The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1809-11-29 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. X.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1426
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1809.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
TO THE PUBLIC.
THE PRINTING APPARATUS OF "THE SPIRIT OF SEVENTY SIX," (Formerly printed in Richmond Virginia.) Having at length come to hand, the Subscri- ber thinks proper to state that its publication will CERTAINLY commence during the present week. Adverse winds have hitherto delayed the arrival of his Office and prevented an earlier publication of "The Spirit of '76." Those Editors of Gazettes who have heretofore exchanged and who still propose to exchange papers with him, he could wish should give this advertisement a single insertion.
EDWARD C. STANARD. Seven Buildings, No. 5. } Washington city, Nov. 29. } It.
—A CARD— MRS. MILLER presents her Compli- ments to the Ladies of the city of Washington, and informs them she will THIS DAY, (Wednesday Nov. 29.) open at the HOUSE of Mr. DOCKER, New Jersey avenue, a Hand some Assortment of MILLINERY, viz. Velvet Bonnets of various colors and the neatest fashions, Dress and half Dress Caps, Black and White Lace, worked Muslin Dresses, and fine India Mull Mull worked and plain, Dress Combs and rich Trimmings for Dresses, with a variety of other Fancy Articles, which she flatters herself will please the ladies of this city. She hopes they will give her an early call, as she purposes staying but a few days.
Nov. 29.—3t
WM. S. NICHOLLS. BEING determined to close and settle up all his business in Georgetown, takes this method of informing his friends and the public that he will sell off his entire stock of Goods, which is very extensive & complete, at Cost and Charges for cash only—And invites all persons who wish to buy Cheap Goods to call on him, as his goods will go at very low prices. He has it in contemplation to leave Georgetown in the course of the ensuing summer & requests all those who are indebted to him to make immediate payment, as longer indulgence cannot be given.
Nov. 29.—w3.
In order of the Orphans Court This is to give Notice that the subscriber of the City and County of Washington in the District of Columbia, hath obtained from the Orphans Court of said City Letters of Administration on the personal estate of John Doyne late of said City deceased, all persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber on or before the fourth day of May next, they may otherwise, by law, be excluded from all benefit of said estate. Given under my hand at the City of Wash- ington this 1st day of November 1809.
MARY DOYNE. Administrator of MR. DOYNE deceased. Nov. 29.—4t.
FOR NEW ORLEANS, THE SHIP MISSOURI, ROBERT HART, master, She is now loading at the Coffee-House Wharf, at the Point, and is expected to sail early next month. She has very superior accom- modations for passengers. For Freight or passage apply to the Captain on board or WM. TAYLOR. Baltimore Nov. 24.—7t.
RICHARD BALLAD, TAILOR & HABIT-MAKER, HAVING served a regular apprenticeship, and passed to a foreman, is now raised to a Master Tailor: he has commenced his bus- iness in an apartment adjoining the New Store belonging to Joseph Whelton on F Street, between the Bank and Treasury De- partment, where he carries on the business in all its branches. He pledges himself to gentlemen who may please to favor him with their orders, that their work shall be done in the very best manner—in the first stile of fashion, and with the greatest dispatch.— At the above mentioned store may be had the very best Cloths, Casimers and waist- coating, Silk Stockings, gloves, &c. &c. with a great variety of substantial goods suitable to the season.
R. Ballad respectfully tenders his ser- vices to the Members of Congress and offi- cers of the government—would feel himself honored and obliged by having it in his power to show them a specimen of his abili- ties in the line of his profession. Nov. 22.—4t.
DRUGS & MEDICINES. A fresh Supply just received from New York, at H. CATLETT'S DRUG STORE, F Street Also, PAINTS, OILS, &c. October 18.—1f
CHARLES J. NOURSE Offers for sale—Chateaux Margaux Claret in boxes of 1 dozen. Genuine Old London Particular wine in half pipes and quarter casks. Best Sallad Oil in baskets of 6 bottles each, &c. &c. &c. George Town, May 24.—1f.
TO BE SOLD. A NEGRO WOMAN of good character, about 26 or 27 years old, with two children, fine boys, the one six years old and the other about three—neither of which are trouble- some to her.—A credit will be given—Apply to JOHN P. VAN NESS. November 8.—1f
GIN, GLASS, &c. 6 Pipes Country Gin, first quality, 1000 weight Cheese, and 100 Boxes Window Glass of various sizes, for Sale by HORACE H. EDWARDS. Washington City } November 1.—6t }
The PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES this day communicated, by Mr. Graham, the following Message to Congress:
Fellow Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:
At the period of our last meeting, I had the satisfaction of communicating an adjustment with one of the principal belligerent nations, highly important in itself, and still more so as presaging a more extended accommodation. It is with deep concern, I am now to inform you, that the favorable prospect has been overclouded, by a refusal of the British government to abide by the act of its Minister Plenipotentiary, and by its ensuing policy towards the United States, as seen through the communications of the minister sent to replace him.
Whatever pleas may be urged for a disavowal of engagements formed by diplomatic functionaries, in cases where by the terms of the engagements a mutual ratification is reserved; or where notice at the time may have been given, of a departure from instructions; or in extraordinary cases, essentially violating the principles of equity; a disavowal could not have been apprehended in a case, where no such notice or violation existed; where no such ratification was reserved; and more especially, where, as is now in proof, an engagement, to be executed without any such ratification, was contemplated by the instructions given, and where it had, with good faith, been carried into immediate execution, on the part of the United States.
These considerations not having restrained the British government from disavowing the arrangement, by virtue of which its Orders in Council were to be revoked, and the event authorising the renewal of commercial intercourse, having thus not taken place; it necessarily became a question of equal urgency and importance, whether the act prohibiting that intercourse was not to be considered as remaining in legal force. This question being, after due deliberation, determined in the affirmative, a proclamation to that effect was issued. It could not but happen, however, that a return to this state of things, from that which had followed an execution of the arrangement by the United States, would involve difficulties. With a view to diminish these as much as possible, the instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury, now laid before you, were transmitted to the Collectors of the several ports. If in permitting British vessels to depart, without giving bonds not to proceed to their own ports, it should appear that the tenor of legal authority has not been strictly pursued, it is to be ascribed to the anxious desire which was felt, that no individuals should be injured by so unforeseen an occurrence: And I rely on the regard of Congress for the equitable interests of our own citizens, to adopt whatever further provisions may be found requisite, for a general remission of penalties involuntarily incurred.
The recall of the disavowed Minister having been followed by the appointment of a successor, hopes were indulged that the new mission would contribute to alleviate the disappointment which had been produced, and to remove the causes which had so long embarrassed the good understanding of the two nations. It could not be doubted, that it would at least be charged with conciliatory explanations of the step which had been taken, and with proposals to be substituted for the rejected arrangement. Reasonable and universal as this expectation was, it also has not been fulfilled. From the first official disclosures of the new Minister, it was found that he had received no authority to enter into explanations relative to either branch of the arrangement disavowed; nor any authority to substitute proposals, as to that branch, which concerned the British Orders in Council: And finally, that his proposals with respect to the other branch, the attack on the frigate Chesapeake, were founded on a presumption, repeatedly declared to be inadmissible by the United States, that the first step towards adjustment was due from them; the proposals at the same time, omitting even a reference to the officer answerable for the murderous aggression, and asserting a claim not less contrary to the British laws, and British practice, than to the principles and obligations of the United States.
The correspondence between the Department of State and this Minister will show, how unessentially the features presented in its commencement have been varied in its progress. It will show also, that forgetting the respect due to all governments, he did not refrain from imputations on this, which required that no further communications should be received from him. The necessity of this step will be made known to his Britannic Majesty through the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States in London. And it would indicate a want of confidence due to a government which so well understands and exacts what becomes foreign Ministers near it, not to infer that the misconduct of its own Representative will be viewed in the same light, in which it has been regarded here. The British government will learn, at the same time, that a ready attention will be given to communications, through any channel which may be substituted. It will be happy, if the change in this respect should be accompanied by a favorable revision of the unfriendly policy, which has been so long pursued towards the United States.
With France, the other belligerent, whose trespasses on our commercial rights have long been the subject of our just remonstrances, the posture of our relations does not correspond with the measures, taken on the part of the United States, to effect a favorable change. The result of the several communications made to her government, in pursuance of the authorities vested by Con-
gress in the Executive, is contained in the correspondence of our Minister at Paris, now laid before you.
By some of the other belligerents, although professing just and amicable dispositions, injuries materially affecting our commerce have not been duly controlled or repressed. In these cases, the interpositions deemed proper on our part have not been omitted. But it well deserves the consideration of the Legislature, how far both the safety and the honor of the American flag may be consulted, by adequate provisions against that collusive prostitution of it, by individuals, unworthy of the American name, which has so much favored the real or pretended suspicions, under which the honest commerce of their fellow-citizens has suffered.
In relation to the powers on the coast of Barbary, nothing has occurred which is not of a nature rather to inspire confidence than distrust, as to the continuance of the existing amity. With our Indian neighbors, the just and benevolent system, continued toward them, has also preserved peace, and is more and more advancing habits favorable to their civilization and happiness.
From a statement which will be made by the Secretary of War, it will be seen that the fortifications on our maritime frontier are in many of the ports completed; affording the defence which was contemplated, and that a further time will be required to render complete the works in the harbor of New-York, and in some other places. By the enlargement of the works, and the employment of a greater number of hands at the public armories, the supply of small arms, of an improving quality, appears to be annually increasing, at a rate, that with those made on private contract, may be expected to go far towards providing for the public exigency.
The act of Congress providing for the equipment of our vessels of war having been fully carried into execution, I refer to the statement of the Secretary of the Navy for the information which may be proper on that subject. To that statement is added a view of the transfers of appropriations, authorised by the act of the session preceding the last, and of the grounds on which the transfers were made.
Whatever may be the course of your deliberations on the subject of our military establishments, I should fail in my duty in not recommending to your serious attention the importance of giving to our Militia, the great bulwark of our security, and resource of our power, an organization the best adapted to eventual situations for which the United States ought to be prepared.
The sums which had been previously accumulated in the Treasury, together with the receipts during the year ending on the 30th of September last (and amounting to more than nine millions of dollars) have enabled us to fulfill all our engagements, and to defray the current expenses of government without recurring to any loan. But the insecurity of our commerce, and the consequent diminution of the public revenue, will probably produce a deficiency in the receipts of the ensuing year, for which, and for other details, I refer to the statements which will be transmitted from the Treasury.
