Norfolk gazette and publick ledger (Norfolk [Va.]), 1809-12-06 00:00:00

Documents which accompanied the Message of the President of the United States.
[CONTINUED.]
Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith.
Washington, 11th October, 1809.
Sir—I have had the honour of receiving your of- ficial letter of the 9th inst. towards the close of which you inform, that it had been thought expedi- ent to put an end to all verbal communication be- tween 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 alluded to have oc- curred, 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 prece- dent for such a determination between two minis- ters, who have met for the avowed purpose of ter- minating amicably the existing differences between their respective countries: but after mature reflec- tion, I am induced to acquiesce in it by the recol- lection of the time that must necessarily elapse be- fore I can receive his majesty's commands upon so unexpected an occurrence, and of the detriment that would ensue to the public service, if my ministerial functions were, in the interval, to be altogether sus- pended. I shall therefore content myself with en- tering 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 alluded misconduct on his part. As a mat- ter of opinion, I cannot, I own, assent to the pre- ference which you give to written over verbal inter- course for the purpose of mutual explanation and accommodation. I have thought it due to the pub- lic character with which I have the honour to be in- vested, and to the confidence which his majesty has most graciously been pleased to repose in me, to state to you unreservedly my sentiments on this point. I shall now proceed to the other parts of your letter, and to apply to them the best consid- eration that can arise from a zeal proportioned to the increase of difficulty thus thrown in the way of the restoration of a thorough good understanding between our respective countries.
You state, sir, very truly, that an arrangement had been made between you and Mr. Erskine, and that his majesty had thought proper to disavow that arrangement.
I have, here in the onset, 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 com- plain of the disavowal itself, or of a total want of explanation of it, or of the circumstance of that explanation not having been made through me. I observe that in the records of this mission there is no trace of a complaint, on the part of the United States, of his majesty having disavowed the act of his minister. You have not in the conferences we have hitherto held, distinctly announced any such complaint, and I have seen, with pleasure in this forbearance, on your part, an instance of that can- dour, which I doubt not will prevail in all our com- munications, in as much as you could not but have thought it unreasonable to complain of the disavow- al of an act, done under such circumstances, as could only lead to the consequences that have actu- ally 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 referring to his official correspondence, and par- ticularly to a despatch addressed on the 20th of A- pril to his majesty's secretary of state for foreign af- fairs, I find that he there states, that he had submit- ted to your consideration, the three conditions spe- cified in those instructions, as the ground work of an arrangement which, according to information received from this country, it was thought in Eng- land might be made, with a prospect of great mu- tual advantage. Mr. Erskine then reports verbatim et serialiter your observations upon each of the three conditions, and the reasons which induced you to think that others might be substituted in lieu of them. It may have been concluded between you that these latter were an equivalent for the original conditions; but the very act of substitution evi- dently shews that these original conditions were, in fact, very explicitly communicated to you, and by you of course laid before the president for his con- sideration. I need hardly add, that the difference between these conditions and those contained in the arrangement of the 18th and 19th April, is suffi- ciently obvious to require no elucidation; nor need I draw the conclusion, which I consider as admitted by all absence of complaint, on the part of the A- merican government, viz. that under such circum- stances, his majesty had the undoubted and in- controvertible right to disavow the act of his minister. I must here allude to a supposition, which you have mentioned once mentioned to me, and by which, if it had any the slightest foundation, that right might perhaps have been in some degree affected. You have informed me that you understood that Mr. Er- skine had two sets of instructions, by which to re- gulate his conduct; and that upon one of them, which had not been communicated either to you or to the public, was to be rested the justification of the terms finally agreed upon between you and him. It is my duty, sir, solemnly to declare to you, and, through you, to the president, that the 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 for- mer to the American minister in London, is the only dispatch, by which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrange-
ment with this country on the matter to which it relates.
To return to the immediate subject of your letter. If, sir, it be your intention to state, that no ex- planation whatever has been given to the American go- vernment of the reasons which induced his majesty to disavow the act of my predecessor, I must, in that case, observe, that in the instructions conveying to him his majesty's intention, those reasons were very fully and forcibly stated; and if he has not transmitted them to you, I can only attribute it to the peculiar delicacy and embarrassment of his si- tuation, 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 communication was also made upon the subject by his majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs to Mr. Pinkney, to whom the whole of Mr. Erskine's original instruction was read, and who, it was natural to suppose, would con- vey to his government so much information upon a very momentous occasion, as would relieve Mr. Er- skine from the necessity of entering into minute de- tails of the misunderstanding that had occurred.— At all events, no complaint can be substantiated a- gainst his majesty's government on this score, see- ing that they not only instructed the minister who had made the disavowed arrangement as to the mo- tives which occasioned the disavowal, but also with frankness, promptitude, and a most scrupulous re- gard to national honour, gave notice to the Ameri- can minister in London of the disavowal, of the mo- tives of it, and of the precautions spontaneously ta- ken by his majesty to prevent any loss or injury ac- cruing to the citizens of the United States from a re- luctance on any agreement, however unauthorised, made in his majesty's name. The mere allusion to this latter circumstance dispenses me from farther noticing the effects which you describe as being pro- duced upon the United States by the circumstances of this agreement. How far they are irreparable, it is not for me to determine—but the word irrepa- rable seems to imply that a loss had been sustained on the occasion by the publick or by individuals of this country. So far as his majesty could be by pos- sibility supposed answerable for such an eventual loss, he has, as I have before stated, taken the ut- most precaution to avert it.
As to the expectation entertained here, that the explanation of his majesty's share in this transac- tion should be made through me, I might content myself with simply observing that I was not pro- vided with instructions to that effect, because it was known that the explanation in question had already been given. But it accords with the sentiments of his majesty towards this country to observe also, that he considered, that as some time must neces- sarily elapse between my appointment and my en- trance on the duties of my ministry, it would be a more friendly mode of proceeding to state without delay, and through the channels I have already men- tioned, the motives that compelled his majesty to disavow the agreement, than to leave the American government in uncertainty in these respects, till the unavoidably protracted period of my arrival in A- merica. I say this in regard to the original noti- fication of his majesty's determination, and of the mo- tives of it, which being already made, it could not be supposed in London that a repetition of them would be expected from me; and of course no such case has been foreseen in my instructions. But if, beyond this, any incidental explanation or discuss- ion should be wished for by this government, I am now fully prepared to enter into them. I even consider them to have taken place between us. I have certainly derived great satisfaction from the se- veral hours, which we have spent in conference upon these subjects, because they have enabled me to remove some misunderstandings, and to relate many misrepresentations, which you yourself informed me of, in regard 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 countries, and I should with much pleasure have renewed them, if you had not informed me that the President had been pleased to prescribe another and a different mode of conducting our negotiations.
I will nevertheless avail myself of that mode which he still permits to repeat to you that his ma- jesty has authorised me, notwithstanding the ungra- cious manner in which his former offer of satisfac- tion 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 understood the particulars of that offer that I deem it unneces- sary to recapitulate them here: I regret that, since they were so clearly 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 satisfactory, or whether they are such as he ultimately means to accept. You seem not so distinctly to have understood the form of proceeding in this affair, which I took the liberty of suggesting as likely to lead to a satisfactory result, without however at all precluding any other method which might appear preferable to you. My propo- sal 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 majes- ty, which should actually give the satisfaction (thru- gh which I informed you that I was authoris- ed to carry into immediate execution) and of a coun- ter declaration to be signed by you on the part of the United States for the purpose of accepting such satisfaction. I expressly stated that this inter- change of official documents was not meant by me as the means of conveying to each other our re- spective sentiments; that I understood to be, as it was, the object of our conferences; and I imagin- ed that the papers to be signed by us, respectively,
would be the result of those sentiments so commu- nicated, and that by being reciprocally corrected and modified, and simultaneously delivered, they would form one compact by which the two countries would be equally bound. This course of proceeding is conformable to the practise of the courts of Eu- rope on similar occasions. You did not at the time appear to object to it; you even requested me to come the next day, prepared with a draft or project of a paper, framed in pursuance to these ideas; and although you desired to refer the subject to the President for his approbation, I do not find in your letter either an expression of his sentiments upon it, or the substitution of any other form that might be more agreeable to him, than the one which I have proposed.
