It remains for the undersigned to take notice of the last paragraph of Mr. Pinkney's letter. There cannot exist, on the part of Mr. Pinkney, a stronger wish, than there does on that of the undersigned, and of the British government, for the adjustment of all the differences subsisting between the two countries.

His majesty has no other disposition than to cultivate the most friendly intercourse with the United States.

The undersigned is persuaded, that Mr. Pinkney would be one of the last to imagine, what is often idly asserted, that the depression of any other country is necessary or serviceable to the prosperity of this. The prosperity of America is essentially the prosperity of Great Britain, and the strength and power of Great Britain are not for her self only, but for the world. When those adjustmentsshall take place, to which, though unfortunately not praeticable at this moment, nor under the conditions prescribed by Mr. Pinkney, the undersigned, nevertheless, confidently looks forward; it will perhaps be no insecure pledge for the continuance of the good understanding between the two countries, that they will have learnt duly to appreciate each other's friendship; and that it will not hereafter be imputed to Great Britain, either on the one hand, that she envies American industry as prejudicial to British commerce, or, on the other hand, that she is compelled to court an intercourse with America, as absolutely necessary to her own existence.

His majesty would not hesitate to contribute in any manner in his power, to restore to the commerce of the United States, its wonted activity; and if it were possible to make any sacrifice for the repeal of the embargo, without appearing to deprecate it as a measure of hostility, he would gladly have facilitated its removal, as a measure of inconvenient restriction upon the American people.

The undersigned is commanded, in conclusion, to observe, that nothing is said in Mr. Pinkney's letter, of any intention to repeal the proclamation, by which the ships of war of Great Britain are interdicted from all those

rights of hospitality in the ports of the United States, which are freely allowed to the ships of his majesty's enemies.

The continuance of an interdiction which, under such circumstances, amounts so nearly to direct hostility, after the willingness professed, and the attempt made by his majesty, to remove the cause on which that measure had been originally founded, would afford but an inauspicious omen for the commencement of a system of mutual conciliation; and the omission of any notice of that measure in the proposal which Mr. Pinkney has been instructed to bring forward, would have been of itself a material defect in the overture of the President.

But the undersigned is commanded no farther to dwell upon this subject than for the purpose of assuring Mr. Pinkney, that on this and every other point in discussion, between the two governments, his majesty earnestly desires the restoration of a perfect good understanding; and that his majesty would decline no measure for the attainment of that object, which should be compatible with his own honour and just rights, and with the interests of his people.

The undersigned requests Mr. Pinkney will accept the assurances of his high consideration.

(Signed)

GEORGE CANNING.

Copy of a Letter from the honourable David M. Erskine, Esq. envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty, to the Secretary of State of the United States, dated Washington, March 12, 1807.

SIR,

I AM charged by his majesty to express to the government of the United States, his majesty's perfect confidence in their good sense and firmness in resisting the unjust pretensions contained in the decree issued by the French government at Berlin, on the 21st November, which, if

suffered to take effect, must prove so destructive to the commerce of all neutral nations.

His majesty has learnt that the measures announced in this decree, have already, in some instances, been carried into execution by the privateers of the enemy, and there could be no doubt that his majesty would have an indisputable right to exercise a just retaliation. Neutral nations cannot, indeed, expect that the king should suffer the commerce of his enemies to be carried on through them, whilst they submit to the prohibition which France has decreed against the commerce of his majesty's subjects. But though this right of retaliation would unquestionably accrue to his majesty, yet his majesty is unwilling, except in the last extremity, to have recourse to measures which must prove so distressing to all nations not engaged in the war against France.

His majesty, therefore, with that forbearance and moderation which have at all times distinguished his conduct, has determined, for the present, to confine himself to the exercise of the power given him by his decided naval superiority, in such a manner only as is authorized by the acknowledged principles of the law of nations, and has issued an order for preventing all commerce from port to port of his enemies, comprehending in this order, not only the ports of France, but those of other nations, as, either in alliance with France, or subject to her dominion, have by measures of active offence, or by the exclusion of British ships, taken a part in the present war.

His majesty feels an entire confidence that the moderation and justice of this conduct will be duly appreciated by the United States, and has charged me to express to their government, in the strongest terms, the regret he has experienced in being thus compelled, in his own defence, to act in a manner which must prove in some degree embarrassing to the commerce of neutral nations, and his sincere desire to avoid any stronger measures, to which, however, if the injustice and aggression of his enemies should not be resisted by those nations, whose rights and interests are

invaded by so flagrant a violation of all publick law, it may be ultimately necessary for the king to have recourse.

I HAVE laid before the President your letter of the 12th instant, communicating the views of his Britannic majesty, in relation to the French decree of November 21st, 1806, and the principle of retaliation, through the commerce of neutrals, who may submit to the operation of that decree; as also, the measure actually taken, of prohibiting all neutral commerce from port to port, of his enemies, not only the ports of France, but those of such other nations, as, either in alliance with France, or subject to her dominion, have, by measures of active offence, or by the exclusion of British ships, taken a part in the present war.

The President cannot be insensible, sir, to the friendship and confidence towards the United States, which are signified by his Britannic majesty in this communication. In making this acknowledgment, however, the President considers it not less incumbent on him, to reserve, for a state of things which it is hoped may never occur, the right of discussing the legality of any particular measures, to which resort may be had, on a ground of retaliation. At this time, it would suffice to observe, that it remains to be more fully ascertained, in what sense the decree in question will be explained, and to what extent it will be carried into execution; and consequently, whether in any case, the United States can be involved in questions concerning measures of retaliation, supposed to accrue to one belligerent, from such a proceeding, by another. But it is worthy the justice and the liberality of the British government to recollect, that within the period of those great events, which continue to agitate Europe, instances have

occurred, in which the commerce of neutral nations, more especially of the United States, has experienced the severest distresses from its own orders and measures, manifestly unauthorized by the law of nations. The respect which the United States owe to their neutral rights, and the interest they have in maintaining them, will always be sufficient pledges, that no culpable acquiescence on their part, will render them accessory to the proceedings of one belligerent nation, through their rights of neutrality, against the commerce of its adversary.

With regard to the particular order issued against the trade of neutrals, from one port to another of the enemies of Great Britain, no fair objection can lie against it, provided it be founded on, and enforced by, actual blockades as authorized by the law of nations. If, on the other hand, the order has reference, not to such a blockade, but to a supposed illegality of the neutral trade from one to another of the described ports, the remark is obvious, that on that supposition, the order is superfluous; the trade being, as interdicted by the law of nations, liable at all times, without any such order, to the capture of British cruisers, and the condemnation of British courts; and if not interdicted as such by the law of nations, 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 neutral trade between 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 another port of the same belligerent nation. And it would be an innovation on that law, 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 principle of retaliation against the French decree, it falls under the observations already made on that subject, and which need not be repeated. I am, &c.

(Signed)

JAMES MADISON.

Hon. DAVID M. ERSKINE, &c. &c.