Skip to main content

Full text of "Supplement to the late analysis of the public correspondence between our Cabinet and those of France and G. Britain"

See other formats


L 



% 



'S 



t 



/■If** 




m 



■i'tA< 



I 

t 



•• 






i%- 





ih^ 

m 



f^ 





274348 



<^ LIBRARY 
BROCK UNIVERSITY 



6 -j 






'y 



^ ^7 



SUFFLEMENT 

To tJie late ANA L YSIS of the public cor- 

respondence between our Cabinet and 

those of France and G. Britain^ 



-s*9»^e@e^^e@9©««=a" 



* Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinckney, accompanying his letter 
of Sept. "^3, 1808. 

Foreign Office^ Se/it. 23, 1808. 
Sir, 

In laying before the King your letter of the 23d of August, 
and in communicating to you the accompanying answer, which I have 
received his Majesty's commands to return to it, I confess I feel some 
littie embarrassment from the repeated references which your letter 
contains, to what has passed between us in conversation.— An embar- 
rassment arising in no degree (as you are perfectly aware) from any 
feeling of distrust in you personally, but from a recollection of the 
■misrepresentation wliich took place in America of former conferences 
between us. You gave me, on that account, the most satisfactory proof 
that such misrefiresentatiov did not originate with you, by communicating 
to me that part of your dispatch, in wliich the conferences particularly 
referred to, were related correctly. — But this very circumstance which 
establishes your personal claim to entire confidence, proves, at the 
same time, that a faithful report of a conference on your part is not a 
•security against its misrepresentation. 

It was for that reason, principally, that after hearing, with the most 
respectful attention, all that you had to state to me verbally, upon the 
subject of the present overture, I felt mysell under the necessity of 
r.equiring as "■ indispensable" a written commumcation upon the subject. 

It is for that reason, also, that as in your written communication you 
refer me to our late conversations for the " bearings and details" of your 
proposal, I feel it necessary to recapitulate, as shortly as I can, what I 
conceive to have passed in these conversations beyond what I find re- 
corded in your letter. 

* This letter, of which the authenticity was first denied on account of its 
bearing- on the insincerity of our cabinet, has been eince otflcially acknowl- 
edged by Mr. Jefferson. 



The principal points on which the sugc^estions brouj^ht forward by 
you in personal conference, appear to me to have differed in some de- 
gree from the prop.vml now fifatfd by you in writing, are t^vo — the^r*^, 
that in conversation the proposal itself was not distinctly stated as an 
ovrrturc authorised by your government — the second, that the beneficial 
consequences likely to result to this country from the acceptance of 
that proposal were •■' pursued" throus^h more ample " illustrations." 

In tlie first of our conferences, I understood you to say little more 
on the authority of your j^overnment, than that you were instructed to 
remonstrate ajiuinst the Orders in Council of the 7th of January, and 
1 Ith of November, 1807 ; — but to add, as from yourself, an expression 
of your own conxdction, thut if these orders were repealed, the Presi- 
dent of the United States would suspend the Embai'go with respect t9 
Great Biit.in. 

Upon tb-e consequences of such a suspension of the Embargo, while 
it would still be enforced agahist France, you expatiated largely — still 
sjieaking, however, (as I understood) your own individual sentiments. 

It was suggested by you, that America would, in that case, probably 
arm her merchant ships against the aggressions of France — ^an expe- 
dient, to which, you observed, it would be perfectly idle to resort 
agt>inst Great Britain. The collisions of armed vessels would probably 
produce war — and the United States would thus be brought into the 
very situation in which we must wish to place them — that of hostility 
to France, and virtual, if not formal alliance with Great Britain. 

In our second conference, you repeated and enforced the arguments 
calculated to induce the British government to consent to the repeal of 
the Orders in Council, and in this conference, though not stati?ig your- 
self to be authorised by your go~vernment formally to offer t/ie susjiensioii 
(f the Embargo as an immediate consequence of that repeal — yet you did 
profess (as I understood you) a readiness to take* upon yourself to make 
an offer, provided that I should give you beforehand an unofficial assur- 
ance, that coupled with that offer so made, the demand of the repeal of 
the Orders in Council of January and November, 1807, would be prob- 
ably rescinded. 

I, of course, declined to give any such previous assurances — but as 
you appeared to attach great importance to this suggestion, and as I was 
led to think that a compliance with it might relieve you from a diffi- 
culty in executing the instructions of your government, I consented to 
take a few days to consider of it, and to reserve my definitive answer 
until I should see you again. 

I never doubted, in iwy own mind, as to the inexpediency and impro- 
priety of encouraging you to take an unauthorised step, by an unofficial 
promise that it should be well received — but in a matter of such deli- 
cacy, I was desirous of either confirming or correcting my own opinion 
by the opinion of others. 

The result was, that in a third interview, which took place shortly 
after the second, I had the honor to inform you, that after the most ma- 

* It seems, that so late as tliis second conference with Mr. Canning, which 
was on the 22d Julv, Mr. Pinckney declared to the British minister, that his 
offers were from tiimself only. 



ture deliberation, T found it impossible to yield to your suggestion ;• 
and that it, therefore, remijned for you to frame your firopOKiHon accord- 
ing to the in&trucUona of your government^ as to your own unbiassed dis- 
cretion. 

My own sliare in these several conferences, beyond what Avas im- 
plied in the above statement, was very small. I have (as you know) 
always wished to refer the argumentative discussion of the subject of 
the Orders in Council, to the official correspondence, which I have 
iTiore than once been taught to expect you to open upon it, than to en- 
gtiye with you in a verbal controversy, w hich, if confined to ourselves, 
would be useless — if aflerwtu-dsto be reduced irito writing for the pur- 
pose of being communicated to our respective governments,superi]uous. 
But to the representations which you have repeatedly made agahist 
the Oidcrs in Council of January and November, " as violating the 
rights of the United States, and afl'ectiug most destructively their best 
interests upon grounds wholly inadmissible both in principle and hi 
fact," — I have uniformly maintiJned the unquestionable right of His 
Majesty to resort to the fullest measures of retaliation, in consequence 
of the unparalleled aggression of the enemy, and to retort upon that 
enemy the evils of his own injustice— -and have uniformly contended 
that '' if third parties sufler from those measures, the demand of repa- 
tion must be made to that power, w hich first violates the established 
usages of war and the rights of neutr:J states." 

There was, indeed, one point, upon ^vhich I was particularly anxious 
to receive precise information, and upon which, from your candor and 
frankness, I was fortunate enough to obtain it. The connecting to- 
gether in your proposed overture, the suspension of the embargo, and 
the repeal of the Orders in Council, as well those of Nov. as the suc- 
ceeding one of 7th of January, miglit appear to imply that the embargo 
h-'.d been the immediate consequence of those orders, and I Avas, therefore, 
desirous to ascertain whether, in fact^ the Orders ui Council of Nov. 
had been known to the government of the United States previous to 
the message of the President proposing the embargo ; so as to be a 
moving consideration to that message. I had the satisfaction to learn 
from you, that such was not the fact — that rii7«o?/rs, indeed, might ha\-e 
reached America of some measure of further retaliation, being m the 
contemplation of the British government, that, perhaps, (as I under- 
stood you) some more severe and sweepmg measures might have 
been expected ; but that the Orders in Council of the 1 1th of Nov. 
as having been isa^ued, there waa no knowledge of in America — at least 
none in the possession of the American government at the time of 
proposing the embargo. Such., sir, is (according to the best of my 
recollection) correctly, the subijamce of what has passed between us at 
our several interviews, previous to the presentation of your official let- 
ter ; and such I have represented to have been the substance of what 
has passed on those several occasions in the reports of our conferences 
which it has been my duty to make to the King. 

If, in this recapituiatior, there is any thing mistaken, or any tiling 
omitted, you will do me die justice to believe the error unmtentional, 
*nd vou may rely on my readiness to set it right. 

1 have the honor to be- 8cc. GEORGE CANNING 



Reflections upon the foregoing lately discovered Letter, 

BY THE AUTHOR Of THE "ANALYSIS." 

The first and most natural inquiry is, why this zw/?or/awr letter was 
suppressed — it contains no secrets ; nothing of a confidential nature ; 
no proposals which the state of our negotiation required to be concealed. 

On the most careful perusal of it, we can discern no possible motive 
for withholding it from the public eye, except this, that it contains irre- 
fragable proofs of the insincerity and hypocrisy with which the nego- 
tiation with Great-Britain was conducted ; it furnishes also, conclusive 
evidence of the unfairness with which former negotiations had been 
conducted, and the well-founded jealousy of the British government, 
lest the same system of misrepresentation should be again pursued. 

This letter of September 23d5 1 808, from Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinck- 
ney, covered the letter of the same date from that minister, which has 
been published, and was intended to prevent a repetition of that course 
of misrepresentation which had been adopted on former occasions. 

As the author of the Analysis could only judge fi'om tlie documents 
which the government had seen fit to publish, he was left to conjecture 
from the force of his o\vn reasonmg, the nature of the real communica- 
tions which were suppressed, and the following charges, made by him^. 
are now unequivocally established. 

Firstly. That the documents published, were imperfect fragments 
of the true state of the negotiation, and probably gave the fairest side 
of it. This letter of Mr. Canning supports this charge. 

Secondly. That Mr. Pinckney was never authorised to propose to 
Great Britain, the repeal of the embargo unconditionally, as the con- 
sideration for the rescinding of the Orders in Council. The author 
of the Analysis stated expressly in Ms sixth number, that Mr. Pinck- 
ney was only authorised " to encourdge the expectation^ that the Presi- 
*' dent would, within a reasonable time, give effect to the authority vest- 
" ed in him, as to the suspension of the Embargo. 