I touch with considerable and very sincere re- luctance upon that part of your letter, in which you state that I had not assigned "any reason what- ever why the reasonable terms of satisfaction ten- dered 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 ca- pable of being actuated by any desire to retract an offer of reparation which he had once made, his ma- jesty might be well warranted in doing so both by the form in which his accredited minister had ten- dered that reparation, and by the manner in which that tender had been received. I believe that I elu- cidated this observation by a reference to the par- ticular expressions, which made the terms of satis- faction appear to be unacceptable even to the Ameri- can government, at the very moment when they were accepted, and which at all events put it total- ly out of his majesty's power to ratify and confirm any act in which such expressions were contained.
On the subject of his majesty's orders in council, I have the honour of informing you that his majes- ty having caused to be made to the government of the United States certain proposals founded upon principles, some of which were understood to origi- nate in American authorities, and others to be ac- quiesced in by them; and having afterwards ascer- tained, in the manner mentioned in a former part of this letter, that the sentiments of the American government were so different from what they were at first understood to be, I was not instructed to re- new to you those proposals, nor to press upon your acceptance an arrangement which had been so re- cently declined, especially as the arrangement itself is become less important, and the terms of it less applicable to the state of things now depending.
Those considerations which were first intimated in Mr. Canning's official letter to Mr. Pinkney of the 23d September, 1808, and which, in the pro- cess of the following six months, acquired greater weight and influence, induced his majesty, before the result of my Erskine's negotiation was known, to modify the orders in council of November, 1807, by that of the 26th of April, 1809.
The effect of this new order is to relieve the sys- tem under which the former orders were issued, from that which has always been represented in this coun- try, 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 pay- ment of a transit duty. This was originally de- vised and intended as a mitigation of what is cer- tainly more correct and more rigid in principle—the total and unqualified interdiction of all trade with the enemy. If, however, this mitigation was felt as an aggravation, and, as has been sometimes warily asserted, as an insult, that cause of com- plaint is now entirely removed. By the order in council of the 26th April, 1809, all trade with France and Holland, and the ports of Italy, compre- hending under the denomination of the kingdom of Italy, is simply prohibited altogether. No option is afforded, and consequently no transit duty is re- quired to be paid. In another respect the order in council of the 26th April must be admitted to be more restrictive than those of November, 1807.
The trade with enemies' colonies which was open- ed to neutrals at the commencement of the present war by the order in council of the 24th June, 1803, was continued to be left open by those of Novem- ber 1807. The order in council of the 26th April, retracts this indulgence. But it is to be observed, that, since the period, when the orders in council of November 1807 were issued, the opening of the ports of Spain, of Portugal, of the south of Italy and of Turkey has afforded a more ample scope to neutral commerce, and that by the capture of Mar- tinique, in addition to that of almost all the colo- nies of the enemies of Great Britain, together with the blockade of Europe, the extent to which the li- berty of commerce with enemies' colonies applied has been so far narrowed, that there is little of prac- tical hardship in recurring to the rule which, how- ever occasionally mitigated in its application, Great Britain can never cease in principle to maintain.— It is further to be observed, that the order in coun- cil of the 26th April has this operation highly fa- vourable to neutrals, that restricting 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 neutrals the ports of the north of Europe.— Under the orders of the 26th of April, therefore, while there are on the one hand fewer points of difference to stand in the way of a satisfactory ar- rangement between Great Britain and the United States, it is possible that there may be less temp- tation to the latter, to enter into such an arrangement, as the extent of their commerce may be, if they please, nearly as great as the orders in council of the 26th April, as it would under any arrangement which should effect the indispensable objects, to which that order applies, or as it would be even without any such order so long as France and the powers subervient to France continue to en- force their decrees. It is in the same proportion,
matter of conference to Great Britain, whether the orders in council be continued or an arrangement of mutual consent substituted in its room.
Such, sir, are the grounds on which it has appear- ed to his majesty to be unnecessary to demand his to propose to the government of the United States any formal agreement to be substituted for that which his majesty has been under the necessity of disavowing; but I am directed to receive and discuss with you any proposal which you may be authorised to make to me on this head.
As no disposition has hitherto been shown on your part to make any such proposal, it has been impossible for me to state by anticipation (nor was I instructed so to do) what might be the answer that I should eventually think it my duty to return to you; consequently I could not have made with that view the statement, contained in the 4th section of your letter, and the three subdivisions of it. Such a statement would have been obviously inconsistent with the former part of my overture, which you very correctly record in the 3d section, viz: that I was not instructed to make to you any proposal what- ever upon this subject. I must necessarily reserve, until I hear from you what proposals it may be deemed proper to make on behalf of the United States, to state in how far they may do not accord with the instructions, which it has pleased his ma- jesty to give me for my guidance in this negotiation.
I will only add, sir, in conclusion of this letter, that his majesty is very sincerely desirous of main- taining a perfect and cordial understanding with the United States, and of bringing to a complete and satisfactory adjustment, all the points of difference that have arisen between the two governments; and that, agreeing as I do with you, most heartily, as to the interest which both nations have in fos- tering 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 honour to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient humble servant.
F. J. JACKSON.
The Hon. Robert Smith, &c. &c. &c.
Mr. Smith to Mr. Jackson.
Department of State, October 19, 1809.
Sir—I had the honour of receiving your letter of the 11th inst.
Before I proceed to the more material topics, which it embraces, it is proper that I should take some notice of your construction, which has unhappy converted an intimation of the expediency of conducting in a written form our further discussions, on this particular occasion, into a general prohibi- tion of all verbal communications whatever, and into an unprecedented violation of the most essential rights of a public minister, requiring a formal protest and a resort to the commands of your sovereign.
A recurrence to that intimation cannot fail to show that its sole object was to avoid, in the French discussions of a case of unusual delicacy and impor- tance, the misconceptions well known to be incident to oral proceedings, and of which the diplomatic in- tercourse between the two governments had furnish- ed so many and such serious proofs,—nay, of which your letter itself is an additional illustration. Thus a change in diplomatic discussions from an oral to a written form is not without precedent. I cannot re- fer to one which will be more satisfactory to you than the intimation recently given by Mr. Canning, in the case of the proposal by Mr. Pinkney on the subject of the orders in council and the embargo, that the discussions which had been previously ver- bal must thenceforth take a written form. And with this view I take the liberty of recalling your at- tention to the subjoined extracts (See A & B) of letters that passed on that occasion.
On the present, as on that occasion, the discus- sion from verbal to written communications was suggest- ed after two conferences, and when the subject ap- peared to one of the parties to have, by those re- peated discussions, been brought to a point, which re- quired a precise understanding of the views and propositions of the other.
You will, sir, hence perceive, that in maintaining the right, which every government has as to the rules of intercourse with foreign functionaries, no encroachment has been made on intended in any right or customary privilege belonging to you in that character, nor any thing done to impede the proper and usual course of negotiation.
You have been sufficiently apprised, by my letter of the 9th, of the light in which the president views the arrangement lately made by your predecessor with this government, and of the grounds on which he has expected a formal and satisfactory explana- tion of the reasons for the refusal of his Britannic ma- jesty to carry it into effect. He persists in that ex- pectation, and in the opinion, that there has been given no explanation that is adequate, either as to the matter, or as to the mode.
