To James Madison from George W. Erving, 17 March 1807
From George W. Erving
Madrid 17 March 1807
Sir
The foregoing is triplicate of my letter dated 14th Instt, & herewith I enclose another Copy of the decree therein referred to: Tho this was transmitted to the commanders of districts governors &c on the 19 Feby, it was not made publick at the ports till the 5th of March, & it was communicated by circular letter to the foreign ministers on the 13th Instt; the same day of its publication in the Madrid Gazette. The adoption of the Imperial blockade decree was one of the important objects with which Mr Beauharnois was charged on his mission to this court, & since his arrival he has not ceased to urge the measure. It is beleived that he was at first told that the leading principles of the decree had in effect been for a long time past acted on here; but it appears that this has not been satisfactory to the Emperor. The prelude to the decree as published in the Gazette, & as transmitted to the foreign ministers; in the form of a compliment to the Ambassador, seems intended to Shew, that it is not altogether a voluntary proceeding; yet as is said, the Ambassador himself has given motive to the insertion of it, by indirectly complaining that he has not been treated with due consideration, that even his arrival & presentation have not been announced; thus after three months delay, this mode is taken to satisfy him.
Immediately on receiving the decree from Cadiz I addressed a note to the Prince admiral of which the inclosed is a copy;1 & I propose to reply to the circular note from Mr. Cevallos of which also a copy is herewith transmitted in the same sense;2 hoping that this course, in consideration of the actual state of our affairs here, as displayed in the correspondencies Submitted to you, will meet with the Presidents approbation.
Seeing that before the adoption of this measure no disposition has been shewn by the tribunals to respect the 15th Article of the treaty,3 & no satisfactory answers given by the government to the various reclamations under it which it has been my duty to make, you will not probably expect any modification in practice, favorable to the United States, of the principles now declared: Whatever replies I may receive from the Prince or from Mr. Cevallos I shall lose no time in transmitting to you.
Tho the French decree may probably in its Operation upon neutral Commerce be a very inoffensive instrument, in the hands of that dextrous government, or of a government well affected towards neutral rights; yet even that decree Executed here must from a variety of causes become very destructive. But you will observe Sir also that the Spanish government in the adoption of the French Measure, tho it falls short in some points, has gone very much beyond it in others, & is much more explicit in its encr[o]achment on neutral rights. The French decree declares the British ports to be in a state of blockade; but from its own just definition of a blockade, this declaration may become perfectly innocent: The Spanish decree without pretending to blockade England, declares all goods on board neutral Vessels bound to its ports wherever they may be found on the Seas to be good prize: The french decree prohibits all intercourse with England, ships coming from thence shall not be received in the ports of France &c &c. But the Spanish decree without warning confiscates all british property on board neutral Vessels, bound & consigned to Spain: The general & great Object of the French decree seems to be to prejudice England as much as possible without declaring any hostility to neutrals; wheras the Spanish decree is levelled directly at neutrals, & with respect to some essential points bears as little upon England as possible: Thus you will observe Sir that tho’ the law promulgated by the Emperor is adopted in general terms, there is no specifick & express confiscation of English property within the Spanish dominions; yet it is not to be doubted, but that a great quantity of such property actually Exists.
