justice and benevolence of the King would lead him, immediately, to liberate American citizens wrongfully detained and that His Majesty's officers, in the future, would abstain from such proceedings.8 Lord Grenville replied that if American seamen had been impressed into the King's service, it had been contrary to the King's desire, though he admitted such cases might happen, owing to the difficulty of discriminating between British and American seamen. American citizens, he stated, were invariably released and British officers understood that they were to use proper precaution. No statement, however, upon impressment was contained in the treaty which was signed by Jay and Grenville. Impressment still continuing, the United States, in order to make all possible accommodation to prevent the excuse for the practice, passed a law, May 28, 1796, which provided for certification of American seamen. Pickering, Secretary of State, transmitting this law to Rufus King, American minister at London, urged the importance of obtaining satisfaction from the British Government upon the subject of impressHe expressed the opinion, as Jefferson had before, that the vessel should protect the seamen on ment. 8 Jay to Grenville, July 30, 1794; American State Papers, For. Rel., I., 481. 9 Grenville to Jay, Aug. 1, 1794; American State Papers, board; but stated that he would regard it as a great advance if this principle could be secured merely on the high seas.10 He argued that the principle was needed in the interest of humanity, for the withdrawal of seamen on the ocean exposed lives and property to destruction as well as vessels, inasmuch as vessels usually carried no more sailors than they actually needed. The same principle, it was maintained, should operate also in the British colonies and especially in the West Indies, because here the detention in consequence of impressment was attended with serious loss of life and property due to climatic conditions. The remoteness of these districts from the place of supreme authority made the danger of abuse greater than elsewhere. In lieu of impressment, it was suggested that a law might be passed requiring every master of a vessel, upon his arrival in any port of the British colonies, to report his crew at the proper office. If afterwards any additions were made in the way of British subjects, these might be taken away. Impressment of British subjects found in ports of Great Britain and Ireland might be admitted, but this should be controlled by proper regulations to prevent insults and injuries and to insure prompt relief when mistakes occurred.11 10 Pickering to King, June 8, 1796; American State Papers, For. Rel., III., 574–575. Pickering differentiated three classes of men whom Great Britain had no right whatever to impress. These were native American citizens, American citizens wherever born who were such at the time of the definitive treaty of peace, and foreigners other than British subjects sailing in American vessels. A fourth class in connection with the question of impressment consisted of British born subjects who had become American citizens subsequent to the treaty of peace, or might thereafter be admitted to the rights of citizenship. These were not to be abandoned by the United States, but certain classes especially deserved the protection of the American Government, such as those who had served in American vessels public or private for the same term of years as that in which foreigners serving in British vessels acquired the rights of British subjects, which was understood to be three years, and those persons, originally British subjects, who had resided in the United States for five years and had been formally admitted to the rights of citizenship according to the laws of the United States. Inasmuch as sailors were likely to lose their certificates, Pickering believed that some provision should be made for the admission of other reasonable proof of their citizenship, such as their own oaths with those of their masters, mates, or other credible witnesses. He proposed that the rolls of the crew should be authenticated by the col mitted with equal validity with the individual certificates.12 When reporting to King several cases of impressment of seamen from American vessels in the fall of 1796, Pickering again urged the importance of taking up the question with the British Government.13 In a letter to King, October 26, 1796, he pointed out that the British naval officers had impressed Swedes, Danes, Portuguese, and French, which showed that impressment of sailors was not confined to Americans, who were claimed to resemble Englishmen so closely that it was impossible always to distinguish.14 He complained that Americans were not so promptly released as hitherto owing to the fact that writs of habeas corpus taken out by American agents were no longer given recognition by the British authorities. In order to avoid the friction attendant upon the impressment of American citizens under the supposition that they were British subjects, Minister King proposed to the British Government that American consuls should be authorized to grant certificates of citizenship to such American seamen as should prove themselves entitled to receive them, and British naval officers 12 Pickering to King, June 8, 1796; American State Papers, For. Rel., III., 574–575. 13 Pickering to King, Sept. 10, 1796; American State Papers, For. Rel., III., 575. 14 Pickering to King, Oct. 26, 1796; American State Papers, should be instructed by their Government to respect such certificates.15 The British Government objected to King's proposal as affording no sufficient security that British subjects would not be protected under the guise of American citizenship. They similarly objected to the general law that Congress had passed with regard to certification of American seamen and also to the order which the President had issued to the collectors of the several districts prescribing the evidence on which certificates of citizenship might be granted by such collectors. It was held that the proposed method was subject to the greatest possible abuse and that practice founded on this arrangement "would not differ at all in its effect and consequences, though in name and appearance it might, from a resolution to discharge at once every British seaman on his own assertion, that he is an American citizen."16 In the spring of 1799 King again protested to Lord Grenville, as he had on former occasions, against the indiscriminate seizure of seamen from American vessels on the high seas. Grenville gave no satisfaction that it would stop, but promised that all Americans who by mistake had been seized should be discharged 15 King to Grenville, Jan. 28, 1797; American State Papers, For. Rel., II., 147–148. 16 Grenville to King, March 27, 1797; American State Papers, |