Mr. Lescallier should not have the tariff, inasmuch as it is of little use to the French in this country; but I wrote to Paris at the time of our first conversation on this subject.

I will immediately renew my application to the consulgeneral, and from whatever source I may derive the information required, I will hasten to transmit it to you. I beg you, sir, to receive, &c. &c.

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

I COMMUNICATE to Congress a letter from the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Great Britain to the Secretary of State, with the answer of the latter.

The continued evidence, afforded in this correspondence, of the hostile policy of the British government against our national rights, strengthens the considerations recommending and urging the preparation of adequate means for maintaining them.

JAMES MADISON.

Mr. Foster to Mr. Monroe. Washington, December

17, 1811.

SIR,-I did not mean to have written to you at this moment on the subject of our late correspondence, but that I have had the mortification to perceive statements, circulated from highly respectable sources, which gave a view of the pretensions of Great Britain relative to the United States, not warranted by any of the letters which I had the honour to address to you, and which at a time when discussions are continuing so important to the two countries, might, if left unrectified, produce an effect highly to be

lamented by both the American and British governments, inasmuch as by creating unnecessary irritation, they might throw obstacles in the way of a restoration of a friendly understanding between them.

I find it asserted in the statement referred to, that I have in the name of my government, demanded that the United States' government should pass a law for the introduction of British goods into the American ports, and also that the United States should undertake to force France to receive into her harbours, British manufactures.

I beg permission, sir, to declare that neither of these demands have been made by me, and that my meaning must not have been understood, if such was conceived to have been its import.

I could not have demanded the passage of such a law as above stated, because my government does not pretend to interfere with the internal government of a friendly power, nor did I mean to demand that America should force France to receive our manufactures.

All I meant to say was, that the admission of French commerce while that of England has been excluded from the United States' ports, was regarded by Great Britain as highly unfriendly in America, and that a continuation of such policy would be retaliated upon by Great Britain with similar restrictions on her part, which was so far merely an offering of like for like. But while the American non-importation act excludes British trade from the United States' ports, it must be recollected that it goes still further and excludes also British armed ships from American ports, while it admits those of the enemies of Great Britain. "A neutral nation is responsible for the equality of its rules of conduct towards the belligerent powers" (to use the words of an American Secretary of State in the year 1796) and therefore the part of the law which establishes an inequality was justly an object of more serious complaint on the part of Great Britain. You are aware, sir, of the advantage which his majesty's enemies have derived from this state of inequality which enables them, though possessing no port in this hemisphere, continually to prey on the trade of his majesty's subjects, secure of a refuge for their cruisers and their prizes.

The prohibition of entry to his majesty's ships under these circumstances might perhaps justify Great Britain in asserting, that whatever reason she may have for repealing or modifying her orders in council, so as to lessen or entirely remove the pressure now unavoidably laid on the trade of America as a neutral nation, she might yet refuse to enter into any discussion on that subject with the United States, until either by the revocation of the prohibition above stated, or the placing all the belligerents under the same prohibition, America should cease to violate the duties of a neutral nation.

With respect, however, to the supposed demand that America should force the entry of British manufactures into France, it is most particularly necessary that I should explain myself, as a total misconception appears to have taken place upon this point. The question of retaliation on the French decrees is directly one between England and France. In consequence of the extraordinary blockade of England, we have in our defence been obliged to blockade France, and prohibit all trade in French articles in return for the prohibition by France of all trade in English articles. This measure of retaliation, it is wished, should operate on France alone, but from the trade carried on with France by America, it unavoidably operates also on her; it is a measure to destroy the French trade in return for the similar measure of France on which it is retaliatory, and its acting on neutrals is an incidental effect of it, consequent upon the submission of neutrals to the original measures of the enemy against Great Britain. It is, indeed, melancholy that the unnatural situation of Europe should produce such a result, but I cannot see how this can be considered as war on American commerce, when all other American trade but that which is carried on with our enemy's ports in defiance of a blockade authorized by the laws of retaliation, is unaffected by it. We complain that America does not resist the regulations of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and object to permitting the French to trade with her during their continuance against the commerce of England; but this is not exacting, as has been represented, that America should force British manufactures into France; it is pursuing only a just course of retaliation on our enemy. If America wishes to trade with France, if French commerce is of importance

to her we expect she should exact of France to trade with her as she has a right to demand in her quality of neutral; but if she does not choose to exercise this right, all we ask is, that she should abstain from lending her assistance to the trade of France, and not allow her commerce to be a medium of undermining the resources of Great Britain.

I have thought it necessary thus to endeavour to set these two points in their true light: the repeal of the law was asked, as being an unfriendly measure, partial in its operation against Great Britain, and a prospect of retaliation was held out on its commercial operation if continued. This is no demand on the United States to admit British manufactures; they are at liberty to continue that law, only as it is of an unfriendly nature, some restrictions of a similar kind was to be expected from England; and with respect to the alleged demand for forcing British goods, the property of neutrals, into French ports, if the United States are willing to acquiesce in the regulations of the French decrees unlawfully affecting England through them, they cannot surely be surprised if we consider ourselves as at liberty to refuse permission to the French to profit by that acquiescence.

I will now, sir, take the opportunity of stating to you, that I have received from his majesty's secretary of state, the correspondence of which you did me the honour to transmit to me a copy in your letter dated October 17. My government have not been able to see in it satisfactory proof of the repeal of the French decrees, and doubt whether the trade carried on by licenses between France and America, will not be regarded, even here, as proof of the continuation of them in their fullest extent; for if they were to any extent repealed, to that extent at least no license should be necessary, a license being given to allow what, but for that license, would be prohibited.

The continued absence hitherto of any instrument by which the repeal has been affected, is a matter also of surprise, for if there were any fair dealing in the transaction, no reason can be given by France for not producing it; it is very desirable that it should be produced, if such an instrument be in existence, in order that we may know to what extent the decrees have been repealed, if they really have been so in any respect. Mr. Russell, however,

does not appear to have been in possession of it at the date of his letter of Jast July. It is indeed become particularly interesting, that we should see this instrument since the publication of Mr. Russell's correspondence with his own government, by which it appears that really, and in fact, the French government did not release any American ship taken after November 1, until they had become acquainted with the President's proclamation, and that vessels have been taken so late as December 21, in the direct voyage from this country to London; for until a copy of such instrument is produced, it is impossible to know whether any other trade is allowed by France than that between her own dominions and the ports of the United States. I have the honour to be, &c.

AUG. J. FOSTER.

To the Hon. James Monroe, &c. &c.

Mr. Monroe to Mr. Foster. Department of State, Jan. 14, 1812.

SIR, I have had the honour to receive your letter of December 17th, and I embrace the first moment that I could command, to make the observations which it suggests.

It would have afforded great satisfaction to the Presi dent, to have found in the communication, some proof of a disposition in the British government to put an end to the difference subsisting between our countries. I am sorry to be obliged to state, that it presents a new proof only of its determination to adhere to the policy, to which they are imputable.

You complain that the import of your former letters has been misunderstood in two important circumstances: that you have been represented to have demanded of the United States, a law for the introduction of British goods into their ports, and that they should also undertake to force France to receive British manufactures into her harbours.

You state that on the first point, it was your intention only to remonstrate against the non-importation act, as partial in its operation, and unfriendly to Great Britain, on which account its repeal was claimed, and to intimate that if it was persevered in, Great Britain would be com