Newspapers / The Weekly Raleigh Register … / June 28, 1810, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Weekly Raleigh Register (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
VOL :''.- -i ' - ' " -., .'.av' .-v.. C -: i .. , j - - . I , v j - y " r-i, n , f " &tate papers, -FRANCE fA ?fD ENGLAND. - ' , . -5. M, 5, 19, 1810 ; Sn I receiTed on the 12th instant, by Mr. Powel, whom. I btd, sent some timt be fore to France, a ic tt c r f r m Ge CcrJ Armstrong, ofwhich a copy h en closed : andf keeping in tiew the in. itructionsconuined in your letter to me cfihe llth Nor. last, I bare written to Lord Wcllesley, to enquire whether mnd if any what blockades of prance ;niimed by Gicat-Britiin during the prent r,bcforel he 6"l or Jawny, ian7 are understood here tobe in force. Ij enclosed. It rs not improbable that this official tncuirr "ill produce a declaration, in answer to It, ini none oi inosc uiorn ide are in force: and I should presume that such a declaration will be- received ia France as substantially satisfying the coiiuon announced to me by General Arming. ; I am not aware that this subject could bare been brought before the British go remment in any other form than that which I have chosco It would not, I think, have been proper to have applied for a revocation of the blockades in ques tion, (at Ieau before it. is ascertained that tbey are in existence) or to have professed, in my letter to Lord VV lies Icy, t found upon General Armstrong's coramuniciMon my enquiry as to their actual state. I have, .however, suppo id it to be indispensible (and have -ct- eJ accordingly) that 1 should explain to lrd Welleslcy, in conversation, the prbr.bi!ity afl"rded by 'General Arm- itnng let'er, that a declaration oy tnis eofernment, to the eUect above men tioned, would be followed by the recal of thf Berlin decree. 1 cannot, perhaps, expect to receive from Lord Welleslcy, an answer to my letter in time to send a copy by the John Adams, now in the Downs or at Ports, mouth; but I will send it by an early cpf nunity, and will take care that Gen. At tr.s rong shall be made acquainted vkh it without deLy; 1 tuve tbe honor to be, &c T WW. PINKNEY. P.S. KIarch23 1810. Since the writing of this le'ter, ,Lord Welleslcy . hat sent me the answer (of the 2d inst.) of which a copy is now enclosed. It was ret satisfactory, - and I pointed out its dcEcicnccs to iord Wellcsley,ln conver lit'ioo, S; proposed to him that I should wntc him another letter requesting ex planations. He sisseo'ed to this course and I have written him the letter of the T'hinst.of -thich also a copy is cmloscd. His r?p!y fusheen promised rtry fre qurntly, but has not yet Been rectivtd I hate reason to expect that it will be sufficient ; but I cannot think of d tixing the corvette any longer. ' Tbt British Packet' will furnish me with an opportunity of forwarding it to you and I will send Mr. Lee with it to Paris, by ay or Morlaix. I have the honor, Sec. WM. PINKNEY. Tie Hon. R. Sm.th, 8tc, Frvm Gen. Arm n vug to Mr Pinhwy. Pars tZS Jan, 1810. Sir A letter from Mr. Sec!y Smirh cflhe firs, of December la'stj made it my duty to enquire of, his Excellency tbcTiuke of Cadore,Avhat were tbe con dnicoson which his Majesty the Empe ror wculd annul his Dccrre, commonly cl td the Berlin Drcree ; and whether, Lrtat-Britain revoked her blockades pf a date anterior to that decree, his Ma j?uy would consent to revoke (heaaid de creeJ To these questions I have this day received the followint? answer; which 1 kisien to convey to you by a special answer, ; " The only condition, required for the revocation by bis Majesty the Emperor f the Decree of Berlin, will be the pre us i evocation by the British govern ment of her blockades ot France, or part France (och as that from the Elbe to Brest, cC ) of a date anterior to that of lac aforesaid decree. " - ' ; Grtat OnnbcrlaMd Place, Feb. 15, 1810 Ml Loa c r phcr and iran7 hat blOckadea -V ranee,, InsUtutcd byj Great-Britain CiT0?1 Preset war, before the 1st 'uoa which i bad the honor to give" 3 TO,-r Lordship, a few days a I beg 10 trouble vourLorrfihir;Klan -.r.o.,:r Mtjesty's goTtrntncnt to be in I am not able at prr seat to spe force. cify more than one of the blockades to which, this enquiry-applies ; namely, th it from the Elbe to Brest, declared in May, r 80S, and anerwa'rda--limited and modified ; - but I shall be much obliged to your Lordship for precise inform a uon as to the whole. - 1 hive the honor; &c WM. PINKNEY. Most Noble Mirq. Welleslej &c. r Foreign Office, Murc2, 181(5. Sir,I have the honor to acknow 1 dgetln receipt of your note of the 1.5; h ullino, wherein you request to be in Maekadet of Fnncl instiluttd bJ n . 