Relations with Great Britain. from Philadelphia, I found that I had no official account of the interruption of the commission; and that my letters only gave me reason to expect such information by the September packet. I then added that, since I had seen his Lordship, I had considered with great attention the import of certain observations that he had delivered in our last conference; and the result of my reflections had been a thorough conviction, not only of the error, but of the injustice of their observations. It was to two precise points that I alluded: one, that the American Government, from weakness or want of inclination, did not manifest towards England the same friendly disposition that, since the arrival of Mr. Jay, England had shown to the United States; and the other, that it was the amount of the debts, and not any well-founded objection to the principles or manner of the proceedings of the Commissioners, that had occa sioned their suspension. I proceeded, by saying that I could not but regret that these sentiments should be entertained by any one, and much more so by his Lordship. On an impartial review of the avowed principles and conduct of the American Government, since the epoch referred to by his Lordship, I was constrained to say, if they were not thought to be a satisfactory evidence of a disposition to live in harmony and friendship with England, I should not only despair of seeing such evidence, but I felt myself, in candor, obliged to avow that I could not wish to see it; and that it could only surprise me, that any one who possessed the means of understanding the political situation of the United ited States, should entertain a moment's doubt on this point. I then added that I could not avoid feeling the injury of his Lordship's observation concerning the interruption of the commission at Philadelphia, as it imputed to our Government a want of sincerity and integrity that was alike refuted by the great efforts it had made to conclude the treaty with England, and by the good faith that invariably, and on all occasions, had guided its decisions. The sum, at its greatest estimate, and under the most abusive interpretation of the treaty, was nothing when weighed against the character of our nation. We know the value of reputation; and were we not restrained, as every moral society ought to be, to do right from duty, we were sufficiently enlightened to do so from interest. Besides, we were not a nation surrounded by more powerful neighbors, and to protect ourselves against whom the devices of the feeble were necessary; on the contrary, though not as numerous, we were as unassailable and secure as any nation of Europe; and, knowing our real inpendence, we were also awake to the destinies of our country, and influenced by the just notions of national honor, that so properly belonged to our situation and prospects. What were the chief points of disagreement between the Commissioners? The Treaty of Peace provides that creditors, on either side, shall meet with no lawful impediments in the recovery of their debts. Such recovery could be had only through the agency of the courts. Complaints were made on one side, though denied on the other, that, notwithstanding the treaty, debts could not be recovered, by reason of the existence of lawful impediments; and, without reference to the merits of these complaints, the United States engaged, in the last treaty, to compensate all loss and damage that had arisen by reason of lawful impediments, and which could not, at the conclusion of the treaty, be recovered by the agency of the courts. The engagement is conditional: and the United States are not bound for any debt that, at the conclusion of the treaty, could, through their courts, be recovered of the debtor. The course of proceeding, in the execution of this engagement, could scarcely be misunderstood. Each creditor, in preferring his case to the Commissioners, is required to show that he is of the class in whose favor the fourth article of the Treaty of Peace was made; that, with due diligence, he had not been able, previous to the last treaty, to recover his debt, by reason of the operation of lawful impediments; and, moreover, that the same could not be recovered posterior to that treaty. Instead of this course, a majority of the Commissioners had adopted certain resolves enlarging the class of persons included within the provisions of the treaty, releasing the creditors from the obligation of applying to the courts of law, for the recovery of their debts, and, in effect, giving to them an absolute, in the place of a conditional, remedy against the United States: a construction of the treaty, not only incompatible with the guards and cautions that should attend the examination of the claims, but that impeaches the independence and purity of our tribunals. We, as well as others, desire to preserve the reputation of our judiciary. What was your Lordship's language in a case by no means as strong, but that was attended by circumstances which bore an analogy to the present question? Our courts, said your Lordship, on the occasion, cannot be presumed to be incompetent or unwilling to do justice. We cannot consent to see them set aside or discredited; and I am really at a loss, added your Lordship, how any honest man upon his oath can say, when the experiment has not been made, that justice cannot be obtained in our tribunals. I added, that I knew the integrity of the Government I served: I had been the witness of its sincere disposition and earnest efforts to live in harmony with England; I had