Mr. Canning now tells Mr. Pinckn6y, that he never did state that he 
was authorised but impliedly admitted that he was not, and simply 
proposed as " of himself that if Great Britain would repeal the Orders, 
" the President might repeal the Embargo." 

Mr. Pinckney was invited to correct this statement, if not true ; but 
as he has not done it, we must presume the British minister to be cor- 
rect, especially as our government suppressed this letter of Mr. Can- 
ning. 

Thirdly. This letter proves, that if Great Britain had acceeded to 
Mr. Pinckney's offer, the government of the United States was at lib- 
erty, while Great Britain would have been bound. It %vould have been 
in the power of Mr. Jefferson, after Great Bntam had humbled herself 
by repealing her Orders, to have refused to agree to the unauthorised 
promises of his ministers, as he had done in case of the British Treaty, 



6 

ieeA to hav€ re^^resented that his wise and stiong measures had brougfet 
her to his feet. 

Great Britain perceived the perfidy, and escaped the snare which an 
unprincipled and intriguing policy had prepared for her. 

Fourthly. This letter proves to what a state of degradation the false 
and insincere conduct of our cabinet has reduced our n.ition — that for- 
eign governments can no longer trust the declarations or verbal assur- 
ances of our ministers. 

Though Mr. Canning acquits Mr. Pinckney personally of having' 
been instrumental in the gross misrepresentations of former discus- 
sions, yet he does it by transferring the charge to our own cabinet. 

Yet these are tlie inen who talk of the unjust and dishonorable views 
•f Great Britain, and of her refusal to treat with us on any equitable 
terms. 

From the whole of this imfiortant lettei', which we conjure our fel- 
low citizens to examine mth attention, it is proved, that ^Ir. Jefferson 
jiever did as he has stated, offer to Great Britain to repeal the Embar- 
go if she would rescind her Orders — that he always left himself a 
loop hole from which he might, as in a former case, escape, and ihat 
this want oi positive assurances was a conclusive point with Great Britr 
ain in refusing to listen to the terms. 

Lastly. It appears from the confession of Mr Pinckney to Mr. Can- 
ning, that the British Orders did not in FACT form any pun of the 
considerations for laying the Embargo, the volumes of equivocation 
and falsehood of its supporters to the contraiy notwithstanding. 



The Fatnous Offers tg Great-Britain about the Embargo and 
Orders. 

Notwithftanding all the developement given to this fubjeft, it is faiit 
that fome perfons do not yet underltand it. It is confefTed that it re- 
quires more attention than moft people are willing to pay, becaufe it 
has been purpofely involved inmyftery. It would not indeed bear 
the light, and therefore partly by fuppreffiony and partly by mifrepre- 
fentation, the Government fucceeded in making a firji^ but improper 
impreffion in their favor. 

We ftate then explicitly, and challenge denial — 

I ft. That although early in July laft, Mr. Pinckney received the or- 
ders from our Government, yet in facft he never made any propofal of 
refcinding the Embargo, till Auguft 23d, except from himfelf. 

zd. That the offer which he explicitly made on the 23d of Auenft, 
was conceived by the Britifh Government unauthorized. He commu- 
nicated his powers to them, and they very rightly thought them infui- 
ficient- 

3d. That had he been fully authorized, the offer was not equal to 
the one made to France, which was that oi joining her in the war— i'v 
was not folid, reciprocal, or honourable. It was one which Grea'^ 



Britain could not confidently granty and of courfe to which we could 
r.ot, and the Adminiilration did not exped her to accede. 



Mr. Pinckney^s Poivers. 

It Is doubted by feme whether Mr. Pinckney did not ofFer uncondi- 
tionally the repeal of the Embargo. 

An Agent or Minifter can legally do nothing but according to his 
Ifj/iruiflJoTif — If he does, his principal or iovereign is not bound. 
Mr. Pinckney had three letters of Inftrudtion about the orders. 
I ft. One of April 4ih, wliich ordered a remonftrance, but contain- 
ed no propofal 'whatever about the Embargo. 

2d. One of April 30th, which he received the 14th July, by the St. 
Michaels. This did not authorife him to propofe fpecificaliy the re- 
peal of the Embargo, but fimply " to au horize the expe^iation,'" [Is 
this a proinife binding on the party ?] •• that the prefiuent would with- 
in a reafonahle time." [What is reafonable time ? At covmion laiv this 
is to be decided by a court and jury, according to the nature of the cufe^ 
but between fc'ereign powers, reafon.ible tinie^ means the will or piea- 
fure oi tht Jiipulating fovereign — in fhurt, it means nothitig. But what 
was to be done in a reafonahle time ?'] " The prefident nx^ould give effeil 
to the /»(jwfr veiled in him on the fu^jeft ot the Embargo." In what 
way ? By taking it off? How? in ivhole or \u part '^ The law vetted 
hin with both powers ] 

Did this loofe claule of '^giving effeR to the ponver" necefTarily in- 
clude the promife of taking it off 'wholly ? 

3d. The oTily other letter on this fubjed was of the i8th July, and 
this could not by pofhility have been received prior to the verbal confe- 
rences fpoken of by Mr. Canning. 

1 find Mr. Pinckney fays he received it on the icth day of Augufl, 
and that on the 4th Augufl, he wrote our government ot the various 
interview's which he had had with Mr. Canning on that fubje<5l-. Of 
necefTity he could not have done otherw-ife than aft for himjelf in fall 
thef interview's, fince we have fhewn he had till the 20th of Augult, if 
then, 710 authority to pledge the government. — Mr. Canning, dillatisfied 
with thefe loofe conferences, demanded a form.il letter, which Mr. 
Pinckney addrelfed to him on the 23d Auguft, three days after he re- 
ceived the lafl inftrudions of July i8th. 

Was he inftruded to make this explicit offer by this laft letter ? 
I fay 710 — The only authority is contained in thefe words — " The 
communications and iajiruftiojis forwarded by Mr. Purviance (which 
were thofe of April 30th, and were wholly incompetent as 1 have 
proved) will enable you to bring the Britifh government to a fair iffue 
on the fubje<5i: of its orders. If it has nothing in view more than it is 
willing to avow, it will not hefitate to concur in an arrangement, re- 
fcinding on her part the Orders in Council, and on ours, the Embars. 
so." 



Now did this convey any neiu ponver ? The latter part is a mere 
train of reafoning of Mr. Madifon — but he exprefsly refers Mr. Pinck- 
nev to the letter of the 30th April, for his biflruCiions That gave 
him no fiich p uver as is pretended. 

All thff? papers \rere Ihe' n to Mr. Canning, and having been once 
taken in bv the rejection of a fnlemn treaty, on the pretended ground of 
breach of Inftruftions, he probably thought the powers incompetent — 
In this I and every ("ither honeit American will agree. 

ff it fiiiiild be alked wh-it Mr. Mndifon intended by faying that 
Great Britain could not juftly reiuTe the offer of repealing the Em- 
bargo, on condition of reicinuing the Orders ? 

1 anfwer, that he meant as much as the prefident did, when he de- 
clared that there were Imultaneou-; and equivalent offers made to G. 
Britain and France, when to one the oi?er of an alliance, and to the 
•ther nothing was in effe<fl made. He knew well that this reafbning 
intended to put Great-Britain in the wrong when publiihed here, did 
not vary the pofitive injlru[iiuns which were confiryned in xht fame fen- 
iencs, and which would authoriie the prefident to reje£l any bargain 
made by Mr. Pinckney. 



Additional strictures on the Corresfiondence betzveen our Cabinet aJid 
that of France — teiiding to shew the mean subsei'viency 0^ the former 
$0 the latter. 

THE author of the late Analysis confined his examination of these 
dispatches, chiefly to one point — the inequality of the offers made to 
had no direct bearing on that question, wyre wholly or in a great part 
•mitted. 

I propose to supply briefly this deficiency, and to shew that in the 
•orresponden e with France, the rights and honour of the United States 
have been shamefully sacrificed and basely deserted. 

The first proof of this assertion I shall draw from the correspondence 
in relation to Mr- Champagnys famous or rather infamous letter of the 
l5th of January, in which he declares the United States at ivar with 
Great Britain, and that France would hold all American propeity 
(amounting to 17 millions of dollars) sequestered as a pledge for our 
«bedience to this re [uisition. 

Although the President and liis party, betrayed in this counLiy no 
marks of indignation at this letter, yet it appears that they were sensible 
•f the indignity offered to the nation, and by Mr. Madison's letter of 
May 2d, 1808, it is confessed that it excited strong sensations in tlie 
minds of «// men alive to the interests and honour of the nation. 

I forbear to remark the concession contained in this sentence, that 
tlic only minds alive to this sense of honour were those of the Federalists^ 
ft)r they and ihey alone manifested these sensations. 



Though Mr. Madisoft, in his letter, directed a remonstrance, yet he 
couched his directions in terms disgraceful and dastardly, for he simply 
characterised this outrageous attack on our rights " as having the air of 
an cissumed authority," but lest these mild epithets should stir up the 
torpid spi' i' of General Armstrong to expressions of just indignation 
be cautioiis liim expressly to be guarded and measured in his terms, 
lest he should offend the Emperor of the West ! ! 

Still, however, he explicitly orders General Arm-Strong to demand 
ex/ilanati(ms^ and any independent cabinet would moreover have re- 
quired an explicit disavowal of the offensive tone. 

Li.sul's to public and private life, are more difficult to be endured than 
injuriea — and it is a fixed principle, that insults deliberately given by the 
sotneign j»i<*tt;t ait {-■^f, .y be turgiven ihan luose wuich proceed (rom 
the mh ^1 ts of infftnour nffirers. 

