Ottoman Algeria in Western Diplomatic History with ... - Bibliothèque

Affairs, with respect to the truce. The latter assured him that Britain “had not
the least intention or a thought of injuring” the United States and that “Mr.
Logie had been instructed to use his endeavours to effect this purpose.”
Grenville considered that the British “had done no more than their friendship
for a good ally required of them”; but he also added:
that the measure was also particularly advantageous to themselves, as
they wanted the cooperation of the Portuguese fleet to act against their
common enemy, which it was at liberty to do when no longer employed
in blocking up the Algerine fleet. 41
For sure, Logie acted on instructions and knowledge of his government
but how far had he gone beyond those instructions is not clear. Humphreys
stated in the above mentioned report that Logie acted without knowledge of his
own court because “he has not received any direct official communications for
fourteen months past. This was owing to his having been recalled, and a
successor appointed for that residence.” 42 This statement is literally true; Logie
was in fact recalled in 1792 but the instructions on which he was acting were
addressed to his successor Charles Mace who had been delayed by the plague
in Spain. 43 Was he instructed also to issue passports? Undoubtedly, he was not
a stranger to that master strike. Philip Sloan, one of the American captives who
was at the service of the Dey, made the most damaging charge against Logie.
He claimed that he was present at some of the conversations about the truce
Logie had with the Dey and that he saw him “instructing the captains by charts
41 SPPD, 10:305, Mr. Pinckney to the Secretary of State, November 25, 1793.
42 ASP/FA, 1:297, D. Humphreys, Esq. to the Secretary of State, Oct. 7, 1793.
43 Parker, Uncle Sam in Barbary, p. 76. The American Captives informed about the arrival of Mace at
Algiers in December 1793. USDC, 10:336, December 29, 1793.
308