long believed that harmony and friendship would be mutually advantageous; and that I had come to England with the desire of being, in this respect, useful to my country: but, if the sentiments that I had been controverting were really entertained by the English Government, I could not expect to see much good will, or good humor between the two countries: and we should, I fear, differ so essentially upon the cause of the interruption of the commission at Philadelphia, that there would be but little prospect of a satisfactory negotiation on the subject. Lord Grenville, whom I carefully attended to while I delivered these observations, and who, it was pretty plain, was not prepared to receive them, Relations with Great Britain. after making some attempts to discriminate between the commission here and that at Philadelphia, and to show, against all reason, that the courts here should be resorted to, but that such a course was not necessary at Philadelphia, added that every letter he had seen agreed in the opinion that it was the amount of the debts, and not the construction of the treaty, that constituted the embarrassment. I replied that the claimants would, doubtless, send over exaggerated reports and false opinions, and those of them who had the least pretensions to complain would probably complain the loudest; that, if my Government had formed its opinion of the Court of Appeal from the letters sent from this country, respecting the American claims depending for these six years before that court, it would not be much in favor of its competency or justice. Lord Grenville said, a new negotiation would be extremely difficult, as the creditors thought they had tried their cases, and obtained a decision in their favor; that, if the Commissioners were changed, still the new ones would have before them the decisions of their predecessors. I answered that this was a consequence of an erroneous mode of proceeding. Lord Grenville said he certainly wished the business had been done in another manner. The conversation being at a stand, I observed that I must say something to you by the packet that was soon to sail, but that I could write nothing decisive upon the subject of our conference. His Lordship said that he should defer writing to Mr. Liston until the arrival of the next packet, in expectation that she would bring my instructions. If nothing could be agreed between me and him, he should then instruct Mr. Liston to make such should not be; for, with the temper I have for some time perceived, and after the evidence of its character that I have sent you, I should not be disappointed if it manifests itself to our disadvansage on the first occasion that may be deemed convenient. I receive no answers to the notes, copies of which I have transmitted to you, nor shall I receive any until the injurious suspicions of our views are removed. I omit no means proper to be employed to keep things in a condition favorable to a candid and satisfactory explanation and adjustment: in doing so, you may be assured that I maintain with firmness the rectitude of our Government, preserving always a due respect for those to whom I address myself. My language is, that we are, and shall continue to be, just to every nation; that we desire to avoid misunderstandings with any; having entered into no engagements which oblige us to depart from this system, our efforts to remain at peace with all nations cannot be the occasion of dissatisfaction to any. We have no account that our Envoys have reached France, though they sailed from Lisbon on the 21st of December. It is mere conjecture, but I am inclined to believe that they will be received with marks of respect and esteem, and that they will conclude a treaty. Should this be the case, I hope we may not be precipitate in relinquishing our naval and military preparations. If France is insincere, or incapable to perform what she promises, we shall again want them: if the contrary should happen, we may not have less occasion for them. With perfect respect and esteem, I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient and humble servant, RUFUS KING. representation to our Government as the occasion Extract of a letter from Mr. King to the Secretary of called for. They had given up the pledge they held for the fulfilment of the Treaty of Peace. and they must consider the non-performance of the last treaty, on our part, as a breach of faith. RUFUS KING. State. "LONDON, February 3, 1800. "SIR: The Grantham packet, which arrived after a short passage, brought me your despatch concerning the sixth article of the British Treaty, and I have this day sent a note to Lord Grenville Extract of a letter from Mr. King to the Secretary of upon this subject, that will probably lead to the State. LONDON, January 22, 1802. commencement of the negotiation. At present, therefore, I cannot give you any opinion respecting it: no exertion on my part will be wanting to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, and I can be answerable for nothing further." Extract of a letter from Mr. King to the Secretary of State, dated "LONDON, February 25, 1800. SIR: A disposition has appeared to couple the delay that has occurred in the transmission of the instructions, concerning the disagreement between the Commissioners at Philadelphia with the mission to France. The influence of this suspicion upon the present relation between the United States and England need not be suggested. It has been my aim to do away this impression, by ascribing the delay to the derangement, in consequence of the fever, and to