indeed, it is founded in common justice. England, however, having
supreme control at sea, and being tempted by the hope of destroying the
sinews of her adversary's strength, resolved to stretch this rule so as
to embrace provisions as well as munitions of war. She proceeded
gradually to her point. She first issued an order, on the 8th of June,
1793, for capturing and bringing into port "all vessels laden, wholly or
in part with corn, flour, or meal, and destined to France, or to other
countries, if occupied by the arms of that nation." Such vessels were
not condemned, nor their cargoes seized; but the latter were to be
purchased on behalf of the English Government; or, if not, then the
vessels, on giving due security, were allowed to proceed to any neutral
port. Of course the price of provisions in France and in England was
materially different, and a lucrative traffic for the United States was,
in this way, destroyed. Moreover, this proceeding was a comparative
novelty in the law of nations, and, however it might suit the purposes
of Great Britain, it was a gross outrage on America. In November of the
same year, it was followed by a still more glaring infraction of the
rights of neutrals, in an order, condemning to capture and adjudication
all vessels laden with the produce of any French colony, or with
supplies for such a colony.

The fermentation in consequence of this order rose to such a height in
America, that it required all the skill of Washington to avert a war.
The president, however, determining to preserve peace if possible,
despatched Jay to London as a minister plenipotentiary, by whose frank
explanations, redress was in a measure obtained for the past, and a
treaty negotiated, not, indeed, adequate to justice, but better than
could be obtained again, when it expired in 1806.

The relaxation in the rigor of the order of November, 1793, soon proved