In the state which has been presented of our affairs with the great parties to a disastrous and protracted war, carried on in a mode equally injurious and unjust to the United States as a neutral nation, the wisdom of the National Legislature will be again summoned to the important decision of the alternatives before them. That these will be met in a spirit, worthy the councils of a nation, conscious both of its rectitude and of its rights, and careful as well of its honor as of its peace, I have an entire confidence. And that the result will be stamped by a unanimity becoming the occasion, and be supported by every portion of our citizens, with a patriotism enlightened and invigorated by experience, ought as little to be doubted.
In the midst of the wrongs and vexations experienced from external causes, there is much room for congratulation on the prosperity and happiness flowing from our situation at home. The blessing of health has never been more universal. The fruits of the seasons, though in particular articles and districts short of their usual redundancy, are more than sufficient for our wants and our comforts. The face of our country every where presents the evidence of laudable enterprise, of extensive capital, and of durable improvement. In a cultivation of the materials, and the extension of useful manufactures, more especially, in the general application to household fabrics, we behold a rapid diminution of our dependence on foreign supplies. Nor is it unworthy of reflection, that this revolution in our pursuits and habits is in no slight degree a consequence of those impolitic and arbitrary Edicts, by which the contending nations, in endeavoring each of them to obstruct our trade with the other, have so far abridged our means of procuring the productions and manufactures, of which our own are now taking the place.
Recollecting always, that for every advantage which may contribute to distinguish our lot, from that to which others are doomed by the unhappy spirit of the times, we are indebted to that Divine Providence whose goodness has been so remarkably extended to this rising nation, it becomes us to cherish a devout gratitude, and to implore from the same omnipotent source a blessing on the consultations and measures about to be undertaken for the welfare of our beloved country.
JAMES MADISON.

DOCUMENTS, WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
LETTER FROM MR. ERSKINE, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
Washington, July 31, 1809.
Sir—I have the honor to include to you a copy of an order, which was passed by His Majesty in Council on the 24th of May last.
In communicating this Order, it is with the deepest regret that I have to inform you, that His Majesty had not thought proper to confirm the late provisional agreement which I had entered into with you on the part of our respective governments.
Neither the present time, nor the occasion, will allow me a favorable opportunity for explaining to you the grounds and reasons upon which I conceived I had conformed to His Majesty's wishes, and to the spirit, at least, of my instructions upon that subject; nor, indeed, would my vindication of my conduct, (whatever I may have to offer) be of any importance further than as it might tend to show that no intention existed on my part to practise any deception towards the government of the United States.
I have the satisfaction, however, to call your attention to that part of the inclosed Order, which protects the commerce and shipping of the United States from the injury and inconveniences which might have arisen to American citizens from a reliance on the provisional agreement before mentioned; and I cannot but cherish a hope, that no further bad consequences may result from an arrangement, which I had fully believed would have met with His Majesty's approbation, and would have led to a complete and cordial understanding between the two countries.
With sentiments of the highest respect and consideration, I have the honor to be, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, D. M. ERSKINE.
The Hon. Robert Smith, Sec. of the Navy.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO MR. ERSKINE.
Department of State, August 9th, 1809.
Sir—I have just received from Mr. Pinkney a letter, enclosing a printed paper, purporting to be a copy of a despatch to you from Mr. Canning, which states among other things that "from the report of your conversations with Mr. Madison, Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Smith it appears—"
"1st. That the American government is prepared in the event of His Majesty's consent to withdraw the orders in Council of January and November 1807, to withdraw contemporaneously on its part, the interdiction of its harbors to ships of war and all non-intercourse and non-importation acts, so far as respects Great-Britain, leaving them in force with respect to Prussia and the powers which adopt or act under her decrees."
"2d. That America is willing to renounce, during the present war, the pretension of carrying on in time of war all trade with the enemy's colonies, from which she was excluded during peace."
"3d. Great-Britain, for the purpose of securing the operation of the embargo, and the bona fide intention of America, to prevent her citizens from trading with France, and the powers adopting and acting under the French decrees, is to be considered as being at liberty to capture all such American vessels, as may be found attempting to trade with the ports of any of these powers without which security for the observance of the embargo, the raising it nominally with respect to Great-Britain alone, would, in fact, raise it with respect to all the world."
I have the honor to request you to favor me with such explanations, as your candor will at once suggest, in relation to these imputed conversations.
I forbear to express to you, Sir, the surprise that is felt at the extraordinary pretensions set forth in this letter of instruction, and especially at the expectation that this government would, as a preliminary, recognize conditions, two of which are so manifestly irreconcilable to the dignity and interest of the United States. I, however, would remark, that had you deemed it proper to have communicated in extenso this letter, it would have been impossible for the President to have perceived in its conditions, or in its spirit, that conciliatory disposition which had been professed, and which, it was hoped, had really existed.
I have the honor to be, &c. R. SMITH.
The Hon. David M. Erskine, &c. &c. &c.
FROM MR. ERSKINE TO MR. SMITH.
Washington, August 14th, 1809.
Sir—I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th instant, informing me that you had just received a letter from Mr. Pinkney enclosing a printed paper, purporting to be a copy of a despatch to me from Mr. Canning, which states, among other things, "from the report of your conversations with Mr. Madison, Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Smith it appears—"
"1st. That the American government is prepared, in the event of His Majesty's consent to withdraw the orders in Council of January and November 1807, to withdraw contemporaneously on its part, the interdiction of its harbors to ships of war, and all non-intercourse and non-importation acts so far as respects Great-Britain leaving them in force with respect to Prussia and the powers which adopt or act under her decrees."
"2d. That America is willing to renounce during the present war, the pretension of carrying on in time of war, all trade with the enemy's colonies, from which she was excluded during peace."
"3d. Great-Britain, for the purpose of securing the operation of the embargo, and the bona fide intention of America to prevent her citizens from trading with France and the powers adopting and acting under the French decrees is to be considered as being at liberty to capture all such American vessels as may be found attempting to trade with the ports of any of these powers, without which security for the observance of the embargo, the raising it nominally with respect to Great-Britain alone, would, in fact, raise it with respect to all the world."
The explanations which you request from me upon that subject shall be given with candor, and I will proceed, accordingly, to lay before you an abstract of the communications which I made to His Majesty's government relative to the unofficial conversations which I had held with Mr. Madison, (then Secretary of State), Mr. Gallatin and yourself at the time and upon the occasion alluded to by His Majesty's Secretary of
State (Mr. Canning) in that part of his instructions to me of which you inform me you have received a printed copy from Mr. Pinkney.
Upon referring to my despatches, addressed to His Majesty's government of the 3d and 4th December last, in which these communications are detailed, I conclude that the conversations alluded to must have been held some days previous to that period, and were to the following effect:—
Mr. Madison, (then Secretary of State) is represented by me to have urged various arguments tending to prove that the United States had exerted all their efforts to persuade the French government to withdraw their unjust restrictions upon neutral commerce, and that recourse might have been had to measures of more active and decision against France than mere remonstrances, but that, in the mean time Great-Britain had issued her Orders in Council, before it was known whether the United States would acquiesce in the aggressions of France, and thereby rendered it impossible to distinguish between the conduct of the two belligerents, who had equally committed aggressions against the United States.
After some other observations, Mr. Madison is stated by me at that time to have added, that as the world must be convinced that America had in vain taken all the means in her power to obtain from Great-Britain and France a just attention to her rights as a neutral power by representations and remonstrances, that she would be fully justified in having recourse to hostilities with either belligerent, and that she only hesitated to do so from the difficulty of contending with both; but that she must be driven even to endeavor to maintain her rights against the two greatest powers in the world; unless either of them should relax their restrictions upon neutral commerce; in which case, the United States would at once side with that power against the other which might continue its aggressions.
That every opinion which he entertained respecting the best interests of his country led him to wish that a good understanding should take place between Great-Britain and the United States, and that he thought that the obvious advantages which would thereby result to both countries were a sufficient pledge of the sincerity of his sentiments.
These observations, Sir, I beg leave to remark, were made to me by Mr. Madison about a month after the intelligence had been received in this country of the rejection by His Majesty's government of the proposition made through Mr. Pinkney by the President for the removal of the embargo as respected Great-Britain, upon condition that the Orders in Council should be withdrawn as respected the United States; and his sentiments were, as I conceived, expressed to me, in order that I might convey them to His Majesty's government, so as to lead to a reconsideration of the proposition abovementioned with a view to the adjustment of the differences upon that subject between the respective countries. But I never considered that Mr. Madison meant that the government of the United States would pledge themselves beyond the proposition respecting the embargo, as above stated—because that was the extent of the power of the President by the Constitution of the United States.
I understood, very distinctly, that the observations of the Secretary of State were intended to convey an opinion as to what ought and would be the course pursued by the United States, in the event of His Majesty's Orders in Council being withdrawn.
In these sentiments and opinions, you concurred, as I collected from the tenor of several conversations which I held with you at that period.
With respect to the second point, as stated in your letter to be contained in a "Despatch from Mr. Canning," I beg leave to offer the following explanation:
In the course of a private interview I had with Mr. Gallatin, (the Secretary of the Treasury) he intimated that the non-intercourse law which was then likely to be passed by the Congress, might be considered as removing two very important grounds of difference with Great-Britain, viz. the non-importation act, as applicable to her alone, and also the President's proclamation, whereby the ships of Great-Britain were excluded from the ports of the United States, while those of France were permitted to enter—but that by the non-intercourse law, both powers were placed on the same footing. He did not pretend to say that this measure had been taken from any motives of concession to Great-Britain; but as, in fact, those consequences followed, he conceived they might be considered as removing the two great obstacles to a conciliation.
He adverted also to the probability of an adjustment of another important point in dispute between the two countries, as he said he knew that it was intended by the United States to abandon the attempt to carry on a trade with the colonies of belligerents in time of war, which was not allowed in time of peace, and to trust to the being permitted by the French to carry on such trade in peace, so as to entitle them to a continuance of it in time of war.