other causes equally foreign from those which have been imagined; and I believe I am not mistaken in supposing that the subject will not be brought before the Cabinet, as was intended, before the arrival of the next packet; though I have taken care not to state positively, or with confidence, that the instructions will be sent by the December packet. I shall deeply regret, and may be much embarrassed, in case they I ed in his reserve, who only remarked that it would "In a conference with Lord Grenville on the 18th instant, I delivered to him a verbal note containing such explanations as, on our part, are deemed requisite to the satisfactory execution of the sixth article of the Treaty of Amity: these additional articles were accompanied by such short observations as appeared to me calculated to explain and recommend them. As it was the first interview upon this subject, I was not disappoint Relations with Great Britain. be best to waive any observation upon the subject until he should have had an opportunity of giving it a full consideration. I have not since heard from him." Extract of a letter from Mr. King to the Secretary of State, dated LONDON, April 7, 1800. "SIR: As I may not be able to see Lord Grenville again for some days, he having aving gone to his country house, where he will probably remain through the Easter holidays, I think it proper to acquaint you that, in a conference I had with his Lordship the day before yesterday, he distinctly informed me that it was the unanimous opinion of himself and colleagues not to enter into the former discussion of the explanatory articles which I had proposed to him on the 18th of February, as they saw no probability that the two Governments would be able to agree in any explanations upon that subject; but that they would consent to the dissolution of the present board, and to the appointment of a new set of Commissioners, who should be governed by the stipulations already concluded, without regarding the constructive resolutions of the former Commissioners; the fifth Commissioner to be named by the King, and, instead of two Americans being appointed by the President, and two British subjects by the King, that the President should appoint one American, and name a British subject, to whose appointment the King's consent should be requisite; and that the King should appoint one British subject, to whose appointment the President's consent should be requisite. This modification of the choice of the Commissioners, it was suggested, might diminish the influence of national prejudice on both sides; but I conclude that it is not thought of sufficient importance to be insisted upon, if the former mode of choice should be preferred. cannot now send you a detail of the reasons upon which his Lordship placed the refusal to agree to or to discuss the explanatory articles that we had proposed. After hearing a few words in which he communicated the decision, I only replied that I would consider of what he had informed me, and take the earliest opportunity of communicating to him the result of my reflections. I accordingly called to-day at his Lordship's house, but he had left town early in the morning. It was my intention to have presented to him the reasons why, upon the appointment of a new Board of Commissioners, it would be necessary that certain explanatory rules should be settled for the government of their proceedings, and to inform him that I was authorized to agree to a new commission without such rules." Mr. King to the Secretary of State, dated LONDON, April 22, 1800. I DEAR SIR: So much impatience had appeared, in respect to the delay that happened in the transmission of my instructions concerning the separation of the commission at Philadelphia, that I judged it expedient to lose no time after their arrival in beginning the negotiation. I accordingly informed Lord Grenville, the day after the receipt of your No. 71, that I was ready to proceed, and would either write him an official note, as the commencement of the negotiation, or prepare and deliver to him an informal paper containing the propositions we had to offer, and which might become the subject of free discussion in future conferences; his Lordship intimated a preference of the latter course; and I accordingly delivered to him the paper, mentioned in my No. 65, a copy of which is annexed. In my No. 66, I gave you an account of what passed between Lord Grenville and me in our next conference; in addition to which, I might have added that his Lordship asked if I was authorized to offer any specific sum of money, on the payment of which Great Britain should engage to satisfy the claims of the whole of the British creditors? Having no such power, my answer was of course in the negative. On the 19th instant, I received his Lordship's written answer to the proposals I had delivered to him on the 18th of February, corresponding, as you will perceive by the subjoined copy, with the verbal answer that had before been given to me. As this answer precludes all discussion of the articles we had proposed, on the plea that the whole subject had been finally settled by the Treaty of Amity, and that the United States are bound by the decision of the majority of the Commissioners, whether the matter decided is within or above their powers, my first thought was to prepare and send to his Lordship a note, exposing the error of a principle that confounds the distinction between a limited and an unlimited delegation of authority, and which should, at the same time, support, by further arguments, the justice and