dence of my approbation of, or at least acquiesce in the blockade. An explanation of the cause of that supposed silence is not less due to myself, than to the true character of the transaction. With the minister with whom I had the honor to treat, I may add, that an official formal complaint was not likely to be resorted to, because friendly communications were invited and preferred. The want of such a document is no proof that the measure was approved by me, or that no complaint was made. In recalling to my mind, as this incident naturally does, the manly character of that distinguished and illustrious statesman, and the confidence with which he inspired all those with whom he had to treat, I shall be permitted to express as a slight tribute of respect to his memory, the very high consideration in which I have always held his great talents and virtues.

The United States have not, nor can they approve the blockade of an extensive coast. Nothing certainly can be infered from any thing that has passed relative to the blockade of May, 1806, to countenance such an inference.

It is seen with satisfaction that you still admit that the application of an adequate force is necessary to give a blockade a legal character, and that it will lose that character, whenever that adequate force ceases to be applied. As it cannot be alledged that the application of any such adequate force has been continued, and actually exists in the case of the blockade of May, 1806, it would seem to be a fair inference, that the repeal of the Orders in Council will leave no insuperable difficulty with respect to it. To suppose the contrary, would be to suppose that the Orders in Council, said to include that blockade, resting themselves on a principle of retaliation only, and not sustained by the application of an adequate force, would have the effect of sustaining a blockade admitted to require the application of an adequate force, until such adequate force should actually take the place of the Orders in Council. Whenever any blockade is instituted, it will be a subject for consideration, and if the blockade be in conformity to the law of nations, there will be no disposition in this government to contest it. I have the honor to be, &c. JAMES MONROE.

Mr. Foster to Mr. Monroe.

WASHINGTON, October 22, 1811. SIR-I had the honor to receive your letter of the 17th inst. together with its three enclosures, on the road between Baltimore and this city; I had that of receiving at the same time, your letter dated October 1, in answer to mine of the 26th of last July.

Not having had any despatches from his majesty's government lately, I have not as yet received the copy of the recent communication from Paris in regard to the supposed repeal of the French Decrees, which the charge d'affairs of the United States at London has intimated to you, that he understood the Marquis Wellesley intended to transmit to me, and which I conclude is the same as that contained in the letter of Mr. Russell, the American charge d'affairs in France. I am however in daily expectation of the arrival of his majesty's packet boat, when it will in all probability reach me, and when if I should receive any fresh instructions in consequence I will not fail immediately to acquaint you. In the meanwhile, however, I beg you will permit me to make some remarks in reply to your letter of October 1, being extremely anxious to do away the impression which you seem to have received relative to the demand I had made for the repeal of the non-importation act of the present year.

It is, I assure you, sir, with great regret that I find you consider that demand as involving in any degree propositions tending to degrade your nation. Such an idea certainly never existed with his majesty's government, nor would it be compatible with the friendly sentiments entertained by them, for the United States; neither could I have suffered myself to be the channel of conveying a demand which I thought had such a tendency. However you view the demand made on the part of Great-Britain, I can safely say that it was made in consequence of its appearing to his majesty's government on strong evidence that the chief of the French nation had really deceived America as to the repeal of his Decrees, and in the hopes that the United States' government would therefore see the justice of replacing this country on its former footing of amicable relations with England, nothing appearing to be more natural than such an expectation, which seemed a necessary conse

quence of the disposition expressed by America to maintain her neutrality, and desirable in every other point of view. I connot indeed bring myself to think, sir, that your candor would allow you, on a consideration, to put any other construction on the matter, and had my arguments had sufficient weight with you in shewing that the French Decrees were still in force, I cannot doubt but you would have agreed with me in the conclusion I drew-it would seem therefore only owing to your not viewing the deceitful conduct of the French government in the same light that it appears to his majesty's government, that a difference of opinion exists between us as to the proposal I made, which under the conviction entertained by them was, surely a very just and natural one.