Com, -aie this caxe wiib thai of the Ch<'sapeake. Sorely, no mao of 
ipiiii ••ill noi.fend thai th^ in/ttrj/ in thiS tatter case, was equal to the 
intuit. I( was this po oi whi* h so much excited public k resemment, as 
i* a;.i ar«-o' front the v<;tes of all the bodies assembled ^n »h's occasion. 
Y* ' Gieas Brit^jjo was eager on the first knowledge of this affair, betore 
arv >:<-inand of reiaiaiirin, to disavow ih' insuk. 

But the imvU w, the raj;i? of Mr. Chtmpagny's Seller, wa* the act of the 
g< vernQ»rut, <nv! hat it vjas an insult u d^-i la.ed by Madison in bis letter 
ol May las'. It nas o ddiha ate act ofx the part oi the Emperor, infnng- 
ioj; our joverpign righ's. 

Ho'^ did Mr. A. mnmng execute his ;)«i/ic/t orders? In a manner 
wh cb pr«<ves :hat be must have had private instructions in opposition to 
thrni. o'h' r i't- h» ou^h' to have bet-n re<a'«i»'.-' 

On ht- 4 h o Jiilv (*i)r anniversary of our Independence) he addressed 
a poliie no!.'- ir Mr. Chan»fiaKny and simp v sta.-i .ht offensive terms 
onjplov'd. hot rlein,'n'*''d f explanation avd no disavoxjuah 

Exfilanation^ indeed, they could not make — the terms used did not 
admit of explanation, any more than if an individual had called another 
a Kar or thief. — But a dimvowal ought to have been required. Such a 
disavowal never has been demanded, nor has the Emperor deigned to 
make any reply* except by a Decree of the 2 1 st of July, seventeen days 
after, dated i^t Bayonne, confiscating the American property, previous- 
ly sequestered. How far the tameness and meanness of this applica- 
tion may have encouraged him to this act, and to the further as 
sumption in the f^ame decree of condemning all American ships, which 
should violate our Embargo, thus assuming a new executive /lowevy in, 
execution of our laws, we leave for the people to decide. 

It is a solemn fact proved by these dispatches that no answer has 
ever been given to the meek remonstrance of Gen. Armstrong. 

The next document to which I wish to call the attention of " that 
class of people who Mr. Madison says are yet alive to the honour and 
di<:nity of the United States," is the letter of Mr. Champagny to Mr. 
Aimstrong, of November 24, 1807. 

' 'li' letter of the French Minister contains the following important 
iileas :— 



I. That any belligerent nalbn ao-grieved ut the acr/uiescencc of a 
neutral in the unjust assumptions of its enemy has a riir/it to retuliale. 
This is a confession of France that the claim set up by Gieat Britain to 
retaliate, tlie Berlin decree is just if supported^by facts — His words are 
" The United States bind themselves by that tolerance towards England 
to alloiv also the application of the measures of reprisal wliich Trance 
is obliged to employ agidnst her," This is the doctrine of retaliation 
in its broadest form. 

2hdly. The instances cited by INIr. Champagny of British violation 
of neutral rights are worthy of notice. 

They are the general right of search (la visite.) 

The taking away our crews — 

The doctrine of blockade. 

We do not find the rule of 1756 in this list of grievances for the 
best of all reasons, because France was the author ef this doctrine and 
still insists upon it herself. 

Two of the three cases of which she complains are the very Jirst 
rights of war recognised by writers and by the practice of all nations.— 
As to the first, Mr. Jetlerson ably defended it against Mr. Genet in 
1793. As to the second, it was justly answered at that time by our 
government that it was a thing wlxich concerned only ourselves — and 
as to the third, the British blockades have been confined to the princi- 
ples adopted by the armed neutrality, to wit, " of an actual investing 
force competent to prevent the entry of ships Avlthout an imminent 
danger of capture." 

Commodore Preble, with a single ship off Tripoli, set up the same 
doctrine, captured a British slii/i^ sent her into Malta, and to jny knowl- 
edge, Sir Alexander Ball, a British naval officer, comiiii-uiding there, 
explicitly in writing, approved the conduct of Commodore Preble. 
Thus Great Britain claims.nothing on thia head but what she yields 
to otheraiations. 

If France then claims by the larj of retaliation^X.o seize and condemn 
our ships for our submission to principles recognised by the law of na- 
tions, may not Great Britain set up the same doctrine, when France 
violates through our rights the most sicred principles of this law ? 

Mr. Champagny, not content with the above futile justification, 
concludes by saying, " All these difticulties would be removed with 
ease if the United States took with the vjhole continent the part of guar- 
anteeing itself therefrom. England luis introduced into the mariiime 
war an en&re disregard of the law of nations — it is only in forcing her 
to a peace that it is possible to recover tJiem." 

In other words, join our coalition and force Great Britain to peace, 
or we will never abandon our system of retaliation fi)r the just and ac- 
knowledged principles set up by Great Britain. 

The offer had its effect — Our Government obedient to the sugges- 
tion, by restrictive energies, joined the whole continent against Great 
Britain, ^nd France pleased with our obedience, deigns to applaud our 
loyalty i 1 a style to which we have been before familiarized in the lan- 
guage to Holland— to Spiun, and to Switzerland. 

The last paper I shall notice in this disgraceful correspondence, is 



1(5 

that of General Armstrong of the 6th of August, on the subject of tht 
French decrees. It will be remembered that the orders to General 
Armstrong -were explicitly to offer an alliance on the side of Frince 
against Great Britain, if the former should repeal her decrees and the 
latter should refuse to repeal her orders. 

These instructions.! find General Armstrong acknowledges that he 
received on the 1st day of June. 

There are no communications Avhatever respecting this very in- 
teresting subject, either of x'er^c/ confrences ov written memorials from 
that day till the &th of August, nor any reason or apology for the neg- 
lect assigned. 

On the 6th of August General Armstrong addressed to the French 
government the most base and degrading letter that the v/hole annals 
of diplomacy in any country can furnish. 

First. It is a total departure from his instructions which were posi- 
tive and explicit, to ofier France to tiike part in the war on her side 
upon the condition above stated. — As Mr. Armstrong was so \oxi^ ailent, 
and finally departed from the a-uonved instructions, and as he is yet 
continued in office and confidence, it follows that he must have had 
private instructions opposed to the public ones. 

Secondly. He admits explicitly that the French decrees as municificd 
I'egulations were lawful, and of course he gives up, unasked.^ all the 
claims of our citizens for seizures under the decrees. This was en- 
tirely unsolicited and unriccessai-y — it was a base surrender of a ques- 
tion in wMch the ^ight is on our side. It was moreover agreeing to a 
repeal of our treaty with France, which many sound civilians believe 
forbade this nefarious system of confiscation. 

Thirdly. He basely deserts the question of right as to the decrees 
generally, and urges France to a fiartial su.i/ie?isio?i of them only, not 
as an act of justice, but on the ground of her own pecuniaiy interest. 
This was calculated to sink us if possible still lower in the estimation 
of France and of all Iluro/ie. 

Lastly. He assures France that should she adopt this mean proposal, 
and Great Britain should capture our ships, we should " declare war 
against Great Britain, and thus his Majeity's wishes expressed in Jan- 
uary last would be directly promoted." The w/s-Ae.s alluded to, were 
the positive order and declaration of war in Champagny's letter. 

Who would believe that our countiy could be so degraded, as that 
our minister should offer as aa inducement, our compliance with an 
insolent order, against Avhich he had been directed to complain, and 
should gently and humbly call tliis order, the expression of liis Majes- 
ty's wishes I 



.VOTE. 

It is an extraoi'dinary fact, that Gen. Armstrong never dreamed of the 
French decrees hc'xw^ justifiable as municipal regulations, till after he received 
Mr. Madison's directions so to treat them. 

By his otun letters of" Nov. 12, 1807, and of April 2, 1808, to Mr. Champagny, 
it appears, that he considered our treatv violated, as well as the hnv »f nations. 



u 

" To appeal to them," he observed, "would be literally appealing- to the 
dead." 

But after receiving instructions from Mr. Madison not to offend France in 
tlie manner of urg-ing- our claims, his tone was entirely changed, and he never 
dared to urge the repeal, but only \.he partial suspe^ision of the French decrees. 
Another thing worthy of notice in the correspondence of Gen. Armstrong, 
is the glimpse we obtain of the decree of the French council of prizes rela- 
tive to the ship Horizon, condemned under the Berlin deeree of Nov. 21, 1806. 
Why our Cabinet ha%'e seen fit to siippress this decision, so necessarv for the 
information of all those merchants who had property seized under' the de- 
cree, I cannot conceive ; but I shall add, in this note, some pai-ts of it, whicii 
merit close attention, as tending to shew how shamefully our government 
sufl'ered themselves to be duped in the construction of the Berlin decree. 

The third reason, (says Gen. Armstrong) which the French Council of 
Prizes urged for the condemnation of the Horizon, was, " tliat tlie application 
of the 5th article aforesaid, as it concerns America and other nations, is the 
result of the general expres.u'oiis of that r-eri/ article, and of the communication 
recently made by his excellency the Grand Judge, concerning the primitive 
intention of the Sovereign." 

Now the 5th article referred to was the 5th article of the Berlin decree, 
wliich made goods of English nuuiufacture lawful prize ; and it now appears 
"that tlic/^r/;;;zV/w intention of the Emperor was to extend it to us, as its 
words plainly import." 

The fourth reason assigned by this highest French tribunal is, " that the 
expedition m question (the Horizon) having certainly been made with full 
knowledge of that decree (of Berlin) no objection can be drawn witli pro- 
priety from the general rules forbidding retrospective action, nor in this ca.se 
from the date of the act in w liich the Sovereign decides the question, since 
that act sprung from his supreme wisdom, not as an interpretation of a doubt- 
ful point, but a declaration of an anterior and positive disposition." 