expediency of the explanatory articles that we had offered. But, as the language of Lord Grenville in our conference was equally explicit and decided as that of the paper delivered in answer to our proposals, I, on reflection, changed my first opinion, from the persuasion that nothing would be gained by that course in favor of the future execution of the article; and, as the answer had placed the negotiation in a situation that had not been foreseen, that it was my duty to refer it, in its present stage, to the further consideration of the President. The written answer of Lord Grenville having intimated a disposition to accede to certain regulations, which, it was supposed, might faciliate the execution of the treaty, I yesterday asked a conference with his Lordship, for the purpose of obtaining a precise idea of the nature and extent of these regulations: this was immediately granted, and afforded an opportunity for a free conversation upon the general topic, as well as respecting the particular subject that brought us together. Many things were said on both sides that it would be useless to repeat: these, therefore, are omitted in this report. His Lordship observed, that the object of the delay that took place at London was to allow time to the Court of Appeals to decide the several prize cases before their examination by the Commissioners, and that a like arrangement might be made in respect to the cases before the Commissioners at Philadelphia. With regard to the questions of impediment, solvency, insolvency, and some others of equal importance, Lord Grenville said, their decision must be left to the provisions of the treaty, to the particular circumstances of each case, and to the sound discretion of the Commissioners; adding that, upon a full investigation of the subject, he was convinced that no new and general rule upon these points could be made, without affecting cases and claims that ought not to be affected; and that, even with respect to an agreement to delay the cases before the Commissioners at Philadelphia, in order that the claimant should have an opportunity first to obtain the decision of our courts, it would be difficult, not to say impossible, for him to form any satisfactory idea of what would be a convenient time, unless he had a more adequate knowledge of our judiciary proceedings, and a particular instead of a general acquaintance with the claims. Upon this point, as on most others, there seemed to be wanting a discretionary power, always present, and ready to act as occasions arose, and according to the nature and circumstances of the particular question; that the persons whom he had thought of, as two of the Commissioners to be appointed by the King, were men of prudence and discretion, and with whom, he thought, we should be satisfied: that Mr. Liston, having repeatedly asked, and lately received, leave of absence on account of his health, might not be at Philadelphía; and he saw no preferable course, in case we acceded to the suggestion, to that of sending these two persons to Philadelphia, to concert with us such analogous regulations, in respect to the commission there, as were agreed to with regard to the commission here. We should, by this means, have an opportunity of knowing the character and dispositions of dispositions of the persons sent to prepare and agree to these regulations, and who would afterwards be appointed to assist in the execution of the treaty. Relations with Great Britain. Lord Grenville asked me in what time I supposed the courts would be able to go through the whole of the cases? I answered that this must chiefly depend upon the diligence of the creditors, and that I could not form any satisfactory estimate of the time that might be necessary: on the one hand, it should not be so short as, with a disposition in the courts to avoid delay, would defeat the object of the regulation; and, on the other, it should not be so long as to afford any ground, from the delay, to infer that there was a denial of justice. No precise time was settled here, and, perhaps, none should be at Philadelphia. His Lordship asked if there could be no means found to accelerate the trials? I repeated the observation, that more would depend on the diligence of the creditors than upon the courts, of whose disposition to give the greatest despatch, there could be no doubt; that a law requiring extraordinary sessions of the courts, or prescribing a more summary proceeding, would not only interfere with the established course of our judiciary, but give birth to other and still more difficult questions, which it would be unwise to agitate. His Lordship asked whether the cases before the board are, any of them, in a state for the new Commissioners to take up, suggesting that it would be desirable that the new board should, at their commencement, have something to do? I replied that, though I could not then answer the question with any degree of accuracy, I was inclined to believe that many cases were in a situation that, without recourse to the courts, might soon be prepared for the Commissioners to decide, and that the progress of the trials would be constantly furnishing additional cases. Lord Grenville expressed his opinion that the new board ought to proceed in a different manner from their predecessors, by deciding cases singly, one after another, instead of attempting to decide them by general resolves, and in classes. I observed that it was possible that new difficulties might arise in the course of future proceedings; and, should Mr. Liston be absent, there would be no one with