To John Jay from Grenville, 1 August 1794
From Grenville
[Downing Street 1st. August 1794.]
The Undersigned Secretary of State has had the honour to lay before the King the Ministerial note which he has received from Mr. Jay, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America, respecting the alleged irregularity of the capture and condemnation of several American Vessels, and also respecting the circumstances of personal severity by which those proceedings are stated to have been accompanied in some particular instances.1
The undersigned is authorized to assure Mr. Jay, that it is His Majesty’s Wish that the most complete and impartial justice should be done to all the Citizens of America, who may in fact have been injured by any of the proceedings above-mentioned. All experience shews that a Naval War extending over the four Quarters of the Globe must unavoidably be productive of some inconveniences to the Commerce of Neutral Nations, and that no care can prevent some irregularities in the course of those proceedings which are universally recognized as resulting from the just rights incident to all Belligerent Powers.2 But the King will always be desirous that these inconveniences and irregularities should be so much limited as the nature of the case will admit, and that the fullest opportunity should be given to all to prefer their complaints, and to obtain redress and compensation where they are due.
In Mr. Jay’s Note, mention is made of several Cases where the Parties have hitherto omitted to prefer their claims, and of others where no appeals have been made from the sentences of condemnation pronounced in the first instance.
As to the cases of the first description, Lord Grenville apprehends that the regular course of Law is still open to the Claimants; and that by preferring appeals to the Commissrs. of Prize Causes here against the sentence of the Courts below the whole merits of those cases may be brought forward, and the most complete justice obtained.3
In the cases of the second description the proceeding might in some instances be more difficult from the lapse of the time usually allotted for preferring appeals. But His Majesty being anxious that no temporary or local circumstances, such as those to which Mr. Jay refers in His Note should impede the course of substantial justice has been pleased to refer it to the Proper Officers to consider of a Mode of enlarging the time for receiving the appeals in those cases,4 in order to admit the claimants to bring Their complaints before the regular Court appointed for that purpose.
The Undersigned has no doubt that in this manner a very considerable part of the injuries alledged to have been suffered by the Americans may, if the complaints are well founded, be redressed in the usual course of judicial proceeding, at a very small expense to the Parties, and without any other interposition of His Majesty’s Government than is above stated. Until the result and effect of these proceedings shall be known, no definitive judgment can be formed respecting the nature and extent of those cases (if any such shall ultimately be found to exist) where it shall not have been practicable to obtain substantial redress in this mode. But he does not hesitate to say beforehand that, if cases shall then be found to exist to such an extent as properly to call for the interposition of Government, where, without the fault of the Parties complaining, they shall be unable, from whatever circumstances, to procure such redress in the ordinary course of Law, as the justice of their cases may entitle them to expect, His Majesty will be anxious that justice should at all events be done, and will readily enter into the discussion of the measures to be adopted, and the principles to be established for that purpose.5
With respect to all Acts of personal severity and violence, as the King must entirely disapprove every such transaction, so His Majesty’s Courts are always open for the punishment of offences of this nature, and for giving redress to the sufferers in every case where the fact can be established by satisfactory proof, nor does it appear that any Case of that nature can exist, where there would be the smallest difficulty of obtaining in that mode substantial and exemplary justice.
On the Subject of the Impress, Lord Grenville has only to assure Mr. Jay, that if in any instance American Seamen have been impressed into The King’s Service, it has been contrary to the King’s desire, tho’ such cases may have occasionally arisen from the difficulty of discriminating between British and American Seamen, especially where there so often exists an interest and intention to deceive. Whenever any representation has been made to Lord Grenville on this subject, he has never failed to receive His Majesty’s Commands for putting it in a proper course, in order that the facts might be enquired into and ascertained; and to the intent that the Persons in question might be released, if the facts appeared to be satisfactorily established.
With respect to the desire expressed by Mr. Jay, that new orders might be given with a view to prevent, as far as it is possible, the giving any just ground of complaint on this head, Lord Grenville has no reason to doubt that His Majesty’s intentions respecting this point are already sufficiently understood by His majesty’s Officers employed on that service, but he has nevertheless obtained His Majesty’s Permission to assure Mr. Jay, that Instructions to the effect desired will be renewed in consequence of His application.6
The Undersigned avails himself with pleasure of this opportunity to renew to Mr. Jay his assurances of his sincere Esteem and Consideration.7
Grenville
ALS, NHi: Jay (EJ: 04466). C, enclosed in JJ to ER, 2 Aug. 1794, LS (EJ: 04286); C, DNA:Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 02667); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04433); C, in Spanish, SpMaAHN (EJ: 04065); C, UK-KeNA: FO 95/512 (EJ: 04986); LbkC, in JJ to ER, 2 Aug. 1794, NNC: JJ Lbk. 8; , 4: 41–44.