My letter of Feby 8th (No 23) inclosed a continuation of my correspondence with Mr Cevallos upon the late proceedings of the prize tribunals; from which, & what was before transmitted I presume Sir You will have concluded that the Kings order (so often referred to) directing his tribunals to conform their decisions to the Existing treaty was intended to Satisfy in form our just complaints, but that in fact it must have been accompanied by other instructions authorizing the condemnation of British property on board neutral Vessels; that the tribunals coud not otherwise have dared so boldly & unequivocally to have violated the order; & twice in the course of conversation with the Prince of Peace on these subjects, he has intimated that this government coud not continue to respect Enemies property under our flag: it is therefore that I apprehend our commerce will not be Exempted from the Operation of the measure now taken. The other Copies herewith inclosed are (No 1) my note to Mr Cevallos of Feby 11th upon Quarantine4 (No. 4) his note of Feb[r]uary 25th5 & (No 6) Mr de Beauharnois note of March 5th upon the “Cyrus” & “Sibae”;6 being in continuation of subjects mentioned in my letter No 23 above referred to: My note to Mr Cevallos (No 2) of Feby 24th upon the case of the Jane Brogdon Mr.7 My note of March 4 (No 5) upon the case of the “Abeona”8—& another of March 13 (No 7) respecting the Commerce Bernard Mr & Eliza Norton Mr.9
I take this occasion of transmitting to you also an order which has been lately issued for the March into France of 10,000 Infantry & 4000 Cavalry including the troops actually in Italy.10
A Considerable body of the Prussian prisoners, who were sent by the French government to serve in this Country, having reached the frontier near Irun, & having learnt their destination, absolutely refuse to come further; a part of them have dispersed themselves about that country; & as to those who remain, the Spanish government is determined not to make use of any compulsory measures, but to receive them only as volunteers.
To support the Expences of the Expedition to France, to supply the other urgencies of the state, which are very great, & above all to put the navy on a respectable footing, which it is the Admirals intention to do if possible; sale is to be made of an immense quantity of church property, & that of some public charities; for which purpose an ample bull has been obtained from the pope. I have not yet been able to learn the details of this plan, but the government calculate very confidently on procuring by these means ample supplies for all their purposes.
The Constitution of the Admiraltazgo is too large to be inclosed with this letter, but I will transmit it (original & duplicate) under a seperate Cover.11 With the most perfect respect & Consideration I have the honor to be Sir Your very obt St
George W Erving
No 3. of the Copies is Mr Cevallos’s Answer to No 2.12
RC and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, DD, Spain, vol. 10). RC in a clerk’s hand, signed by Erving; docketed by Brent. For enclosures, see nn. 1–2, 4–10, 12.
1. The enclosure, marked “No. 8,” is a copy of Erving to Godoy, 13 Mar. 1807 (2 pp.). Erving expressed concern that because inferior tribunals had already shown “but little respect” to Spain’s treaty obligations with the United States, these tribunals would likely interpret Godoy’s 19 February 1807 instructions adversely to U.S. interests. Erving asked Godoy to provide “suitable instructions” to prevent “any similar misapplication” of Godoy’s order.
2. The enclosure, marked “No. 9,” is a copy of Cevallos to foreign ministers in Spain, 13 Mar. 1807 (1 p.; in Spanish). Cevallos enclosed the 19 February decree and advised that Napoleon’s Berlin Decree would be observed in all parts of the Spanish empire.
3. For the fifteenth article of the 1795 U.S. treaty with Spain, see Miller, Treaties, 2:328–30.
4. Enclosure No. 1 is a copy of Erving to Cevallos, 11 Feb. 1807 (2 pp.). Erving acknowledged receipt of an order reinstating Spain’s quarantine on vessels cleared from the United States based on the assumption that two men who were sick on board the Morning Star carried yellow fever. Erving disputed this assumption, claiming that it was a misinterpretation. He stated that the two men referenced had been questioned for eight minutes by a Spanish physician sitting in a boat thirty yards from the ship in a wind “blowing very fresh,” using the aid of an interpreter “who understands but very imperfectly the American language.” Erving suggested that the sick men probably suffered from colds or “Rheumatisms” from exposure to bad weather during the winter crossing from Barnstable since their complaints were “very general.” Erving reminded Cevallos that the quarantine would “be in the highest degree unfavorable to the Commerce between the United States & Spain.”
5. Enclosure No. 4 is a copy of Cevallos to Erving, 25 Feb. 1807 (2 pp.; in Spanish). Cevallos responded to Erving’s inquiries about the American vessel Cyrus captured by the French privateer Serpiente and brought to Alicante. According to Cevallos, the Serpiente had also recently captured the American vessel Sibae and brought it to Alicante. Spanish courts had declared that the Serpiente had violated Spanish territory when capturing the Sibae, making it an unlawful prize. In contrast, he claimed that the Serpiente had captured the Cyrus on the high seas and assured Erving that if the facts had proven contrary, Spanish magistrates would have judged its case the same way they had the Sibae. Cevallos advised that if the owners felt aggrieved in the discharge of the vessel, they could “use the legal remedy of appeal.”
