Relations with Great Britain. which had been forced upon him, whenever the enemy should retract the principles which had rendered it necessary." I am commanded by His Majesty to repeat the declaration, and to assure you that whenever the repeal of the French decrees shall have actually taken effect, and the commerce of neutral nations shall have been restored to the condition in which it stood previously to the promulgation of those decrees, His Majesty will feel the highest satis faction in relinquishing a system which the conduct of the enemy compelled him to adopt. I have the honor to be, &c. WM. PINKNEY, Esq. WELLESLEY. Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. LONDON, September 3, 1810. SIR: Lord Wellesley sent me his answer yes terday to my note of the 25th ultimo, respecting the Berlin and Milan decrees. I hasten to transmit a copy of it. A copy shall be sent without delay to General Armstrong. I have the honor to be, &c. WM. PINKNEY. 925991 10Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. <innamon ART 1 LONDON, August 29, 1810. 1 SIR: dined yesterday with Lord Wellesley, and found that he had only returned to town in the morning. He still complained of indisposition, but it certainly could not be considered as unfitting him for business. In a short conversation before dinner, he told me that my note respecting the Berlin and Milan decrees should be mentioned to his colleagues to day, and that I should have an immediate answer; that the affair of the Chesapeake e would be settled to my satisfaction" that he believed he should recommend to the King the appointment of a Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States either this week or the next; that he had two persons in his eye, (both men of high rank,) but that he could not with propriety name them to me at present. Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Armstrong. far as the opportunity permitted, I urged promptitude on all these subjects as indispensable, and LONDON, September 3, 1810. expressed my confidence that they would be disSIR: I received yesterday from Lord Wellesley. posed of in season for the approaching meeting of an answer, dated the 31st of last month, to my Congress. note of the 25th, in which I communicated to You perceive that, notwithstanding past prom-him the purport of your letter to me of the 6th. ises, nothing has yet been done, and that there is "no security that we shall have anything but promises. I am truly disgusted with this; and would, if I followed my own inclination, put a speedy end to it. It is better, however, to do It is extremely desirable that I should have. nothing of an irritatio irritating nature, until this Gov-without loss of time, the benefit of such reflecernment has had full time to act upon my note tions upon this answer as you may be disposed of the 25th. Even if it should decline to repeal to favor me with, and of such information, calcu the Orders in Council, (which I am told is quite lated to regulate my course with regard to it, as moderate course on my part will have your local position may enable you to furnish. a As the recommendation of putting it more clearly in the wrong. If it should decline to repeal, the President may be assured that I will not fail to present such a paper as conduct so extraordinary will demand; and, if further delays are effected, that I shall remonstrate in very decided terms. I have the honor to be, &c. IDOV of Strle 01 WM. PINKNEY. Hon. ROBERT SMITH? STIL batimu si do you dok -ni dið nái 143 -mover). Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney. 2957 FOREIGN OFFICE, August 31, 1810. bSIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the re respecting the Berlin and Milan decrees; and I hasten to put you in possession (by a special mes senger) of a copy of each of those papers, to be used according to your discretion. Your letters of the 6th and 7th ultimo concur in representing, (with perfect propriety, I think) that the revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees is to take effect absolutely after the 1st of November, and I have so put it to the British Government. You will let me know if any err (which I do not in the least suspect) has been discovered in this representation, or if it is necessary that the subject should be brought before this Government in any other form than that which, looking to your representation, I have chosen. You will perceive that the pledge contained in when the repeal of the French edicts shall have Lord Wellesley's answer is referred to the period deipt of your letter under date the 25th instant. actually taken effect, and the commerce of neu21: On the 23d of February, 1808, His Majesty's tral nations shall have been restored to the con -Minister in America declared to the Government dition in which those edicts found it. In case "of the United States His Majesty's earnest de- there is nothing equivocal in these last expres sire to see the commerce of the world restored to sions, the pledge is, I presume, sufficient for the that freedom which is necessary for its pros- present, if the recall of the French decrees does perity, and his readiness to abandon the system not depend on a condition precedent, as some Relations with Great Britain. have supposed. If, on the other hand, it is un- the 18th of last month, was intended to close the derstood that, before the French repeal is to take Adriatic; and the English newspapers, as you effect, namely, before the 1st or 2d of November, will have perceived, so represented it. In my Great Britain must revoke her Orders in Council, letter to you of the 20th ult., communicating