\ '^ vCS .V IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 I.I l^^jS 125 ^ lU 122 !g 1^ 12.0 ii& IIPS 1 1.4 1 1.6 ^ 6" ► w 71 /: M ^ ^v^ /^ "'W ''^SSSa^ V Photographic Sdences Corporation \ \\ % V C^ 23 WEST MAIN STRiST WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 873-4503 4!j ^ V CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical IMicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microret*roductions historiquas y^ Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notaa tachniquaa at bibliographiquas Tha c tothi Tha Instituta has anamptad to obtain tha baat original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagas in tha raproduction. or which may significantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. D Colourad covaru/ Couvartura da coulaur rn Covars damagad/ Couvartura andommagia Covars rastorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura rastauria at/ou pailiculAa Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua Colourad maps/ Cartas giographiquas an coulaur Colourad ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) Colourad plataa and/or illustrationa/ Planchas at/ou illustrationa mn coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ Rali« avac d'autras documants a n Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along intarior margin/ Laraliura sarrie paut causar da I'ombra ou da la diatorsion la long da la marga int*riaura Blank laavas addad during rastoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar possibla. thasa hava baan omittad from filming/ 11 sa paut qua cartainas pagas blanchas ajouttes lors d'una raatauration apparaiaaant dans la taxta. maia. lorsqua cala «tait possibla, cas pagaa n'ont pas iti filmtes. L'Institut a microfilm* la maillaur axamplaira qu'il lui a «t« possibla da sa procurar. Las details da cat axamplaira qui sont paut-«tra uniquas du point da vua bibliographiqua. qui pauvant modifiar una imaga raproduita. ou qui pauvant axigar una modification dans la m«thoda normala da fllmaga sont indiquis ci-dassous. D D D n n n D D Colourad pagas/ Pagaa d9 coulaur Pagaa damagad/ Pagaa andommagtes Pagas rastorad and/or laminatad/ Pagaa rastaur«as at/ou palliculAas Pagaa discolourad, stainad or foxad/ Pagas dicolories, tachatias ou piquias Pagas datachad/ Pagaa d^tachias Showthrough/ Transparanca Quality of print varias/ Qualit* inigala da I'imprassion Includas supplementary material/ Comprand du matAriai suppl^mentaira Only edition available/ Seuie Mition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totaiement ou partiallement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. una pelure, etc., ont M filmtes A nouveau de faqon d obtanir la meilleure image possible. Thaii possi of th( filmiff Origii begin thali sion. othar first f slon, or illu Thai! shaHi TINUI whier Maps diffori antira bagini right j raquir math< Additional comments:/ Commentairas supplimantaires: Various psgings. This item is filmed at tha reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dassous. IPX 14X^ 18X 22X y 26X 30X 12X 16X aox 24X 28X 32X Th« copy film«d h«r« hat b««n raproduoMl thanks to th« ganaroaity of: New Brunswick MuMum Saint John L'axamplaira filmi fut raproduit grica k la ginArositi da: New Brunswick Museum Saint John Tha imagaa appaaring hara aro tha baat quality poasibia eonaidaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in icaaping wKh tha filming contract apaeif icationa. Original copiaa in printad papar covara ara fllniad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or iliuatratad Impraa- sion, or tha bacli covar whan appropriata. All othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or iliuatratad impraa- sion. snd anding on tha laat paga with a printad or iliuatratad impraaaion. Tha laat racordad framo on aach nnicrofieha shall contain tha symbol -i»> (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol V (moaning "END"), whichavar appliaa. Las imagas suivantas ont «t* raproduitas avac la plua grand soin. compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da l'axamplaira film«. at mn conformity avac laa conditions du eontrat (ta filmaga. Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura an papiar aat ImprimAa sont filmte an commandant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la darniAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'iilustration, soit par la sacond plat, salon la caa. Tous las autraa axamplairaa originaux sont filmte an comman9ant par la pramiAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaaion ou d'iilustration at an tarminant par la damlAra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Un daa symbolaa suivants spparaitra sur la damiira imaga da chaqua microticha. salon la caa: la symbols -^ signifia "A SUIVRE". la symbols ▼ signifia "FIN". Mapa. plataa. charta, ate, may ba filmad at diffarant raduction ratioa. Thoaa too larga to ba antiraly includad in ona axpoaura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand comar, laft to right and top to bottom, as many framaa aa raquirad. Tha following diagrama illuatrata tha mathod: Laa cartaa, planchas, tablaaux, ate, pauvant Atra filmAa A das taux da riduction diffirants. Lorsqua la documant ast trop ge-and pour *tra raproduit an un saul clich*, il ast film4 i partir da I'angia sup^riaur gaucha, da gaucha A droita, at da haut an baa, an pranant la nombra d'imagas nicessaira. Laa diagrammas suivants lilustrant la mAthoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 •gi f— -** -•■T' -— ^,*<^ -' letteh^ OF S U L P I C I U S, -C k^ I 1 OK tHE NORTHERN CONFEDERACY. WITH AN APPENDIX, V ff COMTAINIHO THE TREATY QF ARMED NEUTRALITY, TOO 'THEB WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATIVE TO THE SUBJECT. »«-}&•< \ •i M( r» Ufii I'i : i" § M LONDON: PRINTED BY THOMAS BAYLIS, - ' Gnv'tlU Strett, Uatton Gardtn, >-or WILLIAM COBBETT, No. 18, Pall Mall, And sold by the Booksellers in general. January 1801. % ' *i ""*%». Si I 7) S J ADVERTISEMENT. THE fottowing Letters have already appeared in " The Porcupine''*, but, being scattered through several Numbers of that Paper, it was impossible to supply those de- mands, which xvere frequently made for the series, complete, without a republication; in which, for obvious reasons, the pamphlet forin has been preferred. A % (i: ;-J' .■^f" f > f .*. •jM LETTERS OF SULPICIUS, ETC. LETTER I. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PORCUPINE. London, Nov. S, 1800, SIR, Ji« VERY Englishman must applaud your spirited defence of those rights, in the maintenance of which, our maritime power essentially depends. No cause can be more interesting, or more im- portant than this, which implicates both the se- curity and the glory of our country. Foiled in every naval contest, since the com- mencement of the war, despairing of any success, from the forced exertions of her degraded and captive allies, and scarcely able to protect, even in her harbours, the miserable remnants of her ovi^n navy, ?^gaiinst the skill and enterprise of our i 6 seamen I^ance has no remaining resource but i„ the es al, hshment of a new code of maritime auswh,ch may, by its operation, debilitate that trength, agamst which all her open and direct -osfhty has been found unavailing. She ha theretore, raised a new standard, to which all' nations are mvited to repair, who estimate a dis- honest and fraudulent gain above the maintenance of national honour, or the defence of the common ...dependence of Europe. Under this banner, she hopes to umte some doubtful friends of EnWand and some no, doubtful enemies. But she counts' with just and certain confidence, on the support of all our domestic traitors. To cripple the exer- t.ons of the British Navy, must, indeeS, be an ob- ject dear to the hearts of all those who, with un- blushmg falsehood, vilify our just cause, depre- cateour resources, insult our national chamctef, and calumniate the heroic valour of our fleets and armies; to all the scorners of our Relirion »M the libellers of our Kin- and all th,- • . „ "■'"o> ana ail the conspirators agamst our Constitution. The authority of such men has, it is true, no we.ght-not even with their accomplices-Ibut their falsehoods sometimes deceive the ignorant and the^fallaciec frequently embarrass the ^e"!: This country has, for ages, observed an uni- form and well-digested system of maritime Jaw founded on the general principles of public right, and recognized by the acceptance of all the European nations. Some relaxation of these principles has, indeed, been admitted, by the gradual operation of that milder spirit, the in- fluence of which had so much contributed to soften the calamities of war, until the ferocious practice of former ages was revived by the mo- dern philosophers, philanthropists, and republi- cans of France. The leading articles of the code of maritime law in Europe, still, however, re- mained unchanged and unquestioned, until this, like every other established system, was attacked by that spirit of innovation, which characterizes the present age. If we inquire, then, into the justice of our tause, or examine the validity of those laws, which the British Courts of Admiralty consider as still in force, by what rule shall these questions be decided ? Shall the opinions of civilians prevail, as de- livered to the world, in writings of long-esta- blished reputation? Tk'. authority i^ uniformly in our favour.