The Diplomacy of the United States

TREATIES, &c.

CHAPTER I.

TREATY OF GHENT OF 1814 WITH GREAT BRITAIN.

Little settled by Jay's treaty-Mr. King, minister to England-Made no treaty-Succeeded by Mr. Monroe-Proposes a convention to Lord Hawkesbury-Rule of '56-Account of it-Injurious to American commerce-Special mission of Messrs. Monroe and PinkneyConvention with Lords Holland and Auckland-Most favourable ever made-President rejects it without consulting Senate-Impressment Account of it-Opinions of Foster, Mansfield and Chatham -Convention with Lord St. Vincent-Chesapeake-England offered reparation-Refused to consider the affair in connexion with other topics in discussion-Mr. Rose-Mission ineffectual-Orders in council-Great sensation--Erskine arrangement—Unsuccessful— Erskine withdrawn-Mr. Jackson-His correspondence with government-Dismissed-England expresses no mark of displeasure—Antedated decree-England refuses to repeal orders-Declaration of 1812-War-Remarks on neutrality-Mediation of Russia-Not successful-Peace of Ghent-No disputed point settled-PeacePolicy of America-War of 1812, good effect on national character. We shall give, in this chapter, an account of the different negotiations that led to the war of 1812 with Great Britain, and finally terminated in the peace of Ghent. We propose

to divide this period into two parts;-the first relating to events immediately preceding the orders in council of 1807, and the other, comprehending the portion of time from that event to the peace above mentioned.

We have remarked in a preceding chapter that the treaty of 1794 in reality settled but few of the important points in discussion. If Europe had relapsed into its original condition of peace and quietness, this circumstance would have presented itself to the mind with little relief; but subsequent events gave to those questions an importance, no one could have anticipated. As the power of France increased on the land, that of England seemed, with corresponding industry and activity, to magnify itself on the ocean;-fresh conquests led to new blockades, and retaliation became a pretext for renewed and aggravated outrages on neutral rights. They were repeated and enforced every year with increased severity and an alarming augmentation of power, till a place of refuge or safety could be found for the neutral, neither on the ocean, nor in any part of the continent of Europe. The peace, or rather truce of Amiens, afforded a momentary respite, but with that slight exception, it must be considered that the two belligerents actually waged a maritime war upon America from the year 1792 to 1812. Rufus King, of New-York, was appointed in May '96 minister plenipotentiary to the court of St. James, and remained till 1803, in that country.* He discussed in a full and satisfactory manner the principal provisions of maritime

* We shall give in this note a continuation, from the last chapter, of the hostile acts of Great Britain: :-

"1797, April 11. Horatio Nelson declared Cadiz to be in a state of blockade.

"1799, March 22. All the ports of Holland declared in a state of rigid blockade.

"1799, Nov. 27. The blockade of March suspended.

"1803, June 24. Instructions issued, not to interrupt the direct trade between neutrals and the colonies of enemies, unless, upon the outward passage, contraband articles had been furnished by the neutrals.

"1804, January 5. declared in blockade.

Certain ports of Martinique and Guadaloupe The siege of Curacoa converted into blockade. 1804, August 9. A rigorous blockade established at the entrances of the ports of Fecamp, St. Vallery, and other places on the French coast."

law, in which the United States feel an interest, though with the exception of two conventions in relation to the treaty of 294, already mentioned, he did not succeed in agreeing on any formal instrument, regulating the commerce or defining the rights of neutrals. To the article of impressment, Mr. King gave particular attention, and made great progress in securing an arrangement that would have afforded essential protection to our seamen. But it failed from a cause that will be hereafter mentioned. Violations of neutral rights, though very galling, were trifling during his residence in England, compared with those of the preceding or succeeding years. Mr. King returned to this country in 1803, and was succeeded by James Monroe of Virginia.*. -As it will be necessary to examine with some attention the points in dispute between the two countries, in giving an account of the treaty concluded with the British government in 1806 by Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, we have presented only a very brief summary of Mr. King's negotiations. For the same reason, we shall pass rapidly over the diplomatic intercourse of Mr. Monroe. Early in 1804 he proposed to the British ministry, by direction of his government, a convention regulating the right of search, blockades, contrabands, &c. A copy of this document will be found in the state papers for that year. The war, between France and England, having been renewed in 1803, the British government having given indications of returning to her former maritime. pretensions, and in consequence of the peace of Amiens, the commercial part of the treaty of London having expired in the autumn of the preceding year, it was matter of very pressing importance, not only that the rights of the neutral should be finally ascertained and secured, but that the trade of Great Britain and the United States should be placed upon a firmer and more permanent footing than the law of the respective countries afforded. From that period to the year 1815, the whole American commerce to the British

* Robert Liston (afterwards Sir Robert Liston) succeeded Mr. Hammond, as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. He was appointed in March 1796.

possessions, in every part of the world, rested upon the uncertain and most unsatisfactory protection of acts of Parliament. Undoubtedly, it might be expected, that mutual interest would maintain, on both sides, a continuance of such regulations, as should be just and equal. But the convention, submitted to lord Hawkesbury by Mr. Monroe, embraced only articles having a reference to our maritime rights; it failed, for the same reason that all other negotiations of the like tenor have failed, with the British government.

Matters stood in this situation till August, 1805, when, by an instruction of the British government, of the 17th, the "direct trade with the enemies' colonies was made subject to restrictions." This revived, in full force, the celebrated rule of the war of 1756. Few acts of the belligerents have more deeply wounded the rights of this country or done a more serious mischief to its commerce. We shall take an opportunity, in this place, in order to avoid future repetition, to compress into a brief form those general considerations, that belong to the history, application and justice of this assumed principle of maritime law.*

This rule, generally called the rule of the war of '56, was then first universally promulgated, and applied in strict rigour, though it existed previous to that time, particularly in 1744.† An impression has generally prevailed, that it was not exercised during the war of the revolution; but Robinson, in the note to which we have just referred, furnishes undoubted evidence to the contrary; and, if the application was not universal, it was only because some of the enemies' colonies had been opened before the war, for

*We refer the reader to a work, entitled "An Examination of the British Doctrine, which subjects to Capture a Neutral Trade, not open in time of peace." This dissertation was understood to have been written by Mr. Madison. One of the best productions on the other side, is "War in disguise, &c." by Mr. James Stephen, who made himself conspicuous, as a member of Parliament, on the American question. We shall, shortly, have occasion to refer to his speech on the orders in council.

Robinson's Reports, vol. vi. Append. Note.

« Zurück Weiter »

Books

The Diplomacy of the United States: Being an Account of the Foreign ..., Band 2