mony of passing through a British port, when it can have no imaginable effect but the known and inevitable one of prohibiting the admission of the trade into the port of destination?

I will not ask why a primary article of our productions and exports, cotton wool, is to be distinguished, in its transit, by a heavy impost, not imposed on other articles, because it is frankly avowed, in your explanation of the orders, to be intended as an encouragement to British manufactures, and a check to the rival ones of France. I suppress, also, though without the same reason for it, the inquiry, why less rigorous restrictions are applied to the trade of the Barbary powers, than are enforced against that of a nation, such as the United States, and in relations, such as have existed between them and Great Britain.

I cannot, however, pass without notice the very unwarrantable innovations contained in the two last of the orders. In one of them, a certificate of the local origin of a cargo, although permitted in the port of departure, and required in the port of destination, by regulations purely domestick in both, and strictly analogous in principle to regulations in the commercial code of Great Britain, is made a cause of capture on the high seas, and of condemnation in her maritime courts. In the other order, the sale of a merchant ship, by a belligerent owner to a neutral, although a transaction as legal, when fair, as a dealing in any other article, is condemned by a general rule, without an atom of proof, or of presumption, that the transfer in the particular case, is fraudulent, and the property, therefore, left in an enemy.

In fine, sir, the President sees in the edicts communicated by you, facts assumed which did not exist; principles asserted which never can be admitted; and, under the name of retaliation, measures transcending the limits reconcileable with the facts and the principles, as if both were as correct as they are unfounded. He sees, moreover, in the modifications of this system, regulations, violating equally our neutral rights and our national sovereignty. He persuades himself, therefore, that your government will see, in the justice of the observations now made, in addition to those I had the honour, verbally, to state to you in the first instance, that the United States are well warranted in looking for a speedy revocation

of a system, which is every day augmenting the mass of injury for which the United States have the best of claims to redress.

I have the honour to be, &c.

JAMES MADISON.

The Hon. David M. Erskine, &c. &c.

From Mr. Madison to Mr. Erskine. Department of State, March 29, 1807.

SIR, Further reflection on the tenour and tendency of the order of his Britannick majesty, communicated by your letter of the 12th instant, which was answered by mine of the 20th, induces me to resume that important subject.

From the difficulty of supposing that the order can have for its basis, either a legal blockade impossible to be extended to all the ports described in the order, or a supposed illegality of the trade between those ports, an illegality which has never been applied by the British government or its admiralty courts to an accustomed trade, even between the ports of the same belligerent 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 result of ascribing the order to the policy of countervailing, 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 an 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 to put an end, in some mode or other, to the inequality wrongfully produced.

Were it certain, therefore, that the French decree is to be enforced in the sense in which it is taken, and that in violation of the treaty between France and the United

States, the commerce of the latter will not be exempted; the British order being peremptory in its import, and immediate in its execution, might justly be regarded by the United States, as a proceeding equally premature 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 unlawful 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 treaties with the United States exempt their trade from the operation of the decree, the order of the British. government will stand exposed to still severer comments. It will take the character of an original aggression, will furnish the French government, a like ground with that assumed by itself, for retaliating measures, and will derive a very unfavourable feature from the consideration, that it was a palpable infraction of a treaty just signed on the part of the British government, and expected, at the date of the order, to be speedily ratified on the part of the United States.

The necessity of presenting the subject in its true light, is strengthened by the operation which the British order will have on a vast proportion of the entire commerce of the United States. Not to dwell 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, and not enjoyed by the property of her enemies, has hitherto been advantageous to Great Britain; and without 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 overlooked, that the character and course of nearly the whole of the American commerce with the ports of Europe, other than of Great Britain, will fall under the destructive operation of the order. It is well known that the cargoes exported from the United States frequently require that they 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 voyage, generally consisting of several links, the interest of the undertakers 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 compel them on one hand to dispose of the whole of their cargoes at a port which may want but a part, and, on the other hand, to seek the whole of their returns 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.

These observations, which are made in conformity with the sentiments of the President, cannot fail, sir, to have all the weight with an enlightened and friendly government, to which they are entitled; and the President persuades himself, that the good effect of the truths which they disclose, will be seen in such measures as will remove all ground for dissatisfaction, and demonstrate, on that side, the same sincere disposition to cultivate harmony and beneficial intercourse, as is felt and evinced by the United States and their government.

I have the honour to be, &c.

JAMES MADISON.

The Hon. David M. Erskine, Esq.

FOURTH COPY.

Colonel Lear, to the Secretary of State. Algiers, March 28, 1808.

SIR, I have the honour to enclose a triplicate of my respects to you of the 4th of January, and duplicates of that of the 9th instant, and the schedule of my account with the United States. Since forwarding the first of these, I have heard nothing respecting the United States, excepting by a letter from Mr. Montgomery, our consul in Alicante, that an embargo had been laid on all vessels in the ports of the United States.

It is with regret I have to inform you, that our affairs here wear a different aspect from what they did when I had last the honour of writing to you. On the 16th instant, the dey sent me a message by my drogerman, that I should pay immediately sixteen thousand dollars for eight of the subjects of his regency, said to have been destroyed on board the American schooner Mary Ann, captured some time since, by one of his frigates, as mentioned in my for mer letters. I returned for answer, that I had not yet received any authentick advices of this business, and could therefore say nothing about it. The dey then sent me word, that he would wait the arrival of the courier from Alicante, by which I might receive some information.

But on the 24th, (the courier not having yet arrived) the drogerman informed me, that the dey had sent for him, and ordered him to tell me, that if I did not pay the money before night, I should be sent to prison in chains. I or dered him to return immediately to the dey, and say that I could not pay the money, without the order of my government, as it was an affair out of the usual course of our business here, and that I was ready to meet the event. He brought me word, that the dey would see me the next day at noon, on the subject.

He accordingly sent for me at noon on the 25th. When I entered the palace, I met Mr. Ulrick, the Danish consul, who was descending from an audience of the dey. He was seized by a Chaoux, who carried him through the streets, in the most indignant manner, to the slave prison, where he was loaded with an enormous chain; the reason assigned for which was, that he had been called upon for his biennial presents, which he declared he could not make, without having time given him, as the vessel containing it, and annuities for the regency, had been taken by the English. On meeting the dey, he demanded from me immediate pay. ment for the persons before mentioned, together with an additional two thousand dollars for the boy said to have been carried in the schooner to Naples. I told him, with firmness, that I could not pay it without the orders of my government, as it was an extraordinary case, and requested time to write and receive an answer; but was answered, that if it was not paid immediately, I knew what the consequence would be. I replied, that let the consequence be what it might, I should not pay it. I was then ordered