British Forces during the War, the British Naval Commanders did carry away great numbers of Slaves belonging to Citizens of The United States. In his Letter of the 5th of September, the Undersigned had the honour of enclosing a List of 702 Slaves carried away, after the Ratification of the Treaty of Peace, from Cumberland Island and the Waters adjacent, in the State of Georgia, by the Forces under the command of Rear-Admiral Cockburn, with the names of the Slaves, and those of their Owners, Citizens of The United States. A number, perhaps, still greater, was carried away from Tangier Island, in the State of Virginia, and from other Places, Lists of whom and of their Proprietors the Undersigned expects to be enabled in like manner to produce. The only foundation which those Naval Commanders have alleged for this procedure, was a construction of the paragraph containing this Stipulation, so contrary to its grammatical sense and obvious purport, that the Undersigned is well assured, if the same phrase had occurred in any municipal contract between Individuals, no judicial Tribunal in this Kingdom would entertain for a moment a question upon it;-a construction under which the whole operation of the words "Slaves or other private property" was annihilated, by extending to them the limitation confined, by the words of the Treaty, to Artillery and public property.

In addition to the unequivocal import of the words, the Undersigned, in his Letter of the 9th of August, adduced the manner in which the Article had been drawn up, discussed, and finally agreed upon at the Negotiation of the Treaty, to prove that the intention of the Parties had been conformable to the plain letter of the Article. It was intimated, in the Answer to his 2 Letters, which he had the honour of receiving from Earl Bathurst, that some inconvenience might result, if the Parties upon whom Treaties are binding were 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. In reply to which the Undersigned observes, that his Letter did not recur to the intentions of the Negotiators, but to the intentions of the Parties to the Treaty, as manifested in the process of drawing up and agreeing to the Article; and not even to them, instead of the context of the Treaty itself, but to support and maintain the context of the Treaty against what he deemed a misconstruction, equally at variance with the rules of grammar and the intentions of the Parties.

It is observed, in Lord Bathurst's Answer, that in this instance the Article, as it stands, was agreed to, by a verbal amendment suggested by the American Plenipotentiaries, to the original Article proposed by the British Commissioners. Far otherwise-the original Article was proposed by the American, and not by the British Plenipotentiaries. The original Article proposed, that in evacuating the Places

to be restored, no property, public or private, Artillery or Slaves, should be carried away. An alteration was proposed by the British Plenipotentiaries, and its object was to limit the property to be restored with the Places, to such as had been originally captured in the Places, aud should be remaining there at the time of the exchange of the Ratifications. The reason alleged for this alteration applied only to public property. It might be impracticable to restore property which, though originally captured in the Place, might have been removed from it before the exchange of the Ratifications.

But private property, not having been subject to legitimate capture with the Places, was not liable to the reason of the limitation; to which the American Plenipotentiaries therefore assented, only so far as related to Artillery and public property-they did not assent to it as related to Slaves and other private property. It was not a mere verbal alteration which they proposed; they adhered, in relation to Slaves and other private property, to their original Draft of the Article, while they consented to the proposed alteration with regard to Artillery and public property. To this qualified acceptance the British Plenipotentiaries agreed; nor need the Undersigned remind Lord Castlereagh, that the British Plenipotentiaries did not sign the Treaty of Ghent, until this Article, as finally agreed to, and every other important part of the Treaty, had been submitted to the British Government itself, and received their sanction and approbation.

If Lord Bathurst had taken this, which is presented as the true, view of the circumstances under which the Article in question was drawn up and adopted, the Undersigned is persuaded that he would have been spared the necessity of adverting to the following passage of his Lordship's Answer, in which the Undersigned trusts that some error of a Copyist has left its meaning imperfectly expressed:

"It is certainly possible that one Party may propose an alteration, with a mental reservation of some construction of his own, and that he* 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 only sense which the Undersigned can discover in this sentence, as it stands, is, that a Party may conciliate and yet concede nothing, by assenting to an alteration insidiously proposed by himself. Impossible as it is that such could have been Lord Bathurst's real meaning, the Undersigned is equally unwilling to believe that his Lordship intended to insinuate that, in the case of the Stipulation now in question, an alteration was, on the part of The United States, proposed, with a mental reservation of a construction not then avowed, which was assented to by Great Britain with a firm persuasion, that

. "The other." See page 303.

under the alteration the construction would remain the same. The Undersigned must be allowed to say, that there was nothing in the transaction referred to which could justify such an insinuation; that the Article, as originally drawn by the American Plenipotentiaries and presented to the British Government, was plain and clear: that it admitted of no other construction than that for which the American Government now contends; that it avowedly and openly contained a Stipulation, that, in the evacuation of all the Territories, Places, and Possessions to be restored, no Slaves should be carried away; that an alteration was proposed by the British Plenipotentiaries, which was accepted only in part; that in this partial acceptance the British Government acquiesced,-the Undersigned will certainly not say, with a mental reservation to make up, by a subsequent construction of their own, for the part to which The United States did not assent;-but he does deem it his duty to say, that when Great Britain proposed an alteration to that of the meaning of which there could be no doubt, and when the alteration was accepted conditionally, and under a modification to which she agreed, she was bound to perceive that the modification, thus insisted upon by the other Party, was not a mere verbal change in the phraseology of her proposal, but, so far as it extended, a substantial adherence to the original Draft of the Article.