The Horizon sailed in May, 18U7, and the Council declare that his Majesty 
had always^considered the Nov. decree of Berlin as a positive disposition, of 
which nexitrah were bound to take notice. 

M'hat a complete piece of flummery and froth does the famous explanation 
of Mons. Decres to Mr. Armstrong, of tlie Berlin decree, thus prove .' ! ! 

Our government, we have formerly shewn, were not in fact deceived, b<it 
they chose to appear so. 

They however learned a good lesson from this French manoeuvre of ex- 
plaining by an unqualified, unauthorised officer. They learned to apply the 
same trick in negotiating- witli Great Britain, through an uninstructcd officer! 
But they have not been as successful or adi'oit in playing their game, as their 
patrons, and patterns, the French. 

One OTHER IMPORTANT REMARK, to wliicli wc earnestly request the 
public a,ttention, is this — B}- the late commimication to Congress, called for 
by Mr. Lloyd, as to the belligerent orders, Mr. Madison states that he lias not 
7/e/ received the if«j/o?i«e f/ff)'ee of April last, but he quotes a letter of Gen 
Armstrong of the 23d April last, giving- some information concerning it. 

Upon turning again to the despatches whicli were ordered to he publislied, 
we find no such letter among them. Here then is a seccnid case of suppression, 
and that of a letter confessed to be Important, as containing an account of a 
ne-v decree against our trade. Perhaps if published it might jjroduce as 
great an effect on the public mind, as the suppressed letter of Mr. Canning 



i'i 



Additional and incontrovertible proofs of the devotion ofMr.JEFFZRSOi/ 

and his'CJBiNET, to France : — and 
A COMPARISON of the ORDERS and DECREES of the tnvo great bel- 

LIGERENfS. 

No. I. 

THE Senate of the United Slates, on the 14th November last, re- 
quesed the President " to cause to be laid before them, copies oiall 
ord '\? u.nd decrees of the belligerent powers, passed since 179 1, affect- 
ing ihe coninierciai rights of the U. States." 

This order Avas simple — intellio-ible to the meanest capacity ; but it 
shook tJie dry bones of the cupJtol — -it was perceived that it would ex-> 
hibit 1 r..nce in the trite light of a most unprincipled aggressor. 

Soincthiag must be done to relieve their friends, and two projects 
were adoirtpd, infianous indeed, and hard to believe ; but I nieun to 
prove both oi them, not by harsh epithets and general assertions, but by 
po^iiive evidence. 

Firstlii. lu order to excite .in odium agninst Great Britain, the cabinet de- 
tenrinect to ti'uvel out at 'die request <>f tiie Senate, and to introduce, not the 
decreas or ;>rders of Great-Britain, a K ecting- .'?wer»crt/? c(»n>nerce, but all her 
orders aliectingthe trade of other neutral nations, in no degree connected with 
or iVHccting- us. 

Secondfij. In order to prevent an unfavourable impression towards France, 
they huvc. under various pretexts, not only suppressed many of her measures 
affcctinff us, hut have wholly kept back her conduct towards other neutral 
countiics, while they have inserted those of Greai-Britam towards such couur 
tries. 

I rest not upon bold assertion : But I proceed to the proof of these 
incredible facts. 

It appears from these documents, submitted under the hand of Mr. 
Madison, that the First decree, violating our rights, was passed by 
France, on the 9th of May, 1793 ; in which they ordered the capture 
of all our ships loaded with provisions, bound to Great-Britain. — This 
was thirty days before any hostile order issued by Great-Britidn. 

Tne administration saw the embarrassment. — They perceived that, 
as in thefirtit,iio in all subsequent measures, their friends, the French, 
were the aggressors. 

How was this charge to be covered, or smothered, or concealed ? 

They took the bold and impertinent resolution of defending their po- 
litical allies, by travelling out of the request of the Senate, and insert- 
ing certain private treaties of Great-Britcdn with the continental pow- 
ers — treaties which were never enforced, and Avhich were in no degree 
operative on neutrals. To prove this assertioii^ beyond a cavil or the 
possibility of contradiction, when France issued hav first violation of 
neutral rights, m May 1793, although she inserted a preamble or apol- 
ogy twice as long as her decree, she never mentioned these treaties a:s 



ene of the causes : — They were not klio-\vn until several months 
after, and were never executed durmg tiny period of the war. 

Thus we sec, as in ^former case, our cabinet set up apologies that 
France herself has not the audacity to urge. 

But the cabinet, not content with thus swellir^g the list of complaints 
against Great-Britain with subjects which were not contained within 
the request of the Senate, go farthei', and introduce two orders refer- 
ring to other neutral nations, and to circumstances with which we have 
no concern. The first is the order of the 25th November, 1807, reci* 
ting, that whereas Prussian and Lubeck vessels had been detained un- 
der the pretext that those countries were under the coercion or power 
of i" ranee, they should be released, and subject only to the orders of 
1 1th November, 1807. A similar order is hitroduced with respect to 
ships belonging to Portugal. 

It is not perceived for what pur|Dose these are introduced, except to 
swell the catalogue of pretended British mfraciions, not towards Amer- 
ican, but other neutral Jiags. 

We shall now see with what fairness this same rule is applied to 
France. 

The first instance which occurs of the suppression of a Frencli arti- 
cle, is that of the 28th May, 1793, which it is pretended they could not 
find in the Department of State : — I will however supply it : — 

" The Xational Convention, on the proposal of a Member, repeals the lav. 
of the 23d of May, whicli declared that the United States are not comprized, 
in the (provision,) order of the 9th of this month, and decrees, that the mer- 
chandize (American) should remain in sequestration provisionally, and charges 
its committee of pubUc safety, in concert with the officers of the marine, to 
laak^ a report." 

The same difficulty of finding a French ordinance, which never oc- 
curred in the case of Great Britcdn, took place as to the order of 27th 
of July, 1793, which extended the Jirsi instance of violation of neutral 
rights to us. — I shall, also, again supply this defect. 

" .hihi 27, 1793. 
"The National Convention, after having heard the report of its Committee 
of Marine, declares that it maintains the provisions of the decree of the 9tlc 
..Ufati last (the provision decree) relative to neutral vessels laden with pro- 
visions, or merchandize belonging to an enemv — that it shall have its full and 
entire execution, and all laws or provisions to the contrary shall be void." 

It appears, then, that the conduct of France, as to this ^^rst violation 
ever committed in the late war upon neutral rights, by either belliger- 
ent, was precisely like her condtict as to the Berlin decree. — She first 
equivocated, pretended to respect our treaty, and finally declared its 
entire executicn. 

Ixt tis now proceed, in imitation of Mr. Madison's conduct towards 
Great Britain, UNSOLICITED, to give the cases of the violation of wczi/ro/ 
rights by France, and many instances of her ill conduct towards :/o, 
proved by olTir.ial papers to this effect, purposely, we prcsumcvomit- 
ted by our very impartial government. Surely it cannot be pi'esumcd 
that these official papers arc not on record here, when Ihey were pub- 
lished by the governsnent of France :-^ 



14 

On the 16th AuG^ust, 1793, the Convention decreed, tiiat all vessels taken 
belonging to the German powers which had a voice in the diet of Ratisbon 
s]iould_bc declared lawful pri/.e. 

On the lltli September a decree was passed, not noticed by >Jr. Madison, 
afiectiiig us and all neutral nations, that all neutral vessels loaded in their 
ports, wherever destined, should be obliged to unload. 

On the 21st September, 1793, all neutral vessels were forbidden to trans- 
port from port to port of France any goods wliatever. This gives some color 
to the British order of January 7th, 1807 : since it appears that it was pro- 
hibited trade, and probably only permitted because France could not carry 
on her ou'n coasting trade. 

On the 9th June, 1793, all the ships of the free Hanse Towns, and of the free 
town of Dantzick, were declared g-ood j^rize ; they were called free towns in 
the decree, and were perfectly neutral in the then existing war. 

But why did INIr. Madison forget to introduce, Avhen he inserted 
British local statutes at Ittrge, the famous circular of the Minister of 
Justice, of the 21st Ventose, an. 5, urging the tribun;-<,s to be more 
rapid in their condemnation^., and v hich circular was aimed solely at 
America, and concludes with these very remarkable words : " In vain 
have our perfidiovis and usurping enemy surprised a people to ivliom 
ive brought forth liberty., (or Avhose libert)' we delivered) into stipula- 
tions contrary to their interests and ours : We knew hqw to maintain 
the equilibrium, by re/irisals" — -On whom ? On us. 

Why did Mr. Madison remember to omit the laws of 2d January, 
1795, and 27th April, 1796, expressly relating to us, and referred to 
in the decree of the 12th Ventose, an. 5th, cited and given by him ? 

Why too did he choose to omit the memorable letter of the Minister 
of Justice to Mr. Skipwith, of the 4tii Floreal, an. 5th, containing im- 
portant regulations and constructions of our rights, which letter the 
Minister of Justice declares, that the Directors ordered him to trans- 
mit to the inaritime tribunals for their government ? 

Why was the important letter of the Minister of Justice, as to Amer- 
ican vessels not possessing the role d ^ K(juijiage, omitted ? It was deem- 
ed so important as to be inserted into their code of prizes, published 
several years afterwards, as a serious national regulation. 

Why, (will iVIr. INIadison have tlte goodness to explain) was the very 
important decree of the 8th Ventose, an. 6,(1798) ordering the seiz- 
ure of all French Sailors, serving on board neutral ships, if found in any 
port cf F7-a7ice,oT\\ittcd ? Was it because it claimed the veiy right set 
vrp by Great Britain ? Did it not violate the rights of A'eutral Flags ? 
Did it not further permit the seizure of native Englishmen on board 
American ships, in spite of the flag ? Did it not, in fact, go farther, and 
declare every sailor who spoke the English language a prisoner of war, 
though protected by the flag, unless he could prove himself to be an 
American by documents satisfactoiy to the French minister ? 