1. See JJ to Grenville, 30 July 1794, above.
2. For a similar articulation of Britain’s position by Hammond, see the editorial note “The Jay Treaty: Appointment and Instructions,” , 5: 609–21.
3. The prize courts established by the British military commander, Lieutenant General Charles Grey, in the West Indies were unauthorized and later disavowed by the British government. See 431–34.
4. On the limited time allowed to make an appeal and on the securities captains were required to post, see ibid., 432, 435, 436.
5. An order from the king and council of 6 Aug. 1794 extended the time allotted for appealing sentences of condemnation. See JJ to ER, 9 Aug. 1794, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04303); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04435); and ASP: FR, 1: 482, in which he enclosed a copy of the order. It was published in Oracle of the Day (Portsmouth), 18 Oct.; Hartford Gazette, 20 Oct., Connecticut Journal (New Haven), 22 Oct.; United States Chronicle (Providence), 23 Oct.; and Greenfield Gazette, on 30 Oct. 1794.
The American claims were finally settled only after the commission established under Art. 7 of the Jay Treaty concluded its work in 1804. Total awards to Americans amounted to $10,345,200. See , 441. On the very complicated settlement of these cases and on the degree to which the British government took responsibility for settling the American claims and compensating both captors and claimants, see ER to JJ, 6 May 1794, , 5: 636–47, especially 645n17, and 437–51.
6. On the suggestion by Gouverneur Morris that American seamen be given identification papers, on its rejection by TJ, and on discussions about an alternative, see 529–36. On the matter of impressments, and the order restraining them, see JJ to Grenville, 30 July 1794, above.
7. The above document was printed in Philadelphia Gazette, 20 Oct.; Dunlap and Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), 21 Oct.; Columbian Gazetteer and Gazette for the Country (both New York), 23 Oct.; Greenleaf’s New York Journal, 25 Oct.; Connecticut Courant and American Mercury (both Hartford), 27 Oct.; Albany Register, 27 Oct.; New-Jersey State Gazette (Trenton), 29 Oct.; Connecticut Journal (New Haven), 29 Oct.; Federal Orrery (Boston), 30 Oct.; Massachusetts Mercury (Boston), 31 Oct.; Catskill Packet, 1 Nov.; Oracle of the Day (Portsmouth), 1 Nov.; Middlesex Gazette (Middletown, Conn.), 1 Nov.; Eastern Herald (Portland), 3 Nov. 1794. It appeared along with JJ’s representation of 30 July in the London papers in December: Sun and True Briton, both 9 Dec.; Courier and Evening Gazette, Morning Chronicle, Morning Post and Fashionable World, Oracle and Public Advertiser, and Star, all 10 Dec.; and General Evening Post, London Chronicle, St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post, all 9–11 Dec. 1794.
A commentator writing in General Advertiser (Philadelphia), 25 Oct., reprinted in United States Chronicle (Providence), on 6 Nov., described JJ’s representation to Grenville as “spirited and manly,” but with no hint of “servility or fear, or a disposition to crouch to the imperious pride” of the British. The piece characterized Grenville’s answer as “evasive and circumlocutory”, the “common style of Courts,” and “calculated to give us very little satisfaction. “A.” writing in Greenleaf’s New York Journal, 29 Oct. 1794, declared that JJ’s representation evinced “gross adulation and submission,” and asserted that, though “cunning, Jay had in this instance certainly been outwitted,” and that Grenville had, by granting a “shadow or something worse,” guaranteed that Britain would never be “called upon for the substance.” A vastly inflated account of JJ’s achievements to date, claiming that JJ and Grenville had settled “the preliminaries of an honourable negotiation,” and that British vessels had received orders “not to molest American vessels,” appeared in the Massachusetts Spy (Worcester), on 15 Oct. 1794. For JJ’s assessment of progress in the negotiations, see JJ to GW (private), 5 Aug. 1794, below.