The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1809-12-05 00:00:00

THE GRAND LODGE OF VIRGINIA. WILL meet in the Mason's Hall, in the city of Richmond, at 6 o'clock, in the evening of the second Monday in Dec. next, being the 11th day of the month.
WASHINGTON TAVERN.—The Subscribers inform their friends and the public in general, that at considerable expense, they have had a variety of improvements added to the Washington Tavern, so as to make a large and commodious house, suitable for the accommodation of gentlemen with, or without families; the part suitable for the accommodation of families, being entirely separated from the public part of the tavern—where they may live private, or as much so as they might wish.
N. B. We are also prepared to accommodate 25 or 30 Members of the Legislature, this winter.
GLOBE TAVERN.—The subscriber having taken the Globe-Tavern, and furnished it in the best manner, informs his friends and the public, that every attention calculated to accommodate and please those who call on him, shall be paid.
A few genteel boarders can be accommodated. RATES, &c. Annual Boarders 40 £ a year. One dollar per day for gentlemen. Half a dollar per day for Horses, and All other charges equally moderate.
N. B. A few members of the Assembly may be comfortably provided with board.
IN order to complete the residue of the Residuary portions of the Decree of the honorable High Court of Chancery, for the Richmond District, dated the 20th June, 1809, and published in this paper from the 22d August to the 19th Sept. inclusive, & an additional decree, dated the 22d September, 1809, in the cases of William Marshall and Thomas Taylor, guardians of Eleanor and Lavinia Dandridge, orphans of Wm. Dandridge, dec'd, and others
Wm. Duvall, administrator of Wm. Price, deceased, Lucy Price, widow, and Wm. D. Price, Alexander Price, John Harvie Price, and Anne Price, infant heirs of the said William Price, deceased.
And also in conformity with a further decree of the aforesaid court, dated the 22d September, 1809, in the case of Matthias Jordan Plff. Against— The same defendants as above. We, or one of us, will positively proceed to sell, on the premises, at public auction, on Tuesday the 12th day of December next, at 11 o'clock A. M. if fair, if not the next fair day, at the said house—The Blue House and Lot, on the street on Shockoe Hill, mentioned in the first decree, which the late register Wm. Price, purchased of John Brittain, subject to the claim of Mrs. John Brittain, for a supposed right of dower, she never having relinquished any claim which she might have in the event of her living longer than her said husband—and, immediately thereafter, two Lots of Ground near the Federal Spring, known by the numbers—
JOHN PROSSER, } Commissioners. WM. MONCURE, } November 28. tds
NOTICE.—MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY—ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING. The Annual General Meeting of the Mutual Assurance Society against Fire on Buildings of the State of Virginia, will be held by adjournment, at the Capitol, in the city of Richmond, on the second Monday in December next, (being the eleventh day of December)
P. S. As much inconvenience and unnecessary expense results from the present mode of collecting the contributions of the members, which annually diverts a considerable part of those contributions from the uses for which they were intended, burdens individuals with heavy costs and greatly delays the collections, to the injury of the credit of the society; the general meeting at their last annual session, applied to the legislature, to authorize a more certain expedition and less expense in mode of collection—their application was rejected, under an impression, that the members of the Society might not approve this act of their proxies. Having been informed that a similar proposition will be submitted to the consideration of the next General Meeting, and believing some amendment in that respect necessary to the prosperity of the Institution, I have thought it proper to give this public notice thereof.
Other printers in the state, are requested to insert the above in their papers, till 11th Dec next.
VALUABLE LAND—FOR SALE.—The subscriber, intending to remove to one of the southern states in the course of fifteen or eighteen months, offers for sale, the tract of LAND on which he now dwells. It contains, by a late survey, about eleven hundred and eighty acres, of which six hundred and fourteen, are set in woods. The soil is peculiarly suited to the production of wheat, and is excellent for corn and tobacco. The situation is remarkably healthy, and is only one mile from the navigation of Appomattox.
Those who wish to purchase a good Tract of Land, at a reasonable price, are invited to view this property. If it should not be sold, by private contract, before the sixth day of January next, it will then be put up to the highest bidder, at Farmville, on a credit of one and two years.
Domestic.
DOCUMENTS, Which accompanied the Message of the President of the United States.
Letter from Mr. Erskine Esq. Envoy Extraordinary, and Minister Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty to the Secretary of State.
WASHINGTON, July 31, 1809.
SIR—I have the honor to enclose 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 has 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 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 show that no intention existed on my part to practise any deception towards the government of the U. S.
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 & 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 9, 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 consenting 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 France 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 impugned 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 U. S. 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. (Signed) 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 consenting 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 France 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 explanation 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 & yourself at the time and upon the occasion alluded to in 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 conversations 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 activity 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, & 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 United States 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 & 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 re-consideration of the proposition above mentioned, 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 U. States, in the event of His Majesty's orders in Council being withdrawn.
In these sentiments & 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. I 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 U. 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 as representing to His Majesty's government as intended with any other view than an endeavor to bring about the repeal of the Orders in Council by showing 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: on the right to carry on a trade with the colonies of belligerents, 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 preliminary; 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 his 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 U. 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
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 Janu., 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 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 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 U. States.
The disavowal by his Majesty is a pain full 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 a embarrassment 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 your 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 we con-
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 that 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 Holland would be embraced by the restrictive laws of the United States. Not only 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 impressions 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.
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 at once 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 U.S. in the injurious decrees of another nation.
2. In the event of a treaty, embracing all the points in dispute, and particularly that of improvements, 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. Monroe 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 be disposed to waive 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.

ence 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 there-fore beg leave to refer you, as I have there-in detailed the substance of the conversa-tion according to my recollection of it— which is in every respect, essentially the same as that which you seem to have enter-tained.
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 car-ried directly from belligerent colonies to the belligerents in Europe, when that trade was not permanently in peace as in war, permit-ted 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 arrange-ment respecting the colonial trade as a con-dition 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 obe-dient humble servant, (Signed) D. M. ERSKINE. The Hon. Albert Gallatin, &c. &c.
The Secretary of State to Mr. Jackson, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Ma-jesty.
Department of State, Oct. 9th, 1809. Sir—An arrangement, as to the revoca-tion 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 Ple-nipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty. And after it had been faithfully carried into exe-cution on the part of this government, and under circumstances rendering its effects, irrepressible, and in some respects irrepara-ble, 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 explana-tion, 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 pro-positions.
Under the influence of this reasonable ex-pectation, the President has learned, with no less surprise, than regret, that, in your several conferences with me, you have stat-ed;
1st. That you have no instructions from your government, which authorize 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 pre-decessor, and that therefore you could not make any such explanations.