— Grotius, Puffendorff, Byn- KERSHOECK, all the ancient writers, even Vat- TEL, the modern advocate of neutral nations— all agrJe in the doctrines wliich Great Britain now maintains*. * See Appendix, A. Arc the decisions of courts of maritime juris- diction, like those of municipal law, to stand as sure land-marks to guide their successors? The Courts of Admiralty, of every maritime country, without exception, those of France, of Spain, and of Holland, as well as of Great Britain, have, for ages, recognized our principles as the rules of their judgments. Is the law of nations, on the subject, to be found in the marine ordinances of belligerent powers ? Those of France, which, from the first creation of her navy, have been continued down to the present hour, and have even been formally- renewed in this war ; those of Spain, acted upon by her, at this very moment ; those of Holland, coeval with the establishment of the state itself, are all, in some respects, less favourable to neu- tral powers than the British system ; but all adopt and recognize the validity of our prin- ciples, as forming the ground-work on which they all proceed *. Shall the ancient practice, on the subject, be taken, without inquiry, as the rule of present conduct ? The ancient practice is confessedly in our favour. Are we to suppose it superseded by some modern usage, to be found in the conduct, or in the treaties of neutral powers? We deny both the principle and the fact. * Appendix^ A. In HI 9 In principle, a law established by the conimon consent, or recognized by the common acquies- cence of all nations, can be abrogated or altered only by the common consent of all. Particular nations, indeed, as particular individuals, may bind themselves towards each other, by special contracts, or exceptions, from the general law. But, by these, none can be bound who are not parties to them. The maritime rights of Great Britain, can never be affected by the reciprocal stipulations of powers hostile to her interests, or seeking only to profit at her expense. . But were the principle correct, ^he fact is falsely assumed. If modern practice be the standard of right, the most modern practice is decidedly in favour of the British system of mari- time law. The doctrines of the armed neutrality of 1780, were indeed adopted in the stipulations of some treaties made in Europe, soon after the conclusion of the American war. But in 1793, and in the succeeding years, almost all the powers of Eu- rope have entered into engagements with this country, and with each other, directly contrary to those principles. Whatever force the new system had acquired by new treaties, it has consequently lost by others, which are still more recent. Nor is this argument to be drawn only from the conduct of the powers engaged in this In ., 'm I Mboi lo w^r, in alHahce with us. The commercial treaty of 1794, between this country and America, -was framed in conformity to our system, which Mr. Jefferson *, no partial advocate for Great Britain, publicly declared to be consonant to the laws of nations. Even the claim of exempting neutrals by convoy from visitation, has, within the last ten years, been expressly disavowed by France ; and, within the last twelve months, no less ex- pressly by America. France has acted, during all the present war, not only in violation of the principle she now maintains, but in breach of every law,* which she ever recognized for herself, or prescribed to others. During the same period, Spain has acted in conformity to the British code, both when in alliance with Great Britain, against France, and. when with France, against Great Britain. Even Russia, the first and principal assertor of the novel maxims of the armed rieutrality of 1780, has, in the course of the present war, not only formally renounced those principles, in re- peated treaties with this country, but has under- taken to use, and has actually used, her influence with others to the same effect. The commerce of Denmark Was, not long since, threatened to be excluded from the Russian ports, in resent- * See Appendix, E and F. u ment of the fraudulent protection which the Danish flag has afforded to the commerce of the enemy : and even, in the renewal of the con^r mercial treaties of the Court of Petersburgh, with those of Portugal and Naples (the very last trea- ties of this nature, which have been made in Europe, and therefore, the most recent instances of this modern practice), those articles, which recognize the maxims of the armed neutrality, were purposely and deliberately erased from the drafts, in which they had been inadvertently in- serted, in conformity to the fc cr treaties. It is, therefore, incontestible, that the mo?t modern practice of Europe is equallv favourable to the rights of Great Britain as the most an- cient usage ; and that the qnly testimony which can be produced agairisl us, is to be found in the clamour of our enemies, encouraged and prolonged by those amongst ourselves, to whom any measure requires no other recommendation, than its tendency to weaken our resources, to dispirit our navy, and to disable us from main- taining a contest, in the issue of which our exis- tence is involved. I am, &c. SULPICIUS. b3 J2 LETTER II. SIR, London, January 20, 1801. NO measure has ever appeared to receive a more immediate, or more general concurrence, than that just retaliation, which, after much for- bearance, has, at length, been ordered by His Majesty, in pursuance of his resolution, declared to his Parliament and his people, to maintain, against every combination, the honour of his flag, and the maritime rights of his empire. The immediate occasion of the embargo, laid on the ships of Denmark, Sweden, and Russia, is expressed in the order of His Majesty in Council, which has been made public * : authentic intelligence has, it seems, been now received, of the actual signature of the Convention, negotiated between the maritime powers of the Baltic, for purposes decidedly hostile to the just fights and interests of the British Empire. The very idea of a neutral league, concluded at Petersburgh, while the ports of Russia are crowded with our embar- goed ships, and its villages thronged with our captive seamen, is an insult to common sense and decency. No doubt can be entertained of the * See Appendix^ H. > \«-*» real intcitions of those Courts, which, in such a moment, entered into a new maritime confede- racy with a power then actually engaged m measures of the most unequivocal hostility to th.s country, aggravated by unexampled oppression, violence, and injustice. But, the British Government has not been leit to gather these intentions from conjecture, or m- ferLce. The objects which are in view, have, it seems, been notified to His Majesty by one of the contederates-a power indebted to this country, for numberless acts of friendship; and the very existence of whose navy, which we sec at this moment armed against us, aflfords the most striking instance of British moderation and forbearance. The purpose of the negotiations of those confederates is, « to re-establish in *« THEIR FORMER SHAPE, the engagements, which, « in the years 1780, and 1781, constituted the « system of the armed neutraUty." What then are these engagements, which are to be re-established, and re-established m their former shape? Tor this is what it behoves us to inquire. Few persons in this country are igno- rant that those treaties were, both in their in- tention and their effect, exclusively directed acrainst the naval power of Great Britain. The parties to that league, openly contracted to esta- blish, and to maintain by force, a new code ot \^ \ ?! It 14 maritime law. Their object was to impose upon us. when engaged in an unequal and unsuccessful contest, the necessity o. relinquishing the princi- parsource of our security and defence, and of veldrng up to their unsupported pretensions, those established principles of the laws of nations wh.ch had. for centuries, been recognized in' Europe, and had been acted upon, invariably, by cvety mantnne power, as they had successively found themselves engaged in war. The fpundation of this qcw system was laid in a declaration, published by the Kmprcss of Rus- sia; a Sovereign, whq. having no mercantile navy, could have no neutral navigation to pro, tect; and was, consequently, least of aU the powers of Europe, entitled to prou.ulgate a new law on the subject, in opposition to the senti- ments and to the practice of the gr^tcst maritime States. But her policy lay deeper, ^ weaken- ing tne Bmish navy, she hoped to remove a powerful obstacle to her ambitious projects , and, by committrng the two Baltic powers in a quarrel with England, she was sure to place Mm n, a state of absolute dependance on herself It IS unnecessary to detail the motives of blind passion, or of sordid interest, by which those powers were actuated, when they gave into apro- ject, so big with danger to themselves : nor is it ne- cessary to discuss the wisdom of those council, '"^-i /^ 15 liy which Great Britain was then governed, and which induced her, yielding, in some degree, to the difficulties of the moment, to shut her»eyes to the blow levelled against her existence ; and though she continued to resist the principles, yet led her to receive with apparent indifference, the notification of a confederacy formed for the express purpose of asserting them by force. But, when the same attempt is again renewed, and brought to an issue, on the result of which the whole naval power of the British Empire is staked, it is the duty of those, who have any concern for the safety of their country, to exa- mine in detail, the particulars of that offensive system, to which we are required to submit, and to satisfy their own minds, as to the comparative advantage and danger of concession, or resistance. It is with this view, that I propose to state to you, in a succeeding" letter, the different articles of the confederacy of 1780, and to discuss the grounds, on which I consider its renewal as an act of decided hostility against the British Empire j and which 1 am confident will entitle His Majesty, in resisting this destructive project, to receive the warmest support of every man, whose heart is ani- mated by those feelings, which should belong to the subjects of such a Sovereign, and the members of such a Community. SULPICIUS. i6 Letter iir. London, January 21, 1 80 1 - SIR, THE foundation of the system of the armed neutrality of 1780, as I have mentioned in a for- mer letter, was laid by a declaration, published by the Empress of Russia, in the month of Fe- bruary of that year. In this declaration, she announced to Europe, four new principles, or rules, of maritime law, in the establishment of which, she required that all the belligerent powers should immediately acquiesce ; but, as Great Britain had just ground of exception, to every one of the principles, thus laid down for her observance, they were never recognized by the English government, even at the period of its greatest difficulties. The powers with whom we v/ere then engaged in war, ac- t:eded, in words, to this Russian code j and were forward in their assurances respecting it; but they required, that it should likewise be ac knowledged % i1 knowlcdgcd by Great Britain ; and, as this cori-- dition never was