Superintendents office New York
15 April 1778
My Lord
I just now had the honor of receiving Your Lordships letter of yesterday with the enclosures. The complaint in Mr. Martins letter is consistant with those I heard daily even before the Act came over making it lawfull to send prizes into New York and before the prizes were condemned.1 to take pains to convince but interest is blind
After that Act of Parliament2 came over pointing out the method of sending home prize Goods and the court of Admiralty opened; the most ignorant was convinced that without lycense from one or other of the Commissioners prize goods could not be shipt. I received the 23d. of December last a letter from Capn Duncan3 dated on board the Eagle at Chester on Delaware the 3d Decmber enclosing me a form for the blank licenses Your Lordship proposed for the sending home of prize goods desiring me to get a number printed, which was immidiately done and the Blanks sent to Rhode Island. Your Lordship returnd them signd in your letter of 9th Jany: which I received the 19th of January. As soon as I received Capn Duncans letter of 3 Decmber I made it know publickly that lycenses were to be sent me; by an advertizement at the Coffeehouse I informed the moment I received the lycenses which was the 19th January & a London Ship sailed with one of the licenses 30th of January; every step to forward the shipping of prize Goods I made my particular study agreable to Your Lordships orders. The Court of Admiralty opend the 16th Sepr- last, from the first libelling a vessell to condemnation requires near one month, so that no great number of prizes could have lain any considerable time when Mc.Clean & Kelsicks letter of the 16th Decmber was wrote as there was but two months from 16h Octr: to 16h Decr:.4 There is one part of Mr Kelsicks letter I positively deny, I never did write to the Commissioners about Prize Goods till I had Capn Duncans letters, for two reasons—as Superintendent I had nothing to do with Prize Goods the act confining it to the Commissioners from whom I had no orders on the head—and secondly because I was certain from every part of their conduct they would give the proper orders, as soon as attention to things of greater moment allowed; I therefore never did tell Messr. Mc:Clean and Kelsick that the Commissioners would take it into their consideration. The attending to Acts of Parliament, and regulations of trade made by Commanders in Chief in America for the publick good, will ever occasion complaints from individuals where particular interests cannot always be attended to— I have the honor [&c.]
LB, N, Andrew Elliot Papers, Letterbook B, pp. 38–39. Elliot was superintendent of the port of New York.
1. In a letter to Lord George Germain of 20 Jan. 1778, Samuel Martin, a merchant of Whitehaven, England, complained that prize goods could not be shipped from New York without the consent of Vice Adm. Viscount Howe and Gen. Sir William Howe, which consent had been withheld. He added that denying permission to ship prize goods might be "sport" to the Howes but was death to Martin "and suchlike." Germain referred the letter to members of the Carlisle Commission. Davies, Documents of the American Revolution 13: 235.
2. Elliot is referring to “An Act to prohibit all Trade and Intercourse with the several Colonies therein mentioned," which was passed by Parliament in 1777.
3. The letter from Capt. Henry Duncan has not been found.
4. This letter has not been found, but Samuel Martin had enclosed extracts of letters from “Maclean and Kelsick” of 19 Aug. and 14 Nov. 1777 complaining about the treatment of prize goods at New York in his letter to Lord George Germain of 25 Dec. 1777. Davies, Documents of the American Revolution 13: 215.