a so that the orders shall cease to operate at the copy of that notification, I have adopted this consame moment with the decrees; or, if it is under-struction, which now appears to be erroneous. stood that the British blockades, to which France objects, (that of May, 1806, for example,) must be recalled, or declared not to be in force, before the same period; then, undoubtedly, the pledge is nothing. If the pledge is sufficient, we have only to let the matter rest until November. If it is insufficient, I cannot be too soon employed in taking a new course, I ought to mention, however, that I am now preparing a note to Lord Wellesley, to be presented in a few days, concerning the blockades. This step is proper, and, I think, indispensable, whether the revocation of the decrees of France depends upon those blockades being put out of the way or not. Begging you to let me hear from you as soon as convenient, I am, sir, with great respect and consideration, &c. WM. PINKNEY. Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. LONDON, September 4, 1810. SIR: I have just received your letters by Lieutenant Spence. Their dates are as follows: 17th July, 1810; 5th July, (original and duplicate;) 2d July, (original and duplicate ;) 30th June, (original and duplicate;) 16th June, (duplicate, the original had been received before;) 13th June, (duplicate, the original had already been received.) I have only time to add, that the repeal of the French decrees (as communicated to me by General Armstrong,) and the reply of Lord Wellesley of the 31st ult., to my communication on that subject, do not appear to me to take away the necessity of executing the instructions contained in your letters of the 2d and 5th of July, relative to the British blockades, although they may affect the manner of executing those instructions. The note, which I intend to present on this occasion, will be ready in a day or two, and shall be sent in immediately. I have the honor to be, &c. WM. PINKNEY. The "canal," to which the notification is now understood to apply, is the narrow passage to the eastward of Corfu. I have the honor to be, &c. ROBERT SMITH, Esq., &c. WM. PINKNEY. Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. LONDON, September 15, 1810. SIR: I send, enclosed, a copy of a second letter which I have written to Lord Wellesley, respecting the stoppage of American vessels attempting to pass the Sound, together with a copy of the protest of the master of the American ship Alert, mentioned in that letter, which is well entitled to your attention. I have the honor to be, &c. WM. PINKNEY. [Referred to in Mr. Pinkney's letter of Sept. 15, 1810.] Mr. Pinkney to Lord Wellesley. GREAT CUMBERLAND PLACE, September 15, 1810. MY LORD: In my note of the 1st instant, I had the honor to inform your Lordship, that it had been stated to me, in a letter from Gottenburg, that, in consequence of some misconception of the effect of the order for establishing a blockade of Elsinore in May last, American vessels had recently been prevented from passing the Sound by the English naval force in that quarter; and requested, that, if this statement was correct, such explanations might be transmitted to the British Commander, as might, at least, confine the blockade in question to the port against which it had been professedly instituted. As I have not received any answer to that note, and, consequently, do not know whether any order has been given to remove the interruption which it mentions, I feel it to be necessary to lay before your Lordship the enclosed original protest of the master of the American ship Alert, which appears to establish the existence of that interruption in a form as exceptionable as it could possibly assume. P. S. Lord Wellesley sent me a message yesterday, through Mr. Hamilton, that, if I still wished to see him on the subject of my late com- James Saumarez has thought fit to issue his orWhatever may be the ground upon which Sir munication, he would receive me to-day. I replied that I had no wish to see him on that sub-ders to close the passage of the Sound to Ameriject, but that it might be necessary to write him a can vessels, returning in the prosecution of a lawnote upon it hereafter. I mean to confine myself ful trade to the United States, or proceeding in a as much as possible to written intercourse with contrary direction, your Lordship will, I am perLord Wellesley. suaded, think with me, that my Government has a fair claim to be made acquainted, either through me, or through such other channel as your Lordship may deem more proper, with the intentions of the British Government on the subject. WM. PINKNEY. Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. LONDON, September 7, 1810. SIR: It has been supposed here, that the notification of a blockade of the "Canal of Corfu," on Before I conclude this letter, I must call your Lordship's attention to the particular circumstances of the case which has mainly produced Relations with Great Britain. it, and to the redress which those circumstances pose of which is in very few words to remind plainly require. His Majesty's Government, in pursuance of my instructions, of the sentiments and expectations of the Government of the United States, respecting such blockades as that which my inquiry priner The Alert has been seized and sent to England by the Africa for salvage. The peril from which she was saved-if she was saved from any peril-was created by the injustice of the captur-pally regarded. ing vessel, in turning her from the regular course of her homeward voyage. That the commander of the Africa, or those under whom he acted, should