The Wheeling repository — Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.], 1808-04-21 00:00:00, page 3

the vessels of the former, and* not the
lattci . He insisted that the late aggres
sion was an act different in all respects
fi o n the former practice, and ought not
to he connected with it, as it showed a
disposition to make a particular inci
dent, in w hich they were in the wrong,
instrumental to an accommodation in
a case were his government held a dif
ferent doctrine. I urged in reply, that
the proclamation could not be consider
ed as an act of hostility or retaliation
01 lnjui'ies, though the aggression had
provoked and would have justified any
the strongest act of reprisal, but as a
mere measure of police, what had be
come in dispensable for the preserva
tioii of order within the limits of the
United States ; I informed him that the
men who had landed from the squadron
in defiance of the proclamation, and
of the law on which it was founded,
hau been restored to it: that with re
spect to the oilier point in difference,
said to be made in the case of deserters
fi'jin Uritish and Trench ships, I was
luai qua in ted with the fact, hut was sa
tisfied, il the statement was correct, that
the difference was imputable to the lo
■'al authorities, and not to the national
Uy Jveinment, bcxuuse as the TJuited
Suites were not bound by treaty to rv
sLore deserters from tbe service of ei
tiiri nation, it was aot presumable that
tiu ir government would interfere in the
ousint ss. I observed, however, that if
such a preference had been given, there
was a natural and justifiable cause for
it, proceeding from the conduct of the
squadrons ol France and England, on
the coast of the United States, and on
the main ocean, it being a well known
fact that the former did no maintain as
aright or adopt in practice the doctrine
ol the latter, to impress seamen from
our merchant vessels. I then discussed
at length, and urged with great earnest
ness,the justice and policy of his termi
nating at this time all the differences
which had arisen between our govern
ments from this cause, by an arrange
ment which should suppress the prac
tice on the part of Great Britain, and
remedy the evil ot which she complained.
In aid of those reasons which were
applicable to the merits of the question,
l urged the example given by the late
ministry, in the paper of November 8th,
presented to JVIr. Pinckney and myself
by the British commissioners,which had,
as I thought, laid the foundation of such
an air mgement. I stated that as it was
•stipulated by that paper, that the negoci
ation should be kr;pt open for the purpose
ot arranging this great interest without
prejudice to the 'rights of either power,it
was fairly to be understood as the sense
or both parties., that our rights were to
e respected, till that arrangement was
concluded ; v/hence it would follow that
the same effect would be produced in
practice, as if it had been provided for
b) treaty. I relied on this paper and
the construction, which I thought it ad
mitted, wivh which, however, the prac
tice had since in no degree correspond
ed, to shew the; extent to which the for
mer ministry had gone in meeting the
just views of our government, and
theieby to prove that the present mini
stry in improving that ground had no
uung to apiprehend from the preceding
one. Mr . Canning admitted that the
view whi ch I had taken of this paper
derived rnuch support from its contents,
and the time and circumstances under
which it was presented, but persisted
in his desire to keep the subjects sepa
iate. I proposed, as an expedient to
get rid of his objection, that we should
talce up and arrange both points inform
ady, in which case, provided it was
i-iwiic. in h manner to be obligatory, I oi
feretl to frame my note which should
demand reparation for the outrage, in
general terms, so as that it should not
appear by official documents, that the
subjects had any connection in the ne
gotiation. I urged that unless it was
intended to make no provisions against
impressment from merchant vessels, I
could see no objection to bis meeting me
on that ground, as after what had pass
ed, it was impossible to take up either
subject without having the other in
view, and equally so to devise any
mode which should keep them more
completely separate, than that which I
proposed. Mr. Canning still adhered
to his doctrine of having nothing to do
with impressment from merchant ves
sels, till the affair of the Chesapeake
was disposed of, after which he profes
sed his willingness to proceed to the o
ther object. In this manner the confer
ence ended, without having produced
l the arrangement which I had hoped
j from it. Mr. Canning’s conduct was
I in all other respects conciliatory.
My note to Mr. Canning was found
ed on the result of this conference. As it
had not been in my pow er to come to any
agreement with him on the general sub
i ject of impressment from merchant ves
sels, I considered it my duty to coni
bine it with the affair of the Chesa
peake, in the paper which I presented
him to claim reparation for the outrage,
l thought it best, however, to omit the
other acts, of which it was desired that
the reparation should consist. It seem
ed probable that a specification of each
circumstance, in the note, would in
crease th<j indisposition of the ministry
to accommodate, and give it support
with the nation, in a complete rejection
ot the demand. I expressed myself
therefore in regard to the other acts, in
general and conciliatory terms, but with
all the force in mv pow'er. The details
had been communicated to Mr. Can
ning in conference too recently to be for
gotten. Still it was just that no impro
per inference should be drawn from the
omission of them. To prevent it, I ob
tained an interview of Mr. Canning
immediately after my note was present
ed, in which, after reminding him of the
omission alluded to,the motive to which
I presumed he could not mistake, I ad
ded that my object in asking the inter
view had been to repeat to him infor
mally, what I had stated in the former
one, the other acts of which my govern
ment expected that the reparation should
consist. In this interview nothing oc
curred without the limit of the special
object for which it had been obtained,
j Canning did not lead the conversa
! .tio» to any other topic, and I could not
invite it.
;Yir. canning s answer to my note was
delayed more than a fortnight. Hav
ing refused to treat the subject in con
nection, and intimated in plain terms
that ii I v as not authorised to separate
them, it would be useless to prolong the
discussion, I thought it improper to
press it. My reply was equally expli
cit, so that with it the negotiation end
ed. The measure which he announced,
as being determined on by the king, in
case I could not agree to the separation,
is-completely the act of his government.,
You will observe that it is announced in
a form which precludes in a great de
gree, the idea of its being adopted at
my suggestion, as an act of reparation,
and in a tone of decision w hich seemed
equally to preclude my holding any
communication with him on it.
My mission being thus brought to an
eno, has afforded an opportunity for me
to return to the United States, as I have
long desired. Nothing but the great
interest which I take in the welfare of
niy country, and my earnest desire to