4 1 formed whether any, and if any. what Great betore the hist day of January, 1807, are un derstood by his Majesty's government to be in force i I have now the honor! ti acquaint you,' that the coast, river 8c ports trom.the river El?e to Brest, both inclusive, were rrbtifiCd to be under the restrictions of blockade, with certain modifications, oh the l6ihol M'jy. 1806, and tliat thes? restrictions were after wards comprehended in the Order of Council of the 7th J nuary, 1807, which Order is still in force. - 1 have the honor to be, &c. WEI. LESLEY. JFi&am Pitdnej, Esq. Gnat Cumberland Vuce. 7 March, 1810, Mr Lohd, I have had the honor to receive your Lordship's answer of the 2d instant, to my letter of the 15th of laU month, concerning the blockades of France, instituted by Gret-Britain, du ring the present war, before the 1st day of January 1807. I infi r from that answer that the. block ade ncrtifkd by G. Britain, in May 1806, from the. Elbe to Brest, is not itself in force, and that the restrictions, which it established, rest altogether, so far as such restrictions exist at this time, upon an Ordvror Orders in Council issued since the fi'srday of January, 1807. I infer also, either that no other block adr of France was instituted by Great Britain during the period above men tioned, or that, if any other was insti tuted during that period,. it is not nc v in force. May I beg your Lordship to do me the honor to inform me whether these inferences are correct, and, if incorrect, in what respects they are so. WM. PINKNEY. Ihe Most Noble Marq. Welleslcy. Fareizn OJicett March 264,1810. "Sir I havrthe honor to iitkiiawJcdgc the receipt of your letter of the 7th inst. requesting a further explanation of my letter of the 2d, concerning the block ndes of France instituted by GreaUBn ain during the present war, before the 1st d;iy of January, 1807. The blockade, notified by Great Bri tain in May 1806, has never been for mally viihdrawn ; it cannot therefore he accu ately stated, that the restric tions, which it established, rest altoge ther on the Order jf C mncil of the 7 h A January, 1807 ; they are compre hended under the more extensive re strictions of that order, N other block ade of the ports of France, was institu te! by Grtrat Britain between the 16ih of May, 1806. and he 7th of January, 1 807, i xCepung he blockade of Venice, insVituted on the 27lh of July, 1806, which is still in force. 1 have the bonr to be, &c ' , s welleSley. William Pinknej, E . fcTc. Copy of a letter from Gtn. . Annttrong to the JJulte tfCodare, dated Pari, 2Ut Feb. 1810, t he Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States has the. honor to submit o His Excellency the Duke of Cadore ne copy m a letter mis instant receivea from Btyonne and begs from him an explanation of the circumstances men tiontd in it. , "The Ministerial dispatch under date of the 5h inst. is 'arrived at St. Sebas tian, bearing an order for the lmrai diate transportation, in ' small vessels,' of all the sequevtered American cargoes, to Bayoone, to be placed in, the Custom House there. -This news is public St. Sebastian"; but what is not. so as yet, is, that the' slane' order says . 7;'.: .alst. .That these' catgocl are to be sent to Bayoone,' whether the. commo dities of -which they are composed may have come frm English commerce or frbmlhe pt1 yin.ee of.thctnl'of tke'.Uni- icd State. . 7 , - , I 2dly; That.they should be sent to I by his -rrrVr. i V n r. . ; liwuuiflu- , - r jirespeciajjiepenswnonayejeHAme-notJrrancepno General' Armstrong to Mr Smith. ' J ' r -Pari, iStb'FebMSlO' 1 ..