conciliating; and he repeated what he had said in the former interview of his earnest desire to see the affairs of the two countries placed on the most friendly footing. He assured me that I should hear from him as soon as he had read the papers, which he would do without delay. I intimated that, by giving him a summary of the whole, I might perhaps facilitate his research, to which he assented. It was on that ground that I addressed him the enclosed

note.

I have since received your letter of January 13, in which you promise to send me an examination of the British principle lately published, the memorials of the merchants of our principal towns, and other documents illustrative of the subject. I shall be happy to receive these, and shall certainly endeavour to draw from them all the aid which they can furnish. The letter referred to in the commencement of that of the thirteenth has not come to hand, nor has any of a later date than December 4. I shall be attentive to the injunction contained in the last paragraph of that of the 13th.

As the subject is now fairly before the new ministry, who seem to be well disposed in the business, permit me to submit it to consideration, whether it may not be better that no measure should be definitively adopted, or, if already adopted, be executed, till a fair experiment is made of what may be expected of it. By suspending what might have been contemplated in another view, and even necessary, it may tend to conciliate those now in power, and be productive of good.

I have the honour to be, &c.

JAMES MONROE.

Prince's Street, Feb. 25, 1806. SIR,I have the honour to transmit you a note of the papers which are material in my correspondence with your predecessors on certain interesting topicks, which have been for some time depending between our governments, and are still unsettled. These are, 1st, the rights of neutral powers in certain specified cases; 2d, the impressment of American, and desertion of British seamen ; and 3d, the boundary between the United States and the

British possessions in America. The papers referred to will, I presume, sufficiently illustrate these topicks. I shall, however, be permitted to accompany them with some remarks, to explain the course which the business has taken, and the state in which you receive it.

Aware of the abuses which had been practised in respect to neutral rights and seamen in the last war, and of their injurious effect on the interest of both countries, my government was very desirous to prevent a repetition of them in the present one. With that view, and by its order I had the honour to propose to lord Hawkesbury, soon after the commencement of the war, an arrangement, by convention, of these interests, on such just and fair conditions, as it was presumed would have been readily acceded to. You will see by the project which I then presented to his lordship, at his request, that the object was strictly to prevent abuses, and the ill consequences incident to them, not to acquire any advantage to the United States by the establishment of controverted principles in the one, or unreasonable pretensions in the other case. In respect to neutral rights, it was proposed to adopt between the governments, in such cases as were most liable to abuse, certain principles or rules of conduct which Great Britain had already assented to in her treaty with Russia, in 1801. As those powers had entered into that treaty for the express purpose of defining the law of nations in the cases to which it applied, and Great Britain had adopted its conditions afterwards in separate conventions with Denmark and Sweden, with the same view it was concluded that her government would not hesitate to admit its doctrine or to observe it injunctions with other powers. The same motive was felt and respected in the proposition which I had the honour to make in respect to seamen. The sensibility of the government, and indeed of the whole nation, had been subjected to great and almost continual excitement by the abuses which had been committed in that line, on the high seas, in the islands, and sometimes in the ports of the United States. The sons of respectable citizens had been snatched from them, many of whom were doomed never to return, to be slain in wars to which their country was not a party, or otherwise perish in a foreign service. No rule had been established by the governments to discriminate between American and British seamen, a thing

1

not easily done by the most impartial; and the commanders of many of his majesty's ships of war and privateers, especially the latter, acknowledge none but their own judgments in making the discrimination. The highest American documents were often either not looked at, or utterly disregarded. It was evidently improper that an interest of a nature so delicate and important, one which was so intimately connected with the sovereignty and independence of the nation, should be left longer in such a state of oppression. My government felt that it would be wanting to what it owed to its character and its duty, if it did not endeavour to put an end to a practice so injurious and at the same time so degrading. It was, therefore, one of the objects of the project referred to, to provide a remedy for that evil. But it was understood that Great Britain complained likewise of an injury in respect to her seamen, though of a different kind: for that, also, it was proposed to provide an adequate remedy. In protecting American citizens from impressment, my government was far from desiring to extend its protection to any who had not a just claim to it. It was ready to meet the injury complained of by Great Britain, and to suppress it by the most effectual means in its power. These propositions were neither accepted nor rejected by lord Hawkesbury, though I think myself perfectly correct in stating that nothing occurred in our conferences to justify an inference that he thought them unreasonable. They were postponed from time to time at his instance, and finally transferred to lord Harrowby, his successor. I revived the subject immediately with lord Harrowby, to whom I also submitted, at the same time, a proposition relative to boundaries. It happened that lord Hawkesbury and Mr. King had made a convention on this latter subject, within a few days of the time when one was also concluded between the United States and France, whereby the province of Louisiana was ceded to those states. As it was not known either to lord Hawkesbury or Mr. King, when they formed their treaty, that one had been concluded with France, it was impossi-" ble that the conditions of the French treaty should be in any degree affected by that with Great Britain. It was, however, apprehended, that if the British treaty should be ratified by the President and Senate, after the conditions of the other were known, without providing against it, that