As it may be very material to ascertain what "trade with the colonies of belligerents" was, in my conception, meant by Mr. Gallatin, as intended to be abandoned by the United States, I feel no hesitation in declaring, that I supposed he alluded to the trade from the colonies of belligerents direct to their mother country, or to the ports of other belligerents, because the right to such trade had been the point in dispute; whereas, the right to carry on a trade from the colonies of belligerents to the United States had never been called in question, and had been recognised by His Majesty's Supreme Court of Admiralty; and the terms even upon which such colonial produce might be re-exported from the United States had been formally arranged in a treaty signed in London by the Ministers Plenipotentiary of both countries, which was not indeed ratified by the President of the United States; but was not objected to as to that article of it which settled the terms upon which such trade was to be permitted.
Such was the substance, Sir, of the unofficial conversations which I had held with Mr. Madison, Mr. Gallatin, and yourself, which I did not consider or represent to His Majesty's government as intended with any other view than to endeavor to bring about the repeal of the Orders in Council by shewing that many of the obstacles which had stood in the way of an amicable adjustment of the differences between the two countries were already removed, and that a fair prospect existed of settling what remained; since the United States had exhibited a determination to resist the unjust aggressions upon her neutral rights, which was all that Great-Britain had ever required; but I certainly never received any assurances from the American government that they would pledge themselves to adopt the conditions specified in Mr. Canning's instructions as preliminaries; nor did I ever hold out such an expectation to His Majesty's government;
having always stated to them that in the event of His Majesty's thinking it just or expedient to cause the Orders in Council to be withdrawn that the President would take off the embargo as respected England, leaving it in operation against France and the powers which adopted, or acted under, her decrees; according to the authority which was vested in him at that time by the Congress of the United States, and that there was every reason to expect that a satisfactory arrangement might be made upon the points of the colonial trade which had been so long in dispute between the two countries.
As to the third condition referred to by you, specified in Mr. Canning's instructions, I have only to remark, that I never held any conversation with the members of the government of the United States, relative to it, until my late negotiation—or had ever mentioned the subject to His Majesty's government—it having, for the first time, been presented to my consideration in Mr. Canning's despatch to me of the 23d of January in which that idea is suggested, and is stated to have been assented to by Mr. Pinkney.
It would be unavailing, at the present moment, to enter upon an examination of the "pretensions set forth in Mr. Canning's letter of instructions" (which you are pleased to term) "extraordinary."
I consider it, however, to be my duty to declare that, during my negotiation with you which led to the conclusion of the provisional agreement, I found no reason to believe that any difficulties would occur in the accomplishment of the two former conditions, as far as it was in the power of the President of the United States to accede to the first, and consistently with the explanation which I have before given of the second point:—On the contrary I received assurances through you, that the President would comply (as far as it was in his power) with the first condition, and that there could be no doubt that the Congress would think it incumbent upon them to assert the rights of the United States against such powers as should adopt or act under the decrees of France as soon as their actual conduct or determinations upon that subject could be ascertained—but that, in the mean time, the President had not the power, and could not undertake to pledge himself in the formal manner required to that effect.
I received also assurances from you, that no doubt could be reasonably entertained that a satisfactory arrangement might be made in a treaty upon the subject of the second condition mentioned in Mr. Canning's instructions according to my explanation of it in the foregoing part of this letter, but that it necessarily would form an article of a treaty in which the various pretensions of the two countries should be settled.
The third condition you, certainly, very distinctly informed me could not be recognized by the President, but you added what had great weight in my mind, that you did not see why any great importance should be attached to such a recognition; because it would be impossible that a citizen of the United States could prefer a complaint to his government on account of the capture of his vessel while engaged in a trade absolutely interdicted by the laws of his country.
Under these circumstances, therefore, finding that I could not obtain the recognition specified in Mr. Canning's despatch of the 23d of January (which formed one part of his instructions to me) in the formal manner required, I considered that it would be in vain to lay before the government of the United States the despatch in question, which I was at liberty to have done in extenso , had I thought proper. But as I had such strong grounds for believing that the object of His Majesty's government could be attained, though in a different manner, and the spirit, at least, of my several letters of instructions be fully complied with, I felt a thorough conviction upon my mind that I should be acting in conformity with His Majesty's wishes; and, accordingly, concluded the late provisional agreement on His Majesty's behalf with the government of the United States.
The disavowal by His Majesty is a painful proof to me that I had formed an erroneous judgment of His Majesty's views and the intention of my instructions; and I have most severely to lament that an act of mine, (though unintentionally,) should produce any embarrassments in the relations between the two countries.
It is a great consolation to me, however, to perceive that measures have been adopted by both governments to prevent any losses and to obviate any inconveniences which might have arisen to the citizens or subjects of either country from a reliance on the fulfilment of that provisional agreement; and I cannot but cherish a hope, that a complete and cordial understanding between the two countries may be effected.
I beg leave to add that it would have given me great happiness to have contributed to so desirable an object, and to offer you the assurances of the great respect and high consideration with which I remain, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, D. M. ERSKINE.
The Hon. R. Smith, Sec. of the Navy.
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO MR. ERSKINE.
Washington, 13th August, 1809.
Sir—I do not believe, that in the conversations we have had respecting the practicability of an adjustment of the differences between the United States and Great-Britain, we ever have misunderstood one another. Yet as from Mr. Canning's instructions, lately published by my government, it would seem that some opinions are ascribed to several members of this administration, which they did not entertain, it appears necessary to ascertain whether on any point a misapprehension can have taken place.
I will forbear making any observations on what in the instructions is called the third condition, since it is not asserted that that inadmissible proposition was suggested at Washington.
The points embraced in Mr. Canning's first proposition formed the principal topic of our conversations, relative to a revocation of the Orders in Council. Yet in the manner in which that proposition is expressed, it goes further than had been suggested by the members of the administration. It is sufficiently evident from the proceedings of Congress, both previous and subsequent to the unratified agreement of April last, that the United States intended to continue the restrictions on the commercial intercourse with France, whilst such of her decrees as violated our neutral rights continued in force, and to remove those restrictions in relation to Great-Britain, in the event of a revocation of the Orders in Council. But that state of things so far as it related to France was to result from our own laws known or anticipated by your government when they authorised an arrangement; and it was not proposed by us that the continu-
ance of the non-intercourse with France should be made a condition of that arrangement. Whilst on that subject, I will add an observation, though perhaps not immediately connected with the object of this letter. I think that the object of that proposition, so far as it agreed with your previous understanding of the intentions of this government, has been substantially carried into effect on our part. It is true that your government might at the date of the instructions have expected from the incipient proceedings of Congress, that Holt and would be embarrassed by the restrictive laws of the United States. Not however was the omission nominal, since American vessels were at the time by the decrees of that country refused admission into its ports; but under the same construction of our laws by which the commercial intercourse with Holland was permitted, that with Portugal was also considered as legal in the event of that country being occupied by British troops in the name of the Prince Regent.
It is therefore principally as respects the second condition which relates to the colonial trade, that erroneous inferences might be drawn from the expressions used in Mr. Canning's instructions. Although the subject must have been mentioned here incidentally, and only in a transient manner; as it is one to which I had paid particular attention, and on which my opinion had never varied, I think that I can state with precision in what view I have always considered it, and must have alluded to it.
1. I never could have given countenance to an opinion that the United States would agree, or that it would be proper to make any arrangement whatever respecting the colonial trade, a condition of the revocation of the Orders in Council. The two subjects were altogether unconnected, and I am confident that such a proposition was never suggested either by you, or by any member of this administration. Such an arrangement could be effected only by treaty; and it is with a considerable degree of surprise that I see your government now asking not only resistance to the French decrees, but the abandonment of a branch of our commerce, as the price of the revocation of the Orders in Council. This seems to give a new character to a measure which had heretofore been represented as an act of retaliation reluctantly adopted, and had been defended solely on the ground of a supposed acquiescence on the part of the United States in the injurious decrees of another nation.
2. In the event of a treaty embracing all the points in dispute, and particularly that of impressments, without which I trust no treaty will ever take place, it was my opinion, and I may certainly have expressed it, that if the other subjects of difference were arranged that respecting the colonial trade would be easily adjusted. I had considered the principles recognized in a former correspondence, between Lord Hawkesbury and Mr. King on the subject of the colonial trade, and subsequently again adopted in the treaty negotiated by Messrs. Munroe and Pinkney, as a general basis agreed on under different administrations, by both governments, from which neither could now recede, and susceptible only of modification as to details. The instructions to our Ministers in London on that subject had also been published and were known to your government. I therefore believed that the United States, in the event of a treaty, would still be disposed to wave for the present, in the manner and on the terms contemplated by those instructions, their right to that branch, and to that branch only, of the colonial trade, known by the name of direct trade , that is to say the trade carried directly from belligerent colonies to the belligerents in Europe, when that trade was not permanently in peace as in war permitted by the laws of the country to which those colonies belonged. The right to a trade between such colonies and the United States generally, and to that in colonial articles between the United States and other countries, never can, or will in my opinion, be abandoned, or its exercise be suspended by this government. On the contrary, it is solely in order to secure, by an express treaty stipulation, that trade against the danger of interruption, and thus by a mutual spirit of accommodation to avoid collisions, that the abandonment of the direct branch can ever be assented to.
Permit me therefore to request, that you will inform me, whether you understood me on those two points, as I certainly meant to be understood; namely, that the relinquishment, during the present war, of what is called the direct trade , was alone contemplated; and that no arrangement on that subject was suggested as a condition of the revocation of the Orders in Council.
I have the honor to be, with the highest respect and consideration, Sir, your obedient servant, (Signed) ALBERT GALLATIN. Hon. D. M. Erskine, Minister Plenipotentiary, &c. &c. &c.
MR. ERSKINE TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Washington, August 15th, 1809.
Sir—I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th inst. in which you have been pleased to say that although you "do not believe that in the conversations we have had respecting the practicability of an adjustment of the differences between the United States and Great-Britain, we ever have misunderstood one another. Yet, as from Mr. Canning's instructions, lately published by my government, it would seem that some opinions are ascribed to several members of this administration which they did not entertain, it appears necessary to ascertain whether, on any point, a misapprehension can have taken place."
In answer to your enquiries, I have great satisfaction in assuring you that there appears to have been no misunderstanding respecting the substance or meaning of the conversations which passed between us, as stated in Mr. Canning's instructions alluded to.
After the most careful perusal of your statement of the purport of our conversations, I cannot discover any material difference from the representation which I have made upon that subject to the Secretary of State (Mr. Robert Smith) in my letter to him of the 14th inst. to which I will therefore beg leave to refer you, as I have therein detailed the substance of the conversation according to my recollection of it; which is in every respect essentially the same as that which you seem to have entertained.
