‘
[
266]
and express her desire of some alteration in your
regulations, and that you would put more circumspection in your mode of proceeding against the ships of neutral states.’
The British minister defended the
British definition of ‘naval stores.’
Count Panin answered with a smile: ‘Accustomed to command at sea, your language on maritime subjects is always too positive.’
Harris deprecated any formal remonstrance against the
British treatment of neutral powers as an appearance of disunion between the two courts.
Panin replied: ‘I am sorry to hear you say what you do, as I have the orders of the empress to prepare a representation.’
Thus far had
Russia moved for the protection of neutral commerce before the end of 1778.
But her plan for 1779 did not equal the grandeur of her con-
ceptions; for it aimed at no more than an agreement with
Denmark and
Sweden to exclude privateers from the
North Sea near their coasts and from the
Baltic, and jointly to keep up a chain of cruisers for the safety of ships bound to their ports.
As the
Russian trade was for the most part in the hands of the
English, this action of Catharine would in practice be little more than a safeguard of English commerce.
The cabinet of
France was dissatisfied, and feared that the consolidated group of northern states might be drawn into connection with
England.
At this stage Frederic, who, through the mediation of
Russia and
France, was just emerging from his
Austrian war, intervened.
Russia had acted precipitately without intending to offend
France and without proper concert with the courts of
Stockholm