a remedy, which they considered was found in the proposed article for mutual restoration of deserters. The British objecting that the term deserters was not sufficiently broad and suggesting the addition of the words "seafaring people quitting their service," the Americans acquiesced in the change. The British commissioners then appeared to give their consent to the article upon impressment, but when it was presented to the Cabinet it was at once rejected, the Board of Admiralty and the Crown officers being opposed to it. The American ministers no longer had hopes of securing any satisfactory stipulation on impressment.

Later, the British commissioners proposed as a counter-project the passage of laws which, on the one hand, should make it penal for British commanders to impress American citizens on board American vessels on the high seas, and on the other hand, should make it penal for the officers of the United States to grant certificates of citizenship to British subjects. As this proposition would not stop the exercise of the practice of impressing British subjects upon American vessels, the American commissioners regarded it as inadequate and refused to consider it. It would fail, they said, to remedy the evils and would be an abandonment of their rights.53 The British commissioners stated that, while their Government could not disclaim or derogate from

53 Monroe and Pinkney to Madison, Nov. 11, 1806; Ameri

a right which had been uniformly maintained and in the exercise of which the security of the British navy might be involved, they had, nevetheless, authorized their commissioners to give the most positive assurance that instructions had been given and should be repeated and enforced for the observance of the greatest caution in impressing seamen.54

The British proposing that they proceed to the other subjects, leaving impressment out of the question for the time, the American commissioners consented, believing that it was the intention of the British Government no longer to exercise the practice of impressment, but that they were merely unwilling to renounce a claim which had long been held valid. Monroe believed that the informal explanation of the British commissioners upon impressment was sufficient to warrant the American commissioners in going forward with the other questions. He considered such action justifiable because by it the rights of the parties were reserved and the negotiations could be continued on those particular topics, after a treaty should have been formed upon the others. Great Britain, he maintained, would be bound not to trespass on those rights while that negotiation was depending; and in case she did trespass on them, in the slightest degree, the United States would be justified in breaking off the negotia

54 Monroe and Pinkney to Madison, Nov. 11, 1806; Ameri

tions and appealing to force in vindication of her rights.55 "The mere circumstance," said he, "of entertaining an amicable negotiation by one party for the adjustment of a controversy, where no right had been acknowledged in it, by the other, gives to the latter a just claim to such a forbearance on the part of the former. But the entertainment of a negotiation for the express purpose of securing interests sanctioned by acknowledged rights, makes such claim irresistible."5

With impressment removed from the discussion, the commissioners were not long in coming to an agreement upon the other subjects and a formal treaty was concluded. This treaty, signed December 31, 1806, contained provisions which were in many respects more favorable to the United States than those contained in the Jay treaty of 1794.57

While the negotiations were in progress news came of the Berlin decree, which was issued November 21. The purpose of this decree was to injure Great Britain through an attack upon her commercial trade. The British Government claimed that for neutrals to submit to this decree would be to concur in the hostile object of the enemy. Therefore the British commis

55 Monroe to Madison, Feb. 28, 1808; American State Papers, For. Rel., III., 173–183.

56 Ibid.

57 Monroe and Pinkney to Madison, Jan. 3, 1807; American

sioners were instructed to secure assurance from the Americans that the United States would not allow its trade with Great Britain to be interfered with without resistance. The American commissioners were unable to make any such assurances, which would have virtually allied the United States with Great Britain in hostile opposition to France. Holland and Auckland, when signing the treaty, presented a protest against the Berlin decree, reserving to the British Government the right, should the decree be actually enforced against neutrals and be submitted to by them, to take such measures of retaliation as might be deemed expedient.58 In transmitting the note to Washington the American representatives said, “We do not consider ourselves a party to it, or as having given it in any the slightest degree our sanction."59 The treaty failed to provide not only against impressment, but also for the settlement of indemnities claimed by the United States against Great Britain. The British had objected to the American claims on the ground of the appearance of coercion. An offer had been made to consider them later.

President Jefferson, upon receiving intimation from the American commissioners that they were about to

58 Note from Holland and Auckland, Dec. 31, 1806; American State Papers, For. Rel., III., 151–152.

59 Monroe and Pinkney to Madison, Jan. 3, 1807; American

proceed to the negotiation of a treaty with merely an informal understanding upon impressment, at once objected to the plan as not comporting with his views of national sentiment or legislative policy. In the opinion of the President it was better that the negotiation should terminate without any formal compact whatever if no stipulation regarding impressment could be secured. Under such circumstances the commissioners were instructed to terminate the negotiation with merely an informal, friendly understanding upon the subjects under discussion. As long as this relationship should be duly respected in practice, particularly with reference to neutral trade and impressment, the United States would refrain from putting the nonimportation act into operation. The British commissioners in the course of their negotiations had alleged that there were no recent causes of complaint on impressment. The Secretary of State refuted that assertion, and declared that in American seas, including the West Indies, impressments had never been more numerous or vexatious.

Before these instructions had reached the commissioners, however, the treaty had been signed. This, when submitted to the President, was rejected by him without being referred to the Senate. Jefferson refused to sign a treaty with impressment omitted, be

60 Madison to Monroe and Pinkney, Feb. 3, 1807; American