If the said effects have passed by sale into other hands, and the purchasers were or might be informed, or have suspected that the said effects were carried away by pirates, they shall be equally restored.

XXVII. Neither of the two nations shall interfere in the fisheries of the other upon its coasts, nor disturb it in the exercise of the rights which it now has, or may acquire on the coasts of Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or elsewhere on the coast of America, or the North of the United States; but the whale and seal fishery shall be free for the two nations in all parts of the world.

The Convention shall be ratified on both sides in due form, and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the space of six months, or sooner if it be possible. In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles, as well in the French as in the English language, and have placed their seals, declaring, nevertheless, that the signature in two languages shall be cited as an example, and shall not prejudice either of the two parties.

Done at Paris, the 8th day of Vendémiaire, the 9th year of the French Republic, and the 3d day of September, 1800.

(Signed)

For an exact Copy,

JOSEPH BONAPARTE.

C. P. FLEURIEU.
REDERER.
OLIV. ELSWORTH.
W. R. DAVIE.

W. V. MURRAY.

C. M. TALLEYRAND.

REMARKS.

The papers last received from Paris, have brought us a copy of the Convention, as it is called, between France and America. Our readers will recollect, that, so lately as the month of July, there was little prospect of such an accommodation taking place. The Corsican Usurper discovered a disposition rather hostile than otherwise towards Mr. Adams, whose humble supplicants were treated with every mark of disrespect, not to say contempt and ridicule. It is evident that, at that time, Bonaparte had no desire to form a convention with them, but to wait the result of the ensuing election

of President of the United States, which was likely to transfer the treaty-making power from Adams to Jefferson, and thereby secure to France every gratification and advantage that her cormorant vanity and ambition could demand. The change in the Corsican's conduct, and the sudden conclusion of the present Convention, we do not scruple to attribute to the unexpected dispute between Great Britain and Denmark, which, joined to the strange conduct of the Emperor of Russia, has excited, in the minds of the French, malignant and cowardly hopes of seeing the Northern powers combine for the purpose of reviving and enforcing those exploded claims, which our country ever has resisted, and which, while she has powder, ball, and British blood, we trust she ever will resist.

But our opinion, as to the motives of the Convention, does not rest so much on extraneous circumstances, as on the internal evidence of that instrument itself, which appears to have been made, and promulgated, as a protest against those principles of public law, to which Great Britain adheres, and from which, it was well known, she cannot and will not depart.

The great points in dispute, between France and America, are left entirely unsettled by the Convention. France complained of the inexecution, in several instances, of the Treaties and Convention of 1778 and 1788; America complained of the spoliations committed on her commerce, of the insults offered to her flag, of the national frauds practised on her merchants, of the imprisonment, the castigation, and the murder, of her mariners. The professed object of the mission to France was to objain "satisfaction for insult, and reparation for in" jury." This was the language of the President, as well as of all those who attempted to defend his negotiating measures. But, behold! instead of obtaining

obtaining " satisfaction for insults, and reparation for injury;" instead of adjusting the disputes which had produced a sort of sham war between the parties, their "Ministers Plenipotentiary, not being able, at present, to come to an agreement with regard to the treaty of alliance of February 1778, &c. nor, with regard to the indemnities mutually due and claimed, the parties will negotiate hereafter, at a convenient time." Thus are all the injuries and insults, and the treaty of alliance, laid upon the shelf, till a more convenient time, and the parties enter into a Convention consisting merely of commercial regulations, which, as we shall presently see, are levelled directly against the principles and the power of Great Britain.

The fourteenth article of the Convention stipulates, that free ships shall make free goods. It runs thus:

66

66

14. It is stipulated by the present treaty, that "free ships shall likewise insure the freedom of goods, and that all things on board shall be " reckoned free, belonging to the citizens of one " of the contracting parties, although the cargo

66

or part of it, should belong to the enemies of the "two; it being understood, nevertheless, that "contraband goods will always be excepted. It " is likewise agreed, that this freedom shall extend to the persons of those who shall be found on board the free ships, although they should be " enemies to one of the two contracting parties, "and it shall not be lawful to take them from the " said free ships, at least if they are not soldiers, " and actually in the service of the enemy."

66

This article is not new: the same stipulation is to be found in the commercial treaty between France and America, of 1778, as well as in the commercial treaties of many other powers. But while we allow that the stipulation contains nothing

Q3

thing unprecedented, we contend in opposition to the insolent pretensions of France, and the more insolent assertions of her hirelings in this country, that the freedom of goods here stipulated for may be granted, or withheld, at the pleasure of any contracting party. Whoever examines the best writers on the subject will find, that, long since the nations of Europe assumed nearly their present relative state, it was the general practice to prohibit all trade whatever with an enemy. As the nations grew more polished (as it is called) and as their relations increased by means of maritime commerce, the rigour of this practice was gradually softened, till confiscation was, at last, confined to the vessels and property of enemies, to certain articles termed contraband of war, and to the property of enemies found on board of neutral vessels. Thus far the relaxation became pretty general about the time of Queen Elizabeth. But some powers wished to extend the freedom of commerce still further; even so far as to protect enemies goods found on board of neutral vessels; and to do this the Queen of EngJand, not perceiving the dangerous consequences, was one of the first to assert her right. Fortunately, however, for Great Britain, the right was disputed, and that too by the United Provinces, even before their independence was fully assured. They took some English vessels laden with Spanish property, and condemned the cargoes, without paying freightage. The Queen, at first, resented this conduct in an infant state that was chiefly indebted to her for support; but, notwithstanding the well known tenacity and imperiousness of her disposition, her wisdom and justice prevailed, and she, at last, acquiesced in the legality of the capture.

But the advocates for the freedom of goods, unable to contend against the host of authorities, such as we have above appealed to, tell us that we are not

to

to go back so far, but confine ourselves to what they call the modern law of nations. Within what limits they mean to circumscribe the word modern, we cannot exactly ascertain, unless they insist, that the modern law of nations dates its beginning from what they call the " new style;" in which case, thank God, we are ancients yet. But however cramped may be the signification which the sons of Fructidor and Floréal are pleased to give to the word modern, we Christians know, that the modern law of nations means that public law, or rather practice, which the present nations of Europe have observed towards each other. Lest, however, the example of Queen Elizabeth should be too ancient, we will descend to times still more modern; and that the example may be, if possible, yet more strikingly applicable, we shall appeal to the practice of the French nation itself.

The famous Ordinance of 1681, which might be called the Navigation Act of France, expressly declared to be good prize, not only the enemy's goods found on board of a neutral vessel, but the neutral vessel also. This brings us down to the close of the seventeenth century; but, as that may be yet too ancient for the decadery civilians, let us continue to descend, still continuing our appeal to the practice of France. The Ordinance of 1081, was mitigated by successive treaties, in which France, according as her interest prescribed, refused, or granted, the permission which is now contended for as a right; but after these treaties, and even so late as 1757, she declared to the Republic of Holland, that, if any goods belonging to her enemy were found on board of Dutch vessels, such goods should be condemned as good prize, and to this declaration the practice was conformable, during the whole war, which ended in 1763, only thirty-seven years ago. So that unless the men

Q4

of