- . Sir I wrote a few lines to you yesr terday announcing the receipt and trans mission of a copy of the. Duke of Ca dore 's note to me of the Uth inst. v After much serious reflection I hayfe thought it best to forbear all notice at present of the errors, as well of fact as of argument, which may befouncMn the !ntrocuct.ory part of that note to take the Minister at his word fl tq enter at once upon the proposed ncgociatjon,and; for this purpose, to offer to him. a pro ject for renewing the convention of 1800. This mode will have the advantage of trying the sincerity of the overtures made by him, and perhaps of drawing from him the.precise terms on which his Master will accommodate. If these be such as we ought to accept, we shall have a Treaty, in which neither our ngnu nor our wrongs wm oe lorgouen ; it otnerwise, tnere will be enough, both of time and -occasion, to do justice to thei: policy and our own, by a free exa mination of each. 1 - ) Extract of a letter to the tame from the tame. u 10th March I have at length re ceived a verbal message in answer to my note of the 21st ulu It was from the Minister of Foreign relations, and in the following words : 4 His Maies ty has decided to sell the American pro perty seized in Spam, but the money a rising therefrom shall remain in the de pot." This message has given occasion to a letter from me marked No. 3," (No. 2) . Parit, li)th March, 1810. S i it I had yesterday the honor of re ceiving a verbal message from your ex cellency, stating, that his majesty had decided to sell the American property seized in Spain, but the money arising therefrom should remain in depot. On receiving this information, two questions 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 woiild not be subject to the issue ot the pending negociation : The gentleman charged with the de livery of your me ssage not having been instructed to answer these questions, it becomes my duty to present them to your excellency, and to request a solu tion of them. Nor is it less a duty, on .a . mv part, to examine the ground on which his majesty has been pleased to take this decision, which I understand to be that of reprisal) suggested for the hrst time in me note you uia me me honor to writr to me on the 1 1th ult. In the 4th paragraph of this note, it is said, that His majesty could not navt calculated on the measures taken by the Ui.ited States, who, having no, grounds of complaint against France, have com prised her in their acts of exclusion, and since tfie month of May last have pro hibited the entry intq their ports of Fr nch vessels, by subjecting them to confiscation." , It is tiue that the United S ates have since the 20th of May last forbidden the entry of French vessels into their har borsand it is also true that, the penal ty of confiscation attaches to the viola tion of his law. But in what respect does this offend France ? , VVill she je fuse( to u the right of regulating com merce within our own ports ? Or-will she deny that the law in question is a regulation merely municipal t Exa mine it both as to object, and. means what does it more than forbid American , ships from going into the ports of France, and French ships from coming into those of the United States? And why this prohibition ? .To jvo'id injury and insult ; to escapeahat lawlessnessiwhich is declared to be M41 forced consequence of the decrees of the British council.; If then its object be purely' defensive, what are its means ? Simply a lavtj pre viously and generally 'promulgated, opd- raxing solelywi'hin the territory of the United States,' ancl punishing alike the infractor of it, whether, citizens of the said states or others. And what is this but the'exercise of a right, common to all nations, of excluding at. their will fo rejgrr commerce, and: of enforcing that exclusion ? Can this be deemed a wrong to France'K Can this be regarded as a legiUrhater cause of reprisal on'thecpart of a'power, who makes it the first duty of nations-16 defend, their'sovereigtity, and who even denationalizes the1 ships B ut it has been eaid that, the States had nothme to cdmplaiaofa- giiw rance. Ti -2 1 y VVas the capture and airidcinnation; ofa ship driven on tne shores of jprahce