another conversation this morning with the minister of the foreign department. On his saying, in the introduction of the subject, that he hoped I saw in it a manifestation of the good will of this government towards the United States, I observed, that it was certainly much less injurious to us than the instruction which it revoked, and might be as favourable as the principles, upon which this government acts, would admit; but I reminded him, that our ideas differed materially from theirs on this subject; and without repeating the arguments I had before addressed to him, both verbally and in writing, in support of our position, it was only necessary to say, that we did not admit the right of the belligerent powers to interfere farther in the commerce between neutral nations and their adversaries, than to prevent their carrying to them articles, which, by common usage, were established as contraband, and any articles to a place fairly blockaded; that consequently the two first articles, though founded upon their principles of not suffering, in war, a traffick which was not admitted by the same nations in time of peace, and of taking their enemies property, when found on board of neutral vessels, were, nevertheless, contrary to what we contended to be the just principles of the modern law of nations; that indeed I had some doubt of the first article being altogether supported by their own principle; but supposing that article, as well as the rest, to be consonant to their former usage, I wished to know, whether their present re-publication imported any thing more than was before practised.-Lord Grenville answered, that the only reason for renewing them was, lest the present instruction, being a revocation of that of the 6th of November, might also be deemed to revoke these articles, which were connected with it.-His lordship then explained the motives which had induced this government to issue the present instruction-→→→ The first, he said, was the sincere desire of administration to maintain the best understanding and harmony with the United States-The second was, what he could not mention to me officially, but what he still thought it right I should be apprized of, that no misconception of their motives might be entertained; that he was aware of the delicacy of speaking to a foreign minister concerning the internal state of his country, neither could he expect an answer from me on the subject; but that their second reason was, by this conduct, to take away every pretext, from evil disposed persons among us, who, according to the intelligence he had received, were endeavouring to irritate our people against Great Britain, as well as to oppose the measures of our own government, and, in short, to reduce us to the present situation of France; a misfortune which they deprecated, as well for our sakes, as for the common welfare and tranquillity of mankind-He farther took occasion to observe, with respect to the conduct of our government in maintaining our neutrality, that, although there were some matters with which this govern

ment was not perfectly satisfied (and to which, for the same reason, they refrained from giving that opposition they thought they would be justified in doing) yet from the general tenour of the conduct of our government, they were convinced was their desire to maintain a fair neutrality, which was an additional motive for their present conduct.—I, of course, said nothing of our internal affairs, nor of those of France. I assured him, however, that our government had been perfectly sincere in every measure relating to our neutrality; that they adopted it from a conviction that it was both just and politick, and had pursued it according to what they conceived to be just principles, knowing that such conduct could entitle us to the benefits to be derived from a neutral situation. I concluded, by asking what explanation could be given of what was passed in this business; and of the effect of the instruction of the 6th of May upon such vessels as might, during the two months it had been in force, have fallen into the hands of their cruisers? Lord Grenville answered, that the order of the 6th November was intended to be temporary, and calculated to answer two purposes; one was to prevent the abuses which might take place, in consequence of the whole of the St. Domingo fleet having gone to the United States; the other was on account of the attack designed upon the French West-India islands, by the armament under Sir John Jervis and Sir Charles Grey; but that it was now no longer necessary to continue that regulation for those purposes-He added, that the instruction of the 6th of November only authorized the vessels to be brought in for legal adjudication: And upon being told, that notwithstanding such were the terms made use of, yet that the officers who would have to act under it must conceive it to extend to condemnation, because, otherwise, the order was unnecessary, as, without it, they had been authorized to bring to adjudication all such vessels as they previously deemed liable to condemnation: He replied, that the case of every vessel must be decided by its own merits; but that he conceived no vessel would be condemned under that instruction, which would not have been previously liable to the same sentence. I informed Lord Grenville, that I should communicate this instrument to you by the packet. He said he should likewise forward it by the same conveyance, and at the same time, would send an answer to my memorial on the king's instruction of the 8th of June, to be communicated to you by Mr. Hammond. I remain, dear sir, &c.

To the Secretary of State.

THOMAS PINCKNEY.

Supposed for November.

Instructions to the commanders of our ships of war and privateers that have or may have letters of marque George R. against France. Given at our Court at Saint James's, the 8th day of January, 1794.

.WHEREAS by our former instruction to the commanders of our ships of war and of privateers, dated the sixth day of November, 1793, we signified that they should stop and detain all ships laden with goods the produce of any colony belonging to France, or carrying provisions or other supplies for the use of any such colony, and should bring the same with their cargoes to legal adjudication, we are pleased to revoke the said in. struction, and in lieu thereof, we have thought fit to issue these our instructions to be duly observed by the commanders of all our ships of war and privateers that have or may have letters of marque against France.

1. That they shall bring in for lawful adjudication all vessels with their cargoes, that are laden with goods, the produce of the French West-India islands, and coming directly from any port of the said islands to any port in Europe.