I shall pursue this subject mttch farther. 

No. II. 

WE concluded our last by asking why the decree of France of the 
6th Ventose or?. 6, or, in old style, 1798, ordering- the seizure of all 
French sailors in American or other neutral vessels Avas omitted ? 



15 

Shall I be told tliat this did not come within the order of the Senate ? 
— That it did not aftcct the neutral lights of American commerce ? — 
How happened it then that the British Kini^'s proclamation of the 16th 
October^ 1807, recalling all his scamtn from serving foreign states, was 
inserted ? 

Is what is lanv for France no law for Grca* Britain ? Or did Mr. 
Madison hope to esqape the lynx-eyed vigilance of the lovers of truth, 
whom his former hypocrisy had rendered jealous of him I 

Does Ml. Madison contend that trance and Great Britain, have a 
right in their own ports to search neutra.! ships, and arrest their own 
seamen though naturalized in America, and though forming a part of 
the crews engaged in A.merica ? 

If his answer is in the negative, wliy was this most important order 
of France suppressed ? 

Again — ^How happened Mr. IVfadison, when stating the decrees of 
Great Bntaiii, concerning a few Lubeck and Prussian cases in no degra: 
affecting us, to take especial care to overlook the public French report 
in the case of the Danish ships Heibs and Eliza, on the 24th Fentosc, 
an. 6,(1798,) m which principles are advanced extremely important 
to us and to all neutral nations ? I shall insert some of these pro- 
visions : — 

"The passports of these ships, says the above mentioned French report, 
are not in rule. One of these ships v/as at Amsterdam when her passports 
were sent from Copenhagen. It is then confiscable under this view by the 
terms of the Cndonnance of July 26, 1778, which ordains that a passport shall 
be null, unless gi-antecL while the ship is in the port of the Sovereign why 
grants it." 

This is a violation of neutral rights of which France, and Franco 
alone, has been guilty — it prohibits a neutral vessel from making in anij 
cufc a second voyage without returning to her own country. 

This constmction is also put upon it by Mr. Ward, in his answer to 
Hubner, and as he considers it a gross violation of principle, I feel con- 
firmed in my own opinion upon it. 

Another quotation from this report is also extremely interesting — it 
recites the 4th ai'jicle of the French Decree of 26th July^ 1778, as still 
in force, which is, 

"That vessels belonging to nevlrals coming out of enemies ports, and there 
laden in whole or in part, to go into anj otlicr port than their oivn, either alh , 
neutral, or enem\, shall be, vessel and cargo, good prize, though owned h^ 
neutrals, or even Frenchmen." 

Here is a great part and the most obnoxious part of the rule of 1756, 
recognised by France in the present war., und much surpassed in rigour. 

Why did Mr. Madison omit this? — Was it because he had written 
a book against this rule., and this case Avent to convict him of mistakes ? 

What renders this omission more unpardonable is, that Mr. Madison 
inserts the firstjhvorable decree of Bonaparte, when first consul, 19th 
December, 1800 ; which favorable decree declares, that the iv/iole 
ordonnunce of July 26, 1778, shall be strictly observed. 

Now as the decree of 1800 was introduced bv Madison to shew a re- 



\6 

taxation on the part of France, why not insert the articles referred td 
in the ordonnrcnce of 1778 ? 

Was it because it would appear that after all this pretended relaxa- 
tion, the French laAv, as above quoted from the original French, is in- 
finitely more severe than any doctrine set up by Great Britain ? 

Froh ! Pudor ! ! Can we suppress a blush for such shameless 
partiality ? 

One phrase in the report above cited, gives us a bird's eye view of 
French belligerent principles : — 

" People speak, say they, of the delicacy due to neutrals and allies, and 
forget all that is owing' to those brave mariners who aiiront death in a thou- 
sand forms to cause tlie commerce of the republic to flourish and destroy 
tliat of the enemy." 

Why again did Mr. Madison omit the decree of the 9th Ther- 
midor^ an. 9, which took off the embargo on American ships I 
Was it because he hoped to have it overlooked that such a viola- 
tion of our neutral rights as this embargo was, had ever taken 
place? — Or did he not like the taunting and insolent nature of the 
preamble to this decree ? A language which France has always 
used towards this country. 

Further — Why was the able message from the Executive Di- 
rectory to the Council of Five Hundred, of the 22d A7vose, an. 7, 
omitted by Mr. Madison, though adopted as law? Was it because 
it contained the Jolloiving- passages offensive to the ea}-s of the 
friends oi France.^ who desire, against all truth and/ac^, to repre- 
sent her as the friend of neutrals ? They say 

" The object of privateeinng is to intercept and destroy the conrimerce of 
the nation with which ycu are at war — But if on one side it hapjjens tliat an 
eneiny's ship inaij cover the property cf a fi-iend or neutral, so it is easy to 
foresee X\ya\. belligerents, zz/mM' to navigate w'vOn security under their own^a?:- 
ner, will borrow that of neutral powers to cover their property, and thus re- 
serve the habitual and easy transport of the prrifits of their soil and industry. 

" The employment and frequenlly repeated and partial use of this simula- 
tion, has diminished the resiiect for neutral flags, and we must be occupied 
witii the consideration of the means of seizing enemies property where\'er it 
may be on the sea, with whatever fl.ig covered." 

Again. " The regulations of 1744 were produced by changes in principles 
since 1704 in consequence of treaties with several powei's." 

But it will be remembered that the rule of 1744 still included 
that of 1756. 

Again. " The ordonnance of 1778 (which Ave have shewn extends to the 
worst fiart of the rule of 1756) was founded on more liberal principles, BE- 
CAUSE the war of Jimerica Ua\ing had for its object the repairing the losses 
and injuries which we had sustained for more than an age, by the medium of 
liberating the American colonies, and to protect at the same time the hberty 
of the seas, the French government was induced toafipreciate more the rights' 
of neutrals, and to perceive that all which it should do for neutrals would be a 
blow aimed at England.'" 

Here then we see the ultimate object and final end of all the li- 
beral professions of France — it is, as expressed much more forci- 
bly in the original, " im coup porte a. I'Angleterre." 



17 

.There are two other articles in the French ordonnanccs which, 
merited a place in this collection upon the same principles upon 
which all the orders of Great-Britain as to neutrals, were in- 
troduced. 

First. The Arrcte dca Consu/.<t de la Refiublique of the 13th .'^Y- 
voHP^ an. 8, which took off' the embarfj;o on all neutral vessels which 
had been previously laid. This embargo was a manifest violation 
of the rights of all neutral nations, and ought therefore to have 
found a place in this collection. 

And, secondly, the law parsed by the Consuls of France as to dis- 
putes about the validity of prizes, passed so late as the 26th Vcn- 
lose, an. 8. (1801) — This was an attempt at the close of the revolu- 
tionary war, to returyi to something like principle, which had been 
totally abandoned for a period of twelve years of warfare. The 
French author from v/hom I derive my information, and whose 
work was printed at the national press, observes, that " here 
" commenced a new jurisdiction of captures — a jurisdiction which 
" took place of the ancient, so -vacillating and so varied under the 
" convention and the directory." 

The worst enemy of France could not have used language more 
sarcastic; and it proves, from the confession of the ,§-z/z7/v /^or/!/, 
that from 1790 to the year 1801 nothing like steady principle was 
maintained in France, as to the question of prize and the rights of 
neutrals. 

Yet Mr. Madison omits these articles, lest they should militate 
with the views of our cabinet. We are not surprised at this par- 
tiality and hypocrisy. — It \?> perfectly conformable to the conduct of 
our cabinet in their late conduct towards Great Britain and France. 

The French themselves are more ready to confess their errors 
ihan our cabinet to admit them. 



No. III. 

WE have fliewn the unpardonable partiality of oin- cabinet, not only 
in furpafling the bounds of their commiflion in order to adduce proofs 
or furmifes agaisft G. Britain, with regard to her conduft to aeutral 
nations with whom we had no connexion, but alfo in fupprefling w;ny, 
very many French orders and dicrees which materially affedfed our riglits, 
and which therefore came ftriA:y within the late requeft of the Seriate. 

It is my purpofe now, to fliew from thefe partial and onefided commu- 
nications, that from the commencement of the lafi and the prefent war, 
Fr ance has been always the aggreffor .— and that G' tit- Britain, fo far 
from fnllo wing \ier pari pajfu, (with equal ftep) has never come up to the 
ftandard eftabliflied by France in the itnutntton of neutral rights — but has 
adopted principles vaftly more liberal than (lie has done. 

I fhall proceed on the documents from the office of foreign affairs, 
furniflied officially by Mr. Madison, fupplying in one or two inftances 



defri^s, from an official publication of the government of Francet the au- 
thenticity of which cannot be queftioned. 

I fhall divide the points of comparifon and inquiry into three great 
head'; ; — 

Firstly. The respective decrees and orders as to the capture of provisions. 
Sec ndiy. The same decrees and orders as to the extent of neutral trade with ao 
en«-'in-, m enemy's aroods, and in colonial productions. 
T nidly. As to the question of blockade. 

Fi'fily. As to the capture of pnvifinns in neutral veffils, it appears 
that 'France vm the firft aggreffor, according to Mr. Madison's late 
report. 