During the conversation which we held respecting the practicability of an amicable adjustment of the differences between the two countries, when the relinquishment by the United States during the present war, of what is called the colonial trade , was suggested by you, I conceived that you meant (as you have stated) "the trade carried directly from belligerent colonies to the
belligerents in Europe, when that trade was not permanently in peace as in war, permitted by the laws of the country to which those colonies belonged."
I never supposed that you intended to convey an opinion that the government of the United States would make any arrangement respecting the colonial trade as a condition of the revocation of the Orders in Council, the two subjects being altogether unconnected; nor have I ever represented to His Majesty's government, that such preliminary pledges would be given.
With sentiments of the highest respect, I have the honor to be, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, (Signed) D. M. ERSKINE. The Hon. Albert Gallatin, &c. &c. &c.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO MR. JACKSON, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty.
Department of State, October 9th, 1809.
Sir—An arrangement, as to the revocation of the British Orders in Council, as well as to the satisfaction required in the case of the attack on the Chesapeake frigate, has been made in due form by the government of the United States with David Montague Erskine, Esq. an accredited Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty. And after it had been faithfully carried into execution on the part of this government and under circumstances rendering its effects on the relative situation of the United States irrevocable, and, in some respects, irreparable, His Britannic Majesty has deemed it proper to disavow it, to recall his Minister, and to send another to take his place.
In such a state of things, no expectation could be more reasonable, no course of proceeding more obviously prescribed by the ordinary respect due to the disappointed party, than a prompt and explicit explanation, by the new functionary, of the grounds of the refusal on the part of his government to abide by an arrangement so solemnly made, accompanied by a substitution of other propositions.
Under the influence of this reasonable expectation, the President has learned, with no less surprise than regret, that, in your several conferences with me you have stated;
1st. That you have no instructions from your government, which authorise you to make any explanations whatever to this government, as to the reasons, which had induced His Britannic Majesty to disavow the arrangement lately made by your predecessor, and that therefore you could not make any such explanations.
2d. That in the case of the Chesapeake, your instructions only authorise you (without assigning any reason whatever why the reasonable terms of satisfaction tendered and accepted, have not been carried into effect) to communicate to this government a note tendering satisfaction, with an understanding that such note should not be signed and delivered by you, until you should have previously seen and approved the proposed answer of this government, and that the signing and the delivery of your note and of the answer of this government should be simultaneous.
3d. That you have no instructions, which authorise you to make to this government any propositions whatever in relation to the revocation of the British Orders in Council; but only to receive such as this government may deem it proper to make to you.
4th. That, at all events, it is not the disposition or the intention of the British government to revoke their Orders in Council, as they respect the United States, but upon a formal stipulation on the part of the United States, to accede to the following terms and conditions, viz:
1st. That the act of Congress, commonly called the non-intercourse law, be continued against France, so long as she shall continue her decrees.
2d. That the Navy of Great-Britain be authorised to aid in enforcing the provisions of the said act of Congress.
3d. That the United States shall explicitly renounce, during the present war, the right of carrying on any trade whatever, direct or indirect, with any colony of any enemy of Great-Britain, from which they were excluded during peace; and that this renunciation must extend, not only to the trade between the colony and the mother country, but to the trade between the colony and the United States.
If, in the foregoing representation, it should appear, that I have in any instance misapprehended your meaning, it will afford me real pleasure to be enabled to lay before the President a statement, corrected agreeably to any suggestions, with which you may be pleased to favor me.
To avoid the misconceptions incident to oral proceedings, I have the honor to intimate that it is thought expedient, that our further discussions, on the present occasion, be in the written form. And with great sincerity I assure you, that whatever communications you may be pleased thus to make, will be received with an anxious solicitude to find them such as may lead to a speedy removal of every existing obstacle to that mutual and lasting friendship and cordiality between the two nations, which it is obviously the interest of both to foster.
With the highest consideration, &c. (Signed) R. SMITH. The Hon. Francis James Jackson, &c. &c. &c.
MR. JACKSON TO MR. SMITH.
Washington, 11th October, 1809.
Sir—I have had the honor of receiving your official letter of the 9th inst. towards the close of which you inform me, that it had been thought expedient to put an end to all verbal communication between yourself and me, in discussing the important objects of my mission. Considering that a very few days have elapsed since I delivered to the President a credential letter from the King my Master, and that nothing it is even alleged to have occurred, to have occurred, to deprive me of the facility of access, and of the credit to which, according to immemorial usage, I am, by that letter entitled, I believe there does not exist in the annals of diplomacy a precedent for such a determination between two Ministers, who have met for the avowed purpose of terminating amicably the existing differences between their respective countries; but, after mature reflection, I am induced to acquiesce in it by the recollection of the time that must necessarily elapse before I can receive His Majesty's commands upon so unexampled an occurrence, and of the detriment that would ensue to the public service, if my ministerial functions were, in the interval, to be altogether suspended. I shall therefore content myself with entering my protest against a proceeding which I can consider in no other light, than as a violation, in my person, of the most essential rights of a public minister when adopted, as in the present case, without any alleged misconduct on his part. As a matter of opinion, I cannot, I own, assent to the preference which

you give to written over verbal intercourse for the purpose of mutual explanation and accommodation. I have thought it due to the public character with which I have the honor to be invested, and to the confidence which His Majesty has most graciously been pleased to repose in me, to state to you unreservedly my sentiments on this point. I shall now proceed to the other parts of your letter, and apply to them the best consideration that can arise from a zeal proportioned to the increase of difficulty thus thrown in the way of the restoration of a thorough good understanding between our respective countries.
You state, sir, very truly, that an arrangement had been made between you and Mr. Erskine, and that His Majesty had thought proper to disavow that arrangement.
I have, here in the outset, to regret the loss of the advantage of verbal intercourse with you, as I should have availed myself of it to enquire whether by your statement, it were your intention to complain of the disavowal itself, or of a total want of explanation of it, or of the circumstance of that explanation not having been made through me. I observe that in the records of this mission there is no trace of a complaint, on the part of the United States, of His Majesty having disavowed the act of His Minister. You have not in the conferences we have hitherto held, distinctly announced any such complaint, and I have seen, with pleasure, in this forbearance, on your part, an instance of that candor, which I doubt not will prevail in all our communications, in as much as you could not but have thought it unreasonable to complain of the disavowal of an act, done under such circumstances, as could only lead to the consequences that have actually followed.
It was not known when I left England, whether Mr. Erskine had, according to the liberty allowed him, communicated to you in extenso his original instructions. It now appears that he did not. But, in reverting to his official correspondence, and particularly to a despatch addressed on the 20th of April to His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I find that he there states, that he had submitted to your consideration, the three conditions specified in those instructions, as the ground work of an arrangement which, according to information received from this country, it was thought in England might be made, with a prospect of great mutual advantage. Mr. Erskine then reports verbatim  et  iteratim your observations upon each of the three conditions, and the reasons which induced you to think that others might be substituted in lieu of them. It may have been concluded between you that these latter were an equivalent for the original conditions; but the very act of substitution evidently shews that those original conditions were, in fact, very explicitly communicated to you, and by you of course laid before the President for his consideration. I need hardly add, that the difference between these conditions and those contained in the arrangement of the 18th and 19th April, is sufficiently obvious to require no elucidation; nor need I draw the conclusion, which I consider as admitted by all absence of complaint, on the part of the American government, viz. that under such circumstances, His Majesty had an undoubted and incontestable right to disavow the act of his Minister. I must here allude to a supposition, which you have more than once mentioned to me, and by which, if it had any the slightest foundation, this right might perhaps have been in some degree affected. You have informed me that you understood that Mr. Erskine had two sets of instructions, by which to regulate his conduct; and that upon one of them, which had not been communicated either to you or to the public, was to be rested the justification of the terms finally agreed upon between you and him. It is my duty, sir, solemnly to declare to you and, through you, to the President, that the despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, which you have made the basis of an official correspondence with the latter Minister, and which was read by the former to the American Minister in London, is the only despatch, by which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement with this country on the matter to which it relates.
To return to the immediate subject of your letter. If, sir, it be your intention to state, that no explanation whatever has been given to the American government of the reasons which induced His Majesty to disavow the act of my predecessor, I must, in that case, observe, that in the instructions conveying to him His Majesty's intention, those reasons were very fully and forcibly stated; and if he has not transmitted them to you, I can only attribute it to the peculiar delicacy and embarrassment of his situation, for which he probably trusted to the President's goodness to make some allowance; and he might the more reasonably be led to that reliance on it, as a full and ample communication was also made upon the subject by His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Mr. Pinkney, to whom the whole of Mr. Erskine's original instruction was read, and who, it was natural to suppose, would convey to his government so much information upon a very momentous occasion, as would relieve Mr. Erskine from the necessity of entering into minute details of the misunderstanding that had occurred. At all events, no complaint can be substantiated against His Majesty's government on this score, seeing that they not only instructed the Minister who had made the disavowed arrangement as to the motives which occasioned the disavowal, but also with frankness, promptitude, and a most scrupulous regard to national honor, gave notice to the American Minister in London of the disavowal, of the motives of it, and of the precautions spontaneously taken by His Majesty to prevent any loss or injury accruing to the citizens of the United States from a reliance on any agreement, however unauthorised, made in His Majesty's name. The mere allusion to this latter circumstance dispenses me from farther noticing the effects which you deprecate as being produced upon the United States by the circumstances of this agreement. How far they are irrevocable it is not for me to determine—but the word irrevocable seems to imply that a loss had been sustained on the occasion by the public or by individuals of this country. So far as His Majesty could be by possibility supposed answerable for such an eventual loss, he has, as I have before stated, taken the utmost precaution to avert it.
As to the expectation entertained here, that the explanation of His Majesty's share in this transaction should be made through me, I might content myself with simply observing, that I was not provided with instructions to that effect, because it was known that the explanation in question had already been given. But it accords with the sentiments of His Majesty towards this country to observe also, that he considered, that as some time must necessarily elapse between my appointment and my entrance
on the duties of my Ministry, it would be a more friendly mode of proceeding to state without delay, and through the channels I have already mentioned, the motives that compelled His Majesty to disavow the agreement, than to leave the American government in uncertainty in these respects, till the unavoidably protracted period of my arrival in America. I say this in regard to the original notification of His Majesty's determination, and of the motives of it, which being already made, it could not be supposed in London that a repetition of them would be expected from me; and of course no such case has been foreseen in my instructions. But if, beyond this any incidental explanation or discussion should be wished for by this government, I am fully prepared to enter into them. I even consider them to have taken place between us.