be responsible to the utmost for the loss occasioned by that injustice, seems to be perfectly reasonable; but it is difficult to imagine in what way he can expect to derive from it a right to inflame the loss for his own advantage. I trust that the attempt will be repressed in a suitable manner, and that, in place of salvage to be paid by the injured neutral, compensation will, in some mode or other, be awarded to him for the damages he has been made to sustain, The impressment, on board the Alert, of four American seamen by the Africa, cannot be passed unnoticed. This abuse could not fail to be interesting under any circumstances; but, on this occasion. (supposing the enclosed narrative to be true,) it is not only characterized by an utter disregard of the rights of the American Government, and by the oppression of its citizens, but is practised under a show of friendly protection, and aggravated by every practical wrong which could well be associated with it. I have the honor to be, &c. WM. PINKNEY. Mr. Pinkney to Lord Wellesley. September 21, 1810. MY LORD: On the 30th of April last, I had the honor to address a note to your Lordship, in which, upon the inducements which it stated, I took the liberty to inquire whether there was any objection, on the part of His Majesty's Government, to a revocation, or to a declaration that they were no longer in force, of the British blockades of France, of a date anterior to the Berlin decree. In a second note, of the 23d of June, I had the honor to recall your Lordship's attention to that inquiry, and to add that my Government expected from me a communication upon it. And on the Sth of August, it was again brought to your Lordship's recollection in the same mode. It was, moreover, mentioned in several conversations after the delivery of my first note, which had, in fact, been preceded by verbal explanations on my part, as well as by an abortive correspondence in writing, to which some of those explanations were preparatory. If I had been so fortunate as to obtain for my hitherto unanswered inquiry, the notice which I had flattered myself it might receive, and to which I certainly thought it was recommended by the plainest considerations of policy and justice, it would not, perhaps, have been necessary for me to trouble your Lordship with this letter, the pur Those sentiments and expectations are so well explained in two letters, from Mr. Secretary Madison, of the 27th of October, 1803, to Mr. Thornton, and of the 3d of June, 1806, to Mr. Merry, that very little more is required, in the execution of my instructions on this occasion, than that I should refer your Lordship to the copies of those letters, which are herewith transmitted Your Lordship will perceive that the streng and conclusive objections, in law and reason, to be found in those papers, (especially in the first, which was occasioned by a communication from the British Consul at New York, of a notice from Commodore Hood, in July, 1803, that the islands of Martinique and Gaudaloupe were, and for some time had been, blockaded,) apply to several blockades which Great Britain has lately pretended to establish; but in a particular manner to that of May, 1806, (from the Elbe to Brest, inclusive) to that in the spring of 1808, of the whole island of Zealand, and to that, in March, 1809, of the isles of Mauritius and Bourbon. The Government of the United States can discover no just foundation for these and other similar attempts to blockade entire coasts, by notifications with which the fact has no correspondence. It views them as unwarrantable prohibitions of intercourse rather than regular blockades, and as resembling, in all their essential qualities, the extraordinary decrees and orders which, for the last four years, have nearly obliterated every trace of the public law of the world, and discouraged by menaces of hostile interruption, and pursued with seizure and confiscation the fairest and most innocent trade of neutral merchants. It may now be hoped that those decrees and orders are about to disappear forever; and I think I may presume that, as my Government expects, no blockade like that of May, 1806, will survive them. Your Lordship has informed me, in a recent note, that it is "His Majesty's earnest desire to see the commerce of the world restored to that freedom which is necessary for its prosperity." And I cannot suppose that this freedom is understood to be consistent with vast constructive blockades, which may be so expanded at pleasure, as, without the aid of any new device, to oppress and annihilate every trade but that which England thinks fit to license. It is not, I am sure, to such freedom that your Lordship can be thought to allude. I am the more inclined to be confident on this point, because I have now before me a wellknown official exposition, conceived in terms the most exact, of the British doctrine of blockade, as it stood in 1804, contained in the reply of Mr. Merry, His Majesty's Minister in America, to the very able remonstrance above mentioned from Mr. Madison to Mr. Thornton. Relations with Great Britain. Government could not interfere, and that the case must be left to the Court of Admiralty.. I now transmit his answer to that part of my letter which regarded the effect of the blockade of Elsinore, (as it was interpreted by Sir James Saumarez,) on the passage of the Sound; from which it appears that it is not yet intended to close that passage. No notice has been taken of the residue of my letter concerning the four American seamen taken from the Alert. In that reply (of the 12th of April, 1804,) it is formally announced to the Government