fulfilled, Spain has always con- tinued to act, and acts at this moment, on the ancicm law of nations. France, during the pre- sent war, has acknowledged no other rule, than the personal caprice, or corrupt interest, of her successive tyrants. ' Of the new neutral code, no trace is to be found in any ordinance of the Re- volutionary governments of the last eight years, or in any decrees of -those fluctuating and mercenary tribunals, which have been substituted in that country, in lieu of the ancient Courts of Admiralty. But the general course of the measures, adopted there, at different periods of the war, has been such, as was not only inconsistent with the novel pretensions of 1780, but with the most univer- sally acknowledged rights of neutral nations But, if so little respect has ever been paid, by any o'f the belligerent powers, to the maritime law promulgated by Russia, it was, however, re- ceived with acclamation by the neutrals. Not many months elapsed, from the date of the Empress's declaration, before Denmark, Swe- den and Prussia had bound themselves by treaty, not only to adopt her laws, as obligatory on themselves, but to assist her in imposmg them by force, on all other powers, and particularly on this country. % 18 The four rules, to which Great Britain was thus required to subscribe, under pain of war, denounced against her by all the Northern powers] and which are now to be presented, under the same penalty, to the United Kingdom, for its ac- ceptance, in the first moments of consolidated strength, must therefore naturally engage the at- tention of every man, who wishes that the British Empire may retain its naval power, its domestic security, and its external respect. The first of these rules (taking them in the order in which they stand, in the treaty between Russia and Denmark *, concluded at Copenhagen the 9th of July, 1780) declares, that neutral nations shall be allowed to carry on the coastinor trade, of the belligerent powers ; and to sail free^ ly, for this purpose, from one port to another of the same country. This liberty, thus claimed in the most unqualified terms, Great Britain has always refused to neutrals, in her wars with France. The ground of this exclusion is ob- vious, and its principle is unquestionably just France herself excludes foreigners from her coasting trade, in time of peace ; and neutrals certainly can pretend to no greater privileges of trade, in war, than they enjoy in peace. They can have no right to avail themselves of new * See Appendix, D. M 19 facilities, which France, when engaged in war with us, may be desirous of extending to them, not for their advantage, but for her own, and as the only means of avoiding the pressure of our naval superiority. This principle, in all its bear- ings, had been deliberately considered, and so- lemnly established by the judgments of our mari- time tribunals, in former wars. All Europe had acquiesced in the justice of the decision, which had not afterwards been even questioned, until this attempt was made to overthrow it at once, by the hostile confederacy of 1780. The second rule of the Russian system of ma- ritime law, was the famous maxim, that free ships make free goods : or, in other words, that, although Great Britain may legally seize the ships of her enemies, when openly navigated as such; yet, that all their other property, of what- ever description, shall be protected by the neu- tral colours of the .vessel, in which it may be embarked. To this absurd and fantastical distinction. Great Britain objected, with unanswerable force, that it was contrary to the former practice of all the belligerent powers: never having, in fact, been observed by any one Court in Europe, when engaged in war, except in those cases only, where special exceptions had been made, by particular treaties, from the general law of na- c 2 "^ !i I 20 tions. She farther objected, that it was in ex, press contradiction to the principles and rules laid down by all accredited writers on the sub, ject, without exception, up to the period of 1780 J and yet, farther, that it was also contrary to the manifest intention and spirit, and even to the plain words, of our treaties, as they did then, and do still exist, with Denmark and Sweden! Both of those treaties containing articles * (the Swedish treaty, 1061, Art. 12. and the Danish treaty, 1670, Art. 20.) in which express provi- sion is made, to guard against the practice of carrying enemies' goods in neutral ships— a prac- tice, which is there declared to be injurious to the belligerent power, whose enemies arc thus abetted and encouraged. And, so clearly was it understood by the framers of those treaties, that enemies' property (known to be such) was liable to confiscation, when found in neutraj ships; that the prohibition of those articles, attaches on ' the practice of carrying enemy's property, /yw,,/,,. lently disguised as ncutral~3. fraud, Ibr' which it IS evident, that no necessity, or tcmotation, could have existed, unless enemy's property, ap- pearmg as such, had been confessedly subject to confiscation, according to the intent of those See Appendix, B and C, particularly at the close of the Art,cles, where it is expressly stated, that if enemies goods are found on board of the neutral ships, they shall be made prize of. 21 treaties, and to the principles of maritime law, as then universally acknowledged. In support of the manifest violation of the es- tablished law, and of the f^iith of treaties, con- tained in this second rule, no better argument was adduced, than a reference to some particu- lar cases, in which Great Britain, by special argument, and in return for stipulations, sup- posed to be* beneficial to her, had granted to particular powers, the privilege of covering ene- mies' property by their ships, when neutral. The instances were mostly those, from which little inconvenience could arise to us. France, which was one of the powers so privileged, had, in all our naval wars, been found our enemy, and Holland, another of them, was, m those cases, our ally. The neutrality of these powers was, therefore, little to be expected in any case of moment to Great Britain. But, even in these cases, the insertion of this privilege, as an article of treaty, was an excep- tion, which proved the general law. The law itself, cannot be more satisfactorily, or unequi- vocally established, than by the express avowal of the American government ; an avowal, re- peatedly made, at a period of manifest partiality to the enemies of this country ; and, through ^he channel of Mr. Jeffers on *, whom they, at f ~ * See Appendix, E and F. 42 lM.t, /"ust acknowfcdR. « an unexceptionable witness ,n favour of any Brit„h claim. The freedom of navigation, asserted by (his second rule, was, however, limited by one ex- MI>t.on-that of the g^.'. comprized under the dccnphon of contraband of war. An excep- t'on wh.ch is mentioned here, for the sake of accuracy, but which relates ,o a point yielding, as to us importance, to no otl,er part of this quel t.on. and which will, therefore, be made the subject of a separate discussion. The third rule of the Russian declaration, esta- bhshed a new principle of law. as to blockaded ports requiring that those ports only should be consrdered as falling under this description, at the entrance of which the blockading ships were actually anchored farm..), and this so near, as to create at all times, an evident danger to those ships which might attempt to enter. If this principle were admitted, it is obvious, that it must exclude all blockade by cruising squadrons, he only system of blockade, by which many of th. ports of our enemies (and particularly that of Jlrest, so interesting to the safety of these Islarr',) ever can effectually be blocked. This syston/ thus proscribed, at the discretion of a p.w,; wholly uninterested in the question, has always been practised by Great Britain, when her naval »tr£. nh enabled her to apply it; and it had in. I 23 variably been recognized as legitimate and con- clusive against neutral nations; .mswcruig, in the nature of a naval war, to those real or virtual lines of circumvallation, which belong to a siege by land ; and which, though not defended in every point, by an equal force, are always held sufficient to exclude all right of commerce with the town oO blockaded. The fourth rule, stated in the treaty of armed neutraiiiy, appears to have had no other object, than that of irritation, and could have no other eflfcct than to create endless animosity. The treaties, and the practice of all European nations, had established courts of maritime jurisdiction, where justice is administered to the subjects of all friendly powers: But this rule converted every disputed case, between the neutral mer- chant, or ship owner, on the one side, and the belligerent cruiser, or privateer, on the other, into a question of state ; and required, that, in every case, in which the ground of detention was not established by proof, (and this too, taking for rules of law, the principles above detailed) not only compensation should be made, from indivi- dual to individual, as is now the practice, but that satisfaction should be given from State to State, by the belligerent powers. The neutral government, on the other hand, was to remain exempted from all similar responsibility for the mitttm^'J I iMTWHl llgtfa*" : ^4 acts of Its subjects, for whose violations of neu- trality, no other satisfaction was to be given, than such as could be obtained from legal pro- ceedings, fettered by such rules as these. Yet, even this was not all. The principles, which' the Northern Confederacy brought for- ward, on the subject of contraband of war, to which I have already adverted, and those res- pecting neutral convoys, were, if possible, still more injurious to the rights and interests of this country than any thing, which has been already stated. These it is my intention to examine in another letter, which will conclude the general description of the nature and effects of the neutral league, such as it was originally formed agains- us, and such, as we are told, it is now to be re- established. The vigorous measure, which has already been taken, in consequence of that notification, affords us the best earnest of the intentions of the Bri- tibh governmenl, to resist these injurious and danger(jus innovaticus, and