The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1808-03-30 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VIII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1164.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 1808.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
Documents accompanying the Message of the President of the 22d March, relative to the Chesapeake.
(Continued.)
No. III.
Correspondence between Mr. Madison and Mr. Rose.
Washington, Jan. 26, 1808.
Sir—Having had the honor to state to you, that I am expressly precluded by my instructions from entering upon any negotiation for the adjustment of the differences arising from the encounter of his majesty's ship Leopard and the frigate of the United States, the Chesapeake, as long as the proclamation of the President of the U. States, of the 2d of July, 1807, shall be in force, I beg leave to offer you such farther explanation of the nature of that condition, as appears to me calculated to place the motives, under which it has been enjoined to me thus to bring it forward in their true light.
In whatever spirit that instrument was issued, it is sufficiently obvious, that it has been productive of considerable prejudice to his majesty's interests, as confided to his military and other servants in the U. States, to the honor of his flag, and to the privileges of his ministers accredited to the American government. From the operation of this proclamation have unavoidably resulted effects of retaliation, & self-assumed redress, which might be held to affect materially the question of the reparation due to the U. S. especially inasmuch as its execution has been persevered in after the knowledge of his majesty's early, unequivocal, and unsolicited disavowal of the unauthorised act of admiral Berkley—his disclaimer of the pretension exhibited by that officer to search the national ships of a friendly power for deserters, and the assurances of prompt and effectual reparation, all communicated without loss of time, to the minister of the United States in London, so as not to leave a doubt as to his majesty's just and amicable intentions. But his majesty, making every allowance for the irritation which was excited, and the misapprehensions which existed, has authorised me to proceed in the negotiation upon the sole discontinuance of measures of so inimical a tendency.
You are aware, sir, that any delay, which may have arisen in the adjustment of the present differences, is not imputable to an intention of procrastination on the part of his majesty's government; on the contrary, its anxiety to terminate as expeditiously as possible the discussion of a matter so interesting to both nations, has been evinced by the communication made by Mr. Secretary Canning to Mr. Monroe, before that minister of the United States was even informed of the encounter, and now, by the promptitude with which it has dispatched a special mission to this country, for that express purpose.
I can have no difficulty in stating anew to you, with respect to the provisions of my instructions, calculated as they are to insure an honorable adjustment of the important point in question, and to remove the impressions which the late cause of difference may have excited in the minds of this nation, that I am authorised to express my conviction, that they are such as will enable me to terminate the negotiation amicably and satisfactorily.
Having learnt from you, sir, that it is solely as a measure of precaution, the provisions of the proclamation are now enforced, I must persuade myself, that a due consideration of his majesty's conduct in this transaction, will remove as well any misapprehensions which may have been entertained respecting his majesty's dispositions towards the U. States, as the grounds upon which that enforcement rests, and the more so, as it has long been a matter of notoriety, that the orders issued to the officers of his majesty's navy, in his proclamation of the 16th October, 1807, afford ample security, that no attempt can again be made to assert a pretension, which his majesty from the first disavowed.
I may add, that if his majesty has not commanded me to enter into the discussion of the other causes of complaint, stated to arise from the conduct of his naval commanders in
these seas, prior to the encounter of the Leopard and the Chesapeake, it was because it has been deemed improper to mingle them, whatever may be their merits, with the present matter, so much more interesting and important in its nature; an opinion originally and distinctly expressed by Mr. Monroe, and assented to by Mr. Secretary Canning. But if, upon this more recent and more weighty matter of discussion, upon which the proclamation mainly and materially rests, his majesty's amicable intentions are unequivocally evinced, it is sufficiently clear, that no hostile disposition can be supposed to exist on his part, nor can any views be attributed to his government, such, as requiring to be counteracted by measures of precaution, could be deduced from transactions which preceded that encounter.
In offering these elucidations, I should observe, that the view in which I have brought forward the preliminary, which I have specified, is neither as to demand concession or redress, as for a wrong committed: into such the claim to a discontinuance of hostile provisions cannot be construed; but it is simply to require a cessation of enactments injurious in their effects, and which, if persisted in, especially after these explanations, must evince a spirit of hostility, under which his majesty could not authorise the prosecution of the present negotiation, either consistently with his own honor, or with any well founded expectation of the renewal or duration of that good understanding between the two countries, which it is equally the interest of both to foster and to ameliorate.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, Sir, your obedient and most humble servant,
(Signed) G. H. ROSE.
(Copy.)
Department of State, March 5, 1808.
Sir—I have had the honor to receive and lay before the President, your letter of the 26th January, in which you state, that you are "expressly precluded by your instructions from entering upon any negotiation for the adjustment of the differences arising from the encounter of his Britannic majesty's ship the Leopard, and the frigate of the U. States, the Chesapeake, as long as the proclamation of the President of the 2d of July, 1807, shall be in force."
This demand, sir, might justly suggest the simple answer, that before the proclamation of the President could become a subject of consideration, satisfaction should be made for the acknowledged aggression which preceded it. This is evidently agreeable to the order of time, to the order of reason, and, it may be added, to the order of usage, as maintained by G. Britain, whenever in analogous cases, she has been the complaining party.
But as you have subjoined to the preliminary demand, certain explanations, with a view, doubtless to obviate such an answer, it will best accord with the candor of the President, to meet them with such a review of the whole subject, as will present the solid grounds on which he regards such a demand, as inadmissible.
I begin with the occurrences from which the proclamation of July 2d, resulted. These are in general terms referred to, by the instrument itself. A more particular notice of the most important of them, will here be in place.
Passing over then, the habitual but minor irregularities of his Britannic majesty's ships of war, in making the hospitalities of our ports, subservient to the annoyance of our trade, both outward and inward, a practice not only contrary to the principles of public law, but expressly contrary to British ordinances enforced during maritime wars, to which she bore a neutral relation, I am constrained, unwelcome as the task is, to call your attention to the following more prominent instances.
In the summer of the year 1804, the British frigate the Cambrian, with other cruisers in company, entered the harbor of N. York. The commander, captain Bradley, in violation of the port laws, relating both to health and revenue, caused a merchant vessel, just arrived, and confessedly within the limits and under the authority of the U. States, to be boarded
by persons under his command, who, after resisting the officers of the port, in the legal exercise of their functions, actually impressed and carried off a number of seamen and passengers into the service of the ships of war. On an appeal to his voluntary respect for the laws, he first failed to give up the offender to justice, and finally repelled the officer charged with the regular process for the purpose.
This procedure was not only a flagrant insult to the sovereignty of the nation, but an infraction of its neutrality also, which did not permit a belligerent ship thus to augment its force within the neutral territory.
To finish the scene, this commander went so far as to declare, in an official letter, to the minister plenipotentiary of his Britannic majesty, and by him communicated to this government, that he considered his ship, whilst lying in the harbor of New York, as having dominion around her, within the distance of her buoys.
All these circumstances were duly made known to the British government in just expectation of honorable reparation. None has ever been offered. Captain Bradley was advanced from his frigate to the command of a ship of the line.
At a subsequent period, several British frigates, under the command of captain Whitby, of the Leander, pursuing the practice of vexing the inward and outward trade of our ports, and hovering for that purpose about the entrance of that of New York, closed a series of irregularities, with an attempt to arrest a coasting vessel, on board of which an American citizen was killed by a cannon ball which entered the vessel, whilst within less than a mile from the shore.
The blood of a citizen thus murdered, in a trade from one to another port of his own country, and within the sanctuary of its territorial jurisdiction, could not fail to arouse the sensibility of the public, and to make a solemn appeal to the justice of the British government. The case was presented moreover to that government by this, in the accent which it required; and with due confidence that the offender would receive the exemplary punishment which he deserved. That there might be no failure of legal proof of a fact sufficiently notorious of itself, unexceptionable witnesses to establish it were sent to Great Britain at the expence of the United States.
Captain Whitby was notwithstanding honorably acquitted; no animadversion took place on any other officer belonging to the squadron; nor has any apology or explanation been made since the trial was over, as a conciliatory offering to the disappointment of this country at such a result.
A case of another character occurred in the month of September, 1806. The Impetueux, a French ship of 74 guns, when aground within a few hundred yards of the shore of North Carolina, and therefore visibly within the territorial jurisdiction and hospitable protection of the United States, was fired upon, boarded and burnt, from three British ships of war, under the command of captain Douglass. Having completed this outrage on the sovereignty and neutrality of the United States, the British commander felt no scruple in proceeding thence into the waters near Norfolk, nor in the midst of the hospitalities enjoyed by him, to add to what had passed a refusal to discharge from his ships, impressed citizens of the United States not denied to be such, on the plea that the government of the United States had refused to surrender to the demand of admiral Berkeley, certain seamen alleged to be British deserters; a demand which it is well understood your government disclaims any right to make.
