****** V^'^V Continued front Jirji page- to involve an informality of pro¬ ceeding in which I could not feel myfeif juftified in acquiefcing. Had you, in making a reply to my com¬ munication, alked me how far a repeal of the French decrees was demanded by my Government, & ns to whether a fpecial repeal as far as refpecfed America would be fufiicicnt, 1 mould have had no he- iitation in giving you every fatis- faction. Your note of the 6th inft. has, by Slowing that the door was not absolutely flmt to a continuation of our difculTion, relieved me from further difficulty on this point. 1 have no he iitation, fir, in fay¬ ing that Great Britain, as the cafe has hitherto flood, never did, nor never could engage* without the groiTeft injuitice to herfelf and her allies, as well as to other neutral nations, to repeal her orders as af¬ fecting America alone, leaving them in force againft other flates, upon condition that France would except, fingly and fpecially, Amer» ica from the operation of her de¬ crees : You will recollect, fir, that the orders in council are meafures of defence, directed againft the fyf- tem contained in thofe decrees ', Lllal it i's a war oir ftraulf wiAnb fti can led on by France ', that what you call the municipal regulations of France, have never been called municipal by France herfelf, but are her main engines in that nov¬ el and monftrous fyftem. It can¬ not then be expected that G.Brit¬ ain flmuld renounce her efforts to throw back upon France the evils will; which (he menaces G. Brit- ain merely becauie France might feek to alleviate her own liquation, by waving the exercife of that part of her fyftem which Che cannot en¬ force. But, fir, to what purpoie argue upon a iuppofedcafe ; upon a irate of things not likely to occur, fmce the late Report and Senatua Con- iultum, which have been publifhcd to the world, as it were, infulting- ly in the tace of thofe who would contend that any repeal whatever "had taken place of the decrees in meftion You draw a companion between the mode in which this inurn¬ ment has appeared, and that which you call the high evidence of the repeal, as ftated in M. Champag- jry's notej audit would almoil fe-.-iu as if you confidered the lat¬ ter as the moft authentic of the two ; but, fir, you cannot contend that the Duke of Baflano's Report, with the Scnatus Coniultum ac¬ companying it, publiihcd in the oflicial paper at Paris, is not a very different inflrumcnt from the a- t'Ove letter, offering a mere provif- ional repeal of the decrees, upon conditions utterly inadmifliblc, conditions too which really form¬ ed of themielves a oueftion of par¬ amount importance. The condition then demanded, and which was fo unexpectedly, was a repeal of the blockade of May, ioo6, which Mr. Finkney, ill the letter you have referred me to. declared to have been required by America as indifpcniable in the views of her acts of intercourle & rion-ini rcourfe, as well as a repeal rif other blockades of a fimilar -. baracicr, which were maintained by Gr< at Britain to be founded on it] j■'•■ maratimc right. TJi' conditions now annexed to lbs French fourmd ar« much more i '"•'-. and, as I have fhov a, include a furrender of ma¬ ny other of the moil eftablilhed principles of the public law of na¬ tions. I cannot, I confefs, fee upon what ground you contend the re¬ port of the Duke of Bailano af¬ fords no proof againft any partial repeal of the French decrees. The principles advanced in that report are general; there is no exception made in favor of America; and in the correfpondence of Mr. Barlow, as officially publifhed, he fecms to allow that he had no explanation respecting it. How can it, there¬ fore, be confidered in any other light than as a republication of the decrees themfelves ? which as it were, to takeaway all grounds for any doubt,, exprefsly advances a doctrine that can only be put in practice on the high leas, namely, " that free thips {hall make free goods," fince the application or l'uch a principle to vetfels in port is abfolutely rejected under his con¬ tinental fyftem. It is indeed impoffible to fee how, under fuch circurnitances, A- mericacan call upon G. Britain to revoke her orders in council. It is impoluble that fhe can revoke them at this moment, in common jtxfiicc co her&Mand :o her allies ; but, iir, while under the neceihty of continuing them, fhe will be ready to manage their cxerciic, ib as to alleviate, as much as polUllc, the prcflurc upon America ; and it would ffivc nie great pleafure to center with you at any time upon the moll adviicahlc mamicr of pro¬ ducing that effect. 