sures of precaution, could be deduced from transactions which preceded that encounter."

To this Mr. Madison replied in a long letter, dated March 5, in which he goes into a review of all the causes of complaint on the part of the United States, against the British Government, arising from the conduct of the naval officers of that kingdom; coming down in regular course to the attack upon the Chesapeake by the Leopard; and saying that "it is sufficient to remark, that the conclusive evidence which this event added to that which had preceded, of the uncontrolled excesses of the British naval commanders, in insulting our sovereignty, and abusing our hospitality, determined the President to extend to all British armed ships the precaution heretofore applied to a few by name, of interdicting to them the use and privileges of our harbours and waters.'

"The President, having interposed this precautionary interdict, lost no time in instructing the minister plenipotentiary of the United States to represent to the British government the signal aggression which had been committed on their sovereignty and their flag, and to require the satisfaction due for it; indulging the expectation, that his Britannic majesty would at once perceive it to be the truest magnanimity, as well as the strictest justice, to offer that prompt and full expiation of an acknowledged wrong, which would re-establish and improve, both in fact and in feeling, the state of things which it had violated." The Secretary of State finally comes to the point between him and Mr. Rose, the revocation of the proclamation"The proclamation [he says] is considered as a hostile measure, and a discontinuance of it, as due to the discontinuance of the aggression which led to it.

It has been sufficiently shown that the proclamation, as appears on the face of it, was produced by a train of occurrences terminating in the attack on the American frigate, and not by this last alone. To a demand, there

fore, that the proclamation be revoked, it would be perfectly fair to oppose a demand, that redress be first given for the numerous irregularities which preceded the aggression on the American frigate, as well as for this particular aggression, and that effectual controul be interposed against repetitions of them. And as no such redress has been given for the past, notwithstanding the lapse of time which has taken place, nor any such security for the future, notwithstanding the undiminished reasonableness of it, it follows that a continuance of the proclamation would be consistent with an entire discontinuance of one only of the occurrences from which it proceeded. But it is not necessary to avail the argument of this view of the case, although of itself entirely conclusive. Had the proclamation been founded on the single aggression committed on the Chesapeake, and were it admitted, that the discontinuance of that aggression merely gave a claim to the discontinuance of the proclamation, the claim would be defeated by the incontestible fact, that that aggression has not been discontinued. It has never ceased to exist; and is in existence at this moment. Need I remind you, Sir, that the seizure and asportation of the seamen belonging to the crew of the Chesapeake entered into the very essence of that aggression, that, with an exception of the victim to a trial, forbidden by the most solemn considerations, and greatly aggravating the guilt of its author, the seamen in question are still retained, and consequently that the aggression, if in no other respect, is by that act alone continued and in force. "If the views which have been taken of the subject have the justness which they claim, they will have shown that on no ground whatever can an annulment of the proclamation of July 2d be reasonably required, as a preliminary to the negotiation with which you are charged. On the contrary, it clearly results, from a recurrence to the causes and objects of the proclamation, that, as was at first intimated, the strongest sanctions of Great Britain herself

would support the demand, that, previous to a discussion of the proclamation, due satisfaction should be made to the United States; that this satisfaction ought to extend to all the wrongs which preceded and produced that act; and that even limiting the merits of the question to the single relation of the proclamation to the wrong committed in the attack on the American frigate, and deciding the question on the principle that a discontinuance of the latter required of right a discontinuance of the former, nothing appears that does not leave such a preliminary destitute of every foundation which could be assumed for it.

"With a right to draw this conclusion, the President might have instructed me to close this communication with the reply stated in the beginning of it; and perhaps in taking this course, he would only have consulted a sensibility, to which most governments would, in such a case, have yielded. But adhering to the moderation by which he has been invariably guided, and anxious to rescue the two nations from the circumstances under which an abortive issue to your mission necessarily places them, he has authorized me, in the event of your disclosing the terms of reparation which you believe will be satisfactory, and on its appearing that they are so, to consider this evidence of the justice of his Britannic majesty as a pledge for an effectual interposition with respect to all the abuses against a recurrence of which the proclamation was meant to provide, and to proceed to concert with you a revocation of that act, bearing the same date with the act of reparation, to which the United States are entitled.

"I am not unaware, sir, that according to the view which you appear to have taken of your instructions, such a course of proceeding has not been contemplated by them. It is possible, nevertheless, that a re-examination, in a spirit, in which I am well pursuaded it will be made, may discover them to be not inflexible to a proposition in so high a degree liberal and conciliatory. In every event, the Presi

dent will have manifested his willingness to meet your government on a ground of accommodation, which spares to its feelings, however misapplied he may deem them, every concession, not essentially due to those which must be equally respected, and consequently will have demonstrated that the very ineligible posture given to so important a subject in the relations of the two countries, by the unsuccessful termination of your mission, can be referred to no other source than the rigorous restrictions under which it was to be executed."

On the 17th of March, Mr. Rose replied to the foregoing communication, informing Mr. Madison that he was "under the necessity of declining to enter into the terms of negotiation, which, by direction of the President of the United States," Mr. Madison had offered; and saying, "I do not feel myself competent, in the present instance, to depart from the instructions, which I stated in my letter of the 26th of January last, and which preclude me from acceding to the condition thus proposed." He then proceeds further and says

"I should add, that I am absolutely prohibited from entering upon matters unconnected with the specifick object I am authorized to discuss, much less can I thus give any pledge concerning them. The condition suggested, moreover, leads to the direct inference, that the proclamation of the President of the United States of the 2d of July, 1807, is maintained either as an equivalent for reparation for the time being, or as a compulsion to make it.

"It is with the more profound regret that I feel myself under the necessity of declaring, that I am unable to act upon the terms thus proposed, as it becomes my duty to inform you, in conformity to my instructions, that on the rejection of the demand stated in my former letter, on the part of his majesty, my mission is terminated."

Thus another opportunity to adjust at least one, and perhaps several important subjects of dispute and com

plaint between the United States and Great Britain, was lost, in consequence of Mr. Jefferson's refusing to yield a mere point of etiquette, respecting the recal of the proclamation which he had issued, to say the least, precipitately, and which he was forewarned by the British government, would prevent an adjustment of the affair of the frigate Chesapeake, if continued in force. It is not to be believed, if he had been sincerely desirous of establishing a solid and permanent friendship (political friendship is here meant) between the two nations, that he would have failed of accomplishing that object on such slender a pretext as that which put an end to Mr. Rose's mission.

That he did not entertain such a wish is evident, not only from the manner in which the negotiation with Mr. Rose was conducted, and the grounds on which it was concluded; but from the circumstance, that a direct attempt was made by the Secretary of State, in his correspondence with him, to induce Mr. Rose to depart from his instructions, and enter upon the discussion of subjects which he was expressly ordered by his government not to meddle with. Mr. Madison, in his letter of the 5th of March, from which several extracts have been made, after using every effort in his power to induce Mr. Rose to violate his instructions, says in a passage already recited— "I am not unaware, sir, that according to the view which you appear to have taken of your instructions, such a course of proceeding has not been contemplated by them. It is possible, nevertheless, that a re-examination, in a spirit, in which I am well persuaded it will be made, may discover them to be not inflexible to a proposition in so high a degree liberal and conciliatory." This cannot be considered as any thing more or less than a direct proposition to the British minister to violate his instructions; and this must have been with a perfect knowledge on the part of Mr. Madison, that any treaty or arrangement made under such circumstances would be rejected by the British