whom we could confer for the purpose of removing them. Lord Grenville replied, that, in this case, he must endeavor to find out a proper character to supply Mr. Liston's place. I then asked Lord Grenville if he had formed any idea of the gross sum, on the payment of which they would engage to compensate the claims of the British creditors. His Lordship replied that he had not; adding, that he thought the creditors had not been wise in swelling, as they had done, their claim to four or five millions sterling; though it might have no influence upon our Government, it would be likely to have some upon the people; that he himself did not like the idea of the payment of a gross sum, and that he had mentioned it to me in compliance with the opinion of his colleagues; but that, on the supposition that the debt due to British creditors did not exceed two millions, they might be willing to accept a gross sum of between one and two millions. I shall, as opportunities offer, endeavor to acquire further information on this subject, as it may possibly lead to the satisfactory conclusion of a most difficult business. If it is probable that we shall ultimately be required to pay, upon the award of the Commissioners, a sum equal to, or not far short of, one for which the business could be at once settled, would it not be the part of a wise policy to engage to pay such sum by instalments, or in some other convenient manner? All further expense to individuals, as well as to the public, would, in this mode of settlement, be saved; we should, moreover, escape the embarrassment of any future disagrement among the Commissioners, and consequent misunderstanding between the two countries; the trouble and vexation of numberless law suits would be prevented; and, instead of the dissatisfaction and ill will towards the Government that they would unavoidably excite, a general release to the debtors would be a boon that could not fail to produce opposite sentiments. Relations with Great Britain. With perfect respect and esteem, I have the honor to be, dear sir, your obedient and faithful servant, RUFUS KING. Mr. King to Lord Grenville. Without discussing the disagreement, which ended in the suspension of the Board of Commissioners acting under the sixth article of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, between the United States and Great Britain, it not being perceived that any advantage, in reference to the future and satisfactory execution of that article would be likely to arise from such discussion, it is proposed, on the part of the United States, that the Plenipotentiaries of the two countries should endeavor to agree in such explanations respecting the said article as shall secure to the creditors on the side of Great Britain, the full benefit of the rights to which they are entitled, whether in virtue of their respective contracts, or from the provisions of the treaties between the two countries; and, at the same time, mark more clearly the limits of the engagements of the United States. From the extensive commercial dealings between Great Britain and America, debts to a considerable amount were due to British creditors at the commencement of the American war: these debts, exclusive of the irrecoverable losses occasioned by the insolvency of debtors in the course of that war, were affected by various laws passed in several of the States, as well as by the apprehension lest the creditors might, after the peace, be obliged to receive payment in a depreciated paper money. To guard against this apprehension, as well as to remove every obstruction proceeding from the laws of any of the States, the fourth article of the Treaty of Peace provided: "That creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediments to the recovery of the full value, in sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted." Complaints were afterwards made by divers British creditors, that lawful impediments had been suffered to exist within the United States, contrary to the aforesaid provision of the Treaty of Peace, and that, by the operation thereof, they had sustained losses and damages, which could not be repaired in the ordinary course of justice; in consequence of which complaints, it was agreed, by the sixth article of or wilful omission of the the Treaty of Amity, that in all such cases, where 1. That the debt was bona fide contracted before, and remained unpaid at the peace. re 2. That lawful impediments prevented his covery of payment; and that, during their operation, the debtor became insolvent, and continued to be so at the conclusion of the Treaty of Amity, &c. To avoid misapprehension, it is thought advisable informally to present, in the shape of separate articles, such principles as, according to the spirit and object of the sixth article of the Treaty of Amity, are deemed, on the part of the United States, proper to constitute the basis of the desired explanation. These are also accompanied by a few observations, suggesting some of the reasons on which they severally depend for support. ARTICLES. 1. The description by which claimants are designated in the said sixth article of the Treaty of Amity, shall be deemed to include all persous, whether resident in Europe or America, who were on the side of His Britannic Majesty at the commencement of the late war, and so continued throughout the war, and until the exhibition of claim. But no person shall be deemed to be a British creditor, within the meaning of the said article, who shall, at any time before the peace, have been openly on the American side, or volun |