t t
t
Oar, Jtl f Jut lU; rfeHglvtfaVPwi; V i;,- W J;iAHV4V4ae
.J
. "A-5
&J-.tft?t:i - wJ
mmmmmmmmm
4r-?i -j ." ' -. . .7 ,'i.'T.X
Iroportaht ?onr5pondcii(
Biitttd by tb Pmkleat.to bh Hooje of
T a Senate en j JUnM RrfireHniatrtxt
" T rftmmnnkaie-'to Co'nems a Ic.ltef
r t , - r . '
Rom the Enroy ExtraortJiDiry and Mi
mifcrPIcnlpottntijryofGrcatBmamto
"the Scury cf -Stile, with the answer
pfthe Utter
The continued .thence afforded In
thls ccCTtipoDiiehcctorthe hostUe posi-
cmr naUooU Tights, itrcngthcns the
ooniideratlons TTCoinniexJtiing and ur-
ing the preparaUons,oradequate means
for "vaintaiDtDg iKem.
; JAMES MAD1SOW.
!JL OSTia TO MB. M0MR0K.
JTat&mzitmt DtctmUr 17, 1811.
St T did notrneari to hate written
-t you at thia moment on the suj.ct of
our lite corrrspondcDcei dui ina i narc
had the moitihcauon to perceive state-
roents circulated from btghl respectf
fele sources which rive a view or the
xrcteni!onsofG.J3riUin reUti?e to the
United StatcStDot Warranted by uoy.of
the letters which I had the honor to ed
dress to yoiif and which,' at' a time when
discussions ire continuing so important
to the two countries, might, if left un
rectified, produce an effect highly to be
limemrd br both the American and
British Governments, inasmuch as by
creatine unneeeas-ry . irriutton, they
nicht throw obstacles. in the way of a
restoration of a friendly nnderktanding
between them.
I find it asserted in the statement rr-
fcrred to, that I h-nve tn.thename of my
government, dernanded that the United
States ROTeroment should pass a law for
the introduction of British goods Into
the American pnrts, and also that the
United States should undertake to force
France to receife into her harbors Bri
tish manufactures.
I beg permission, Slrv to declare that
neither of these demands hare -been
made by. me, and that my meaning mustj
cot bare, been-undf i stood, it sutb was
oacetred to hare been Mts Jroport.' I
could not Dire. demanded the passage of
such a law; asabore .stated, because my
ljyemment .does not pretendao intti-
fere with internal goternment ot. a
friendlr power, nor did "1'mean.to de
mand that America should force France I
to receive our manufactures. ;?
All I meant to say was; that the ad
mission cf French comtr.em, while that
ef England has been excluded from the
United States' ports, was regarded by
Grt at. Britain as highly unfriendly in
America, and that a ccaiinuation of such
pcXicf would bq retaliated upon by G.
xituun fwvro, apnuar fesineiioo w cr
part, which was so. Jar .merely an ouer
ingof like for. IVe. BuLwhile ibe Aroc
rican. pon-imporfaiion act excludes Bii
fish trade frojp.the United Stales pom,
it musx pe rccoaccica in?i u oea bihi
fur her and excludes also British armed
ships from American ports, while it ad
snits those of theenemies of G; Britain;
A neutral' nation is responsible for the
equality of its ruUs of conduct towards
the bclligercntr power?' (to uethe
words cf an American Seeretary of State.
in the year 1796) and therefore the part
ef. the 4a which esUbHihesan.be qua
uty was jusuy.aa ooject oi morp, serious
comphunt on the pari of Great Britain
V VouareawaresiV, of.the a' Vintages
which his Majesty.'s'enenves have dc-
xied from this stiTe of iot Oualrty, which.
enables them, tnougb possessing no. port
in this hemisphere, contintially to prey,
on the tratJe of His Majesty's subjects,
secure of .a refpge-for their cruisers and
their pri2cs v' " j, " ., ; -
'The prohibition of entry' tn His Ala
esty's ships under thxttdrcumttances,
might.prrhapsi jcstlfyiGBnUin in as;
- rting.thitwhjVefi,reaion. she may
btveforrepeajjng.pri rnodlfyirrg, her or?'
ders iq coqaxil, so.as.tpjisseo or enHre
ly re move t he,preisure pw.unayoidablyj
latd.qn. the trade of -rcrica as.a peu-;
Xral nation, she might, yet refuse ja'en-
.ttr into any. discussion: ch that subject
with. the Voiced States, cniil cither byi
the revocation of thevpr'ohibitloh above
'ststeVor-nhrfBg'Vft
uuwrno aaroof pronioilio
I should cease to tiolate the , dudes
neutral nation.'. v, - : ; ' "
: With respect, hqweTer," to the sup
- 4 -1 . ' . : ,
France, it is most particularly riecessa-
ry that I -should explain myself, as a tor
ta mironeentiQn aoDears tohave iaken
f.t.iv .tt ' ri-1
puce upon inis poin xncqucsnou ui
retaliation on the French' decrees, is dl
redly We beWf en England and France.
