a conquered country. M. de Talleyrand, again, came to the aid of the Spanish minister, if not with arguments, at least with opinions unfavourable to the United States. We quote from a letter written by him in July 1804, to admiral Travina, ambassador of his catholic majesty at Paris :—

"Respecting the second point in dispute, (indemnities,) which your excellency does me the honour to speak of in your note, I must say that I had previously no knowledge of it. And, indeed, if I had been informed that his catholic majesty's ministers had carried their condescension for the government of the United States so far, as to engage themselves towards it for indemnifying violations, pretended to have been committed by France, I should certainly have received orders from my government to express the dissatisfaction which France must feel on the occasion of so unseemly a deference, and this dissatisfaction would have been expressed still more warmly to the government of the United States than to that of Spain. There is every reason to suppose, that the court of Spain, by thus yielding to an improper demand, has emboldened the American government, and determined it to become pressing and even menacing on this occasion. As for the rest, the explanations formerly given to your court on this point, as well as those, which have been authorized to be given to the government of the United States by the chargé d'affaires of his imperial majesty, must enable you to judge of the opinion formed by his majesty on this question, which, having already been the subject of a long negotiation, and of a formal convention between France and the United States, cannot again become a subject of discussion."

It will immediately occur, that the opinion of a French minister of foreign relations should not be entitled to much consideration, for France was a party deeply interested. The spoils of this confiscated property had been put in her treasury, and if Spain should never be obliged to pay for it, Spain would never have a demand to make on France. It is, also, very evident, that in regard to these claims Spain was not a party to the convention, and could not, therefore, be benefited by it. Spain never pretended that the claim on her for spoliations committed by her own privateers was discharged

by that convention. We are not aware that she could be justified in expecting an exemption under the same instrument for spoliations by French subjects within her limits. France was never released from this claim, because the United States never formally made it. Spain asserts that these acts were committed by foreigners, but they were not committed by stealth, nor were they acts of such sudden, unlooked for violence, that the Spanish authorities had neither time nor the means to interfere. Many of these vessels were taken lying in the Spanish ports, and all of them carried before French consuls, and condemned in public day. If the acts had been done, as Spain asserted, without her jurisdiction, there would have been no pretence for a claim on her. It is, moreover, the duty of government to see that all foreigners in their intercourse with it are protected in the enjoyment of those rights, to which they are entitled by the laws of nations. It is, also, another well established rule, that every government should be responsible for wrongs, committed within its limits by foreigners on other foreigners. This rule is founded on the plain consideration, that every government is supposed sovereign within its own limits, while it remains independent. Spain, in this particular case, was additionally bound by the special provisions of the treaty of '95 to protect American property. France committed these spoliations within the jurisdiction of Spain, and is is immaterial whether France was eventually liable. The injury was done in Spain; Spanish laws were violated; Spain had cognizance of the case, and her government permitted the wrong; reparation was, therefore, due from her. It is true, the convention of 1800 released France from the claims, if she was eventually answerable for them; but application had already been made to Spain, and her demand would always be good against France. No nation can undertake to adjust the concerns of another without its authority, and no release given by one party can affect a third. France could not have made a convention to compel Spain to pay for all those demands.

By a similarity of reasoning the could act release her from

Éçala refed ut the time to do any thing on the subject of the claims for spriators. he was close 7 led with France, then exceedingy powerft and her govemment did not ap presend the fate with which they were threaten d She had made an unfortunate bargain with France respecting Locisiana; the had had a great deal of protracted angry correspond ence with the United States; and numerous quarrels on her frontiers, particularly respecting the Indians. Most of the concerns of the American government with Spain had taken an unfortunate turn, and almost every topic had led, not only to tedious, but to irritating discussions. Spain probably felt, moreover, that she was growing weak. She was losing her influence in Europe, and her colonies in America; she naturally parted with every thing with extreme reluctance, well knowing that she would never be able to regain her possessions. Her government had the habits of a decaying, perishing state. This arose partly from the modes of doing business, that had always prevailed in that country, and partly from the indecision and negligence, which always accompany debility. This country has never yet come to an open rupture with Spain; but there is no nation in Europe, with whom the relations of the American government have been so unsatisfactory.

We have but one more topic to examine before we arrive at the final termination of the mission of Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney. This related to the right of deposite at New-Orleans. We have already stated that it was suddenly suspended in October 1802, by the intendant of Louisiana. This was, undoubtedly, a gross violation of the 22d article of the trea

*This claim has since been adjusted by the act, transferring East Florida to the United States; on that account we have very briefly touched upon the history and principle of these claims, though they rest on the same considerations, as those against other European go

vernments.

ty of '95. At the least, it was an unfriendly act to suspend the deposite without any notice, but the article obviously required that another place should be pointed out on the Mississippi for the same purpose. This was not done. The act was disavowed by the king, and the right renewed; but the purchase of Louisiana in 1803, removed all the difficulties attending this transaction. The actual injury done to the navigation on the Mississippi was considerable, and a reparation for this was included in the instructions of the commissioners. This mission terminated in the beginning of 1805; Mr. Monroe having returned to London, Mr. Pinkney was succeeded by James Bowdoin, of Massachusetts, appointed minister plenipotentiary, who remained till 1807. The United States had no minister in Spain during the troubles in that country. The intercourse was renewed again in 1814, by the appointment of George W. Erving, of Massachusetts, a minister plenipotentiary.

CHAPTER XIII.

RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA.

Not originally applied to for aid by Congress of "77-Little known at that time in Europe-Relations friendly—Armed neutrality—Dana sent to Russia in '80—Instructed to propose America as a member of the armed neutrality-Not received by the Empress—Russia not disposed to acknowledge independence-Anecdote of Franklin and Count du Nord-Neutrality awakens great anxiety-Congress, at return of peace, took earliest steps to prevent a connexion with “ Neutrality”—Instructions to ministers in Europe not to agree to support neutrality by force of arms-Adams, minister to RussiaPahlen to this country-Daschkoff-No treaty or commercial convention, though great trade.

RUSSIA was originally not one of the European states, to whom an application was made by Congress in '77 for aid, and for the recognition for the independence, though some circumstances, that will presently be mentioned in a subsequent year, appeared likely to give uncommon importance to the first diplomatic connections of the two countries. We may account for this omission of Congress entirely by local considerations. The weight and power of that nation, since become so formidable, had been confined principally to the north, and to wars with the Turks. Little known to Europe, except by her attacks on the Prussian dominions in the time of the great Frederic, and by sharing in the wicked partition of Poland in "72, the consequences of the French revolution