1 have the honor, &c. (Signed) At o. J. Foster. Mr. M'i'f<>: to Mr. F<.ftcf. Dift.rr.'/n, ul •/ Sorts, 'fi'm 13, «?• 1?.. Sir—I am not aware that any Icttei of yours on the fr.bject, on which the fmal deciuoti at this Government had not been com¬ municated to you, ha? been ivS- fered to remain without a prompt even in and written anfwer •, and the cafes thus fuppofed to have been fettled which you thought proper to revive, although no fa¬ vorable change had taken pi.ice in the p.'lhy «»r ilii'-.ilun■■; ,.;' -!f..nr Government, I have never failed to explain to you informally, in early interviews, the reafons which made it imperioullv the duty of the U. States to continue to afford to their ricrhts and interefts, ail the protection in their power. The acknowledgment of this on your part, was due to the franknefs of the communications which, have patted between us on the highly important fubjecls on which we have treated, and I am happy to find by your letter of the roth inft. that in relying on it, 1 have not been di(appointed. The impropriety of the demand made by your Government of a copy of the inftrument of inftruc- tions given by the French Gov¬ ernment to its cruizcrs, alter the repeal of the Berlin and Milan de¬ crees, was lufliciently (hewn in Mr. Pinkney's letter to the Marquis Wellefley of the 10th of Decem¬ ber, i8jo, and in my letters to you of the 23d July, 1811, and 14th January laft. It was fort Ids rcafon that i thought it more fult- able to refer you to thofe letters, for the anfwer to that demand, than to repeat it in a formal com¬ munication. It excites however no finall far- prife that you mould continue to demand a copy of that inftrument, or any new proof of the repeal of the French decrees, at the very time that you declare that the proof which you demand, in the extent to which we have a rig]it to claim the repeal, would not, if af¬ forded, obtain a correfpon ding re¬ peal of the orders in council. This demand is the more extraordina¬ ry, when it is confidered that fince the repeal of the decrees, as it ref- pecrs the U. States was announ¬ ced, your Government has enlarg¬ ed its pretcnfions, as to the condi¬ tions on which the orders in coun¬ cil fnould be repealed, and even in¬ vigorated its practice under them. ft is fatisfactory to find that there has been no mifapprchenfion of the condition, without which your Government refutes to repeal the orders in council. You admit that to obtain their repeal, in refpectto the U. States, the repeal of the French decrees muit be abfolute and unconditional, not as to the U. States only, but as to all other neutral nations ; nor as far as they affect neutral commerce only, but as they operate internally and af¬ fect the trade in Bririih manufac- tures with the enemies of G. Brit¬ ain, As the orders in council have formed a principal cauic of the differences which unhappily cxift between our countries, a con¬ dition of .heir repeal, communi¬ cated in any authentic document or manner, was entitled to partic¬ ular attention; and furcly none could have fo high a claim to it, as the letter from Lord Caulercagh to you, fubrnittcd by his authori¬ ty to my view, for tile exprefs pur- pofc of making that condition* with its other contents, known to this Govenvment. "With this knowledge of the oc- • > termination of your Government, to fay nothing of the other condi¬ tions annexed to the repeal of the orders in council, it is impoflible tor mc to advife, or conceive any arrangement conhftcnt with the honor, the rights, and intcrefts of the U. States, that could be made the bafis, or become the remit of a conference on the fubjeei. As the President nevertheless retains his