I In consequence cl' the extraordinary
blockade of Bngland, we have in our dc-
icnce peen-ooiigea to oiocsaoc rrtiuuc,
and prohibit all trade in French.articleS
in return for Jthe prohibition by France
oi au iraae in hnpiisn irucics. m"
measure of retaliation, it is- wished,
should operate on France-Wone,. but
from the trade carried on with France
by America', it unavoidably operates !
so on, her ;.Jt is a measure to destroy
the Fienth trade in return for the simi-
lac measure of France on which it is
retaliaiorv. and its actintr on neutrals is
an incidrntal effect of it. consequent up
i.n the submissi' n cf neutrals to the ori
K.nal measures of the cpemy against C
Britain. It is. indeed, melancholy that
the unnatural aituationdf Europe should
produce sucli a rrtrult, but I cannot are
how this cari.be considered as war on
American'commerce; when all other A
nerican trade but that which is carried
on with our enemy's pons in defiance
of a blockade authorised by the laws of
retaliation is unaffected by it We com
plain that America does not resist the
regulation of the, Berlin and Milan de
crees, ana ooject to permitting the
French to trade with her during tweir
continuance against the commerce-or
EngLnd ; but this is not exacting, as
has been representee! that America
snouja lorce oruun manuiaciurcs imo
l . r n i ? .
France : it is pursuing only a just course
vf retaliation on our tnemy. If Aroe- II
ica wUhes to trade with France, if
French commerce is of importance to
her wc expect she ahould exact of
France to trade with her as she hat a It
right to demand in her quality of neu-
ral : but if she does not choose toexer If
UIS Iltl, l WC IUM BUC 1
should abstain from lending her assls
'mce to the trade of France, and not at-1
iow ncr commerce io oe a meaium otii
undermining the resourcesofG Britain'.
I have thought it necessary thus toll
endeavor to set these tw points in their
true light the repeal of the law was
asaeo, as peing an untnenuiy roensore,
t " ti ii
partial' in its operation against Great
Britain,aoda prospect of retaliation ws
hc4d out on its commercial oprttirm if
continued This is no demand on the
United Stites'to admit B.itish manufac
tures ; they arc at Liberty to continue
(that law, nl
lyes it' is of n unfriendly I
Dfcture, some testnction of a similar Jl
kind wjs to be expected from Enclahd ; II
and with respect to the alledged demand j
for, forc.ng Bufuh' coo!s, ; the irpertt
of neutrals, into French ports, if the U
Slates are willing tp acquiesce in the re
gulatiohs of the French decrees unlaw
fully affecting Ei gland through. them,
they cannot surely be surprised if we
consider ourselves as at liberty to refuse
permission to th French to profit .by
thit acquiescence.' .'
I will nawf sir, take the opportunity
cf stating to you, that I have received
from his Majesty's Secretary oi Sta'e,
the correspondence of which you did me
the honor, to transmit to me a copy in
your letter dated Oct; b r 17. - My go
vernment have, not been able to sec in
it satisfactory proof of the repeal of the
rtencn decrees and doubt whether the
trade carried on by . licences between
France end America, wijl not be regard-
ed.even here, a proof of the continua
tion of them' in their, fullest extent, for
it they were to. any extent repealed, to
that extent at least no licence should be
necessary, a lie eor e being civrp to al
lowr wbaf; but for .that licence, would be
propibited. ! , , " ' , v. , i'
; The continued absence hitherto of a-
ny instrument by which the repeal has
bcenv effected, is matter also 0f" sur-
pn'Cf w4 ,yreryiwcrc auy iajr QCaitng
in'the tnniactionf no reason can be ru
venibY Francejfornot producinc: it ; "it
fs very, desirable that rl- should pro
duced, 'if such an-instrument. be. ib cx-
iCinccV-ip order? that may knoi7 Vto
wnai extenx toe cecrees nave qeenTre'
pcaiedjiiUhe y realty have "been so l a any
P?:? ' .lussel;noweTerfVpeA
hot appear- to have bee n in posst ssioo-of
tf at the dito xif his letter of last July.
