tained 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.

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 Guadaloupe as existing, unless in respect of particular ports which might be actually invested; and then not to capture vessels bound to such ports, unless they should previously have been warned not to enter them.”

It is natural to conclude that, though the "grievance," which this frank communication condemus, has been since so often repeated, as almost to make us lose sight of the rule in the multitude 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 professing 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 honour to be, &c.

WM. PINKNEY.

The Most Noble the Marquis
Wellesley, &c. &c. &c.

Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. London, Sept. 28, 1810. SIR, I have already sent you a copy of lord Welles ley's reply to that part of my letter of the 15th inst, which particularly respected the case of the Alert. The amount of that reply was, that 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.

As I have transmitted you a copy of lord Wellesley's reply to my application for the release of the Mary, from which it was to be inferred that she would be immediately released, I ought now to mention that so far from being released, she is to be forthwith proceeded against as prize! These things require a large stock of patience.

VOL. VII.

I have the honour to be, &c.

53

WM. PINKNEY:

Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney. Foreign Office, Sept. 26,

1810.

THE marquis Wellesley has the honour to acquaint Mr. Pinkney, in answer to that part of his letter of the 15th instant, relating to an alleged misconception of the order of 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 assurances of his high consideration.

William Pinkney, Esq. &c. &c. &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 vessels 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 honour to be, &c. &c.

WM. PINKNEY.

Extract of a Letter from General Armstrong to Mr. Smith. Paris, Jan. 28, 1810.

"M. CHAMPAGNY stated, that the order given in relation to our ships, &c. &c. in Spain was a regular consequence of the system declared in his letter of the 22d of August last, and which had been promulgated throughout the United States. It is obvious,' he added, that his majesty cannot permit to his allies a commerce which he

denies to himself. This would be at once to defeat his system and oppress his subjects, by demanding from them great and useless sacrifices; for if the system be not strictly observed every where, it cannot any where produce the effects expected from it. Still, he said, the property is only sequestered, and becomes a subject of the present negotiation.' As our remonstrances have been sufficiently frequent and free; as this was a meeting merely of conciliation, and as the closing remark of the minister indicated rather the policy of looking forward to our rights than backward on our wrongs, I thought it most prudent to suppress the obvious answers which might have been given to his observations, and which, under other circumstances, should not have been omitted, I accordingly contented myself with expressing a hope, that our future intercourse should be a competition only of good offices."

"In conformity to the suggestions contained in your letter of the 1st of December, 1809, I demanded whether, if Great Britain revoked her blockades of a date anterior to the decree commonly called the Berlin decree, his majesty the emperor would consent to revoke the said decree? to which the minister answered, that "the only condition required for the revocation by his majesty of the decree of Berlin, will be a previous revocation by the British government of her blockade of France, or part of France (such as that from the Elbe to Brest) of a date anterior to that of the aforesaid decree, and that if the British government would then recall the orders in council which had occasioned the decree of Milan, that decree should also be annulled. Our interview closed here, and we have had no meeting, either accidental or by rendezvous since.

Extracts of a Letter from General Armstrong to Mr. Smith. Paris, February 17, 1810.

"THE note from M. Champagny, a copy of which is enclosed, was received yesterday.

"This goes by the way of England, and may not be much later in reaching you than my despatch of the 28th ult. which took the same road."

TRANSLATION.

THE undersigned has rendered an account to his majesty the emperor and king, of the conversation he has had with Mr. Armstrong, minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America. His majesty authorizes him to givė the following answer;

His majesty should consider his decrees of Berlin and Milan as violating the principles of eternal justice, if they were not the compelled consequence of the British orders in council, and above all, of those of November, 1807. When England has proclaimed her sovereignty universal, by the pretension of subjecting the universe to a tax on navigation, and by extending the jurisdiction of her parliament over the industry of the world, his majesty thought that it was the duty of all independent nations to defend their sovereignty, and to declare as denationalized (denationalises) those vessels which should range themselves under the domination of England, by recognising the sovereignty which she arrogated over them.

His majesty distinguishes the search (la visite) from the recognition (reconnaissance) of the vessel. The recognition has no other end than to ascertain the reality of the flag. The search is an interior inquest held, although the verity of the flag be ascertained, and of which the result is either the impressment of individuals, or the confiscation of merchandise, or the application of arbitrary laws or regulations.

His majesty could place no reliance on the proceedings of the United States, who having no ground of complaint against France comprised her in their acts of exclusion, and since the month of May have forbidden the entrance of their ports to French vessels, under the penalty of confiscation. As soon as his majesty was informed of this measure, he considered himself bound to order reprisals on American vessels not only in his territory, but likewise in the countries which are under his influence. In the ports of Holland, of Spain, of Italy and of Naples, American vessels have been seized, because the Americans have seized French vessels. The Americans cannot hesitate as to the part which they are to take. They ought either to tear to pieces the act of their independence, and to become