It would be very superfluous to dwell on the features which mark this aggravated insult. But I must be permitted to remind you, that in so serious a light was a similar violation of neutral territory, by the destruction of certain French ships on the coast of Portugal, by a British squadron under the command of admiral Boscawen, regarded by the court of Great Britain, that a minister extraordinary was dispatched for the express purpose of expiating the aggression on the sovereignty of a friendly power.
Lastly presents itself, the attack by the British ship of war Leopard, on the American frigate Chesapeake; a case too familiar in all its circumstances to need a recital of any part of them. It is sufficient to remark that the conclusive evidence which this event added to that which had preceded, of the uncontrolled excesses of the British naval commanders, in insulting our sovereignty, and abusing our hospitality, determined the President to extend to all British armed ships, the precaution heretofore applied to a few by name, of interdicting to them the use and privileges of our harbors and waters.
This was done by his proclamation of July 2, 1807, referring to the series of occurrences, ending with the aggression on the frigate Chesapeake, as the considerations requiring it. And if the apprehension from the licentious spirit of the British naval commanders, thus developed and uncontrolled, which led to this measure of precaution, could need other justification than was afforded by what had passed, it would be amply found in the subsequent conduct of the ships under the command of the same captain Douglass.
This officer, neither admonished by reflections on the crisis produced by the attack on the Chesapeake, nor controlled by respect for the law of nations, or the laws of the land, did not cease within our waters to bring to, by firing at vessels pursuing their regular course of trade; and in the same spirit which had displayed itself in the recent outrage committed on the American frigate, he not only indulged himself in hostile threats, and indications of a hostile approach to Norfolk, but actually obstructed our citizens in the ordinary communication between that and neighboring places. His proceedings constituted in fact, a blockade of the port, and as real an invasion of the country, according to the extent of his force, as if troops had been debarked, and the town besieged on the land side.
Was it possible for the chief magistrate of a nation, who felt for its rights and its honor, to do less than interpose some measure of precaution at least against the repetition of enormities which had been so long uncontrolled by the government whose officers had committed them, and which had at last taken the exorbitant shape of hostility and of insult seen in the attack on the frigate Chesapeake? Candor will pronounce that less could not be done; and it will as readily admit that the proclamation comprising that measure, could not have breathed a more temperate spirit, nor spoken in a more becoming tone. How far it has received from those whose intrusions it prohibited, the respect due to the national authority, or been made the occasion of new indignities, needs no explanation.
The President having interposed this precautionary interdict, lost no time in instructing the minister plenipotentiary of the United States to represent to the British government the signal aggression which had been committed on their sovereignty and their flag, and to require the satisfaction due for it; indulging the expectation, that his Britannic majesty would at once perceive it to be the truest magnanimity, as well as the strictest justice, to offer that prompt and full expiation of an acknowledged wrong, which would re-establish and improve both in fact and in feeling the state of things which it had violated.
This expectation was considered as not only honorable to the sentiments of his majesty, but was supported by known examples, in which, being the complaining party, he had required and obtained, as a preliminary to any counter complaints whatever, a precise replacement of things, in every practicable circumstance, in their pre-existing situation.
Thus in the year 1764, Bermudians and other British subjects, who had according to annual custom, taken possession of Turk's island for the season of making salt, having been forcibly removed with their vessels and effects by a French detachment from the island of St. Domingo, to which Turk's island was alleged to be an appurtenance, the British ambassador at Paris, in pursuance of instructions from his government, demanded, as a satisfaction for the violence committed, that the proceed-
ings should be disavowed, the intention of acquiring Turk's island disclaimed, orders given for the immediate abandonment of it on the part of the French, every thing restored to the condition in which it was at the time of the aggression, and reparation made of the damages which any British subjects should be found to have sustained, according to an estimation to be settled between the governors of St. Domingo and Jamaica. A compliance with the whole of this demand was the result.
Again:—In the year 1789, certain English merchants having opened a trade at Nootka sound, on the north west coast of America, and attempted a settlement at that place, the Spaniards, who had long claimed that part of the world as their exclusive property, dispatched a frigate from Mexico, which captured the two English vessels engaged in the trade, and broke up the settlement on the coast. The Spanish government was the first to complain, in this case, of the intrusions committed by the British merchants. The British government, however, demanded that the vessels taken by the Spanish frigate should be restored, and adequate satisfaction granted, previous to any other discussion.
This demand prevailed; the Spanish government agreeing to make full restoration of the captured vessels, and to indemnify the parties interested in them for the losses sustained. They restored also the buildings and tracts of land, of which the British subjects had been dispossessed. The British, however, soon gave a proof of the little value they set on the possession, by a voluntary dereliction, under which it has since remained.
The case which will be noted last, though of a date prior to the case of Nootka Sound, is that of Falkland's Islands. These islands lie about one hundred leagues eastward of the straits of Magellan. The title to them had been a subject of controversy among several of the maritime nations of Europe. From the position of the islands and other circumstances, the pretension of Spain bore an advantageous comparison with those of her competitors. In the year 1770, the British took possession of Port Egmont in one of the islands, the Spaniards being at the time in possession of another part, and protesting against a settlement by the British. The protest being without effect, ships and troops were sent from Buenos Ayres by the governor of that place, which forcibly dispossessed and drove off the British settlers.
The British government looking entirely to the dispossession by force, demanded as a specific condition of preserving harmony between the two courts, not only the disavowal of the Spanish proceedings, but that the affairs of that settlement should be immediately restored to the precise state in which they were previous to the act of dispossession. The Spanish government made some difficulties; requiring particularly a disavowal, on the part of G. Britain, of the conduct of her officer at Falkland's islands, which it was alleged, gave occasion to the steps taken by the Spanish governor; and proposing an adjustment by mutual stipulation in the ordinary form.
The reply was, that the moderation of his Britannic majesty having limited his demand to the smallest reparation he could accept for the injury done, nothing was left for discussion but the mode of carrying the disavowal and restitution into execution; reparation losing its value if it be conditional, and to be obtained by any stipulation whatever from the party injured.
The Spanish government yielded. The violent proceedings of its officers were disavowed. The fort, the port, and every thing else were agreed to be immediately restored to the precise situation which had been disturbed; and duplicates of orders issued for the purpose to the Spanish officers, were delivered into the hands of one of the British principal secretaries of state. Here again it is to be remarked, that satisfaction having been made for the forcible dispossession, the islands lost their importance in the eyes of the British government, were in a short time evacuated, and port Egmont remains with every other part of them in the hands of Spain.
Could stronger pledges have been given than are here found, that an honorable and instant reparation would be made in a case, differing no otherwise from those recited, than as it furnished to the same monarch of a great nation, an opportunity to prove, that adhering always to the same immutable principle, he was as ready to do right to others, as to require it for himself?
Returning to the instructions given to the minister plenipotentiary of the U. States at London, I am to observe that the President thought it just and expedient to insert as a necessary ingredient in the adjustment of the outrage committed on the American frigate, a security against the future practice of the British naval commanders, in impress-
(Continued on last page.)

(Continued from last page.)
wards a state in amity with their sovereign, and had they not carefully repressed the feelings its tone and language had a direct tendency to provoke in them, would have rather excited, than have averted the evils it was stated to be intended to prevent; were they regardful of these duties it was unnecessary. Had they felt themselves obliged completely to evacuate the waters of the U. States, especially whilst an enemy's squadron was harbored in them, they could have done it; but under the admission of hostile compulsion, and under such compulsion, carried into full effect, his majesty could not have disseminated the extent of the injury received.
In the several cases adduced, in which G. Britain required certain preliminaries, previously to entering into negotiation, she regulated her conduct by the same principles to which she now adheres, and refused, whilst no hostility was exhibited on her part, to treat with powers, whose proceedings denoted it towards her; and who maintained their right in what they had assumed.
From the considerations thus offered, I trust that neither the order of reason or that of usage are in contradiction to the demand I have urged, nor am I aware how the order of time opposes the revocation in the first instance of that act, which affects injuriously one of the parties and is still avowed by the other.