6. Enclosure No. 6 is a copy of François de Beauharnais to Erving, 5 Mar. 1807 (2 pp.; in French). Beauharnais informed Erving of the receipt of a report from the French agent at Alicante about the detention of the Cyrus and Sibae. The report stated that the Cyrus had been detained because it carried a cargo of fish from English fisheries. The captor had determined to release the ship, but the agent insisted that the decision rested with the Council of Prizes. The report further stated that the Sibae had been detained under the Berlin Decree for sailing from Gibraltar with a partial cargo of English goods. Under the circumstances, Beauharnais claimed that the authority to determine the validity of the captures rested with the Council of Prizes and not with him, the French agent at Alicante, or the Spanish authority there. Beauharnais promised to let Erving know as soon as further information became available.
7. Enclosure No. 2 is a copy of Erving to Cevallos, 24 Feb. 1807 (3 pp.). Erving complained that the American vessel Jane had been captured and taken to Algeciras on the claim that it lacked a certificate from the Spanish consul at New York certifying that its cargo consisted of American goods. While Erving felt confident that the vessel would be discharged after a fair investigation, he worried that some of the corsairs would perjure themselves and tamper with witnesses to procure the condemnation, and he called on the Spanish Crown to intervene to prevent such abuses. Erving also referenced his 21 January letter to Cevallos regarding the Cyrus and Sibae.
8. Enclosure No. 5 is a copy of Erving to Cevallos, 4 Mar. 1807 (3 pp.). Erving complained that after a Spanish privateer had carried the Abeona into Vigo, the U.S. vice-consul was not permitted to attend the examinations until after Cevallos had sent orders to the commandant there. Erving further complained that Spanish courts had condemned part of the cargo not declared on the bill of lading on the assumption that it was English. The captors appealed the case and won condemnation of the entire cargo. Erving referenced similar cases to conclude that the “partiality & injustice” of the Spanish monarch would deter him from intervening in such cases. Despite Erving’s pessimism, he stated his determination to fulfill his duty by bringing each case before the Spanish minister and concluded by saying that he was referring all correspondence on this topic to the U.S. president “that he may see the full extent of the oppressions & vexations to which the American Commerce is exposed” and make some determination for “its protection & relief.”
9. Enclosure No. 7 is a copy of Erving to Cevallos, 13 Mar. 1807 (1 p.). Referring to his 4 March promise to continue to bring alleged injustices to the minister’s attention (see n. 8 above), Erving informed Cevallos of the condemnation of the American ships Commerce and Eliza.
10. The enclosure is a copy of Miguel Cayetano Soler to field marshals Antonio Samper and Josef Navarro, 5 Mar. 1807 (4 pp.; in Spanish). In addition to the order for infantry and cavalry, Soler ordered twenty-five pieces of field artillery with requisite harnesses and draft animals, called for the military force to be formed from various corps in Etruria and Spain, and explained the logistics for gathering the battalions and regiments. For Napoleon’s 15 December 1806 order directing Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord to request six thousand Spanish troops who were in Italy, see Henri Plon, ed., Correspondance de Napoléon Ier (32 vols.; Paris, 1858–70), 14:91.
11. The editors have found no record of Erving sending the constitution at a later date. For the formation of the Spanish Almirantazgo in 1807, see Erving to JM, 21 Jan. 1807, and n. 1. For a copy of the constitution of the Almirantazgo established by a 27 February 1807 real cédula, see José Félix Blanco and Ramón Azpurúa, eds., Documentos para la historia de la vida publica del libertador (15 vols.; 1875–78; reprint, Caracas, 1977–79), 2:78–89.
12. Enclosure No. 3 is a copy of Cevallos to Erving, 28 Feb. 1807 (2 pp.; in Spanish). Cevallos reported that he had passed Erving’s concerns along to the king, who ordered Cevallos to send them to the Council of War. He doubted, however, that Erving’s complaints were well founded and expressed confidence that the Jane would be set free if all the shipping papers were in order.