He alleges that his government has no indisposition to discuss, at a proper time, the regulations which may preserve the rights of Great Britain, and guard the United States against their abuse; but he suggests that the adjustment of the present difference, and the healing of the national honour, ought not to be dependent on the settlement of a question which has hitherto been found so difficult. He then states that he is prepared to discuss the case of the Leopard and Chesapeake, and if Mr. Monroe could not discuss this subject separately, without blending with it the right of searching merchant vessels for deserters, however Great Britain may be disposed to enter into the latter discussion at a proper time, its consent to enter into it cannot be extorted as the price of an amicable adjustment. In that case, it would be unavailing for the present, to continue the discussion, and a minister would be forthwith sent to America with instructions for bringing this dispute to a conclusion, but without power to treat of the subject of searching merchant vessels.

On the 29th, Mr. Monroe replied that his instructions implicitly required him to blend the two questions, which were deemed inseparable for any useful purpose, especially as in this way alone could a remedy be provided for the injuries of which both parties complain. The proclamation is accounted for and justified by the repeated violations of neutrality committed before and after the attack on the Chesapeake. They were measures of precaution and not of retaliation. He has no objection to the sending a minister to the United States, and would apprize his government of it.

This correspondence terminated the mission of Mr. Monroe, who, having no hopes of concluding a new treaty, or even of obtaining reparation for the attack on the Chesapeake, left London early in November, and reached Richmond in December, during the session of the general as

sembly. As he had been very popular while he was governor of the state, he met with a cordial reception from the members of the legislature, from the people generally, and more especially from those who had preferred him to Mr. Madison for the presidential chair. These consisted of the discontented members of the republican party, and a few warm personal friends, who were determined diligently to improve the kind feelings called forth to welcome his return, and to spare no efforts to advance his claims to the presidency.

Nearly at the same time, a minister from England, Mr. Rose, arrived at Norfolk for the avowed purpose of adjusting the misunderstanding relative to the Chesapeake. He remained some days on board the frigate which brought him over, and then took a passage in a packet for Washington.

ming

On the arrival of the English envoy at Washington, he addressed a letter to Mr. Madison, secretary of state, in which he stated that he was precluded by his instructions from entering on the subject of reparation until the president's proclamation was withdrawn, as injurious in its effects, and which, if persevered in, evinced a spirit of hostility: and that from the orders to navy officers in the king's proclamation of the 16th of October, there are no grounds for the interdiction of British vessels by way of precaution. He objects to mingle any other discussion with the encounter between the Leopard and the Chesapeake, and says Mr. Monroe had originally assented to this course.

Mr. Madison replied on the 5th of March. He said that before the proclamation could be considered, satisfaction should be made for the aggression which preceded it. This was agreeable to the order of time, of reason, and of usage, and maintained by Great Britain herself, in analogous cases. But as Mr. Rose had offered explanations, it act

corded with the candour of the President to review them. The several aggressions which occasioned the proclamation are then noticed in detail. [The case of the Cambrian, Captain Bradley-of the Leander, Captain Whitby, and of the Leopard, as well as the subsequent conduct of Captain Douglas.] He urges that the President, having felt himself thus obliged to resort to this precautionary measure, lost no time in representing it to the British government, and to ask reparation, and he had the greater reason to expect it from the course pursued by Great Britain herself, who, on similar occasions, had always required things to be replaced in their former condition before counter complaints were heard. The example of Turk's Island, in 1764, of Nootka Sound, in 1789, and of the Falkland Islands, in 1770, were adduced. Reasons are then assigned why the subject of impressment generally should be associated with réparation. 1. Because the two subjects rested on kindred principles. 2. From the desire to improve a particular incident into an occasion of restoring harmony; and 3. Because the liberal character of the propositions intended to be made, could not have failed to meet the concurrence of the British government. He regretted that the step he had taken for a more enlarged accommodation, should become a bar to the adjustment of the more recent cause of difference. He was, however, consoled with the hope that, on the arrival of a special mission, the adjustment of one of the great points in controversy might be confidently expected and the President, to facilitate this object, having consented to separate the two subjects, he sees with surprise and regret that the first step towards the adjustment was to come from us.

The grounds on which the requisition is made are then examined. The disavowal; the assurances that the réparation will be satisfactory; and that the continuance of the

proclamation was an act of hostility, and they are shown not to warrant the demand. On these grounds the President might have closed the negotiation with the reply first given, but anxious to testify his moderation and restore harmony between the two nations, he is willing, on Mr. Rose's disclosing the terms of reparation which he thinks will be satisfactory, and their appearing to be so, to make the repeal of the proclamation of the same date as of the reparation. The hope is expressed that he may find, on a reconsideration of his instructions, that they allow him to take this course.

Mr. Rose, on the 17th, answered, that on giving the subject the fullest consideration, he must decline the negotiation on the terms offered, as contrary to his positive instructions, and that as the terms proposed by him are rejected, his mission is terminated.

With a view of removing all misapprehensions of his majesty's demands, he reviews the transaction which has occasioned these discussions. He insists that the disavowal of the act was sufficient to cause the revocation of the proclamation, which, if justifiable in the first moment of irritation, could not be continued except in a spirit of hostility; that, either as a measure of retaliation, or a means of compelling reparation, it was inadmissible; and as a measure of precaution against acts of violence apprehended, it could not give as effectual security as is afforded by his majesty's as surances of his friendly disposition, by his disavowal, and by his orders to his officers. If these securities are of any value, the necessity for further precaution does not exist; if they are of none, then that mutual confidence is wanting, without which there can be no negotiation.

He vindicates the conduct of the naval commanders in these waters since the affair of the Chesapeake, as indicating forbearance, and as justified by the fact that an enemy's squadron was harboured in them. He maintains that the

course formerly pursued by Great Britain was regulated by the same principles as at present-she refusing to treat. so long as hostility was manifested towards her. He states the reasons why the affair of the Chesapeake was considered as the cause of the proclamation, on the offensive tone of which he animadverts: and that if other alleged injuries also constituted a part of the ground, then it ought to have been so stated in the demand for reparation in September last, especially as the proclamation had been the subject of remonstrance by the British envoy at Washington. After this it neither could be expected that the proclamation would be overlooked, nor after what had passed between Mr. Monroe and Mr. Canning, that the American government would blend other subjects with the discussion of this; especially too as in such cases public ministers have been generally restricted to the precise matter of difference. He forbears, therefore, to make those comments on the transactions referred to by Mr. Madison, which his personal knowledge would enable him to do. For the same reason he forbears to discuss the right of searching merchant ships for British seamen, a claim which Great Britain has always asserted, and founds on a principle of universal law. He says that the other topics in his previous letter were urged by him as proofs of his majesty's amicable disposition, but not as foundations of right, on which he rested his claim to the revocation. He denies that the first step in the proposed adjustment is to be taken by the United States, as that had already been taken by Great Britain. He had transmitted to his government the exposition views contained in Mr. Madison's letter, and it would be for them to determine what obligations remain to be fulfilled by her, whether her conduct has justified the continuance of a hostile edict, and whether the present negotiation ought to be resumed. This letter closed the correspondence, and Mr. Rose, about the