The Sun.
London, England, 1812-01-03 00:00:00

mot

'To sink the 001 per stcne 01'81b.
Bed; 4s. 6d. to 7s. od.. Mutton, 4s,' loci, to ss. 61. Veal,
6s. tol. to 7s. 6d. Polk, ss. od. to 6s. od.
Beasts, 970 Sheep, 3760. Catvcs, 104. Pigs, 2o).
..t , SMITH-FIELD HAYMARKET.
Hay, 21..t05.
Si'..l, to 51. tss. od. Straw,.2l.'34s. cd.
to, 3L
3s. CloVer,cis. 04. to 61..65. od.

CONN EXCHANGE, JAN. matiet this dg-,'
has not many fresh arrivals of Wheat, and the ,ie-
rnaining, coantities but inconsiderable, waiting
pliesrfew sales-are effeaed, and sPconds, with
.i•it
nor, raiher lower. ; , barley, with Malt, at little liuc-s
Nation Whit 6 Peas, and Beans of each'description,
at somewhat less;: we have but few flesh 'arrival-4
of Oats, and sales in this trade are alio rimed at
little fluaila'oti Flour, from the late.
scarcely snppOrts the general quoted prices.

, .:
\
wheat' ' 7os, Ss' a sa i tos Tick l3eans - - 463 a 57.;
FinsfiAtqus.ics •k 155.21 .12,05 . Vitt() (fine old) - sss a 5.:,s
Rye -.- - scs a Ss`-Oats - - 2.7s'a 3os a :3s
Baileyr, - • ,B.)ups a . 54s l'olard ditto, . 34's a 37
Mait - - -78 s a 84s Potatoe ditto - -,,Ss a :..;..
whitePeasibollets74s a s•as Rape Seed - 561. a nt.
trey ditto . . 54s a 6-zs mine Flout -95 s a 10,.:
I.4;:iit:s - - - sos a sss Seconds . - 9os a 9;3

AMERICA N PAPERS.

DOCUMENTS,

ACCOMPANYING PRESiDENT'S MeSSAGE TO

CONGRESS AT THE OPENING OF THE PRESIINT

SESSION.

[Continued troth ottr Paper of Monday.]

MR. MONROE TO MR. FOSTER.

• Department of State, Oct.,r, Atr,
have had the honour to receive your let,
ter of the 26th of July, and to sub►nit it 10 the view.
of the President.
pnsweritlg that letter, it is proper that.l should
notice a complaint that I had omitted -to reply in
mine, pit the 23d of July, to your remonstrance
sti.ii-bst the: istoclarnation of the President of No-
vember last, and to the deMand which you. had
made by the order of your government of the repeal
of the non-irnportatiOn aE of March 2d of the pre-

sent year. •
My letter has certainly not merited this impu-
tation. s .

Having shewn the injustice of the British Go-
vernment in issuing the Orders in Council on the
pretext assigned, and its still greater injustice in
adhering to them after that pretext-had failed, a re-
spe& for Great Britain, as well. as for the United
States, prevented my'placing. in the strong light-in
which tbe subje& naturally presented itself, the
remonstrance alluded to, and the extraordinary de-
mand found, d on that, while your Government ec-
commodated. in nothing, the United States should
relinquish the ground, which, by a just regard to
the public rights and henouro they bad ,been com-
pelled to take. Propositions tending to degrade a
nation can never be brought into discussion by a
Government not prepared to submit to the degrada-
tion. It was for.this reason that i confined my re-
ply to those passages in your letter which-involve
the china of roe United States, on the principles of
justice, to the revocation of the Order in. Council.
Your demand, however, was neither unnoticed or
/unanswered. In laying before you the, complete,
and as was believed', irresistible- proof,..on which 'the
United States expelled, and called for the revo-
cation of the Orders in Council, a very explicit
answer was supposed tote given. to that demand,.
Equally unfounded is your complaint that I mis-
understood the passage which claimed,- as a.condi-
tion of the ,revocation of the Orders in Council,
that the trade of Great Britain with the Continent
should las, restored to the state in which it_ was be-
fore the Berlin and Milan Decrees were issued. As
this pretension was novel and extraordinary, it was
necessary that a distinct idea should be formed of it,
and, with that Yiew, I asked such an explznatiOn
as would enable me to form one.
In the explanation given; you do -not -insist on
the right to trade in British property, with British
vessels, directly with your enern'es, such a claim,
you admit, would be prepOsterods : but you do in-
sist by- necessary implicetion,. that France has no
right to inhibit the importation into her ports of
British manufaCtures, or the produce of British
soil, when the property of neutrals; and that, un-
til France removes that inhibition, the United-States
are to, be cut off by Greal Britain from
,all trade
whatever v ith. tier enemies.
'On such a pretension it is almost impossible to
reason. There is, I believe, nn example of it in
thehistory of past wars. Great Britain) the enemy.
of France; undertakes to regulate the trade of
France : nor is that all ; she tells her that she must
trade in British goods, If France and Great Bri-
tain were at peace, this pretension would not he
Set up, Der even thought of,e, Has Great Britain,
- then, acquired in this respeet/tY war, rights which
she has not in peace ? And does she announce to
the neutral nations, that unless they consent tei be-
come the instruments of this polky, their corn-
meree shall be annihilated, and their vessels shall be
:Ann up in their own ports ?
I might ask whether French goods are admitted
into Great Britain, even in peace; arid if they are,
whether it be of right, or by the consent and policy
,of tire British Government ) '
That the property wouldbe neutralized does not
affect the question. If the-UnitedStates have no
t:girt. In carry their own prodpctions into France
without the consent of the French Government,
how can_ they undertake to carry there those of
Great Britain ? In all cases it must depend on the
interest and the.will of the patty.
Nor is it material to what extent, ore by what
powers,, the trade ro the Continent is prohibited.
If the-powers who prohibit it are at war with Great
Britain; the prohibition is a necessary consequence
of that state. If at peace, it is their own act ; and
at ',ether it be voluntary or compulsive, they alone are
answerable for it. It the act be taken at the insti-
gation and under the influence of Fi'ance, the most
that can be' said, is, that it justifies rep`risahagainSt
them, by a similar. measure. On r.o principle what-
ever can it be said to give any sanction to the Con.'
d9t:t of Great Britain towards neutral tratiOns. •
The United States can have no objections to the
.employ ment of their cnannercial capital ill the sup-
ply of France, and •of, the Continent generally,
with manufactures; and to comprise in the supply
arose of Great Britain; provided thrise powers will
conseni to it. But they cannot-undertake to force
such supplies .France. or any '.other power, in
• compliance With the claim of the British Govern-
mew, on principles incompatible with the rights of
every independent nation; and they will not demand-
- favour of another power, what they cannot claim
fur rhetnselses.. .
Alt tha't Great Britain could with reason complain
' of wets, the inhibition, by the French decrees, of
the laWful trade. of neutnils• with the British do-
minions. As soon as that inhibition ceased, her in-
hititiort of our trade with Fiance ought. in lute
manneteno have ceased., Having pledged herself to
proceed Jeri pessu with France, in the revocation
of their le,pective acts violating neutral rights, it
bets afforded just cause of complaint, and even of
astortishineie, to the United States, that the British
Government should have sanctioned the seizure and
contieneuation' of American vessels under the Or-
ders in Council, after the revocation of the. French
decrees was announced, and even in the very ruo.
merit when your mission, avowed • to- be: concilia-
.
jury; was to have its effect.