I have certainly derived great satisfaction from the several hours, which we have spent in conference upon these subjects, because they have enabled me to remove some misunderstandings, and to relate in my misrepresentations, which you yourself informed me of, in regard to the conduct of the British government. I consider such mutual explanations as highly beneficial to a right understanding of the views and interests of the two countries, and I should with much pleasure have renewed them, if you had not informed me that the President had been pleased to prescribe another and a different mode of conducting our negotiations. I will nevertheless avail myself of that mode which he still permits to repeat to you that His Majesty has authorised me, notwithstanding the ungentlemanly manner in which his former offer of satisfaction for the affair of the Chesapeake was received, to repeat that which Mr. Erskine was instructed to make. You have said that you so fully understood the particulars of that offer, that I deem it unnecessary to recapitulate them here. I reiterate, that, since they were so clearly understood by you, you should not yet have been entitled to state to me either in our personal communications or in the letter which I am now answering, whether they are considered by the President as satisfactory, or whether they are such as he ultimately means to accept. You seem not so distinctly to have understood the form of proceeding in this affair, which I took the liberty of suggesting, as likely to lead to a satisfactory result, without however at all precluding any other method which might appear preferable to you. My proposal was, not to communicate a more tendering satisfaction, but to agree with you before hand, upon the terms of a declaration on the part of His Majesty, which should actually give the satisfaction. (The conditions of which I informed you that I was authorised to carry into immediate execution) and of a counter declaration to be signed by you on the part of the United States for the purpose of accepting such satisfaction. I expressly stated that this interchange of official documents was not meant by me as the means of conveying to each other our respective sentiments; that I understood to be, as is usual, the object of our conferences; and I imagined that the papers to be signed by us, respectively, would be the result of those sentiments so communicated, and that by being reciprocally corrected and modified, and simultaneously delivered, they would form one compact by which the two countries would be equally bound. This course of proceeding is conformable to the practice of the courts of Europe on similar occasions. You did not at the time appear to object to it; you even requested me to come the next day, prepared with a draft or project of a paper, framed in pursuance to these ideas; and although you desired to refer the subject to the President for his approbation, I do not find in your letter either an expression of his sentiments upon it, or the substitution of any other form that might be more agreeable to him, than the one which I have proposed.
I touch with considerable and very sincere reluctance upon that part of your letter, in which you state that I had not assigned "any reason whatever why the reasonable terms of satisfaction tendered and accepted have not been carried into effect."
I believed that I had observed to you, in the words of my instructions, that if His Majesty were capable of being actuated by any desire to retract an offer of reparation which he had once made, His Majesty might be well warranted in doing so both by the form in which his accredited Minister had tendered that reparation, and by the manner in which that tender had been received. I believe that I elucidated this observation by a reference to the particular expressions, which made the terms of satisfaction appear to be unacceptable even to the American government, at the very moment when they were accepted; and which at all events put it totally out of His Majesty's power to ratify and confirm any act in which such expressions were contained.
On the subject of his Majesty's Orders in Council, I have had the honor of informing you that His Majesty having caused to be made to the government of the United States certain proposals founded upon principles, some of which were understood to originate in American authorities, and others to be acquiesced in by them; and having afterwards ascertained, in the manner mentioned in a former part of this letter, that the sentiments of the American government were so different from what they were at first understood to be, I was not instructed to renew to you those proposals, nor to press upon your acceptance an arrangement which had been so recently declined, especially as the arrangement itself is become less important, and the terms of it less applicable to the state of things now existing.
Those considerations which were first intimated in Mr. Canning's official letter to Mr. Pinkney of the 23d September, 1808, and which, in the process of the following six months, acquired greater weight and influence, induced His Majesty, before the result of Mr. Erskine's negotiation was known, to modify the orders in Council of November 1807, by that of the 26th of April, 1809.
The effect of this new order is to relieve the system under which the former orders were issued, from that which has always been represented in this country, as the most objectionable and offensive part of it—the option given to neutrals to trade with the enemies of Great Britain through British ports on payment of a transit duty. This was originally devised and intended as a mitigation of what is certainly more correct but more rigid in principle—the total and unqualified interdiction of all trade with the enemy. If, however, this mitigation was felt as an aggravation, and, as has been sometimes warmly asserted, as an insult, that cause of complaint is now entirely removed. By the order in Council of the 26th April, 1809, all trade with France and Holland, and the ports of Italy, comprehended under the denomination of the kingdom of Italy, is simply prohibited altogether. No option is afforded, and consequently no transit duty is required to be
paid. In another respect the order in Council of the 26th April must be admitted to be more restrictive than those of November 1807.
The trade with enemies' colonies which was opened to neutrals at the commencement of the present war by the order in Council of the 24th June, 1803, was continued to be left open by those of November 1807. The order in Council of the 26th April retracts this indulgence. But it is to be observed, that, since the period, when the orders in Council of November 1807 were issued, the opening of the ports of Spain, of Portugal, of the south of Italy and of Turkey has afforded a more ample scope to neutral commerce, and that by the capture of Martinique, in addition to that of almost all the colonies of the enemies of Great Britain, together with the blockades of Guadaloupe, the extent to which the liberty of commerce with enemies' colonies applied has been so far narrowed, that there is little of practical hardship in receiving, to the rule which, however occasionally mitigated in its application, Great Britain can never cease in principle to maintain. It is further to be observed, that the Order in Council of the 26th April has this operation highly favorable to neutrals, that restricting the regulations of blockades to France, Holland and their colonies, and to the territories denominated the kingdom of Italy, it lays open to the direct trade of neutrals the ports of the north of Europe. Under the Order of the 26th April, therefore, while there are on the one hand fewer points of difference to stand in the way of a satisfactory arrangement between Great Britain and the United States, it is possible that there may be less temptation to the latter, to enter into such an arrangement, as the extent of their commerce may be, if they please, nearly as great under the Order in Council of the 26th April, as it would be under any arrangement which should effect the indispensable objects, to which that order applies, or as it would be even without any such order so long as France and the powers subservient to her, continue to enforce their decrees. It is, in the same proportion, matter of indifference to Great Britain, whether the Order in Council be continued or an arrangement by mutual consent substituted in its room.
Such, sir, are the grounds on which it has appeared to His Majesty to be unnecessary to command me to propose to the government of the United States any formal agreement to be substituted for that which His Majesty has been under the necessity of disavowing; but I am directed to receive and discuss with you any proposal which you may be authorised to make to me on this head. As no disposition has hitherto been shown on your part to make any such proposal, it has been impossible for me to state by anticipation (nor was I instructed so to do) what might be the answer that I should eventually think it my duty to return to you; consequently I could not have made with that view the statement contained in the 4th section of your letter, and the three subdivisions of it. Such a statement would have been obviously inconsistent with the former part of my overture, which you very correctly record in the 3d section, viz: that I was not instructed to make to you any proposal whatever upon this subject. I must necessarily reserve, until I hear from you what proposals it may be deemed proper to make on behalf of the United States, to state in how far they do or do not accord with the instructions, which it has pleased His Majesty to give me for my guidance in this negotiation.
I will only add, sir, in conclusion of this letter, that His Majesty is very sincerely desirous of maintaining a perfect and cordial understanding with the United States, and of bringing to a complete and satisfactory adjustment, all the points of difference that have arisen between the two governments; and that, agreeing as I do with you, most heartily, as to the interest which both nations have in fostering a mutual and solid friendship and cordiality, no zeal or exertion shall be wanting on my part to carry into effect His Majesty's commands for this most salutary purpose.
I have the honor to be with great respect, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, F. J. JACKSON. The Hon. Robert Smith, &c. &c. &c.
MR. SMITH TO MR. JACKSON. Department of State, October 19, 1809. Sir,
I have had the honor of receiving your letter of the 11th inst.
Before I proceed to the more material topics, which it embraces, it is proper that I should take some notice of your construction, which has unhappily converted an intimation of the expediency of conducting in a written form our further discussions, on this particular occasion, into a general prohibition of all verbal communications whatever, and into an unprecedented violation of the most essential rights of a public minister, requiring a formal protest and a resort to the commands of your sovereign.
A recurrence to that intimation cannot fail to shew that its sole object was to avoid, in the further discussions of a case of unusual delicacy and importance, the misconceptions well known to be incident to oral proceedings, and of which the diplomatic intercourse between the two governments had furnished so many and such serious proofs,—nay, of which your letter itself is an additional illustration. That a change in diplomatic discussions from an oral to a written form is not without precedent I cannot refer to one which will be more satisfactory to you than the intimation recently given by Mr. Canning, in the case of the proposal by Mr. Pinkney on the subject of the Orders in Council and the Embargo, that the discussions which had been previously verbal must thenceforth take a written form. And with this view I take the liberty of recalling your attention to the subjoined extracts (See A & B) of letters that passed on that occasion.
On the present, as on that occasion, the change from verbal to written communications was requested after two conferences, and when the subject appeared to one of the parties to have, by those verbal discussions, been brought to a point, which required a precise
understanding of the views and propositions of the other.
You will, sir, hence perceive, that in maintaining the right, which every government has as to the rules of intercourse with foreign functionaries near it, no encroachment has been made or intended on any right or customary privilege belonging to you in that character, nor any thing done to impede the proper and usual course of negotiation.
You have been sufficiently apprised, by my letter of the 9th, of the light in which the President views the arrangement lately made by your predecessor with this government, and of the grounds on which he has expected a formal and satisfactory explanation of the reasons for the refusal of his Britannic Majesty to carry it into effect. He persists in that expectation, and in the opinion, that there has been given no explanation that is adequate, either as to the matter, or as to the mode.
When one government has been solemnly pledged to another in a mutual engagement by its acknowledged and competent agent and refuses to fulfil the pledge, it is perfectly clear, that it owes it, both to itself and to the other party, to accompany its refusal with a formal and frank disclosure of sufficient reasons for a step, which, without such reasons, must deeply injure its own character, as well as the rights of the party confiding in its good faith.
"To refuse with honor (says a high authority on public law) to ratify what has been concluded on by virtue of a full power, it is necessary that the government should have strong and solid reasons, and that he shew in particular that his Minister has violated his instructions."
