Great Britain. As the orders in council have formed at principal cause of the differences which unhappily exist between our countries, a condition of their repeal, communicated in any authentick document or manner, was entitled to particular attention. And surely none could have so high a claim to it, as the letter from lord Castlereagh to you, submitted by his authority to my view, for the express purpose of making that condition, with its other contents, known to this government.

With this knowledge of the determination of your government, to say nothing of other conditions annexed to the repeal of the orders in council, it is impossible for me to devise or conceive any arrangement, consistent with the honour, the rights and interests of the United States, that could be made the basis or become the result of a conference on the subject. As the President, nevertheless, retains his solicitude to see a happy termination of any difference between the two countries, and wishes that every opportunity, however unpromising, which may possibly lead to it, should be taken advantage of, I have the honour to inform you, that I am ready to receive and pay due attention to any communications, or propositions having that object in view, which you may be authorized to make.

Under existing circumstances it is deemed most advisable, in every respect, that this should be done in writing, as most susceptible of the requisite precision, and least liable to misapprehension. Allow me to add that it is equally desirable that it should be done without delay. By this it is not meant to preclude any additional oppor tunity which may be afforded by a personal interview. I have the honour to be, &c. &c.

JAMES MONROE.

Aug. J. Foster, &c. &c.

Mr. Foster to Mr. Monroe. Washington, June 14, 1812.

SIR, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th inst.

It is really quite painful to me to perceive, that notwithstanding the length of the discussions which have taken place between us, misapprehensions have again arisen respecting some of the most important features in the questions at issue between the two countries, which mis

apprehensions, perhaps proceeding from my not expressing myself sufficiently clear in my note of the 10th inst. in relation to one of those questions, it is absolutely necessary should be done away.

I beg leave again to state to you, sir, that it is not the operation of the French decrees upon the British trade with the enemies of Great Britain, that has ever formed a subject of discussion between us, and that it is the operation of those decrees upon Great Britain, through neutral' commerce only which has been really the point at issue. Had America resisted the effect of those decrees in their full extent upon her neutral rights, we should never have had a difference upon the subject. But while French eruisers continued to capture her ships under their operation, she seems to have been satisfied if those ships were released by special imperial mandates, issued as the occasion arose; and she has chosen to call municipal, an unexampled assumption of authority by France in countries not under French jurisdiction, and expressly invaded for the purpose of preventing their trade with England, upon principles directly applicable to, if they could be enforced against, America.

I beg you to recollect, sir, that if no revocation has been made, of the orders in council, upon any repeal of the French decrees, as hitherto shown by America to have taken place, it has not been the fault of his majesty's government. It was France, and afterwards America, that connected the question relative to the right of blockade, with that arising out of the orders in council. You well know that if these two questions had not been united together, the orders in council would have been, in 1810, revoked. How could it be expected that Great Britain, in common justice to other neutral nations, to her allies, and to herself, should not contend for a full and absolute repeal of the French decrees, or should engage to make any particular concession in favour of America, when she saw that America would not renounce her demand for a surrender, with the orders in council, of some of our most important maritime rights.

Even to this day, sir, you have not explicitly stated in any of the letters to which you refer me, that the American government would expressly renounce asking for a revocation of the blockade of 1806, and the other blockades al

Juded to in Mr. Pinkney's letter; much less have I been able to obtain from you any disclaimer of the right assert. ed by France to impose upon the world the new maritime code promulgated by France in the late republication of her decrees, although I have, by order of my government, expressly stated their expectation of such disclaimer, and repeatedly called for an explanation upon this point.

I will now say that I feel entirely authorized to assure you, that if you can, at any time, produce a full and unconditional repeal of the French decrees, as you have a right to demand it in your character of a neutral nation, and that it be disengaged from any question concerning our maritime rights, we shall be ready to meet you with a revocation of the orders in council. Previously to your producing such an instrument, which I am sorry to see you appear to regard as unnecessary, you cannot expect of us to give up our orders in council.