by siress .of weatrier and the ' perils pf the sea nothing?' ' Was the seizure; and seduestration of many cartroea brot to France in ships viblating rio law; and admitted to regular entrf at the impe rial cuVtonv house$--nothing ? ( Was the violation bf our maritime rights, con- secrated ask'they have been by the so lemn forms of a public weaty'-othing ? In a word; was it,nothing thatpur sUipVjrdopterl by, the United StatesI-!The4aWi? iner onencc.inan n t, of jfeloningtpj icr apologyj than the U. States ; or otl was to be found jn, "the, nhancea safety, of the perpetrator ?' Surejy if it be the aycyoi ine. u. piaies 10 resent we ine-.H oretical usurpations'of the British orders of Nov. ( 807, it cannot ; be less their uu j w .utnjuift ui, lite uauy onu pi auii" cal outrages on the part of France L It is indeed true that were the people of the Q.-States destitute, of policy, of hor 1 nor jand of enety (as ias peeninsinua-1 ted they might have adopted a system of discrimination between the two great belligerents ; they might havc drawn imaginary lines between the first and se- cond aggressor ; they might have re- sented in the one a conduct to which ihev tamelv siihmitfed in the other. anH in this way have patched up a compro- mise between honor and interest, equal-; ly wea and disgraceful. But suph, was not the couise they v pursued, and it is perhaps a necessary consequence of the justice of their measures that they are? ai uiiauajf an iuucpciiucm nuuuu dui I will not press this part of my subject ;the Imperial decrees-: r)'r" v it would be affrontful to your excellency 11 U. States have grounds of complaint a gainst France. ' My attention is necessarily called to another part of the. same paragraph H which iimitcuiatciy iuikjw inc iuuitj- tion already made. " As soon,' says your Excellency, his Majesty was informed of this measure (the non-inler- course law) it became his duty to retai iate upon the American vessels, not on , ly within his own territories, but also within the countries under his influence. In the ports of , Holland, Spain, 'Italy and Naples, the American vessels have been seized, because the; Americans had seized French vessels These remarks divide themselves in to the' following Heads : 1 st The right of -his Majesty to seize anrl nnRcri)tp . Amoriran voce 0 1 c ... I I (knowing as you do, that. there are not time r still later than he. capture ptAht j' less than one hundred Ameri an ships preceding, ywas brought in,to the pov$ oi " within his Majesty's possession, or that Bayonne, bill having violated' no faw'ht, ;f of his allies) to multiply proofs that the his Majesty, was ncqu'tted by his coun- L ,f in his own territories. , vfoccasibni and made to -iustifv seWnrf ritorics ot his allies ; and ; t 1 pray your, Lxcellency to accept. &c ' 1 l ' 3d. The reason of that'right, viz ; , ;;JOHN KMSXRONCr : v ' because Americans had seized French His Excellency the D.uke of Cadore.' ' -,- ' w w wim m m The first of these subjects has been already examined ; and the second must be decided like the first, since his jVla- jesty's rightswithin. the-limits of his L aJty cannot oe greater tnan-wnnin nis roadaof Hereon the 28th ult. - u I own-lf then it has been shewn, lhat t,he Unformed Mr. ChampagVy, IsUthat" -nnn -intercourse law was merelv defend t.- ri:wt.;.. u-i js u - - 4 trw sive in it object; that it was but intended duly promulgated there and in Europe betore execution, it win he atmostun hecessarr to repeat that a law of such description cannot authorise a measure of reprisal, equally sudden and silent iri its- enactment and application, founded on no previous wrong, productive ol no previous eompiamr, ana operating beyond' the limits of his Majestys ter ritories and withihvthose of sovereigns, who had Wen invited the commerce of tne United Statesto their ports It ft therefore the third subject only 7 iherldson if the right, which remains to be examined ; ahd'wiih fegarjj toN it' I r may obserye, that lCtjie alledged . fact' wntcn iorms iota reason oe iiurjunaeof the reason itself fails and the rijght with' iC Ih this'yiw of the business 1 may Ibepermitted to enquire, rVen a'nd where any seizure: of a;Frehch Vessel has' ta kenj plit.ujidertlj i.non-iBtercoursc law i and at the kmi ximt, tok Express my firm persuasion,1- that no sot h scn I w.:-tit.' .