On the 9th day of May, 1793, France ordered the capture of all 
neutral veflels laden " in tvhoU or in p-.rt with articles of provifion be- 
Io"^i"fij to neufal nations and deftined for an enemy's port, or with met' 
chrindi%e belonging to an enemy.^* 

We fay nothing about the abominable perfidv of the lall article which 
violated our treaty of 1778 in xheji'fi instance in which we had occafion to 
claim ^he benefit of it. — Tt was a renunciation of the doctrine of " free 
{h'p-, free goods," and an abominable a 'd unprpvoted mfnugement of her 
ftipulations on that fubj^dt. But we confine ourfdves fimply to the feizure 
of pnvifions We fay this was the firft decree or order for that purpofe. 
"The mode in which this was to be enforced wa<! fimilar to that of Great 
pritiin paffcd thirty days after in retnliaiion of this, ajid that was by pay- 
ing for the provifi.ins at a fat price. 

But there was onv detestabl* difference in the French order, a 
principle which in -.o pakt of the Britiih Jaws has hitherto found an 
admifllon, and that was, that the law of Mny 9th, 1793, fhould have a 
retroi;)effive effed on innocent neutrals, and fhould be applied to '* all the 
pr'z.h which bad been made fince the declaration of war " 

Thus it feems that this decree, though dated in '^'fay, ninety days 
only after the declaration of war, was to have a ret'of^effive effeA, and 
thus g'oes behind the /ecret treaties never enforced which Mr. Mat i son 
ofHciouny has foifted into his report, in order to excite an unjuft preju- 
dice- agaiiift Great- -^rit in. 

The Britiih Orovfion order, and the only one cited by Mr. Madison, 
is ddted Jine 8th, 1793, and is reta'iatory nearly in terms upon that of 
France, except that it has no retrofpe^ive operation, like that of France^ 
nor was like theirs, a violation of an exiffing treaty. There was another 
order about blockaded ports in the fame paper, whiih we fhall confider 
under its proper head. 

Secondly. We now come to other decrees, orders and a6ls of the bel- 
ligerents, aff'-fting neutral trade with enemies generally, efpecially the 
very interefting trade with colonies. 

T fhall again begin with France, becaufe I am authori-zed to fay that 

her laws preceded thofe of her enemy in reftriftions on neutral commerce. 

When France began the war in 1793, fhe had a marine code of prizes, 

and until fhe ch.>;,gcd and modified it Hy other laws, the old /a-wi • emain- 

ed in force.— -l am entitled to lay this down from the decree of Bona- 



19 

PARTE and the otbpr Confuls, dated Duember 19t^i, 1800, cited by 
Mr. M Diso ill the report refr-rnd tu, page 103. — Bonap rte 
thtre declares, that the repeal of the rigid and deieftahle aft of 2,5'Ji Vi- 
vofe, an. 6th, which we fliall prefently coiifider, neceflarily «' revives that 
ftate of the law amecedently exilling " Aiid he proceeds to declare, 
that the law or ordoiinan. e of July 26th, 1778, refpedmg neutiali, 
fhould thenceforward be ftnCtly obferved. 

' ence it follows, accordi-.g to the found and undoubted p'fuioii 
of Bonaparte, which no civilian or lawyer can deny, tfiat prior to any 
modification, the ancient laws ot marine capture being perpetual m ti vir 
terms, continued in force in all future wars. Of neceffi'y, the Icw of 
France, from the beginning ot the war in 1793, to 179^, when (he 
palTtd the m )ft execrable att, which 1 (hall loon notice, was bottom- 
ed on the ancient and unrepealed ordonnances. — So Ifind their flatefmeri 
and lawyers reafoned and aAed. 

What was this ancient latv ? — In the firft place the law of 17-14, 
which forbade all trade between an enemy' % country and any other, even a 
neutral ftate, except that to which the vfffel belonged This was again 
modified by the ordonnance of July 26, 1778, which in its preamble 
declared, that ♦« it was the intent of the kmg to renew the difpofnions 
cf the ancient regulations, and to add netv ones." — He then adds, that 
veflels bound to or from an enemy's port, fhall not, for that caufe. be 
condemned, but leaves in force the old ordonnances as to cafes of vtlTcls 
bound from an enemy's part to any other part of an enemy, or any other 
neutral port. 

Such would have been my conftruftion, if left uufupported, but i 
have the higheit authority to fupport me. — Le Nouveau code des Prises, 
publifhed by authority of the French Gevernment, 7o;n<? III. 6. 494-, de- 
clares, that by the 4th article of an ordonnance of Ju/y 26, 1778, it is 
exprefsly provided " that vefFels belonging to any neutral States which 
fhall have departed from any enemies' ports, and fhall have there loaded, 
in whole or in part, to go into any other ftate than their o<wn, eithtr 
ally, neutral, or enemy, fliall be feized and declared good prize, even 
tho' laden for account of an ally, neutral, or even Frenchman." Bona- 
parte, in 1800, declares valid and re-enads this ordonnance of Ju/y 26, 
1778. So that with the interval of two years only, this was and/*// 
continues to be, the law of hrance. 

Let us, then, briefly fee what this law is. 

An American vefTel is forbidden, even if laden with goods on account 

of any neutral citizen, to go from London to Aa^u- -to Sweden to 

Holland — or from a Britifti l^'eji India ifland to Great- Ptitain, or to any 
other idand — Such is the law, as it ftands. Shall we be told that ihrv 
have not always enforced it ?— We aiifwer, that this varies not the prin- 
ciple — the fame may be applied to the Britifh pradlicc, or what it falfely 
called the rule of 1756 ; but we can fhew fifty cafes wh< re the Frei.ch 
have furpafled this rule, to one in which they have fallen fhort of it. 

But this is the mildeft fide of the piAure : — In January, 1798, as cited 
by Mr. Madison, the French DircP^ory pajed a decree, and had Mr, 



20 

Madison been an honeft and impartial ftatefman, I fhould have aiked 
wry r,e omitted f^te preamble to this decree, though it finds a place among 
the aws of .rnnce fo important was it deemed? — This preamble recites 
the ordonnance of 171"i, which condemns a/ cargoes of which any part 
were aemies' property, am' adds, that this principle ought to hs further 
extended — The law then proceeds to declare, that vejfel and cargo fhall 
bt lawful prize, if any part "f the goods are of Enghfli growth, " ou 
p ■■ve-iaut d' .;nglete re" " tvhoever might be the c-wner."— This wasn o 
new Idea m France T (hew that my conftruftion of the ordonnance 
ot July 1778, thdt it wis rather cumulative ths.n tending to diminifh, 
was W'ell fi, uiiJed, and th' t a'l the old laws ftill remained in force, I 
ftal , thai on the 6rh /fee J 779, the French Councii, pre/ent the Kmgy 
c»nder.;ned a Da ; fh (hip, •jv'tth all her cargo, becaufe fome part of it 
vras tht- pr'perty .^f an enemy. 

The detail able principl. above ftafed, thai veffel and cargo fhould be 
condemt.'ed, t ■ rvhom- never bt. longing, becaufe any part of it was of ene- 
mies' growth, is an anomaly is a monfter in the hiftory of civil and 
iiatic; al junfprudcnct . and we turn with pleafure to the example of a 
nation, which y< t pn-ferves a refpeft for princij'les, and whofc worft doc- 
trines, if not dt-fe' fible, are more tolerable and juflifiable than the belt 
doftrines of her enemy, F'once. 

; he hrrt Britifli order, on the fubjpft of the colonial trade, was dated 
tht 6rh of ■ "vember, 1793, and authorized the capture of all French 
col 'ial produ e, or fupplies boiiiid ti fuch colo lies — This order was 
repeal' d in two mouths, aiid two r< marks may be fairly made upon it : 

First. That Great-Britain was then making great efForts to reduce these coloDics 
in which she was soon afterward? successful as to several of them. 

Secondly. That ^he pave us. what France has never done, ample compensation for 
the^e early captures. un<!er the treaty of 1794. 

The fecnd Britifh • rder on this fubji ft was dated Jan. 18, 1794', 
and extended, 

First. To the capture of ships bound directly from the colony to Europe. 

f^econdh. To the capture of goods from said colonies, which goods should be the 
property of an <nfOTv. 

This Mr Jefferson declared to Mr Genet was the law of na- 
tions, and is a principle ptrfecftly eltablifhed. 

Thirdly. To the capture of all vessels attempting to enter the colonies of her ene- 
mies actually blockaded by His Majesty's arms. 

Thie alfo did not vary the acknowledged law of nations. 

Fourthly. To any vessels bound as aforesaid with naval or military stores. 

This was likewife in purfuance of the law of nations. 

The only other order of Great Britain, affefting colonial trade, was 
^zte6 January 25, 1798.— This order ^oes not vary from the former, 
except \nfome explanations favorable to neutrals, in relation to the ports 
of f urope, and chiefly affefting the neutral powers of Europe. — It is not 
perceived that the United States were in any degree afFefted by it ex- 

* Sir .Tohn Jarvls and general Gray were then in the West Indies with great 
force and soon after took Martinique and several islands. 



21 

cept in its extenfion to the colonies of Spnn and Hollandf which were not 
comprized fpecitically in the firft orders. 

On all thefe orders it may be remarked, that they do not exceed the 
rule fet up in 1756, which was an amehoratiou of the French ordon- 
nances of ITOi and M^^. 

That they did not affeft any of the rights we enjoyed before the war : 
That, on the contrary, they left open to us, what we did not enjoy in time 
of peace, a free trade with thefe colonics for our own fupply, and an 
indireB trade in their prcduftions from which we have derived immenfe 
profits to the injury of the Britifh colonies, and the reftriftions on which 
were frit, not by us, but by the belligerent whom we fupplied. 

Further, we mu(l contraft thefe orders with thofe of the French which 
forbade the trade from one European belligerent port to any other port 
but our o^n ; -And the laft execrable decree, which condemned veflel 
and cargo for the fole offence of having any article of enemies growth 
on board : — Great Britain never retaliated thefe deteftable regulations. 

We come now to the doftrine of Hlockades. 

