246 
tryitwas rejected by the senate, 
as from its repugnance.to every 
principle of honesty and hamanity, 
it must have brought indelible dis- 
grace on ‘he American name, and 
from the violence whichit authorized, 
it must inevitably have led to imme- 
diate hostilities with Great Britain. 
When it was at length determined 
by the American: government to 
send a special mission to England, 
for the adjustment of differences 
between the two nations, our prac- 
tice of impressing on the high seas 
was stated as the first in importance 
of their grievances, and their pleni- 
potentiaries were instructed to urge 
the abandonment of a practice so 
disgraceful and injurious to their 
country as the point most essential 
to its peace, honour and tranquillity. 
With respect to the second ground 
of complaint, we had conceded to 
the Americans, in the late war, 
permission to trade with the colonies 
of the enemy, for articles intended 
for their domestic consumption ; and 
In case no market was found in the 
United States for articles imported 
with that intentions we had permit- 
ted them to re-export these articles 
to any port, in any part of the 
world, not invested by our blockad- 
ing squadrons. But we had con- 
stantly refused them permission to 
trade directly between the colonies 
of the enemy and the mother coun- 
try; and we professed to tolerate 
the indirect communication above 
mentioned, on the supposition, that 
the goods so transmitted had been 
interded originally for American 
consumption, and would not have 
been re-exported, but for want of a 
market in America. ‘* It is now 
distinctly understood,” sdys his 
* Dated March 16th, 1801, and officic 
to Mr. Rufus King 
>? 
t July 5th, 1800. 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1806. 
majesty’s advocate-general in a rea 
port officially communicated © by 
lord Hawkesbury to the American 
government, and transmitted to all 
our viee-admiralty courts abroad, 
as a rule for their future guidance 
and direction, * ** that the produce 
of the colonies of the enemy may 
be imported by a neutral into bis 
own country, and may be re-ex- 
ported from thence even to the 
mother country of such colony. 
The direct trade, however, between 
the mother country and its colonies, 
has not, I apprehend, been recog- 
nised as legal, either by his majesty’s 
government or by his tribunals. 
What is a direct trade or what 
amounts to an intermediate impor- 
tation into the neutral country, may 
sometimes be a question of some 
difficulty. But the high court of 
admiralty has expressly decided, 
that landing the goods and paying 
the duties in the neutral country, 
breaks the continuity of the voyage, 
and is such an importation as lega- 
lizes the trade, although the goods 
be reshipped in the same vessel, and 
on account of the same neutral pro- 
prictors, and be forwarded for sale 
to the mother country.” The de- 
cision of the high court of admiralty, 
to which sir John Nicholl alludes 
in this report, was probably the 
judgment pronounced by sir Wiiliam 
Scott in the case of the Polly, + in 
delivering which that learned judge 
expressed himself in the following 
manner. ‘** An American has un- 
doubtedly a right to import the pro- 
duce of the Spanish colonies for his 
own use; and after it is imported 
bona fide into his own country, he 
would be at liberty to carry them 
on to the general commerce of 
ally communicated by Lord Hawkesbury 
on the 11th of April following. 
Europe. 