When one government has been solemnly pledged to another in a mutual engagement by its acknowledged agent and competent authority, and refuses to fulfil the pledge, it is perfectly clear, that it owes it, both to itself and to the other party, to accompany its refusal with a formal and frank disclosure of sufficient reasons for a step, which, without such reasons, must deeply injure its own character, as well as the rights of the party confiding in its good faith.
"To refuse with honour (says a high authority in publick law) to ratify what has been concluded on the virtue of a full power, it is necessary that the gov- ernment should have strong and solid reasons, and that he shew in particular that his minister has vi- olated his instructions."
Although it is particularly incumbent on the sov- reign in such case to shew that his instructions have been violated, yet it is not a mere matter of form on immaterial points that will be sufficient. It is in- dispensably requisite, moreover, that the sovereign be strong and solid, that they materially affect the only the general obligation to abide by what has been so done, but also the disapprobation of the sovereign ex- tending to the other party. And it is a matter of no- toriety that the case under discussion is of a peculiar na- ture, and appears with peculiar force to call for an ex- planation of the reasons of the refusal, which was an- nounced in Vattel, B. 2, C. 10, S. 127.

It had occurred to me that the President might have been inclined to think that the execution of the arrangement on the part of the United States was a matter of his discretion; that, therefore, and simply to satisfy 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. — May, the case is strengthened by the further peculiarity, that some of the circumstances attending the execution of the arrangement on the part of the United States render it susceptible of a full equivalent for the refusal to execute it on the other side.
It has not escaped observation, that the obligation of your government to tender explanations on this occasion is admitted by your attempt to show that it has been sufficiently done in what passed in conversation between Mr. Canning and Mr. Pinkney, and by the instructions given by Mr. Erskine to communicate such explanations.
With every disposition to view in the most favourable light whatever may affect the relations between the two countries, it is impossible to mistake the conversation of those ministers for a discharge of such a duty 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 communication, it is certain, that it was neither understood by Mr. Pinkney, nor intended by Mr. Canning, that those conversations were so to be regarded. Mr. Pinkney is explicit on this point. And Mr. Canning himself, after declining to recapitulate in writing what he had verbally remarked, signified to Mr. Pinkney in a letter dated May 27th, that his observations on the subject would be more properly made through the successor of Mr. Erskine, who was about to proceed to the United States.
With respect to the instructions on this point, given to Mr. Erskine, it might be sufficient to remark that they were never carried into execution; but it may be asked, whether it was a mark of friendly respect to the United States to employ for such a purpose, a minister from whom his government had thought proper publicly to withdraw its confidence, and to the peculiar delicacy and embarrassment of whose situation you have yourself referred, as accounting for his not having executed the task imposed upon him.
I must repeat, what was suggested in my former letter, that the successor of Mr. Erskine is the proper functionary for a proper explanation. Nor can I perceive the force of your remark, that the delay incident to your arrival in the United States rendered it more consistent with the friendly sentiments of his majesty to prefer the other channels for communicating the motives for his disavowal. To your own reconsideration I appeal, whether the course most consonant to those friendly sentiments was not the obvious one of employing the new organ, guarding at the same time against any misconstruction of the delay by apportioning the American government through its minister, of the cause of it. The supposition, that the delay incident to your mission gave rise to the conversation of Mr. Canning and Mr. Pinkney, is not receivable to the correspondence of the latter, which contains no such indication. — On the contrary it distinctly shews that he was apprized of the intention to replace Mr. Erskine by a successor, whom he regarded as the proper channel for the explanatory communications, that he understood Mr. Canning to be under the same impression, and that he learned from yourself, not more than two days after his conversations with Mr. Canning, that you were to sail for the 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 altho' 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 timely and confidently expected through the new functionary. And as to the supposed reserve on my part on this subject in our several conferences, I did imagine, that my repeated intimations to you of the necessity of satisfactory explanations, as to the disavowal, were sufficient indications of the dissatisfaction of this government with respect to the disavowal itself.
The stress you have laid on what you have been pleased to state as the substitution of the terms final, agreed on, for the terms first proposed, has excited no small degree of surprize. Certain it is, that your predecessor did present for my consideration the three conditions which now appear in the printed documents—that he was disposed to urge them more than the nature of two of them (both palpably inadmissible and 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 favour of the right of his Britannick majesty to disavow the proceedings? Is any thing more common in publick negotiations than to begin with a higher demand, and that to descend to a lower? To have, if not succeeded in 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 in 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 conveying his assurance to me "that the terms of the arrangement so happily concluded by the recent negotiation will be strictly fulfilled on the part of his majesty," is an evident indication of what his personal assurance was as to his instructions. And with a view to show what his impressions have been even after the disavowal, I must take the liberty of referring you to the annexed extracts (see C.) from his official letters of the 31st July and of the 14th of August.
The declaration "that the despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d January is the only document to which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine" — the conclusion of an arrangement "in accordance to which it refers" — is now for the first time made to this government. And I need not say, that if the despatch had been communicated at the time of the negotiation, or if it had been produced at the time of the disavowal, it would have been at once seen that it was authorized to make
the disavowal, and that the instructions did not limit the power of the President to make it. — It is evident that the President might have been inclined to think that the execution of the arrangement on the part of the United States was a matter of his discretion; that, therefore, and simply to satisfy 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. — May, the case is strengthened by the further peculiarity, that some of the circumstances attending the execution of the arrangement on the part of the United States render it susceptible of a full equivalent for the refusal to execute it on the other side.
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 honour of signifying to you, that I am authorized to receive in a proper form whatever explicit explanations you may chuse to make, with respect to the grounds of this part of the disavowal; and without enquiring whether your authority is 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 Britannick 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 and accepted by the United States, and that you would have shown in what the reparation then tendered differed from his instructions. And when I had the honour 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 in 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 seemed 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 an explanation of the refusal of your government to fulfil the arrangement of that branch of the existing differences, nor the substitution of any other plan of adjustment, nor any authority to conclude any agreement on that subject; but merely to receive and discuss proposals, that might be made to you on the part of the United States and these it appears, must include a stipulation on the part of the United States to relinquish the trade with the enemies' colonies, even in branches not hitherto interrupted by British orders for capture, and also a sanction to the enforcing of an act of Congress by the British navy.
Were the way properly opened for formal propositions from this government, a known determination on the part of his Britannick majesty to adhere to such extraordinary pretensions would preclude the hope of success in such advances, whether regard be had to the considerations themselves, or to the disposition of the indicia, 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 reason likely to be presumed, if the idea of such a condition had in the first instance proceeded from the erroneous belief that it was not objectionable to the United States, that it would not have been persisted in after that error had been ascertained and acknowledged.
The other demand could still less have been apprehended. Besides the inevitable and incalculable abuses incident to such a license to foreign cruisers, the stipulation would touch one of those vital principles of sovereignty, which no nation ought to have been expected to impair. For where would be the difference in principle between authorizing a foreign government to execute, and authorizing it to make laws for us? — Nor ought it to be supposed, that the sanctions 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 in 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 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 suspension 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 order 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 counterbalance the retaliatory plea alleged in support of them.
What, permit me to ask, is the degree of injury actually sustained by 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 provisions of this country in relation to France, the essential difference between their repeal and their existence consists in this—that in the former case, the repeal, as provided by the arrangement of April, would deprive the United States of the benefit of the direct trade with the ports of Holland, abandoning that trade to the present, it is to be seen
to what extent the enemies of Great Britain would be benefited by the repeal of the orders in council. — It is evident that the President might have been inclined to think that the execution of the arrangement on the part of the United States was a matter of his discretion; that, therefore, and simply to satisfy 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. — May, the case is strengthened by the further peculiarity, that some of the circumstances attending the execution of the arrangement on the part of the United States render it susceptible of a full equivalent for the refusal to execute it on the other side.
