344 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



States appeared to me to have much more pertinence 

 than your lordship is inclined to attach to it. I still 

 think that it has not attracted so much of your atten- 

 tion as it deserves. Your lordship will pardon me for 

 suggesting that it was not because " the revolutionary 

 government of France openly avowed its determina- 

 tion to disregard all principles of international law 

 which had been acknowledged by civilized States," or 

 because of a " supposed temporary superiority of her 

 naral force," it "did actually equip privateers in the 

 neutral ports of the United States, and send them 

 forth to prey upon British commerce," &c., that the 

 Government of the United States were induced to lis- 

 ten to the demands of the British Government for re- 

 dress. The claim that was actually made by France 

 rested upon its interpretation of a solemn treaty, offen- 

 sive and defensive, ^between France and the United 

 States, which, not without show of reason, claimed for 

 the former the right to fit out cruisers against its 

 enemies in the ports of the United States. Although 

 very properly denying this to be the correct version, 

 the Government of the United States felt unwilling to 

 act on a policy of oppression until due notice given of 

 its determination to abide by an opposite construction. 

 In the interval certain captures of British vessels took 

 place which the Government, because of its failure for 

 the reasons assigned, to prevent them, considered 

 itself -bound to make good. Here are the very words 

 of Mr. Jefferson in his letter to Mr. Hammond : 



' Having, for particular reasons, forborne to use all 

 the means in our power for the restitution of the three 

 vessels mentioned in my letter of August 7th, the Pres- 

 ident thought it incumbent on the United States to 

 make compensation for them ; and though nothing was 

 said in that letter of other vessels taken under like cir- 

 cumstances and brought in after the 5th of June, and 

 before the date of that letter, yet, where the same for- 

 bearance had taken place, it was and is his opinion 

 that compensation would be equally due." From these 

 words the deduction appears to be inevitable that the 

 principle of compensation in the case derived its only 

 force from the omission by the United States to pre- 

 vent a wrong done to the commerce of a nation with 

 which they are at peace. So, likewise, may it be 

 reasonably urged in the present case, that the omission 

 of her Majesty s Government, upon full and reasonable 

 notice, to carry into effect the provisions of its own 

 law designed to prevent its subjects from inflicting in- 

 juries upon the commerce of nations with which it is 

 at peace, renders it justly liable to make compensation 

 to them for the damage that may ensue. 



That the British Government of that day did con- 

 sider itself equitably entitled to full indemnity, not sim- 

 ply for the hostile acts of Frenchmen in American 

 ports, but for the loss and damage suffered on the high 

 seas by reason of assistance rendered to them by citi- 

 zens of the United States, will clearly appear by refer- 

 ence to the fourth article of the project of a treaty 

 proposed by Lord Grenville to Mr. Jay, on the 30th 

 of August, 1794. The words are these : 



" And it is further agreed, that if it shall appear 

 that, iu the course of the war, loss and damage have 

 been sustained by his Majesty's subjects, by reason of 

 the capture of their vessels and merchandise, such 

 capture having been made either within the limits of 

 the jurisdiction of the said States, or by vessels armed 

 in tne ports of the said States, or by vessels command- 

 ed or owned by the citizens of the said States, the 

 United States will make full satisfaction for such loss 

 or damage, the same being to be ascertained by com- 

 missioners in the manner already mentioned in this 

 article." 



If, by the preceding representation, I have succeed- 

 ed in making myself clearly understood by your lord- 

 ship, then will it, I flatter myself, be made to appear 

 that in both these cases, that in 1794 as well as that in 

 1862, the claim made rests on one and the same basis, 

 to wit, the reparation by a neutral nation of a wrong 

 done to another nation with which it is at peace, by 

 reason of a neglect, to prevent the cause of it originat- 

 ing among its own citizens in its own ports. 



The high character of Lord Grenville is a sufficient 

 guarantee to all posterity that he never could have 

 presented a proposition like that already quoted, ex- 

 cept under a full conviction that it was founded on the 

 best recognized principles of international law. In- 

 deed, it is most apparent, in the face of the preamble, 

 that even the statute law of both nations on this sub- 

 ject is but an attempt to give extraordinary efficacy 

 to the performance of mutual obligations between 

 States which rest on a higher and more durable basis 

 of justice and of right. It was on this ground, and on 

 this alone, that Lord Grenville obtained the conces- 

 sions then made of compensation for damage done to 

 her commerce on the high seas by belligerent cruisers 

 fitted out in the ports of the United States. I shall 

 never permit myself to believe that her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment will be the more disposed to question the va- 

 lidity of the principle thus formally laid down, merely 

 from the fact that in some cases it may happen to op- 

 erate against itself. 



This consideration naturally brings me back to the 

 examination of that portion of your lordship's note 

 which relates to the alleged violations in Great Britain 

 of her Majesty's proclamation by the respective par- 

 ties engaged in this war. Although this subject be not 

 absolutely connected with that on whch I made my rep- 

 resentation, I cheerfully seize the opportunity thus 

 furnished me to attempt, in gome degree, to rectify 

 your lordship's impressions of the action of the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States even on that question. 

 Your lordship does me the honor to observe that I 

 cannot be ignorant of the fact, which it is impossible 

 to deny, " that, in defiance of the Queen's proclamation, 

 many subjects of her Majesty owing allegiance to her 

 crown have enlisted in the armies of the United States." 

 "Her Majesty's Government, therefore, have just 

 ground for complaint against both the belligerent par- 

 ties, but most especially against the Government of the 

 United States, for having, systematically and in disre- 

 gard of that comity of nations which it was their duty 

 to observe, induced subjects of her Majesty to violate 

 those orders which, in conformity with her neutral 

 position, she has enjoined all her subjects to obey." 



As these words, taken in their connection, might 

 seem to imply a serious charge against myself as well 

 as the Government of the United States, I must pray 

 your lordship's pardon if I desire to know whether 

 there be any particulars in my own conduct in which 

 your lordship has found the evidence of such a state- 

 ment. So far as I have been made acquainted with 

 the course of my own Government, or I remember my 

 own, I must most respectfully tsrke issue with your 

 lordship upon it, and challenge you to the proof. That 

 very many of the subjects of Great Britain voluntarily 

 applied to me for engagements in the service of the 

 United States, is most true. That I ever induced om> 

 of them to violate her Majesty's orders, either directly 

 or indirectly, is not true. That numbers of her Majesty's; 

 subjects have voluntarily crossed the ocean and taker, 

 service under the flag of the United States, I have reason 

 to believe. That the Government of the United States 

 systematically and in disregard of the comity of nations* 

 induced them to come over to enlist I have not ye; 

 seen a particle of evidence to show, and I must add, 

 praying your lordship's pardon, I am authorized ex- 

 plicitly to deny. In response to a remonstrance, mado 

 to me by your lordship, it is but a few days since I 

 took occasion, so far as my action was concerned o? 

 the action of any of the officers of the United States in 

 this kingdom, to place the country right before you on 

 that score. After the very- explicit retraction made iu 

 your lordship's reply to me, dated on the ICth instant,, 

 it is not without great surprise that I now nerceiv) 

 what I cannot but regard as a renewal of the imputa- 

 tion. 



Your lordship is pleased carefully to join the two 

 parties to this war, as if, in your estimation, equall;'' 

 implicated in the irregular proceedings conducted 

 within this kingdom, and equally implicating the sub- 

 jects of Great Britain in the violation of her Majesty'} 

 proclamation. Hence it is argued that the omission 