If is indeed becctae; jpartic'ularl fnterV
esahci-that we should Bee ' this fnstru-
meat aincc,inc pyoucfAipn ot mr ftua-
posed demand that America should force dd not teleas any American snipsa
the - entry of. British manufactures into keW.vfcer November t , un iL they h-io;
,vncTjcaiisca( amcc wc pyoucai,oa ovmr ivusii caae ineouierDe4iigerentina as r:e warf irrg puDiiciiy
11 vcrninnt Wwhftkirppes thafmU; pwciicefcoantctfeitlrt
lyi and in fact; the Fmch gfiyt rnrndm
I I - r - , i
becornr acquainted win the Ffesldertt's
UTociamation, -. ano. ,v.7W!.-:W
1 been taken sb late as December 21, in
rili4.. vai(iv fmin i ihi- rniintr th
n , -v wr--."v
Lnndon i fr until acopVici sutn instru
ment is produced, it is impossible to
Know wnetner any o:ner iracc is anpw
d-hv- France than that between! her
own dominion1 and;the ports of the V.
Slates.
' MB. MNBOE TO MB. FrSTER;
; Department efState, yumar 14, 1812.
Sib I have had the honor,to receive
your letterof December; 1 7th, and I em
brace the firfv moment that ! could
command, tp make the observations
I which It-a.ucgests r ' 1 '
I ' It would have afforded great satisfac-
Irion to the President, to have found in
Ithb cornmunicntion, some proof of a dis
II posi'ion inth? Bii'.ish government to pu
Man end. to the differences subsisting be
II twecn our countries J am sorry to b"
II obliged to ate, that it presents' a new
If pio3lorly of us determination to adhere
to the policy, to which they are impu
table.
You complain that the Import of your
former letters has been misunderstood'
it two important circumstances : that
you have been represented to havs de
manded of the U. States, a' law for the
introduction of British goods' imo their
ports, and that they should .also under
take to force France to receive British
manufactures into her harbors
You state that on the first pomt, it was
yuur intention only . to remonstrate a
II .
iigainK inenon-imuoruiion aci, as paruai
II in its operation, and unfriendly to Great
Britain, on which account its repeil was
1 claimed, and to intimate that if it was
persevered id, Great Britain j would be
(compelled to retaliate on the commerce
of the U. States, by similar restrictions
(on her part And on i he second point,
hit you intended only :o urcre, that tn
1 VvllSVUUyUbC Ul k All aui uiuai I UIUVA
l ade of England, )our government had
been obliged to blockade France, and to
Jrooiou : an trace in rrencn aricies, in
Iheturn for the prohibition by France of
all trade in English articles
I It. is sufficient to remaik on the first
( point, that on whatever ground the re-
upcai ot tne non-imuonatton act is requi
. ...... j
I red, the U. Slates are justified in adhcr
lnkT .io tt, by the relnsal of the Unush
government to repeal its orders in coup
cil ; and if a distinction is thus produ-
cep between u eat uutaist na n other
belligerent,' it must be referred to the
dlffe.ence inthe conduct of
the two par
tits.
On the second point, I Have to observr
thai the explanation given cannot be sa
tisfartory, becadse it does not meet' the
case now. existing, r ranee did. it is
true declare a blockade of England, a
gainst the trade of the United States,
and prohibit all trade in English articles
on the high seas, but thVs blockade and
prohibition no longer exist, i It is true;,
also, .that a part of those decrees, did
prohibit a trade in English articles, with
in her territorial jurisdiction;;' but thu
prohibition violates no national rights,
ortieuiral cpmmerce, of the U. States.
S;il your blockade and prohibiiian are
tonfinued, In violation of the national
and neutral righis of the United Stales,
on atretexi of retaliation,': whichi If even
applicable, could' only be 'applied .to the
former, and not to the latter interdicts ;
and A it . U j requiredt.ht France shall
change, her internal regulations against
Englsh trade, before England Willchange
her external regulations against the
tradei of the; United Stales. I I rv;
' "But.you ; still insist that Uiei French
decrees are unrevoked, and urge ip proof
of it, a fact' drawn froni'Alr., Russeirs
correspondence, that , some f American
vessels have been taken since , the first
of 'November, in theirrbute to Hnglarid;
It is a satisfactory answer to this remark;
that it appears .by :he same correspond
ence, that every' -American vessel which
had been taken six that trade the seizure
of which rested on the BeVlip and Milan
decrees' onljrtereV.a"8'8pon;aS'lba fct
i?s3 as certained, deUveil up to their own'
ers. Might there mt Je'rjuiid,
ats o,' on which sei ures'mi ghtbe made'?
