The "literal purport" of the order of November 6, 1793, "went to destroy all neutral trade with the French colonies, even that which had been allowed in time of peace."1

Under it and the order of the 8th of June many American vessels were captured and, with their cargoes, taken before the admiralty courts for condemnation or such other sentence as the nature of the case and the terms of the orders might seem to justify.

The order issued on the 6th of November Order in Council, 1793 was not published till the 23d of the folJanuary 8, 1794. lowing month. On the 8th of January 1794 it was superseded by a new order in council, by which the direction to seize and bring in for legal adjudication "all ships laden with goods the produce of any colony belonging to France, or carrying provisions or other supplies for the use of any such colony," was modified so as to include (1) ships "laden with goods the produce of the French West India Islands, and coming directly from any port of the said Islands to any port in Europe;" (2) ships "laden with goods the produce of the said islands, the property of which goods shall belong to subjects of France;" (3) ships "found attempting to enter any port of the said islands, that is or shall be blockaded by the arms of His Majesty or his allies;" (4) and "all vessels laden wholly or in part with naval or military stores, bound to any port of the said islands."2

1 Hildreth, History of the United States, 1V. 481.

2 The text of the order is as follows:

"GEORGE, R.

"Instructions to the commanders of our ships of war and privateers that hare or may have letters of marque against France. Given at our Court at St. James's, the 8th day of January, 1794.

"Whereas by our former instruction to the commanders of our ships of war and of privateers, dated the 6th day of November, 1793, we signified that they should stop and detain all ships laden with goods and produce of any colony belonging to France, or carrying provisions or other supplies for the use of any such colony, and should bring the same with their cargoes to legal adjudication: We are pleased to revoke the said instruction, and in lieu thereof, we have thought fit to issue these our instructions, to be duly observed by the commanders of all our ships of war and privateers that have or may have letters of marque against France.

"1. That they shall bring in for lawful adjudication all vessels, with their cargoes, that are laden with goods the produce of the French West India Islands, and coming directly from any port of the said islands to any port in Europe.

"2. That they shall bring in for lawful adjudication all ships with their 5627-20

While the order of January 8, 1794, was far from conceding all that the United States claimed to be due under the law of nations, yet it served to allay the excitement which the orders of 1793 had produced, and to cause the abandonment of various retaliatory measures which had been undertaken.' It varied the instructions of the 6th of November (1) in substituting "the French West India Islands" for "any Colony of France," of which there were some not islands and others not West India Islands; (2) in limiting the seizure to produce "coming directly" from any port of those islands; (3) in limiting seizures to vessels bound from those islands to any port "in Europe." Of all the limitations the last was the most important, since it permitted the importation of the produce of the French West Indies into the United States, and its exportation from thence to European ports. This indirect trade, though it involved the payment of duties in the United States as the price of its existence, soon assumed large proportions.3

In the instructions given by Edmund RanJay's Instructions. dolph, as Secretary of State, to Mr. Jay, on the 6th of May 1794, with reference to the latter's special mission to England, the first topic discussed cargoes, that are laden with goods the produce of the said islands, the property of which goods shall belong to subjects of France, to whatsoever ports the same may be bound.

"3. That they shall seize all ships that shall be found attempting to enter any port of the said islands, that is or shall be blockaded by the arms of His Majesty or his allies, and shall send them in with their cargoes for adjudication, according to the terms of the second article of the former instructions, bearing date the 8th day of June, 1793.

"4. That they shall seize all vessels laden wholly or in part with naval or military stores, bound to any port of the said islands, and shall send them into some convenient port, belonging to his Majesty, in order that they, together with their cargoes, may be proceeded against according to the rules of nations." (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 431.)

By a joint resolution of March 26, 1794 (1 Stats. at L. 400), Congress laid an embargo for thirty days on all ships and vessels in ports of the United States bound for any foreign port or place. By a resolution of April 18 (Id. 401) this embargo was continued until May 25. (See Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 474.) By an act of June 4, 1794 (1 Stats. at L. 372), to continue in force till fifteen days after the commencement of the next session of Congress, the President was authorized to lay a similar embargo whenever in his opinion the public safety should require it. By an act of May 22, 1794 (Id. 369), the exportation of munitions of war was prohibited for a year, and their importation free of duty was authorized for two years. Madison's Works, II. 313.

It was put an end to in 1806 by the decision of Sir William Scott in the case of the Essex. (Adams's History of the United States, III. 44, 63, 416.)

was that of "the vexations and spoliations committed on our commerce by the authority of instructions from the British Government." For injuries committed under the order in council of the 8th of June 1793, Mr. Jay was instructed that one of the principles on which he was to demand compensation was "that provisions, except in the instance of a siege, blockade, or investment, are not to be ranked among contraband." The order of November 6 "filled up the measure of depredation." "Compensation for all the injuries sustained, and captures, will," said Mr. Randolph. "be strenuously pressed by you."1

Jay-Grenville Negotiations.