to maintain to the utmost, our naval power, as the best means of present defence to ourselves, and as the best hope of future security to Europe. SULPICIUS. LETTER 25 i of neu- >c given, egal pro- rinciples, ap-ht for- ■ war, to hose res- ible, still sts of this n ah'eady :amine in e general le neutral ;d ajiains*^ to be re- eady been )n, affords if the Bri- rious and lin to the means of ; best hope LPICIUS, ETTER LETTER IV. London, January 26 i 1801. Silt, THE engagements of the treaties of armed neutrality in 1780, besides the four new and in- admissible principles of maritime law, of which I have already spoken, contained, partly by ex- press' stipulation, and partly by implication, the assertion of two other claims, still more injurious to the rights and interests of the British Navy. The first of these related to the description of those commodities which were thenceforth to be considered as contraband of war: and the second to the right of neutral powers to protect, by armed convoys, all merchant ships belonging to their own subjects, or to those of other neutrals ; and, by the mere presence of the convoying ship, to exempt the merchant ships, so protected, from all search, or examination, by the cruisers of the belligerent nations. p I } :v \ p' / 2(i h i I With respect to the first of these points, it must always be remembered, that the general law of nations, as to contraband of war, stands on the clearest and most simple principles of justice and reason. The supplying one belligerent power with warlike im])lements for the annoyance of the other, is manifestly inconsistent with the cha- racter of neutrality. If I have wrested my ene- my's sword from his hands, the by-standcr who furnishes him with a fresh weapon, can have no pretence to be considered as neutral in the con- test. This is universally acknowledged, and it is on til is \'orv ground that the svstcm of the armed neutrality itself excepts from the other- wise unlimited freedom, which it claims for neu- tral commerce, those warlike stores which it pro- tesses to include in the description of contraband of war. The new question raised on this sub- ject by the Russian declaration of 1780, turns, therefore, not on the right of carrying on a trade in such articles as are contraband of war, but on the extent to be given to the description of this species of contraband. The solution of this doubt as to the application ot the rule, must obviously depend on the prin- ci[)Ie in which the rule itself originates. Those articles, ;tm{ those alone, are justly considered as contrabau'i of nar, wliieh supply to one belli- gerent power means of annoyance against the other, which he might not otherwise possess.. 27 In various treaties these have been particularly enumerated, with more or less latitude m the application of the general principles, accordmg to the convenience of the different contractmg powers. The list has, of necessity, been varied with the changes introduced into the art of war itself. Saltpetre and cannon, for instance, which, before the invention of gunpowder, were harm- less or unknown commodities, are now confes- sedly miiitarv stores, and, of course, enumerated as such in every description of contraband, which is to be found in any treaty now exist. ing In the same manner, and on the same principles, when so many of the most conside- rable powers of Europe arc engaged, from time to time in naval wars, and when a military ma- rine constitutes so large a proportion of their pub- lic force, the supplying the ports of a belligerent state with naval stores is necessarily to be con- sidered in the same light as the carrying military stores to an army acting by land. On this prin- ciple, the enumeration of contraband has been formed in many treaties, and on the same prin- ciple the general law of nations proceeds in those' cases, where no special treaty subsists between the parties. It would be useless pedantry to multiply au- thorities upon this point, the proof of which is to D 2 28 be found in the ordinances of all the principal maritime states, and in the assertions of the most accredited authors down to the period of 1780. But the reason of the thing itself, and the strict anajogy between the cases of military and naval stores are n^ore conclusive than any precedent, or any authority. Great Britain, therefore, maintaining invariably this general principle of public law, has, how- ever, occasionally, by particular treaties, made special exemption in favour of those powers, to whom, for any reason of policy, or reciprocal benefit, it has been judged advantageous to ex- tend this indulgence. In this number Russia was included. Her commercial treaty with England (particularly that concluded in 1765, which was in force at the period of the armed neutrality) contained enumerations of contra- band, comprising military stores alone, to the exclusion of those articles which serve for build- ing or repairing ships of war. This special privilege, thus acquired by treaty, the Empress of Russia attenipted in 1780, to convert into a general law; affecting, witli the concurrence of the Northern Powers, to establish it as an invariable rule, that, wherever no treaty existed on the subject, the law of nations respec- ting it should universally be governed, not by 29 that rational and equitable principle, in whifh alone the whole doctrine of contraband of war is founded, but by the particular stipulations of the separate treaty between Gfreat Britain and l^ussia, copcluded only for a limited time, and then actually \yithin ^ few years of its expira- tion. In this extravagant pretension, the other con- tracting powers agreed to support her ; and, al- though they professed, at the moment, that their own conduct, as to this point, should still be regulated by the stipulations of their respective treaties with Great Britain (stipulations which were in direct opposition to this new doctrine of contraband), yet their intentions were not equi- vocal, in thus endeavouring to subvert that ori- ginal principle of law op this subject, which exists before all treaties, and to which, in de- fault of treaties, all nations must revert. They perceived, that while the principle re- mained untouched, the obligations of treaty were not the only barrier which prevented their en- gaging largely in the lucrative commerce of suj)- plying the ports of our enemies with every ar- ticle of naval stores. But, that principle once shaken, it would be easy to tind, at some favou- rable moment, sufficient pretences for getting rid of the existing creaties : or, were it necessary to break them in this respect, that would be no r 30 ^ i ^■ more than they had already done by another ar- ticle of this very league ; and it would require no greater sacrifice of good faith and honesty, on their part, to declare those commodities lawful, which the treaties of 1661 and 1670 had pro- nounced to be contraband, than to assert that the property of our enemies should be protected by neutral ships, which ships, by the express sti- pulations of those very treaties, must be furnish- ed with papers attesting that they have no such property on board. There is, however, one more pretension yet remaining to be examined, and which, if it were allowed, would, unquestionably, render very su- perfluous all discussion about the nature or extent of the commodities to be comprised under the description of contraband of war. The neutral powers having sanctioned, by a solemn and public declaration, the diflferent prin- ciples, of which I have already spoken, agreed to arm themselves for the maintenance of this code of complicated fraud, injustice, and per- fidy : and they immediately professed to arrogate to themselves, in this hostile position, an addi- tional privilege, which should render it impos- sible to ascertain whether even this new law of neutrality, such as the neutrals had established for themselves, was, in any one instance, ob- served by merchant-ships sailing under neutral 31 coloi-rs. According to every known principle of reason, the establislWent of any rule ot law necessarily implies, that the party interested m its observance shall have some means of ascer- taining the fact of its violation. But this prm- ciple, it seems, was neither suited to the justice of these new legislators, nor at all consonant to their views. Unjust as all their other preten- sions were, they knew that the practice of their subjects, in the extent of collusion wiih our ene- mies, would much out-run even tho.e preten- sions The comphcated and disgusting frauds, the shameless and open peijury, under which the whole system of the pretended neutral comnierce of the North of Europe has been earned on during the last and present war, can only be conceived by those who are habituated to the daily knowledge of them. The very recital would shock the ear of any honest man. To cover all these under one comprehensive and impenetrable safeguard ! to hide, at once all these disgraceful scenes from the eyes o. all the world, and to pursue, in security, their spe- culations of unjust profit to themselves, and their schemes of rancorous hatred to the British Em- pire, one mode, and one alone, occurred ! They entered into mutual stipulations for ap- propriating a considerable portion of their respec- ,i.e naval forces to serve as convoys for their own umim * ! ' I ■ ■■- ». h : } hicrchant ships, and those of their confederates ; and these convoys were to be so distributed, that there should be no part of the world, in which commerce is pursued, where a neutral trader carrying on forbidden trade, should be at a loss to find the protection of a neutral ship of war. To render this protection effectual for the pur- pose of concealment, as well as of security in fraud, they claimed, for their ships of war, the extraordinary privilege of exempting all mer- chant vessels, sailing under the convoy, whether of their own, or of any other nation, from that right of search, which had been immemorially exercised by all belligerent powers ; and, with- out which, no part of the maritime law of Eu- rope, even as laid down by themselves, ever can be exercised. So that, whatever the cargoes of the merchant ships might be, were they even such as these powers had themselves consented, by this very league, to consider as contraband, the belligerent power was compelled to