The Britifh orders on this fubjeft are morenumerous than thofe of the 
French, for this obvious reafon : —The Britifh have been in a condition 
to blockade— while their enemies, fo far from having this power, have 
been always blockaded in their principal ports of equipment. 

The right to blockade an enemy's port, is the higbeft and mofl indif- 
putable belligerent right — it is recognized even by the armed neutrality. 
Great-Britain has exerciltd this right and if we regard the decifions 
of her Courts we fhall find, that fhe fets up no principles not recognized 
by this famous northern coalition formed to protect neutral trade. 

First. She blockaded or declared blockaded the ports o^ Holland. 

Now could fho and did fhe blockade thefe ports ? — The rule is, that a 
blockade is lawful when the blockading force is fo great as to make 
« the danger of capture imminent." We appeal to our infurance office 
records to prove, that in every blockade oi Holland, the danger was equal 
to 90 per cent : — Is this or is it not an imminent danger ? 

Secondly. The British government on the 5th ^j;;. 1804, inftructed their officers 
not to consider the blockade of Martinique and Guadahupe operative against neu- 
trals except with regard to ports actually inverted, nor then until ivammg had 
been given. 

Remarks -.—Fir/?, This is the principle on which decifions have been 
generally made ; and Sir Wm. Scott has gone fo far as to declare, that 
when the blockading fquadron retires, the neuiral right to trade attaches. 

Second, That the Britifh have always accompanied their orders with 
vjarnlng, which we fhall fhew that the French, in defiance of all law and 
jultice, have never done. 

The third blockade was of the ports from the portof O^^rni to Fecamp. 
This was in 1804-, when all thofe ports were filled with veffels for the 
invajion oj England. Will it be pretended that fhe bad no right to pre- 
vent fupplies going to an invading force ?— efpecially as Hie could almoji, 
and did adually feal up as it were hermetically thefe ports ? 



22 • 

The fame remarks are appHcable to the blockade of April, 1806, from 
the albe to the i4 ejer, and that of May 16, 1806, from the fame river 
to yreji. 

The block-'de of the Ems, &c. was founded upon thofe rivers being 
feJZf d forcibly and held by French armies, and of iheir being the only 
avenues to fupplies to thofe armies by fea. — The blockade alfo was 
effcAual a-'-d fnuere. 

That of ~ arthagena, Cadiz and St. Lucar, fcarce deferve notice. — The 
Briiifh had before th>m powerful fleets, compofed of line of battle fhips, 
and nmety.five per ce;;t. would not have indemnified the infurer for the 
rifli ©f egrefs or ingrefs. 

The only remaining one is that of Zealand, an ifland filled with French 
troops, and completely invefted by the Bntifh navy. 

Let us now turn our eyes to the monftrous pidure of French blockad- 
ing orders — remarking, firll, that in no one moment of the war have 
they ever had a bJockfding force before the ports declared to be blockad- 
ed ; but, on the contrary, even th«'ir moft powerful fleets have been 
obliged to ran a difgraceful gauntlet through the ocean burning and 
tinkitig innocent neutral fliips left their cuurft ftiould be traced by their 
purfu'!.g foes Would to Heaven ! we were not obliged to add, that 
our Secretary, Mr. M dison has apologized for this outrage on the 
plea of nff£^/)' -a plea which however excludes the poflibility of the 
right of blockade, which is f.jlely founded on the power of keeping the 
ocean. 

The firft French blockading decree was dated Feb. I, 1797, and de- 
clared certain West-India iflands in pffftflion of the Britifh, in a flatt of 
blockade no warning or notice provided 

Seco' dy, decn .' againft /imeriran vefTels, by name, bound to or from 
Eng!ifh ports and adds, that X.\ioit already taken before the blockade 
{hall be ftiil detained. 

Thi'dh) Gen Fahrand, governour of St ZJom/w^o, and authorized 
to aft for the French giivernment, decreed all Hifpamoia, which was occu- 
pied by the rebels, in a Hate of blockade, and that all neutrals [)Ound 
thither Ihou'd juffer death. ~ The fame punifhment was ordered on all 
neutrals comiig out. 

That this decree was not enforced in all its fanguinary terms was ow- 
ing to the comp'aifai.ce of our government, who mterdided, at the re- 
queft of '"ranre, this lawful trade. 

On the 2111 November, 1806, Bonaparte decreed all the Britifh 
iflands in a ftate of blockad< , without having one fhip on the ocean near 
the Britifh ifles and disfrauchileu every neutral fhip which fhould have 
entered a Brit ifli port after the decree. On the 17tn Derember, 1808, 
by a decree at Milan, he cunhrmed the bkckade and declared every neu- 
tral vefTel which had been vifited by a Bri illi ftiip, lawful prize. On the 
17th /ipri/, at Buymne, he extended the a{,ovt decrees to the feizure of all 
American VifTeli* found on the high fcasin any lituation under pretext IhdX 
they muft have violated the Embargo laws of the Ujdted States which 
he thus took upon himlelf to execute. 

It is obfervable that none of thele decrees provided for any notice ;— « 



23 

they were to take effeft from their date upon innocent neutrals, and were 
infta itly enforced the former in the neutral Itate of //am^tf--^, and the 
latter on the high feas. 

The meafures Great- Britain has taken in retaliation after tivelve months 
notice, lefs extenfive in terms, fupported by a co'or at lead of tlie right 
of blockade, and founded on the acknowledged principles of the lex 
taiionis, we need not cite. — They are too recent and have been too often 
difcuffed to require more particular invelligation. 

There is one other subject contained in the orders and decrees trans- 
mitted by Mr. Madison, und that is the British proclamation for the 
recall of British seamen. 

One would first ask how such a proclamation can be said to affect 
•ur neutral rights ? H:.s not Great Britain in common with all the rest 
of the world a right to require the services of her subjects in time of 
war ? Shall our go-jernment^ especially who now in time of profound 
peace, interdict our free egress against the letter and spirit of 
our constitution, deny the power of the British King over his own sub- 
jects ? 

I am aware that I shall be told that it is not this recall of which they 
fjomplain, but it is the order to take them out of our merchant ships 
en the high seas. 

Now in what Jwint does this violate our rights ? 

1st. Is it the coining on board our ships, and detaining them to search ? 

Answer.. .This would exist without the other claim. It would exist, 
says Azuni, even if neutral flags were permitted to set up the new and 
monstrous doctrine of covering all who &ail, and all the /iro/ierty under 
them, because as this advocate of Bonaparte and free trade contends, 
the right of search and even cafiture would still exist, inasmuch as it 
would be impossible to discern a neutral from an enemy without search 
and sometimes without trial. 

2d. Is it tlie iniislering and examinatioji of the crews ? 

This has been the subject of many a flaming speech ; yet this is 
necessarily incident to all marine ca/itures, and has been used in all 
ages. It is necessary, in order to ascerttun whether there are enemies 
on board. .dll nations subject to capture enemies in actual s&i-vice, 
and the ordonnances of France, render prisoners of war all enemies 
found in neutral vessels, whether in service or not. 

This right of jnuster and search is necessary often to ascertain the 
fact of property ; many nations of Europe requiring that all neutral 
vessels shall be reputed enemies unless two thirds or three fourths of 
the crew are natives of the neutral country. The ordonnance of July 
26, 1778, which Bonaparte declared by the decree above cited should 
be strictly observed^ m the 9th article, condenuis a vessel for the sole 
cause of " having a supercargo, agent, or offlccr as mate, or one third 
&fthe sailors sunjEcrs of enemy states." 

Two thirds of our ships from the southern states are subject to con- 
demnation on this* ground. But how is the fact to be ascertained ? 
Only by thorough search and muster. 



"24 

One of the French ordonnauces directs their oflicers t» liave a good 
interpreter, and to notice whether the sailors of a neutral vessel ii/teak 
correctly the language of tlie country to which the ship purports to be- 
long ; also, they are required to ask tlie names of the crew of them- 
selves personally, whether they are married or single, and whether 
they have children, and where they reside, and to draw up a proces 
verbal of these facts to be signed by the crew. 

What is the object of all this ? To detect frauds. But it must not be 
overlooked that it implies the right oi search-, ot muster of the crew, and 
includes more burdensome and arbitrary ceremonies than are ever 
claimed by the itiuch censured Britons. 

3d. But we shall be told, that it is tlie abv3e of this right of which we com- 
plain ; that Americans are often taken away-instead o^ British subjects. 

To argue from an abuse against a known and established right, would 
contradict all ])rinciples, and we should recollect that the same difficulties 
which had led to this abuse of a just right, to wit, similarity of language 
and manners, have also led to a most gross abuse on ovir side as neu- 
trals, and that is the taking away in time of war at least 10,000 British 
seamen from the very necessary service of their country. 

Nor ought it under this head to be forgotten that this very procla- 
matioH of Great Britain was issued to lessen these abuses — to define 
the cases in which the right was to be exercised — to prohibit all im- 
proDer conduct in the exercise of it — and to point out the manner hi 
which deserters on board of foreign public ships should be claimed so 
as to prevent future collisions. 

But unhappily, from some hidden cause, even the sincere attempts of 
Great Britain to cure evils — to remove asperities, furnish new sources 
of complaint against her. 

We shall now contrast tliis proclamation with the French usages 
and laws on the same subject. 

The first section of the British proclamation simply recalls their 
seamen. 

This is precisely tlie same which every sovereign does in every war. 
Denmark did it last year. There are many Danes in our service whom 
if met with by a Danish cruiser the officers would seize. Why then 
did not Mr. Madison insert the Danish proclamation among belligerent 
acts affecting our rights. France has always issued such proclama- 
tions, and I find no less than four laws and ordonnances for the return 
of their seamen in the present war. 

