By a similarity of reasoning she could not release her from them.*

Spain refused at the time to do any thing on the subject of the claims for spoliations. She was closely allied with France, then exceedingly powerful, and her government did not apprehend the fate with which they were threatened. She had made an unfortunate bargain with France respecting Louisiana; she had had a great deal of protracted angry correspondence with the United States; and numerous quarrels on her frontiers, particularly respecting the Indians. Most of the concerns of the American government with Spain had taken an unfortunate turn, and almost every topic had led, not only to tedious, but to irritating discussions. Spain probably felt, moreover, that she was growing weak. She was losing her influence in Europe, and her colonies in America; she naturally parted with every thing with extreme reluctance, well knowing that she would never be able to regain her possessions. Her government had the habits of a decaying, perishing state. This arose partly from the modes of doing business, that had always prevailed in that country, and partly from the indecision and negligence, which always accompany debility. This country has never yet come to an open rupture with Spain; but there is no nation in Europe, with whom the relations of the American government have been so unsatisfactory.

We have but one more topic to examine before we arrive at the final termination of the mission of Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney. This related to the right of deposite at New-Orleans. We have already stated that it was suddenly suspended in October 1802, by the intendant of Louisiana. This was, undoubtedly, a gross violation of the 22d article of the trea

*This claim has since been adjusted by the act, transferring East Florida to the United States; on that account we have very briefly touched upon the history and principle of these claims, though they rest on the same considerations, as those against other European go

vernments.

ty of '95. At the least, it was an unfriendly act to suspend the deposite without any notice, but the article obviously required that another place should be pointed out on the Mississippi for the same purpose. This was not done. The act was disavowed by the king, and the right renewed ; but the purchase of Louisiana in 1803, removed all the difficulties attending this transaction. The actual injury done to the navigation on the Mississippi was considerable, and a reparation for this was included in the instructions of the commissioners. This mission terminated in the beginning of 1805; Mr. Monroe having returned to London, Mr. Pinkney was succeeded by James Bowdoin, of Massachusetts, appointed minister plenipotentiary, who remained till 1807. The United States had no minister in Spain during the troubles in that country. The intercourse was renewed again in 1814, by the appointment of George W. Erving, of Massachusetts, a minister plenipotentiary.

CHAPTER XIII.

RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA.

Not originally applied to for aid by Congress of "77—Little known at that time in Europe-Relations friendly-Armed neutrality-Dana sent to Russia in '80—Instructed to propose America as a member of the armed neutrality—Not received by the Empress—Russia not disposed to acknowledge independence—Anecdote of Franklin and Count du Nord-Neutrality awakens great anxiety—Congress, at return of peace, took earliest steps to prevent a connexion with “ Neutrality”—Instructions to ministers in Europe not to agree to support neutrality by force of arms-Adams, minister to RussiaPahlen to this country-Daschkoff-No treaty or commercial convention, though great trade.

RUSSIA was originally not one of the European states, to whom an application was made by Congress in '77 for aid, and for the recognition for the independence, though some circumstances, that will presently be mentioned in a subsequent year, appeared likely to give uncommon importance to the first diplomatic connections of the two countries. We may account for this omission of Congress entirely by local considerations. The weight and power of that nation, since become so formidable, had been confined principally to the north, and to wars with the Turks. Little known to Europe, except by her attacks on the Prussian dominions in the time of the great Frederic, and by sharing in the wicked partition of Poland in '72, the consequences of the French revolution

first brought her armies across the Alps and the Rhine, first developed the resources of that country to full view, and in most successful action. No European power has, however, conducted itself in a more friendly manner towards America than Russia; the relations of the two countries having all been of an amicable and satisfactory kind. As early as '91, we had a direct trade up the Baltic, but till 1809 and 10, it was principally confined to imports. It has since been very great, though, as to imports, consisting chiefly of articles that might well be made staples in this country. We have suffered less interruption in our commerce with Russia than with any other continental nation of Europe. The Emperor Alexander did not adopt the French system till after the treaty of Tilsit, in 1807, and he took the first opportunity to release himself from the obligation of enforcing it, by publishing the celebrated Ukase of December, 1810. Indeed, the system had never been executed with much severity in Russia. British goods had never been burnt in that country, as on other parts of the continent, and they were always admitted in neutral bottoms.

Notwithstanding Catharine II. was the author of the armed neutrality of '80, Russia was one of the first parties to the maratime coalition against France in '93. But the declaration of this Empress, in the year just mentioned, concerning the rights and duties of neutrals, immediately attracted the attention of Congress to Russia. The principles, announced in that instrument, though far from being complete or embracing the whole ground,* were such as America would at once espouse; they were directly hostile to the system of Great Britain, and in that way were likely to produce a favourable influence on the war then waging between the mother country and the colonies. Congress did not delay to send a minister to Russia, for the armed neutrality presented an

* The armed neutrality left contrabands matter of conventional law, nor did it establish any regulations for vessels under convoy.

admirable occasion of attacking England in a vital organ. Another method of expressing their approbation of the principles of that confederacy was, also, adopted. We copy from the Journal of October '80, the following paragraph:"Congress, willing to testify their regard to the rights of commerce, and their respect for the sovereign who hath proposed, and the powers who have approved the said regulations: Resolve, That the Board of Admiralty prepare and report instructions for the commanders of armed vessels commissioned by the United States, conformable to the principles contained in the declaration of the Empress of all the Russias on the rights of neutral vessels."

Francis Dana, of Massachusetts, was elected, in December '80, minister plenipotentiary to the court of St. Petersburg; he was authorized to "accede to the convention of the said neutral and belligerent powers for protecting the freedom of commerce and the rights of nations," and to propose a treaty of amity and commerce. This is the only instance in the history of the country, in which the United States volunteered themselves a party to a league of sovereigns in Europe. But not only was it an effectual mode of hastening the acknowledgment of independence, but the principles adopted by the northern confederacy were exceedingly grateful to the American government. It was a league, in reality, both offensive and defensive, what its name purported it to be, an armed coalition, or in the modern phrase, "war in disguise." But even if the United States had been admitted to it, they were not in a condition, at that time, to furnish their quota of armament. England, at war with France, Spain, America, and shortly after Holland, regarded this coalition of the principal states of Europe against her with sullen silence; she replied to the notes of the different northern powers, notifying to her the formation of the confederacy, with uncommon adroitness, and with all possible diplomatic address and formality. With the exception of Portugal, she had not a real friend left in the year '81, in either hemisphere; and, with less power and