It remains to make a few observations which are due to the just interests of the United States, and which are invited by yours relating to the order in council of May last.
You seem to consider that measure as comprising the ultimate precaution that was in the power of his Britannick majesty to take, for preventing losses, from his disavowal of the engagement of your predecessor, to citizens of the United States, who had resumed their commercial pursuits on the faith of that act.
Without entering into a full view of the inadequacy of the order in that respect, I take the liberty of pointing out the following instances in which it falls essentially short of its declared intention.
1. The order does not provide for the important case of vessels returning with cargoes from the ports of Holland. 2. The exemption from interruption of vessels bound from the United States to Holland was restricted by that order to such as should have departed prior to the 20th of July, at which date it is not certain that the order, which was not officially communicated until the 31st of that month, had even reached any one point of the United States. So that those vessels may have failed between the limited date and the arrival of the order in the United States and many from distant ports would have done so after its arrival, but before the 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 failed 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 by a fine confidence in that act, they will fall within the just indemnification for which the principle, assumed in the order is a formal pledge.
I concede, sir, with pressing upon your candid attention, that the best 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 his disavowal, not through the minister disavowed, but through his successor — an explanation founded on reason strong and solid in themselves, and presented, neither verbally, nor vaguely, but in a form comporting with the occasion, and with the respect due to the character and to the good faith of the disappointed party, — and it has been found with much concern and with not less surprize, that you are charged with no such explanations, — that you have apparently wished to bring the subjects, which have been formally and definitively arranged, into fresh negotiation, as if no such arrangement had taken place; — that one of the cases thus slighted, viz. that of the frigate Chesapeake, a case for which reparation, if entitled 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 prisoners, whose seizure, making a part of the original hostility committed against the American frigate, must be regarded in a light analogous to a continued detention of the ship itself; — that in the other case, viz. that of the orders in council, you are not authorized to tender explanations for the disavowal, or to propose any new arrangement, nor conclude any agreement, but solely to receive and discuss propositions which might be made to you, not concealing, at the same time, that to be satisfactory, they must include two conditions, both inadmissible, — one altogether irrelevant to the subject, and the other requiring nothing less than a surrender of an unalienable function of the national sovereignty.
Notwithstanding these repulsive considerations, such is the disposition of the President to facilitate a final and comprehensive accommodation between the two nations, that he is ready, as I have already had the honour of signifying to you, to favour any mode of bringing about so happy an event that may be found consistent with the honour and the essential interest of the United States.
I have the honour to be, &c. (Signed) R. SMITH. The Hon. Francis James Jackson, &c. &c.
(A) Extract of a letter from Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Canning, dated London, Oct. 10, 1808.
"At our first interview (on the 29th June) verbal communication was not disconcerted, but commendable. 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 or 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 22d July) it did not occur to me that I had any reason to conclude, and certain I did not conclude, that verbal communication had not continued to be acceptable as a preparatory course, and it was not until the third interview (on the 29th July) that it was rejected as inadmissible."
(B) Extract of a letter from Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney, dated Nov. 22, 1808.
"It is highly probable that I did not (as you say I did not) assign to you as the motive of the wish which I then expressed, my persuasion, that written communications are less liable to mistake than verbal ones; because that consideration is sufficiently obvious, and because the whole course and practice of office is, in that respect so established and invariable, that I really could not have supposed the assignment of any specific motive to be necessary to account for 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 favourable 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 practice any deception towards the government of the United States."
From the same to the same, dated Aug. 14th, 1809. "Under these circumstances, therefore, finding that I could not obtain the recognitions specified in Mr. Canning's despatch of the 23d 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 dispatch 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 fulfilled, 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 sincerely to lament that an act of mine (though unintentionally) should produce any embarrassment in the relations between the two countries."
Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith. Washington, 23d October, 1809.
Sir — The letter, which you did me the honour to address to me on the 19th inst. was delivered to me on the following day. I shall, without loss of time, transmit it to my court, where the various and important considerations which it embraces will receive the attention due to them. In the interval, I would beg leave to submit to you the following observations, as they arise out of the communications that have already occurred between us.
In fulfilling a duty which I conceive to be due to my public character, I have never suggested, nor meant to suggest, that the mode of negotiation prescribed by you on this particular occasion — an occasion selected for the purpose of removing existing differences — was otherwise objectionable, than as it appeared to me, to be less calculated, than it does to you, to answer the professed purpose of our negotiation.
It was against the general principle of debarring a foreign minister, in the short space of one week after his arrival, and without any previous understanding with him, from all personal intercourse, that I thought it right to protest. Since however I find by your letter that it is not intended to apply that principle to me, I will only observe, that in the case which you mention to have occurred between Mr. Canning and Mr. Pinkney, the conferences were held, under an expectation at least on the part of the former, of their leading to a written communication, whereas in ours, I, from the beginning, stated that I had no such communication to make. There is also this essential difference between the two cases, that Mr. Pinkney was charged to convey an important proposal to his majesty's government, the particulars of which it might be very material to have correctly stated, whilst the object of that part of my conversation, to which you seem to attach the most importance, was to say, that I was not charged to make any proposal whatever.
It could not enter into my view, to withhold from you an explanation, merely because it had been already given, but because, having been so given, I could not imagine, until informed by you, that a repetition of it would be required at my hands. I am quite certain that his majesty's government having complied with what was considered to be the substantial duty imposed upon it on this occasion would, had this been foreseen, have added to the proofs of conciliatory good faith already manifested, the further complacency to the wishes of the United States of adopting the form of the communication most agreeable to them, and of giving through me the explanation in question. I have therefore no hesitation in informing you, that his majesty was pleased to disavow the agreement concluded between you and Mr. Erskine, because it was concluded in violation of that gentleman's instructions, and altogether without authority to subscribe to the terms of it. — Those instructions, I now understand by your letter, as well as from the obvious deduction which I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th instant, were at the time, in substance, made known to you; no stronger illustration therefore can be given of the deviation from them which occurred, than by a reference to the terms of your agreement.
Nothing can be more notorious than the frequency with which, in the course of a complicated negotiation, ministers are furnished with a gradation of conditions, on which they may be successively authorized to conclude. So common is the case which you put hypothetically, that in acceding to the justice of your statement, I feel myself impelled to make only one observation upon it, which is, that in does not strike me as bearing upon the consideration of the unauthorized agreement concluded here, in as much as in point of fact Mr. Erskine had no such graduated instruction. You are already acquainted with that which was given, and I have had the honour of informing you that it was the only one by which the conditions on which he was to conclude were prescribed. So far from the terms, which he was actually induced to accept, having been contemplated in that instruction, he himself states that they were substituted by you in lieu of those originally proposed.
It may perhaps be satisfactory that I should say here that I most willingly subscribe, on this occasion, to the highly respectable authority which you have quoted, and I join issue with you upon the essentials which that authority requires to constitute a right to disavow the act of a publick minister.
It is not immaterial to observe on the qualification contained in the passage you have quoted — as it implies the case of a minister concluding in virtue of a full power. To this it would suffice to answer that Mr. Erskine had no full power; and his act consequently does not come within the range of your quotation, although it cannot be forgotten that the United States have, at no very distant period, most freely exercised the right of withholding their ratification from even the authorised act of their own diplomatic agents, done under the avowed sanction of a full power.