I can perceive no difference except this, that by the freedom of the 
British laws there is no penalty except for desertion, whereas by the 
French ordonnances any vuihappy classed seaman, (and they are all 
classed,) was formerly liable to the penalty of death for being in foreign 
service, and lately to the galleys for life. 

The second section of the British proclamation authorises the taking 
out of any British subjects when found onboard neutral merchant ships 
en the high seas or elsewhere. 

This we say is the practice of all nations, that when searching mer- 
chant ships for enemies' goods, if they find their own seamen they 
take ^^'^'" o"''- 



We need not repeat the conduct of Admiral Verheuif, who the fear 
before lubt took out four French sailors from an American ship at sea, 
we shall shew that he did this pursuant to /aw. By an ordonn.ince of 
Louis XVI. in 1784, respecting seamen, in the 22d article it is pro- 
vided that " les gens de mer classes qui en terns de guerre seront 
arretes sur des navires etrangers, ou passant en pays etrunger seront 
condamnes a trois ans de galeres. 

" That all seamen classed (that is enrolled) who in time of war shall be 
mrrested on board foreign ships, or going into foreign countries, shall be coji- 
denmed \.o three \ ears confinement in the galleys. 

We notice in this decree, 

First. The denial of the right of expatriation in time of war. 

Secondfii. That the terms of arrest being not confined to the ports of France, 
extend to an arrest on the high seas : we shall shew presently that when in- 
tended to limit the arrest they know how to express the limitation to their 
•wn ports. 

By the sa le decree it is made the duty of the officers to make re- 
port of "such sailors as shall have passed into f-jrciffn couniyies and 
who may have been arrested" — See article 25, of the above ordon- 
nance. This also almost necessarily implies an arrest^ out q/"the juris- 
diction of France. 

By the decree of the directory, 8 Ventose, an. 6, it is declared that 
all i'rench sailors (not deserters) serving in neutral vessels, who shall 
ke found in the ports of the republic shall be arrested." 

This shews the French idea, that a Frenchman cannot quit his coun- 
try — that the neutral flag is no protection against the rights of the sov- 
ereign — but that they know how to distinguish between arrests in their 
onun ports, and arrests in any filace whatever. Hence it follows that the 
arrests spoken of in the ordonnance of 1784 not being limited to their 
oiun fiorts, must be presumed to authorise an arrest in any /ilace ivhat- 
ever, wherever the seamen may be found. 

The third section of theBritish proclamation of October 16th, 1807, 
prescribes the mode in wliich demand is to be made without resort to 
force, in case deserters should be protected aboard public s/iijis of for- 
eign nations. 

Our cabinet, sensible of the impropriety of the practice heretofore 
adopted of enlisting deserters, have smce given orders not to enlist 
ihem, and they have authorised Mr. Pinckney to communicate this de- 
termination to the British government. This settles the rule, and is 
a return, on the part of our administration to correct pruiciples, and 

1'ustifies this pait of the British proclamation. — The 4th section of the 
Jritish proclamation declares, that a naturalization in a foreign country- 
does not deprive the British government of the right of claiming the 
allegiance of their o^ra subjects. 

This claim was at one period the subject of great complaint in this 
country, though we are at last returning to something like correct no- 
tions on this subject. 

If doubts still remain as to the correctness of the British rule they 
will be dispelled by the practice of France. 

Surely we cannot undertake to undermine or destroy the uniform 
principles adopted bj all the European natioHs. This would be a f(e 
4 



>■■ 



•V 



m 

^ree of quixotism to which the good people of the United States wouW 
never consent. 

By the 1 Uh article of the French ordonnance of 1744 it is declared 
" that 710 regard shall be paid to passports granted by neutral states 
" either to owners or masters of ships who are subjects of enemy states 
^^ if they were not naturalized before the declaration of war." 

This rule the French author of the code des Prises says is confirmed 
in the ordonnance of July 26 1778 which Bonaparte has I'eceived anil 
ordered to be stric'ly observed. 

It is then settled by the French lanu that no naturalization after a de- 
clixration of war shall so far change the character of an enemy as to lib- 
erate the neutral ship or cargo of which he is owner or master front 
capture. 

Can it be pretended that the light of an enemy to vacate and annul 
the naturalization laws of a neutral are paramount to the right of the 
sovereign who chums such 7za?«ro//rfrf subjects ? 

They are both founded on the same principles, that nfeutral nations 
cannot in time of war divest beiigeren" subjects of tlieir national charac- 
ter. 

We have thus shevTi, that neither as it respects provision orders — 
or clonial trade, or the doctrine of blockade — or the right to take their 
own seamen, have the British Government ever advanced doctrines so 
injurious to ncutrids as France has done a?id at this moinoit supports. 



NOTE. 

Since this supplement was pat to press, the answer of Mr. Pinckney 
to the .uftfiressed letter of Mr. Canning has been reluctantly extorted 
from the President, and if no other reasons existed against inserting 
it at large we think the following would suffice. 

Mr. Pinckney has deemed it necessary to write twelve pages in reply 
to Mr. Canning, when one single page would be sufficient if he had 
explicitly contradicted amj 07ie assertion contained in Mr.Canning's note, 
but so far from contradicting those assertions, he most explicitly con- 
firms the only material pointy which was, that he was not authorised^ and 
accordingly did not assure the British cabinet that his powers were 
competent to make a clear, unequivocal offer to repeal the Embargo 
on condition of the repeal of the British orders. We here insert his 
express acknowledgment upon this subject. Mr. Pinckney observes, 
" I feel persuaded, Sir, that upon further reflection it will occur to you 
" that at ourjirst conference I told you explicitly that the " substance" 
' " of what I then suggested that is to say, that your orders being refiealed 
f as to us, we would suspend the Embargo as to Great Britain was from 
« my Government : but that the MANNER of CONDUCTING and 
« illustrating the subject, upon which I had NO PRECISE orders, 
v« was MY OWN — I even repeated to you thcAyords of my instruetio^ 



29 

" as they were upon my memor}- ; and I did not undei-stand either theiji 
" or afterwards that there was any doubt as to their existence or suf- 
" ficiencyor anydesire^o have a more exact or formal communication 
" of them WHILE the result of our discussions was distant and unctr- 
" tain" While the result was uncertain and distant^ it was not important 
for Mr. Canning to know the precise extent of the powers ; but it seems 
that when the positive yvritten offer was made, a fiart of Mr. Pinckney's 
instructions were communicated. 

We have shewn above that these instructions ivere in their whole ex- 
tent totally incompetent, of course, the partial communication of them 
must have been unsatisfactory. 

A fiublic agent or firivate attorney cannot exceed his powers. These 
powers of Mr. Pinckney are before the public, and we affn-m he had 
no authority to pledge his government even to the small measure of a 
repeal of the Embargo. 

So Mr. Pinckney understood them, and accordingly in his letter of 
the 4th of August, after all the verbal conferences were finished he tells 
Mr. Madison " that the objects mentioned in his letter of the 30th 
April (^the only letter of instructions) would be accomplished if he 
should authorise the expectation which that letter suggests" and he goes 
on to declare m two passages that he made an " intimation" to that 
effect. Now every- man of sound sense and common honesty will na- 
turally 1 eflect, that if a simple proposition of a repeal of the Embargo 
as a condition of the repeal of the Orders m Covmcil was to be made, 
there was no occasion for dupilicity or concealment — thei'e was no ne- 
cessity for speaking of " authorisiiig the expectation" of throwing out 
an " intimation," nor could there be any necessity for Mr. Pinckney's 
declaring as he saijs he did, that che " manner of conducting this repeal 
he could not state^ because he had no precise orders on that subject, and 
therefore what he said on ih-dt point ivas his oivn." 

ThePresident was expressly empowered by a short act not o\\t fiftieth 
part as long as these explanations to suspend or repeal the Embargo, in 
whole or in part, mease of a relaxation on the part of either belligerent. 
Why then was not Mr. Pinckney empowered, and why could he not 
in pursuance of said power (had it ever been given, which it ivas not) 
explicitly have offered a repeal of the Embaigo on condition of a re- 
peal of the orders ? 

No such power was ever given — The only po^^ er and in struc- 
tions were contained in the letter of the 30th April, and in order to 
render them intelligible not merely to every lawyer but every citizen, 
I shall, in ■dfamiliar manner insert "These vert words into a power of 
attorney from one individual to another pretending to authorize a sale 
ot land — This will test the force of the expression. 

" Know all men by these presents, that I Thomas Jefi'erson, of Monticello, 
" in tlie State of Virgmia, Philoso{)hcr, do hereby constitute and appoint 
"William Pikcknev, Esq. now resident in London, my Attorney, with 
" full power in my behalf " to authorize the e.rpectatioii, that 1 -will, tvithin a vea- 
" sonuble time, give ej'ect to the poxoer vested in me by law/or the sale of imj estate 
** and negroes at Jllonticello." 

Now, suppose Mr. Pinckney under such a power should give a deed 
of tlie Monticello estate and negroes, is there a lawyer, is there a plaiix 



fi]8 

citizen in the United States who would beUeve that the sale and con- 
vey cjice would be good agdust Thomas Jefferson ? 

Yet such was precisely the fact in this case, and in so shameful a 
manner, in a manner so loose, hypocritical and insincere have the most 
essential interests of the United States been treated. And because 
Great Britain after having been once cheated would not accept such a 
loose and incompetent power, we are to have the Embargo System 
continued, to have our houses robbed, and our throats cut, or to submit 
to c. declaration of war against her for her refusal to believe this offeY 
sincere. 



3 9157 00000751 1 



S 



>C 



t 

53^ BROCK UNIVERSITY 

^1 






ST. CATHARINES, ONTARIO 



'^^ 




LIBRARY 



FOR uz: 



...o OiUr.