« PreviousContinue »
Milan sont revoqués, et, qu'a dater du 1er Novembre, ils cesseront d'avoir leur effet."
· I take for granted that the revocation of the British orders in council of January and November, 1807, and April, 1809, and of all other orders, dependent upon, analogous to, or in execution of them, will follow of course; and I shall hope to be enabled by your lordship, with as little delay as possible, to announce to my government that such revocation has taken place. I have the honour, &c.
WM. PINKNEY. The Most Noble the Marquis
Wellesley, &c. &c. &c.
Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney in reply to the foregoing.
Foreign Office, August 31, 1810. Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter under date the 25th inst.
On the 23d of February, 1808, his majesty's minister in America, declared to the government of the United States
- his majesty's earnest desire to see the commerce of the world restored to that freedom which is necessary for its prosperity, and his readiness to abandon the system which had been forced upon him, whenever the enemy should retract the principles which had rendered it ne
I am commanded by his majesty to repeat that declaration, and to assure you that whenever the repeal of the French decrees shall have actually taken effect, and the commerce of neutral nations shall have been restored to the condition in which it stood previously to the promulgation of those decrees, his majesty will feel the highest satisfaction in relinquishing a system which the conduct of ihe enemy compelled him to adopt. I have the honour to be, &c.
WELLESLEY. Wm. Pinkney, Esq.
Mr. Pinkney to General Armstrong. London, September 3,
1310. Sır,-I received yesterday from lord Wellesley an answer dated the 31st of last month, to my note of the 25th, in which I communicated to him the purport of your letter to me of the 6th, respecting the Berlin and Milan decrees; and I hasten to put you in possession (by a special messenger) of a copy of each of those papers, to be used according to your discretion.
It is extremely desirable that I should have, without loss of time, the benefit of such reflections upon this answer as you may be disposed to favour me with, and of such information, calculated to regulate my course with regard to it, as your local position may enable you to furnish.
Your letters of the 6th and 7th ultimo concur in representing (with perfect propriety I think) that the revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees is to take effect absolutely after the 1st of November, and I have so put it to the British government. You will let me know if any errour (which I do not in the least suspect) has been discovered in this representation, or if it is necessary that the subject should be brought before this government in any other form than that which, looking to your representation, I have chosen.
You will perceive that the pledge contained in lord Wellesley's answer is referred to the period when the repeal of the French edicts shall have actually taken effect, and the commerce of neutral nations shall have been restored to the condition in which those edicts found it. In case there is nothing equivocal in these last expressions, the pledge is, I presume, sufficient for the present, if the recall of the French decrees does not depend on a condition precedent as some have supposed. if, on the other hand, it is understood that before the French repeal is to take effect, namely, before the 1st or 2d of November, Great Britain must revoke her orders in council, so that the orders shall cease to operate at the same moment with the decrees; or if it is understood that the British blockades, to which France objects (that of May, 1806, for example) must be recalled, or declared not to be in force, before the same period, then undoubtedly the pledge is nothing.
If the pledge is sufficient, we have only to let the matter rest until November. If it is insufficient, I cannot be too soon employed in taking a new course. Tought to mention, however, that I ain now preparing a note to lord Wellesley, to be presented in a few days, concerning the blockades. This step is proper, and I think indispensable, whether the revocation of the decrees of France depends upon those blockades being put out of the way or not.
Begging you to let me hear from you as soon as convenient, I am, sir, &c.
WM. PINKNEY. His Excellency Gen. Armstrong, &c. &c. &c.
Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. London, September 4, 1810.
Sir,- have just received your letters by lieutenant Spence. Their dates are as follows: 17th July, 1810; 5th July, (original and duplicate ;) 2d July (original and duplicate ;) 30th June (original and duplicate ;) 16th June (duplicate ; the original had been received before ;) 13th June (duplicate ; the original had already been received.)
I have only time to add, that the repeal of the French decrees (as communicated to me by general Armstrong) and the reply of lord Wellesley of the 31st ult. to my communication on that subject, do not appear to me to take away the necessity of executing the instructions contained in your letters of the 2d and 5th of July relative to the British blockades, although they may affect the manner of executing those instructions. The note which I intend to present on this occasion will be ready in a day or two, and shall be sent in immediately. I have the honour to be, &c. &c.
P. S. Lord Wellesley sent me a message yesterday, through Mr. Hamilton, that, if I still wished to see him on the subject of my late communication, he would receive me to day. I replied that I had no wish to see him on that subject; but that it might be necessary to write him a note upon it hereafter. I mean to confine myself as much as possible to written intercourse with lord Wellesley.
Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. London, September 7, 1819.
Sir,- It has been supposed here that the notification of a blockade of “the canal of Corfou," on the 18th of last month, was intended to close the Adriatick, and the English newspapers, as you will have perceived, so represented it. In my letter to you of the 20th ultimo, communicating a copy of that notification, I have adopted this construction, which now appears to be erroneous. The “canal," to which the notification is now understood to apply, is the narrow passage to the eastward of Corfou. I have the honour to be, &c. &c.
Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Smith. London, September 15, 1810.
Sir,-) send enclosed a copy of a second letter which I have written to lord Wellesley, respecting the stoppage of American vessels attempting to pass the Sound; together with a copy of the protest of the master of the American ship“ Alert,"mentioned in that letter, which is well entitled to your attention. I have the honour to be, &c. &c.
Mr. Pinkney to Lord Wellesley. Great Cumberland Plact.
September 15, 1810. MY LORD,—In my note of the 1st instant, I had the honour to inform your lordship, that it had been stated to me in a letter from Gottenburgh, that in consequence of some misconception of the effect of the order for establishing a blockade of Elsinore in May last, American vessels had recently been prevented from passing the Sound by the English naval force in that quarter, and I requested that if this statement was correct, such explanations might be transmitted to the British commander as might at least confine the blockade in question to the port against which it had been professcdly instituted.
As I have not received any answer to that note, and consequently do not know whether any order has been given to remove the interruption which it mentions, I feel it to be necessary to lay before your lordship the enclosed original protest of the master of the American ship “Alert,” which appears to establish the existence of that interruption in a form as exceptionable as it could possibly assume.
Whatever may be the ground upon which sir James Saumarez has thought fit to issue his orders to close the passage of the Sound to American vessels returning in the prosecution of a lawful trade to the United States, or proceeding in a contrary direction, your lordship will, i am persuaded, think with me that my government has a fair claim to be made acquainted, either through me cr through such other channel as your lordship may deem more proper, with the intentions of the British government on the subject.
Before I conclude this letter I must call your lordship’s attention to the particular circumstances of the case which has mainly produced it, and to the redress which those circumstances plainly require.
The “ Alert” has been seized and sent to England by the * Africa” for salvage. The peril from which she was saved, if she was saved from any peril, was created by the injustice of the capturing vessel in turning her from the regular course of her homeward voyage.
That the commander of the “ Africa,” or those under whom he acted, should be responsible to the utmost for the loss occasioned by that injustice, seems to be perfectly rea-, sonable ; but it is difficult to imagine in what way he can expect to derive from it a right to inflanie the loss for his own advantage. I trust that the attempt will be repressed in a suitable manner, and that, in place of salvage to be paid by the injured neutral, compensation will in some mode or other be awarded to him for the damages he has been made to sustain.
The impressment on board the “ Alert,” of four American seamen by the “ Africa,” cannot be passed unnoticed. This abuse could not fail to be interesting under any circumstances; but on this occasion (supposing the erclosed narrative to be true, it is not only characterised by an utter disregard of the rights of the American government, and hy the oppression of its citizens, but is prac