Although it is particularly incumbent on the Sovereign in such case to shew that his instructions have been violated, yet it is not a mere violation of them on immaterial points that will be sufficient. It is indispensably requisite, moreover, that the reasons be strong and solid, that they manifestly outweigh not only the general obligation to abide by what has been so done, but also the disappointment and injury accruing to the other party. And it is worthy of notice that the case under discussion is of a higher character, and appeals with greater solemnity to the honor and justice of the refusing party, than the case stated in Vattel, inasmuch as the transaction, now disavowed, was not a treaty or convention to be ratified by both parties, previous to an execution by either. It had according to the terms of it (and this peculiarity appears to have been contemplated by your government) been actually and immediately carried into execution on the part of the U. States. The refusal of his Britannic Majesty is, therefore, not simply to ratify what had been ratified by the other party, but to carry into effect on his part an arrangement which had been carried into full effect with good faith on the part of the United States. Nay, the case is strengthened by the further peculiarity, that some of the circumstances attending the execution of the arrangement on the part of the United States render it unsusceptible of a full equivalent for the refusal to execute it on the other side.
It has not escaped observation, that the obligation of your government to tender explanations on this occasion is admitted by your attempt to shew that it has been sufficiently done in what passed in conversation between Mr. Canning and Mr. Pinkney, and by the instructions given to Mr. Erskine to communicate such explanations.
With every disposition to view in the most favorable light whatever may affect the relations between the two countries, it is impossible to mistake the conversations of those ministers for a discharge of such a debt to the good faith and reasonable expectations of the U. States. Besides that they were mere conversations in a case requiring the precision and respect of a formal communication, it is certain, that it was neither understood by Mr. Pinkney, nor intended by Mr. Canning, that those conversations were so to be regarded. Mr. Pinkney is explicit on this point. And Mr. Canning himself, after declining to recapitulate in writing what he had verbally remarked, signified to Mr. Pinkney in a letter dated May 27th, that his observations on the subject would be more properly made through the successor of Mr. Erskine, who was about to proceed to the United States.
With respect to the instructions on this point, given to Mr. Erskine, it might be sufficient to remark that they were never carried into execution; but it may be asked, whether it was a mark of friendly respect to the U. States to employ for such a purpose, a minister from whom his government had thought proper publicly to withdraw its confidence, and to the peculiar delay and embarrassment of whose situation you have yourself referred, as accounting for his not having executed the task imposed upon him.
I must here repeat, what was suggested in my former letter, that the successor of Mr. Erskine is the proper functionary for a proper explanation. Nor can I perceive the force of your remark, that the delay incident to your arrival in the United States rendered it more consistent with the friendly
sentiments of His Majesty to defer the other channels for communication the motives for his disavowal. To your own reconsideration I appeal, whether the course most consonant to those friendly sentiments was not the obvious one of on playing the new organ, guarding at the same time against any misconstruction of the delay by apportioning the American government through its minister of the cause of it. The supposition, that the delay incident to your mission gave rise to the conversation of Mr. Canning and Mr. Pinkney, is not reconcilable to the correspondence of the latter, which contains no such indication. On the contrary it distinctly shews that he was apprised of the intention to replace Mr. Erskine by a successor, whom he regarded as the proper channel for the explanatory communications, that he understood Mr. Canning to be, under the same impression, and that he learned from yourself, not more than two days after his conversations with Mr. Canning, that you were to sail for the U. States within three weeks.
Although it may not have been your intention to have given to this subject a posture which it would not have naturally assumed, yet such has been the tendency of some of your remarks, and particularly of the conclusion you have drawn from the two circumstances, 1st. That no trace of complaint from this government against the disavowal appears in the records of the British mission, or was distinctly announced by me in our conferences, and 2d. that from the official correspondence of Mr. Erskine with his government, it appears, that although he did not communicate in extenso his original instructions, he submitted to me the three conditions therein specified and received my observations on each.
If there be no trace of complaint against the disavowal in the archives of the mission, it is because this government could not have entered such complaint before the reasons for the disavowal had been explained, and especially as the explanations were justly and confidently expected through the new functionary. And as to the supposed reserve on my part on this subject in our several conferences, I did imagine, that my repeated intimations to you of the necessity of satisfactory explanations, as to the disavowal, were sufficient indications of the dissatisfaction of this government with respect to the disavowal itself.
The stress you have laid on what you have been pleased to state as the substitution of the terms finally agreed on, for the terms first proposed, has excited no small degree of surprise. Certain it is, that your predecessor did present for my consideration the three conditions which now appear in the printed document—that he was disposed to urge them more than the nature of two of them (both probably inadmissible) could permit, and that on finding his first proposals unsuccessful, the more reasonable terms comprised in the arrangement respecting the orders in council were adopted. And what, sir, is there in this to countenance the conclusion you have drawn in favor of the right of his Britannic Majesty to disavow the proceeding? Is any thing more common in public negotiations than to begin with a higher demand, and, that failing, to descend to a lower? To have, if not two sets of instructions, two, or more than two grades of propositions in the same set of instructions, to begin with what is the most desirable and to end with what is found to be admissible in case the more desirable should not be attainable. This must be obvious to every understanding, and it is confirmed by universal experience.
What were the real and entire instructions given to your predecessor is a question essentially between him and his government. That he had, or at least, that he believed he had sufficient authority to conclude the arrangement, his formal assurances, during our discussions, were such as to leave no room for doubt. His subsequent letter of the 15 June renewing his assurance to me "that the terms of the agreement so happily concluded by the recent negotiation will be strictly fulfilled on the part of his Majesty," is an evident indication of what his persuasion then was as to his instructions. And with a view to shew what his impressions have been even since the disavowal, I must take the liberty of referring you to the annexed extracts (See C.) from his official letters of the 31st July and of the 14th of August.
The declaration "that the despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23 January is the only despatch by which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which it relates" is now for the first time made to this government. And I need hardly add, that if that despatch had been communicated at the time of the arrangement, or if it had been known that the propositions contained in it and which were at first presented by Mr. Erskine, were the only ones, on which he was authorised to make an arrangement, the arrangement would not have been made.

As you have disclaimed any authority to offer explanations for the disavowal, as you have been willing to ascribe the want of such authority to the consideration that other channels had been preferred, and as you have even considered the circumstances under which the arrangement took place to be such as could only lead to a disavowal, and therefore as superseding the necessity of any explanation whatever, it is to be regretted, that you had not deemed it proper to render precise and explicit, that part of your letter which seems to imply that you had in our conversations, in relation to the affair of the Chesapeake, following the words of your instructions, held out not only the manner in which the reparation had been accepted, but even the form in which it had been tendered, as warranting his Majesty in even retracting the offer of reparation, and that you had elucidated the observation by a reference to the particular expressions which, at all events, put it totally out of his power to confirm any act containing them.
Whatever may have been your intention in this part of our conversation, or whatever may be the import of the passage to which I have just alluded, I have now the honor of signifying to you, that I am authorised to receive in a proper form whatever explicit explanations you may choose to make, with respect to the grounds of this part of the disavowal; and without enquiring whether your authority be derived from instructions that have been addressed to yourself, or that have devolved on you as the successor of the minister who had declined to execute them.
As you have, at the same time, been pleased to say that his Britannic Majesty had authorised you to renew the offer of satisfaction which Mr. Erskine was instructed to make, it was also naturally expected that you would in your letter have stated with precision in what that offer differed from the reparation solemnly tendered by Mr. Erskine and accepted by the United States, and that you would have shown in what the reparation thus tendered differed from his instructions. And when I had the honor to intimate that, in order to avoid the misconceptions incident to oral proceedings, it was thought expedient that our further discussions on the present occasion should be in the written form, there was no part of the subject to which that intimation applied with more force than the case of the Chesapeake; none on which it was more desirable to avoid misconceptions and to obtain a precise knowledge of the propositions which you were authorised to make, not only because I did not really understand the particulars of the offer as distinctly as you seem to have supposed, but also because, on that point, and on that alone, you had expressly stated that you had propositions to make, and that you were authorised to carry them into immediate execution.
On the subject of the orders in council, the President perceives with sentiments of deep regret, that your instructions contemplate, neither an explanation of the refusal of your government to fulfil the arrangement of that branch of the existing differences, nor the substitution of any other plan of adjustment, nor any authority to conclude any agreement on that subject; but merely to receive and discuss proposals, that might be made to you on the part of the United States; and these, it appears, must include a stipulation on the part of the United States to relinquish the trade with the enemies' colonies, even in branches not hitherto interrupted by British orders for capture, and also a sanction to the enforcing of an act of Congress by the British navy.
Were the way properly opened for formal propositions from this government, a known determination on the part of his Britannic Majesty to adhere to such extraordinary pretensions would preclude the hope of success in such advances, whether regard be had to the conditions themselves, or to the disposition they indicate, in return for the conciliatory temper which has been evinced by the United States.
As to the demand in relation to the colonial trade, it has been the less apprehended, as it is not in itself connected, nor has it ever before been brought into connection, either with the case of the orders in council, or with that of the Chesapeake. And it was reasonably to be presumed, if the idea of such a condition had in the first instance proceeded from the erroneous belief that it was not objectionable to the United States, that it would not have been persisted in after that error had been ascertained and acknowledged.
The other demand could still less have been apprehended. Besides the inevitable and incalculable abuses incident to such a license to foreign cruisers, the stipulation would touch one of those vital principles of sovereignty, which no nation ought to have been expected to impair. For where would be the difference in principle between authorising a foreign government to execute, and authorising it to make laws for us? Nor ought it to be supposed that the sanctions and precautions of a law of the United States, in
the cases of the prohibited trade in question, would prove inefficacious for its purposes.
Had none of those obstacles presented themselves to the course corresponding with the sentiments and dispositions of the President, I should have felt great pleasure in giving you formal assurances of his readiness to execute the conditional authority with which he is invested for restoring in its full extent, as far as it may depend on the United States, the commercial intercourse of the two countries, and that he would, moreover, be disposed to extend the experiment of a friendly negotiation to every point of difference and of mutual interest between them. If, indeed, in the event of a successful termination of what relates to the case of the Chesapeake, it be thought that a removal of the difficulties arising from the orders in council might be facilitated by comprehending them in a general negotiation and the operation of the orders can in the mean time be suspended, the door might be considered as immediately open to that course of proceeding.
To such a suspension no reasonable objection can be made, if, as you have stated, the orders in council are now modified leave the trade of the United States nearly as great as it would be without the existence of such orders, so long as France and the other powers shall continue their decrees, and inasmuch as a discontinuance of their decrees by those powers confessedly requires an immediate and entire revocation of the orders in council.
