Newspaper Page Text
MIRROR OF THE TIMES.
[VOL. ll.]
J TIG I7STl 7 ST A PRINT ED BY DANIEL STARNES &Co WEST END OF BROAD-STRFET.
DISPATCHES,
Received i-f the John lldams.
Lo«J9on, February 19,1810
SIR,
T received on the 12:h inst, by
Mr. Powell, whom I had sent some
time before to France, h letter
from Gen. Armstrong, of which a
copy i 8 inclosed , and, keeping in
view the instructions contained in
your letter to me of the mb of
Novemb- r last, I have written to
Ford Wellesly, to enquire whether
any, and if any, what blockade* of
France, institmed by Great Britain
during the present war, before the
first of January 1807, a;u under,
stood here to be in force, A copy
of my letter to Lord Wellesley is
inclosed.
It is not improbable that this nf.
ficial enquiry will produce a decla
ration, in answer to it, that none of
those blockades are in force ; and
1 should presume tint such n de
claration will be received in France
a» substantially sati.'fying the con*
ditton announced to me by Gene
ral Armstrong.
I am not aware that this subject
could have been brought before
the British government in any ci
ther form than that which 1 have
chosen. It woulo not, I think,
have been proper to have applied
for a revocation of the blockades
in question, 'at least, before it if
ascertained that they are in cxis.
tcnce) or to have professed, in rnv
letter to Lord Wellesley, to found
open General Armstrong’s com
munication my enquiry as to their
actual state. I have, however, sup.
p~ed it to be indispensable (and
have act«d accordingly) that 1
rhould explain to Lord Wellesley,
in conversation, the probability af
forded by General Armstrong’s
letter, that a declaration by this
government, to the effect above
mentioned, would be followed by
the recal of the lierlin decree.
I cannot, perhaps, expect to re«
ceive from Lord Wellesley an an.
*wer to my letter, in time to send
»copy by the John Adams, now j u
'he Downs or at Portsmouth : b u t
1 will send it by an early
w‘y, and will take care that Ge„ e "
fsd Armstrong shall be made ac _
qoainted with it without delay.
1 have ihe honor to be, &c.
Wm. PINKNEY.
P. S- March 23, 1810. Since
•he writing of this letter, Lord
'Mlesley has sent me the answer
(el the 2d instant) of which a copy
Hrvow enclosed. ]t was not sans
factory, and I pointed out its d* r
citneieg to Lord Wellesley in cun’
'nvitinn, and proposed to him
•hai l sin old tvr'ue him another let -
,rr requesting t x He
assenitd to this course, and I have
T r,rr ‘* n him 1 1 re iciter ol the 7:h
instnrj t, of which also a copy it*
f ni osed. his replv has bi-ei« pro*
•“'ice. very luqucndy, but. lias not
t )cen received. 1 have reason
|°txp'ct ihat if will be sufficient ;
nu c -nnt>t ihink of detaining ihc
c °*yetie B»,y longer. The British
pa,.Let w ill furnish me with an op
portunity of (<u warding it to you ;
p lr ‘ * w,| l«rr.d Mr. L e c with it to
, ls ’ by ihe way of Morlaix.
“ avc ii. t honor to be, &e.
T . , Wn.Pinkney.
lhe Hon. K. Smith, &c
r (COPY)
> ivx General xlm,strong to Mr.
Pinkney.
Slf ** ,Ui January iBIO.
Alerter from Mr. Secretary
of the Lt of December,
">) dutv lo enquire of his
•Xcviitncv the Duke of Carl ore,
s ’ rhe conditions on wh;«h
Mijesty th c Emperor would
V' m' deert-e, commonly called
! 11 a decree ; and whether, d
r '■at Britain revoked her block -
* e * r ” a date. anterior to the dc*
' lirc * bis majesty would consent to
revoke the said .’scree ? To th?se
questions I have this dav tcccived
tne following answer, which I has
ten to convey to you by a spiral
messenger.
