From John Jay to Grenville, 30 July 1794
To Grenville
[London 30th. July 1794—]
The undersigned envoy of the united States of America has the honor of representing to the Right Honorable Lord Grenville his britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Department of foreign affairs.1
That a very considerable number of american vessels have been irregularly captured, and as improperly condemned by certain of His Majesty’s officers and Judges.
That in various Instances, these captures & condemnations were so conducted, and the captured placed under such unfavorable circumstances, as that, for want of the Securities required, and other obstacles, no appeals were made in some Cases, nor any Claims in others.
The undersigned presumes that these Facts will appear from the Documents which he has had the honor of submitting to his Lordship’s Consideration; and that it will not be deemed necessary at present, to particularize these cases and their merits, or detail the Circumstances which discriminate some from others.2
The great and extensive injuries having thus, under color of His Majesty’s Authority and Commissions, been done to a numerous class of American merchants, the united States can for Reparation have Recourse only to the Justice Authority and Interposition of his Majesty.
That the Vessels and Property taken and condemned, have been chiefly sold, and the Proceeds divided among a great number of Persons; of whom some are dead—some unable to make Retribution—and others, from frequent Removals and their particular Circumstances, not easily reached by civil Process.
That as, for these Losses and Injuries, adequate compensation by means of judicial Proceedings, has become impracticable, and considering the causes which combined to produce them, the united States confide in his majesty’s Justice and magnanimity to cause such Compensation to be made to these innocent Sufferers as may be consistent with equity; and the undersigned flatters himself that such Principles may without difficulty be adopted, as will serve as Rules whereby to ascertain the Cases and the Amount of Compensation.
So grievous are the Expenses and Delays attending litigated Suits, to Persons whose Fortunes have been so materially affected and so great is the Distance of Great Britain from America, that the undersigned thinks he ought to express his anxiety, that a mode of Proceeding as summary and little expensive may be devised, as Circumstances and the peculiar Hardship of these Cases may appear to permit and require.
And as (at least in some of these Cases) it may be expedient and necessary as well as just, that the Sentences of the Courts of Vice admiralty should be revised and corrected by the Court of appeals here, the undersigned hopes it will appear reasonable to his majesty to order, that the captured in question, who have not already so done, be there admitted to enter both their appeals and their claims.3
The undersigned also finds it to be his Duty to represent that the Irregularities before mentioned, extended not only to the Capture and Condemnation of american Vessels and Property, and to unusual personal Severities, but even to the Impressment of american Citizens to serve on board of armed Vessels. He forbears to dwell on the injuries done to these unfortunate Individuals, or on the emotions which they must naturally excite, either in the Breast of the nation to whom they belong, or of the just and humane of every Country. His Reliance on the Justice and Benevolence of his Majesty, leads him to endulge a pleasing Expectation that orders will be given, that Americans so circumstanced be immediately liberated, and that Persons honored with his Majesty’s Commissions, do in future abstain from similar Violences—4
It is with cordial Satisfaction that the undersigned reflects on the Impressions which such equitable and conciliatory measures would make on the minds of the United States; and how naturally they would inspire and cherish those Sentiments & Dispositions, which never fail to preserve, as well as to produce, Respect Esteem and Friendship—5
John Jay
ADS, UK-KeNA: FO 95/512 (EJ: 04984). Dft, originally dated 27 July and redated 30 July 1794, NHi: Jay (EJ: 00631); Dft, enclosed in JJ to Grenville, 27 July 1794, and endorsed as received on 28 July 1794, UK-KeNA: FO 95/512 (EJ: 04980); C, unknown repository, formerly PRO (EJ: 03990); C, in JJ’s hand, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04284); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04432); C, in Spanish, SpMaAHN (EJ: 04064); LbkC, in JJ to ER, 2 Aug. 1794, NNC:JJ Lbk. 8; , 4: 38–41.
1. JJ sent Grenville a draft of this representation on 27 July, noting that “The Subject as relative to both the Governments is delicate—” The Dft text does not vary from the above. JJ to Grenville, 27 July 1794, UK-KeNA: FO 95/512 (EJ: 04980).
2. On 28 July 1794, JJ submitted to Grenville a “General Statement by Captains of Vessels seized at Martinique,” signed on 29 Apr. by 40 American shipowners, masters, and consignees stating that all had been seized in February and condemned under one “indistinguishable sentence,” as “Bad Men supplying the wants of Bad Men, in a Bad Cause.” The list names the ship, its port of origin, and the signators. It was probably the list JJ received from ER on 14 July. See D, UK-KeNA (EJ: 04982); JJ to ER, 6–8 July, above. A copy of the document can also be found in the Earl Grey Papers, 382c, UkDhU. See 431n18.
3. For JJ’s instructions to press the British government to assume responsibility for compensating American shippers because of the irregular court proceedings in the West Indies, see the editorial note “The Jay Treaty: Appointment and Instructions,” , 5: 609–21, and ER to JJ, 6 May 1794, , 5: 636–47. On the British government’s disavowal of the court erected by Charles Grey, commander of the British armed forces, on his own authority; on the refusal of the American captains to pay the security demanded; and on their resultant failure to appeal verdicts against them within the specified time, see 431–35.
4. The British had previously impressed American seamen during the Anglo-French crisis in 1787 and Nootka Sound controversy in 1790. Impressment first surfaced as an issue in the present war when the combined British military and naval expedition reached the West Indies at the end of 1793 (on which see the editorial note “The Jay Treaty: Appointment and Instructions,” , 5: 609–21), and again in May 1794, when the governor of Rhode Island removed 6 American seamen from the British sloop Nautilus at Newport, and temporarily detained its commanding officers. Hammond complained about the latter incident in his letter to ER of 22 May, on which see JJ to ER, 6–8 July 1794, above; and , 16: 377. For the requirement that British ships and officers be hospitably received in American ports, see Art. 22 of JJ’s Project for a Treaty with Great Britain, 30 Sept. 1794, below.
