Newspaper Page Text
THE GEORGIA JOURNAL.
Voi- I.
MILLEDGEVILLE, WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1810
Nb 37'
published by seaton grantland, date anterior to the decree, his Mu [Extract of a letter from Mr. Pinkr.ev
jesty would consent to revoke the
said decree ? To these questions I
have this day received the following
answer, which I hasten to cotivey to
you by a special messenger.
ANSWER.
“ The only condition required for'the Berlin decreb.
the revocation by his Majesty the! 44 I do not think it of such a na-
Emperor of the decree of Beilin, lure as to justify an expectation that
will be a previous revocation by the Gen. Armstrong will be able to
(l'RINTER TO THE STATE,) ON JEF
FERSON STREET, OPPOSITE THE
NORTH END OF THE STATE-HOUSE.
TERMS THREE DOLI.ARS PER AN
NUM, ONE HALF TO BE PAID IN AD
VANCE.
ADVERTISEMENTS WILL BE THANK
FULLY RECEIVED, AND PUBLISHED
AT THE CUSTOMARY PRICES.
IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE.
to Mr. Smith, dated March 27
1310.
“ I have the honor to enclose
copy of Lord Wellesley’s reply to in\
letter of the 7th inst. respecting th.
Britioh blockades of Trance before
National Intelligencer Extra.
London, Feb. 19th, 1810.
Sir,—I received on the 12th inst.
V»y Mr. Powel, whom I had sent some
tjine before to France a letter from
General Armstrong, of which a copy
is enclosed; and, keeping in view
the instructions contained in your
letter to me of the 11th of Novem
her last, I have written to Lord Wel
lesley, to enquire whether anv, and,
if anv, what blockades of France in
stituted by Great Britain during the
present war, before the 1st of Janua
ry, 1807, are understood here to be
in force. A copy of my letter to
Lord Wellesley is enclosed.
It is not improbable that this of-
ficial enquiry w ill produce a decla
ration, in answ er to it, none of those
blockades are in force, and I should
presume that such a declaration will
lie received in France as substantial
ly satisfying the condition announ
ced to me by Gen. Armstrong.
I am not aware that this subject
could have been brought before the
British government in any other
form than that which I have chosen.
It would not, I think, have been pro
per to have applied for a revo
cation of the blockades in question
(at least, before it is ascertained that
they are in existence) or to have pro
fessed, in my letter to Loid Welles
ley to found upon Gen. Armstrong’s
communication to my enquiry as to
their actual state. I have, however,
supposed it to be indispensable (and
have acted accordingly) that I shoud
explain to Lord Wellesley, in con
versation, the probability afforded by
General Armstrong’s letter that
declaration by this government, to
the effect above mentioned, would
he followed by the recal of the Ber
lin decree.
I cannot,perhaps, expect to receive
from Lord Wellesley any answer to
my letter, in time to send a copy bj
the J. Adams, now in the Downs or
at Portsmouth ; but I will send it by
an early opportunity, and will take
care that General Armstrong shall
be made acquainted with it without
delay.
" 1 have the honor to be,
With great consideration,
Sir,
Your most obedient
Humble servant,
I Wm. PINKNEY.
P. S. March 23, 1810. Since
the writing of this letter, Lord Wel
lesley has sent me the answer (of the
2d inst.) of which a copy is now en
closed. It was not satisfactory, and
I pointed out its deficiencies to Lord
Wellesley in conversation, & propo-
f ed to him that I should write him a-
uother letter requesting explanations
He assented to this course, and 1
have written him the letter of the 7th
instant, of which also a copy is en
/closed. His reply has been promis
rid very frequently, but has not yet
been received. I have reason to ex
pect that it will be sufficient ; but I
cannotthink of detaining the corvette
c.nv longer. The British packet will
furnish ine with an opportunity ol
f orwarding it to you : and I will send
Mr. Lee with it to Paris, the way of
Morlaix.
I have the honor to be &c.
Wm. PINKNEY.
The Hon. R. Smith.
(COPY.)
of France or part of France, (suchjsliall nevertheless convey to him the
as that from the Elbe to Brest, &c.)|substanceof it without delay,
of a date anterior to that of the afore-
British government of her blockadesjmake anv use of it at Paris ; but 1
said decree.”
I have the honor to be,
With vervhigh respect, 8cc.
(Signed) JOHN ARMSTRONG.
Great Cumberland Place,
February, 15, 1810.