Answer.
tl Five only condition required
for the revocation by his majesty
the Emperor of the decree of Ber
lin* w, ll be a previous revocation
by the British government of her
blockades of France or part of
France, (such as that from the Elbe
to Brest, ike.) of a date anterior to
that of the aforesaid decree.”
I have the honor to be,&c.
(Signed)
JOHN ARMSTRONG.
(COPY.)
Great Cumberland Place.
February 15, 1310.
My Lord,
In pursuance of the intimation
which I had the honor to give to
your Lordship a few days ago, I
beg to trouble your Lordship with
an enquiry whether any, and if any
what blockades of trance, institu
ted by Great Britain during the
present war, before the iirst ot Jan.
1807, are understood by hia Ma
jesty’s government to be in force,
i am not able at present to specify
more than one or the blockades to
which this enquiry applies; name
ly, that from the Elbe to the Brest,
declared in May 1806, and after
ward-. limited and modified ; hut
I shall be much obliged to your
Lordship for precise information
as to the whole
1 have the honor to be, he.
(Signed)
Wm. PINKNEY.
The most noble
I'he Marqis Wellesly, &c
Foreign Office, March 2, isto
SIR,
1 have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of your note of the ist.li
ultimo, wherein you rtquest to be
informed whether any, and if any,
what blockades of France, institu
ted by Great Britain during the
present war, before the first day of
Jauuary 1807, are understood by
his Majesty’s government to be m
force ? I have now the honor to
acquaint you, that the coast, rivers
and ports from the river Kibe to
Brest, both inclusive, were notified
to be under the restriction* ol
blockade, with certain tnodificati
one, on the 16 ol May 1806 ; and
that inese restrictions were after
wards comprehended iu the Order
of Council of the 7ih of Januaiy
1807. which order is still in force*
1 have the honor to he, Hus.
Signed WELLESLEY
VVm. Pinkney, Esq
(COPY)
Great Cumberland Place,
Match 7, 1810.
My Lord,
I have had the honor to receive
vour Lordsh'p’fc answer, of the 2d
instant to my letter of the If th of
!a>t month, concerning the block*
ades of Fiance instituted by Great
Britain during the present war be
fore the first day of Jauuary 1807.
I inter from that answer that the
blockade notified bv Great Britain
in May 1306, from the Kibe to
Brest, is nut itself in force, and
that the restrictions, which it es
tablished, rest altogether, so far a*
such restrictions exist at this time,
upon an Order or Orders in Coun
cil issued since the first day of
January 1807,
I infer also either that no other
blockade of France was instituted
by Great Britain during the period
above mentioned, or that, if any
other was instituted during that
ptnoJ, it is no, now force.
May i beg your Lordship to do
me the honor to inform me whe
ther these inferences are correct,
and if incorrect, in what respects
they are so,
1 ‘have the honor to be, flee
Signed Win. PINKNEY.
1 he Marquis Wellesley, &c.
*• hold the mirrcp up to nature.” — Shakespeare.
1 Extract of a letter from Mr Pink
ney tv Mr. Smith) dated March
;.*r, isto.
*' I hav** the honor to enclose »
! conv of Lord Wellesley’s reply t„
i m; letter <>! the 7;h instant respec
ting the Britishblockades of France
before tlie Berlin decree.
“ i lo not think it of «uch a na
ture as to justify an expectation
that General Armstrong* will
able to nuk* any useoff|
but I sha.l ; etertluless
him the sub.sranee of
delay,”
Ftreign Office, March 26, 1310
Fir,
I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of yonr letter of the
j 7th instant, requesting a further
explanation of my letter of the a I,
concerning the blockades of Franca
instituted by Great Britain during
the present war, before the first
day of January 1807
The blockade,notified by Great
Britain in May 1806, has never
been lormally withdrawn ; it can.,
not thorefore be accurately stated,
that the restrictions, which it Ca .
tablished, rest altogether on the
Order of Council of the 7;h of
January 1807 5 they are compre
hended under the more exteusive
restrictions of that order. Nootii.
cr blockade of the ports of France
was instituted by Great Britain be
tween the iGtli of May 180 G, and
the 7th ol January 1807, excepting
the blockade Venice, instituted
on the 27th oi 'J .ay 1807, which is
still in force..