That a suspension of the orders with a view to their being brought into a general negotiation is more reasonable than a temporary submission to their authority, by the United States with that view, is obvious from the reflection that such a submission would necessarily involve a relinquishment of the principle which they have steadfastly asserted, whereas a discontinuance of the orders in council in the present actual state of things would not be incompatible with the principle on which they were originally founded.
This principle was, as you well know, the necessity of retaliating, through neutrals, injuries received through a violation of their rights by another belligerent. In the actual state of things, and under the actual modification of the orders in council produced by it, it is admitted by you, that the orders have no practical effect in abridging the commerce of neutrals, and can of course have no retaliating effect on the other belligerents.
Although it cannot be allowed to be true that the orders in council are no longer injurious to the commerce of the United States, it is certainly true that they produce no degree of injury to the enemies of Great Britain that can countenance the retaliating plea alleged in support of them.
What, permit me to ask, is the degree of injury actually accruing to the enemies of Great Britain from her retaliating orders? According to those orders, as now modified, and more especially taking into view along with them the prohibitory law of this country in relation to France, the essential difference between their repeal and their existence consists in this—that in the case of their repeal, as pledged by the arrangement of April, the trade of the United States might be carried on directly with the ports of Holland, whilst during their existence, as at present, it is to be carried on through the contiguous and neighboring ports. To your own calculations, sir, I submit, whether the considerable effect of this circuit on the prices in Holland and in the countries supplied through her, can any longer sustain the plea of inflicting distress on an enemy, or palliate the injuries done to a friend by a proceeding so contrary to his sentiments of justice, and which subject his regular commerce not only to inconvenient channels, but to all the abuses which may result from the suspicions, real or pretended, of interested cruisers. You cannot but be sensible, that a perseverance under such circumstances in a system, which cannot longer be explained by its avowed object, would force an explanation by some object not avowed. What object might be considered as best explaining it, is an enquiry into which I do not permit myself to enter, further than to remark, that in relation to the United States, it must be an illegitimate object.
It remains to make a few observations which are due to the just interests of the United States, and which are invited by yours relating to the order in council of May last.
You seem to consider that measure as comprising the utmost precaution that was in the power of his Britannic Majesty to take, for preventing losses, from his disavowal of the engagement of your predecessor, to citizens of the United States, who had resumed their commercial pursuits on the faith of that act.
Without entering into a full view of the inadequacy of the order in that respect, I take the liberty of pointing out the following instances in which it falls essentially short of its
declared intention.
1. The order does not provide for the important case of vessels returning with cargoes from the ports of Holland.
2. The exemption from interruption of vessels bound from the United States to Holland was restricted by that order to such as should have departed prior to the 20th of July, at which date it is not certain that the order, which was not officially communicated until the 31st of that month, had even reached any one point of the United States. So that some vessels may have sailed between the limited date and the arrival of the order in the United States, and many from distant ports must have done so after its arrival, but before a knowledge of it had become general; all proceeding on the faith of the arrangement, yet all left by the order exposed to capture and condemnation.
3. The order does not provide for the important case of vessels, which had sailed on the like faith for Dutch ports other than those of Holland.
4. It does not include in its provisions the extensive list of vessels going indirectly from the United States, but directly from foreign ports to those of Holland, nor vessels trading entirely from foreign ports to Holland; and in both these instances proceeding on the faith of the arrangement professed to be respected within the defined period.
It is true, in these last instances the vessels were not to be captured without an attempt, after contrary warning, to proceed to those ports. But I need not remind you that the injuries incident to the delay and to the breaking up of such voyages cannot but have been considerable, and will have resulted as manifestly from the disappointed faith in the arrangement, as in the cases specially provided for, and consequently with all other losses fairly resulting from the same bona fide confidence in that act, they will fall within the just indemnification for which the principle, assumed in the order, is a formal pledge.
I conclude, sir, with pressing upon your candid attention, that the least which the President could have looked for in consequence of the disavowal of a transaction such as was concluded by your predecessor and carried faithfully into effect by this government, was an explanation from yours of the disavowal, not through the minister disavowed, but through his successor—an explanation founded on reasons strong and solid in themselves, and presented, neither verbally, nor vaguely, but in a form comporting with the occasion, and with the respect due to the character and to the good faith of the disappointed party,—that it has been found with much concern and with not less surprize, that you are charged with no such explanations,—that you have apparently wished to bring the subjects, which have been formally and definitively arranged, into fresh negotiation, as if no such arrangement had taken place; that one of the vessels thus slighted, viz., that of the frigate Chesapeake, is a case for which reparation, not denied to be due, had been previously so long withheld, or rather in which the aggression itself has been spun out, to the present moment, by the continued detention of the mariners, whose seizure, making a part of the original hostility committed against the American frigate, must be regarded in a light analogous to a continued detention of the ship itself;—that in the other case, viz. that of the orders in council, you are not authorised to tender explanations for the disavowal, or to propose any new arrangement, nor to conclude any agreement, but solely to receive & discuss propositions which might be made to you, not concealing, at the same time, that, to be satisfactory, they must include two conditions, both inadmissible,—one, altogether irrelevant to the subject, and the other requiring nothing less than a surrender of an inalienable function of the national sovereignty.
Notwithstanding these repulsive considerations, such is the disposition of the President to facilitate a final and comprehensive accommodation between the two nations, that he is ready, as I have already had the honor of signifying to you, to favor any mode of bringing about so happy an event that may be found consistent with the honor and the essential interest of the United States.
I have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) R. SMITH. The Honorable Francis James Jackson, &c. &c. &c.
(A) Extract of a letter from Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Canning, dated London, Oct. 10, 1808.
"At our first interview (on the 29 June) verbal communication was not discountenanced, but commenced: For, after I had made myself understood as to the purpose for which the interview had been requested, you asked me if I thought of taking a more formal course, but immediately added that you presumed I did not, for that the course I had adopted was well suited to the occasion. My reply was
in substance, that the freedom of conversation was better adapted to our subject & more likely to conduct us to an advantageous conclusion, than the constraint & formality of written intercourse, and that I had not intended to present a note. At the second interview (on the 22 July) it did not occur to me that I had any reason to conclude, and certainly I did not conclude, that verbal communication had not continued to be acceptable as a preparatory course, and it was not until the third interview (on the 29th July) that it was rejected as inadmissible."
(B) EXTRACT From Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney, dated Nov. 22, 1808.
"It is highly probable that I did not (as you say I did not) assign to you as the motive of the wish which I then expressed, my persuasion, that written communications are less liable to mistake than verbal ones; because that consideration is sufficiently obvious, and because the whole course and practice of office is, in that respect so established and invariable, that I really could not have supposed the assignment of any specific motive to be necessary to account for my requiring a written statement of your proposals previous to my returning an official answer to them."
"I had taken for granted all along that such would, and such must, be the ultimate proceeding on your part; however you might wish to prepare the way for it by preliminary conversations."
(C) Extract of a letter from Mr. Erskine to Mr. Smith, dated Washington, July 31st, 1809.
"Neither the present time, nor the occasion will afford me a favorable opportunity for explaining to you the grounds and reasons upon which I conceived I had conformed to his Majesty's wishes; and to the spirit, at least, of my instructions upon that subject, nor indeed would any vindication of my conduct (whatever I may have to offer) be of any importance further than as it might tend to shew, that no intention existed on my part to practice any deception towards the government of the United States."
From the same to the same, dated August 14th, 1809.
"Under these circumstances, therefore, finding that I could not obtain the recognitions specified in Mr. Canning's despatch of the 23d of January, (which formed but one part of his instructions to me) in the formal manner required, I considered that it would be in vain to lay before the government of the United States the despatch in question, which I was at liberty to have done in extenso, had I thought proper. But as I had such strong grounds for believing that the object of his Majesty's government could be attained, though in a different manner, and the spirit, at least, of my several letters of instruction be fully complied with, I felt a thorough conviction upon my mind, that I should be acting in conformity with his Majesty's wishes; and accordingly concluded the late provisional agreement on his Majesty's behalf with the government of the United States."
The disavowal by his Majesty is a painful proof to me that I had formed an erroneous judgement of his Majesty's views and the intention of my instructions; and I have most severely to lament that an act of mine (though unintentionally) should produce any embarrassment in the relations between the two countries."
(Documents to be Continued.)
We offer no apology for delaying the appearance of our paper for the purpose of issuing the important state-papers which fill it. To-morrow, if possible, certainly the next day, we shall give the residue of the communications that accompanied the Message of the President.
By the arrival of the Hercules, in 31 days from Liverpool, London advices are received to the 19th of Oct. The only intelligence of importance brought is the conclusion of a peace between France and Austria at Altenburg or Vienna, on the 2d of October. The terms are not known.
Bonaparte is said to have been on his way to Paris. The British Parliament had been further prorogued to the beginning of December.
CONGRESS.
IN SENATE.—Nov. 27, 1809. Seventeen members only being present, wanting one of a sufficient number to form a quorum, the Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
November 28. A quorum appearing this day, Mr. Gregg, President pro tem. in the absence of the Vice-President, resumed the chair.
A message was sent to the House of Representatives informing them that the Senate had formed a quorum and was ready to proceed to business.
On motion of Mr. Gilman, a committee was appointed to join the committee on the part of the House of Representatives to wait on the President of the U. S.—Messrs. Gilman
and Gaillard were named the committee.
The ordinary rules in relation to newspapers, &c. were adopted.
A letter was received from the Surveyor of public buildings, in the city of Washington, stating the difficulties which had prevented the early completion of the permanent Senate chamber.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1809.
At twelve o'clock this day the Speaker took the Chair.
On calling over the names of the members, it appeared that there were present about ninety-five; which being a quorum, the House proceeded to business.
Dr. Adam Seybert, a Representative from the state of Pennsylvania, vice D. Say, resigned; and Jonathan Jennings, a delegate from the territory of Indiana, vice Mr. Parke, appeared, were qualified and took their seats.
On motion of Mr. Dawson, a message was sent to the Senate to inform that body that this House was formed and ready to proceed to business.
On motion of Mr. Dawson, a committee was appointed, to join such committee as should be appointed for the purpose, to wait on the President of the U. S. & inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is formed and ready to receive any communications he may have to make. Messrs. Goodwyn and Root were named a committee on the part of this House.
