adopted a new and extraordinary mode of warfare against them, being nothing less than to deprive them of the means of support, by preventing all foreign supplies of corn, flour, meal and other provisions.

In pursuance of this plan, the British court, on the 8th of June, 1793, declared it to be lawful for all his majesty's ships of war and privateers, "to stop and detain all vessels loaded wholly or in part with corn, flour, or meal, bound to any port of France, or any port occupied by the armies of France, and to send them to such ports as should be most convenient, in order that such corn, meal, or flour might be purchased on behalf of his majesty's gov ernment, and the ships to be released after such purchase, and after a due allowance for freight; or that the masters of such ships, on giving due security, to be approved by the court of admiralty, be permitted to dispose of their cargoes of corn, meal, or flour, in the ports of any country in amity with his majesty."

These instructions, though bearing date early in June, were not finally issued to the admiralty until about the last of that month; and they did not reach the United States until the first of September, and twelve days after, were formally communicated, by Mr. Hammond, to the American government.

This extraordinary plan of subduing a whole nation by famine, was concerted between Great Britain and Russia, as early as the 25th of March, 1793.

The following articles constitute part of a convention between his Britannic majesty and the empress of Russia, entered into on that day; and are too extraordinary to be here omitted.

“ART. III. Their said majesties engage to shut all their ports against French ships; not to permit the exportation, in any ease, from the said ports for France, of any military or naval stores, or corn, grain, salt meat or other provisions; and to take all other measures, in their power, for injuring the commerce of France, and for bringing her, by such means, to just conditions of peace. “ART. IV. Their majesties engage to unite all their efforts to prevent other powers, not implicated in this war, from giving,

on this occasion of common concern to every civilized state, any protection whatever, directly or indirectly, in consequence of their neutrality, to the commerce or property of the French, on the sea, or in their ports."

The same articles were inserted in treaties which Great Britain made with Spain, Prussia, and the emperor of Germany, in the summer of the same year.

In consequence of his engagements in these treaties, his Britannic majesty issued the instructions before recited. An informal account of them had no sooner reached the United States, than the president, perceiving how materially they would affect American commerce, directed a remonstrance to be presented to the British government, against such a palpable violation of neutral rights. The American minister at London was directed to declare to the British court, that "reason and usage had established, that when two nations went to war, those who choose to live in peace, retain their natural rights to pursue their agriculture, manufactures and other ordinary vocations, to carry the produce of their industry, for exchange, to all nations, belligerents or neutrals, as usual, to go and come freely, without injury or molestation and in short, that war among others should be for them as if it did not exist."

There was but one restriction to these natural rights, the American secretary said, which was, that neutrals should not furnish either party with implements merely of war, for the annoyance of the other, nor any thing whatever to a place blockaded by its enemy; and he also declared, that corn, flour and meal, were not contraband of war. Mr. Pinckney was also particularly directed to require of the British government, an explanation of these orders.

Mr. Hammond attempted a justification of them, by remarking, "that by the law of nations, as laid down by the most modern writers, it was expressly stated, that all provisions were to be considered as contraband, and liable to confiscation, in case where the depriving of an enemy of those supplies, was one of the means

intended to be employed for reducing him to reasonable terms of peace." Lord Grenville, also, in a conference with Mr. Pinckney, justified them on the same ground; and said, they did not go so far as the strict law of nations would warrant, not extending to all kinds of provisions, or to confiscation.

These principles, however, were resisted by the American government, as totally unwarranted by the law of nations; and Mr. Pinckney, in answer to lord Grenville, on the subject of reducing France by famine, stated, that provisions were then cheaper in the ports of that country, than in those of England.

Notwithstanding these remonstrances on the part of the United States, the orders were rigidly enforced, and English ports were soon filled with American vessels, originally bound to France.

The manner in which this new mode of warfare was enforced in Europe by the allied powers, as well as a brief view of the principles upon which it was there attempted to be supported, cannot be foreign from our design.

