Star.
London, England, 1808-02-23 00:00:00

and if not interdicted, as Inch, by the Law of Na-
tions, it can no otherwise be made illegal, than by a
legal blockade of the ports comprehended in the order.
This inference is applicable even to the case of a neu-
, tral trade bett*eett the ports of France herself, since
'it is not a principle of the acknowledged Law of
Nations, that neutrals may not trade from one to ano-
ther port of the same belligerent Nation ; and it would
bt an innovation on that now not before attempted,
to extend the principle to. a neutral trade between
ports of different countries, confessedly open in times
of peace as well as of war.
If the British order refers for its basis, to the prin-
ciple of retaliation against the Frencii Decree, it falls
under the observations already made on that subject,

and which need not be repeated.
I have, &c. (Signed) JAMES MADISON.
To the Hon. David Erskine, &c. &c.
No. 4. _ _

Dispatch from the Honourable David Erskine to Lord Viscount
Howick, dated Washington, March 31, 1807.,
-MY Loßn—After I had closed the preceding num- •
ber of my dispatches which accompany this, I received
another letter from Mr. Madison, in answer to the
communications, which, in obedience to your Lord-
ship's orders, 1 made to this Government, of his Ma-
jesty's views relative to the French decree of blockade
of the 21st of November last, and his Majesty's pro-
hibitory
orders against the neutral trade from port to
port of his enemies.
As I conceived it would be most prudent to ,watt•
for your Lordship's instructions, I did not,svad- Any
reply to the letter, hilt have now the honour to
it to your Lordship. I have the honour to.be, reel
(Signed) D. 24. ERSKINS.,
Lord Viscount Howick. • 1,

(Inc!inure referred to in No. 4.)
SIR, Department of State, 29rh March, It
Further reflection on the tenor and tendency ,of e
order of his Britannic Majesty, communicated by your
letter of the 16th instant, which was answered by
mine of the 20th, induces me to resume that impor-
tant subject.
From the difficulty of supposing that the Order
can have for its basis either a legal blockade, impossi-
'We to be extended to all the ports described in the
Order, or a supposed illegality of the trade between
those ports, an illegalit*which has never been applied
by the British Government or its• Admiralty Courts,
to use accustomed trade even between ports of a bel-
ligerent nation, and is utterly at variance with the
conduct of both, in reference to a trade between a
belligerent nation and its allies ; a necessity seems to
resat of ascribing the Order to the policy of counter-
vailing through.the commerce of neutrals, the French
Decree of the 21st of November last.

In this view of the Order, it demands, on the part
of the United States, the most serious attention both
to its principle and to its operation.
With respect to its principle, it will not be contested
that a retaliation by one nation on its enemy, whiCh
is to operate through the interest of a nation not its
enemy, essentially requires, not only that the injury
inflicted should be limited by the measure of injury
sustained, but that every retaliating step in such a
case should be preceded by an unreasonable failure of
the neutral party, in some mode or other to put an
end to inequality wrongfully produced. Were it cer-
tain, therefore, that the French Decree is •to be en-
forced in the sense in which it is taken, and that, in
violation of the treaty between Franie ' and the
.UnitC
States, the commerce of the latterwill nut be exempfei
the British order being peremptory in its import an
immediate in its execution, might 'justly be 'regarded,
by the United States as a proceeding'. equally prema
ture and unfriendly
But in the uncertainty as to the real meaning of,
that decree, and whilst a presumption offered itself,
that the decree, if avowed and executed in an nit,.
lawful extent, might not embrace the commerce of,
the United States ; they are bound by justice to their,
interests,' as well as by respect for their rights, to
consider- the British order as a ground for serious
complaint and remonstrance. Should it prove that
the decree had not the meaning ascribed to it, and
particularly, should the respect of France for her trea-
ties with the United States, except their trade from
the operation of the decree, the order of the British
Government will stand exposed to still severer coin-
ments. It will take the character of an original ag-
gression,
will furnish to the FrenCh Government a ,
like ground with that assumed by itself, for retalia-
ting measures, and will derive a very unfairoutable
feature from the consideration that it was a pa Ival4e
infraction of a treaty first signed on the part of the"
British Government, and expected, at the date of the
order, to be speedily ratified on the parrof the United
States. .

The necessity of presenting the subject in its true
light, is strengthened by the operation which the* 1
tiih order will have on a vast proportion of the entire
commerce of the Uni.ei States, not to dwelt On the
carrying branch of the commerce between the ports .'
and countries of Europe, and which the immunity
given by our flag, in consequence of treaties with the,.:
enemies of Great Britain,. to- British' property, arid'
not enjoyed by the property of her enemies; has hi,:
therto been advantageous to Great Britain; and with:
out inquiring into the effect of an application of the
interdict to the other quarters of the globe, all of
which are evidently. within the comprehensive terms
of the order, it cannot be oveilnoked, that the dia...
ratter and course of nearly the whole of the America.n,
commerce with the ports of Europe, other. than of.
Great Britain, will fall under the destructive opera-
tion of the order; it is well known that the cargoes.
exported from the United States frequently require
that they may be disposed of partly at one market
and partly at another! The return cargoes are still
more frequently collected at different ports, and not
unfrequently at ports different from those receiving
the outward cargoes.
In this circuitous xoyage, generally consisting- of
several links, the interest of the untertakers materially
requires also, either a trade or a freightage between
the ports visited in the circuit. To restrain the vessels
of the United States, therefore, from this legitimate
and customary mode of trading with the continent of
Europe, as is contemplated by the order, and to com-
pel them, on one hand, to dispose of the whole or
their cargoes at a port which may want but a part;
and on the other hand, to deck the whole of their re.
turns at the same port, which may furnish but a part,
or perhaps no part of :the articles wanted, would be
a proceeding as ruinous to our commerce as contrary
; to our essential rights.