The subject is thus presented to you, sir, in the light which it was natural that it should offer itself to his majesty's government. It certainly conceived the President's proclamation to rest chiefly, and most materially upon the attack made upon the frigate of the U. States, the Chesapeake, by his majesty's ship, the Leopard, although other topics were adduced as accessories. In this apprehension it may be held to have been sufficiently warranted, by the precise time at which, and the circumstances under which it was issued, and by its whole context, and the more so, as the impulse under which it was drawn up, appears to have been so sudden as to have precluded a due examination of all the grounds of allegation contained in it. And here I beg leave to assure you, that with respect to the spirit and tone of that instrument, it would be highly satisfactory to me, if I could feel myself justified in expressing on the part of his majesty any degree of coincidence with the opinions you have announced, or when thus appealed to, and making every allowance for the irritation of the moment, I could dissemble the extreme surprise experienced by G. Britain, that the government of a friendly nation, even before an amicable demand of reparation was made, and yet meaning to make that demand, should have issued an edict directing measures of injury very disproportionate to what it knew was an unauthorized offence, &c. both in its terms and its purport so injurious to the government to which that demand was to be addressed, and tending to call forth in both nations, the feelings under which a friendly adjustment would be the most difficult. But if, as I learn from you, sir, the proclamation rests substantially on other causes, it is then, peculiarly to be regretted, that, together with the demand for redress made in September last, the government of the U. States did not think fit to offer a negotiation, or an explanation of so momentous a measure, or to declare that its recall must be more or less connected with the adjustment of other alleged wrongs. Neither did it think it necessary to return any answer to the remonstrance given in by his majesty's envoy at Washington, on the 13th July, 1807, in which he represented "that he considered that interdiction to be so unfriendly in its object, and so injurious in its consequences to his majesty's interests, that he could not refrain from expressing the most sincere regret that it ever should have been issued, and most earnestly deprecating its being enforced."
It could not be supposed that a circumstance of so great weight could be overlooked by his majesty's government, in determining the line of conduct to be held in the negotiation: and as little could it be expected to pass it over, when on the failure of the discussion with Mr. Monroe, it directed a special mission to be sent to the United States. It had the less reason to imagine that any other grievances could be connected with that for the adjustment of which I am empowered to negotiate, as Mr. Monroe, in his letter to Mr. Canning of the 29th of July last, had stated with respect to other subjects of remonstrance, that it was improper to mingle them with the present more serious cause of complaint; an opinion to which Mr. Canning declared his perfect assent in his letter to that minister
of the 2d of the subsequent month; so that this act was left as single and distinct, to be singly and distinctly considered. His majesty's government, therefore, could not consistently with any view of the subject then before it, or indeed with the just object of my mission, direct or empower me to enter upon matters not connected with that of the Chesapeake; and they could with the less propriety do it, as in order to render the adjustment of differences of such a nature, the more easy and the more conspicuous, the ministers charged especially with such offices have been with few if any exceptions, restricted to the precise affair to be negotiated. With respect therefore to those other causes of complaint, upon which you inform me that the President's proclamation rests, I cannot be furnished with documents enabling me either to admit or to controvert those statements of grievances, foreign to the attack upon that ship, contained in your letter, or authorized to discuss the matters themselves. I shall therefore not allow myself to offer such comments as my personal knowledge of some of those transactions suggest to me, although their tendency would materially affect both the marked manner in which those transactions are portrayed, and the disadvantageous lights in which his majesty's government is represented to have acted respecting them. I am moreover led to the persuasion that my government will be the more easily able to rescue itself from inculpation, by the inference arising from passages in Mr. Monroe's letter to Mr. Secretary Canning, of the 29th of September last, that the differences unhappily existing between the two nations were in a train of adjustment.
If his majesty has not permitted me to enter into the discussion of the search of neutral merchant ships for British seamen, together with the adjustment of the amount of reparation for the attack upon the Chesapeake; it was no-wise with a view of precluding the further agitation of that question at a suitable time; but it was that the negotiation might be relieved from the embarrassment arising from the connection of the present matter with the one so foreign to it, and, as it was but too well known, so difficult to be adjusted, of a right distinctly disclaimed, with one which Great Britain has at all times asserted of enforcing her claim, to the services of her natural born subjects, when found on board merchant vessels of other nations; a claim which she founds in that principle of universal law, which gives to the state the right of requiring the aid & assistance of her native citizens. The recurrence, therefore, to that course of negotiation, which had been originally settled between Mr. Secretary Canning, and Mr. Monroe, & which had been alone broken in upon by the orders subsequently received by that minister, can only be considered as a resumption of that course of things which Great Britain strenuously contended there was no ground to depart from. I may observe, that this purpose might have been effected without the intervention of a special minister.
It will be in your recollection, sir, that in our first interview, I stated the condition, which makes the subject of the present letter, before I was informed by you, that the president of the United States would consent to the separation of the two subjects.
I had trusted that the exposition, which I added in my letter of the 26th of January to the verbal explanation I had before offered, of the grounds of his majesty's demand, was both in its purport, and in the terms in which it was couched, such as to prevent a suspicion that they were in their intention derogatory to the honor, or calculated to wound the just sensibility of this nation. I may add that such a supposition could not be reconciled with the various ostensible and unequivocal demonstrations of his majesty's good faith and anxiety, that this transaction should be brought to an amicable termination, which were exhibited even prior to any remonstrances on the part, or by order of this government. The other topics which I felt myself authorized to advance in that letter, in illustration of that amicable disposition on the part of the king, were brought forward from the conviction I entertained that they must be of a nature to be satisfactory to this government, and therefore, such as it was particularly my duty to enforce; but not with a view to rest upon them the right to advance the claim which I have stated.
I may here remark, it is obvious that far from requiring that the first steps towards an arrangement of reparation should be taken by the United States, Great Britain has already made them openly and distinctly:
they are indubitable testimonies to the respect borne and decidedly marked by Great Britain, to the ties of amity subsisting between the two nations, and of her cordial desire to maintain them unimpaired; and as such alone they were urged.
As his majesty would have derived sincere satisfaction from the evidence of corresponding feelings, on the part of the United States, so it would be the more painful to me to dwell upon a series of insults and menaces which, without any provocation of warlike preparation on the part of Great Britain, have been for months accumulated upon her through the U. States, and but too frequently from quarters whose authority necessarily and powerfully commanded attention.
I ought, perhaps, to apologize for advertting to an incidental expression in your letter, if I did not think it right to remove any ambiguity respecting the nature of the claim which G. Britain maintained to her seamen, native citizens of the realm, who have deserted from her service to that of other powers: it is, that on demand they shall be discharged forthwith and consequently they shall instantly be freed from their newly contracted obligations.
Before I close this letter, allow me to state to you, sir, that I have felt it my duty to transmit to his majesty's government, the exposition contained in your letter of the 5th instant, of the various demands on the honor and good faith of Great Britain, on which the complaint is made, that satisfaction has not been afforded to the United States, and on which conjointly with the affair of the Chesapeake, you inform me that the proclamation of the president of the United States of the second of July, 1807, is founded. It will be for his majesty's government to determine, on the part of Great Britain, whether any and what obligations remain to be fulfilled by her. Whether any denial, or such protraction of redress have occurred on her part, as to render necessary or justifiable the perseverance in an edict, which, when not necessary or justifiable, assumes a character of aggression; and whether on the result of these considerations, the present negotiation can be resumed on the part of his majesty, with a due regard for his own honor, or with a prospect of a more successful termination.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient and most humb. servant, (Signed) G. H. ROSE.
PAPERS RELATIVE TO FRENCH AFFAIRS.
Extract from a letter to Mr. Monroe from General Armstrong. PARIS, 7th July, 1807.
Sir, The accounts you have had of recent captures made by French privateers of American vessels under cover of the decree of November last, are not correct. At least if such captures have been made, I know nothing of them. The only captures I have at any time heard of, were those made from Porto Ferrajo. They are by no means of recent date, and have all (I believe) been redressed by the council of prizes. Two of these cases, to which I attended personally, received decisions equally favorable and prompt. Interest and damages were given to the plaintiffs, and I know not why decisions, equally favorable, should not have been given in the other cases. I have within a week been informed by Mr. Erving, that he had reason to believe that a French privateer, then in a port of Spain, had plundered American ships, either going to or coming from England, of dry goods, to the amount of 300 dollars. Before any thing could be done in Spain for the recovery of these goods, the ship went to sea, and professedly for the purpose of returning to the port of her armament. Believing her to have arrived there, I put all the evidence I possessed before M. Decres, who closes his answer with the following assurance: "Your excellency may be assured that as far as it depends on me, the captains of these vessels, or their owners, shall obtain, if there is ground for it, a prompt and full reparation." I quote this to shew you, that there is no disposition in the ministers of this government to sanction, or protect those enterprizes upon our commerce. From the uses you may be able to make of the facts, and their relation to your question generally, I subjoin a brief exposition of the construction now given to the November decree. It was, you know, admitted by both ministerial and judicial authorities, that this decree did not infringe the provisions of the treaty of 1800, between the United States and France. Still it was contended that vessels (of the U. S.) coming from any port of Great Britain since the date of the edict, could not be admitted to entry in the ports of France. This rule,
without some qualifications, was likely to become mischievous, and I accordingly obtained the following modifications of it, and hope to obtain a further modification, which will render it perfectly harmless. These changes took place as circumstances rose to produce them, for though the necessity for them was both foreseen and represented, it was only upon real, not upon hypothetical cases that the ministers of his majesty were willing to act.