I conceive that what has been already said establishes beyond the reach of doubt or controversy that his majesty's minister did violate his instructions, and the consequent right in his majesty to disavow an act so concluded. That his majesty had strong and solid reasons for so doing will appear not only from his instructions having been violated, but from the circumstance that the violation of them involved the sacrifice of a great system of policy deliberately adopted and acted upon in just and necessary retaliation of the unprecedented modes of hostility resorted to by his enemy.
There appears to have prevailed throughout the whole of this transaction a fundamental mistake, which would suggest that his majesty had proposed to propitiate the government of the United States in order to induce it to consent to the renewal of the commercial intercourse between the two countries; as if such had been the relations between Great Britain and America, that the advantages of that intercourse were wholly on the side of the former; and as if in any arrangement, whether commercial or political, his majesty could condescend to barter objects of national policy and dignity for permission to trade with another country.
Without minutely calculating what may be the degree of pressure felt at Paris by the difference in the price of goods whether landed at Havre or at Hamburg, I will, in my turn, appeal to your judgment, sir, whether it be not a strong and solid reason, worthy to guide the councils of a great and powerful monarch, to set bounds to that spirit of encroachment and universal dominion which would bend all things to its own standard? Is it nothing in present state of the world, when the agents of the France notoriously announce to their victims, "that Europe is submitting and surrendering by degrees," that the world should know, that there is a nation which by Divine goodness so strongly appeared to in the paper to which I allude, is enabled
* Augereau's proclamation to the Catalonians.

to satisfy the... It is not important at such a moment...
As to the precautions taken in England to insure from injury upon this occasion the citizens of the United States...
On the subject of return cargoes from those ports, I must observe, that although it was intended to prevent as far as was practicable the inconveniences likely to be created by the unauthorised agreement made here in April last...
If an American vessel had sailed from America for Holland in time of profound peace, or in time of war, the ports of Holland not being at the date of sailing under blockade...
The order in council is far less strict than such a blockade would be, for as much as it provides for the original voyage, commenced in expectation of being admitted to the port of destination...
I beg briefly to recapitulate the substance of what I have had the honour to convey to you as well in a verbal, as in written communications.
I have informed you of the reasons of his majesty's disavowal of the agreement so often mentioned; I have shown them, in obedience to the authority which you have quoted, to be both strong and solid...
Beyond this point of explanation which was supposed to have been attained, but which is now given, by the present letter, in the form understood to be most agreeable to the American government...
I have the honour to be, &c. F. J. JACKSON. The Hon. Robert Smith, &c. &c. &c.
Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith. Washington, 27th Oct. 1809.
Sir—Finding by your letter of the 19th inst. that, notwithstanding the frequent statements made by me in our conferences of the terms of satisfaction which I am empowered to offer to this country for the unauthorised attack made by one of his majesty's ships of war upon the frigate of the United States the Chesapeake...
I have the honour to be, &c. F. J. JACKSON. The Hon. Robert Smith, &c. &c. &c.
The President's proclamation of July 1807, prohibiting to British ships of war the entrance into the harbours of the United States having been annulled, his majesty is willing to restore the seamen taken out of the Chesapeake on receiving to himself a right to claim, in a regular way, by application to the American government, the discharge of such of them (if any) as shall be proved to be either natural born subjects of his majesty, or deserters from his majesty's service.
His majesty is willing to make a provision for the families of such men as were slain on board of the Chesapeake, in consequence of the unauthorised attack upon that frigate, provided that such bounty shall not be extended to the family of any man who shall have been either a natural born subject of his majesty, or a deserter from his majesty's service.
Mr. Smith to Mr. Jackson. Department of State, Nov. 1, 1809.
Sir—Your letter of the 23d ult. which was duly received, would have been sooner acknowledged, had I not by sickness been rendered for several days utterly unfit for business.
Although the delay and the apparent reluctance in specifying the grounds of the disavowal of the arrangement with respect to the orders in council, do not correspond with the course of proceeding deemed most becoming the occasion; yet as the explanation has at length been thus made, it only remains, as to that part of the disavowal arrangement, to refer to such considerations should have been allowed to outweigh the solid objections to the disavowal...
Whilst you have deemed it proper to offer an explanation with respect to the disavowal of one part of the arrangement, I must remind you that there is not to be found in your letter any like specification of the reasons for the disavowal, nor particularly is it shown that instructions were embodied, as to the other party viz the cause of the Chesapeake...
For the first time it is now disclosed that the subjects, arranged with the American government by your predecessor, are held out to be the subject of the authority of a Minister Plenipotentiary...
I need scarcely add, that in the full power alluded to, as a preliminary to negotiation, is not intended to be included, either the whole extent or any part of your instructions for the exercise of it.
I abstain, sir, from making any particular animadversions on several irrelevant and improper allusions in your letter, not at all comporting with the professed disposition to adjust in an amicable manner the differences unhappily subsisting between the two countries.
I have the honour to be, &c. &c. R. SMITH. The Hon. F. J. Jackson, &c. &c. &c.
Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith. Washington, 4th Nov. 1809.
Sir—When I forwarded to my court your letter of the 19th ultimo, and the answer which I returned to it, I imagined, and I may add, I hoped, that the retrospective correspondence, into which you thought it necessary to enter with me had been closed.
Since, Sir, it has been judged expedient to continue to a written form this important and interesting discussion; since that mode had been declared by you to be indispensable, I will first appeal to the written communications which have passed between us...
You say "that it is understood that his Britannic Majesty perseveres in requiring as indispensable conditions on the part of the United States, an entire relinquishment of the right to trade with the enemies colonies, and also a permission to the British navy to aid in executing a law of Congress."
This same statement is contained in the substance of what had fallen from me in our previous conferences. In my answer to that letter, I took the liberty of showing that such a supposition was erroneous, and I have looked in vain to my letter of the 23d, to find in it any suggestions of a similar tenor.
That before the orders in council can be revoked, their object must be obtained in some other way, is unquestionably true; but you may be assured, sir, that there is no wish whatever entertained in England, that the British navy should be employed in executing a law of congress; if the proposal that was made upon that subject, and made, as you now know, because it was believed to be acceptable here, had been adopted, and had become a compact between the two countries...
In regard to the colonial trade I need only observe, that all or nearly all the enemies colonies are blockaded by British squadrons, it cannot therefore be so much an object of solicitude, as you imagine, to obtain the relinquishment of the trade of this country to those colonies. On the contrary you will find it stated in my letter of the 11th ultimo, to a "minister plenipotentiary"...
There is another motive for the disavowal of this part of the arrangement, considered to be so strong and so self evident upon the very face of the transaction, that I am not commanded to do more than indicate in the manner I have already done.
I am somewhat at a loss to give a distinct reply to that part of your letter which relates to Mr. Erskine's authority to conclude with you in virtue of his general letter of credence...
If it were otherwise, and a government were in all cases to be bound by the act, however unauthorised, of an accredited minister, there would be no safety in the appointment of such a minister, and ratifications would be useless.
In his dispatch of the 23d January, Mr. Secretary Canning distinctly says to Mr. Erskine—"Upon receiving through you on the part of the American government a distinct and official recognition of the three above-mentioned conditions, his majesty will lose no time in sending to America a minister fully empowered to consign them to a formal and regular treaty."
This minister would, of course, have been provided with a full power; but Mr. Erskine was to be guided by his instructions, and had the agreement concluded here been confirmable to them, it would without doubt have been ratified by his majesty.
I am surprised at the transition by which it appears to you that this part of the subject is connected with the authority empowering me to negotiate with you.
I am concerned, sir, to be obliged a second time to appeal to those principles of publick law under the sanction and protection of which I was sent to this country.