of the United States, "by His Majesty's command, signified to Mr. Merry by the principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that, for redressing the grievance complained of" by the American Government, orders had been sent to Commodore Hood (and the necessary directions given to the Vice-Admiralty Courts in the West Indies and America) "not to consider any blockade of the islands of Martinique and Gaudaloupe as existing, unless in respect of particular ports which might As I have transmitted you a copy of Lord Welbe actually invested; and then not to capture ves-lesley's reply to my application for the release of sels bound to such ports, unless they should pre- the Mary, from which it was to be inferred that she viously have been warned not to enter them." would be immediately released, I ought now to It is natural to conclude, that, though the mention that, so far from being released, she is to "grievance," which this frank communication be forthwith proceeded against as prize. These condemns, has been since so often repeated, as al-things require a large stock of patience. most to make us lose sight of the rule in the multi- I have the honor to be, &c. Etude of its violations, your Lordship could not speak of the restoration of the just freedom of commerce, as an event desired by Great Britain, without some reference to the neglected doctrine of this paper, and without some idea of reviving it. With regard to the blockade of May, 1806, I regret that I have failed to obtain an admission, apparently warranted by facts, and invited by circumstances, that it is not in force. Your Lordship's answers to my letters of the 15th of February and 7th of March last, appear to justify the opinion that this blockade sunk into the Orders in Council of 1807, with which it was perfectly congenial. It can scarcely be said, that, since the promulgation of those orders, there has been even a show of maintaining it, as an actual blockade, by a stationary force, adequate or inadequate, distributed with that view along the immense line of coast which it affected to embrace. And if it has not been constantly so maintained, nor even attempted to be maintained, as an actual blockade, but has yielded its functions since 1807 to Orders in Council, neither being, nor profes. sing to be, actual blockades, it may, I imagine, be very safely asserted that it exists no longer. But as this conclusion has not been adopted, but has rather been resisted by your Lordship, it is my duty, in transmitting the enclosed copy of an act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the 1st of May, 1810, entitled "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes," to state to your Lordship that an annulment of the blockade of May, 1806, is considered by the President to be as indispensable, in the view of that act, as the revocation of the British Orders in Council. I have the honor to be, &c WM. PINKNEY. Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. LONDON, September 28, 1810. SIR: I have already sent you a copy of Lord Wellesley's reply to that part of my letter of the 15th instant which particularly respected the case of the Alert. The amount of that reply was, that ROBT. SMITH, Esq. &c. WM. PINKNEY. [Referred to and enclosed in the preceding.] Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney. FOREIGN OFFICE, Sept. 26, 1810. The Marquis Wellesley has the honor to acquaint Mr. Pinkney, in answer to that part of his letter of the 15th instant, relating to an alleged misconception of the Order in Council for the blockade of Elsinore, that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that that blockade should be strictly confined to the port of Elsinore, and that it does not affect any vessels professedly bound up the Sound, unless it should appear from their papers that they are bound to Elsinore. The Marquis Wellesley begs to renew to Mr. Pinkney the assurance of his high consideration. WM. PINKNEY, Esq. &c. Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. LONDON, Oct. 3. 1810. SIR: Lord Wellesley's communication concerning the passage of the Sound was supposed, by a merchant here to whom I showed it, to be ambiguous, by reason of the expressions "bound up the Sound," &c. The ambiguity has, however, been removed (if, indeed, there was any) by a note which I have just received from the Foreign Office in answer to one from me. It says that "no vessel will be subject to the restrictions of the blockade of Elsinore but such as may be going to that port, in whatever direction they may be passing the Sound." It says further, that "the equivoque in the original communication was certainly not intentional." I have the honor to be, &c. WM. PINKNEY. Mr. Smith, Secretary of State, to Mr. Pinkney. SIR: Your despatch of the 24th of August, enclosing a newspaper statement of a letter from the Duke of Cadore to General Armstrong, notifying Relations with Great Britain. ligerent, as in the case of the blockade of Tripoli, as will be seen by the annexed letters from the Navy Department. You will press on the justice, friendship, and policy of Great Britain such a course of proceeding as will obviate the dilemma resulting to the United States from a refusal to put an end to the paper blockades as well as the Orders in Council. The necessity of revoking the blockade of Copenhagen, as notified to you in May, 1808, will not escape your attention. Its continuance may embarrass us with Denmark, if not with France. Your answer as to the Corfu blockade is approv ed, and should the answer to it render a reply ne cessary, the President directs you to remonstrate against such