1. Vessels leaving ports of the United States before a knowledge of the arrest had been promulgated there, are not subject to the rule.
2. Vessels not coming directly from a British to a French port, are not subject to the rule.
3. The cargoes of vessels coming directly from a British to a French port and offered for entry, on proof that the touching of the ship in England, &c. was involuntary, are put in depot or sequestration, until his majesty shall have decided on the sufficiency of the proof offered; or they are at once given up to the consignees on their giving security to abide the decision which shall be ultimately taken by the emperor in their respective cases. The vessels can go out freely, and without impediment of any kind. The former rule of which this is an amelioration was, that ships as well as cargoes, coming under the description, should be sequestered, &c. The further alteration which I have asked is, the establishment of some principle which shall regulate the kind and degree of proof required with respect to the alleged application of a force majeure, and my own opinion is, that this may best be found in the greater or less correspondence which shall exist between the cargo when shipped in America, and when arrived here. If the correspondence be complete, the evidence ought to be considered as complete also, that they were not in Great Britain for the purposes of commerce, and not being there for these purposes, the inference is fair, that their going there at all was involuntary. This is a rule the ministers will consent to, whether his majesty will do so also, will be known in a few days. He is expected here about the beginning of August."
Paris, September 18, 1807. I have submitted, sir, to his majesty the emperor and king, the doubts of his excellency the minister of marine and colonies, on the extent of some of the provisions of the imperial decree of November 21st, 1806, which has declared the British islands in a state of blockade; the following are the intentions of his majesty on the point in question.
1. Can armed vessels, under the imperial decree of the 21st of November last, seize in neutral vessels, either English property, or merchandise proceeding from the manufactures of the English territories?
His majesty notified me, that since he had not thought proper to express any exception in his decree, there is no ground to make any in the execution, with respect to any thing whatever.
2. His majesty has not decided the question whether French armed vessels may possess themselves of neutral vessels going to or from England, although they have no English merchandise on board.
3. On the question, whether French armed vessels are subject to the deduction ordered by the sixth article of the decree of November 21, his majesty has declared that the provision of that article was not susceptible of any restriction; that is to say, that the deduction must take effect on the proceeds of all confiscations of merchandise and property, which have been, or may be, pronounced in execution of the decree, without regard to the place of seizure or character of the captors.
You will be so good, sir, as to notify these decisions to the council of prizes, to have them entered in the registers, and to acknowledge the receipt of my letter.
Acknowledged &c. &c. the Grand Judge, Minister of Justice. (Signed) REGNIER.
Procureur General Imperial of the Council of Prizes.
Paris, 24 September, 1807.
Sir—I have this moment learned, that a new and extended construction, highly injurious to the commerce of the United States, was about to be given to the imperial decree of the 21st of November last. It is therefore incumbent upon me to ask from your excellency an explanation of his majesty's views in relation to this subject, and particularly whether it be his majesty's intention, in any degree, to infringe the obligations of the treaty now subsisting between the United States and the French empire?
I pray your excellency, &c. &c. (Signed) JOHN ARMSTRONG. His excellency the minister of foreign relations.
Fontainebleau, Oct. 7, 1807.
Sir—You did me the honor on the 24th of September, to request me to send you some explanations as to the execution of the decree of blockade of the British islands, as to vessels of the U. States.
The provisions of all the regulations and treaties relative to a state of blockade, have appeared applicable to the existing circumstances, and it results from the explanations which have been addressed to me by the imperial procureur general of the council of prizes, that his majesty has considered every neutral vessel, going from English ports, with cargoes of English merchandise or English origin, as lawfully seizible by French armed vessels.
The decree of blockade has been now issued eleven months, the principal powers of Europe, far from protesting against its provisions, have adopted them; they have perceived that its execution must be complete, to render it more effectual, and it has seemed easy to reconcile these measures with the observance of treaties, especially at a time when the infractions, by England, of the rights of all maritime powers render their interest common, and tend to unite them in support of the same cause.
Acknowledged &c. &c. (Signed) CHAMPAGNY. H. E. General Armstrong, Min. Plen. of the U. States.
Paris, Nov. 1807.
Sir—It was not till yesterday that I received from Mr. Skipwith a copy of the decree of the council of prizes, in the case of the Horizon. This is the first unfriendly decision of that body under the decree of the 21st of Nov. 1806. In this case and on the petition of the defendant, the court has recommended the restoration of the whole cargo. I did not however think proper to join in asking as a favor, what I believed myself entitled to as a right. I subjoin a copy of my note to the minister of foreign affairs.
And am sir, your most obedient humble servant. (Signed) JOHN ARMSTRONG. Mr. Madison, &c.
Paris, November 12th, 1807.
Sir—The document to which these observations are prefixed, will inform your excellency that an American ship trading under the protection of the laws of nations and of particular treaties, and suffering shipwreck on the coast of France, has recently been seized by his majesty's officers, and adjudged by his council of prizes as follows, viz.
"Our council puts at liberty the American vessel, the Horizon, shipwrecked the 30th of May last, near Morlaix, and consequently orders, that the amount of the sale legally made of the wreck of the said vessel, together with the merchandise of the cargo, which according to an estimate made in presence of the overseers of the administrations of the marine and custom house, shall be acknowledged not to proceed either from English manufactures or territory, shall be restored to captain MacClure without deducting any other expenses but those relative to the sale."
"And with regard to the other merchandise of the cargo which from the result of the said estimate shall be acknowledged to come from manufactures or from English territory by virtue of the 5th article of the decree of the 21st Nov. 1806, they shall be confiscated for the use of the state, the whole to be sold by the forms prescribed in the regulations; and the application of the product to be made in conformity to the arrangements of the said decree, deduction being made for the expense of saving the goods, and that of the support of the crew, until the day that the captain shall receive the notification of the present decision."
The reasons upon which this decision is founded, are at once so new and so alarming to the present friendly relation of the two powers, that I cannot but discuss them with a freedom in some degree proportioned to my sense of their novelty and importance.
"Considering" says the council—"That the neutrality of the ship and cargo were sufficiently established, the whole ought to be restored, (agreeably to the provisions of the convention of the 30th of September, 1800) provided no merchandise of English origin had been found in her, and of course that she had not been brought within the limits of the imperial decree of the 21st of Nov. 1806."
Here is an open and unqualified admission that the ship was found within the rules prescribed by the convention of 1800, that according to these rules, her cargo and herself ought to have been restored, and that such would have been the fact but for the operation of the decree of the 21st of

November, 1806.
In the letter your excellency did me the honor to write to me on the 7th of October last, you thought it "easy to reconcile the obligations of this decree, with the preservation of those arising from treaties." It was not for me to examine the means by which this reconciliation was to be effected. They no doubt fully existed, and yet exist, in his Majesty's good pleasure, and taking for granted this fact, I saw in the opinion nothing but proofs of a friendly disposition, and pledges that this was not to be either wantonly destroyed or diminished. How inauspicious however its authority and the consolation derived from it, is this recent act of the council of prizes? An act which explicitly acknowledges the opposite characters and conflicting injunctions of these two instruments, and which of course draws after it considerations the most serious to the government of the U. S.
The 2d reason of the Council is "that the decree declaring British merchandise good prize, had principally in view captures made on the high seas, but that the question whether shipwrecked goods ought to be restored or confiscated having always been judged under the 14th article of the regulation of the 26th of July, 1778. And according to their character (that might have rendered lawful, or have even commanded their seizure at sea) there is no room to introduce in this case any new distinction which, however philanthropic it may appear, has not as yet been adopted as a rule by any maritime nation."
The doctrine resisted in this passage, and which inculcates the duty of extending protection to the unfortunate is not new to his majesty's council of prizes. They have themselves consecrated it by their decision of the 5th of March, 1800. By that decision they restored an enemy's ship on the single reason , that she had been compelled to enter a French port by stress of weather . "I should equally fail" says the attorney general, "in respect to myself and the council, before whom I have the honor to represent the government, were I not to maintain a prin. ipl. , consecrated by our laws and by those of all nations. In all circumstances let the loyalty of the French government serve as the basis of your decisions. Prove yourselves at once generous and just;—your enemies will know and respect your magnanimity." Such was the principle adopted by the council in the year 1800, and in the case of an enemy's ship, yet we are now told, that this very principle, so honorable to the court, to the nation and to human nature, is utterly unknown to all maritime people. And on what occasion do we hear this? When an enemy's ship is again thrown on the French coast? No—it has been reserved for the wreck of a neutral and friendly vessel! for a ship of the United States! It is not denied, that had this ship escaped the rocks and made the port of Morlaix, the only hospitality to which she would have been exposed, (under the most rigorous interpretation of the law in question,) would have been that of being ordered again to sea. Has then the misfortune of shipwreck so far altered her condition, as to expose her to the injury of confiscation also? And is this among the principles which the defender of maritime rights means to consecrate by his power and his wisdom? It is impossible.