You will find that in my correspondence with you, I have carefully avoided drawing conclusions that did not necessarily follow from the premises advanced by me, and least of all should I think of uttering an insinuation, where I was unable to substantiate a fact.
I have the honour to be, Sir, yours &c. F. J. JACKSON. The Hon. Robert Smith, &c. &c. &c.
Mr. Smith to Mr. Jackson. Department of State, Nov. 8, 1809.
Sir—In my letter of the 19th ult. I stated to you that the despatch "from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d January, was the only despatch by which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine, for the conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which it related..."
In my letter of the 1st instant, adverting to the repetition in your letter of the 23d ult. of a language implying a knowledge in this government that the instructions of your predecessor did not authorise the arrangement formed by him...
Finding that in your reply of the 4th instant, you have used language which cannot be understood but as reflecting and even aggravating the same gross imputation, it only remains, in order to preclude opportunities which are thus abused, to inform you that no further communication will be received from you, and that the necessity of this determination will be made known to your government.
Mr. Oakley, his majesty's Secretary of Legation, is desired by Mr. Jackson to state to the American state that, as Mr. Jackson has been already most grossly insulted by the inhabitants of the town of Hampton in the unprovoked language of those held by them to several outrages bearing the British uniform, when those officers were themselves the aggressors...
Francis James Jackson, Esq. Mrs. Jackson, Their Three Children, Charles Oakley, Esq. His Majesty's Secretary of Legation. Mr. George Ottey, Private Secretary. Servants.—Robert Clavering, Francis Martin, William Attree, Charles Beccroft, Richard Lunn, John Prince, John Lilly, James Wright, Agnes George, Mary Smith, Harriet Patten, Martha Wilson, Frances Blacknell.
[Received at the Department of State on the 11th Nov. 1809.]
Mr. Oakley is desired by Mr. Jackson to say to the Secretary of State: That Mr. Jackson has seen with much regret that facts, which it has been his duty to state in his official correspondence, have been deemed by the American government to afford a sufficient motive for breaking off an important negotiation...
One of the facts alluded to has been admitted by the secretary of state himself in his letter of the 19th October, viz. that the three conditions forming the substance of Mr. Erskine's original instruction, were submitted to him by that gentleman.
In stating these facts and in adhering to them, his duty imperiously enjoined him to do, Mr. Jackson could not imagine that offence would be taken at it by the American government, as most certainly none could be intended on his part; but since he has been informed by the secretary of state that no further communications will be received from him...
Mr. Jackson means to make New York his place of residence. Washington, 13th Nov. 1809. (Documents to be continued.)
Congress of the United States. IN SENATE—November 30, 1809.
Foreign Relations.—The following motion was submitted by Mr. Giles for the consideration of the Senate.
Resolved, That so much of the President's message, as respects the relations existing between the United States and Great-Britain and France, with the accompanying documents, be referred to a select committee, with instructions to examine the same, and report thereon to the senate, and that the committee have leave to report by bill, or bills, or otherwise.
Mr. Giles introduced the foregoing resolution with observing, in substance, that in presenting the resolution to the consideration of the senate, he did not mean at this time to suggest any specific course of proceeding, as proper to be observed upon the very delicate and interesting topics embraced by his motion...
LIST OF COMMITTEES. Appointed by the Speaker, in pursuance of the Order of the House of Representatives.
Committee of Elections.—Messrs. Tinker, Clay, Sturges, Troup, Taylor, Van Rensselaer, and Gannett. — of Claims.—Messrs. Johnson, Pinkney, Anderson, R. Brown, Stanley, Gholson, and I. R. Foster. — of Commerce and Manufactures.—Messrs. Newton, Dama, Marion, Cutts, N. R. Moore, Dade, and Seybert. — of Ways and Means.—Messrs. Eppes, Wilton, Alston, Talmadge, Montgomery, Bacon, Gault, and Root. — on Publick Lands.—Messrs. Morrow, Gwynn, Ely, Boyd, Howard, Gold, and Cullen. — of Revised and Unfinished Business.—Messrs. Southard, Shaw and R. Jackson. — of Accounts.—Messrs. Milnor, Kennedy, and Turner. — District of Columbia.—Messrs. Love, Van Horn, L. J. Alston, Newbold, S. Smith, Turner, and Haven.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TUESDAY, Nov. 20. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.
On motion of Mr. Dawson, the house resolved itself into committee of the whole on the President's message. The President's message having been read. Mr. Smith said that the contents of the President's message, was to inform the house that the President had been informed that the British government had been in the habit of impressing American seamen into their service...

our business relations had been divided and... ...the whole number of the late city election, published in this paper on Saturday. Mr. Ward the Madisonian candidate, had 87 votes in the 8th Ward. With this correction then it appears, that the whole number of federal votes in the city was 3928 Whole number of democratic votes 3498
Leaving a clear federal majority of 430 Some busy gentlemen, more inquisitive than discreet, have attempted an imposition on the public by asserting in the first place, that a majority of the whole number of votes were with the democrats; and in the second that our gaining a majority in the common council was owing to the divisions in their party. The above statement will show how false the assertion is, and it will likewise prove that if, in the wards where there were two democratic candidates, there had been but one, and that one had received all the democratic votes, (a thing utterly impossible) yet that we should still have carried six wards out of ten.
It is not so as to say to what particular cause it is owing that this fall the democratic party were defeated, although they went together last spring. But if it be true as is said, that a certain eminent ambitious person (supposed to be De Witt Clinton) has declared that he can easily enough manage the Martling Assemblymen (the violent democrats) when he once has them at Albany. If it be also true, as has been also said, that he exults at the late defeat of democracy, because even the partisans will despair of success in future, unless they return to their rightful lord and master; it may in some degree account for his permitting or fostering divisions in the corporation election this fall, which would not answer his purpose last spring. Accordingly we shall not be surprised if the organ should in some time or other, but with all the impressive gravity of grief, recommend in effect, an immediate return of all disorderly democrats, to the standard of the most potent and magnificent Bashaw, with three tails! To what particular words the organ-grinder will set his tune, I know not, but presume it will be something like "Another Dyer's supper," with "The Union of Honest men," as a chorus, classed among the "popular airs."
We understand that Professor Brownell, of Union College, who sails for Europe in the Lord Chesterfield, upon Literary and Scientific pursuits, is charged with publick dispatches from our government to the American minister in London.
BALTIMORE, December 1. Married on Saturday evening last, Mr. MANSELL, son of the right hon. lord Mansfield, chief justice of his Britannick majesty's court of common pleas, to Miss Mary B. SMITH, daughter of general Samuel Smith of this city.
Gazette Marine Memoranda. ARRIVED. Ship Georgia, Pierce, 30 days from Liverpool, Ballast, Robert Maitland. Sch'r Catharine Shepherd, Forsyth, 17 days from Porto Rico, Sugar & Coffee, H. Allmand. — Left there brig Antigua, Harvey of Baltimore, discharging Beauty. — of Philadelphia, at quarantine. Ship Hope, Travers, for Philadelphia, in 15 days; ship Columbia, Cheseman, for Rhode Island, in 15 days. — Spoke on Friday on Soundings ship Pennsylvania, from Philadelphia bound to Charleston. Ship Elizabeth Margaret, Webb, 14 days from St. Bartholomew, Rum & Coffee, W. H. Thompson. Left about 90 sail of American vessels, among which were, brig Gorge, Cox; sch'rs Mohawk, Brewster; John, McIntosh, and Stranger; Gay, all from this port; Ship Commerce, Crowder, and sch'r Hesper, from Alexandria. — Flour retailing from 7 1/2 to 8 1/4 dollars, Pork 11 to 12 dollars per bbl. — Spoke Dec. 1, in lat. 32, long. 72. 20. ship Cornelia, Portland, of and bound to Charleston, 49 days from Liverpool. — East of Cape Henry 6 leagues, saw a vessel supposed to be a brig with both masts gone, standing on.