2d. That in the case of the Chesapeake, your instructions only authorize you (with-out assigning any reason, whatever, why the reasonable terms of satisfaction tendered and accepted, have not been carried into ef-fect,) to communicate to this government a note tendering satisfaction, with an under-standing, that such note should not be sig-ned and delivered by you, until you should have previously seen and approved the pro-posed 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 authorize you to make to this government any propositions, whatever, in relation to the revocation of the British orders in coun-cil; but only to receive such as this govern-ment may deem it proper to make to you.
4th. That, at all events, it is not the dis-position or the intention of the British go-vernment 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 continu-ed against France, so long as she shall con-tinue her decrees.
2d. That the Navy of Great Britain be authorized to aid in enforcing the provisions of the said act of Congress.
3d. That the United States shall explicit-ly renounce, during the present war, the right of carrying on any trade whatever, di-rect or indirect, with any colony of any enemy of Great Britain, from which they were excluded during peace; and that this renun-ciation must extend, not only to the trade be-tween 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 agree-ably 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 inti-mate, that it is thought expedient, that our further discussions, on the present occasion, be in the written form. And with great sin-cerity I assure you, that whatever commu-nications 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 obvious-ly the interest of both to foster.
With the highest consideration, &c. (Signed) R. SMITH. The Hon. Francis James Jackson, &c. &c. Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith. Washington, 11th Oct. 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 has been even-able 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 avow-ed purpose of terminating amicably the ex-isting differences between their respective countries; but, after mature reflection, I am induced to acquiesce in it by the recol-lection of the time that must necessarily e-lapse before I can receive His Majesty's commands upon so unexpected an occur-rence, and of the detriment that would en-sue to the public service, if my ministerial functions were, in the interval, to be alto-gether 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, with-out any alleged misconduct on his part.— As a matter of opinion, I own, as sent to the preference which you give to writ-ten over verbal intercourse for the purpose of mutual explanation and accommodation. I have thought it due to the public charac-ter with which I have the honor to be inves-ted, and to the confidence which His Ma-jesty has most graciously been pleased to re-pose in me, to state to you unreservedly my sentiments on this point. I shall now pro-ceed to the other parts of your letter, and apply to them the best consideration that can arise from a seal proportioned to the in-crease of difficulty thus thrown in the way of the restoration of a thorough good under-standing between our respective countries.
You state, Sir, very truly, that an arrange-ment 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 dis-avowal itself, or of a total want of explana-tion of it, or of the circumstance of that ex-planation 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 for-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 particu-larly to a dispatch 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 consi-deration the three conditions specified in those instructions, as the ground work of an arrangement which, according to informa-tion received from this country, it was tho't in England might be made, with a prospect of great mutual advantage. Mr. Erskine then reports verbatim et serialiter your ob-servations 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 ori-ginal conditions were, in fact, very explicit-ly communicated to you, and by you of course laid before the President for his considera-tion. I need hardly add, that the difference between these conditions and those con-tained in the arrangement of the 18th and 19th April, is sufficiently obvious to require no elucidation; nor need I draw the conclu-sion, which I consider as admitted by all absence of complaint, on the part of the A-merican government, viz. that under such circumstances, His Majesty had an undoub-ted and incontrovertible 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, the 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 con-duct; and that upon one of them, which had not been communicated either to you or to the public, was to be rested the justifica-tion of the terms finally agreed upon be-tween you and him. It is my duty, Sir, so-lemnly to declare to you, and, through you, to the President, that the dispatch 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 dispatch, by which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement with this country on the matter to which it re-lates.
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 dis-avow 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 Presi-dent's goodness to make some allowance; and he might the more reasonably be led to that reliance on it, as a full and ample com-munication was also made upon the subject by His Majesty's Secretary of State for For-eign Affairs to Mr. Pinkney, to whom the whole of Mr. Erskine's original instruction was read, and who, it was natural to sup-pose, 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 substan-tiated against His Majesty's government on the ground that they not only instruc-ted the Minister who had made the disavow-al arrangement as to the motives which oc-casioned the disavowal, but also with frank-ness, promptitude, and a most scrupulous regard to national honor, gave notice to the American Minister in London of the disavow-al, of the motives of it, and of the precau-tions 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 unauthorized, made in His Majesty's name. The mere al-lusion to this latter circumstance dispenses me from farther noticing the effects which you describe as being produced upon the U. States by the circumstances of this agree-ment. How far they are irrepressible, it is not for me to determine—but the word irre-pressible 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 an-swering 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 ob-serving, that I was not provided with in-structions to that effect, because it was known that the explanation in question had already been given. But it accords with the senti-ments 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 du-ties of my Ministry, it would be a more friendly mode of proceeding to state without delay, and through the channels I have al-ready mentioned, the motives that compel led His Majesty to disavow the agreement, than to leave the American government in uncertainty in these respects, till the una-voidably protracted period of my arrival in America. I say this in regard to the origi-nal notification of His Majesty's determina-tion, 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 explana-tion or discussion should be wished for by this government, I came fully prepared to enter into them. I even consider them to have taken place between us. I have cer-tainly derived great satisfaction from the se-veral hours, which we have spent in confer-ence upon these subjects, because they have enabled me to remove some misunderstand-ings, and to refute many misrepresentations, which you yourself informed me of, in re-gard to the conduct of the British govern-ment. I consider such mutual explanations as highly beneficial to a right understanding of the views and interests of the two coun-tries, and I should with much pleasure have renewed them, if you had not informed me that the President had been pleased to pre-scribe another and a different mode of con-ducting our negotiations.
I will nevertheless avail myself of that mode which he still permits to repeat to you that His Majesty has authorized me, not-withstanding the ungracious manner in which his former offer of satisfaction for the affair of the Chesapeake was received, to renew that which Mr. Erskine was instructed to make. You have said that you so fully un-derstood the particulars of that offer that I deem it unnecessary to recapitulate them here: I regret that, since they were so clear-ly understood by you, you should not yet have been enabled 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 satisfac-tory, or whether they are such as he ulti-mately 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 note tendering satis-faction, 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 in-formed 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 ac-cepting such satisfaction. I expressly sta-tion that this interchange of official docu-ments 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 coun-tries 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 agreea-ble to him, than the one which I have pro-posed.
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 man-ner in which that tender had been receiv-ed. I believe that I elucidated this obser-vation by a reference to the particular ex-pressions, which made the terms of satisfac-tion appear to be unacceptable even to the American government, at the very mo-ment when they were accepted, and which at all events put it totally out of his Ma-jesty'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 U. States certain proposals founded upon principles, some of which were understood to originate in American authorities, and others to be ac-cessed 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 differ-ent from what they were at first understood to be, I was not instructed to renew to you those proposals, nor to press upon your ac-ceptance an arrangement which had been so recently declined especially as the ar-rangement itself is become less important, and the terms of it less applicable to the state of things now existing.