The 3d reason of the council is, "that the application of the fifth article aforesaid, in as far as it concerns the Americans and other nations, is the result both of the general expressions of that very article, and of the communication recently made by his excellency the grand judge, concerning the primitive intention of the sovereign, that the expedition in question, having certainly been undertaken with full knowledge of the said decree, no objection can be drawn with any propriety from the general rules forbidding a retro-spective action, nor in this particular case, from the posterior date of the act in which the sovereign decides the question, since that act sprung from his supreme wisdom, not as an interpretation of a doubtful point, but as a declaration of an anterior and positive disposition."
A distinction is here attempted to be taken between the interpretation of a doubtful point, and the declaration of an anterior and positive rule. This distinction cannot be maintained; for if the rule had been positive, there would have been no occasion for the declaration; neither the minister of marine nor the council of prizes could have had any doubts on the subject; the execution of the decree would have been prompt and peremptory; nor would a second act on the part of his majesty, after the lapse of 12 months, have been necessary to give operation to the first . Need I appeal to your excellency's memory for the facts on which these remarks turn? You
know that doubts did exist—you know that there was under them even much hesitation in pronouncing—you know that as late as the 9th of August, I sought an explanation of the decree in question, and that even then your excellency (who was surely a competent and legitimate organ of his majesty,) did not think yourself prepared to give it—the conclusion is inevitable—his majesty's answer transmitted to the court of Paris, on the 18th of September following, through the medium of the grand judge, was in the nature of an interpretation , and being so, could not without possessing a retroactive quality apply to events many months anterior in date to itself.
The 4th reason of the council, and the last which enters into my present view of the subject, is, "that though one of the principal agents of his majesty had given a contrary opinion, of which the council had at no period partaken, this opinion being that of an individual could not (whatever consideration it, author may merit,) balance the formal declaration given in the name of his majesty himself—and that if the communication of this opinion, had as is alleged, given room to and served as a basis for many American shipments, and particularly of the one in question; this circumstance, which may call for the indulgence of his majesty, in a case in which the confiscation is entirely to the advantage of the state, does not prevent a council, rigid in its duty, to pronounce in conformity to the decree of the 21st of Nov. and of the declaration which followed it."
It would appear from the paragraph, that not finding it easy to untie the knot, the council had determined to cut it. Pressed by the fact, that an interpretation of the decree had been given by a minister of his majesty, especially charged with its execution , they would now escape from this fact, and from the conclusion to which it evidently leads, by alleging—
1st. That at no time has the council partaken of the opinion given by the minister; and
2nd. That the opinion being that of an individual, could not possess either the force or the authority of one truly ministerial.
It appears to me, as I think it will to your excellency, that the council have in these statements, been less correct than is usual to them on similar occasions, if, as they now assert, they have never partaken of the ministers opinion. If they have never even hesitated on the question, whether the decree of November did, or did not, derogate from the treaty of 1800? Why, I ask, suspend the American cases generally? or why decide as they did in the case of the Hibernia? If I mistake not, we find in this case, the negotiation of the very principle laid down by the minister of marine. That officer says "in my opinion the November decree does not work any change in the rules at present observed with respect to neutral commerce, and consequently none in the convention of the 8th vendem, year 9;" and what says the council? "Admitting that this part of the cargo (the rum and ginger) was of British origin, the dispositions of the November decree, which contain nothing with regard to their own influence over the convention of the 8th Vendem, year 9, evidently cannot be applied to a ship leaving America on the 6th of the same month of November, and of course cannot have authorized her capture in the moment she was entering the neutral port of her destination." We have here three distinct grounds of exemption from the effects of the November decree.
1st. The entire silence of that decree with regard to its own influence over the convention of 1800. 2d. The early period at which the ship left the United States, and 3d. The neutral character of the port to which she was destined. If such, sir, were the principles admitted by the council of the 25th of March last, with what correctness can it be now said, "that at no period have they partaken of the opinion of the minister?"
The 2d fact asserted by the council is, that the interpretation of the decree in question given on the 24th of December, 1806, was private, not public , or in other words, that it was the interpretation of the man , not that of the minister —and as such cannot outweigh the more recent declaration coming immediately from his majesty himself. On the comparative weight of these declarations I shall say nothing, nor shall I do more to repel the first part of the insinuation, (that the minister's declaration was that only of the individual) than to submit to your excellency my letter of the 20th of December, 1806, claiming from the minister an official interpretation of the decree in question, and his answer of the 24th of the same month, giving to me the interpretation demanded.
To your excellency who as late as the 21st of Aug. last, considered the minister of marine as the natural organ of his majesty's will, in whatever
regarded the decree aforesaid, and who actually applied to him for information relating to it—this allegation of the council of prizes, and the reasoning founded upon it cannot but appear very extraordinary, and will justify me in requesting that his majesty may be moved to set aside the decision in question. I beg, &c. &c. His Excellency
The Minister of Foreign Relations.
Paris, August 9th, 1807. Sir—Your Excellency is not unapprized that soon after the promulgation of the Imperial Decree of the 21st of November last, one of similar character, and injunction was issued by the Prince of Peace, in behalf of H. C. M. Under this order sundry vessels belonging to the citizens of the United States have been captured on the high seas, brought into the ports of Spain, and are now before the court of admiralty for examination. To this brief statement I subjoin an extract from a letter of the 27th ult. from the Charge des Affaires of the United States at Madrid, which will show your Excellency that the fate of these vessels will depend not on the construction which might be given to the Spanish decree by the Spanish tribunals; but on the practice which shall have been established by France, under her decree of November last, and that Prince Masserano has accordingly been directed to ask from your Excellency such exposition of that decree, and of the practice under it, as shall regulate, on this head, the conduct of Spanish courts and cruisers towards neutral commerce in general. Assured as I feel myself, that this exposition whenever given, will not be less friendly & liberal than that already found in the decisions of his Imperial majesty's council of prizes and correspondence of his minister of marine, viz that the provisions of the decree in question do not infract any of the rights of commerce stipulated by treaty between France and the U. States, it is incumbent on me to pray your Excellency that it (the exposition required) be given as expeditiously as possible, to the end that the legitimate commerce of the U. States be relieved from all further annoyance, growing out of the doubtful meaning and operation of the Spanish decree aforesaid.
Your excellency will permit me to avail myself of this occasion, to recall to your attention the subject of my letter of the 26th of June last. I learn from Antwerp that the cargoes mentioned in that letter are yet under sequestration, and that considerable loss, as well by diminution of price in the articles, as by accumulation of interest and charges, has been already incurred.
Your excellency will do me the honor to accept the assurances of my profound respect.
(Signed) JOHN ARMSTRONG. His excellency
The Prince of Benevento. Letter from the minister of Foreign Relations, of the 21st of Aug. 1807, referred to in the preceding page.
Sir—I have received the letter which you did me the honor of addressing me on the 9th of this month, relative to American vessels carried into ports of Spain, in consequence of the measures taken by that power against the English commerce in imitation of France.
As the execution of the maritime measures indicated by the Imperial Decree of the 21st of Nov. 1806, rests naturally with his Excellency the Minister of Marine, and that moreover he has already had the honor of addressing you some first observations on the application of that decree, I transmitted without delay your letter, and asked from him the new explanations which you might desire. When they shall have been forwarded to me, I will have the honor of informing you of them.
Accept the assurance of my high consideration.
(Signed) CHAMPAGNY.
H. E. Gen. Armstrong.
[Here follows the Milan Decree.]
TUITIO. A Young Man of experience in teaching, wishes for a situation as a private tutor. He can produce satisfactory recommendations, and has no objection to go to any part of the United States. Enquire of the Printer. M. C. 30-8
PUBLIC SALE. By order of the Orphan's Court of Washington county, District of Columbia, the subscriber will offer at Public Sale, on Friday the 8th of April,
Part of the Personal Estate of John Wright, deceased, consisting of Wheat, Corn, Oats, Rye, Horses, horse-drawn Cattle; among which there is one lot of valuable Oxen, Hogs, Sheep, Poultry, Utensils, &c. The sale will commence at 11 o'clock, A. M.—Terms all sums under 20 dollars cash, above that sum a credit of six months, the purchaser giving bond, with approved security, to bear interest from the 1st.