it might lay the foundation for such a pretension. It was, therefore, proposed to modify the convention in such a manner as to preclude a claim which would be equally unjust and unauthorized. As this subject is fully explained in my note to lord Harrowby of the 5th of September, 1804, it is unnecessary to enter further into it at present. The conduct of lord Harrowby in this business was essentially the same with that of his predecessor. It was postponed from time to time for the consideration of the cabinet, whose decision I was taught to expect, but never received. I had been ordered by my government, before lord Harrow by came into office, to repair to Spain on a special mission, as soon as the business with his lordship should be concluded. Of that fact, after waiting some time, I gave his lordship information, in the hope of promoting despatch. Still, however, the business was delayed; the cabinet, as I was informed, having come to no decision on any point, till finally it was agreed between us to postpone the whole until my return from Spain, when it should be resumed and concluded. I left Great Britain on that mission in October, 1804, and returned in July, 1805.

At the epoch referred to, the relations between the two countries were of a character the most friendly. Not an American vessel had been condemned on any principle which was relied on by my government, and only one that I knew of on any principle whatever. Their commerce with each other was, as it always will be when left to its natural course, most flourishing, and that which the. United States claimed as a neutral power with other nations, on a footing which was perfectly satisfactory to their government. At my return, however, the scene was completely changed. A system of seizure and condemnation of American vessels had been commenced on a principle, respecting which it was presumed that no new discussion could ever arise; one which was considered as having been so completely settled between the governments, that, in the project above referred to, it was not contemplated to make a provision for it; a principle which had been renounced by Great Britain in her treaty with the United States in 1794, which had been condemned by the commissioners who sat under that treaty, which had been renounced by the court of admiralty in a subsequent de.

cision, by lord Hawkesbury in a formal communication with my predecessor in 1801, by the treaty with Russia in the same year, and, what is perhaps still more conclusive, by the government, in the sanction which had been given to that commerce for the two preceding years of the war. I could not otherwise than be much surprised at a proceeding, which I considered objectionable in so many views, and hastened to remonstrate against it to lord Mulgrave, in several notes whose dates are annexed. To these his lordship never honoured me with a conclusive answer, with one which acknowledged the measure as an act of the government, or disclaimed it on its part. The proceeding has been highly injurious to the United States. About one hundred and twenty of their vessels have been seized, several of which were condemned, all taken from their course, detained and otherwise subjected to heavy losses and damages. To the immediate sufferers it has been very disastrous; but the ill effect has not been confined to them only. It has been severely felt in the general commerce of the country.

I have thought it my duty to give you above a sketch of the several topicks depending between our governments, which are submitted to your consideration. They are all of a nature very interesting, as I am persuaded you will find by a perusal of the documents referred to. But the late seizure and condemnation of American vessels are acts which have proved so highly injurious to the United States, and have so essentially changed the relations between the countries, that they will, I flatter myself, obtain from you a more immediate and particular attention. I beg you to be assured that I shall be happy to have it in my power to transmit to my government, without delay, such communications on your part, which may serve not only to heal the wound which has been thus unexpectedly received, but to promote in other respects, by suitable arrangements, the reciprocal and permanent interests of both nations, and the best understanding between their governments.

I beg you to accept the assurance of the high consideration with which I have the honour to be, sir, &c. JAMES MONROE.

The Rt. Hon. Charles J. Fox, &c. &c. &c.