Those considerations which were first in-
timated 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 in-fluence, induced His Majesty, before the re-sult of Mr. Erskine's negotiation was known to modify the Orders in Council of Novem-ber 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 en-emies of Great Britain through British ports on payment of a transit duty. This was ori-ginally devised and intended as a mitiga-tion of what is certainly more correct but more rigid in principle—the total and un-qualified 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 re-moved. By the order in council of the 26th April, 1809, all trade with France and Hol-land, 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 trans-it duty is required to be paid. In another respect the orders in council of the 26th A-pril must be admitted to be more restrictive than those of Nov. 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 of June, 1803, was continued to be left open by those of November 1807.— The order in Council of the 26th April re-tracks this indulgence. But it is to be ob-served 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 Tur-key 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 Bri-tain, together with the blockade of Gauda-loupe, the extent to which the liberty of com-merce with enemies colonies applied has been so far narrowed, that there is little of practical hardship in recurring 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 oper-ation highly favorable to neutrals, that re-stricting the regulations of blockade to France, Holland and their colonies, and to the territories denominated the kingdom of Italy, it lays open to the direct trade of neu-trals, the ports of the north of Europe. Un-der the Order of the 26th of April, therefore while there are on the one hand fewer points of difference to stand in the way of a satisfac-tory arrangement between Great Britain & 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 ar-rangement which should effect the indispen-sable 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 France continue to enforce their decrees. It is, in the same pro-portion, matter of indifference to G. Britain, whether the Order in Council be continued or an arrangement by mutual consent substi-tuted 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 govern-ment of the United States any formal agree-ment to be substituted for that which His Majesty has been under the necessity of dis-avowing; 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 anti-cipation (nor was I instructed so to do) what might be the answer that I should eventu-ally think it my duty to return to you; con-sequently I could not have made with that view the statement contained in the 4th sec-tion 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 recorded in the third section, viz: that I was not instructed to make to you any proposal whatever upon this subject. I must neces-sarily 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 Ma-jesty to give me for my guidance in this ne-gotiation.
I will only add, Sir, in conclusion of this letter, that His Majesty is very sincerely desirous of maintaining a perfect and cor-dial understanding with the United States, and of bringing to a complete and satisfac-tory adjustment, all the points of difference that have arisen between the two govern-ments; 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 exertions 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 re-spect, Sir, your most obedient humble ser-vant, 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 to-pics, 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 particu-lar occasion, into a general prohibition of all verbal communications whatever, and into an unprecedented violation of the most essen-tial 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 show that its sole object was to avoid, in the further discussions of a case of unusu-al delicacy and importance, the misconcep-tions well known to be incident to oral pro-ceedings, and of which the diplomatic inter-course between the two governments had furnished so many and such serious proofs.— nay, of which your letter itself is an addi-tional illustration. That a change in diplo-matic 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 discussi-ons 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 and B) of letters that passed on that occa-sion.
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 par-ties to have, by those verbal discussions, been brought to a point, which required a precise understanding of the views and pro-positions of the other.
You will, Sir, hence perceive, that in maintaining the right, which every govern-ment has as to the rules of intercourse with foreign functionaries near it, no encroach-ment 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 gov-ernment, and of the grounds on which he has expected a formal and satisfactory ex-planation of the reasons for the reusal of his Britannic Majesty to carry it into effect. He persists in that expectation, and in the opinion, that there has been given no expla-nation 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 perfect-ly clear, that it owes it, both to itself and to the other party, to accompany its refusal with a formal and frank disclosure of suffi-cient reasons for a step, which, without such reasons, must deeply injure its own charac-ter, as well as the rights of the party con-fiding in its good faith.
To refuse with honor (says a high au-thority 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 it should shew in particular, that his minister has vi-olated his instructions."
Although it is particularly incumbent on the sovereign in such case, to show that his instructions have been violated, yet it is not a mere violation of them on immaterial points that will be sufficient. It is indispensa-ble, moreover, that the reasons be strong and solid, that they manifestly out-weigh not only the general obligation to abide by what has been so done, but also the dis-appointment and injury accruing to the other party. And it is worthy of notice, that the case under discussion is of a higher charac-ter, 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 its execution by either. It had according to the terms of it, (and this peculiarity appears to have been contemplat-ed by your government,) been actually and immediately carried into execution on the part of the United States. The refusal of his Britannic Majesty is, therefore, not sim-ply 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 U. 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 ex-planations on this occasion is admitted by your attempt to shew, that it has been suf-ficiently done in what passed in conversa-tion 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 re-lations between the two countries, it is im-possible to mistake the conversations of those ministers for a discharge of such an obli-gation to the good faith and reasonable expectations of the United States. Besides, that they were mere conversations in a case requiring the precision and respect of a formal com-munication, it is certain, that it was neither understood by Mr. Pinkney, nor intended by Mr. Canning, that those conversations were to be regarded as 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 suf-ficient to remark that they were never car-ried into execution; but it may be asked, whether it was a mark of friendly respect to the U. States to employ for such a pur-pose, a minister from whom his government had thought proper publicly to withdraw his confidence, and to the peculiar deli-cacy 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 in-dicent to your arrival in the United States rendered it more consistent with the friend-ly sentiments of his Majesty to prefer the other channels for communicating the mo-tives for his disavowal. To your own recon-sideration I appeal, whether the course most consonant to those friendly sentiments was not the obvious one of employing the new organ, guarding at the same time against any misconstruction of the delay by appropri-ating the American government through its Mi-nister 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 cor-respondence of the latter, which contains no such indication. On the contrary it dis-tinctly shews that he was apprized of the intention to replace Mr. Erskine by a suc-cessor, whom he regarded as the proper channel for the explanatory communications, that he understood Mr. Canning to be un-der the same impression, and that he learn-ed from yourself, not more than two days after his conversation with Mr. Canning

that you were to sail for the United 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 secretary. 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 palpably inadmissible and one more than merely 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 15th 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 show 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 dispatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d January, is the only dispatch 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 dispatch 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 authorized 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 signaling to you, that I am authorized 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 authorized 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 & accepted by the U. States, & 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 authorized 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 authorized 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 any 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 regarded as 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 inalienable 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 authorizing a foreign government to execute, and authorizing 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 as 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 inconsiderable 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 those abuses which may result from the suspicions, real or pretended, of interest or of fraud. You cannot but be sensible, that a perseverance under such circumstances in a system, which can no 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 U. 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 com-
prising the utmost precaution that was in the power of his Britannic Majesty to take, for preventing losses 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 U. 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 com-paring 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 less surprise, 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 cases 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 Order in Council, you are not authorized to tender explanations for the disavowal, or to propose any new arrangement, nor to conclude any agreement, but solely to receive and discuss propositions which might be made to you, not concealing, at the same time, that those 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, still 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 signaling 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 U. States.