suffer them to pass to his enemy, not only unrestrained, but even unexamined. In lieu of all such examination as had hitherto been accustomed, they proposed to substitute the simple declaration, or assurance, of the commanding officer of the convoy, attesting, that the ships under his protection, carried no articles Which these powers considered as contraband — Enemv's -3 Enemy's property they clainr«ed to carry— naval stores they asserted not to be contraband— and, as to military stores, the belligerent power must rely on the assurance of the commanding officer. If he was a party to the fraud, there was not only no remedy, but even no means of ascertainmg whether those articles were or were not includ- ed in the cargo. If he was himself deceived, speaking, as he must do, to a fact which he had no concern to examine, nor any means of ascer- taining with accuracy, even as to the ships of his own nation, much less with respect to other neutral ships, falling in with him at sea, and claiming his protection ; yet his assertion must be taken as conclusive. All the benefit of the fraud must, in every case, accrue to the neutral merchant trading collusively with the enemy i and all the loss and injury must be to the beUi- gerent power. It is unnecessary to dwell on the extensive mischiefs of this claim ; in its operation it in- cludes and covers all the rest, in its principle it is more unjust, in its application it is more of- fensive than the whole of the other stipulations taken together ; and it is, therefore, a considera- tion well deserving our serious attention, that while other pretensions of this Northern league have been, as I shall show in my next letter, expressly renounced during the present war, this ;h M i t 1 ,l()ne has been renewed both by Denmark am! by Sweden, and has by both of them been re- cently brought to tlie issue of force. On the whole review of the system, which it was the (;bject of this confederacy of neutual powers, as they styled themselves, to impose upon this country in 1780, and wl ieh with the same puri)0scs of honest and hwfcnsivc neutra- lity, they are now about to revive and re-assert tlie effects which it must produce, or the inte- rests, and power, and security of the British Em- pire, may, in the following manner, be impar- tially but inadequatdy stated. Great Britain, placing, as shd doe., her chief «ccuritv and dependance in war, on her nume- rous and well-disciplined fleets, shall not use them for any other purpose of annoyance to her enemies, so long as those enemies have the pru- dence to keep their ships of war quiet in their own ports. . , The coasting trade of France may be earned on in war with us, as securely as in peace. Her .nerchants may cover the sea with then- ships, and transport their cargoes to every quarter ot the world, if neutral p;i.sports can be bought tor the one, or if neutral freight can be hired for the other. Her ports can never be blockaded, but our scmadrons cruising at the very entrance of Brest itself, must look tamely on. while the neutrals, our 85 pretended friends, supply it Nvith every article of Uval stores-and lest even this should be uisutli- cient to cramp all our efforts, and utterly to anni- hilate our whole naval strength, nothing more need be done by France, than to purchase the friendship, or command the service of the most inconsiderable neutral state, of the Ligurian, or the Cisalpine Republic, and under the pretended neutral convoy of that flag, her ships may sail • unquestioned and unmolested, through the British seas, and even insult us at the very mouths of our own harbours. Whenever this disgraceful picture shall be rea- lized, we shall lose all title to pre-eminence, and all claim to national distinction •, the memory of our part triumphs will serve only as an additional re. proach to the humiliation of that moment ; and, instead of the unshaken confidence, with which wc now withstand the aggressions of nations lea-ued against us, we must receive the yoke ot France, and submit, in despondency and shame, to the ruin of our once free, glorious, and happy eountrv. SULPICIUS. f. 2 m 36 LETTER V. f^ F \-i Londoriy Janunn/QS, 1801. SIR, THE leading principles of that armed neutra- lity, which, in 1780, was first contrived by the Northern Confederacy against this country, have, in my former letters, been sufficiently detailed and explained. A short statement of the suc- cessive abandonment, and assertion of those prin- ciples, will clearly show, that no consistent or uniform system has ever been founded upon them, even by their authors, much less by the powers of Europe in general j and that, instead of furnishing, as was professed, a permanent code of neutral law, they have furnished nothing, except fruitless indications of hostility against this country, brouglit forward at those periods only when it was supposed that such hostility might be manifested with impunity. Such, indeed, was the moment, which was first chosen by Russia and her confederates for the promulgation of these new maritime pretensions ; when, in addi- tion to the pressure of the American war, Great Britain had also been for some time engaged against the united hostilities of France, of Spain, and of Holland ; when our former colonies seem- ed likely to be irrecoverably lost to us, and when f' f I &7 the British flag had to contend alone vvith the three greatest navies of Kurope : then it was, that in aid of our open and declared enemies, this Northern League was first formed against us ; and, under the specious title of maritime neutra- lity, a new blow was levelled against this country, more hostile to its long established rights, and ac knowledgcd interests, than any which it had ever had to fear from the arms of its avowed enemies. The English Government, however, even under those circumstances, disclaimed the new doctrines of this unauthorized system ; they openly pro- tested against the principle of the projected inno- vation, and they refused themselves entirely to all claim and practice, which could be founded upon it. . That they did not do more upon that occasion, will scarcely be put forward as any solid objection against a more determined and vigorous conduct at this period ; that wc were less able, less dis- posed, or less required to assert our immemorial rights under the established law of nations, in the year 1780, will not easily furnish any argument against our competency to adopt more strenuous and active measures for our defence, in the year 1801 It is no part of my object, either to ar- raign, or to defend, the measures of our govern- ment in 1780, who might have considered the danger as less pressing, less critical, and less im- portant in its consequences, or our means of re- "ti '".i»^-...,,. ,.^ . S8 Ui ft sistancc less e/fectual, than in the present moment they can be supposed to be ; my chief motive for recurring to the authority of those times is to re- mark, that, as the Northern League grew up with the war, in which we were engaged with France, and Spain, and Holland, the peace, which put an end to that war, without any reference to the Northern League, afforded a sufficient, though tacit disclaimer, of those baffled pretensions, which had only arisen out of the naval war then w^ged against us. This consequence was indeed perceived at the time ; and Sweden, one of the power§ then, and now, confederated against us, urged, but urged in vain, that no peace should be suffered to be restored to Europe, with- out the acknowledgement of those pretensions. A similar pr<)posal is understood to have been re- newed in the present instance by Dpnmark, who, in the excess of her groundless, and therefore un- qualified hostility to Great Britain, is said to have solicited from France, assurances of eternal war with England, until the latter shall have humbled herself so far, as to make submissions at Copen- hagen. We may venture to foretel, that France will, in the present case, as in the former, en- courage these hopes, while war continues j and will, in the conclusion of peace, be much more careful to promote her own interests, than to comply with this modest demand of her new ally. 6^*#»«'!l"-W*»f ,, 39 Whether, therefore, with more or less of vi- Rour and activity, than the subject demanded, L claims of the New Neutral Sy»"=m were^ in fact, as entirely denied by us m 1780, as they have been upon the present occas.on^ our declarations made at the time to the Baltc powers were sufficiently explicit on this pomt ; and the articles of those treaties, wb.ch placed us again at peace with Europe, d.d not draw from us any one of those conce^.ons which the league of Northern Neutrality had hoped to extort, under the pressure of foreign and domes- tic war Thus did this fruitless effort fade aw ay, Xvhich, under the pretence of promulgatmg ge- neral rules, obligatory on all powers aUke. _was substantially directed against the heart and life of the British naval power, created, extended, and. maintained by an adherence to the ancient and lonr established law of nations. Ten years did not elapse before the authors of this new system, which had been framed to to for ages, and to give law to 4I n*"""^ ?'=" sent and future, were themselves the first to violate it. The same privilege of adhering to the ancient law of nations, which they refused to us, they claimed for themselves, and they exercised against each other. The proof of *is fact is furnished by the enemy himself. In the course of the last summer, a pamphlet was pub- lished at Copenhagen, written under the autho-. I I... I, 40 rity of tiiat government, with a view to prepare the way for the rc\'ival of the exploded principles of the Armed Neutrality. In this work, the author (a Doctor Schlegel, Professor of Laws in the University of Copenhagen, and Assessor of the Supreme Court there), after giving us, in his way, the history of the league of 1780, adds (I quote verbatim from p. 12 of the English transla- tion, printed and circulated inLondoiiy by order of the Swedish Minister J « in the war that ensued be- " twcen Gustavus III. and Russia (in I79i)'* " he" (the King of Sweden) "suffered himself so " far to be misled as to violate the very system " * in tlie northern commerce that he had hereto- " fore so laudably and valiantly maintained." Such is the respect which Sweden has paid, in War, to the neutral code, which, when in peace, she now again attempts to impose by force upon Great Britain. Let us now see whether the conduct of Russia has been different, or whether that power is better disposed than Sweden to observe her own laws, when they militate against her political interest? In 1793, the Empress of Russia proposed, and actually concluded a treaty with Great Britain for cooperating in the present war against France. In this treaty, she expressly engages « to unite," with * This we iwsurae to be Swedish for nf. (C us «( 41 us " all her efforts to prevent other powets, not .. implicated in this war, from giving any pro- " tection whatsoever, directly or indirectly, m consequence of their neutrality, to the com- " merce or property of the French, on the sea .