The blockade of May, 1806, was therefore (according to the doctrine maintained by Great Britain,) just and lawful in its origin, because it was supported both in intention and fact by an adequate naval force. This was the justification of that blockade, until the period of time when the orders in council were issued.

The orders in council were founded on a distinct princi, ple; that of defensive retaliation. France had declared a blockade of all the ports and coasts of Great Britain, and her dependencies, without assigning, or being able to assign any force to support that blockade. Such an act of the enemy would have justified a declaration of the blockade of the whole coast of France, even without the application of any particular force to that service. Since the promulgation of the orders in council, the blockade of May, 1806, has been sustained and extended, by the more comprehensive system of defensive retaliation, on which those regulations are founded. But if the orders in council should be abrogated, the blockade of May, 1806, could not continue under our construction of the law of nations, unless that blockade should be maintained by a due application of an adequate naval force.

America appears to concur with France, in asserting that Great Britain was the original aggressor in the attack on neutral rights, and has particularly objected to the blockade of May, 1806, as an obvious instance of that aggression on the part of Great Britain.

Although the doctrines of the Berlin decree, respecting the rights of blockade, are not directly asserted by the American government, Mr. Pinkney's correspondence would appear to countenance the principles on which those doctrines are founded. The objection directly stated by America against the blockade of May, 1806, rests on a supposition that no naval force which Great Britain possessed, or could have employed for such a purpose, could have rendered that blockade effectual, and that therefore it was necessarily irregular, and could not possibly be maintained in conformity to the law of nations.

Reviewing the course of this statement, it will appear, that the blockade of May, 1806, cannot be deemed contrary to the law of nations, either under the objections urged by the French, or under those declared,or insinuated by the American government, because that blockade was

maintained by a sufficient naval force: that the decree of Berlin was not, therefore, justified either under the pretexts alleged by France, or under those supported by America; that the orders in council were founded on a just principle of defensive retaliation, against the violation of the law of nations, committed by France in the decree of Berlin; that the blockade of May, 1806, is now included in the more extensive operation of the orders in council; and lastly, that the orders in council will not be continued beyond the effectual duration of the hostile decrees of France, nor will the blockade of May, 1806, continue after the repeal of the orders in council, unless his majesty's government shall think fit to sustain it by the special application of a sufficient naval force. This fact will not be suffered to remain in doubt, and if the repeal of the orders in council should take place, the intention of his majesty's government respecting the blockade of May, 1806, will be notified at the same time.

I need not recapitulate to you the sentiments of bis majesty's government, so often repeated, on the subject of the French minister's note to general Armstrong, dated the 5th of last August. The studied ambiguity of that note has since been amply explained by the conduct and language of the government of France, of which one of the most remarkable instances is to be found in the speech of the chief of the French government on the 17th of last month, to certain deputies from the free cities of Hamburgh, Bremen and Lubeck, wherein he declares that the Berlin and Milan decrees shall be the publick code of France as long as England maintains her orders in council of 1806 and 1807. Thus pronouncing as plainly as language will admit, that the system of violence and injustice, of which he is the founder, will be maintained by him until the defensive measures of retaliation to which they gave rise, on the part of Great Britain, shall be abandoned.

If other proofs were necessary to show the continued existence of those obnoxious decrees, they may be discovered in the imperial edict dated at Fontainbleau in Oct. 19, 1810, that monstrous production of violence, in which they are made the basis of a system of general and unexampled tyranny and oppression over all countries subject. to, allied with, or within reach of the power of France: in the report of the French minister for foreign affairs, dated

last December, and in the letter of the French minister of justice to the president of the council of prizes. To this latter, sir, I would wish particularly to invite your attention; the date is the 25th of December; the authority it comes from most unquestionable; and you will there find, sir, the duke of Massa, in giving his instructions to the council of prizes, in consequence of the President of the United States' proclamation of Nov. 3d, most cautiously avoiding to assert that the French decrees were repealed, and ascribing not to such repeal, but to the ambiguous passage which he quotes at length from M. Champagny's letter of August fifth, the new attitude taken by America; and you will also find an evidence in the same letter of the continued capture of American ships after November 1st, and under the Berlin and Milan decrees, having been contemplated by the French government; since there is a special direction given for judgment on such ships being suspended in consequence of the American proclamation, and for their being kept as pledges for its enforcement.