I have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) R. SMITH. The Honorable Francis J. 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 June 20) verbal communication was not discontinued, 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 and more likely to conduct us to an advantageous conclusion, than the constraint and formality of written intercourse, and that I had not intended to present a note. At the second interview (on the 23d 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."
(EXTRACT) From Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney, dated Nov. 23, 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; 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 conceive I had conformed to his Majesty's with-
es; & 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 show, that no intention existed on my part to practice any deception towards the government of the U. S."
From the same to the same, dated August 14th 1809.
"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 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 judgment of his Majesty's views and the intention of my instructions; and I have most severely lamented that an act of mine (though unintentionally) should produce an embarrassment in the relations between the two countries."
(Documents to be Continued.)
NEW-YORK, November 27.—The British packet, we understand, will not sail from this port before Tuesday. Mr. Oakley, secretary to the British legation, who goes out in the packet, with despatches for his government, arrived in this city on Saturday.—Merc. Adv.
The extensive and valuable Iron Works, owned by James Backus, Esq. of Norwich, Connecticut, were burnt down on Sunday morning, the 19th inst.—Id.
BALTIMORE, November 28.—Yesterday arrived the French government Corvette Tisité, captain Desmardes, in 30 days from Bayonne, with Despatches for the French minister. This vessel has brought no papers. An officer informs that 100,000 French troops were passing through Bayonne for Spain, and that some horses belonging to the Emperor's household, had arrived there, as Bonaparte was shortly expected.—His illness was not known at Bayonne.—Amer. Gaz.
The new Covent Garden Theatre, London, was opened a second time on the 9th Oct. but the opposition to the new prices continued, with such violence, that not a single piece had been suffered to be performed uninterrupted, so late as the 19th of that month.
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. Gentry, 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 a 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. 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. Packer, 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. and 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, November 28. A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. Gits, 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 to 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 Statute 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 to-morrow 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 its state of the
Union, and 3000 copies ordered to be printed for the use of the House. And the House adjourned about three o'clock.
THURSDAY, Nov. 30.
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. On motion of Mr. Dawson, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the state of the union, Mr. Mason in the chair.
The President's message having been read, Mr. Smilie said that the common mode of proceeding, when in committee of the whole on the President's message, was to refer the several subjects embraced in it to different committees. The message was not yet printed and laid on the table. He had seen inconveniences arising from too hasty a reference of the subjects on former occasions; he remembered last winter unfortunately the subject of our foreign relations had been divided and committed to two separate committees which had interfered with each other. Perhaps, if the House proceeded too hastily on this occasion, similar inconveniences might again occur. In order to give further time for consideration, he moved that the committee now rise. This motion was agreed to without debate and without a division.
The Speaker laid before the House the following letter, which was read.
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Sir,—An occurrence having recently taken place between a member of the House of Representatives and myself, produced by circumstances not at all connected with his official duties or opinions, which, from the time and place, may be considered disrespectful to the House of Representatives, I take the liberty of tendering thro' you my most respectful declarations, that I am the last who would wilfully manifest a deficiency of that reverence which is due to the Representatives of my country, or that sacred regard which is also due to their privileges. To yourself, Sir, personally, I tender the assurances of my very great respect, I. A. COLES.
November 29, 1809.
No order having been taken on it, the letter lies on the table of course.
A message was received from the Senate proposing the appointment of two Chaplains of different denominations, to interchange between the two Houses weekly; which was agreed to.
After the presentation of a few petitions, the House adjourned.
Enquirer Office.
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE.
Yesterday, the two Houses formed a Quorum.
The Senate appointed Mr. Robert Taylor (of Orange) Speaker—and all their old officers.
Of the House of Delegates, about 174 members were sworn in. They appointed Mr. James Barbour (of Orange) Speaker without opposition—& all their old members—A the old rules and regulations were adopted.—A long and interesting Communication from the Governor was read.
A new writ of Election was ordered for the County of Henrico, to supply the place of Gervas Stokes, S. q. appointed High Sheriff—Adjourned till this day, 12 o'clock.
[COMMUNICATED]
We are informed, that Wilson Corey Nicholas, Esq. a member of Congress, for this State, has been, on his way to Washington, attacked (in Louisa County) with a severe rheumatism, to which, for a considerable time past, he has been subject.—His indisposition is so severe, as to preclude the possibility of continuing his journey to the seat of government. Under these circumstances, Mr. Nicholas felt it his duty to resign his seat in Congress, that his district may not be deprived, during the session, of a representative.—The following is a copy of his letter to Gov. Tyler, notifying his resignation:
Louis, November 27, 1809.
SIR,
On my way to the city of Washington, to take my seat in the House of Representatives, I have had a return of the rheumatism, which, I fear, will disable me from attending during the winter.
Under these circumstances, duties to my country and to my constituents, require that I should resign a station, the duties of which, I am unable to perform. At a period less critical, and amidst the bustle of business, I might think myself at liberty to delay the measure; but at the present moment, when the best interests of my country are at hazard, I deem it important, that every department of the government, should be completely filled. Your Excellency and the Council will be pleased to accept my resignation, and to order an election for the district, I have had the honor to represent.
Your patriotism, and high sense of the obligations, the representative character imposes, will suggest the feelings under which I have acted, & my regret at the necessity that exists, in this way to dissolve my official relation to my constituents, to whom I am bound by every tie of gratitude and affection.
I have the honor to be,
With the greatest respect & esteem, Your humble Servant, W. C. NICHOLAS.
His Excellency JOHN TYLER, Governor of Virginia, Richmond.
The Council have issued a new writ of election.
Many articles and advertisements omitted, to make way for the very interesting documents published.—There is about as much more of them to come.—Our paper will now appear three times a week—on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.
MARRIED—On the 25th of November, by the Revd. Duggs, JOHN HORACE UPSHAW, Esq. a member of the Senate of Virginia, to the accomplished and greatly admired Miss LUCY ELIZABETH T. BAYLOR, daughter of the late John Baylor of New Market.
MARRIED—On the 2d Instant, MR. ROBERT WEST, of Gloucester County, to the interesting Miss MARY GRYMES, of the same place.