< or in the Dorts of France'." No words could have been devised more distinctly to controvert the principle that free .hips make free good.: which principle had been the main sprmg of the Northern Neutrality of .780, and i--^^^ this treaty, she sent a fleet into the Baltic and North Seas, with express orders to Her Admiral, to search all Danish merchant ships sailing UNDER CONVOY. ■ „» The Empress of Russia, therefore, when at war with France, felt the justice as well as the expediency of resorting back to the ancient sys- tem of public law. She contracted with us. for that purpose, the specific engagement which I have recited, and continued to act under it to the last moment of her reign. . But, did her successor adopt the saffle principle at her death ? He not only did so with redoubled vigour and earnestness, but so zealously has the spirit of this engagement been pursued by the /resent Emperor, that so lately as m the year * Convention of 1794. Art. IV. See Appendix, G. F r*. ,-■. i ' I ll 4'2 • 1799, he actually threatened the Danes with int-* mediate hostilities on account of their partiality to France, of which he stated one symptom to be their supplying assistance and protection to t^^ trade of France, under the neutral colours of the Danish flag ; and if the Emperor did not carry these his threats into execution, with as much intemperate haste as in other instances, this was, probably, owing solely to the amicable interfer- ence of Great Britain, which, at the time, and since, has been repeatedly acknowledged by- Denmark, though now repaid with no very ade-^ quate return. An article similar to that in the Russian Con- vention of 1793 was agreed to between Great Britain and Prussia, another party to the Armed Neutrality of 1780. The same was likewise agreed to by Spain, and engagements of similar import were entered into by Austria, as well as by Portugal and Naples ; so that, under the ex- press acts of almost every power in Europe, that system, which was, as we were told, in 1780, to be established by universal consent, has, since 1793, by universal consent, been disclaimed, abandoned, and condemned. Denmark, however, still remains behind — ^has Denmark abided by the principles of the league of 1780 ? She has expressly renounced them, both by her own edicts, and by a formal treaty. The 43 rescript, which was published at Copenhagen, at the commencement of the present war, for pomt- ing out to the Danish merchants the nature and limits of their neutral trade, instead of bcnig founded on those principles, is in direct contra- diction to them. The Danish subjects are there expressly commanded not to attempt to carry, in neutral ships, any property of the belligerent nations. Even this is not all. The Neutral Confederacy of 1780 had left, in Sweden and Denmark, some seeds of ill-will towards this country ; such as are, not unusually, produced by disappointment and defeat. These dispositions shewed themselves, on the part of Sweden, in acts of assistance to our enemy, so extensive and repeated, that, in the tear 1798, our cruisers, acting under their usual 'instructions, according to the established law ot nations, detained a whole fleet of Swedish ships, which were freighted with naval stores, destined ostensibly to neutral or friendly ports, but really ■ to those of our enemies, and which had resisted the regular visitation of the British ships of war. The Swedes talked loudly of this opposition to the favourite principle of their own neutral code of 1780; but the Emperor of Russia, although he saw their neutral colours detained in our ports, instead of supporting their representations, ex- horted us to firmness and vigilance i and after F 2 44 J fr I ! $ ■■•■ !' having, during the continuance of these measures, strengtened his connection with us, menaced the Court of Denmark with v/ar for similar practices, in the manner which I have already related. Scarcely had a few months elapsed, subsequent to those menaces, when a similar question was still more decidedly brought to issue between Great Britain and Denmark by actual hostility, begun on the part of a Danish frigate, against one of His Majesty's ships of war. llie capture of this frigate, and the moderation with which the English government negotiated with the court of Copenhagen, while they had it in their power to have deeply revenged upon the Danish fleet this unprovoked attack upon the British flag, are cir- cumstances too recent and notorious to require to be at length detailed here, while they are yet so fresh in the remembrance of the public : but, that these gross outrages, on the part of Sweden and Denmark, were likewise committed in open and direct violation of their own special treaties, so- lemnly ratified, and formally notified to us, is a cir- cumstance which the public have either less known, or less adverted to. So flagrant a proof of bad faith having seldom occurred, in the transactions of nations, it is, perhaps, the less observed, be- cause it can, jn no degree, have been looked for, or expected, In the year 1794 a convention was signed between the courts of Sweden anci I 4-5 Denmark for the mutual P-'^""'""" "^^f^^ neutral commerce, during a ^'ar, m wb^* a ,™st every other country in Europe «^s then c tually engaged. This treaty bemg duly rat>hed was by them, formally commun.cated to the was, uy "»-• > ' ,,,._i>f„rc we are to British government. Here, theretore, wc took for the avowed principle, by which the ci of Sweden and Denmark professed and H to regulate their neutral commerce dur- engagcd to rcguiaie mt. i„g"the continuance of the present war. In the second article of that treaty, they declare he ad herence to their respective treat.es with aU tK d Lent powers at war, without exception. In if third' article, they " bind th-se ves . each other, ani to all Europe, tha^, in 1 rna <> ters not expressed in their existing tieat.e., . hey will no' pretend to any other auvantag<=s « han those which are founded on the."'";-;"] .. ,„. „/ «„//o«.S such as it is vecogni^ed and respected, up to the present moment by a.l r pou^rs," and by all the Sovereigns of Uwm not, I presume, be contended, that Hk Maiestyhos ever recognized the prmciples if the Am dNeutrality: nor have the wishes or meatures. of any confed^eucyJi^EuropO^et jji..^ See Appendix, G. *( <( *(, m L 'I V i \ m ii i succeeded, to erase the name of the Kin<' of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire- land, from the list bf the Sovereigns of Europe. In tliat moment, therefore, when Denmark and Sweden pledged themselves to this country and to Europe, to assert for themselves no neutral rights, but those which had before been recognized by all the powers of Europe, they pledged themselves to renounce the claims of the league of 1780, which never had been, and as we may confidently pre- dict, never will be recognized by Great Britain. Yet, with this solemn covenant, on their part, not to transgress the ancient pnhlic laws of Eu- rope, their daily practice was tlic daily infraction of it ; until, at length, in the face of that Con- vention, which was their own voluntary act, thcv have now formed an avcwed confederacv, to substitute by force, in the place of this recog- nized law, the exploded pretensions of 1780. Well did the early breach of the above recited engagement, justify the indignation with which the Emperor of Russia menaced the Court of Denmark in 17D9, and acquiesced in our seizure of the Swedish convoy destined to the ports of France, in 1798. Is it then, possible, that, in concluding this short sketch of the present con- federacy against Great Britain, we are to place the name of the Emperor of Russia, as first in the ranks of those who are now leagued against 47 her? Is it to be believed, that he, \vho Jip-^ plaiided in 1798, our detention oF the Swedish convov, that he who threatened Denmark with • war, in 1799, for assisting the commeree ot tlic French Republic, that he should confederate himself with those very powers, for the express purpose of assisting that common enemy, whom he had pledged himself to us, to Euroi)e, and to the world, that he would manfully resist with us, to the utmost extent of his power ?— '1 hat, ^vithout pretext, complaint, or remonstrance, he has dismissed our minister, embargoed our ships, ^uld imprisoned our seamen-and all this with no one explanation to this hour, other than the fact of our seeing him, not only the patron and deteiv der, but the first promoter of the renewal ot that very svstem, against which he was, a year ago, more^ hostile, if possible, than was Great Britain herself ? Is it to be believed, that he should, under such circumstances, negotiate with our enemy, for the disposal of those very con- quests, which were to be acquired by our joint efforts i and, finally, declare himself our enemy, with no other notice to us, than the unprovoked confiscation of that British commerce, which was carried on under the express and stipulated pro- tection of his public faith and solemn promise, which had fed his army, had nursed his navy, had enabled him to triumph with Suwarrow in 48 1^1 i U h Italy, and had augmented the domestic tvcnlth of his empire, while it had contributed to the increase of its foreign glory ? The limits of this letter will not allow me to expatiate on this subject •, those who read in it, this light sketch of the different features in which the league of Northern "*' utrality has shewn it- self will judge whether it be a system just, regular, and safe enough to supersede the autho- rity of the old established law of nations ; or, whether it be not a hostile conspiracy against the <'xistence of this country, which was first tried by our enemies, when we were considered as ex- hausted by the American war, and is now re- newed in the vain confidence that the success of France against Austria, and the desertion of Russia, from her allies and her principles, will have checked the public spirit of our people, and will have damped the ardour of the British Navy. On this unmanly .desertion, and on this mon- strous union which chains the Emperor of Rus- sia to the throne of the Consul of France, I shall have hereafter to observe, addressing only to His Imperial Majesty, at present, the words of the Latin poet: *' Consule cum Mario, capte Jugurtha sedes." SULPICIUS. APPENDIX. APPENDIX A. AUTHORITIES. FROM WRITERS ON THE LAW OF NATIONS, &c. 4( t( it ., vARE OF MERCHANT SHIPS TAKEN CONSOLATO DEL MARE, O* BY ARMED SHIPS, Cap. '^13' . IF the vessel, or fleet, which shall have be.n taken, be- ^» Kilt the carcoi with which stie which shall have been taken, to ca.ry go Ine^y where he (the aJ.iral) shall th.nk proper This is a book of the greatest authority l the account oi^tl^lnrgives of it. .n his History of Naples, Book nth, ^^TteLriirs'^^Hilh.he C.s... M M.