From the earnest desire of vindicating myself and my government from the charge of making any degrading or unjust demands on that of America, I have taken the liberty to trouble you so far and I will now proceed to shew why I thought you had misunderstood the passage of my letter which related to the extent in which the repeal of the French Decrees was required by Great-Britain. In the explanation which you desired on this point I gave you that which the Marquis Wellesley gave Mr. Pinkney in answer to his letter of August 25, 1810, and I beg to refer you to the message of the President of the United States on the opening of Congress in December, 1810, for a proof that the demand of Great-Britain in the extent in which I have stated it was known to your government several months ago-how was I therefore to suppose in the term innovations, as applied to the explanation given by me, that you could mean otherwise than some really new pretension on the part of Great-Britain such as that France should suffer British property to be carried into her ports for the purposes of trade? If the warmth I was betrayed into in endeavoring to refute a supposed imputation of this sort gave any offence, I sincerely regret it, and I will beg permission here to say, sir, that if unconsciously I have by any of my remarks led you to suppose they conveyed any improper insinuations, as one paragraph of your letter would appear to imply, I am most unfeignedly sorry for it, as I entertain the highest respect for you, personally, and for your government; and could only have meant what I wrote in the way of ar

gument, or for the purpose of contrasting the proceedings of France in her conduct towards the United States with that of Great-Britain.

In reverting to the extraordinary and unprecedented situation of things that has arisen out of the war in Europe it would seem needless to repeat the evidence there is that the lawless and unbounded ambition of the ruler of France has been the origin of it, and it cannot be a secret to the United States' government that his plan has been and avowedly continues to be, not to scruple at the violation of any law, provided he can thereby overthrow the maritime power of England. Is it not therefore reasonable in Great-Britain to distrust an ambiguous declaration of his having suddenly given up any part of a system which he thought calculated to produce such an effect? You say however that the Decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked. America, as not being at war, and therefore not seeing so clearly into the views of France, may be less scrupulous as to the evidence necessary to prove the fact-but sir, it surely cannot be expected that Great-Britain, who is contending for ev ery thing that is dear to her, should not require more proof on a point so material to her. It is undoubtly a very desirable thing for the United States to have a free and unrestricted trade with both belligerents, but the essential security and most important interests of Amercia are not in→ volved in the question as are those of Great-Britain. France has levelled a blow which she hopes will prove deadly to the resources of G. Britain, and before the British government can with safety give up the measures of defence in consequence adopted by them, very strong proof must exist of the cessation by France of her novel and unprecedented measures.

I confess, sir, with the sincerest disposition, to discover on the part of the ruler of France, a return to the long-established practice of warfare as exercised in civilized Europe, I have been unable to succeed; and if the French government had really meant to withdraw their obnoxious Decrees, it is inconceivable, why, instead of allowing their intentions to be guessed at, or infered, they should not openly and in plain language have declared so; the Decrees them selves, having been clearly enough announced on their enactment, why should not their revocation be equally explicit?

While, however, numerous declarations have been made on the part of France, of the continued existence of the Decrees and captures made under them of neutral ships have occurred, a few of the American vessels seized since November 1, have been restored, and the foregoing, a very small part of his plunder, is desired by Bonaparte to be considered as a proof of the sincerity of his revocation by America; but it must be recollected, that besides the object of ruining the British resources by his own unauthors ized regulations, he has also that of endeavoring to obtain the aid of the United States for the same purpose, and herein you will, as I had the honor to remark in a former letter, be able to observe the cause of the apparently contradictory language held both by himself and his ministers.

I shall be extremely happy, to receive from you, sir, the information that in a frank and unambiguous manner the chief of the French government had revoked his Decrees. Why he should not do so is inexplicable if he means to revert to the ordinary rules of war, but while he exercises such despotic sway wherever his influence extends, to ruin the resources of England, it cannot be expected that GreatBritain shall not use the means she possesses for the purpose of making him feel the pressure of his own system. There is every reason to believe, that ere long the effects on the enemies of Great-Britain will be such, as irresistibly to produce a change which will place commerce on its former basis. In the mean time, sir, I hope you will not think it extraordinary, if I should contend that the seizure of Ameriean ships by France, since November 1, and the positive: and unqualified declarations of the French government, are stronger proofs of the continued existence of the French Decrees and the bad faith of the ruler of France, than the restoration of five or six vessels, too palpably given up for fallacious purposes, or in testimony of his satisfaction at the attitude taken by America, is a proof of their revocation, or of his return to the principles of justice.

I will only repeat, sir, in answer to your observations, on the late condemnation of the ships taken under his majesty's Orders in Council, what I have already had the honor to state to you, that the delay which took place in their condemnation was not in consequence of any doubt existing in his majesty's government, as to whether the French Decrees