iblicitudc to fee a happy ter- tween the two countries, and wiih- have taken place between us,mif- apprehenhons have again arifen re- fpecting fome of the moft impor¬ tant features of the queftion at if- fue between the two countries, winch mifapprehenftons, perhaps, proceeding from my not exprcf- ilng myfeir fufiklently clear in my note of the 10th inft. in relation to one of thofe queftions, it is ah- folutely neceilary ftrould be done, away. 1 beer leave again to ftatcto ybe, fir, that it is not the operation of the French decrees upon the Brit* ifh trade with the enemies of 0- Britain, that has ever formed 1 fubjecl of difcuftion between us,- and that it is the operation of thofe decrees upon G. Britain, through neutral commerce only, which has really been the point at ilTue. Had Ameiica refitted the effect of thofe decrees in their iul! extent up a her neutral rights, ws fliould !.v- er have had a dillVrence oa the fubjecl f but while French cruiters continued 10 capture Ler mips un¬ der their operation, r fciK m have been ilitisilcd .. thefc liiipJ were releaicd by fpecnl ::t,.;c-'1 mandates, iiTued as ti : ..ccuiei' ■■ rofe ; and the has cani^n t.'. c.il municipai an unex.uup'cd . •'•jj-p- tion of autliority hy i r ..-., in couiitries not under FreiuU piif* diction, and Cfcprelsiy invadiitar the pui'pofe of preventing their trad.-, with England upon \ rinci. pies direcfiy applicable to, if they cov.hi be enforced againft America, 1 bt& von to recoiled- (:r. that :i vantage of, i have the honor to in¬ form you, that 1 am ready to receive and pay due atten¬ tion to any communication, or proportions having that object in view, which you may bs authori- icd to make. Under exiftin'r circurnftances it is deemed moft advifabie, in every refpect, that this fhould be done in writing, as moft fufceptible of the requiiite prccilion, and leaft li¬ able to mifapprehenhon. Allow me to add, that it is equally defir- able that it ihould be' done with¬ out delay. By this it is not meant to preclude any additional oppor¬ tunity which may be afforded by a peri'onal interview. * 1 have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) J a mis Monroe, Auguftm J. FoJIlt, cs*t-. « • • ■ Mr. Fnft-er tit Mr. Monroe. Wajhlugton, june 14. 1812. Sir—I have the honor to ac¬ knowledge, the receipt of your let¬ ter of the 13th inft. It is really quire painful to m r.o revocation . 1 has been made of he orders in council, upon any re- peal of the French decrees, as hith¬ erto Ihev/n by America to have ta¬ ken nkic«. it has not been the Lult of his Maiefly's Government. It Vv-a1.1'Vance and aftcrvrards Araeri. ca, that connected the quciaon re¬ lative to the right of blockade, with that rifins; out of the orders in council. You well know that if theft two queftions had not been united together,the orders in coua* cil would have been in 1810, re¬ voked. How could it be expscl- cdthat G. Britain, in common Jul- ticc to other neutral notions, to her allies, and to herfelf, fhooU not contend for a full and al Iblute engage to make any particular con- cellion in favor of America, when fhe faw that America would not renounce her demand for a Iuitcr- der with the orders in council of fprnc of our moft important mari¬ time lights. Even to this day, fir, you have not cr-cplici* y ftated in any of tfee letters to which you refer nie, tint the American Government would cxprclsly renounce afking for a re-. vocation of the blockade of i8c^ and the other blockades allude J to in Mr. Pinkney's letter ; much lefs have 1 been able to obtain froifl you any difclaimer of the right an felted by France to imj-ole upon the world the new maritime cotfc promulgated by France in the fate republication of her decrees, il- though 1 have by order of my Go¬ vernment, exprefsly Hated their expectation of fuch difclaimer, aP« repeatedly called for an csjto* tion upon this point. Continued "a ftcottd £3$t* e t'^ pencive, that notwithllanding Vl. the length of the diicullions which && Prritalanl PuilM Bv STEPHEN MILES.. ( A few doors Eaft of VWAtften's Hf** riceffhenjnlihigs /><•/•.<«.-..—5- " ^'.'% year—Estiufw ofMitifit* ux'&mszisBasusis ■