- v . . j zure nas Dccn, maae 5 a persuasion fouided ,alike 'OT4he;lejice of thego-' Vernment cahd ; of; tfie'iqurnalsrof ? the cMuuvry, auu aiiu iwts w ( me ipasiuvc rica as late as the.tii5th otjjecemoer , 5 llastl CM? ddriclusion therefore, - that-f- fio FrencK VesseLhavingY)dtated4heV; :V Iaw no seizure of' such, vessel haioc Y Jj cUrred, arid,, that thelrepbrt which has I:.1 reached Paris Tslprobably founded on $1 ' ru II circumstance -altether Unconnected. wjth he non-intercourse law of Ki 1 oper X I ration. V ' ;J-1 p.. Tinougn jar irom.wismogoprpioiiKE this letter,.! cannot close' withoure-n K'r' marking thegreatandUJderl'cVan t'j 1 wrdiisrht iifhSs'Maiestrk.: sentiments kf wrought JrrhisMaiestvs. serttimentf M wiiii- rcgaru: 10 me ueiensife sysicnrj I fr reijiisalwas'tlrst communicated to f f his Majesty, in Junei or JulyJastJvand t , certainlyd "nbt;Mis jexcite.any iu'spi f -' cion or feelingfunfriendly to 'the.Aine' -' ncan govern menc''arrirointniS-K5 communication was immediately Jbftowfy- J d .by roi ertqres ' 'aqdommodatidn v sf?V wnicn, inouirri prouucuveoi iiu uusuivo ; arrangement; did foot -Tnake' matters trc fUn tkt, f.n iKrrt. "' 4 1 On the 22d"of August last I was rio X 7 ; nored with a fulI;exposition of the views r''v'f and principles which Jiad govcrne'df apd 5. V ; which should continue to govern ftiVtyfa " - jesty's policy in t relation. to'therUn ited )t" tatek, and in this we, jdo notliindtrlbj ' slightest trace of complaint gaihst tfie ! ,r nrovisions of the law in auestiom- lr' At rtrinr1 li'to Umisili 1 gust, an Amencart'sljipi' 'declined to'aK.' -! port of Spain, was captureabV k FrerichV privateer, j An 'appeal was made'to Jtusie V' Majesty's" Minister of waf,'whoi hiving subniittecf the case 'received order ito'.TV liberate all Amtrxssn vessels destined (6 1 iiopanisnperfs zuiun naa noc vigtatea r : Another Am .merican ship, at a point of ; k, testy, was ncqu'tted by cil of prizes : and lastly In the long conversation1!: hacj the 1 V honor of holding with your' Excellency on the 25th of January, ho ideaofreprK nal was maintained by you norsupect-td-by'mej but on the contrary iri speakmgOf . the seizure of ? American property in Spain, you expresslyeclar ed, that it was not a' confiscation. 1 Can proofs be more conclusive, Jhat v' from the fi rs'v promulgation of theHaW' down i to the" 35tb,of January last no 'hf ' thing in the nature of reprisal wascon- V ' ' templated by his Majesty ? fjC'S;- L '! ' Vhat circumstance may have'siricfty'., oe'eurred to produce a chance in his'o ' : oinioriI'know not j buthe4cQhfidehW Y ' I feel iri the open and loyal policy of his t ''' I Maiesty,' 'altogether exclude he Iidea.K . tknt ik. mil.'uiini nf 1. J -.1 . M . Extrixcijoffi letter from Gen "Arnntrong to Mr After seven -weeks detention in ;Rnp' land, the John Adams has &i tnrt-f h 'n-nt.X','?:'- "r backjto France''. She arrived In? theV' : by this conveyance the results his ap- : to send it in-a tew davs liv; nojhei conveyance and '2d, that if he'a ; (Mr. ChampanyJ had anyhinglftb V 1 communicate which would ,Vayeihe'efi feet of changing the presetif .relations ot t " the two countries Sc which he wished,to j uccaiij mjuwii'w me government nf 7 - t ik. TtnWl Qu.. jj' -w v wi'iu wiVb. wuuiy 00 Well, to " i,f from him xW foIlQwfar answer. That '' M ' " for snmerlar nat nntliWim 41 !. - , 1 ture ,of bttemess and unconnected t U u ' . ' ' the marriage of iBe femperor cotild be ' transacted ;andihatTor soxnei daV& m J come lnemeuse6ay would rt were sull,befqre tbempirbr. and that r' .3 heouId seizer;the.first moment to cet ' V some decision : in. reinttrrtt ihm t : of a ktterfrtmi'MKPinineiio &J'iA. f x; strong; datf L6adaty23JMurcbl 'i miO ' TeaiCSiW; AlthSUghn haft'dct.foWi. ed thorveurmuch longer ihWl.wish:, V. ' etf; 1'atn not yet able-io send you thi re v:' 1 ,1 'I 1 : .
The Weekly Raleigh Register (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
June 28, 1810, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75