Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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-