cle relative to impressment on account of the difficulties which were experienced in arranging any article on that subject, and to proceed to conclude a treaty on the other points that were embraced by the negotiation. As a motive to such postponement, and the condition of it, it assures us that the British commissioners were instructed still to entertain the discussion of any plan which could be devised to secure the interests of both states without injury to the rights of either.

By this paper it is evident that the rights of the United States were expressly to be reserved, and not abandoned, as has been most erroneously supposed; that the negotiation on the subject of impressment was to be postponed for a limited time, and for a special object only, and to be revived as soon as that object was accomplished; and, in the interim, that the practice of impressment was to correspond essentially with the views and interests of the United States. It is, indeed, evident, from a correct view of the contents of that paper, that Great Britain refused to disclaim or derogate only from what she called her right, as it also is, that as her refusal was made applicable to a crisis of extraordinary peril, it authorized the reasonable expectation, if not the just claim, that even in that the accommodation desired would be hereafter yielded.

In our letter to you of November 11, which accompanied the paper under consideration, and in that of January 3, which was forwarded with the treaty, these sentiments were fully confirmed. In that of November 11, we communicated one important fact, which left no doubt of the sense in which it was intended by the British commissioners, that that paper should be construed by us. In calling your attention to the passage which treats of impressment, in reference to the practice which should be observed in future, we remarked that the terms "high seas" were not mentioned in it, and added that we knew that the omission had been intentional. It was impossible that those terms could have been omitted intentionally with our knowledge, for any purpose other than to admit a construction that it was intended that impressments should be confined to the land. I do not mean to imply that it was understood between the British commissioners and us, that Great Britain should abandon the practice of impressment on the high seas altogether. I mean, however, distinctly

to state that it was understood that the practice heretofore pursued by her should be abandoned, and that no impressment should be made on the high seas under the obligation of that paper, except in cases of an extraordinary nature, to which no general prohibition against it could be construed fairly to extend. The cases to which I allude were described in our letter of November 11. They suppose, a British ship of war and a merchant vessel of the United States, lying in the Tagus or some other port, the desertion of some of the sailors from the ship of war to the merchant vessel, and the sailing of the latter with such deserters on board, they being British subjects. It was admitted that no general prohibition against impressment could be construed to sanction such cases of injustice and fraud; and to such cases it was understood that the practice should in future be confined.

It is a just claim on our part, that the explanations which were given of that paper by the British commissioners when they presented it to us, and afterwards while the negotiation was depending, which we communicated to you in due order of time, should be taken into view, in a fair estimate of our conduct in that transaction. As the arrangement which they proposed, was of an informal nature resting on an understanding between the parties in a certain degree confidential, it could not otherwise than happen that such explanations would be given us in the course of the business, of the views of their government in regard to it. And if an arrangement by informal understanding is admissible in any case between nations, it was our duty to receive those explanations, to give them the weight to which they were justly entitled, and to communicate them to you, with our impression of the extent of the obligation, which they imposed. It is in that mode. only that what is called an informal understanding between nations can be entered into. It presumes a want of precision in the written documents connected with it, which is supplied by mutual explanations and confidence. Reduce the transaction to form and it becomes a treaty. That an informal understanding was an admissible mode of arranging this interest with Great Britain is made sufficiently evident by your letter of February 3d, 1807, in reply to ours of November 11, of the preceding year.

Without relying, however, on the explanations that were given by the British commissioners of the import of that paper, or of the course which their government intended to pursue under it, it is fair to remark on the paper itself, that as by it the rights of the parties were reserved, and the negotiation might be continued on this particular topick, after a treaty should be formed on the others, Great Britain was bound not to trespass on those rights while that negotiation was depending; and in case she did trespass on them, in any the slightest degree, the United States would be justified in breaking off the negotiation, and appealing to force in vindication of their rights. The mere circumstance of entertaining an amicable negotiation by one party for the adjustment of a controversy, where no right had been acknowledged in it by the other, gives to the latter a just claim to such a forbearance on the part of the former. But the entertainment of a negotiation for the express purpose of securing interests sanctioned by acknowledged rights, makes such claim irresistible. We were, therefore, decidedly of opinion, that the paper of the British commissioners placed the interest of impressment on ground which it was both safe and honourable for the United States to admit that in short it gave their government the command of the subject for every necessary and useful purpose. Attached to the treaty it was the basis or condition, on which the treaty rested. Strong in its character in their favour on the great question of right, and admitting a favourable construction on others, it placed them on more elevated ground in those respects than they had held before; and by keeping the negotiation open to obtain a more complete adjustment, the administration was armed with the most effectual means of securing it. By this arrangement the government possessed a power to coerce without being compelled to assume the character belonging to coercion, and it was able to give effect to that power without violating the relations of amity between the countries. The right to break off the negotiation and appeal to force, could never be lost sight of in any discussion on the subject; while there was no obligation to make that appeal till necessity compelled it. If Great Britain conformed her practice to the rule prescribed by the paper of November 8, and the explanations which accompanied it, our government might rest on that