1 beg you to accept the assuran
ces ot high consideration, with
which 1 have the honor to be air,
our most obedient
humble servant,
Signed WELLESLEY.
Win Pinkney Esq.
London, April 2, 1810
Sir,
1 bad the honor to receive on
Saturday last (!>•/ Dr. Logan in
the British Packet) your letters
of the 2o Jan. and 16th Februa
ry
I have only time to add that I
am to see Lord Wellesley io mor
row.
I have honor to be,
With great consideration,
S ; r ,
Your most obedient humble
servant,
Wm. PINKNEY.
Ihe hon. Robert Smith,
&c. &V. &c.
Cnpij of a letter from Gen Arm.
strong to the Duke of Gadore,
dated Paris 21 st of Feb. 1810.
The Minister Plenipotentiary
of the United States has the hou.
or to submit to Hts Excellency the
Duke of Cadore the copy of a let
ter this instant received front Bay
onne and begs from him an ex
planation ot the circumstances
mentioned in it.
“The ministerial dispatch un- !
der date of the sth ir.st. is arrived
at St. Sebastians, boring an order
for the immediate transportation,
in small vessels, of n || the sequel* i
tered American cargoes, to Bay*
our.e, to be placed in ;ite Cus* |
tom-house there. This news is.i
publick at St. Sebastian ; but what
i“ "ot so as yet, is, that the same
order says i
“ Ist. That these cargoes are to ;
be sent to Bayonne, whether the
commodities of which they are I
composed may haw come from I
English commerce or hum the j
produce of the soil of the United \
States.
“ 2d!y That they shoo'd be sent
to the Custom-house of that place
to be sold there-”
The Minister Plenipotentiary
offers to Hts Excellency the iuu
surances of his high considera
tion.
(Signed)
JOHN ARMSTRONG.
Gen . Armstrong to Mr. Smith.
Paris, 18 th Feb. 1810
Sin,
I wroie a f w lines to you yes,
f t*Tdav announcing the receipt and
transmission of a copy of the Duke
of C rdorVs note to me of the 14’.b
ii stunt.
Alter much serious reHrction
I have though: it best to loibear
ail notice at present of the errors
as well of fact As of argument,
which may be found iu the intro
ductory part of that note ,* to
take the Minister at his word ;
to, enter at once upon the propo
sed ncgociatic.il, and, for this pur
pose, lo olfor to him a project
1 or. rone wing the convention of
1800.
This mode will have the advan
tage of trying the sincerity of the
overtures made by him, X perhaps
of drawing from him the precise
terms on which his master w ill
accommodate. If .sieve be such ps
we ought lo accept, we sh«i have
a I rcaty, iu which neither our
rights nor our wrongs wiii be for
gotten ; if otherwise there will be
enough, both of time and occasion,
to do justice io their pc.hey and
our own, by a free examination of
each.
I have the honor to be, &c.
(Signed)
JOHN ARMSTRONG*
Hon. Robert Smith.
Extract of a letter lo the same
from the same.
<c loth Match. I have at
length received a veibal mef
lage in answer to my note of
2Ht ultimo. It was from the
Minilter of foreign relations,
and in the following words :
“ His Majelly has decided to
lell the American property
feizedf in Spain, but the mo
ney arising therefrom (hall re«-
main in depot.” This message
lias given occasion to a Idler
from memaikcd No. 2.”
