likewise to the present Claim in all its force. I am induced to hope it will meet with the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government. I am happy to avail myself, &c.

Earl Bathurst.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

(8.)-Earl Bathurst to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, 9th October, 1815.

EARL Bathurst presents his Compliments to Mr. Adams, and has the honour to inform him, that His Majesty's Government will cause immediate inquiry to be made into the case of the Slaves carried away by the Officer of the Flag of Truce, as represented in Mr. Adams' Note of the 7th instant.

Earl Bathurst requests Mr. Adams will accept, &c. John Quincy Adams, Esq.

SIR,

BATHURST.

(9.)-Mr. Adams to the Secretary of State.

London, 31st October, 1815.

I HAVE the honor to enclose Copies of 2 Papers received from Lord Bathurst, relative to the taking and carrying away of Slaves from The United States by the British Naval Commanders, in violation of the Ist Article of the Treaty of Ghent, and also by an abuse of the privileges allowed to a Flag of Truce.

I have the honor to be, &c.

The Hon. James Monroe.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

(10.)—Earl Bathurst to Mr. Adams.

Foreign Office, 24th October, 1815. THE Undersigned, One of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Adams' Letter of the 7th instant, with the Documents therein contained, relating to 11 Slaves, the property of Raleigh W. Downman, an American, stated to have been received on board, and carried off in a Flag of Truce sent by Captain Barrie (when Senior Officer in the command of the British Flotilla, up the Rappahanock) to procure the release of a Surgeon's Assistant who had been made prisoner.

The Undersigned has the honour to acquaint Mr. Adams, that Captain Barrie having been referred to, without loss of time, for such particulars as he might be enabled to give upon this subject, a Statement to the following effect has been received from that Officer, which the Undersigned hastens to communicate to Mr. Adams.

Captain Barrie has not any Documents with him to which he can refer, but he feels confident that he may trust to his memory on this occasion.

The Letters marked A and B, transmitted by Mr. Adams, Captain Barrie believes to be Copies of those which passed between the American Commanding Officer and himself.

He is certain that he never received the Letter marked D, Copy of which is transmitted in Mr. Adams' Letter, and has no recollection of any Slaves ever having been received on board any Flag of Truce during the time he was entrusted with the command of the Chesapeake Squadron: if such a circumstance did occur, it was without his knowledge or authority. Had such an event fallen under Captain Barrie's cognizance, he would (if the Slaves had forcibly been taken from the shore) instantly have ordered them to be restored, and the Officer so offending into confinement, till he could be brought to trial; if, however, the Slaves had voluntarily sought British protection, and had once obtained a footing under the British Colours, he should not have taken upon himself to allow them to be forced back into slavery, but should have waited the directions of the Commander-in-Chief. During the 2 Winters that Captain Barrie was employed as Senior Officer in the Chesapeake, the Slaves were constantly escaping from the shore, and joining the British Ships on these occasions, their general practice was to shew something to represent the White Flag, and Captain Barrie thinks it not improbable (if any Slaves were received on board the Franklin) that they may have escaped off in the Canoe, and have themselves hoisted the Flag which has been sworn to.

Before the Surgeon's Mate was restored, Admiral Cockburn had arrived in the Chesapeake, and if the Letter D had ever reached the Admiral, Captain Barrie is of opinion it certainly would have been communicated to him.

Captain Barrie states that the Masters of the Slaves very frequently came off to the Ships to claim them; on which occasions he uniformly left it to the Slaves, whether they would remain under British protection or return to their Masters, and even allowed the Masters to converse with their Slaves apart from his Ship's Company.

The violation of a Flag of Truce was a very tender subject with Captain Barrie, at the period in question, for he had a short time previous been engaged in Correspondence with the Commanding Officer of The United States' Forces at Norfolk, on want of respect paid to British Flags of Truce; one of his small four-oared boats, unarmed, with a large new White Flag flying, having been wantonly fired on in open day, though the boat was proceeding to the place where the Americans had previously arranged that Flags of Truce should be received. One of Captain Barrie's Men was killed when the Boat was receding from the shore, with the Flag of Truce still flying. The Boat was employed to land the Servant of the Russian Secretary of Legation, who was on board the Dragon waiting a passage to Europe. Captain Barrie remarks on Downman's Memorial, that till after the Peace a Squadron was constantly in the Chesapeake, and that though the Dragon had sailed, the Letter D, if then in existence, could easily have been presented

to the Senior Officers, either at Tangier Island or Symhan Bay. The Franklin, the Vessel stated to have carried off the Slaves, remained in the Bay, with the Ship she was manned from, the Havanna.

The Undersigned trusts that, after a perusal of the above Statement on the part of Captain Barrie, Mr. Adams will concur in the opinion, that some mistake exists with respect to the conduct imputed to that Officer. But the Undersigned has the honour to acquaint Mr. Adams, that in order to ascertain, as well as possible, the real state of the transaction, a Communication will be made forthwith to Admiral Cockburn, for the purpose of obtaining further information upon the subject, with which he must have been acquainted, as it appears that he had arrived in the Chesapeake before the Surgeon's Mate was restored. The Undersigned requests, &c.

John Quincy Adams, Esq.

(11.)-Earl Bathurst to Mr. Adams.

BATHURST.

