1. Presumably these were the petitions, of which this letter gives the substance, from D'Albert de Riou, a Brest merchant, of 23 Oct., and from Riou and Capt. Thomas Pickering of 23 Dec. 1778 (both
PPAmP: Franklin Papers). The controversy centered on
La Constance, a French vessel taken by a Guernsey privateer on 29 Sept. and recaptured by Pickering and the
Hampden on 2 Oct. Because it had been in the enemy's hands for more than 24 hours,
La Constance was a legal prize to the American captors under the terms of the Marine Ordinance of 1681. Basing their actions on that ordinance and past practice, Pickering went before the admiralty clerk within 24 hours of his arrival at Brest on 6 Oct. and presented the circumstances of the capture. As a result, the admiralty judges determined
La Constance to be a good prize. Pickering then entered into an agreement with Riou for its disposal, and made payments to the crew in anticipation of the sale. However, on 22 Oct. the regulations for the disposal of prizes and prisoners that had been issued on 27 Sept. were registered at Brest. This caused the admiralty judges to reconsider their decision in the case of
La Constance and to decide that it should come under the provisions of the new regulations. This meant that the evidence in the case would have to be presented again and a new determination made of the legitimacy of the capture, but, because the prize had already been sold, such a course would have resulted in long delays and litigation. Therefore, the petitioners desired the Commissioners to obtain from the Ministry of Marine an order exempting
La Constance from the provisions of the new regulations. Pickering wrote again, to Benjamin Franklin on 28 Jan., concerning the case (
Cal. Franklin Papers, A.P.S.
, 2:16). Nothing is known of its outcome since no reply by Sartine has been found. For the French regulations concerning recaptures, see Sartine to the Commissioners,
16 Sept. 1778, above; and for the regulations of
27 Sept. 1778,
{p. 344}
see
Wharton, ed., Dipl. Corr. Amer. Rev.
, 2:684–687.