WASHINGTON BOYD Exrs of AND J. Wight, GEORGE MOORE, Sec'd. March 30—eptds
WASHINGTON CITY.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30.
We this day finish the publication of the entire correspondence on the affair of the Chesapeake. We again repeat the hope that it will be attentively read by every citizen of this country; and we hazard nothing in affirming, that after such a perusal there can be but one opinion entertained by the great mass of the people. Those in systematic opposition, either to republican principles, or the measures of the administration, may, perhaps, condemn the course pursued on this occasion, as they have invariably censured that heretofore pursued on all others. But, with the exception of this small class of men, who have no political weight in the nation, the award will be unanimous. This award has indeed been already given. If there ever was an instance in which the public sentiment avowed itself without equivocation, it was on the occurrence of this black outrage; and the demand for reparation formed at least as prominent a feature as any other part of the expectation expressed. This demand has been made, in a spirit of unexampled moderation; and in a spirit, in every respect the opposite, it has been refused. And on what ground? On the ground, that the proclamation of the President should be rescinded. Why? For reasons which Mr. Rose has assigned, and Mr. Madison answered, in a style, which it were absurd to attempt to elucidate.
We also present our readers with "all the communications, official or verbal, from the French government, respecting the general relations between the two countries, which have been transmitted through our minister there, or through any other accredited channel, since the last session of Congress; to which time all information of the same kind had, from time to time, been given them," including the celebrated letter of M. Champagny. They will be astonished at the little these papers contain, and at their absolute disproof of the charges of French influence and the withholding of documents which established it. If they are astonished, ought not those who propagated these charges to be confounded. The charges were propagated in the belief that the Executive would not make the disclosures professedly coveted with so much solicitude; but to their confusion they are made, and the nation, called upon to judge, has thus unexpectedly to them got the materials for forming a just judgment. That judgment will be pronounced.
* Message of President.
At a meeting of thirty-eight Constitutional members of the legislature of Pennsylvania, it has been unanimously determined to support James Madison for President, and George Clinton for Vice-President.
MONDAY, MARCH 28.
Messrs. Sawyer, Kelly, Kenan, Mumford, and Cutts obtained leave of absence for the remainder of the session.
The bill authorizing a detachment of the militia, was returned from the Senate, concurred with. [When this bill was before this House, it passed by a very large majority. Mr. Stanford wished it to be entered on the journals as having passed unanimously; but the question having been again put, it appeared that there was one negative to the bill.]
The House resumed the reading of the documents accompanying the message from the President of the U. S. of the 22d inst. in which they were occupied until the usual hour of adjournment.
TUESDAY, MARCH 29.
Messrs. Cook, Boyle, Stedman and Poindexter obtained leave of absence for the remainder of the session.
Mr. Ely presented the petition of a number of the inhabitants of the town of Northampton, Massachusetts, complaining of the hardships of the several laws relative to an embargo, praying that a war with Great Britain may be avoided, and pledging themselves to support the government against the encroachment of any nation.—Referred to a committee of the whole on the state of Union, 45 to 41.
Mr. Boyle, from the committee on Public Lands, reported a bill relinquishing to the corporation of the city of New Orleans, the right of the U. States to the Batture, in the front of the Suburb of St. Mary's, and for other purposes; which was twice read, and referred to a committee of the whole.
The House then resumed the reading of the documents accompanying the message from the President of the 22d inst.
The reading of these papers having been concluded, they were referred to a committee of the whole on the state of the Union.
Mr. Milnor called up the consideration of a resolution which he yesterday
laid on the table to rescind the order of the House for printing 5000 copies of all the papers accompanying the President's communication, and instead of this number to print 1500 copies, except so far as the same is already executed.
After some observations in support of the motion by Messrs. Milnor & Smilie, & objections by Messrs. Macon, Stanford, Randolph, Lyon and Southard,
Mr. Milnor withdrew the motion.
Mr. Dawson said, it would be remembered that when the late message was received from the President, a bill was under consideration for raising an additional military force. He moved that it be now taken up.
The House having resumed the consideration of the bill,
Mr. Macon observed, that this bill was predicated on a message from the President, inclosing a report from the Secretary of war. The House was now possessed of all the information which might have led to this message. When this bill had been last under discussion the number of men had been increased from 6000 men to 9000. Mr. M. said, he was averse to going beyond the force which had been deemed necessary by the executive, and which, as he understood, was but intended for garrison service. Under this consideration he moved to re-commit the bill to the committee on our military and naval establishments; those who were desirous of giving such force as was thought necessary by the officers of government, would vote for recommitment, and those who wished to exceed that number would vote against it.
Mr. Dawson thought this question had been already decided; for on a question to encrease the number, formally put a few days ago, it had passed by an almost unanimous vote.
Mr. Macon remarked in reply, that the gentleman had correctly stated the fact; but that decision had taken place prior to reading the papers communicated with the President's message. If the information given had operated neither one way nor the other, the decision would undoubtedly be the same.
Mr. Macon's motion was carried. 53 to 46.
Mr. Rowan called for the consideration of the resolution for enquiry relative to Harry Innes; but upon the representation of Mr. Taylor, that it could not well be decided until the papers which formed its basis had been printed, Mr. R. withdrew his motion.
Mr. Talmadge, from a select committee to whom had been referred the subject of the invalid corps, reported a bill for the relief of the infirm, disabled and superannuated officers and soldiers of the army of the United States.—Twice read and referred to a committee of the whole.
On motion of Mr. Rhea, T. the House went into committee of the whole, Ayes 55, Mr. Maslers in the Chair, on the bill respecting the post office and post roads. The committee having made some progress therein, at the usual hour of adjournment rose and obtained leave to sit again.
Mr. Dawson from the committee to whom the bill was this day re-committed reported the bill for raising an additional military force, with one amendment, to wit: To strike out 96 (the number of each company of infantry) and insert 63. Committed to a committee of the whole.
WHEREAS the SUBSCRIBER together with John Stockwell the Elder, and George Johnston and Jane his wife of the county of Tyrone in the kingdom of Ireland, executed a power of attorney, dated the 9th day of April 1806, authorizing John Stockwell jun. to receive, and to sell and convey all the estate, real and personal to which we were entitled under the wills or as heirs at law of Mark Stockwell late of the city of Washington, or of Henry Stockwell late of Philadelphia consisting principally of Lots in the city of Washington, and Lands in Greenbrier, and Kenaway, counties in Virginia. Now know all to whom this writing shall come, that we, for good cause, do hereby revoke and entirely annul the said letter of attorney herein before mentioned.
Given under our hands and seals this 28th day of March 1808. (Seal) JAMES HANCOCK. March 30—3t
PROPOSALS For publishing by subscription, a new work, entitled,
"THE LAWYER; OR MAN AS HE OUGHT NOT TO BE." A Tale.
CONDITIONS. 1. This work will be printed on fine paper, and handsomely bound in board. 2. It will be published in one duodecimo volume of about 250 pages, and delivered to subscribers at one dollar. 3. Those who shall obtain 12 subscribers, shall be entitled to one copy gratis. 4. As the expence of publication will be considerable, a discount of one eighth of a dollar will be allowed to such as pay in advance.
Subscriptions for the above work are received at the book store of D. Rapine, Capitol Hill, where a general assortment of books and stationery are always kept for sale.

Continued from first page. ing from merchant vessels of the U. S. on the high seas, such of their crews as they might and take to denounce British subjects.
To this association of the two subjects, the President was determined, 1st, by his regard both as resting on kindred principles; the immunity of private ships, with the known exceptions made by the laws of nations, being as well established as that of public ships; and there being no pretext for including in these exceptions the innocent (if it could be freed from its errors and notorious abuses) of the subjects of a belligerent by the officers of that belligerent. The rights of a belligerent against the ships of a neutral nation, come merely from the relation of the neutral to the other belligerent, as in conveying to him contraband of war, or in supplying a belligerent port.
The claim of a belligerent to search for, and seize on board neutral vessels on the high seas, persons under his allegiance, does not therefore rest on any belligerent right under the law of nations, but on a prerogative derived from municipal law; and involves the extravagant supposition, that one nation has a right to execute at all times and in all cases, its municipal laws and regulations, on board the ships of another nation not being within its territorial limits.
The President was led to the same determination, 2dly, by his desire of converting a particular incident into an occasion for removing another and more extensive source of danger to the harmony of the two countries; and 3dly, by his persuasion, that the liberality of the propositions authorized with this view, would not fail to induce the ready concurrence of his Britannic majesty; and that the more extensive source of irritation and perplexity being removed, a satisfactory adjustment of the particular incident would be the less difficult. The President still thinks that such would have been the tendency of the mode for which he had provided; and he cannot, therefore, but regret that the door was shut against the experiment, by the peremptory refusal of Mr. Canning to admit it into discussion, even in the most informal manner, as was suggested by Mr. Monroe.
