[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.