(No 2 ) Paris, io th March, iBiO.
ijm ,
I had yesterday the honor of
receiving a verbal meffagc from
vour excellency, Hating, that
u his ma] city *had decided, that
the American property (cized
in the ports of Spain (hould be
loid, but ihaMhe money arising
therefiotn (hould icmain in
depot.”
On receiving this informa
tion, two quell ions (uggeited
thcmfelres—
tH. Whether this decision
was, or was not, extended to
(hips, as well as to cargoes ? &
2d. Whether the money ari
sing (t orn the (ales .which might
be made under it, would or
would not, be fuhject, to the
iflue of the pending negocia.
tion ?
The gentleman charged with
the delivery of your taeffage
not having been inHructed to
anf.vcr thcle queUions, it be
comes my duty to present them
to your excellency, and to rc.
quelt a folutionof them. Nor
is it less a duty, on my part to
examine the ground on which
his majesty has been pleased
to take this deedion. which I
underhand to be that of repri
sal, suggested fair the fir It time
in the note you did me the
honor to write to me on the
>4th ultimo. In the 4-th para
graph of this note, it is laid, that
“ His majelty could not have
calculated on the meafnres ta
ken by the United States, who,
having no grounds ofcomplaint
agamlt France, have romprif
ed bar in their aft $ of excluliun,
[No. 91.]
MONDAY, July 9, 1810
and since the month of May
lad have prohibited the entry
into their pons of French vef-
IHs, by /objecting them to con
fiscation.*’
It is true that the United
States have since the 20'h of
j May la(l forbidden the entry
of I* rench veflels into their
harbors—and it is al r o true that
the penalty of confiscation
laches to the violation of this
law. Hut in what refpcct does
this of} .jd France ? Will she
refufe to us the right of re g U .
laimg commerce within our
own pons ? Or wilt die de
ny that the law in qucltion is a
regulation merely municipal ?
Examine it both as to obiett
and means--what docs it more
than fmbid American fhjps
from going into the ports of
France, and French (hips from
coming in thofc of the Uuitcd
S. ? And why this prohibition ?
To avoid injury and inlult ; to
escape that Jawleffnels, which
is declared to he “ a forced
confequcnce of the decrees
of the Brit ish council.” jf
then its object be purely de.
fonfivc, what arc it means?
Simply a law, previously & gen
erally promulgated, operating
solely with'n the territory of
the United States and punch
ing alike the infractors of it,
whether citizens of the said
dates or others. And what is
this but the cxcrcifc of a right
common to all nations, of cx*
eluding at their will foreign
commerce, and of enforcing
that cxclufion ? Can this be
deemed a wrong to France ?
Can this be regarded as a legi
timate cause of reprisal on
the part of a power who makes
it the firfl duty of nations to
defend their sovereignty and
who even denationalizes the
ships of thofc who will not Tub-'
feribe to the opinion.
But it has been (aid that
“ U. S. had nothing to com
plain of againd France.”
Was the captute and con
dcmnaiion of a fliip driven on
the shore of France by ftrefa of
weather and the perils of the
lea—nothitg? Was the Fizure
and fcquedration of many car
goes brought to France in ships
violating no law and admitted
to regular e-.try at the imperial
cuflotn ho ifes—nothing ? Was
the violation of our maritime
rights, consecrated as th:y have
been by the folcmn forms of a
public treaty-nothing? In a
word, was it nothing that our
ships were burnt o the high
leas, without other onence than
that of belonging to the United
States, or other apology, than
was to be found in the enhanced
fafety of the perpetrator ? Sure,
ly if it be the duty of the United
States to resent the thcoratical
u fur pat ions of the British Or
ders of November 1807, it can
not be less theirdutyto complain
of the daily and practical out.
rages on the part of France !
It in indeed true 1 hat were the
people of the United Statesdcf
titutc of policy, of honor and
of energy (as has been infmua*
ted) they might have adopted a
fyftcm ofdilcrimination between
tbe two great belligerents, they
might have drawn imaginary
lines between the firfl and fe.'
cond aggressor ; they might