WILL be offered for sale, to the highest bidder, upon the premises, on the third day of January next, a saw and grist Mill upon the Brook in the county of Henrico, five miles above Richmond, the property of Charles Sneed, dec'd. together with 29 acres of Land attached to said Mill, also one negro man Lewis the property of said Sneed. The terms of sale for the land and mill will be four sevenths in twelve months, and the other three sevenths in two years, the last three payments to bear interest from twelve months after date, the Negro will be twelve months credit, with as many bonds and securities as there are legatees, to bear interest from the date if not punctually paid, and a good and lawful title will be made to the purchasers by the LEGATEES.
Henrico, December 5. TO RENT, The Store and Counting Room, in the house occupied by Mrs. WIL. For terms, apply to BARTLETT STILL. December 5.
FOUND!
A sum of money—the owner may have it by giving satisfactory evidence of his right, and paying the cost of advertising. Apply at this Office. November 7.

Europe.
Continuation of Foreign Advices received by the Hercules.
LONDON, Oct. 10: We believe the following may be depended upon as correct copies of the correspondence respecting the late overtures; and we are confident that no other messages or communications whatever passed on the subject between the ministers and the two noble lords in question:
No. I.—(Copy.) Letter sent in duplicate to Earl Grey and Lord Grenville.
WINDSOR, Saturday, Sept. 23, 1809.
MY LORD, The duke of Portland having signified to his majesty his intention of retiring from his majesty's service, in consequence of the state of his Grace's health, his majesty has authorised Lord Liverpool, in conjunction with myself, to communicate with your lordship and Lord Grey, for the purpose of forming an extended and combined administration.
I hope, therefore, that your lordship, in consequence of this communication will come to town, in order that as little time as possible may be lost in forwarding this important object, and that you will have the goodness to inform me of your arrival.
I am also to acquaint your lordship, that I have received his majesty's commands to make a similar communication to Lord Grey on his majesty's pleasure.
I think it proper to add, for your lordship's information, that Lord Castlereagh & Mr. Secretary Canning have intimated their intentions to resign their offices.
I have the honor to be, &c. &c.
(Signed) "SPENCER PERCEVAL."
No. II.—(COPY.) Answer from Earl Grey.
HOWICK, Sept. 26.
SIR,
I have this evening had the honor of receiving your letter of the 23d, informing me, that in consequence of the duke of Portland's intention of retiring from his majesty's service, his majesty had authorised you, in conjunction with the Earl of Liverpool, to communicate with Lord Grenville and myself, for the purpose of forming an extended and combined administration, &c. expressing a hope, that in consequence of this communication I would go to town, in order that as little time as possible may be lost in forwarding this important object.
Had his majesty been pleased to signify that he had any commands for me personally, I should not have lost a moment in showing my duty and obedience, by a prompt attendance on his royal pleasure.
But when it is proposed to me to communicate with his majesty's present ministers, for the purpose of forming a combined administration with them, I feel that I should be wanting in duty to his majesty, and in fairness to them, if I did not frankly and at once declare, that such an union is, with respect to me, under the present circumstances, impossible. This being the answer that I find myself under the necessity of giving, my appearance in London could be of no advantage, and might possibly, at a moment like the present, be attended with some inconvenience.
I have thought it better to request, that you will have the goodness to lay my duty at the feet of his majesty, humbly entreating him not to attribute to any want of attachment to his royal person, or to diminished zeal for his service, my declining a communication, which, on the terms proposed, could lead to no useful result, and which might be of serious detriment to the country, if in consequence of a less decisive answer from me, a any further delay should take place in the formation of a settled government.
I am, &c.
(Signed) "GREY."
No. III.—(COPY.) First answer from Lord Grenville.
BECONWICK, Sept. 23, 1809.
SIR,
I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the 23d inst. and understanding it as an official signification of his majesty's pleasure for my attendance in town, I shall lose no time in repairing thither, in humble obedience to his majesty's commands.
I must beg leave to defer until my arrival all observations on the other matters to which your letter relates.
I have, &c.
(Signed) "GRENVILLE."
No. IV.—(COPY.) Second answer from Lord Grenville.
Sept. 29, 1809.
SIR,
Having last night arrived here, in humble obedience to his majesty's commands, I think it now my duty to lose no time in expressing to you the necessity under which I feel myself in declining the communication proposed in your letter; being satisfied that it could not, under the circumstances there mentioned, be productive of any public advantage.
I trust I need not say, that this opinion is neither founded in any sentiment of personal hostility, nor in a desire of unnecessarily prolonging political differences.
To compose, not to inflame the divisions of the empire, has always been my anxious wish, and is now more than ever the duty of every loyal subject; but my accession to the existing administration could, I am confident, in no respect contribute to this object; nor could it, I think, be considered in any other light than as a dereliction of public principle.
This answer, which I must have given to any such proposal if made while the government was yet entire, cannot be varied by the retreat of some of its members.
My objections are not personal—they apply to the principle of the government itself, and to the circumstances which attend its appointment.
I have now, therefore, only to request, that you will do me the honor of submitting, in the most respectful terms, these my humble opinions to his majesty, accompanied by the dutiful and sincere assurance of my earnest desire at all times to testify, by all such means as are in my power, my varied zeal for his majesty's service.
I have, &c.
(Signed) "GRENVILLE."
No. V.—(COPY.) Letter from Mr. Perceval to Lord Grenville.
Sept. 29, 1809.
MY LORD,
I lost no time in communicating to
Lord Liverpool your lordship's letter of this day.
It is with great concern that we have learnt from it, that your lordship feels yourself under the necessity of declining the communication which I have had the honor to propose.
In proposing to your lordship and Lord Grey, under his majesty's authority, to communicate with Lord Liverpool and myself, not for the accession of your lordship to the present administration, but for the purpose of forming a combined and extended administration, no idea existed in our minds of the necessity of any dereliction of public principle on either side.
Your lordship may rest assured, that in communicating to his majesty the necessity under which you feel yourself of declining the communication which I had the honor to propose to your lordship, I will do every justice to the respectful terms, and the dutiful and sincere assurance of your lordship's unvaried zeal for his majesty's service, with which the expression of that necessity was accompanied.
I cannot conclude without expressing the satisfaction of Lord Liverpool and myself, at your lordship's assurance, that the failure of this proposal is not to be ascribed to any sentiment of personal hostility.
I have, &c. &c.
(Signed) "SP. PERCEVAL."
Lord Grenville."
To this last paper it is understood, that no reply was judged necessary. It had not, like the former, the character of an authorized communication. It professed to be written before his majesty's pleasure had been received; and it contained, therefore, nothing more than the individual remarks of the Earl of Liverpool and Mr. Perceval.