Foreign Office, 25th October, 1815. THE Undersigned, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, has had the honour to receive Mr. Adams' Letters of the 9th of August and 5th of September last; the first of which recites the Ist Article of the Treaty of Ghent, and requires "that His Majesty's Naval Commanders, who at the restoration of peace between The United States and Great Britain, were stationed on the American Coast, should restore the Slaves taken by them from their Owners in The United States during the War, and then in their possession." This claim is set up in consequence of the following interpretation, which is given to the 1st Article of the said Treaty by the Government of The United States, in as far as it relates to Slaves and private property, namely: "That in evacuating all Places within the jurisdiction of The United States, and in departing from their Waters, the British Commanders were bound not to carry away any Slaves, or other private property of the Citizens of The United States, which had been taken upon their shores." And it takes its origin from a different construction of the same Article of the Treaty, by His Majesty's Naval Officers on the Coast of America, who, (according to Mr. Monroe's Letter to Mr. Baker, of the 1st of April,) contend, that "Slaves and other private property, are comprised under the same regulation with Artillery and other public property, and that none ought, in consequence, to be restored, except such as were, at the time of the exchange of the Ratifications of the Treaty, in the Forts and Places where they were originally taken."

The arguments brought forward by the American Government, in support of their understanding of the Ist Article of the Treaty of Ghent, rest partly upon the wording of the Article itself, and partly

upon such collateral evidence as may be deduced from the intention of the Negotiators, at the time they drew up that Article.

The Undersigned needs not remind Mr. Adams of the inconvenience which would result, were the Parties upon whom Treaties are binding to recur to the intentions of the Negotiators of such Treaty, instead of taking as their guide the context of the Treaty itself, on any point of controversy respecting it.

The Undersigned is, however, willing to waive this objection. In this instance, it would appear that the alteration in the original Article proposed by the British Commissioners, was introduced by a verbal amendment suggested by the American Plenipotentiaries. Many alterations of this kind took place, sometimes at the suggestion of one Party, and sometimes of the other; but it surely is not meant to be inferred from this, that a change of phrase, professedly verbal, is to be taken as necessarily denoting or importing an admitted change of construction. It is certainly possible that one Party may propose an alteration, with a mental reservation of some construction of his own, and that the other may assent to it, on a firm persuasion that the construction continues to be the same; and that therefore he may conciliate, and yet concede nothing by giving his assent. The proposed alteration was considered as merely verbal;-no suspicion appears to have been entertained that it changed the Stipulation as originally introduced and it is not averred that the American Plenipotentiaries then thought of the construction now set up by their Government. The meaning of the British Negotiators is admitted to have been made quite apparent by their Projet, and, as nothing passed indicative of any objections to it on the part of the American Commissioners, or of any departure from it by the British Negotiators when the alteration was suggested by one Party and acceded to by the other, and, as there was no discussion on the propriety of making the restitution more extensive, as to Slaves and other private property, than as to the other property mentioned,-the Undersigned cannot subscribe to the conclusions which Mr. Adams and his Government have drawn from this manner of viewing the subject.

The Undersigned will now proceed to examine that part of the subject, which regards the construction that has been given to the context of the Article in question by the Government of The United States.

By the Ist Article of the Treaty, it is stipulated that "there shall be a firm and universal Peace between His Britannic Majesty and The United States, and between their respective Countries, Territories, Cities, Towns, and People of every degree, without exception of Places or Persons. All hostilities both by sea and land shall cease, as soon as this Treaty shall have been ratified by both Parties, as hereinafter mentioned. All Territory, Places and Possessions whatsoever, taken by either Party from the other during the War, or which may be taken after the signing of this Treaty, excepting only

the Islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any of the Artil– lery or other public property, originally captured in the said Forts or Places, and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the Ratifications of this Treaty, or any Slaves or other private property. And all Archives, Records, Deeds, and Papers, either of a public nature, or belonging to private Persons, which in the course of the War may have fallen into the hands of the Officers of either Party, shall be, as far as may be practicable, forthwith restored and delivered to the proper Authorities and Persons to whom they respectively belong. Such of the Islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy as are claimed by both Parties, shall remain in the possession of the Party in whose occupation they may be at the time of the exchange of the Ratifications of this Treaty, until the decision respecting the title to the said Islands shall have been made, in conformity with the IVth Article of this Treaty.

"No disposition made by this Treaty, as to such possession of the Islands and Territories claimed by both Parties shall, in any manner whatsoever, be construed to affect the right of either."

The main purport of the Ist Article, in the former part of it, relates to the general Pacification, and in the latter part of it, to some of the direct consequences on the Territorial Possessions of the 2 Countries, and the property within such Possessions. As to the public property in the Posts or Places to be restored, it provides that, if it shall have the double condition annexed to it, of having been originally captured therein, and of remaining therein when the Ratifications are exchanged, then such property is to be restored, and it is not to be destroyed or carried away. It would surely have been unusual and unreasonable, to have stipulated for the restitution of any property which never had belonged to the Fort or Place, or which had been already destroyed or carried away, so as no longer in fairness to have been considered as belonging to it; for it would seem to have no connexion with the subject-matter of that part of the Article in which the Stipulation concerning it must be supposed to occur. As to public property, it appears quite plain that the carrying away here spoken of is from the Fort or Place to which it belonged, and from no other; for the condition which is admitted to apply to that, would otherwise have no application at all; and no sound reason can be given why the condition might not, in both its branches, apply as well to private as to public property, provided the construction would fairly admit of it. Both Parties appear to agree as to the conditions which relate to public property. But then immediately follow, in the same sentence, the words, "or any Slaves or other private property." And here the question is, whether Slaves and other private property are to be re