1 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, Vol. 1, p. 240.

2 Ibid., 430.

3 Ibid., 431.

4 The revoking order is not printed in American State Papers and it is believed its text has not been published at least in this country, though it was examined by Professor Bemis who cites it in his monograph (Jay's Treaty, New York, 1924, p. 235). Its text was as follows: “Instructions to the commanders of all ships of war and privateers that have or may have letters of marque against France. Given at Our Court at St. James's the sixth day of August 1794, in the Thirty-fourth year of our reign. “Whereas by an article of our instructions to the commanders of our ships of war and privateers having letters of marque against France, given at Our Court at St. James's the 7th day of June 1793 we thought fit to declare that it should be lawful to stop and deti in all ships laden wholly or in part with corn, flour or meal bound to any port in France or any port occupied by the armies of France, and to send them to such port as should be most convenient, in order that such corn, meal or flour might be purchased on behalf of our Government, and the ships be released after such purchase and after a due allowance for freight, or that the masters of such ships, on giving due security to be approved of by Our Court of admiralty, should be permitted to proceed to dispose of their cargoes of corn, meal or flour in the ports of any country in amity with us. We, not judging it expedient to continue for the present the purchase of the said cargoes on behalf of our government are pleased to revoke the said article until our further order therein, and to declare that the same shall no longer remain in force; but we strictly enjoin the commanders of our ships of war and privateers to observe the remaining articles of the said instructions, and likewise all other instructions which we have issued and which still continue in force.” British Record Office, Foreign Office, 5:13.

5 Hamilton's Works, J. C. Hamilton Ed., N. Y. 1851, Vol. VII, pp. 476-7.

6 Italics by the writer.

7 Bond to Grenville, Jan. 19, 1796, R. O., F. O., 5:13.

8 Ibid., 115:4.

9 The reference in the memorial delivered by Secretary of State Randolph to Hammond, the British Minister, on August 14, 1795, to which Lord Grenville alludes in his letter to Bond, was as follows: “But the undersigned is charged to declare that the sensibility of the President has been greatly excited by the understanding that various captures have lately been made of American vessels laden with provisions, in consequence of a recent order said to have been issued under authority of His Britannic Majesty. Mr. Adams will be instructed: to inquire if such an order has in fact been issued, and upon ascertaining its existence, he will make such representations as shall appear to be advisable, and particularly that the ratification of the President must not be construed into an admission of the legality of the said order.” (British Record Office, Foreign Office, 5:9.) The references by Deas (the American Charge1 in London) to the April order which Lord Grenville says in his letter to Bond indicated, as did the references in the memorial, a misunderstanding of the order, are reported by Deas in his correspondence with Pickering. Deas had remarked to Lord Grenville, in arranging for the exchanges (Oct. 23, 1795), that the President regretted that such an order as that understood to have been issued for the seizure of provision vessels should have been issued, whereupon Lord Grenville replied that the British Minister near the United States had been instructed to give the President a copy of the order from which it would appear that no instructions were given in it contrary to the treaty. (Deas to Pickering, October 23,1795, Dispatches, State Dept., Vol. 3,1791-1797.) In a subsequent letter to Mr. Pickering (Oct. 28, 1795, the day the exchange took place), Deas reports that he remarked to Lord Grenville that the President by ratification did not admit the legality of the order regarding provision vessels, Lord Grenville replying that the two subjects were quite unconnected, “the treaty being altogether a distinct business.” (Deas to Pickering, Oct. 28, 1795, Dispatches, State Dept., Vol. 3, 1791-1797.)

10 Grenville to Hammond, Aug. 31, 1795, R. O., F. O., 5:9. It was this letter, a copy of which was found in the unpublished records of the Carnegie Institution at Washington before the more explicit correction of the misunderstanding in Grenville's letter of November 4 came to the writer's attention, which convinced him that there was an error in the idea that the order of June 8, 1793, and the instruction of April 25, 1795, were similar or identical. Grenville's letter seemed unintelligible under that supposition. At the suggestion of Professor Bemis, a search was made in the British Record Office and the text of the April instruction was discovered.

11 Act of Congress, March 3, 1795, Annals of Congress, 1793-1795, p. 1519.

12 Hammond to Grenville, Sept. 5, 1794, R. O., F. O., 5:278.

13 Ibid., 321.

14 Ibid., 350.

15 Ibid., F. O., 5:9.

16 Ibid., 5:9.