My Lord,
In pursuance of the intimati
on which I had the honor to give
your Lordship a few days ago, 1
beg to trouble your Lordship with
an enquiry, whether any and if any,
what blockades of France instituted
by Great Britain during the prfcsem
war, before the 1st day of January.
1807, are understood by his inajes
ty’s government to be in force, i
am not able at present to specify
mot e than one of the blockades t-.
which this inquiry applies ; namelj,
that from the Elbe to Brest, declar
ed in May, 1806, and afterwards li
mited and modified.—but I shall be
much obliged to your Lordship, for
precise information as to the whole.
I have the honor to be, with the
highest consideration, mv Lord,
your Lordship’s most obedient, hum
ble servant,
(Signed) Wm. PINKNEY.
The most noble the Marquis
Wellesley, £cc. Stc.
Foreign Office, March 26th, 1810.
Sir,—I have the honor to acknow
ledge the receipt of your letter of the
7th inst. requesting a further ex
planation of my letter of the 2d. con
cerning the blockades of France in
stituted by Great Britain during the
present war, before the first day of
January, 1807.
l’lie blockade notified by Great
Bri lain in May 1806, has never been
formally withdrawn ; it cannot there
fore be accurately stated, that the
restrictions which it established, rest
altogether on the order of council of
c 7th of January 1807; they are
niprehuiJcd under ibe more exten-
SlR,
Foreign Office, March 2, 1810.
word ; to enter at once or. the pro-NUn? Can this be deemed a wrong
josed negotiation ; and for this pm -jo France ? Can this be regarded as
to offer to him a project io
ig tiic convention of 1800.
■vse
uewin
This inode will have the advantagi
>f trying the sincerity of the o’, ei
urc6 made by him, and perhaps ol
lrawing from him the precise term:
in which his master will acconimo*
late. If these be such as we ought
to accept, we shall have a treaty, in
which neither our rights nor out
wrongs will be forgotten ; if other
wise, ilierc will bo enough, both of
time and occasion, to do justice to
theri policy and our own, by a free
examination of each.
I have the honor to be,
Sir, with very great respect,
Your most obedient, and
very bumble servant,
(Signed) JOHN ARMSTRONG,
lion. Robert Smith.
Extract of a letter from the same
the .same
10th March—I have at length
received a verbal message, in answer
io my note of the 21st ult. It was
rom the minister of foreign relati-
ms, and in the following words
1 His majesty has decided to sell the
sive restrictions of that order. No!American property seized in Spain;
other blockade ol the ports of Prancvjgijt the money arising therefrom
vas instituted by Great Britain hc-jshull remain in depot,” This mes-
vcui the l(,i!i of May 1806, ana thebage has given occasion to a letter
th January 1807, excepting il
blockade of Venice, instituted on the
27th of July, 1806, which is still in
force.
I beg you to accept the assuran
ces of high consideration, w ith which
I have the honor to be, sir,
Your most obedient,
humble servant,
(Signed) WELLESLEY.
William Pinkney, Esq.
8cc. See. See.
London, Monday, 2d April, 1810.
Sir,—I had the honor to receive
on Saturd-u last (by l)r. Logan, in
rom me, marked No. 22.
(No. 22.) Paris, lOih March, 1310.
Sir, I had yesterday the honor of
receiving a veiL.tl message from your
excellency,staling, that“ his majesty
had decided, that the American pro
perty seized in the ports of Spain
should be sold, but that the money
arising therefrom should remain in
depot.
I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of your note of the 15lh';the British Packet) your letters of
i legitimate cause of reprisal on the
>art of a power, who makes it the
irst duty of nations to defend their
sovereignty and who even donation*
dizes the ships of those who will not
subscribe to the opinion !
But it has been said that the 44 U. S.
had nothing io complain of against
France.”
Was the capture and condemnation
>1 a ship driven on the shores of
France by stress of weather and the
perils of the sea—nothing ? Was
the seizure and sequestration of ma
ny cargoes brought to France hi ships
violating no law and admitted to re
gular entry at the imperial custom
house—nothing ? Was the violation
of our maritime rights, consecrated
as they have been by the solemn
forms of a public treaty—nothing ?
In a word was it nothing that our
ships was burnt on the high seat,
ithout other offence than that of
belonging to the U. States—or other
apology than was to be found in the
enhanced safety of the perpetrator ?
Surely if it bfe the duty tit the U.