a blockade; availing yourself, as far as they may be applicable, of the ideas in the let ter to Mr. Charles Pinckney of October, 1801, and particularly of the proof it affords of our early remonstrance against the principle of such blockades. a revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, has others, as well as Great Britain, as appears from been received. It ought not to be doubted that the accompanying copy of the letter to our Minthis step of the French Government will be fol-ister at Madrid in the year, 1801. To this prinlowed by a repeal on the part of the British Gov-ciple the United States also adhered, when a belernment of its Orders in Council. And if a ter mination of the crisis between Great Britain and the United States be really intended, the repeal ought to include the system of paper blockades, which differ in name only from the retaliatory system comprised in the Orders in Council. From the complexion of the British prints, not to mention other considerations, the paper blockades may, however, not be abandoned. There is hence a prospect that the United States may be brought to issue with Great Britain on the legality of such blockades. In such case, as it cannot be expected that the United States, founded as they are in law and in right, can acquiesce in the validity of the British practice, it lies with the British Government to remove the difficulty. In addition to the considerations heretofore stated to you in former letters, you may bring to the view of the British Government the retrospective operation of those diplomatic notifications of blockades which consider a notice to the Minister as a notice to his Government, and to the merchants who are at a No communication having yet been made by distance of three thousand miles. It will recur General Armstrong of a letter to him from the to your recollection that the present Ministry, in Duke of Cadore, declaring that the Berlin and the debates of Parliament, in opposition to the Milan decrees will cease to be in force from the authors of the orders of January, 1807, denied that 1st day of November next, I can at this time only they were warranted by the law of nations. The inform you, that if the proceedings of the French analogy between these orders and the blockade of Government, when officially received, should cor May, 1806, in so far as both relate to a trade be- respond with the printed letter of the Duke of tween enemy ports, furnishes an appeal to the Cadore, enclosed in your despatch, you will let consistency of those now in office, and an answer the British Government understand that on the to the attempts by them to vindicate the legality 1st day of November the President will issue his of that blockade. It is remarkable, also, that this proclamation, conformably to the act of Congress, blockade is founded on "the new and extraordi- and that the non-intercourse law will consequently nary means resorted to by the enemy for the pur- be revived against Great Britain. And if the pose of distressing the commerce "of British sub- British Government should not, with the early jects." What are those means? In what respect notice received of the repeal of the French decrees, do they violate our neutral rights? Are they have revoked all its orders which violate our nea still in operation? It is believed that true an-tral rights, it should not be overlooked that Conswers to these questions will enforce the obligation of yielding to our demands on this subject. You may, also, refer the British Government to the characteristic definition of a blockaded port, as set forth in their treaty with Russia of June, 1801, the preamble of which declares that one of its objects was to settle "an invariable determination of their principles upon the right of neutrality." Should the British Government unexpectedly resort to the pretext of an acquiescence, on the If the British Government be sincerely disposed part of the United States, in their practice, it may to come to a good understanding, and to cultivate be remarked that, prior to, as well as during, the a friendly intercourse with the United States, it present Administration, this Government has in- cannot but be sensible of the necessity, in addition in addition to other instances heretofore commu- cluding, at this time, a general arrangement of the variably protested against such pretensions; and, to a compliance with the act of Congress, of connicated to you, I herewith transmit to you an ex- topics between the two countries; and, above all, tract of a letter to the Department of State of such a one as will, upon equitable terms, effectuJuly 15, 1799, from Mr. King our Minister at ally put a stop to the insufferable vexations to London, and also such part of Mr. Marshall's let- which our seamen have been, and yet are exposed, ter to him of the 20th September, 1800, as relates from the British practice of impressment; a prat to the subject of blockades. And it may, more tice which has so strong a bearing on our neutralover, be urged, that the principle now contended ity, and to which no nation can submit consisfor by the United States was maintained against tently with its independence. To this very in gress, at their approaching session, may be induced not to wait for the expiration of the three months (which were allowed on the supposition that the first notice might pass through the United States) before they give effect to the renewal of the nonintercourse. This consideration ought to have its weight in dissuading the British Government from the policy, in every respect misjudged, of procrastinating the repeal of its illegal edicts. |