The orders of the empress of Russia extended farther than those of Great Britain; and to enforce them she fitted out a fleet of twenty five sail of the line, with a number of frigates, to cruise in the east and north seas, "for the purpose (in conjunction with the English maritime force) of preventing the sending of any provisions or ammunition to France."*

The Russian charge'des affaires, in his note of July 30th, 1793, informed the court of Sweden, that the commanders of the Russian fleet were instructed, "to stop all neutral vessels having a cargo for the ports of France, to force them either to return to the ports from whence they came, or to unload their cargoes in any neutral port they should think fit to point out." The empress having before been the great champion and supporter of neutral rights, found it necessary to make some apology for her de

* She requested the king of Sweden, "not to permit his ships of war to take any Swedish merchantmen, laden with such commodities, under their convoy." She also gave orders to search all merchant vessels, to see if their cargoes consisted of such goods; "all which is done," she added, " for this reason, namely, that no neutrality can take place with respect to a government consisting only of rebels."

parture from the principles she formerly professed. "After all the proofs," her minister added, "which her majesty has given of the generous and disinterested care she has taken to secure the rights of neutral states in time of war, by establishing a particular code of navigation laws, which received the approbation of most of the maritime powers, by solemn treaties—she has no reason to fear lest her present conduct might excite any suspicion of her intending to infringe that generous and beneficial system, since that system can, by no means, be applicable to the present circumstances.

"In order to prove this assertion, it will be sufficient to allege, that the usurpers of the government of France, after having overthrown every order in that country, after having dipped their murderous hands in the blood of their king, have, by a solemn decree, declared themselves the protectors and supporters of all those who should attempt like crimes against their sovereigns and governors in other states. This they not only promised, but they have actually attacked most of their neighboring powers, with armed forces, and by this have placed themselves in a state of war against all the powers of Europe; no neutrality, consequently, could exist from that time, in any power, with regard to them, except where prudence, and the benefit of the common cause, prescribed a feigned peaceable disposition. But this motive is no longer in existence, since the combination of the formidable powers of Europe, to make it their common cause against the enemies of the safety and happiness of nations."*

The language of the British court to his Danish majesty, was similar to that held by the empress of Russia.

"It can by no means be mistaken," said the British ambassador, (Hailes,) at the court of Copenhagen, "how much the circumstances of the present war are different from those wars, in which Europe can depend on the established laws and rights of nations; nor can it more be denied, that this palpable difference ought to have a material and powerful influence on the enjoyment of the privileges allowed to neutral nations, by the same general laws and rights of nations, or by particular treaties."

* British Senator, vol. 8, pp. 30, 31.

The British ambassador, also, after stating that there was no government in France, acknowledged either by neutrals or belligerents, and that neither, could have any assurance of the observation of the laws and rights of nations, not only justified the determination of the coalesced powers, to reduce France, by prohibiting supplies of provisions; but also intimated, that the Danish court could not even admit French privateers into their ports, as, for want of a legal government, they could have no legal commissions, and must be considered as pirates.

The answer of Bernstorf, the Danish minister, was worthy of that great and illustrious statesman.

"The law of nations," says the Danish minister, " is unalterable. Its principles do not depend on circumstances. An enemy engaged in war can exercise vengeance upon those who do not expect it; but in this case, and without violating the rigid law, a fatal reciprocity may take place; but a neutral power, which lives in peace, cannot admit of, nor-acknowledge such a compensation, it can only screen itself, by its impartiality, and by its treaties. It is not pardonable for her to renounce her rights in favor of any belligerent power. The basis of her rights is the universal and public law, before which all authority must vanish it is neither a party nor a judge; nor do the treaties give room to privileges and favors."

The views of Bernstorf, on the new mode of warfare of the coalesced powers, were peculiarly just, and in accordance with those of president Washington.

"The want of grain," he added, "as a consequence of the failure of domestic productions, is not a thing unusual, which might only take place in the present moment; or which might be occasioned by the ground which constitute the difference so of ten alleged between the present and former wars. France is almost constantly able to make imports from abroad. ly, and America, furnish her with much more corn than the Baltic.

Africa, Ita

"In the year 1709, France was more exposed to famine than it now is; and yet England could not then avail herself of the same