States to resent the theoretical usur-
pations of the British order! of Nov.
1807, it cannot be less their duty to
complain Of the daily and practical
outrages on the part of France ! 1*
i.s indeed true that were the people
of the U. Stales destitute of policy,
of honor and of energy (as ha! been
insinuated) they might have adopt
ed a system of discrimination be
tween the two great belligerents i
they might have drawn imaginary
lines between the first and the second
aggressor ; they might have resented
in the one a conduct to which they
tamely submitted in the Other, and
in this way have patched up a com*
promise between honor and interest,
ultimo, wherein you request to b
informed whether anv, and, if anv,
what blockades cl France instituted
by Great Britain during the present
war, before the 1st day of January,
807, are understood by his majes
ty’s government to be in force ? I
have now the honor to acquaint you,
that the coast, rivers, and ports from
the river Elbe to Brtst, both inclusive,
were notified to be under the restric
tions of blockade,, with certain mo
difications, on the: lGthuf May, 1806
—and these restrictions were after
wards comprehended in the order of
council of the 7th of January, 1807,
which order is still in forte
consideration, sir, your most obedi
ent humble servant.
(Signed) WELLESLEY.
Win. Pinkney, Esq.
(COPY.)
Great Cumberland Place.
7th March, 1810.
My Lord,
1 have had the honor to re-
to Mr
l'rom General Armstrong
Pinkney.
Paris, 25th January, 1310,
Sir,—A letter lroin Mr. Secreta
iv Smith of the 1st of December last
tirade it my duty to enquire of h
Execili ncy the Duke of Cadore
what .ere the conditions on v l
his majesty the Emperor would an
Mil his decree, commonly called th
Berlin decree ; and whether if Grea
BiitaUi levcktd !. r blockades cG
the 2<Jih January and 16th Februa
ry.
I have only time to add, that I ani
to see Lord Wellesley to-morrow.
1 have the honor to be,
With great consideration,
Sir,
Your most obed’t hum, serv’t,
WM. PINKNEY.
The lion. Robert Smith,
&c. &c. 8tc.
Copy of <i Utter from Gen. Armstrong
to the Duke oj Cadore, dated Pa
ris, Feb. 1810.
Tin minister plenipotentiary of the
U. States has the honor to submit to
I have the honor to be, with greatly excellency the Duke of Cadore
the copy of a letter this inst. receiv
ed from Bayonne, 8t begs from him
an explanation of the circumstances
mentioned in it.
“ The ministerial despatch, under
date of the 5th inst. is arrived at St.
Sebastian, bearing an order for the
immediate transportation in small
vessels, of all the sequestered Ame
rican cargoes to Bayonne, to be plac-
ceive your Lordship’s answer, of the ed ™ custom-house there. This
2d instant, to mv letter of the 15th of P ublic al s • Sebastians . but
last month, concerning the blockades!™ 1 ™ 113 ” ot so 543 y et « ,9 > lhut the samc
of France, instituted by Great Bri- | orocr sa - v ’ 3 ’
tain during the picnt war before “ *«• fhat these cargoes are lobe
the first (lav of jlmuarv, 1807. “ ^'onne, whether the commo-
I infer from that answer that ^ {W 0 *?
blockade notified bv Great Britain, ma )' have come from [English com
- - ’i .... ._>» - 'merer or from the production ol the
in May, 1806, from the Elbe to Brest,
is not'in itself in force, and that the; 80 ' 1 ol the Untted States,
restrictions which is established, rest! “ 2d. i hat they should be sent to
, V i- k11i .l v-. tr irfi.ithe Custom house of that place to be
altogether, so far as such lestricti-, „ 1
ons exist at this time, upon an order! 80 * 0 trier V\ , • . n-
u “ , . I • 1 i I Tile minister plenipotentiary offers
or orders m council, issued since thei 4 ,, * , 1 } r , •
or oruera i * lo excellency the assurance of las
‘TMniSi'Si-n. other highem conside’rarion
dockade of France was instituted by
G. Britain during the period above-
mentioned, or that, if any other was
instituted during that period it is not
now in force.
l ,Iav I beg your Lordship to do me
• he honor to inform me whetherthese
inferences are correct, and, it incor-
a ct, in what respects they at e so.
I have the honor to be, with the
highest consideration, my Lord,
•our Lordship’s most obedient hum
hie servant,
(Sign d) Wm. PINKNEI
The most noble the Marquis
Wellesley, 8*c. lxc, Ik;.