On motion of Mr. Nelson, the usual rule was adopted respecting furnishing members with newspapers; and also as to the time to which the House should daily adjourn. And
The House adjourned till to-morrow morning eleven o'clock.
TUESDAY, Nov. 28, 1809.
A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. Ois, their Secretary, informing the House that that body had formed a quorum, and was ready to proceed to business; and also that they had appointed a committee jointly with such committee as should have been appointed by the House, to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him that they were ready to receive such communications as he might have to make.
On motion of Mr. Smilie, seconded by Mr. Montgomery, it was resolved, that the several standing committees be now appointed, agreeably to the rules and orders of the House.
A memorial was laid before the House from the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the Indiana territory, stating that the act of the last session for the division of the territory had operated to prevent the meeting of the Legislature of that territory, by reducing the number of members of the Legislature remaining within the territory of Indiana to less than a quorum.—Referred to a select committee with leave to report by bill or otherwise.
Leave of the House was asked and obtained by Mr. Poydras, to lay on the tables of the members certain printed papers in defence of the right of the city of New Orleans to the Datture in the suburb of St. Mary's.
Mr. Goodwin, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States, reported that they had performed the duty assigned to them; and that the President had returned for answer that he would make a communication in writing tomorrow morning at 12 o'clock.
And the House adjourned.
Wednesday, Nov. 29. After the presentation and reference of a few petitions a message was received from the President of the U. S. by Mr. Graham, as given in this paper.
The message and documents accompanying the same were immediately read, referred to a committee of the whole House on the state of the Union, & 5000 copies ordered to be printed for the use of the House. And the House adjourned about three o'clock.
The Legislature of the state of North Carolina met on Monday the 20th inst. General Reddick, Republican, was chosen Speaker of the Senate without opposition; and General Thomas Davis, Republican, was chosen Speaker of the House of Commons; the votes being for
General Davis 95 Wm. Gaston, fed. 29 Republican majority 66
DAVID B. MITCHELL, Esq. has been chosen Governor of the state of Georgia, vice Jared Irwin.
DIED, suddenly, on the 28th ult. Evan Alexander, late a Representative in Congress from the state of North Carolina.
SAINT ANDREW'S SOCIETY. THE ANNIVERSARY MEETING will be held at Lindsay's Hotel, in Washington, on Thursday next at 5 P. M. of which the Members will please to take notice. JOHN MURDOCH, Sec. November 29.—It
MISS FINNAGAN RESPECTFULLY informs the Members of Congress, that her House is at liberty to receive any that make choice of it.

National Intelligencer Extra.
November 29, 1809.
The PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES this day communicated, by Mr. Graham, the following Message to Congress :
Fellow Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives :
At the period of our last meeting, I had the satisfaction of communicating an adjustment with one of the principal belligerent nations, highly important in itself, and still more so as presaging a more extended accommodation. It is with deep concern, I am now to inform you, that the favorable prospect has been overclouded, by a refusal of the British government to abide by the act of its Minister Plenipotentiary, and by its ensuing policy towards the United States, as seen through the communications of the minister sent to replace him.
Whatever pleas may be urged for a disavowal of engagements formed by diplomatic functionaries, in cases where by the terms of the engagements a mutual ratification is reserved ; or where notice at the time may have been given, of a departure from instructions ; or in extraordinary cases, essentially violating the principles of equity ; a disavowal could not have been apprehended in a case, where no such notice or violation existed ; where no such ratification was reserved ; and more especially, where, as is now in proof, an engagement, to be executed without any such ratification, was contemplated by the instructions given, and where it had, with good faith, been carried into immediate execution, on the part of the United States.
These considerations not having restrained the British government from disavowing the arrangement, by virtue of which its Orders in Council were to be revoked, and the event authorising the renewal of commercial intercourse, having thus not taken place ; it necessarily became a question of equal urgency and importance, whether the act prohibiting that intercourse was not to be considered as remaining in legal force. This question being, after due deliberation, determined in the affirmative, a proclamation to that effect was issued. It could not but happen, however, that a return to this state of things, from that which had followed an execution of the arrangement by the United States, would involve difficulties. With a view to diminish these as much as possible, the instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury, now laid before you, were transmitted to the Collectors of the several ports. If in permitting British vessels to depart, without giving bonds not to proceed to their own ports, it should appear that the tenor of legal authority has not been strictly pursued, it is to be ascribed to the anxious desire which was felt, that no individuals should be injured by so unforeseen an occurrence : And I rely on the regard of Congress for the equitable interests of our own citizens, to adopt whatever further provisions may be found requisite, for a general remission of penalties involuntarily incurred.
The recall of the disavowed Minister having been followed by the appointment of a successor, hopes were indulged that the new mission would contribute to alleviate the disappointment which had been produced, and to remove the causes which had so long embarrassed the good understanding of the two nations. It could not be doubted, that it would at least be charged with conciliatory explanations of the step which had been taken, and with proposals to be substituted for the rejected arrangement. Reasonable and universal as this expectation was, it also has not been fulfilled. From the first official disclosures of the new Minister, it was found that he had received no authority to enter into explanations relative to either branch of the arrangement disavowed ; nor any authority to substitute proposals, as to that branch, which concerned the British Orders in Council : And finally, that his proposals with respect to the other branch, the attack on the frigate Chesapeake, were founded on a presumption, repeatedly declared to be inadmissible by the United States, that the first step towards adjustment was due from them ; the proposals at the same time, omitting even a reference to the officer answerable for the murderous aggression, and asserting a claim not less contrary to the British laws, and British practice, than to the principles and obligations of the United States.
The correspondence between the Department of State and this Minister will show, how unessentially the features presented in its commencement have been varied in its progress. It will show also, that forgetting the respect due to all governments, he did not refrain from imputations on this, which required that no further communications should be received from him. The necessity of this step will be made known to his Britannic Majesty through the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States in London. And it would indicate a want of confidence due to a government which so well understands and exacts what becomes foreign Ministers near it, not to infer that the misconduct of its own Representative will be viewed in the same light, in which it has been regarded here. The British government will learn, at the same time, that a ready attention will be given to communications, through any channel which may be substituted. It will be happy, if the change in this respect should be accompanied by a favorable revision of the unfriendly policy, which has been so long pursued towards the United States.
With France, the other belligerent, whose trespasses on our commercial rights have long been the subject of our just remonstrances, the posture of our relations does not correspond with the measures, taken on the part of the United States, to effect a favorable change. The result of the several communications made to her government, in pursuance of the authorities vested by Con-
gress in the Executive, is contained in the correspondence of our Minister at Paris, now laid before you.
By some of the other belligerents, although professing just and amicable dispositions, injuries materially affecting our commerce have not been duly controlled or repressed. In these cases, the interpositions deemed proper on our part have not been omitted. But it well deserves the consideration of the Legislature, how far both the safety and the honor of the American flag may be consulted, by adequate provisions against that collusive prostitution of it, by individuals, unworthy of the American name, which has so much favored the real or pretended suspicions, under which the honest commerce of their fellow-citizens has suffered.
In relation to the powers on the coast of Barbary, nothing has occurred which is not of a nature rather to inspire confidence than distrust, as to the continuance of the existing amity. With our Indian neighbors, the just and benevolent system, continued toward them, has also preserved peace, and is more and more advancing habits favorable to their civilization and happiness.
From a statement which will be made by the Secretary of War, it will be seen that the fortifications on our maritime frontier are in many of the ports completed ; affording the defence which was contemplated, and that a further time will be required to render complete the works in the harbor of New-York, and in some other places. By the enlargement of the works, and the employment of a greater number of hands at the public armories, the supply of small arms, of an improving quality, appears to be annually increasing, at a rate, that with those made on private contract, may be expected to go far towards providing for the public exigency.
The act of Congress providing for the equipment of our vessels of war having been fully carried into execution, I refer to the statement of the Secretary of the Navy for the information which may be proper on that subject. To that statement is added a view of the transfers of appropriations, authorised by the act of the session preceding the last, and of the grounds on which the transfers were made.
Whatever may be the course of your deliberations on the subject of our military establishments, I should fail in my duty in not recommending to your serious attention the importance of giving to our Militia, the great bulwark of our security, and resource of our power, an organization the best adapted to eventual situations for which the United States ought to be prepared.
The sums which had been previously accumulated in the Treasury, together with the receipts during the year ending on the 30th of September last (and amounting to more than nine millions of dollars) have enabled us to fulfil all our engagements, and to defray the current expenses of government without recurring to any loan. But the insecurity of our commerce, and the consequent diminution of the public revenue, will probably produce a deficiency in the receipts of the ensuing year, for which, and for other details, I refer to the statements which will be transmitted from the Treasury.
In the state which has been presented of our affairs with the great parties to a disastrous and protracted war, carried on in a mode equally injurious and unjust to the United States as a neutral nation, the wisdom of the National Legislature will be again summoned to the important decision of the alternatives before them. That these will be met in a spirit, worthy the councils of a nation, conscious both of its rectitude and of its rights, and careful as well of its honor as of its peace, I have an entire confidence. And that the result will be stamped by a unanimity becoming the occasion, and be supported by every portion of our citizens, with a patriotism enlightened and invigorated by experience, ought as little to be doubted.
In the midst of the wrongs and vexations experienced from external causes, there is much room for congratulation on the prosperity and happiness flowing from our situation at home. The blessing of health has never been more universal. The fruits of the seasons, though in particular articles and districts short of their usual redundancy, are more than sufficient for our wants and our comforts. The face of our country every where presents the evidence of laudable enterprise, of extensive capital, and of durable improvement. In a cultivation of the materials, and the extension of useful manufactures, more especially, in the general application to household fabrics, we behold a rapid diminution of our dependence on foreign supplies. Nor is it unworthy of reflection, that this revolution in our pursuits and habits is in no slight degree a consequence of those impolitic and arbitrary Edicts, by which the contending nations, in endeavoring each of them to obstruct our trade with the other, have so far abridged our means of procuring the productions and manufactures, of which our own are now taking the place.
Recollecting always, that for every advantage which may contribute to distinguish our lot, from that to which others are doomed by the unhappy spirit of the times, we are indebted to that Divine Providence whose goodness has been so remarkably extended to this rising nation, it becomes us to cherish a devout gratitude, and to implore from the same omnipotent source a blessing on the consultations and measures about to be undertaken for the welfare of our beloved country.
JAMES MADISON.