It is further urged in Lord Bathurst's Answer, that the construction contended for by the American Government is inconsistent with another Article of the Treaty; for that it would require the restoration of all Merchant Vessels and their effects captured on the High Seas, even if they should not be within the limits of the United States, at the time of the exchange of the Ratifications. The Undersigned is not aware how such an inference can be drawn from any thing that has passed between the 2 Governments on the subject. Merchant Vessels and effects, captured on the High Seas, are, by the laws of War between civilized Nations, lawful Prize, and by the capture become the property of the Captors. It was never asserted by the American Government that the Stipulation in question could mean that, in evacuating the places taken within the territorial jurisdiction of either Party, the other should be precluded from carrying away his own property. But as, by the same usages of civilized Nations, private property is not the subject of lawful capture in War upon the land, it is perfectly clear that, in every Stipulation, that private property shall be respected, or that, upon the restoration of places taken during the War, it shall not be carried away; the meaning of the expressions is defined by the subject-matter to which they relate, and extends only to the property of the Party from whom the place was taken, or of Persons under his allegiance. But in the present case it will not be pretended that the Slaves, whose removal is complained of as a breach of the compact, were the property either of His Majesty, of the Naval Officers in his

service who carried them away, or of any of his Subjects. They were the property of Citizens of The United States; precisely the species of property which it was expressly stipulated should not be carried away: and, far from setting up now, as is suggested in Lord Bathurst's Note, a construction not thought of when the Treaty was formed, the American Government do but claim the performance of the Stipulation, in the only sense which could be applied to it at that time. That the British Government gave it then any other construction, was not only never communicated to the Government of The United States, but was impossible to be foreseen by them. When Great Britain had solemnly agreed, without hinting an objection, to the principle of restoring captured Slaves, it could not be foreseen that the engagement would be narrowed down to nothing, by a strained extension to them of a condition limited, by the words of the Treaty, to another species of property. It was impossible to anticipate a construction of an important Stipulation which should annihilate its operation. It was impossible to anticipate that a Stipulation not to carry away any Slaves would, by the British Government, be considered as faithfully executed by British Officers in carrying away all the Slaves in their possession.

The Undersigned concludes with the earnest hope that His Majesty's Government, reviewing the subject in the spirit of candour and of justice, will accede to the proposal which he has been instructed to offer, and make provision to indemnify the Owners of the Slaves which were carried away in contravention to the engagement of the Treaty.

He is happy to avail himself, &c.

Viscount Castlereagh.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

(17.)—Mr. Adams to the Secretary of State.

(Extract.) London, 13th March, 1816. I NOW enclose a Copy of the Note sent to Lord Castlereagh, concerning the Slaves taken from Mr. Downman, by the violation of a Flag of Truce sent by Captain Barrie. You will have seen, by Lord Bathurst's Note, a Copy of which was transmitted to you immediately after it was received, that Captain Barrie disclaims all knowledge of the fact that the Slaves were taken. As it appears, by the Documents, that one of the Slaves escaped from Bermuda and returned to his Master, it may probably be in Mr. Downman's power to furnish many further particulars, which may be of essential use in the prosecution of this inquiry;-such as the name of the Vessel to which they were first sent from the Flag-how, and by what Vessel, and when they were afterwards sent to Bermuda, and into whose charge they were delivered there-perhaps even the name of the Officer who bore the Flag-and whether Jeffery, the Surgeon's Mate, for whom the Flag was sent, was on board the Franklin while the Slaves were there-or whether they

had already been sent on board another Vessel before he embarked? Barrie's Statement and Lord Bathurst's Note seem intended to cast doubts upon the very fact of the Slaves having been taken.

The Hon. James Monroe.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

N.B. A Copy of the above was sent to Mr. Downman, but no Answer has been received.

(18.)-Mr. Adams to Viscount Castlereagh.

London, 12th March, 1816.

THE Undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from The United States of America, has the honor of inviting the attention of Lord Castlereagh to a Letter which, on the 7th of October last, the Undersigned addressed to Earl Bathurst, in relation to 11 Slaves, the property of Raleigh W. Downman, a Citizen of The United States, alleged to have been taken and carried away by the violation of a Flag of Truce sent by Captain Barrie, Commander of His Majesty's Ship Dragon. With this Letter were enclosed Copies of Mr. Downman's Memorial to the President of The United States, representing the facts, and of several other Documents to substantiate them; to all which the Undersigned now begs leave to refer Lord Castlereagh.

The Undersigned had the honor of receiving from Lord Bathurst an Answer to this Letter, acquainting him that Captain Barrie himself had been immediately referred to for such particulars as he might be enabled to give upon this subject, and communicating the substance of his Report upon this reference.

There are many particulars in this Statement of Captain Barrie, which, appearing to have no bearing upon the special object of inquiry, and tending rather to draw the attention from it to other points of discussion, might with propriety be left unnoticed, but for the insinuations that they convey. He remarks, for instance, that at the period in question, the violation of a Flag of Truce was a very tender subject with him, and he refers to a previous Correspondence, in which he had been engaged with the Commanding Officer of The United States' Forces at Norfolk, on want of respect paid to British Flags of Truce, upon occasion of one of his own having been fired upon. The Undersigned might deem it sufficient to say, that this was not the subject upon which Captain Barrie was called upon for information. As the Captain does not recollect the violation by his own people of the Flag sent by himself, he did not mean to allege it as a retaliation upon that of which another Flag sent by him had been the sufferer. Yet he avows that if Slaves, Fugitives from their Masters, had been received on board a Flag sent by himself, he would not have restored them to their Owners without an express Order from his Commander in Chief;-a