2. That they shall bring in for lawful adjudication, all ships with their cargoes, that are laden with goods, the produce of the said islands, the property of which goods shall belong to subjects of France, to whatsoever ports the same may be bound.

3. That they shall seize all ships that shall be found attempting to enter any port of the said islands that is or shall be blockaded by the arms of his majesty or his allies, and shall send them in with their cargoes, for adjudication, according to the terms of the second article of the former instructions, bearing date the 8th day of June, 1793.

4. That they shall seize all vessels laden wholly or in part with naval or military stores bound to any port of the said islands, and shall send them into some convenient port belonging to his majesty, in order that they, together with their cargoes, may be proceeded against according to the rules of nations.

The foregoing consisting of three letters, viz. one of 26th December, 1793, one of 2d and the other of the 9th of January, 1794, with their enclosures, from Mr. Pinckney, Minister of the United States at London, are truly copied from the originals on file in the office of the department of state. GEORGE TAYLOR, JR. Chief Clerk.

TRANSLATION.

Jh. Fauchet, Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republick, to Mr. Randolph, Secretary of State of the United States. Philadelphia, the 7 Germinal, 2d year of the French Republick, one and indivisible.

As you are about to lay before the President a statement of the claims relative to the vexations and spoliations which your commerce has experienced, you will doubtless receive with pleasure some eclaircissements on the complaints, well or ill founded, which have been brought against privateers and two ships of war of the French Republick. You will not observe with less pleasure in my reply, that the National Convention has already done justice to some of the demands of the merchants of the United States, and are now occupied in satisfying some others.

In the list of complaints against the Republick of France, the complainants urge that the French privateers do not less harass your commerce than those of the English.

To this assertion I answer by two observations which I submit to your impartiality.

1. It is now some time since any more privateers have sailed out of the ports of France, and the number of those which have been armed in our islands is not to be compared with those pirates which the islands of Bermuda alone send forth.

2. If any of your merchants have suffered any injury by the conduct of our privateers, (a thing which would be contrary to the intention and express orders of the Republick) they may, with confidence, address themselves to the French government, which will never refuse justice to those whose claims shall be legal.

I feel a pleasure in thinking, and saying to you, that it is not the fault of the French, if commercial property, even of enemy-nations, has not been respected amidst the horrours of

war.

This proposition of natural right was made by one of our legislative assemblies to the British, who rejected it.

2dly. It is imputed to two of our ships of war that they have committed enormities on your vessels.

Should the fact be proved, the captains of those two vessels are as culpable towards France, as they are towards the United States, for having acted in a manner contrary to the instructions they have received: The government, upon information of the crime, will most certainly punish the authors of it. It would be unjust to accuse a nation generally for the act of some individuals, when that nation disavows their conduct, and repairs the wrongs which they have committed.

Sd. Certain acts of oppression in the courts of Admiralty are complained of.

The oppressive acts of the admiralty courts need no longer be complained of, since, on the claims of merchants of the United States, the Convention on the 8th November last passed a decree giving to the executive council the power of judging of the vali. dity or invalidity of prizes. It is as follows:

"The National Convention, after having heard the report of the committee of publick safety, decrees that all disputes arisen, or which may arise, on the validity or invalidity of prizes made by privateers, shall be decided, by way of administration, by the provisory executive council. The decree of the 14th Feb. (O. S.) attributing the judgment of these matters to the commercial tribunals is repealed."

Copy agreeable to the original,

JH. FAUCHET.

The 4th allegation would require a long discussion, which I shall not undertake here; I shall only indulge myself in this single reflection, that the horrible system of violating the law of nations, in order to starve a people who cannot be conquered by force of arms, has not been invented by France, and that it would be as unjust as barbarous to require that she should allow provisions to pass to her enemies, while those destined for her are taken by them.

As to the embargo on American vessels, imperious circumstances, the salvation of the country, have imposed that measure; but the interests of no one will be injured; and to convince you of this, I recite an extract of a letter which I have just received from Citizen Tallien, representative of the people at Bordeaux.

It is possible, he writes me, "That some malevolent persons may make use of this pretext (the embargo) to disturb the harmony existing between the Americans and us, or might represent this measure as a violation of treaties between the two. nations: The interests of individuals may for a moment cause the general interest to disappear. It is then to you, brave republican and the true friend of your country, that we must consign the care of defending it to Congress (should the measure happen to be there calumniated)-say to our brethren that it is the intention of the committee of publick safety, the actual centre of the French government, to indemnify all the owners or captains, who by the operation of the embargo have been obliged to remain a length of time in France, and that the propositions, which soon will be made to them in the name of the committee, will be advantageous to both nations. In short, my friend, use every means of a frank republican negotiator, to convince our brethren the Americans, that, when occupied concerning the aggregate interests of the nation, we do not forget theirs, and they may be assured that they will always find in us faithful observers of the treaties, made with nations worthy of liberty."

The fifth and last allegation is, that a contract, the payment of which having been stipulated in cash, has been made in assignats;