Sch'r Grand Sachem, Jackson, 9 days from Philadelphia. In Hampton Roads bound to Alexandria, in distress brig Industry, Gladding, from Rhode Island. — On Thursday the 23d November off Cape Henry, carried away main yard, main topsmast, split both topsails, and washed the best bower-anchor from the bower. A schooner with both masts gone was towed into Hampton Roads by the United States' brig Nautilus on Monday evening.
LANDING. 22 hogsheads } Havanna Sugars. 198 barrels } 44 barrels } 215 bags } For Sale by WILSON & CUNNINGHAM. December 18.
DOCTOR BALFOUR, Will take a Young Gentleman into his Shop as a Student of Medicine. August 19.
Bills on London, F. W. Southgate.
SEGARS, COFFEE, &c. 22 hogsheads } Muscovado Sugars, 198 barrels } 44 barrels } 215 bags } For Sale by J. O. Walker, No. 2, Maxwell's wharf. December 6.
LANDING From on board the Schooner Catharine Shepherd, Capt. Forsyth, from Porto Rico, 22 hogsheads } Choice Muscovado Sugar, 198 barrels } 44 barrels } 215 bags } For Sale by H. ALLMAND. December 6.
Sales at Auction. At 11 o'Clock on Saturday the 9th instant, at Maxwell's wharf the CARGOES of the schooner Catharine Shepherd and brig Elizabeth Margaret, viz. 22 hogsheads } Muscovado SUGAR, 198 barrels } 40,000 weight prime Green COFFEE, 56 puncheons RUM. Wm. H. Thompson. December 6.
Pursuant to a Deed in Trust, executed on the 28th day of July, 1802, by the late W. & C. RAINECK, to satisfy a debt due to GEORGE RAINECK, of the Island of Jamaica, Will be Sold at Publick Auction, on the 8th of December next, at the Warehouse of Messrs. Geo. Murray & Co. Ten valuable SLAVES, Viz. 2 Men, 3 Women, and 5 Children. ALSO, A quantity of Household and Kitchen FURNITURE. And on the 11th December, on the premises, 300 ACRES of LAND, more or less, Situate at Paradise Creek, and adjoining the Lands of Mr. Edward Roberts and Zachariah Owens, together with the LIVE STOCK thereon, consisting of Horn Cattle, Sheep and Hogs. The Trustee. Terms of payment, For the Slaves, Furniture, and Live Stock, cash for all sums at and under 50 dollars — Notes with approved endorsers at 60 days for all sums over 50 and not exceeding 250 dollars; and at 90 days for all sums over 250 dollars. For the Land, Notes with approved endorsers at 6, 12, and 18 months, with a lien on the property to secure the payments. November 29. tds
Valuable Property to be Sold at Auction. On Wednesday, 13th of December, at XII o'Clock, will be Sold on Commerce-Street Wharf, The Fire-Proof Warehouse, at present occupied by Mr. Robert Maitland. A credit of 9 and 12 months will be given, and Notes with approved endorsers required. Also at the same time and place, That Valuable WHARF, Adjoining the Publick Landing at Portsmouth, formerly the property of Mrs. Hunter — The same credit will be given as for the above, and the same payment required. William Pennock, V. M. November 27. tds
200 NEGROES for Sale. Will positively be Sold in Middlesex County, at Christopher Owen's Tavern, in the town of Urbanna, the above quantity of NEGROES, belonging to the estate of PHILIP L. GRYMES, of Brandon, deceased. Among which are, House Servants, Cooks, Carpenters, Blacksmiths, Coopers, &c. Also, 4 Ox Carts, with Chains, &c. and 24 of the most valuable Oxen belonging to the said estate. 30 of the above NEGROES will be sold for cash; the balance with the oxen, &c. will be sold on a credit of nine months, the purchaser giving bond with approved security. The Sale will take place on the 9th of January next, (if fair, if not the next fair day) and will continue from day to day until all are sold. The cash sales will commence on the first day. All legal creditors are requested to purchase the amount, or any part of their respective claims. Robert West, Administrator of Philip L. Grymes, dec'd. Woodville, Gloucester County, } Nov. 22. 1809. t6Jan.
Fresh Malaga FRUIT. The CARGO of the Schooner Two Brothers, landing this day on Commerce-Street, consisting of 150 Qr. Casks Rich Sweet Mountain WINE; 50 barrels SUN RAISINS, 60 boxes Muscatel do. 10 do. Bl-on do. 25 kegs FIGS; 25 bags soft shelled ALMONDS, 250 jars GRAPES; 50 do. OLIVES, 25 boxes VERMACELLA. A small quantity of CORK For Sale on moderate terms by Moses Myers & Son. Who Want, White Oak STAVES. November 10. tf
In Council, November 3, 1809. The Governor laid before the Board, Letters Patent under the hand of the President and Seal of the United States, recognizing MOSES MYERS, Esq. as temporary Vice Consul of his Danish Majesty for the State of Virginia, to reside at the port of Norfolk. Whereupon it was ordered, that the same be published for the information of the Citizens of this Commonwealth. Extract from the Journal. Daniel L. Fulton, Clerk of the Council.
FOR CHARTER. The launch Sch'r William, burthen 105 tons, 10 months old, well found, and in good order for sea. Apply to H. HAND, at the Exchange Coffee-House, or to Theo. Armistead. December 4.
Norfolk Drawbridge Company. NOTICE is hereby given, that at the request of a number of the Stockholders, the Bridges as well across the Eastern as the Southern Branch of Elizabeth River, will be offered for Rent by the Year to the High & Right Bidder, on the First day of January, at the Exchange Coffee House, in Norfolk. — The rent to be paid quarterly, for which good security will be required. December 5. tds
FOUND, A Navy Officer's DIRK. The owner may have it again by paying for this advertisement, and applying at No. 134, Main-Street. December 4.
WILLIAM PENNOCK, Respectfully informs his friends and the publick, that he has commenced the Auction and Commission Business. His Office is at present at Bowdoin's wharf, lately occupied by Alexander Maclure, where orders will be thankfully received. November 10. tf
Wanted to Purchase, TURTLE SHELL and CATTLES' HORNS. The Horns must be of the largest size with the pith out Apply to Edward Granniss, No 87, Main-Street. November 20. tf
THE SUBSCRIBER Is authorised to treat with any person disposed to purchase the whole or any part of the Following LANDS, Situated chiefly on Cumberland River, and derived from Military Titles, to wit, Four Tracts of 640 acres each, on Ohey's river, a branch of Cumberland, navigable at this place, and where the usual price of Land of late has not been less than four dollars per acre. Two other Tracts, one of 1950 and another of 1500 acres; these are also on Cumberland river, laying in a neck between it and Ohey's river. These tracts are nearly all river bottom of uncommon fertility, and such as have commanded there no less a price than eight dollars per acre. One other Tract of 640 acres in Powell's Valley, which is said to be also rich and well watered. One other Tract of 1000 acres in Grassy Valley, represented to be of inferior soil, but excellent Grazing Land. — For further particulars apply to Luke Wheeler. October 23. tf
THE SUBSCRIBERS Offer for Sale at their Warehouse at the corner of Maxwell's Wharf, 22 bales Louisiana COTTON, 25 pieces Russia CANVAS, 40 do. German RAVENS DUCK, 150 do. do. OZNABURGS, 350 do. do. BROWN ROLLS, 100 do. do. WHITE ROLLS, 40 do. do. Hessian ROLLS, 4000 COFFEE BAGS, 1500 Three Bushel SACKS, A few pieces extra fine SHIRT LINEN, 20 Pieces German SHEETING, 70 Boxes superior quality Spanish SEGARS, 800 weight GLUE, 120 Boxes Short PIPES, 30 dozen excellent SIEVES, 6000 weight St. Domingo COFFEE, 4000 do. Jamaica do. Niemeyer and Von Kapff. Note. — We will take in payment Norfolk, Newbern, and Cape Fear Bank Notes; or barter for Flour, Sugar, Pork, &c. &c. N. & V. K.
