support from its contents, and the time and circumstances under which it was presented, but persisted in his desire to keep the subjects separate. I proposed, as an expedient to get rid of his objection, that we should take up and arrange both points informally, in which case, provided it was done in a manner to be obligatory, I offered to frame my note, which should demand reparation for the outrage, in general terms, so as that it should not appear by official document, that the subjects had any connection in the negotiation. I urged that unless it was intended to make no provision against impressment from merchant vessels, I could see no objection to his meeting me on that ground, as, after what had passed, it was impossible to take up either subject without having the other in view, and equally so to devise any mode which should keep them more completely separate, than that which I proposed. Mr. Canning still adhered to his doctrine of having nothing to do with impressment from merchant vessels, till the affair of the Chesapeake was disposed of, after which he professed his willingness to proceed to the other object. In this manner the conference ended, without having produced the arrangement which I had hoped from it. Mr. Canning's conduct was in all other respects conciliatory.

My note to Mr. Canning was founded on the result of this conference. As it had not been in my power to come to any agreement with him on the general subject of impressment from merchant vessels, I considered it my duty to combine. it with the affair of the Chesapeake, in the paper which I presented him to claim reparation for the outrage. I thought it best, however, to omit the other acts, of which it was desired that the reparation should consist. It seemed probable that a specification of each circumstance, in the note, would increase the indisposition of the ministry to accommodate, and give it support with the nation, in a complete rejection of the demand. I expressed myself, therefore, in regard to the other acts, in general and conciliatory terms, but with all the force in my power. The details had been communicated to Mr. Canning in conference too recently to be forgotten. Still it was just that no improper inference should be drawn

from the omission of them. To prevent it, I obtained an interview of Mr. Canning immediately after my note was presented, in which, after reminding him of the omission alluded to, the motive to which I presumed he could not mistake, I added that my object in asking the interview had been to repeat to him informally, what I had stated in the former one, the other acts of which my government expected that the reparation should consist. In this interview nothing occurred without the limit of the special object for which it had been obtained. Mr. Canning did not lead the conversation to any other topick, and I could not invite it.

Mr. Canning's answer to my note was delayed more than a fortnight. Having refused to treat the subjects in connection, and intimated in plain terms that if I was not authorized to separate them, it would be useless to prolong the discussion, I thought it improper to press it. My reply was equally explicit, so that with it the negotiation ended. The measure which he announced, as being determined on by the king, in case I could not agree to the separation, is completely the act of his government. You will observe that it is announced in a form which precludes, in a great degree, the idea of its being adopted at my suggestion, as an act of reparation, and in a tone of decision which seemed equally to preclude my holding any communication with

him on it.

My mission being thus brought to an end, has afforded an opportunity for me to return to the United States, as I have long desired. Nothing but the great interest which I take in the welfare of my country, and my earnest desire to give all the aid in my power to the present administration, in support of the pure principles of our most excellent constitution, would have detained me here so long. In the present state, however, it is not possible, if in any it would be, for me to render any service by a longer continuance here. As soon, therefore, as I had answered Mr. Canning's note, I communicated to him my intention to return, and requested that he would be so good as to obtain for me an audience of the king for the purpose of taking my leave of him. This was granted on the 7th of this month, in which I renewed the assurance of the sincere desire of my government to pre

serve the most friendly relation between the United States. and Great Britain, which sentiment was reciprocated by his majesty. Mr. Pinkney succeeds me by an arrangement with Mr. Canning, which will appear in the enclosed copy of my correspondence with him, and which I have full confidence the President will approve. I regret that in transferring the business into his hands, I do not leave him altogether free from difficulty.

I have the honour to be, &c.

JAMES MONROE. James Madison, Esq. Secretary of State.

P. S. Not being satisfied with the undefined character of the proposed mission to the United States, and Mr. Canning having communicated nothing new to me on the subject, in my interview with him on the day I was presented to the king, although an opportunity was offered for the purpose, I wrote him a note after the commencement of this letter, to make certain inquiries on that head, a copy of which note, and of his answer, is herewith enclosed. You will observe that he still holds himself aloof on it. I thought it my duty, and that it comported with strict delicacy, to make the inquiry, and I cannot but consider his reserve as affording cause for an unfavourable inference. It is probable, however, as the door is left open for further communication between us till the moment of my departure, that he will take some other occasion to explain himself more fully on the subject. You may be assured that I will seek every favourable opportunity to obtain such explanation from him.

From Mr. Canning. Foreign Office, Oct. 22, 1807.

SIR,-Having seen in the American newspapers an official article (of which I have the honour to enclose a copy) prohibiting all intercourse between the inhabitants of the United States, and his majesty's ships of war universally, I have the honour to request that you will have the goodness to inform me, whether this prohibition will extend to the ship of war, in which a minister accredited from his majesty, and charged with a mission to the American government, shall arrive in any of the ports of the United