FOOTNOTES:
[321] Vide ‘Annual Register,’ 1806, p. 246.
[322] Vide ‘Annual Register,’ 1806, and ‘American State Papers,’ Foreign Relations, 1801, vol. ii. p. 491.
[323] This decision is called the “Polly” case, for which see ‘Robinson’s Reports,’ vol. ii. p. 368, for the judgment of Sir William Scott (Lord Howell).
[324] This point was first decided in the case of the Essex, May 1805; and after an elaborate argument, the same decision was pronounced in the case of the William, March 1806.
[325] Act of April 18, 1806.
[326] This very interesting document (December 21, 1804) will be found in United States ‘State Papers,’ Commerce and Navigation, vol. i. p. 582.
[327] Wheaton’s ‘Elements of International Law,’ Rights of war as to Neutrals, vol. ii. ch. iii., 1836.
[328] Holmes’ ‘Annals of America,’ vol. ii. p. 434.
[329] It may be reasonably doubted whether Captain Humphreys, of the Leopard, was guilty of anything beyond going slightly beyond his instructions in taking from the Chesapeake three men who had deserted from the Melampus, but who were not actually named in the order sent to him by the Admiral of the Station, the Hon. G. C. Berkeley. That his order from Admiral Berkeley completely justified his firing into the Chesapeake cannot be questioned; but whether it was wise for Admiral Berkeley to issue such an order is another matter. The surrender of the Chesapeake took place in March 1807; and on the news reaching London, together with a Proclamation from Jefferson, the English government at once disavowed the act of Admiral Berkeley, and recalled him. It is further clear that if the captain of the Chesapeake had answered the hail of Captain Humphreys honestly and truly, his ship would not have been fired into.
[330] This document will be found in ‘Parl. Papers,’ 1808, vol. xiv. It will be found also in American ‘State Papers,’ together with a most voluminous correspondence.
[331] November 21, 1806.
[332] Mr. Armstrong’s letter to M. Champigny, at Paris, ‘American Foreign Relations,’ vol. iii. There is a vast number of letters.
[333] Letter, August 22, 1809, to Mr. Armstrong.
[334] General Armstrong’s letter, February 4, 1808.
[335] ‘Diplomacy of the United States,’ p. 133.
[336] The convention was signed on the 3rd of July, 1815 (vide ‘Hertslet’s Treaties,’ vol. ii. p. 386); but so far as regards the great questions on which differences had arisen it settled nothing. It professed, indeed, to adjust the question of the north-east boundary; but this point was not arranged until many years afterwards, the two countries having been previously on the point of rupture. The north-west boundary, afterwards known as the Oregon dispute, was left in statu quo. Neither party cared to agitate the impressment question, although the Americans had at one period made this the chief ground for going to war. Both parties made a barren declaration, that they were desirous of continuing their efforts to promote the entire abolition of the slave-trade. The vapourings about neutral rights, with which the world had been nauseated for a number of years, were buried in silence, to be resuscitated whenever a national cry of agitation might be necessary for electioneering purposes. The question about blockade was set aside just in the like manner. The American claims relating to the impressment of seamen fell to the ground; and, with the exception of the Paris Declaration of 1856, the rights of neutrals, to a large extent, remain undecided to this day. The boundary question was deferred, not decided upon; and in 1834, as the award of the empire, the King of the Netherlands, did not satisfy either party, both refused to abide by it, and it was only settled by the award of the Emperor of Germany in 1872.
[337] The United States, in 1816, enacted “that so much of an Act as imposes a higher duty of tonnage or of import on vessels, and articles imported in vessels of the United States, contrary to the provisions of the countries between the United States and his Britannic Majesty, the ratifications whereof were mutually exchanged the 22nd of December, 1815, be, from and after the date of the ratification of the said convention, and during the continuance thereof, deemed and taken to be of force and effect.”
[338] Act, March 1, 1817.
[339] Act, April 1818.