Since TJ had previously instructed Pinckney to discuss impressment with Grenville, ER did not charge JJ to do so in his instructions of 6 May. JJ raised it here on his own initiative, and apparently obtained from Grenville an order restraining impressments that was published in an unidentified British gazette on 6 Sept. 1794, a copy of which JJ enclosed in his letter to ER of 13 Sept. 1794, below. Nevertheless, JJ’s efforts, like Pinckney’s before and after, failed to persuade Britain to abandon a practice it considered essential to its ability to station a naval force in the West Indies, and to increase its force from 16,000 sailors by tens of thousands more, especially since it considered the practice an extension of its right to search vessels for enemy goods and thus defensible under the law of nations. For his disappointment that Grenville did not prohibit impressment in his draft proposal, see JJ’s Objections to Grenville’s Draft Treaty Proposals of 30 Aug., [6 Sept. 1794], below. On Pinckney’s efforts to address this intractable issue, see Samuel F. Bemis, “The London Mission of Thomas Pinckney, 1792–1796,” American Historical Review 28 (Jan. 1923): 233–41; Denver Brunsman, “Subjects vs. Citizens: Impressment and Identity in the Anglo-American Atlantic,” Journal of the Early Republic 30 (Winter 2010): 564–66, 571–72; and 523–41.
5. For his reply, see Grenville to JJ, 1 Aug. 1794, below, which JJ transmitted, along with his representation, under cover of JJ to ER, 2 Aug. 1794, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04286); C, King: NHi (EJ: 04431), all of which, along with the Order in Council of 6 Aug. 1794, JJ subsequently advised should be published. See JJ to ER, 23 Aug. 1794, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches (EJ: 04308); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04439); ASP: FR, 1: 484. For other reports on the negotiations, see JJ to ER, 31 July 1794, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04289); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04430); and JJ to ER, 8 Aug. 1794, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04288); JJ to ER, 9 Aug. 1794, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04303); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04435); and ASP: FR, 1: 480–82, receipt of which was acknowledged in ER to JJ, 11 Oct. In a postscript to that letter, dated 18 Oct., ER announced that he would immediately publish the communications as recommended in JJ’s letter of 23 Aug., in which JJ had also suggested that agents should be appointed to manage the claims and appeals of American merchants and shippers. Subsequently, however, he decided not to publish JJ to ER, 2 Aug., because it might be considered a means of preparing the public “for yieldings and sacrifices,” because nothing was said of the posts, and, since he had read it to those who “alone” were interested, he and JJ would be “more the masters of the whole matter at its winding up.” In a subsequent letter, ER announced that, after consultation with the merchants, Samuel Bayard would soon depart for London to execute this function and that, although reluctant because they believed the government should accept primary responsibility for procuring redress, the merchants had agreed to form a committee to act in concert with ER. In a second postscript to his letter of 11 Oct., dated 19 Oct., ER indicated that five merchants would constitute the committee, to be chaired by Thomas Fitzsimons. See ER to JJ, 11, 13, 18, and 19 Oct. 1794, LS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04326); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04457); 20 Oct. 1794, LS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04327); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04458); C, NHi: Jay (EJ: 00610); and 29 Oct. 1794, LS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04328); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04459); C, NHi: Jay (EJ: 00612); ASP: FR, 1: 498–500. See also JJ to ER, 21 Aug. 1794, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04307); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04440).
JJ’s representation to Grenville appeared, sometimes in conjunction with Grenville’s reply, in the Daily Advertiser (New York), 23 Oct.; Baltimore Daily Intelligencer, 24 Oct.; Delaware Gazette (Wilmington), 25 Oct.; Washington Spy (Elizabethtown, Md.), 28 Oct.; New-Jersey State Gazette (Trenton), 29 Oct.; American Apollo (Boston), 30 Oct.; Massachusetts Mercury (Boston), 31 Oct.; Impartial Herald (Newburyport), 31 Oct.; Catskill Packet (New York), 1 Nov.; Oracle of the Day (Portsmouth), 1 Nov. 1794. Both appeared in the London press through mid-December: The Sun, 9 Dec.; True Briton, 9 Dec.; Courier and Evening Gazette, 10 Dec.; Morning Chronicle, 10 Dec.; Morning Post and Fashionable World, 10 Dec.; Oracle and Public Advertiser, 10 Dec.; Star, 10 Dec.; General Evening Post, 9–11 Dec.; London Chronicle, 9–11 Dec.; St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post, 9–11 Dec. 1794.
In a letter of 30 July 1794, JJ had informed ER that he believed British military setbacks in the Flanders campaign had prevented the cabinet from giving more attention to American affairs. He reported further that Grenville was “besieged by our British creditors,” and that he had heard that Virginia had passed new legislation making it more difficult for their claims to be satisfied. Having read all of ER’s correspondence with Hammond, JJ praised him for handling the situation well and advised him to continue to be temperate. He also noted that he was to meet with Grenville on 31 July, and notified ER in a letter of that day that the meeting had occurred and that Grenville had promised him a written response the next day. See JJ to ER, 30 July 1794, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04282); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04428); 31 July 1794, ALS, DNA: Jay Despatches, 1794–95 (EJ: 04289); C, NHi: King (EJ: 04430); ASP: FR, 1: 480–81. These letters were probably sent under cover of JJ to GW (private), 5 Aug. 1794, below.