Extract of a Letter from Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. London, June 9, 1809.

"MR. ERSKINE's instructions concerning the orders in council having been laid before the house of commons, are now printed. You will find them in the newspaper enclosed.

"It is not improbable that when Mr. Canning read these instructions to me, I inferred from the manner in which the three points stated in the 5th, 6th and 7th paragraphs, are introduced and connected, that they were all considered as suggested by Mr. Erskine's "report of his conversations with Mr. Madison, Mr. Gallatin, and Mr. Smith" whether I was led by any other cause into the mistake of supposing that the third (as well as the first and second) was so suggested, I am not sure; and it is not very material.

"Mr. Canning's misconception of some informal observations from me in January last, has been in part mentioned in my letter of the 6th instant. But the published instructions show, what I had not collected from hearing them read, that he understood me to have stated “that the American government was itself aware that without an enforcement, by the naval power of Great Britain, of the regulations of America with respect to France, those regulations must be altogether nugatory." It cannot be necessary to inform you that in this, as in the other particulars alluded to in my last letter, I have been misapprehended.

"I ought to mention that the strong and direct charge against the American government, of "manifest partiality" to France, introduced, without any qualification or management of expression, into a paper which Mr. Erskine was authorized to communicate in extenso to you, did not strike me when that paper was read to me by Mr. Canning."

Extract of a Letter from Mr. Pinkney to the Secretary of State. June 23, 1809.

"I HAD an interview yesterday with Mr. Canning. "In conversing upon the first of the conditions, upon the obtaining of which Mr. Erskine was to promise the repeal of the British orders in council, and a special mission, I collected from what was said by Mr. Canning, that the exemption of Holland from the effect of our embargo and non-intercourse would not have been much objected to by the British government, if the government of the United States had been willing to concede the first condition, subject to that exemption. Mr. Canning observed that the expedient of an actual blockade of Holland had occurred to them as being capable of meeting that exemption; but that Mr. Erskine had obtained no pledge, express or implied, or in any form, that we would enforce our non-intercourse system against France and her dependencies; that our actual system would, if not re-enacted or continued as to France, terminate with the present session of Congress; that for aught that appeared to the contrary in your correspondence with Mr. Erskine, or in the President's proclamation, the embargo and non-intercourse laws might be suffered without any breach of faith to expire, or might even be repealed immediately, notwithstanding the perseverance of France in her Berlin and other edicts; and that Mr. Erskine had in truth secured nothing more, as the consideration of the recall of the orders in council, than the renewal of American intercourse with Great Britain.

Upon the second of the conditions mentioned in Mr. Erskine's instructions I made several remarks. I stated that it had no necessary connexion with the principal subject; that it had lost its importance to Great Britain by the reduction of almost all the colonies of her enemies; that Batavia was understood not to be affected by it; that it could not apply to Guadaloupe (the only other unconquered colony) since it was admitted that we were not excluded from a trade with Guadaloupe in peace; that I did not know what the government of the United States would upon sufficient inducements, consent to do upon this point; but that it could scarcely be expected to give the implied sanction, which this condition called upon it to

give, to the rule of the war of 1756, without any equivalent or reciprocal stipulation whatsoever. Mr. Canning admitted that the second condition had no necessary connexion with the orders in council, and he intimated that they would have been content to leave the subject of it to future discussion and arrangement. He added that this condition was inserted in Mr. Erskine's instructions, because it had appeared from his own report of conversations with official persons at Washington, that there would be no difficulty in agreeing to it.

Upon the third condition I said a very few words. I restated what I had thrown out upon the matter of it in an informal conversation in January, and expressed my regret that it should have been misapprehended. Mr. Canning immediately said that he was himself of opinion that the idea upon which that condition turns could not well find its way into a stipulation; that he had nevertheless believed it proper to propose the condition to the United States; that he should have been satisfied with the rejection of it; and that the consequence would have been that they should have intercepted the commerce to which it referred, if any such commerce should be attempted."

MESSAGE

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONGRESS. JAN. 12, 1810.

I COMMUNICATE to the House of Representatives, the report of the Secretary of State on the subject of their resolution of the 6th of December last.

REPORT.

JAMES MADISON.

THE Secretary of State respectfully reports to the President of the United States, agreeably to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 6th December, 1809, that the enclosed papers, from A to E, contain, in substance,

the information which has been received at this office, respecting seizures, captures and condemnations of ships and merchandise of the citizens of the United States, under the authority of the government of Denmark :

A. A memorial of sundry Americans at Christiansand, to the President of the United States:

B. Translation of an extract of a letter from Peter Isaacsen, lately appointed consul of the United States, at Christiansand, to the President of the United States, dated August 11, 1809:

C. List of American vessels, which have been carried into the ports of Denmark and Norway, received from Mr. Saabye, consul of the United States at Copenhagen:

D. Extract from a letter of Mr. Saabye, to the Secretary of State, dated August 1, 1809:

E.

Resolutions and memorial of merchants of Philadelphia.

The Secretary also respectfully reports to the President, that information had been received at this office, within the period embraced by the resolution referred to, of the capture of American vessels by those of Great Britain, under various pretexts, viz. for dealing by bills of exchange in an enemy's country for colonial produce, violating the British orders in council of January and November, 1807; for infringing the blockades of Martinique; for being engaged in the Vera Cruz and colonial carrying trade, and of the seizure of some American vessels at Curracoa, at Ceylon, and in China, for reasons not distinctly stated. It is to be observed, however, that the papers in this office afford but a very imperfect account of the British captures of American property, and it is for this reason that a detail is not attempted in this report; more particularly, as no official accounts have been received, on which to ground

one.

The Secretary begs leave likewise to state to the President, that within the period embraced by the resolution, property to a considerable amount, belonging to citizens of the United States, has been captured and seized by the French, for violations of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and under other pretexts: that in some instances the merchant vessels of the United States have been burnt at sea by French cruisers, and in others, the indemnity of the vessels

and property has been purchased by the means of bills of exchange, drawn by the captains of the American vessels upon their owners, at a rate imposed by the captors. The accompanying statement of American vessels, condemned by the imperial council of prizes, at Paris, from the 18th December, 1806, to the 26th May, 1809, received from Mr. Warden, acting as consul of the United States, at Paris, more particularly explains the grounds of French captures.

It is to be observed, however, as to many of these acts, that they can no otherwise be considered as having been done under the authority of those governments, than that the vessels committing them were under their flags.

Respectfully submitted.

Department of State, Jan. 12, 1810.

(A.)

MEMORIAL

R. SMITH.

FROM SUNDRY AMERICANS AT CHRISTIANSAND, JULY 19, 1809.

To his Excellency James Madison, Esq. President of the United States of North America:

THE memorial of the undersigned captains and supercargoes,citizens of the United States, respectfully showeth : That in the prosecution of our several voyages, undertaken with the sanction of our government, and consequently, (as we are bound to believe) not only conformably to its laws, but also fair and legal, as they respect the treaties existing between the United States and the court of Denmark; and although we had severally attached to our ships, all those official documents required by our laws, and were at the time of our sailing from the United States, issued by the several collectors, and other equally constituted authorities, for the purpose of proving the national character of our vessels and cargoes; that nevertheless, we have been (whilst alike unsuspicious of insult or injury,and unprepared to resist either,) forcibly intercepted in the prosecution of our voyages, and by the privateers of Norway, acting under