Can then, sir, those decrees be said to have been repealed at the period when the proclamation of the President of the United States appeared, or when America enforced her non-importation act against Great Britain? Are they so at this moment? To the first question the state papers which I have referred to, appear to give a sufficient answer: for even supposing that the repeal had since taken place, it is clear that on November 3d, there was no question as to that not being then the case; the capture of the ship New Orleans Packet, seized at Bordeaux, and of the Grace Ann Greene, seized at or carried into Marseilles, being cases arising under the French decrees of Berlin and Milan, as is very evident. Great Britain might, therefore, complain of being treated with injustice by America, even supposing that the conduct of France had since been unequivocal.

America contends that the French decrees are revoked as it respects her ships upon the high seas, and you, sir, inform me that the only two American ships taken under their maritime operation, as you are pleased to term it, since November 1st, have been restored; but may not they have been restored in consequence of the satisfaction felt in France at the passing of the non-importation act in the American Congress, an event so little to be expected; for

otherwise, why, having been captured in direct contradiction to the supposed revocation, why were they not restored immediately?

The fears of the French navy, however, prevent many cases of the kind occurring on the ocean under the decrees of Berlin and Milau; but the most obnoxious and destructive parts of those decrees are exercised with full violence, not only in the ports of France, but in those of all other countries to which France thinks she can commit injustice with impunity.

Great Britain has a right to complain that neutral nations should overlook the very worst features of those extraordinary acts, and should suffer their trade to be made a medium of an unprecedented, violent and monstrous system of attack upon her resources; a species of warfare unattempted by any civilized nation before the present period. Not only has America suffered her trade to be moulded into the means of annoyance to Great Britain under the provisions of the French decrees, but construing those decrees as extinct upon a deceitful declaration of the French cabinet, she has enforced her non-importation act against Great Britain.

Under these circumstances I am instructed by my government to urge to that of the United States, the injustice of thus enforcing that act against his majesty's dominions; and I cannot but hope that a spirit of justice will induce the United States' government to re-consider the line of conduct they have pursued, and at least to re-establish their former state of strict neutrality.

I have only to add, sir, that on my part, I shall ever be ready to meet you on any opening which may seem to afford a prospect of restoring complete harmony between the two countries, and that it wili, at all times, give me the greatest satisfaction to treat with you on the important concerns so interesting to both.

I have the honour to be, &c.

To the Hon. James Monroe, &c.

AUG. J. FOSTER.

VOL. VIII..

Mr. Monroe to Mr. Foster. Department of State, July 6, 1811.

SIR, I have had the honour to receive your letter of the 2d instant, in which you express the regret of his roy al highness, the prince regent, at the departure of the American minister from Great Britain, and state that it was one of the first acts of his government to appoint an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the government of the United States, with a view of maintaining the subsisting relations of friendship between the two countries, and that he was solicitous to facilitate an amicable discussion with the government of the United States upon every point of difference which had arisen between the two governments.

I am instructed by the President to acknowledge to you the great satisfaction which he has derived from the communication which you have made of the disposition of his royal highness the prince regent, to cultivate friendship with the United States, and to assure you that the prompt and friendly measure which he adopted, by the appointment of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to this country, to maintain the relations of friendship and facilitate an amicable discussion on every point of difference that had arisen between the two governments, is considered as a favourable and interesting proof of that disposition.

I am also instructed by the President to state his ready disposition to meet, in a similar spirit, these frank and friendly assurances of the prince regent, and that nothing will be wanting on his part, consistent with the rights of the United States, that may be necessary to promote the re-establishment, in all respects, of that good understanding between the two countries, which he considers to be highly important to the interests of both.

Permit me to add, sir, that if, as the organ of my government, I can be, in any degree, instrumental, in concert with you, in promoting such a result, I shall derive from it a very great and sincere satisfaction.

I have the honour to be, &c.

JAMES MONROE. Augustus J. Foster, Esq. &c. &c. &c.