(Signed)
JOHN ARMSTRONG
General Armstrongto Mr. Smith.
Palis, 18th Feb. 1810
Sir,—I wrote a tew lines to you
yesterday, announcing the receipt and
transmission df a copy of the dukt
of Gadurc’s note tome cf the 14tl
inst
After much serious reflection 1
have thought it best to forbear all
aotice at present of the errors, as well
jf fact as of argument, which may bt
bund in the mtrodutory part of that
Ue ; to take the minister at 1
^receiving this information, two^ quallv weak & disgraceful. But such
was not the course they pursued and
it is perhaps a necessary consequence
of the justice of their measures that
they are at this day an independent
nation.—But I will not press this
part of my subject; It would be- af
frontful to your excellency (know
ing as you do, that there are not less
than one hundred American ships
within his majesty’s possession or
that of his allies) to multiply proofs
that the U. States have grounds of
complaint against France.
My attention is necessarily called
to another part of the same para
graph, which immediately follow*
the quotation already made. 44 As
soon,” says your excellency, “ as his
majesty was informed of this mea
sure (the non*intercourse law) it be
came his duty to retaliate upon the
American vessels, not only within
his own territories, but also within
the countries under his influence. In
the ports of Holland, Spain, Italy
and Naples, the American vesssd*
have been seized, becauie the Ame
ricans had seized French Vessels.’*
1 hesc remarks divide themselves
into to the following heads :
1st. 1 he right of his majesty to
seize and confiscate American ves
sels, within his own trrritories.
2d. The right to do so within th«
territories of his allies : and,
d. The reason of that right, viz:
“ because Americans had seized
French vessels.”
The first of these subjects has
been already examined ; and the se
cond must be decided like the first,
-ince his majesty’s rights within the
limits of his ally cannot be greater
questons suggested themselves-
1st Whether this decision was,
or was not, extended to ships, as
well as to cargoes ? and,
2d» Whether the money arising
from the sales which might be made
under it,would, or would not,besub
ject to the issue of the pending nego
tiation ?
The gentleman charged with the
delivery of your message not having
been instructed to answer these ques
tions, it becomes my duty to present
them to your excellency, and to re
quest a solution of them. Nor is it
less a duty, on tny part, to examine
the ground on which his majesty has
been pleased to take this decision,
which I understand to be that of re
prisal, suggested for the first time in
the note you did me the honour to
write to me on the 14th ult. In the
•Ith paragraph of this note, it is said,
that “ his majesty could not have
calculated cn the measures taken bv
he United ijtatcs, who, having no
rounds of complaint against France,
have comprised her in their acts of
xclusion, 8k since the month of May
last, prohibited the entry into their
ports of French vessels by subject
ing them to confiscation.”
It is true that the U. States have
since the 20th of May last forbidden
the entry of French vessels into
their harbors and it is also true that
the penalty of confiscation attaches
to the violation of this law. But in
what respect does this offend France ?
Will she refuse to us the rights of
regulating commerce within our own
ports ? Or will she deny that the
law in question is a regulation mere-
municipal?
Examine it both as than within his own....If then it has
to object and means—what does it been shewn, that the non-inttreourse
more than forbid American ships i HW was merc ly defensive in its ob-
irom going into the ports of France, j cct: t h at U wa s but intended to
and French ships from coming into gua ,-d against that state of violence
those of the United States ? And which unhappily prevailed that it
why this prohibition ? To avoid in
jury and insult: to escape that law
lessness, which is declared to be 44 a
forced consequence of the decrees
ol the British council.” If then its
objects be purely defensive what are
its means ? Simply a law, previous
ly and generally promulgated, ope
rating solely within; the territory
of the United States, and punishing
dike the infractors of it, whether ci
tizens of the said states, or others.
And what is this but the exercise of
i right, common to all nations, of ex
cluding r.t their will foreign com
merce and of en! r ing that exclu
was restricted in its operation to the
territory of the U. States, and tliat it
was duly promulgated there and in
Europe before execution. It will be
almost unnecessary to repeat, that ft
law of such description cannot autho
rize a measure of reprisal, equally
sudden and silent iu its enactment
and application, lounded on no pre
vious wrong, productive of no pre
vious complaint, and operating be
yond the limits of his majesty’s ter
ritories and within those ol sova-
reigns, who had even invited the
commerce of the U. S. to their porta.
It is therefore the thVd subject on-
