Lord Castlereagh to Mr. Russell. Foreign Office, June 23, 1812. Sir, in communicating to your government the order in council of this date, revoking (under certain conditions therein specified) those of January 7th, and of April 26th, 1809, I am to request that you will at the same time acquaint them, that the prince regent's ministers have taken the earliest opportunity, after the resumption of the government, to advise his royal highness to the adoption of a measure grounded upon the document communicated by you to this office on the 20th ultimo; and his royal highness hopes that this proceeding, on the part of the British government, may accelerate a good understanding on all points of difference between the two states. I shall be happy to have the honour of seeing you at the foreign office at 2 o'clock to-morrow; and beg to apprize you that one of his majesty's vessels will sail for America with the dispatches of the government in the course of the present week. I have the honour to be, &c. CASTLEREAGH. Mr. Russell to Lord Castlereagh. 18, Bentinck-st. June 26, 1812. My lord, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the two notes addressed to me by your lordship on the 23d of this month, inclosing an order in council, issued that day by his roval highness the prince regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his Britannic majesty, for the revocation (on the conditions therein specified) of the orders in council of the 7th of January, 1807, and of the 26th of April, 1809, so far as may regard American vessels and their cargoes, being American property, from the first of August next. In communicating this document to my government, I shall, with much satisfaction, accompany it with the hopes which you state to be entertained by his royal highness the prince regent, that it may accelerate a good understanding on all points of difference between the two states. I am the more encouraged to believe that these hopes will not be disappointed, from the assurance which your lordship was pleased to give me, in the conversation of this morning, that, in the opinion of your lordship, the blockade of the 16th of May, 1806, had been merged in the orders in council, now revoked, and extinguished with them; and that no condition contained in the order of the 23d instant, is to be interpreted to restrain the government of the United States from the exercise of its right to exclude British armed vessels from the harbours and waters of the United States, whenever there shall be special and sufficient cause for so doing, or whenever such exclusion shall, from a general policy, be extended to the armed vessels of the enemies of Great Britain. This assurance I am happy to consider as evidence of a conciliatory spirit, which will afford on every other point of difference an explanation equally frank and satisfactory. I am, my lord, with great consideration, &c. JONA. RUSSELL. Mr. Russell to the Secretary of State. London, 2d July, 1812. Sir, I avail myself of the opportunity afforded by the British packet, to transmit to you a copy of a note from lord Castlereagh, of the 29th ultimo, which I trust will put at rest the blockade of 1806. I acknowledged the receipt of this note, as you will observe by the inclosed copy of my reply, without a comment. I did not think it useful to enter into a discussion at this moment concerning the legality of that blockade, which, as no new doctrine appears to be assumed, is made to depend on the fact, the application of an adequate force. In like manner I have forborne to notice his lordship's observations concerning the exclusion, from our ports, of British vessels of war. As such exclusion is required to accord with the obligations of strict neutrality only, the conduct and character of the government of the United States furnish security against any question arising on that subject. I have the honour to be, &c. JONA. RUSSELL. Lord Castlereagh to Mr. Russell. Foreign Office, June 29, 1812. Lord Castlereagh has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Russell's communication of the 26th instant. That no mistake may prevail upon the explanation given in conversation by lord Castlereagh to Mr. Russell, on the two points referred to in Mr. Russell's letter, lord Castlereagh begs leave to re-state to Mr. Russell, with respect to the blockade of May, 1806, that, in point of fact, this particular blockade has been discontinued for a length of time; the general retaliatory blockade of the enemy's ports, established under the orders in council, of November, 1807, having rendered the enforcement of it by his majesty's ships of war no longer necessary; and that his majesty's government have no intention of recurring to this or to any other blockades of the enemy's ports, founded upon the ordinary and accustomed principles of maritime law, which VOL. I. PART I. [F] were in force previous to the order in council, without a new notice to neutral powers in the usual forms. With respect to the provision of the order of the 23d instant, which refers to the admission of British ships of war into the harbours and waters of the United States, lord Castlereagh informs Mr. Russell, that this claim is made in consequence of his majesty's ships being now excluded, whilst those of the enemy are admitted. It is the partial admission of one of the belligerents of which Great Britain feels herself entitled to complain, as a preference in favour of the enemy, incompatible with the obligations of strict neutrality. Were the exclusion general, the British government would consider such a measure, on the part of America, as matter of discussion between the two states, but not as an act of partiality of which they had in the first instance a right to complain. Lord Castlereagh avails himself of this opportunity to renew to Mr. Russell the assurances of his high consideration. Mr. Russell to Lord Castlereagh. 