Great Britain claims a right'to' seize for
pther;jCAUsesiand all nations admit it in
the case of contraband of waKif by; jfhe
lawv of naonsblieUigert:' has 4
ft gut- ioj seize- neuinu -prpperty; many
oers gland,rhtch isellwli
to the" dortti neht; f,hai by '4nf psf'rio. tKiS'!
faith due to Ahierlcah
to theUrJfediaiesssehtiaT
Aaittst intsfacticr flieisteCcj
the1 United States at jMndtiU
pear byreterence' td :hisletterf iotthe
Marqui Wliesley of fthe J3d oiFfayi
1810, rhade V-loirmal esehioin
pursuance ofCinructionspn
verprhent with an oaer of every infor-J
maf ion possessed by hi m which might
contribute to detect and suppress it; ,
is paipful' to slid, that, this j.m.municat$'
tion v Vvas ; ehtireiy. disregarded.; ; Thst
Great-Britain : snputd complain ."'of acts in
France, to which' by'er negtch mni
instrumental, apd draw from them proof
in support ; of her Orders an Council.
ought certain iy riot to have been expect
Y ? iir remark also, that the practice of
tne, y rencn government to grant need
ces to certain American., vessels, enga
ged in the trade between the U tates
and France, is an" additional proof that
the French decrees still operate in their
lunesi extent. . wn wnai principie mis
uiiwiviit.w u ukitnu tiuiti Mini lau iius.
impossible for me, to, conceive.' It Was
not the objfct of the Berlin, and-Mil an
decrees to prohibit the trade, between
the United States and France -They
were meant io prohibit the trade of the
United States with Great Britain which
violdted our neutral rights and to pro
hibit the trade of G. Britain with the
continent, with which the U. States have
nothing to do If the object had. bceri
io prohibit the trade between the United
States and France, Great Britain could
never .have found in them any! pretext
for complaint" .And if the idel of reta
liation; could in any: respect have been
applicable, it would have been by prohi
bit. ng our trade with berselfv To pro'
hibit it with France, would not: have
been a retaliation : but a cD-ooeration.
If licencing by France the tirade in cer
tain instances, prove any thing, it proves
nothing more than that toe' trade with
vrrauce, in oiner luaiancea, is unuer re
straint It seems i m possible to extract'
from it in any respect, thai the Berhn
and Milan decrees are id force, so far
as they prohibit the trade between, the1
U. States and England.' I might here
repeat that the French' practice of grants
ihg licences to trdt between the United
States and France, may have been in
tended in part, at .least' as , a security a-
gainst the simulated papers ; the forging
of which was not suppressed in England.
it is uoi io oe inicrreu irom mese re
marks, that , a trade by licenceVris "one
wild wnicn rnc .u. piaics are. sansnea.
fhey have the strongest objections to it
hut' these, are founded, on o(hejr princi-
pies, man.inosc surjgesieu m your noie.
It is a cause of fireatsurprise to the?
rresiaenr, mar your, government nas not
-seen in the correspondence, of Mr.Rus.sell,
which IJhad the honor to communicate
to you on the 17th bfXlctober Iastf and
which has been lately transmitted to you
by your erdvernmeht, , sufficient prLf of
the repeal of the Berlin, and Milan X)e-
crees, independent 'of theconclusit. vk
d nce'cf jiie fact, which that correspond
dence afforded, it wa not to be prsunif:
ed from; the information of the 3Varquis
of Wejlesley, thatlif Jt 'vwaijfo -be rans
mitted to you, to be taked.into cbniide-
radon in thedependirig discussions, that
it was of a vnature to haver n6 !weight in
.1-
1 -- f y
I- V
' 1 ne.atmano wnicn you now, ma
a view of the order given by' the French
government to. its . cruisers,v i n conse
quence; of the repeal . jojLihy Tjrejchde.'