In reference to the concluding paragraph of your letter in answer to that in mine of the 10th instant, I will only say, that I am extremely sorry to find you think it impossible to devise or conceive any arrangement consistent with the honour, rights and interests of the United States, which might tend to alleviate the pressure of the orders in council upon the commerce of America. It would have given great satifaction if we could have fallen upon some agreement that might have had such effect.

My government, while under the imperious necessity of resisting France with her own weapons, most earnestly desires that the interests of America may suffer as little as possible from the incidental effect of the conflict. They are aware that their retaliatory measures have forced the ruler of France to yield in some degree from his hostile decrees; and whether it were more advisable to push those measures vigorously on until they complete the breaking of it up altogether, (the main object of our retaliatory system) or to take advantage of the partial and progressive retractations of it, produced by the necessities of the enemy, has been a question with his majesty's government, It is one on which they would have been most desirous to consult the interests of America. Under existing circumstances, however, and from our late communications, I have not felt encouraged to make you any written proposal, arising out of this state of things; I shall, therefore, merely

VOL. VIII.

61

again express to you, that as the object of Great Britain, has been throughout to endeavour, while forced, in behalf of her most important rights and interests, to retaliate upon the French decrees, to combine that retaliation with the greatest possible degree of attention to the interests of America, it would give his majesty's government the most sincere satisfaction if some arrangement could be found which would have so desirable an effect.

I have the honour to be, &c.

Hon. James Monroe, &c. &c.

AUG. J. FOSTER.

MESSAGE

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONGRESS. JUNE 16, 1812.

I TRANSMIT for the information of Congress, copies of a letter to the Secretary of State, from the charge d'affaires of the United States at London, accompanied by a letter from the latter to the British minister of foreign affairs.

JAMES MADISON.

Mr. Russell to the Secretary of State. London, April 26,

1812.

SIR, I beg leave to hand you herewith a declaration and an order in council, of this government, on the 21st of this month, and a copy of a note* from lord Castlereagh accompanying the communication of them to me. I have already transmitted to you other copies of these documents, and have now to add a copy of the note which I have addressed in reply to that of his lordship.

I have, &c.

The Hon. James Monroe, &c.

JONA. RUSSELL.

A copy of this note has not been received by the department of state.

Mr. Russell to Lord Castlereagh. 18, Bentinck Street, April 25, 1812.

MY LORD, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note which your lordship addressed to me on the 21st of this month, enclosing, by the command of his royal highness the prince regent, a copy of a declaration accompanying an order in council which had that day been passed.

It would have afforded me the highest satisfaction, in communicating that declaration and order to my government, to have represented them, as conceived in the true spirit of conciliation and with a due regard to the honour and interests of the United States. I regret, however, that so far from being able to perceive in them any evidence of the amicable sentiments which are professed to animate the councils of his royal highness, I am compelled to consider them as an unequivocal proof of the determination of his Britannick majesty's government to adhere to a system, which, both as to principle and fact, originated, and has been continued in errour; and against which, the govern ment of the United States, so long as it respects itself and the essential rights of the nation over which it is placed, cannot cease to contend.

The United States have never considered it their duty to inquire, nor do they pretend to decide, whether England or France was guilty, in relation to the other, of the first violation of the publick law of nations ;-but they do consider it their most imperious duty to protect themselves from the unjust operation of the unprecedented measures of retaliation professed by both powers, to be founded on such violation. In this operation, by which ever party directed, the United States have never for a moment acquiesced, nor by the slightest indication of such acquiescence, afforded a pretext for extending to them the evils, by which England and France, affect to retaliate on each other. They have in no instance departed from the observance of that strict impartiality which their peaceful position required, and which ought to have secured to them the unmolested enjoyment of their neutrality. To their astonishment, however, they perceived that both these belligerent powers, under the pretence of annoying each other, adopted and put in practice new principles of