We also offer for Sale, on a credit of 6, 12, and 18 months, with approved security, or in barter for West India or Domestic Produce, That entire Stock of our GOODS, contained in our Store on Main-street, consisting in an elegant and particularly well selected assortment of Cutlery, Glassware, Looking Glasses, and Fancy Articles, Together with the unexpired Lease of two years from the 1st January next, of the whole HOUSE, which may easily be converted into two separate Tenements, and has very excellent dry Cellars. For wholesale and retail business, that stand is fully equal to any on the Main-street. Apply as above. November 3. tf
SALT for Sale. 7000 bush. Liverpool coarse & stoved SALT, and 8000 bushels Cadiz SALT, of superior quality. Apply to Robert Maitland. November 22. 6w
Manchester Academy. In consequence of the intended removal of Mr. JOHN WOOD, to the City of Richmond, on the 25th September next, the Trustees of the above Academy, are desirous of engaging a TEACHER of the Languages and Mathematicks, to supply the station he now holds. On application to the Treasurer of the Academy, residing in Manchester, the terms will be made known to any gentleman of liberal education and moral conduct. Manchester, Aug. 22, 1809. tf
In consequence of the death of ROBERT DONALDSON, the partnership in trade at Norfolk, under the firm of Donaldson, Thorburn, & Co. and at Fayetteville and Wilmington, in North-Carolina, under the firm of Donaldson, Mac Millan, & Co. will terminate on the first day of November next. The business at Norfolk will be closed by James Thorburn, and at Fayetteville and Wilmington by John Mac Millan. Those who may have claims on either house, will please to present them; and their debtors are earnestly requested to make payment. James Thorburn, John Mac Millan, Surviving Partners.
For Sale by the Subscriber, 3000 bushels Liverpool stoved SALT, 2500 do. do. do. 400 do. do. do. 6 cases Glassware, 4 cases Sheathing Nails; 7 bags Coffee, 17 bales Upland Cotton, 43 hogsheads Richmond Tobacco. A. MACLURE. July 31. lawf
Essential Oil of Worm Seed. This Oil is a vegetable production, harmless to the Child, but destructive to Worms, easy to administer, viz two drops to every year old, put up in bottles with printed directions, by N. GREGORY. Where can be had, All kinds of genuine MEDICINE. September 22. 3w
A BARGAIN OFFERED. In a fine and Valuable FARM, in the County of Princess Anne. THE Subscriber is disposed to sell his Plantation called LEVEL GREEN, situated in the county of Princess Anne. It contains about 500 acres; and, as it may be advantageously divided into two or three Farms, the subscriber will accommodate a purchaser, in selling either the whole or a part. He will also give a long credit. This tract of Land is certainly the most desirable in the county, lying on the Eastern branch of Elizabeth River, and distant from Norfolk Market only five or six miles by water, and 9 or 9 by land. — The soil is excellent, about one half of the tract being cleared land, and fit for immediate culture; the other heavily timbered with Oak, Pine, Ash, and Hickory. — It has also the advantage of several good landings. — Any one disposed to view the land, and to purchase, may apply, in the absence of the subscriber, to JAMES ROBINSON, or JOHN READ, who reside in the neighbourhood. Tully Robinson. Dec 7. tf
FOR SALE, A neat well finished Fire-Proof DWELLING-HOUSE, situated in Cumberland-Street, and at present occupied by Miss Ellegood. Also, one half of a very valuable Water Property, fronting Elizabeth-River 410 feet, thence towards the shore 900 feet; also, an unimproved Lot, well enclosed, adjoining Capt. John Stone's Dwelling-House; and a House and Lot in York-Town, in a very eligible situation for a retail business, being adjacent the Ferry to Gloucester, one end fitted up for a shop. For terms apply to ROBERT GIBSON. Who finding for a long time past his own applications for the collection of his debts in vain, has appointed Mr. Thomas Davis, (who is well acquainted with his accounts) his attorney, with full power and instructions to close said debts as promptly as possible, that he may be enabled to satisfy his creditors. Mch 8. tf
THE SUBSCRIBER Having been appointed a Commissioner of the Chancery Court for the WILLIAMSBURG DISTRICT, gives notice to those persons, who are parties to cases referred to him, that he is ready to receive their papers. JOHN COWPER. Master Commissioner's Office, } July 11, 1809. tf
BOOT AND SHOE FACTORY. THE SUBSCRIBER takes the liberty of informing the Inhabitants of Norfolk and its vicinity, that he has commenced business in Main-Street, two doors from the Exchange-Coffee House, where he has laid in, selected by himself in Philadelphia, an assortment of materials in the line of his profession, such as Boot Legs, Tops, Vamps, and Calf Skins, Of a superior quality; together with an assortment of Morocco and Kid Skins of different patterns and colours, and such as now worn by the fashionables of England and France. He has brought with him some workmen from Philadelphia equal to any in the United States; and begs leave to suggest to the Ladies that he has employed a person solely for the purpose of making fashionable Shoe-Heels — SPANG-LING done in the neatest manner, equal to that of London, as in Philadelphia he procured some of the most fashionable patterns by the late arrivals from England. From the knowledge he has of business, having worked in some of the best factories in London, Dublin, and Philadelphia, he flatters himself to give general satisfaction to those who favour him with their orders; added to which his prices shall be reasonable, as Cash will be required for every article on delivery. John Fry. August 9. tf
Millinery and Mantua-Making Business. THE SUBSCRIBER informs the Ladies of Norfolk, Portsmouth, and their vicinities, that she has arrived here from Philadelphia, and has opened Shop in Main-Street No 101, next to Mr. Peter Elliott's, where she carries on the above business in the most fashionable manner. This she is enabled to do, having provided herself with the latest and most fashionable PATTERNS from England and France. ELIZA FRY. Who has for Sale, a fashionable assortment of Ladies' Kid and Morocco SHOES, Of the best quality. August 9. tf
LANDING This day on Commerce-Street, from the schooner Two Brothers, Capt. Nicholls, 9 pipes, 50 hogsheads particular Teneriffe WINE, 25 quarter casks superior quality Teneriffe WINE, For Sale by Moses Myers & Son. ALSO, 100,000 feet Northern BOARDS, on board the Ship Orestes. July 6. tf
Richard Jeffrey & Co. No. 66, Main-street, corner of Bank-Street, have just received from London, per ship Planter, An assortment of MEDICINES, of the first quality. Also, a few hundred weight refined Salt-Petre, Marsham's Snuff, No. 9, and 37, in 1/2 and 1-4 pound canisters, Violet, Benzoin, Windsor and Shaving Soap, Evan's best Crown Lozenges, Tooth Brushes of superior kind, Refined Liquorice, &c. They have on hand, and are in daily expectation of receiving from Amsterdam, all kinds of GLASS WARE, suitable to Apothecaries. MEDICINE CHESTS for ships and family use, with printed directions, put up as usual.
NORFOLK: PUBLISHED THREE TIMES A-WEEK, BY WILLIAM DAVIS, FOR THE PROPRIETOR, Opposite the Exchange Coffee-House. Price Six Dollars Yearly, in advance.