^ con- The arnci ^^^ p.san.ans. r/LetltgfTrle; Count lolosa. and by ma^ A, «( ii iil l" .^ «< Counts of Barcelona added new ones , and Arnoldo Vtt»- •• nio docs not depart from the opinion of those who assert, «< that this compilation was made in the times of St. Lewis •« King of France,"— It was afterwards printed at Venice by John Battista, wlio called this colledtion, // LiI>ro de Consolato de Afarinari, and dedicated it to Monsieur Tomaso Zarmora, then Consul from the Emperor Charles V. at Venice. It was then reprinted at Venice in the year 1567, and it is this edition which is in every one's hand, and whicli now has the greatest authority and credit in the Court of Admiralty of our kingdom. GroTIUs cites the above passage of the Consolato in his notes to the ist Chapter, 3d Book. Bynkershoek, in the 14th Chapter of the ist Book of his Enquiry repsc^lng the Law of Nations, of enemy's effeds found in the ships of a power not at war : «♦ We must rather consider reason itself than treaties. I «• cannot see any cause why it should be not lawful to take •' enemy's goods, though found in the ship of a nation not •♦ at war ; for I consider it as the property of the enemy, ♦♦ and belonging by the right of war to the conqueior." ZoucHERUS himself admits " T he principles of releasing «« the ships of a nation not at war, and of connscating the «' goods whiihbtlong to ihe enemy, paying the Captain «' for the freight;" following hi tliis the Consolato del Mare. Heineccius is stated by Bynkershoek, Loco Citato^ to be of the same opinion in his Disscrtution respc^'mg shipi confiscated, for carryitigiUicitmcrchancUze. Cup. 2 Se^. 9. VAT- til VATTEL, Lib. 3. Cap. 7- who cu.moi suftVi by such a scmite. 1744- Art ,. Hi» Chrls.ian Majesty also forbiJs any one .o ,4 ny vessel belonging .o ,be subjeas of a "-." ^^ ' »M.t the «.hin aball be released. . , A« 4 His Catholic Majesty also fo.'.ids .he s.. armed .hit'o s op any vessels beloncing to the subjefts o. the sa,d t^Pn-sJ going ftotn any port belong.ng to a nent. or allied power, (o any of his enetny's pets, f^ - contra 1 me chandize, or , f the growth or matru aaure of h ^„el be found aboa„i the said vessel- i.r «h,ch case 1« Zhamiize shal, be a lawful prize, and the vessel shall be '^'^'^it'. If in the cases explained in the articles i, 2, 3. /thert' hould be found in the said neutral vessels of fh*" nation tbey tnay be, merchandize oreffcas t,elong- A a il IV ing to the enemies of His Majesty, the merchandize and efFeds shall be a lawful prize, even though they are not of their manufadure ; nevertheless, the ships shall be released. B. Cofy of the 1 2th Jrtick of a Treaty concluded he^ tzveen England and Sweden, OMer 21, l66l. See Chalmehs's Tiieatie;s. For the evading of all suspicion and collusion, lest the free navigation or intercourse of one of the confederates, his subjeds, inhabitants by land or sea, with other nations, ■while the other confederate is at war, should be carried on to the prejudice of the other confcderaie ; and lest the ene- mies* goods and merchandize should be concealed under the disguise of the goods of friends, it is stipulated that all ships, carriages, wares, and men, belongirg to the other of the confederation, shall be furnished in their journies and voyages with safe conduds, commonly called passports and certificates, such as are underwritten, verbatim, signed and subscribed by the Chief Magistrate of that province and city, or by the Chief Commissioners of the Customs and Tolls, and specifying the true names of the ships, carriages, goods, and masters of the vessels; as also the exad dates, together with other descriptions of that sort, as are expressed in the following form, of a safe condud and certificate. Where- fore if any person shall affirm, upon the oath by which he is bound to the King, state, or city, that he has given in true accounts, and be convided, on sufficient proof, that any fraud has been concealed under his affirmation by his ponsent, he shall be severely punished as a transgressor of , ., ,,, We Governor or Chief M..6isirat jj^,,, j„ „,kc kao»n a«.l governme-rt of *;' P""^^ ^^„„, „f , i„ ""•■fy^"°"*%,-„t:^hrhahUu.mof .ana ' I'T: His SaaTRo .maj» ^^^^^^ ,,^ (;^j wUh .he follo-.ng n.crchancl.ze , i/» I ^^^^ *' ^-^--^::u:c:;ai tu ho,*^^^^^ &c. "'^o"'';^"' ""= Jl^^ J ij ,,„, ,hc saia so»l, and ,„d aErn.cJ on the o. th alorca ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^,^^^ ^. nierchamlize heli.ng otily to ' „f , (or ■u «• U M of Great Britani, or to ot . \ "■ , . tcer other .ation they are su^je* "O- expr«s„.g >vha « _^^^. ^^.^^ ^^^,^_ „^„ „,, „„, anJthat *c e ^^^ ^1^.^,^^,^ p„, „„ g„ods atove »P'='*'^'^"2dthe above-named .hip for the board, or are to be put on '>° " * j^,„ , ,„ ,„y "^'''°^-^^=' ^t*;:;': . ht: ahove.,r,cnti'.>ed, ana piher person whatsoever, dv>i m M% ' ( VI asd that no goods arc disguised or concealed therein by any fiaitious name whatsoever, but that the wares above- mentioned are truly and really put onboard for the use of the said owners, and no others, and that the captain of the said ship named, is a citizen of the city of Therefore, whereas after stria examination by us (the governor or chief magistrate, or commissioners of the duties and customs of the city aforesaid), it fully appears that the said ship or vessel, and the goods on board the same are free, and do truly and really belong to the subjeds of H. S. R. M- of Sweden, or of H. S. R. M. of Great Britain, or to the inhabitants of other nations as aforesaid, we do most humbly and earnestly require it of all and singular the powers by land and sea, kings, princes, republics, and frqe cities, also of the generals of armies, admirals, commanders, officers, and governors of ports, and all others to whom the custody of any harbour or sea is committed, which happen to meet this ship inhervovage, or if she chance to fall in, among, or pass through their squadrons, or to stay in their harbours, that for the sake of the treaties and friendship which subsist respectively between them, or whoever are his superiors, and H. S. R M. our Most Gracious Sovereign the King of Sweden, or H. S. R. M. our Most Gracious Sovereign the King of Great Britain, that they will not only permit the said captain wiih the ship, and the men, goods, and mer- (handixe to her belonging, to prosecute her voyage freely, without lett or molestation, but also, if he think fit to depart out of the said harbour elsewhere, that thcy^ will shew all kind offices to him and his ships, as subjects of H. S. R. M. of Sweden, or of H. S. R. M. of Great Britain, as they shall in like measure experience the same from H. S. R. M. of Sweden, or from H. S. R. M. of Great Britain, and from T' in Vll all .he ministers ami suljccs, in called ' , of the burthen of tons, doth belong unto them, and others, our subjects, and that they are sole owi^ers and proprietors thereof, and is now laden with the goods uhich are contained in a schedule which she hath with her from the officers of our customs, and do solely, truly, and really bclonir to our subjects, or others in neutrality, bound immediutelyVrom the port of to such other place or places where she may conveniently trade with the said goods, Icing not prohibited,' nor belonging to either of the parties in ho-siility, or &x find a freight, which the aforesaid our subjects ix ««b;ect, having attested, by a writing under his hand, and Iffirme .obcrrueby oath, under penalty of co„6sca..on of the "id goods, we have thought at to grant h™ *«"- etersoflfe conduct-, and, therefore, we do hereby respcc- velypray and desire all governors of countries and seas wZ princes, commonwealths, and free cues, and more epeiaHy the parties now in war, and their commanders a4«als generals, officers, governors of potrs, con.mander, rfTp aptains, treighccrs, and all others whatsoever hav.ng fn T -Ition'by sfa, or the custody of any port vvhc>,n dre ship aforesaid shall chance to meet, or among whose fltet ;'s PS it shall happen to fall, or make stay ,n .he,r port , Ifrirtue of the league and amity, which we havewuh an, king o state, they sufte, the said master w.th the sh.p, ^ ' persons, things, and all .nerchandize on board her, not only reely, and without an, tnolesta.ion, detention, or In. to any place whatsoever to pursue h,s voyage, Zirtoaff rdh™ all offices of civihty, as to our subject tf .he" shah be occasions which, upon the l,ke or other occasion, we and ours shall be ready to return. Given the day of in the year . We thrPresideJ, Consuls, and Senators of the c,ty of do attest and certify, that on the day ot , • ,1,. vear of , personally before us came, and appeared '"*'' citizen and inhabitant of the cty or town of and, under the oath wherein he stands bound lo c '■ „ r ,.r.?.*'■-*' '"*" ■'.-» ^ "^-t' xvii ,„ua. follow that of ihc vessel, ew'pt m the »mgk »»« <•' ^r^^^e" "... F™„ce. Wch.ve *,.e.l this ,.,oa,h...,o« L or. eatic. «i.h IVa.,cc, the United ^etherlana,. and PruL and therefore, «.. '. '/««. <"<" «»''» '°^" '^' !lJ:f heirenetnie., and we lose our good. «hcn ,n the ve»se,of heirenemie.. With England, Spam, Fo.togul. rdllia, «eh,vcno..ea.ies. --f^ ---;;: ^ ,0 „ ,>o.e to their afling according to the general law of ..a ILU .1- -n-y goo^^ «' '-f"' I""- •"""'^" f"""' '" '"^ |H)ttom3 of a friend. } F, Extract of a Letter from Mr. Jefi r.ast™, ferc- tan of State in Amenea, to Mr, Meats, M. Zr Plenipotctiar, of tJ. U„M StaU., r. . TnepuMicof France, dated PMM'': ^f LISHED BY ORDER OF CoNGRLSS, IN Page 82. 