The distinction between an accession to the present ministry, and an extension of it, is purely verbal. Had the services of any statesman been deemed useful in forming a new government, no doubt such persons, whoever they might be, would have been honored with the king's personal commands to that effect. This is the invariable practice on such occasions, dictated by reason and common sense. To require them to treat for forming a part of the king's government before they are admitted to his presence, and to submit to their sovereign their own views of men and measures, through the mouths of the ministers, whose conduct they have reprobated, would be to deny to them all means of doing justice, either to themselves or to the public—Such a condition has never yet been imposed upon any public men in any of the changes of this eventful reign, nor indeed in any other period of our history. It was reserved to the singular circumstances of the present moment, to exhibit the first example of such a project.
Charles IV. his consort, and the Princess of the Peace, are still at Marseilles. The establishment of the ex-king and queen was considerably reduced, and the payments for maintaining it so irregular and precarious, that they were reduced to the necessity of selling part of their jewels to provide for their subsistence.
BONAPARTE'S INDISPOSITION.—The following account of Napoleon's late illness, is copied from a respectable Sunday paper: "A gentleman, who left Paris, so short a time ago as Saturday, the 30th ult. confirms the rumours which have reached us from various quarters, of the indisposition of Bonaparte. His malady was a violent fever, accompanied with delirium, brought on by an imprudent exposure of his person to the air while in a strong perspiration. It occurred towards the latter end of August. He had been occupied during the whole of the forenoon of a very hot day in reviewing a corps of the army, and directing some manœuvres, and had just returned to Schönbrunn, when an ambassador extraordinary, with a letter from the Emperor of Russia, arrived. Without resting himself, or seeking corporeal refreshment from a change of clothes, he desired the ambassador to be introduced, and having read the letter, he withdrew with him into the garden of the palace, where he remained for more than two hours in conversation; the whole of which time, according to the reports at Paris, his head was uncovered. In the course of the night, he felt himself indisposed, and before the close of the following evening he was considered, by the physicians in attendance, to be in so dangerous a state, that expressions were sent off to Paris for further medical assistance. The strength of his constitution, however, triumphed over the disease, and before the end of the month, he was declared convalescent. The army, for obvious reasons, was kept ignorant of his indisposition. The hasty departure of the medical men, first excited any suspicion on that head at Paris, where, we understand, so far as an opinion could be formed, from words and 'shows of grief,' the people in general were much affected by the intelligence. Whether this was the prevailing sentiment in other parts of France, our informant had not an opportunity of judging."
Correspondence of Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning.
We have received the following letters which we lay before the public, as sent us—To the Editor of Bell's Weekly Messenger.
SIR,
The letters which passed between Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning, having been privately circulated by their respective friends, I have at last, after much pains, obtained a copy of them, which I enclose for insertion in your useful paper. You may depend upon their authenticity.
Your constant reader, Brompton, Oct. 6. B. Y.
St. James's Square, 10th Sept. 1809.
SIR,
It is unnecessary for me to enter into any detailed statement of the circumstances which preceded the recent resignations. It is enough for me, with a view to the immediate object of this letter, to state, that it appears a proposition had been agitated, without any communication with me, for my removal from the war department; and that you, towards the close of the last session, having urged a decision upon this question, with the alternative of your seceding from the government, procured a positive promise from the duke of Portland (the execution of which you afterwards considered yourself entitled to enforce,) that such removal should be carried into effect. Notwithstanding this promise, by which I consider you pronounced it unfit that I should remain charged with the conduct of the war, and by which my situation as a minister of the crown was made dependent upon your will and pleasure, you continued to sit in the same cabinet with me, and to leave me not
only in the persuasion that I possessed your confidence and support as a colleague, but
you allowed me, in breach of every principle of good faith both public and private, though thus virtually superceded, to originate and proceed in the execution of a new enterprise of the most arduous and important nature, and important nature, with your apparent concurrence, and ostensible approbation.
You were fully aware, that if my situation in the government had been disclosed to me, I could not have submitted to remain one moment in office, without the entire abandonment of my private honor, and public duty. You knew I was deceived, and you continued to deceive me.
I am aware, it may be said, which I am ready to acknowledge, that when you pressed for a decision for my removal, you also pressed for its disclosure, and that it was resisted by the duke of Portland, and some members of the government, supposed to be my friends. But I never can admit, that you have a right to make use of such a plea, in justification of an act affecting my honor, nor that the sentiments of others could justify an acquiescence in such a delusion on your part, which had yourself felt and stated its unfairness. Nor can I admit that the head of any administration, or any supposed friend (whatever may be their motives,) can authorize or sanction any man in such a course of long and persevering deception. For were I to admit such a principle, my honor and character would be from that moment in the discretion of persons wholly unauthorized, and known to you to be unauthorized, to act for me in such a case. It was therefore your act and your conduct which deceived me; and it is impossible for me to acquiesce in being placed in a situation by you, which no man of honor could knowingly submit to, nor patiently suffer himself to be betrayed into, without forfeiting that character.
I have no right, as a public man, to resist your demanding, upon public grounds, my removal from the particular office I have held, or even from the administration, as a condition of your continuing a member of the government. But I have a distinct right to expect that a proposition, justifiable in itself, shall not be executed in an unjustifiable manner, and at the expense of my honor and reputation. And I consider that you were bound, at least, to avail yourself of the same alternative, namely, your own resignation, to take yourself out of the predicament of practising such a deceit towards me, which you did exercise in demanding a decision for my removal.
Under these circumstances, I must require that satisfaction from you to which I feel myself entitled to lay claim.
I am, &c. CASTLEREAGH.
The Rt. Hon. Geo. Canning, &c. &c. &c.
Gloucester Lodge, Sept. 20.
MY LORD,—The tone and the purport of your Lordship's letter, which I have this moment received, of course preclude any other answer on my part to the misapprehensions and misrepresentations with which it abounds, than that I will cheerfully give to your Lordship the satisfaction which you require.
I am, &c. GEO. CANNING.
Lord Viscount Castlereagh, &c. &c.
The hon. Henry Wellesley was the gentleman chosen by Mr. Canning to be his second in the duel, on account of the strict and confidential intimacy that subsists between him and the family; but the recent domestic event which happened to that gentleman induced him to decline an office, which would infallibly bring his name again before the public; and he therefore ran down, in a post-chaise and four horses to Cobham, to engage Mr. Ellis to attend his friend. The queen and princesses were at the house of Mr. Ellis, on Mr. Wellesley's arrival, and he therefore stopt at the inn till her majesty's departure, when the two gentlemen returned together to Gloucester Lodge, to prepare for the combat.
LONDON, October 12.
MERCANTILE.
A deputation of the merchants interested in the trade to the continent, had an interview yesterday with the board of trade. It was signified to them, that it was the intention of government to extend the permission for importing corn, and exporting colonial produce and British manufactures, to Holland, as it is allowed to and from France; and that licences would be granted for that purpose.