crees, is a! new proof of its indisposition
to repeal, the ; orders in council. The
declaration ;:bfjtbe French
waa, s . nas uecn.fnerevoiore" ooscrreOj
a Solemn and obligatory act, and as such
entitled to the liqtice1 and Respect tf
otherv governments J tywas. incumbeht
on G." Britainitherefore, in fulfilment of
her cngagemeRt. taTeiprovide.d; tbat
feet afterriheUme
tion or the French decre' -APn
aioninGrecLt Britairt'tb keenhrbfders
in torcfetinereieivesatii
thepraciictrllcorn
utterfy iftcorbbalihre
Adoubt,; foundedon ahV stngitf actittoWi,
ever :3Uthorisedr obmrnittyj
leutu "i iTnt;Ki tuigii, mi .iiiai rwxti
ble beedme a mbtite for delav and Tefii
sal: ifVsuscibr
oc ' com ru uicif P'gn .. a c iuc samo eif
iect ;7an1l inlikentaHerc
itcatinot blIedlredEaf thdecreea
hatf e notfeeise j f '
w aj vuiuai j as nereioore.ooaeryca. . h
And as'tjie ;:m
haSsIbhbeexnown tdvioiitf vrn
uiciii, uic orucrj t m ? council. -trom ttne : w
V Bmth buestiofi whtheVanowMri
the 'vep<f Mfanmili-
crees -coos eneei. in rciauon to ine neu
tral ewmejxefthet
superceded by;tbe not el atidiextrftordt
! place? ib Jfie:ulies
i n e . v n tea states, it couia, accoram i
British: goveniment inrJiesetransac
iions, ii is impossioie io see lniw any
thing iraiiartr
hostility ai th vrlghtsdc
the United States. Klt issued the orders
on France, -at ;; ja 1ihe when ttwitted'
the Fitncu'decrees to "beinerfectuaiTtt
empas'beenjlrw
ha
;ui lie ' iicruirineirr '! ranrr. iu:
which the United States in nheir-neutrat
character )iaie no clain; and coiil not ,
demand, Withe ut departing ffomthef
neutrality, ;:! condition, which, m respect
10 uiej commerce 01 oiner nauons wim
rsBrilain, is repugnant to' ber"own
policy,' land prohibited byherpwhlaws,
and whicbT can never De entprcedo
naiiqri without a subversion of its sove
reignty jam! mdepenenciP-
Ib ft&r I ScnattTom tioatc of. Rcprtsmativxt riT.
IJay; before 1 Cbngressai lettor froni
the 'oyExtjraordb Mthistef
Plejiipotentiary Of Great-Britain, to the
lcrelary of IStateithUhe'i
jthelatteg.iv
Waitington; January 17813?
R TO MR fiipNRO E-
SifeI";havT Men; informed brMrv
a
Mpriep JtWjsb: tongagoia iheii of
last January , jn consequence alwfife
ten communicatfon from Sir JCraigi';
b?av,ae'styfspw
Commander in .Chief jn Cap ada". dated
the 25th of Nbvembef, i 81 0, acauaint
ingr;bim
tne intention Jot some otjtheMndlan
vrii. cs,.Aiyittu inc. grcav iermemaion a
mope ihem.-to make an attack on the
titeu" Stat
impurt nis suspicions tovtne, American
5fer;pMii
d-sberallj
predecessorin! ofBce,and-searchm
amone the archives of this mission; rl .
Mr.Moner to make the communication
ip Jquestlpn aViWelf aa a mmndttrn
of its having so been made, as also an Jexi
press ! declaration of LSir JartesCfafe
pqt IjeVwanting-perso
ready to attribute the mbvementl of the
Ibdabijcfijthepb
jgbyerhment, jye tthat larrtrdent
were actually raaiung every exertron in
tneirpow
jattempts;
This
Iinqnlradictibff tb?tfi
purw wnicur nave oeen spresa pi a coo
nature, that I cannSt rialst
Hhat;'twasees
the:UStates vernmehfe of
thbltsl'tbibMK
Jphalseemfi
io 'wis leuer? correct
nary claim df Geat .Britaihjtoa trae :
in British aniclesV;'
forysuposirfff the febiear taken
mat claim, naye,no?eect 10-rctnotmg
the order? ihcouhciVS - : t'V
On a full view' of M cdnductthe ' &
nas susraineo inoseroroers -in iuu xorce-
Since.! notwithstandinrr the nretcxt for , 3
erio assise m preventing tntirv '
- ni cyif vc, oirjypiB XTjenaiyvuis-i. . vr;.vi
ppsitioa to put Jttepnitetaern w:'-A
eritjoeiji WnaUhehi, : : 40
ria'Uop'bflje4Sal
itt:p$ventfngthc
keni':pIacisfb?bonb1ibI
'".fit ,2 4
r ; iT:
i a
if.
if.
4. . V
Mi
(ft.
.t V:-
. S,. ' -
. JfVC,.
;
- 7 (5ir-.,
!
t : . .. ...