1 • k M-, Mr Genet has been, that the Engh^h t,,ke H " g ^ ^^^.^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^_^ ,,,ch, •- ^■'5;'. '-6^^ ' * „„„„,,, ,« suppose it to be prevented " y .- J^ ,,^ „f .„, „« of nations have been long an estabh Leo , ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^_, ,hat the goods o a fr.en a ej « ^^. V ^ .^^^ .^...^^ an enemy's goods lawful P"« "*; ^„,.,e, merchant Inconvenience of th.s l™-^ ;,, ' ns.c.'cC. led out of vessels to be stopped at sea, scare... , their course, has induced several nations latterly to stipulate agiinst it by treaty, and to substitute another in its stead, that free bottom^ shall make free goods, and enemy bottoms enemy goods ; a rule equal to the other in point of loss and gaiu, but less oppressive to commerce. As far as it has been introduced, it depends on the treaties stipulating it, and forms exceptions in special cases to the general operation of the law of nations. We have introduced it into our treaties with France, Holland and Prussia, the French goods found by the latter nations in American bottoms are not made prize of. It Js our wish to establish it with other nations. But this requires their consent also, a§ a work of time, and iri the mean while they have a right to a£l on the general prin- ciple, widiout giving to us or to France, cause of com- plaint. ^^ G. Convention htweeti His Majesty the King of Sweden^ on one side, ami His Majesty the King of Denmark, on the other, for the common Defence of the Liberty and Security of the Trade and Navigation of Sweden and Denmark — Done and concluded at Copenhagen, on the 1'ith of March, of J 794, ra- tified at Stockholm, the 3d of jlpril. His Majesty the King of Denmark and Norway, and His ^lajesty the King of Sweden, having considered how impor- tant it is for the subjcfls of iheir kingdoms, to enjoy with safety and tranquillity, the advantages attached to a perfect neutrality, founded o.i ackno Icdgcd treaties, penetrated with i\ ;h ■M Ti-: a. em. of their du,y towards , hem. '"f .«"= .f *'.""^;' war which has broken our - "•=£-'"'?"" "^^"7'^;: have agreed, and do agree, to unite thetr measures and nte- "es ^pon that suh,ea. and according to ,he example of th«r pXLors, to afford to their -P=«'- f^'lCl 'eflton which drey have a right to expeft ^T '^ X»d care-Desirous, besides, »f '''™'"6 "^'"f ""''«''"""„. ship, which so happily subsist between then,, b^^^^^^^^^^ tion for the genera, deface of d«jr ^^^-^J^.^^ „.- for that purpose. v,z. "'»°™XTp„r Count Berns- State. and of Koretgo Affairs, Andrew mer torff. Knight of .He Ord-f *e E^ep ant e«. andH^ ^. Majesty .he K,ng of Svveden Dr c M B Holstein. Chamberlam to Ha W'of ; ^^„_ the following Articles. A^T 1 Their Majestiesdedare solemnly. theirintennonof 1 dnrin. the course of this war, the .«ost perfeS neu- preservmg, du.mg the .rality, of avoiding as much as *'"f^"„^„,i„ friendship thingwhich might commn '-m w* h^^ o^^ ,^ ""> aUiance wit »» -1 -^^^^.^ ^,^„^,„„^ ,,„^ ::;:.::.%;T::::0'-y deference consiste.^^ -.heir o"" f'K™;;- ,^,„„ dedare. that they do not claim any Art. 11. Tlcy turn ^_^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^,^. advantage wluch -J^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ,,,,„„, p„„ers at war. ^^r VinCl -iprocally bind themselves » each A„T. 11. 1 "y J ;_„ i„ 3„,h cases as are other, ancK-a'lF;"-^;"^ , ^^^^_^^ ^,^^^ „,^y „„, ^ not expressed m treaties, ) C 2 toundfed on the universal rfghts of nations,, hitherto recog- nized and respeaed by all the powers, and all the Sovereigns of Europe, and from which rights they are as far from sup- posing that any of ihcm would incline to deviate, as they are incapable of deviating themselves. Art. IV. The claim and maintenance of their indisput- able rights, being founded on grounds so just, they will give to such of their subjeds as shall carry on tlieir navigation, in a manner regular and conformable to the existing treaties, hut not to those who shall aa otherwise, every pratection which they deserve against all those who may wish to disturb, contrary to their expectation, and their hopes, the legal exercise of tliose fights which are sanctioned, and the enjoy- ment of which, by neutral and independent nations, cannot be disputed. Art. V. In order to attain the object in view, their Ma- jesties neutrally bind themselves, to equip as soon as the sea- son will permit, each a squadron of 8 ships of the line, and a proportionable number of frigates, furnished with every thing necessary. Art.' VI. The squadrons shall unite, or sepaiate, ac- cording to tlie common interest and advantage shall require, and this matter shall be regulated with that friendship which so happily subsists between the two powers. Art. Vli. No distinction whatever shall be made be- tween the interests of the two nations, and the two flags, ex- cepting that which subsisting treaties of a contrary tenor with other nations may require.— Besides, in all cases of de- fence, of convoy, or otherwise without any exception, the ships of Dcnm.irk shall defend the ships and flags of Sweden, as if they were their own, and vice versa, on the part of Sweden. N w Art. VIII. With regard to the order of Command, ttndei^ qU circumstances it is agreed, to adopt the tenor of the 6th and 7th articles of the Convention of July 12, »7S6' ;^ Art. IX. The possessions in Germany, both of I)«i- mark and Sweden, are reciprocally and entirely excluded from this Convention. Art. X. The Baltick, which ought always to be consi- dered as a sea closed, and inaccessible to armed vessels of distant powers, is again newly declared as such, by the con- tracting parties, who are determined to preserve in it, the most perfect tranquillity. Art. XI. Their Majesties bind themselves, to communi- cate in common, this Convention to all the powers at war, adding the most solemn assurances of their sincere desire to preserve with them, 'he most perfect friendship and harmony ; and rather to cement than to interrupt it by this measure, which tends only to ensure the rights supported ar-' claimed by those powers themselves, in all cases in which :>v^ have been neutral, and at peace, which rights Denmark and Sweden never dreamt of opposing. Art. XII. But, if it should unfortunately happen, that any power in contempt of treaties, and of the universal right of nations, should no longer respect the basis of society, and of general happiness, and should molest the innocent navi- gation of their Danish and Swedish Majesties, in that case, their said Majesties, afier having exhausted every possible means of conciliation, and having jointly made the most pressing representations, to obtain due satisfaction and in- demnification, shall issue orders for retaliation, at the latest,, four months after the refusal of their intreatics, wherevei it shall be judged expedient, the Baltick being always excepted, and shall, in all respects, be answerable for each other, and shall support each other, incase cither naiion shall beat- xxn tacked or insulted, in consequence of the present Cun- ventlon; Art. Xin. This convention shall subsist, in all its clauses, as long as this war shall continue, Anless it should be agreed upon, by mutual consent, to make any addition or alteration that may be useful or necessary. Art. XIV. The ratification sha;!! take place, fifteen days after this Convention shall have been signed and ex- changed. — In witness whereof — We the undersigned, in vir- tue of our full powers, have signed the present Conven- tion, and have affixed tlicrcto, the seal of our arms. Done at Copenhagen, the 2*]th March, 1794. (L. S.) A. P. V. Bernstorff. (L. S.) Eric Magnus Baron, StAEL DE HoLSTElN. H- At the COURT at St. JAMES's, the 14th of January, 1801. I'RESENT, The KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY in COUNCIL. Whereas his Majesty has received advice, that a large number of vessels belonging to his Majesty's subjedls have been and are detained in the ports of Russia, and that the British sailors, navigating the same, have been and now are detained, as prisoners, in diflerent parts of Russia ; and also, that, during the continuance of these proceedings, a confederac interest of tereti into of Denma the advice order, as longing ti enter and mark, or further pi be ipade vessels v cotjie int( United with all sels, but and even and vess< ^ustainec I And t His Maj the Adn are to gi spedtivc «'> xxlil present Con- ist, in all its inless ic should any addition or place, fifteen ilgned and ex- signed, invir- 2sent Convcn- ir arms. RNSTORFF. rus Baron, loLSTElN. lanuarjr, 1801. :AJESTY in confederacy of a hostile nature, against the just rights and intcest of his Majesty, and his Dominions, has been en- tered into with die Court of S. Petersburgh by the Courts of Denmark and Sweden, respeaively, his Mujcsty, with the advice of his Privy Council, is thereupon pleased to order, as it is hereby ordered, that no ships or vessels be- longing to any of his Majesty's subjcdts, be permitted to enter and clear out for any of the ports of Russia, Den- mark, or Sweden, until further order ; and his Majesty is further pleased to order, that a general Embargo or stop be be made of all Russian, Danish, and Swedish ships and vessels whatsoever, now within or which hereafter shall come into any of the ports, harbours, or roads, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, together with all persons and cfFeas on board the said ships and ves- sels, but the utmost care be taken for the preservation of aU and every part of the cargoes on board any of the said ships and vessels, so that no damage or embezzlement whatever be jBustained. f And the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, and the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, are to give the necessary diredlions herein as ro them may re- speftivcly appertain. ^ ^ *" ■■ W. FAWKENER. :e, that a large *s subjects have I, and that the :n and now are f Russia ; and proceedings, a Printed by T. Baylis, Greville Street, Hatton Gardc.i.