ground with advantage; but if she departed from that rule, and a favourable opportunity offered for the accomplishment of a more complete and satisfactory arrangement, by a decisive effort, it would be at liberty to seize such opportunity for the advantage of the country.

These considerations, founded on a view of the proposed arrangement itself, furnished strong inducement to us to proceed to the other objects of the negotiation. There were other considerations of a different character, which recommended it with still greater force. Had we refused to proceed in the negotiation, what was the alternative which such a refusal presented to our view? The negotiation would have been at an end, after having failed in all its objects; for if this interest was not arranged, none others could be. The attitude which the governments held towards each other, was in a certain degree hostile. Inju ries had been inflicted by one party, and resentment shewn by the other, the latter having taken a step in the case of the non-importation law, which was intended to vindicate the publick rights and honour by being made the means of obtaining a redress of those injuries. The measure was intended for the ministry of Mr. Pitt, from which the injuries were received; but by the removal of that ministry, and the delay which took place in the passage of the law, it came into operation against the ministry of Mr. Fox and lord Grenville, who would not have rendered those injuries, and against whom of course such a weapon would not have been raised. Notwithstanding the existence of that law, and the attitude which still remained between the governments, it was impossible to appeal to it as a strong motive of action with the new ministry. Such an appeal was sure to produce more harm than good. It would have lost us all claim on the generous feelings and liberal policy which the new ministry was believed to indulge and disposed to adopt towards the United States. The negotiation, therefore, with the new ministry, was conducted by policy, as well as by inclination, on friendly and conciliatory principles. Should it fail, however, in its object, and be broken off, the relation between the parties would change in an instant. From that moment the new ministry would stand on the ground of the old one, and the nation be united in all its political parties against us. The

attitude would become in fact, what the exterior announced it to be, hostile, and it was difficult to perceive how it could be changed, and peace be preserved, with honour to the United States. They could not recede from the ground which they had taken, or accept, by compulsion, terms which they had rejected in an amicable negotiation. War, therefore, seemed to be the inevitable consequence of such a state of things, and I was far from considering it an alternative which ought to be preferred to the arrangement which was offered to us. When I took into view the prosperous and happy condition of the United States, compared with that of other nations; that, as a neutral power, they were almost the exclusive carriers of the productions of the whole world; and that in commerce they flourished beyond example, notwithstanding the losses which they occasionally suffered, I was strong in the opinion that those blessings ought not to be hazarded in such a question. Many other considerations tended to confirm me in that sentiment. I knew that the United States were not prepared for war; that their coast was unfortified, and their cities in a great measure defenceless; that their militia, in many of the States, was neither armed nor trained; and that their whole revenue was derived from commerce. I could not presume that there was just cause to doubt which of the alternatives ought to be preferred. Had it, however, been practicable to terminate the negotiation, without such an adjustment as that proposed, and without taking any decisive measure in consequence of its failure, what was to become of the non-importation law? If suffered to remain in force, it was sure to produce war. Great Britain, it was known, would enter into no arrangement, by treaty, which did not provide for its repeal; and there was little reason to presume, after the rupture of the negotiation, by which the relation between the parties would be less friendly, that she would become more accommodating. It was, on the contrary, fairly to be concluded, that if any arrangement whatever should be practicable, it would be a less advantageous one than that which we had sanctioned. Some disposition of it was therefore indispensably necessary, in any course which might be taken. These considerations had much weight in deciding that which was pursued, and I frankly own, that a sincere desire to afford