1. JT to JJ, 7 Sept. 1796, above.

2. On the spoliation claims commission in London, see the editorial note “Aftermath of the Jay Treaty: Responses, Ratification, and Implementation,” above. On the challenges made in Britain to the jurisdiction of the claims commission, see Moore, International Arbitrations description begins John Basset Moore, ed., History and digest of the international arbitrations to which the United States has been a party: together with appendices containing the treaties relating to such arbitrations, and historical and legal notes on other international arbitrations ancient and modern, and on the domestic commissions of the United States for the adjustment of international claims (6 vols.; Washington, D.C., 1898) description ends , 1: 324–29. The arguments arose during deliberations on the case of the Ship Betsey, Captain Furlong. The British agent before the commission, Nathaniel Gostling, argued that the commissioners could not overrule the decisions of the British High Court of Appeals; and that it had no jurisdiction over cases that were still pending before the appeals court, or over cases that had not been appealed to the courts, since in those instances remedy could be had in the normal course of law. Such rules would have eliminated virtually all cases coming before them. The American commissioners contended that decisions of the Court of Appeals could not be considered final if they were based on orders in council that violated the law of nations. When JT as fifth commissioner agreed with the two American commissioners, the two British commissioners withdrew, thus bringing the proceedings to a halt.

On 16 Dec., RK discussed the stalemate with Grenville, who feared great opposition in Britain to overturning decisions made by the Court of Appeals. RK contended the commission could not overturn the court decisions and restore prizes but could authorize compensation, payable by the British government. Grenville referred him to the Lord Chancellor Loughborough who had participated in the treaty negotiations. Loughborough criticized statements made by American claims agent Samuel Bayard that the court decisions were illegal and unjust, but also declared Gostling’s general demurrers of jurisdiction “absurd”, and recommended both take their statements back. On 26 Dec., RK, Pinckney, Gore, and JT met with Loughborough, who declared court decisions were final but compensation could be sought; that in cases where ships were restored but compensation for freight and damages was not awarded, claimants could seek compensation through the commission; and that when appeal was not made to the courts before a set deadline for justifiable reasons, such cases too could be appealed to the commission. The commission could thus review court procedures; it could not reverse court decisions, but could redress injustices by awarding compensation. Loughborough also stated that in future the commissioners could decide whether cases were within their competency.

In January 1797, Grenville told RK that he had informed the British commissioners “that they should proceed in examining and deciding every question that should be brought before them, according to the conviction of their Consciences” in doing which they would examine cases already decided, and award on them and on all others, according to the Provisions of the Treaty which it would likewise be their “duty to consider and interpret.” The commission then reassembled and began to make awards in April 1797. PAH description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (27 vols.; New York, 1961–87) description ends , 20: 506, note 3.

3. HMS Pegasus, a twenty-eight gun frigate, commanded by Capt. Ross Donnelly.