Mr. Jay made his first formal representation to Lord Grenville on the 30th of July 1794. In this representation he abstained from particularizing or entering into the merits of cases, but proceeded on the general ground that "under color of His Majesty's authority and commissions," "great and extensive injuries" had been done to American merchants, for which reparation could be

"Compensation for all the injuries sustained, and captures, will be strenuously pressed by you. The documents which the agent in the West Indies is directed to transmit to London will place these matters in the proper legal train, to be heard on appeal. It can not be doubted that the British ministry will insist that, before we complain to them, their tribunals, in the last resort, must have refused justice. This is true in general; but peculiarities distinguish the present from past cases. Where the error complained of consists solely in the misapplication of the law, it may be corrected by a superior court; but where the error consists in the law itself, it can be corrected only by the lawmaker, who, in this instance, was the King, or it must be compensated by the Government. The principle, therefore, may be discussed and settled without delay; and, even if you should be told to wait until the result of the appeals shall appear, it may be safely said to be almost certain that some one judgment in the West Indies will be confirmed; and this will be sufficient to bring the principle in question with the British ministry.

"Should the principle be adjusted, as we wish and have a right to expect, it may be advisable to employ some person to examine the proper offices in London, for such vessels as may have been originally tried or appealed upon, and finally condemned. You will also reserve an opportunity for new claims, of which we may all be ignorant for some time to come; and if you should be compelled to leave the business in its legal course, you are at liberty to procure professional aid at the expense of the United States.

"Whenever matters shall be brought to such a point as that nothing remains for settlement but the items of compensation, this may be entrusted to any skillful and confidential person whom you may appoint.

"You will mention, with due stress, the general irritation of the United States at the vexations, spoliations, captures, &c. And being on the field

obtained only through "the justice, authority, and interposition of His Majesty." In some cases, as where property had been condemned and sold and the proceeds scattered, it was impracticable to obtain a remedy by civil process; and it was necessary to "confide in His Majesty's justice and magnanimity to cause such compensation to be made to the innocent sufferers as may be consistent with equity." In other cases it might be "expedient and necessary, as well as just, that the sentences of the courts of vice-admiralty should be revised and corrected by the court of appeals" in London. In such cases it was hoped that it would appear reasonable to His Majesty to order that the claimants, who had not already done so, should be admitted to enter there both their appeals and their claims; and, as the expenses and delays attending litigated suits were grievous, it was desirable that a mode of proceeding as summary and inexpensive as possible might be devised.'

Lord Grenville answered that it was "His Majesty's wish that the most complete and impartial justice should be done to all the citizens of America, who may, in fact, have been injured by any of the proceedings above mentioned." As to cases where the parties had omitted to prefer claims, it was apprehended that the regular course of law was still open to them, and that by preferring appeals to the commissioners of prize in London against the sentences of the courts below, "the whole merits of those cases may be brought forward, and the most complete justice obtained." In cases where no appeal had been taken from the sentence of condemnation in the first instance, His Majesty had referred it to the proper officers to consider a mode of enlarging the time for receiving the appeals. In this mauner Lord Grenville said he had no doubt "a very considerable part of the injuries alleged to have been suffered by the Americans may, if the complaints are well founded, be redressed in the usual course of judicial proceedings, at a very

of negotiation you will be more able to judge, than can be prescribed now, how far you may state the difficulty which may occur in restraining the violence of some of our exasperated citizens." (Mr. Randolph to Mr. Jay, May 6, 1794, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 472.)

The "agent in the West Indies," referred to in the foregoing extract was Mr. N. C. Higginson, who was sent by the Government of the United States to the British West India Islands to attend to the cases of American vessels brought in under the orders in council.

Mr. Jay to Lord Grenville, July 30, 1794. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. 1. 481.)

small expense to the parties, and without any other interposition of His Majesty's Government than is above stated. Until the result and effect of these proceedings shall be known, no definitive judgment can," continued Lord Grenville," be formed respecting the nature and extent of those cases (if any such shall ultimately be found to exist), where it shall not have been practicable to obtain substantial redress in this mode. But he does not hesitate to say, beforehand, that, if cases shall then be found to exist to such an extent as properly to call for the interposition of Government, where, without the fault of the parties complaining, they shall be unable, from whatever circumstances, to procure such redress, in the ordinary course of law, as the justice of their cases may entitle them to expect, His Majesty will be anxious that justice should, at all events, be done, and will readily enter into the discussion of the measures to be adopted, and the principles to be established for that purpose."1

On the basis of this declaration the plenipotentiaries succeeded in agreeing on a measure of redress without entering into a discussion of the particular principles on which relief should be granted. On the 6th of August Mr. Jay proposed that commissioners should be appointed for the purpose of affording satisfaction for vessels and property illegally captured and condemned. On the 30th Lord Grenville responded, accepting the proposal to appoint commissioners, and offering, for the definition of their functions and jurisdiction, an article based on his previous note and couched in substantially the same language as the article finally adopted.

Article VII.

This article forms the seventh of the treaty concluded by Mr. Jay and Lord Grenville on the 19th of November 1794. Reciting that "complaints have been made by divers merchants and others, citizens of the United States, that during the course of the war in which His Majesty is now engaged, they have sustained considerable losses and damage, by reason of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels and other property, under color of authority or commissions from His Majesty, and that from various circumstances belonging to the said cases, adequate compensation for the losses and

Lord Grenville to Mr. Jay, August 1, 1794. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 481.)

2 Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 481.