18, Bentinck street, 1st July, 1812. Mr. Russell has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note of lord Castlereagh, dated the 29th ultimo, containing explanations relative to the two points referred to in Mr. Russell's note of the 26th of that month, and will take the earliest opportunity of communicating it to his government. Mr. Russell begs leave to avail himself of this occasion to repeat to lord Castlereagh the assurances of his high consideration. Mr. Erving to the Secretary of State, inclosing a correspondence with the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs. No. 16. Mr. Erving to Mr. Monroe, Secretary of State. Copenhagen, April 12th, 1812. Sir, my last dispatch upon general business was No. 12. I therein mentioned the case of the "Jane Maria," which had been cut out of the port of Swinemunde by a French privateer. Subsequent to the date of that dispatch the captain arrived, but in the intermediate time a Frenchman had been put on board as a guard, and this became an obstacle to her departure. My correspondence with Mr. de Rosenkrantz on this affair is herewith submitted, viz. No. 1, December 10th; No. 2, January 11th; No. 3, January 15th; No. 4, January 15th; No. 5, January 16th, of the inclosures. I understand that one of the arew of the "Jane Maria" has appeared before a notary, and sworn that whilst the vessel lay at Swinemunde she had communication with the English, and was to have gone under their convoy. Should this declaration prove to be correct, yet I presume that she cannot therefore be condemned. The French minister does not however find himself authorized to release her, but he momentarily expects orders from his government on the subject. The papers of the vessel are in my possession. In my dispatch No. 10, I mentioned that of the cases which were pending on my arrival in Copenhagen, the "Minerva Smith," Mann, only remained to be adjudged, and that I had sought to delay it for the purpose of procuring, and in the hope of introducing before the tribunal, some further evidence. A part of the evidence to which I referred was soon afterwards received from England, and laid before the minister of state in a note of December 13th; a copy (No. 6) is inclosed, as it serves to explain the peculiar difficulties under which this, a property of very great value, was placed. No change having been produced by this representation in the opinion of the high court, I obtained that the case should be laid before the Danish chancery; and the report of that body not being sufficiently full and satisfactory, the case was transferred to the Sleswic Holstein chancery (on the king's own suggestion), as Kiel, where the vessel was taken, being within the jurisdiction of that chancery, the affair was not properly cognizable by the Danish chancery. These various operations consumed a great deal of time; but finally, towards the latter end of February, the Sleswic Holstein chancery produced a very laborious and voluminous report in favour of the case, pursuant to which his majesty ordered the high court to pass sentence of acquittal. With my aforementioned dispatch, No. 10, was transmitted a copy of a note to Mr. de Rosenkrantz (of September 28), respecting the then pending cases generally. Still further to promote the object of it, I again addressed him on November 3d, and, in the progress of the business, perceiving that the high court had lost nothing of its disposition to condemn, and had actually determined to sacrifice one of the clearest cases in the whole list (the "Brutus"), on the 13th December, I thought it necessary to require that its proceedings should be arrested, and its opinions submitted to the king through his chancery (those two notes are Nos. 7 and 8 of the inclosed); the necessary order was immediately given, and thus two or three cases were saved from condemnation. But though the report of the chancery on the case of the "Brutus" was favourable, that vessel ́ was finally condemned; the particular circumstances of her case will be seen in my note to Mr. de Rosenkrantz of April 10th, and the sentence of the tribunal (No. 7 B and 8 B) of the inclosed papers. At the date of the said dispatch No. 10, there were ten cases depending exclusive of French captures, and inclusive of the "Hannah" and "Two Generals," double captures, as appears by the list which was therewith transmitted. In dispatch No: 11, I mentioned the release of the "Horace" and "Augustus," two of the list, so that there were at that time only six cases of simple capture depending. I have now the satisfaction of informing you that the whole of these have been acquitted, the "Brutus" as above mentioned only excepted. The "Hannah" and "Two Generals" must, I fear, be determined in Paris. The French government has proposed to the Danish that, without reference to these questions of jurisdiction, which have always been found so difficult to arrange to the satisfaction of all parties, the simple rule shall be adopted of determining the question of prize in the tribunals of the country to which the captor may belong, in all cases where he may possess himself of the captured vessel's papers. This proposition has not been, nor do I believe that it will be, acceded to by the Danish government; yet, sir, you will readily perceive, that if the French government should persist, there can be very little expectation of our obtaining from this, the release of a vessel which may have been condemned by the council of prizes. There is even some reason to apprehend that it will so persist, since the French consul has now received orders from the minister of marine to transmit to Paris the papers of the ship "Olive Branch," which, as mentioned in my dispatch No 12, was seized under the very guns of the fort of Nyborg, and this case is peculiarly strong, since the "Olive Branch" had his Danish majesty's licence on board. But I must in this place also mention that my correspondence with Mr. Desaugiers (lately French charge d'affaires here), which was submitted to you with dispatch No. 8, having been also submitted to his government, he is now answered by the duke of Bassano, in terms strongly reprehending the excesses of the corsairs in general, and particularly reproving their practice of hoisting the French flag on board the vessels captured, of which he strictly forbids the recurrence. The "Rachel," "Rover," and "Packet," three vessels (on the pending lists heretofore transmitted) which have been released, being partly laden with "colonial produce," were, pursuant to the established regulations with regard to vessels so laden, ordered to quit the port and to proceed on their voyages; the French privateers were then watching for, and would infallibly have captured them on their departure. The copies here |