The President felt the greater regret, as the step he had taken towards a more enlarged and lasting accommodation, became thus a bar to the adjustment of the particular and recent aggression which had been committed against the U. S. He found, however, an alleviation in the signified purpose of his Britannic majesty, to charge with this adjustment a special mission to the U. S. which, restricted as it was, seemed to indicate a disposition from which a liberal and conciliatory arrangement of one great object at least might be confidently expected.
In this confidence, your arrival was awaited with every friendly solicitude; and our first interview having opened the way by an acquiescence in the separation of the two cases insisted on by his Britannic majesty, notwithstanding the strong grounds on which they had been united by the President, it was not to be doubted that a tender of the satisfaction claimed by the U. S. for a distinguished and acknowledged insult by one of his officers, would immediately follow.
It was not, therefore, without a very painful surprise, that the error of this expectation was discovered. Instead of the satisfaction due from the original aggressor, it was announced that the first step towards the adjustment must proceed from the party injured; and your letter now before me, formally renews, that as long as the proclamation of the President, which issued on the 21 July, 1807, shall be in force, it will be an insuperable obstacle to a negotiation, even on the subject of the aggression which preceded it; in other words, that the proclamation must be put out of force, before an adjustment of the aggression can be taken into discussion.
In explaining the grounds of this extraordinary demand, it is alleged to be supported by the consideration that the proceeding and pretension of the offending officer has been disavowed: that general assurances are given of a disposition and intention in his Britannic majesty to make satisfaction; that a special minister was dispatched with promptitude for the purpose of carrying into effect this disposition; and that you have a personal conviction that the particular terms, which you are not at liberty previously to disclose, will be deemed by the United States satisfactory.
With respect to the disavowal it would be unjust not to regard it as a proof of candor and amity towards the U. S. and as some presage of the voluntary reparation which it implied to be due. But the disavowal can be the less confounded with the reparation itself; since it was sufficiently required by the respect which G. Britain owed to her own honor; it being impossible that an enlightened government, had hostility been meditated, would have commenced it in such a manner, and in the midst of existing professions of peace and friendship. She owed it also to consistency with the disavowal on a former occasion in which the pretension had been enforced by a British squadron against the sloop of war Baltimore, belonging to the U. S.; and finally to the interest which G. Britain has, more than any other nation, in disclaiming a principle which would expose her superior number of ships of war, to so many indignities from inferior navies.
As little can the general assurances
that reparation would be made, claim a return which could properly follow the actual reparation only. They cannot amount to more than a disposition, or at most a promise to do what the aggressor may deem a fulfilment of his obligation. They do not prove even a disposition to do what may be satisfactory to the injured party, who cannot have less than an equal right to decide on the sufficiency of the reparation.
In dispatching a special minister for the purpose of adjusting the difference, the U. States ought cheerfully to acknowledge all the proof it affords on the part of his Britannic majesty of his pacific views towards them, and of his respect for their friendship. But whilst they could not, under any circumstances, allow to the measure more than a certain participation in an honorable reparation, it is to be recollected that the avowed and primary object of the mission was to substitute for the more extended adjustment proposed by the U. S. at London, a separation of the subjects as preferred by his Britannic majesty, and you well know, sir, how fully this object was accomplished.
With respect to the personal conviction which you have expressed, that the terms which you decline to disclose would be satisfactory to the U. States, it is incumbent on me to observe that with the highest respect for your judgment and the most perfect confidence in your sincerity, an insuperable objection manifestly lies, to the acceptance of a personal and unexplained opinion, in place of a disclosure which would enable this government to exercise its own judgment in a case affecting so essentially its honor and its rights. Such a course of proceeding would be without example; and there can be no hazard in saying that one will never be afforded by a government which respects itself as much as yours justly does; and therefore can never be reasonably expected from one which respects itself as much as this has a right to do.
I forbear, sir, to enlarge on the intrinsic incongruity of the expedient proposed. But I must be allowed to remark, as an additional admonition of the singular and mortifying perplexity in which a compliance might involve the President, that there are in the letter of Mr. Canning, communicating to Mr. Monroe the special mission to the U. S. pregnant indications that other questions and conditions may have been contemplated which would be found utterly irreconcilable with the sentiments of this nation.
If neither any nor all of these considerations can sustain the preliminary demand made in your communication, it remains to be seen whether such a demand rests with greater advantage on the more precise ground on which you finally seem to place it.
The proclamation is considered as a hostile measure, and a discontinuance of it as due to the discontinuance of the aggression which led to it.
It has been sufficiently shown that the proclamation, as appears on the face of it, was produced by a train of occurrences terminating in the attack on the American frigate, and not by this last alone. To a demand therefore that the proclamation be revoked, it would be perfectly fair to oppose a demand that redress be first given for the numerous irregularities which preceded the aggression on the American frigate, as well as for this particular aggression, and that effectual control be interposed against repetitions of them. And as no such redress has been given for the past, notwithstanding the lapse of time which has taken place, nor any such security for the future, notwithstanding the undiminished reasonableness of it, it follows, that a continuance of the proclamation would be consistent with an entire discontinuance of one only of the occurrences from which it proceeded.
But it is not necessary to avail the argument of this view of the case, although of itself entirely conclusive. Had the proclamation been founded on the single aggression committed on the Chesapeake, and were it admitted that the discontinuance of that aggression merely gave a claim to the discontinuance of the proclamation, the claim would be defeated by the incontrovertible fact, that that aggression has not been discontinued. It has never ceased to exist; and is in existence at this moment. Need I remind you, sir, that the seizure and asportation of the seamen belonging to the crew of the Chesapeake, entered into the very essence of that aggression, that with an exception of the victim to a trial forbidden by the most solemn considerations, and greatly aggravating the guilt of its author, the seamen in question are still retained, and consequently that the aggression, if in no other respect, is by that act alone continued and in force.
If the views which have been taken of the subject have the justness which they claim, they will have shown that on no ground whatever can an annulment of the proclamation of July 2d, be reasonably required, as a preliminary to the negotiation with which you are charged. On the contrary, it clearly results, from a recurrence to the causes and object of the proclamation, that, as was at first intimated, the strongest sanctions of G. Britain herself, would support the demand, that previous to a discussion of the proclamation, due satisfaction should be made to the U. States: that this satisfaction ought to extend to all the wrongs which preceded and produced that act; and that even limiting the merits of the question to the single relation of the proclamation to the wrong committed in the
attack on the American frigate, and deciding the question on the principle that a discontinuance of the latter required a right a discontinuance of the former, nothing appears that does not leave such a preliminary destitute of every foundation which could be assumed for it.
With a right to draw this conclusion, the President might have instructed me to close this communication, with the reply stated in the beginning of it; and perhaps in taking this course, he would only have consulted a sensibility, to which most governments would, in such a case, have yielded. But adhering to the moderation by which he has been invariably guided, and anxious to rescue the two nations from the circumstances, under which an abortive issue to your mission, necessarily places them, he has authorized me, in the event of your disclosing the terms of reparation which you believe will be satisfactory, and on its appearing that they are so, to consider this evidence of the justice of his Britannic majesty as a pledge for an effectual interposition with respect to all the abuses against a recurrence of which the proclamation was meant to provide, and to proceed to concert with you, a revocation of that act, bearing the same date with the act of reparation to which the U. States are entitled.
I am not unaware, sir, that according to the view which you appear to have taken of your instructions, such a course of proceeding has not been contemplated by them. It is possible, nevertheless, that a re-examination, in the spirit in which I am well persuaded it will be made, may discover them to be not inflexible to a proposition, in so high a degree, liberal and conciliatory. In every event the President will have manifested his willingness to meet your government on a ground of accommodation, which spares to its feelings, however misapplied he may deem them, every concession not essentially due to these which must be equally respected: and consequently will have demonstrated that the very ineligible posture given to so important a subject in the relations of the two countries, by the unsuccessful termination of your mission, can be referred to no other source, than the rigorous restrictions under which it was to be executed.
I make no apology, sir, for the long interval between the date of your letter and that under which I write. It is rendered unnecessary by your knowledge of the circumstances to which the delay is to be ascribed.
With high consideration and respect, I have the honor to be, sir, your most ob't. serv't.
(Signed) JAMES MADISON. George H. Rose, Esq. His Britannic majesty's minister, &c.
Washington, March, 17, 1808.