The lords of the privy council, we are informed, have arranged the following as the districts from whence they will permit grain of all sorts, and burr-stones, to be imported from France to this country, viz. From any of the ports in the north-east extremity of France to Dunkirk, both inclusive. From Calais to Morlaix, do. From Brest to the Straights Mouth, do. From the Straights Mouth to any part of France, within the Mediterranean.— Courier.
AMERICA AND FRANCE.
A communication from a commercial house of great respectability, of which the following is the substance, was received last night:
"An American friend who is arrived in London this afternoon, (Wellesley) assures me, that he embarked on board the Marianna, in the river Charente; that he was afterwards shipwrecked on the coast of France, where he fortunately escaped, and got on board a Pappenburgh vessel, from whence he landed at Broad-stairs. On his departure from the French coast, there were partial rejoicings, which he was assured were on account of a friendly and commercial treaty, having just been signed between the American and the French ministers."
MR. CANNING'S STATEMENT.
The publication of Lord Castlereagh's statement of the transactions which preceded the late duel, has produced the following statement from Mr. Canning.
"It is perfectly true, that so long ago as Easter, Mr. Canning had represented to the duke of Portland the insufficiency (in his opinion) of the government, as then constituted, to carry on the affairs of the country, under all the difficulties of the times, and had requested that, unless some change should be effected in it, he might be permitted to resign his office. It is equally true that in the course of the discussion, which arose out of this representation, it was proposed to Mr. Canning, and accepted by him, as the condition of his consenting to retain the seals of the Foreign office, that a change should be made in the war department."
"But it is not true that the time at which that change was ultimately proposed to be made, was of Mr. Canning's choice; and it is not true that he was party or consenting to the concealment of that intended change from Lord Castlereagh."
"With respect to the concealment, Mr. Canning, some short time previous to the date of Lord Castlereagh's letter, without the smallest suspicion of the existence of any intention on the part of Lord Castlereagh to make such an appeal to Mr. Canning as that letter contains, but upon information that some misapprehension did exist
as to Mr. Canning's supposed concurrence in the
reserve which had been practised towards Lord Castlereagh, transmitted to one of Lord Castlereagh's most intimate friends, to be communicated whenever he might think proper, the copy of a letter addressed by Mr. Canning to the duke of Portland, in the month of July, in which Mr. Canning requests, "in justice to himself, that it may be remembered, whenever hereafter this concealment shall be alleged (as he doubts not that it will) against him , as an act of injustice towards Lord Castlereagh, that it did not originate in his suggestion—that so far from desiring it, he conceived, however erroneously, Lord Castlereagh to be the sole channel of communication to Lord Castlereagh; and that up to a very late period he believed such communication to have been actually made."
"The copy of the letter and of the duke of Portland's answer to it, "acknowledging Mr. Canning's repeated renunciations against the concealment, are still in the possession of Lord Castlereagh's friend."
"The communication to Lord Camden to which this letter refers, was made on the 29th of April, with Mr. Canning's knowledge, and at his particular desire. Lord Camden being the near relation and most confidential friend of Lord Castlereagh, it never occurred to Mr. Canning, nor was it credible to him, that he received the private assertions of the fact, that Lord Camden had kept back such a communication from Lord Castlereagh."
"With respect to the period at which the change in the war department was to take place, Mr. Canning was induced, in the first instance, to consent to its postponement till the rising of parliament, partly by the representations made to himself of the inconveniences of any change in the middle of a session, but principally from a consideration of the particular circumstances under which Lord Castlereagh stood in the House of Commons after Easter; circumstances which would have given to his removal, at that period of the session, a character which it was certainly no part of Mr. Canning's wish that it should bear."
"Mr. Canning, however, received the most positive promise that a change in the war department should take place immediately upon the close of the session. When that time arrived, the earnest & repeated entreaties of most of Lord Castlereagh's friends in the cabinet were employed to prevail upon Mr. Canning to the postponement of the arrangement."
"At length, and most reluctantly, he did give his consent to its being postponed to the period proposed by Lord Castlereagh's friends, viz. the termination of the expedition then in preparation. But he did so upon the most distinct and solemn assurances, that whatever might be the issue of the expedition, the change should take place at that period; that the seals of the war department should then be offered to Lord Wellesley, (the person for whose accession to the cabinet, Mr. Canning was known to be most anxious,) and that the interval should be diligently employed by Lord Castlereagh's friends in preparing Lord Castlereagh's mind to acquiesce in such an arrangement."
"It was therefore matter of astonishment to Mr. Canning, when, at the issue of the expedition, he remitted the duke of Portland, that the time was now come for his Grace's withdrawing from the war department, to find that so far from the interval having been employed by Lord Castlereagh's friends, in preparing Lord Castlereagh for the change, the same reserve had been continued towards him, against which Mr. Canning had before so earnestly remonstrated."
"Being informed of this circumstance, by the duke of Portland, and learning at the same time, from his Grace, that there were other difficulties attending the arrangement, of which Mr. Canning had not before been apprized; and that the duke of Portland had himself come to a determination to retire from office, Mr. Canning instantly, and before any step whatever had been taken towards carrying the promised arrangement into effect, withdrew his claim, and requested the duke of Portland to tender his (Mr. Canning's) resignation, at the same time with his Grace to the king. This was on Wednesday, the 6th of Sept. previously to the levee of that day."
"All question of the performance of the promise made to Mr. Canning being thus at an end, the reserve which Lord Castlereagh's friends had hitherto so persistently practised towards Lord Castlereagh, appears to have been laid aside. Lord Castlereagh was now made acquainted with the nature of the arrangement which had been intended to have been proposed to him."
"What may have been the reasons which prevented Lord Castlereagh from filling the assurances given to Mr. Canning, that Lord Castlereagh's mind should be prepared by their communications, for the arrangement intended to be carried into effect; and what the motives for the disclosure to Lord Castlereagh after that arrangement had ceased to be in contemplation, it is not for Mr. Canning to explain."
LONDON, Oct. 18.—"France," quoth Bonaparte, in his letter to Gen. Armstrong, "admits the principle, that the flag protects the merchandise. Very likely! but does England admit it? Does reason or usage admit it? Usage is, without contradiction, hostile to our enemies; and we shall soon see how far they are borne out by reason, on an examination of the chief of those arguments which are here advanced in support of their cause. "A merchant vessel," they say, "having a clearance from her government, ought to be considered as a floating colony." Why she should be so considered, they do not tell us; but we will tell them why she should not. The members of a floating colony will declare, by their language, to what nation they belong; whereas the real owners and proprietors of a dead cargo can only be discovered by search and examination of papers. But if a vessel under an American flag should be discovered with troops on board, they might, if they liked, tell us that they were an American colony; yet if we discovered that every man of them spoke French, we should most unequivocally bring them to England; and so we trust we shall continue to treat cargoes, which, by their papers or any other satisfactory documents whatsoever, speak only the language of our enemies."
