formity to the laws of nations. Reviewing the courfe of this statement, it will appear, that the blockade of May, 1806, cannot be deemed contrary to the law of nations, either under the ob. jections urged by the French, or under those declared, or infinuated by the American government, because that blockade was maintained by fufficient naval force: that the decree of Berlin was not, therefore, juftified either under the pretexts alledged by France, or under those fupported by America; that the orders in council were founded on a juft principle of defenfive retaliation, against the violation of the law of nations, committed by France in the decrce of Berlin; that the blockade of May, 1806, is now included in the more extenfive operation of the orders in council; and laftly, that the orders in council will not be continued beyond the effectual duration of the hoftile decrees of France, nor will the blockade of May, 1806, continue after the repeal of the orders in council, unlefs his majefty's government fhall think fit to fuftain it by the fpecial application of a fufficient naval force. This fact will not be fuffered to remain in doubt, and if the repeal of the orders in council fhould take place, the intention of his majefty's government refpecting the blockade of May, 1806, will be notified at the fame time.

I need not recapitulate to you the fentiments of his majesty's government, fo often repeated, on the fubject of the French minifter's note to Gen. Armstrong, dated the 5th oflaft Auguft. The ftudied ambiguity of that note has fince been amply explained by the conduct and language of the government of France, of which one of the moft remarkable inftances is to be found in the fpeech of the chief of the French government on the 17th of the laft month, to certain deputies from the free cities of Hamburg, Bremen and Lubeck, wherein he declares that the Berlin and Milan decrees thall be the public 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 fyftem of violence and injuftice, of which he is the founder, will be maintained by him until the defenfive measures of retaliation to which they gave rife, on the part of Great Britain, fhall be abandoned.

If other proofs were necessary to fhew the continued existence of thofe obnoxious decrees, they may be difcovered in the imperial edict dated at Fontainebleau in October 19, 1810, that monftrous production of violence, in which they are made the bafis ofa fyftem of general and unexampled tyranny and oppreffion over all countries fubject to, allied with, or in the reach of the power of France in the report of the French minifter for foreign affairs, dated laft December, and in the letter of the French minifter of juftice to the prefident of the council of prizes. To this latter, fir, I would with particularly to invite your attention; the date is the 25th of December; the authority it comes from moft unqueftionable; you will there find, fir, the duke of Maffa, in giv. ing his inftructions to the council of prizes, in confequence of

the prefident of the United States' proclamation of November 3, moft cautioufly avoiding to affert that the French decrees were repealed, and afcribing not to fuch repeal, but to the ambiguous paffage which he quotes at length from Mr. Champagny's letter of Auguft 5th, the new attitude taken by America; and you will alfo find an evidence in the fame letter of the continued capture of American fhips after November 1ft, and under the Berlin and Milan decrees, having been contemplated by the French govern ment, fince there is a fpecial direction given for judgment on fuch fhips being fufpended in confequence of the American proclamation, and for their being kept as pledges for its enforcement.

Can then, fir, thofe decrees be faid to have been repealed at the period when the proclamation of the prefident of the United States appeared, or when America enforced her non-importation act against Great Britain? Are they fo at this moment? To the firft queftion the ftate papers which I have referred to, appear to give a fufficient anfwer: for even fuppofing that the repeal had fince taken place, it is clear, that on November 3d, there was no queftion as to that not being then the cafe; the capture of the fhip New Orleans Packet feized at Bordeaux, and of the Grace Ann Green, feized at or carried into Marseilles, being cafes arifing under the French decrees of Berlin and Milan, as is very evident. Great Britain might, therefore, complain of being treated with injuftice by America, even fuppofing that the conduct of France had fince been unequivocal.

America contends that the French decrees are revoked as it refpects her fhips upon the high feas, and you, fir, inform that the only two American fhips taken under their maritime operation, as you are pleased to term it, fince November Ift, have been reftored; but may not they have been reftored in confe quence of the fatisfaction felt in France at the paffing of the nonimportation act in the American Congress, an event fo little to be expected; for otherwife, why, having been captured in direct contradiction to the fuppofed revocation, were they not restored immediately?

The fears of the French navy, however, prevent many cafes of the kind occurring on the ocean under the decrees of Berlin and Milan; but the most obnoxious and deftructive parts of those decrees are exercifed with full violence, not only in the ports of France, but in thofe of all other countries to which France thinks the can commit injuftice with impunity.

Great Britain has a right to complain that neutral nations fhould overlook the very worst features of thofe extraordinary acts, and fhould fuffer their trade to be made a medium of an unprecedented, violent and monftrous fyftem of attack upon her refources; a fpecies of warfare unattempted by any civilized nation before the prefent period. Not only has America fuffered her trade to be moulded into the means of annoyance to Great Britain under the provifions of the French decrees, but conftruing those decrees

as extinct upon a deceitful declaration of the French cabinet, fhe has enforced her non-importation act against Great Britain. . Under these circumftances I am inftructed by my government to urge to that of the United States, the injuftice of thus enforcing that act against his majefty's dominions; and I cannot but hope that a fpirit of juftice will induce the United States' government to re-confider the line of conduct they have purfued, and at least to re-establish their former ftate of ftrict neutrality.

I have only to add, fir, that on my part, I fhall ever be ready to meet you on any opening which may feem to afford à profpect of restoring complete harmony between the two countries, and that it will, at all times, give me the greateft fatisfaction to treat with you on the important concerns fo interefting to both.

I have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) AUG. J. FOSTER.