Sir—Being deeply impressed with the sense of his majesty's anxiety, that full effect should be given to those views of justice and moderation, by which his conduct has been regulated through the whole of the unfortunate transaction whence the present differences have arisen; & of the disappointment with which he would learn the frustration of his just & equitable purposes; I have felt it incumbent upon me, on the receipt of the letter which you did me the honor to address to me on the 5th instant, to apply anew to this matter the most ample and serious consideration. It is with the most painful sensations of regret that I find myself on the result of it, under the necessity of declining to enter into the terms of negotiation, which by direction of the President of the United States you therein offer. I do not feel myself competent, in the present instance, to depart from those instructions, which I stated in my letter of the 26th of January last, and which preclude me from acceding to the condition thus proposed. I should add, that I am absolutely prohibited from entering upon matters unconnected with the specific object I am authorized to discuss, much less can I thus give any pledge concerning them. The condition suggested, moreover, leads to the direct inference, that the proclamation of the President of the United States of the 2d of July 1807, is maintained either as an equivalent for reparation for the time being, or as a compulsion to make it.
It is with the more profound regret that I feel myself under the necessity of declaring, that I am unable to act upon the terms thus proposed, as it becomes my duty to inform you, in conformity to my instructions, that on the rejection of the demand stated in my former letter, on the part of his majesty, my mission is terminated. And as his majesty's government in providing me with those instructions, did not conceive that after the declaration of his sentiments respecting the affair of the Chesapeake was made known to this government, the state of any transaction pending or unterminated be-
tween the two nations could justify the perseverance in the enforcement of the President's proclamation, I can exercise no discretion on this point.
As on a former occasion I detailed, though minutely, the motives for that demand on the part of his majesty, which I with so much concern learn to be deemed inadmissible by the government of the United States, I should here abstain from an exposition of them, which visibly can have no further effect upon the negotiation, if I did not deem it essential that they should not be left under any misapprehension which I might be able to remove. I shall, therefore, take a short review of the transaction, which has given rise to these discussions, in order the more correctly to determine the soundness of the principle on which that demand is made.
Certain deserters from his majesty's navy, many of them his natural born subjects, having entered into the service of the United States, were repeatedly and fruitlessly demanded by the British officers, of the recruiting officers of the U. States, but were retained in their new service. As it was a matter of notoriety that several of these deserters were on board the frigate of the United States the Chesapeake, they were demanded of that frigate on the high seas by his majesty's ship Leopard, and all knowledge of their presence on board being denied, she was attacked and four of them, one avowedly a native Englishman, were taken out of her. Without being deterred by the consideration of how far circumstances hostile in their nature had provoked, though they undoubtedly by no means justified this act of the British officer, his majesty's government directed, that a positive disavowal of the right of search, asserted in this case, and of the act of the British officer as being unauthorized, and a promise of reparation, should be conveyed to the American minister in London, before he had made any representation by order of the United States. This disavowal made on the 2d of August last, was transmitted by him to his government, before the 6th of that month. But before Mr. Monroe had received his orders to demand reparation, his majesty learnt with what surprise it is needless to dwell upon, that the President of the United States had interdicted by proclamation bearing date the 2d July, 1807, the entry of all their ports to the whole of his navy. This surprise was certainly increased, when in the letter delivered by that minister to require redress for the wrong, although it went into details unconnected with it, not only no concern was expressed on the part of the U. States, at having felt themselves compelled to enact measures of so much injury and indignity towards a friendly power, but no mention was made of the causes of such measures being resorted to, or even of the fact, of their having been adopted. In addition to the embarrassment arising from these circumstances, and the insufficiency of the explanations subsequently given to Mr. Canning, the introduction of a subject foreign to that of the complaint became the main impediment to the success of the discussions which took place in London. When I had the honor to open the negotiation with you, sir, as I had learnt that the president's proclamation was still in force, it became my duty, conformably to my instructions, to require its recall as a preliminary to further discussion: had it not been in force, I was not ordered to have taken it into consideration in the adjustment of reparation, and it was considered as hardly possible that it should not have been recalled immediately upon the knowledge of his majesty's disavowal of the attack upon the Chesapeake, as an unauthorized act. But his majesty could not suffer the negotiation to be carried on, on his behalf, under an interdict, which even if justifiable in the first moment of irritation, cannot be continued after the declaration of his majesty's sentiments upon the transaction, except in a spirit of hostility.
It might have been fairly contended that in the first instance, the exercise of such an act of power, before reparation was refused or unduly protracted, was incompatible with the purposes and essence of pacific negotiation, and with a demand of redress through that channel; but such have been his majesty's conciliatory views, that this argument has not been insisted on, although it might now be the more forcibly urged, as it appears that the government of the U. S. was from the first sensible, that, even had the hostility been meditated by the British government in such a manner, but the exception taken, is to the enforcement continued up to the present time, of a measure which, confined to the tendency, persisted in, not only after he disavowal in question, the promise of the proffer of suitable reparation; and
the renewed assurances of his majesty's amicable disposition, but after security has been given in a public instrument bearing date the 16th of October, 1807, that the claim to the seizure of deserters from the national ships of other powers, cannot again be brought forward by his majesty's naval officers; it is unnecessary to dwell upon the injury and indignity to which his majesty's service is exposed, both touching the freedom and security of persons, and the freedom and security of commerce.
Consents of his agents and accredited ministers in the United States, or as resulting from a measure which in time of war, excludes the whole of one way from all their ports, which po- completely open to the fleets of his enemies: it will be sufficient to observe that even where exemptions from it are granted, they are made subject to such conditions, that of the three last British ships of war, which have entered these ports upon public business, two of them, his majesty's ship Statur having on board a minister sent out for the adjustment of the present differences, and a Schooner bearing dispatches, in consequence of their inability to procure pilots, were obliged to enter these waters without such assistance, and were exposed to considerable danger. G. Britain, by the forms established, could repair the wrong committed, even to the satisfaction of the U. S. no otherwise than by the channel of negotiation; yet she avowed distinctly, that a wrong was committed, and that she was ready to make reparation for it; it cannot therefore be contended that the unavoidable delay of actual reparation subjected her to the imputation of persisting in an aggression, which was disavowed from the first; if this is true, however much she will regret any impediment in the adjustment of a difference, in which the feelings of a nation are so materially interested; can she consistently, with a due care of her own honor and interests, allow it to be concluded on her part, under an adherence to a conduct, which has a decided character of omity in the proceedings held towards her by the other party.
I know not in what view the perseverance in the President's proclamation up to this moment can be considered, but in that of a measure of retaliation; or of self-assumed reparation; or a measure intended to compel reparation; unless it be that which, if I rightly understand, you defer it to be, a measure of precaution.
If, when a wrong is committed, retaliation is instantly resorted to by the injured party, the door to pacific adjustment is closed, and the means of conciliation are precluded. The right to demand reparation is incompatible with the assumption of it. When parties are in a state of mutual hostility, they are so far on a footing, and as such they may treat; but a party disclaiming every unfriendly intention, and giving unequivocal proofs of an amicable disposition, cannot be expected to treat with another whose conduct towards it has the direct effects of actual hostility. If then the enforcement of the president's proclamation, up to the present moment, is a measure of self-assumed reparation it is directly repugnant to the spirit and fact of amicable negotiation; if it is a measure to compel reparation it is equally so: and by the perseverance in it Great Britain is dispensed with the duty of proffering redress. But if it is a measure of precaution, in order to secure reparation, or in order to compel it, it falls under the objections I have just stated. It is a precaution adopted as a guard against acts of violence apprehended on the part of his majesty's naval officers, it surely cannot be considered as being an effectual security as that arising from the renewed assurances of his majesty's friendly disposition, which imply a due observance of the rights of nations with which Great Britain is in amity, by all persons holding authority under his majesty's government; from the disavowal of the pretension of the search of national ships; and from the further assurance of that disavowal given in his majesty's proclamation of the 16th of October last: neither under these concurrent circumstances can the plea of necessity be maintained; and if such a proceeding has not the plea of necessity, it assumes the character of aggression. If these concurrent securities against such an apprehension have any value, the necessity no longer exists; if they are of no value, negotiation cannot be attempted, as the basis upon which it rests, the mutual confidence of the two parties, would be wholly wanting.
From the moment after the unfortunate affair of the Chesapeake, that his majesty's naval commanders in these waters had ascertained that they were safe from the apprehension of that popular fury, and under which the most glaring outrages were committed, and by which they were very naturally led to the supposition that they were objects of particular hostility, and that a state of war against them, requiring precautions on their part, had commenced, no conduct has been imputed to them, which could vindicate the necessity of maintaining in force the president's proclamation. Since that time such of those officers as have been necessitated, by the circumstances of the war to remain in these waters, have held no communication with the shore, except in an instance too trifling to dwell upon, and instantly disavowed by the commanding officer; and they have acquiesced quietly in various privations, highly prejudicial to the service they were upon, and in consequence of an interdict, which had they been regardless of their duties to-
(Continued on second page.)