"The seas," says the rescript, "belong exclusively to no nation; they are the common property of States, the domain of all. True, and it is on this very principle that we claim the right of seizing what belongs to our enemies upon them. We do not seize a French vessel in an American harbor, because it is there protected by its position; it is situated not upon common, but upon exclusive property; and the neutral condition of the proprietors gives it protection; but we do seize French vessels upon the open seas, because they are common property, and no one has there a right to give it protection. It has no other claim to safety from its enemies, than that which it derives from superior power."
"Merchant vessels of an enemy," it is said, "being the property of private individuals, ought to be respected." This is new law! We will defy all the scoundrels of France, to point out any period of either ancient or modern history, when trading vessels were not considered as legal captures. The practice of maritime and land warfare admits of no similitude whatever in this respect: nor do warehouses, or shops, bear the least analogy to mercantile vessels. An enemy respects the former, so far as he does respect them, because they are deemed necessary to the sustenance of the peaceable inhabitants on the spot; but when a merchant vessel is captured, the captor supposes the inhabitants or himself, and carries away the general property, upon the principle of distressing the nation to which it belongs; and this has always been the practice."
"But had we, it seems, possessed the same superiority by land that France does, we should
have contrived to carry the maritime law into
that element, and confiscated "houses and churches," we suppose. The falsehood of this hypothetical slander is evident; because in the case of Terrene captures, though, really effected by the preponderance of our navy, we strictly adhere (not ever thought of doing otherwise,) to the established laws of terrestrial war; and the first article of all capitulation of Islands is, that "private property shall be respected." We require no more than that France shall show the same deference to the laws of war established by sea, and this we trust we shall make her do."
The history of the Commercial Decrees, and the respective Orders in Council in this document, is singular, and has but one objection to it, which is that it is totally untrue, and must be known to be so by every one that knows anything of the subject. We are said to have declared France in a state of blockade before the Berlin Decree, which first uttered that denunciation against us. They might as well have said that we declared France in the moon before the Berlin Decree—Our preceding Order of Council only forbade the coasting neutral trade during the war, which France would not suffer to be carried on during the peace, and then was issued the Decree in question, declaring that no vessel that had touched at England should be admitted into France. Our subsequent Orders were merely counteractive of this."
ERRATUM in the last Enquirer.—In extracting from the Mercantile Advertiser, that the ship Horace , with John Q. Adams on board, was compelled by the Dutch government to pay the Sound duties; the word Dutch was inadvertently put British .
SALES BY AUCTION.
ON Wednesday the 6th inst. will be sold at Harris's large Brick House, in the Tenement, next door below Mr. Thomas Kitchel's printing office, about 3000 $ worth of new fashionable and well executed Mahogany FURNITURE, made in the city of Richmond—consisting of the following articles, viz:
  Side Boards,  Bed-Steads,    Dining & Tea Tables,  Sofas,    Bureaus,  Easy Chairs,    Wash-Stands,  Bottle Cases,    Candle-Stands,  Elegant Clock and Case,    Card-Tables,  Looking-Glasses,    Tea do.  Secretaries,    Ladies' Work-Stands,  Cots,    Do. Dressing Chests,  Knife Cases, &c. &c.    Window Cornices,     Ladies' Cabinets,   
Terms—6 months credit for all sums over 50 $, under 50 $ cash—10 per cent. purchasers, notes negotiable and payable at the Bank of Virginia, with approved endorsees will be required, by Mr. SER. & MONCU. L. Auctioneers.
December 1. 2t
THE SUBSCRIBER,
OFFERS FOR SALE, a Tract of LAND, lying in Hanover county, on the waters of Cedar and Mill creeks; containing, by est. 475 acres, adjoining the lands of col. John Thompson, dec'd. John Thornton, Mary Meadow and others: There is a quantity of good meadow land attached to this tract, a small dwelling-house newly built. A minute description is deemed unnecessary, as it is presumed no one will buy without first viewing the premises. The terms of sale are, one-third of the purchase money to be paid on the day of sale, the other two-thirds, in two annual payments; the purchaser giving bonds with approved security; also, a deed of trust on the land. If the above land is not sold privately by the 22d of December next, it shall on that day offer it for sale, at public auction, on the premises.
Hanover Nov. 17. WM. WINGFIELD. 8t
N. B. Possession of the above land will be given on the first day of January next.
PUBLIC SALE, of NEGROES & STOCK. On Monday, the 11th day of December next, will be exposed to sale, at the Oaks, in the county of Hanover—120 NEGROES, belonging to the estate of the late Judge Lyons, dec'd. amongst whom are carpenters, sawyers & laborers, young and healthy.
A credit of 12 months will be allowed the purchasers, on their giving bond with the most unexceptionable security to the trustees.
On Wednesday, the 13th day of the same month, at the late dwelling house of the deceased; will be sold, the household Furniture, with the crop of corn, stock and farming utensils. On Friday, the 15th, will be sold, the plantation, called the Oaks, the crop of Corn, the Stock and utensils: And on Monday, the 19th, will be sold at the Mangochie plantation, in King William county, the crop of corn, stock, &c. The corn and pork will be sold for cash; the other articles on a reasonable credit. All persons indebted to the estate are requested to make payment before the first day of January, 1810; the money being appropriated to uses which will not admit of indulgence.
BY THE TRUSTEES. OCT. 10. WILL D
ON the 21st day of December next, if fair, if not the next fair day, will be sold, at the dwelling-house of the late George Garner, in the county of Westmoreland, about sixteen likely NEGROES, and the present year's crop of corn, &c. which property will be sold pursuant to a deed of trust, made by George Garner for the purpose of securing the payment of his debts. The sale will be on a credit of twelve months, the purchasers giving bond with approved security. If the negroes and crops do not sell for a sufficient sum to pay the debts of the said Garner, the subscribers will, on the day after the sale of the negroes and crops, sell all or so much of the land conveyed in trust for the above purpose, as will make a sum sufficient for the payment of the debts of the said George Garner. All such creditors as may exhibit their claims to the subscribers before the said 21st of December next, properly authenticated, and which the subscribers may consider legal and just, may purchase at the said sale, and shall be allowed a discount of their claims, against their purchase.
THOS. STOWERS, } Trustees. JAMES COX, } Westmoreland County, } October 24. tds
TWO hundred NEGROES for sale.—Will positively be sold at Christopher Owen's Tavern, in the town of Urbanna in Middlesex county, the above quantity of Negroes belonging to the estate