Sir,

Mr. Monroe to Mr. Fofter.

Department of State, July 6, 1811. I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 2d inftant, in which you exprefs the regret of his royal highnefs, the prince regent, at the departure of the American minifter from Great-Britain, and ftate that it was one of the firft acts of his government to appoint an envoy extraordinary and minifter plenipotentiary to the United States, with a view of maintaining the fubfisting relations of friendfhip between the two countries, and that he was solicitous to facilitate an amicable difcuffion with the government of the United States upon every point of difference which had arifen between the two governments.

I am inftructed by the prefident to acknowledge to you the great fatisfaction which he has derived from the communication which you have made of the difpofition of his royal highness the prince regent, to cultivate friendfhip 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 discuffion on every point of difference that had arisen between the two governments, is confidered as a favourable and interefting proof of that difpofition.

I am also inftructed by the prefident to ftate his ready dispofition to meet, in a fimilar spirit, these frank and friendly affurances of the prince regent, and that nothing will be wanting on his part. confiftent with the rights of the United States, that may be neceffary to promote the re-establishment, in all refpects, of that good understanding between the two countries, which he coufiders highly important to the interefts of both.

Permit me to add, fir, that if, as the organ of my government, I can be, in any degree, inftrumental, in concert with you, in promoting fuch a result, I fhall derive from it a very great and fincere fatisfaction.

I have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) JAS. MONROE. Auguftus J. Fofter, Esq. &c. &c. &c.

CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER.

No. 2.] TWELFTH CONGRESS.... FIRST SESSION. [1811-12.

Mr. Foster to Mr. Monroe.

SIR, Washington, July, 1811. I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated yefterday, in anfwer to mine of the 2d inftant, and to affure you, that it gives me very fincere pleasure to have to tranfmit, for the purpofe of being laid before his royal highness the prince regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his majefty,so fatisfactory a teftimony of the amicable manner in which the prefident of the United States has received the inftances and affurances of a friendly difpofition on the part of his royal highnefs towards the United States, which, by the command of his royal highness, I had the honor to communicate to the prefident through you.

The affurances which you have added, fir, of the gratification that you would yourfelf derive, if, as the organ of your govern ment, you could be inftrumental towards re-establishing a good understanding between both our countries, are too congenial with my own feelings on the subject not to be received with very high fatisfaction.

I have the honor to be, with the highest confideration and refpect, fir, your moft obedient humble fervant,

SIR,

(Signed)

AUG. J. FOSTER.

Mr. Foster to Mr. Monroe.

Washington, July 11, 1811. In confequence of our conversation of yesterday, and the obfer. vation which you made refpecting that part of my letter to you of the 3d inftant, wherein I have alluded to the principle on which his majefty's orders in council were originally founded, I think it right to explain myself, in order to prevent any poffible mistake, as to the prefentfituation of neutral trade with his majesty's enemies. It will only be neceffary for me to repeat what has already long fince been announced to the American government, namely, that his majefty's order in council, of April 26, 1809, fuperfeded thofe of November, 1807, and relieved the fyftem of retaliation, adopted by his majefty againft his enemies, from what was con. fidered in this country as the most objectionable part of it.......the option given to neutrals to trade with the enemies of Great Brit ain through British ports on payment of a tranfit duty.

This explanation, fir, will, I truft, be fufficient to do away any impreffion that you may have received to the contrary, from my obfervations refpecting the effects which his majesty's orders in

council originally had on the trade of neutral nations. Those ob fervations were merely meant as preliminary to a confideration of the queftion now at iffue between the two countries.

I have the honor to be, &c.

SIR,

(Signed)

AUG. J. FOSTER.

Mr. Foster to Mr. Monroe.

Washington, July 14, 1811. His majefty's packet-boat having been fo long detained, and a fortnight having elapfed fince my arrival at this capital, his royal highness, the prince regent, will neceffarily expect that I fhould have to tranfmit to his royal highnefs fome official communication as to the line of conduct the American government mean to purfue. I trust you will excufe me; therefore, fir, if, without preffing for a detailed anfwer to my note of the 3d inftant, I anxioufly defire to know from you what is the prefident's determination with refpect to fuspending the operation of the late act of Congrefs prohibiting all importation from the British dominions.

There have been repeated avowals lately made by the government of France, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan were fill in full force, and the acts of that government have correfponded with thofe avowals.

The meafures of retaliation purfued by Great Britain against thofe decrees, are confequently, to the great regret of his royal highnefs, ftill neceffarily continued.

I have had the honor to ftate to you the light in which his royal highnefs, the prince regent, viewed the proclamation of the prefident, of laft November, and the forprize with which he learnt the fubfequent meafures of congrefs against the British trade.

American fhips, feized under his majefty's orders in council, even after that proclamation appeared, were not immediately condemned, because it was believed that the infidious profeffions of France might have led the American government, and the merchants of America, into an erroneous conftruction of the inten tions of France.

But when the veil was thrown afide, and the French ruler himfelf avowed the continued exiftence of his invariable fyftem, it was not expected by his royal highnefs that America would have refused to retrace the fteps fhe had taken.

Fresh proofs have fince occurred, of the refolution of the French government to caft away all confideration of the rights of nations, in the unprecedented warfare they have adopted.

America, however, ftill perfifts in her injurious measures against the commerce of Great Britain, and his royal highnefs has, in confequence, been obliged to look to means of retaliation against thofe meafures which his royal highness cannot but confider as most unjustifiable.