Norfolk gazette and publick ledger (Norfolk [Va.]), 1807-03-09 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS
January 2
(Continued)
Lord Salisbury declared, that it was with great pain he found his noble friend would not allow the motion to pass without expressing a degree of dissent...
but for unqualified approbation. His noble friend had declared that he approved the principles on which the negotiation had been broken off...
his arguments, he concluded by saying that the confidence felt by governments in the ability to receive the approbation and support of the parliament...
principles, aggression, and the like, followed each other in a rapid succession. The house took it for granted that they contained a full and complete statement of the business of the evening...

in the language of the noble lord, that he was unworthy to be present at a debate, where after his noble friend had stated the case of the country, and the opposition had stated theirs, he was with infinite regret that he heard the noble and learned lord enter into the consideration of points of such minute importance, that they were no better than matters of technical form. It was with infinite pain that he would follow the noble and learned lord through these petty details. But he said it had seemed disrespectful towards the house, if his majesty's ministers should have left even this part of the objections made to their conduct unanswered and unexplained. Yet if the objection urged by the noble and learned lord were even universally felt, that would not prove that the cause of the country was wrong, or that any error had been committed in the management of the negotiation. The most it could amount to would be, that some inaccuracy had been fallen into by those who drew the declaration, for he was sure no wilful misstatement would be suspected, in laying the case before parliament and the public. It was contended on the opposite side that the declaration was not borne out by the papers, so far as it stated the uti possidetis to have been offered as the basis of the negotiation. But was there any thing in the papers that contradicted the assertion of the declaration on that point? Was there any one instance on the part of his majesty's ministers of consent to treat on any other basis? It was not necessary that the papers should contain positive proof of every thing laid down in the papers. In this instance, there was other and better evidence than any of the papers could contain in support of the declaration. There was the personal testimony of lord Yarmouth. It was, he must say, rather perverse in the noble and learned lord, and very different from the habits of the profession of which he was so distinguished an ornament, to dwell upon the worse evidence, and totally pass by the better. Lord Yarmouth's statement was decisive upon this point. The only question was, whether lord Yarmouth's testimony was to be credited. Any one who read the papers must see clearly, that neither the evidence of gen. Clarke, nor of M. Talleyrand, could be credited, and that it was the evidence of lord Yarmouth alone, that could be relied on in the matters in dispute between them. If lord Yarmouth were dead or absent, and his verbal note were to stand on its own mere authority, its evidence may be unsatisfactory. But lord Yarmouth was living and was present. He may be examined, he had been examined, and he had expressly declared that the uti possidetis was the basis distinctly proposed by M. Talleyrand, with this particular circumstance in confirmation, that after a comparative view of the merits of three different bases, that of the uti possidetis was stated by M. Talleyrand to be the only one on which the negotiation should proceed. How then could the past admit of a question? If there were no doubt of the veracity of lord Yarmouth, (and no one intimated any,) why was any further difficulty made? A question was then proposed as to the propriety of proceeding to negotiate without a regular written admission of the basis. It had been the opinion of one of the ablest statesmen and the most conversant with diplomatick history that this country could ever boast of that that was not necessary at the outset. He asserted, that Mr. Fox had a proper understanding of the thing, that if it was held on the other side, that no proceedings ought ever to be had in the way of negotiation except in writing, he must say, that such an opinion was not only unwarranted in diplomatick history, but that in practice it would be attended with difficulties of the most insurmountable nature, tending to render wars indeterminate, and hostilities irreconcilable. But when the verbal communications were at an end, and the proceedings came to be reduced in writing, an anxious care had been spared to give a written shape to every thing of importance that had hitherto passed verbally. And from the day on which lord Yarmouth communicated his having assumed the character of an authorised negotiator, and more particularly since the arrival of lord Lauderdale in Paris, not one document was sent from this country to those ministers, in which the importance of bringing France to a written acknowledgment of the basis had proposed was not more strongly dwelt upon. In order that this written acknowledgment may be more easily obtained, the person to whom it had been verbally proposed, lord Yarmouth, was sent in the first instance to seek it in writing. If a different basis had at any time been insisted on the part of his majesty's government, let that fact be shewn. Lord Yarmouth was constantly instructed to insist on a full written acknowledgment of the basis of the uti possidetis ; and in case that full admission could not be obtained, his orders were not to produce his full powers. Circumstances had occurred, as detailed in the papers, which had induced lord Yarmouth to produce his powers without his acknowledgment; and whatever diversity of opinion there may be as to the propriety of having done so, there was no doubt that he had done so with the best intentions. The circumstances were such, and those who thought it might have been better if the powers had not been produced, must excuse lord Yarmouth for having produced them. But still there was no ground for charging ministers in the exhibition of the powers with which his lordship was charged without the written acknowledgment of the uti possidetis for the instruction of ministers to his lordship were not to produce his powers without that acknowledgment. Thus instead of proceeding on loose or color grounds, every effort had been used to give consistency to what had been done. Lord Lauderdale's instructions were to put immediately into writing the substance of what had passed with the prince of the blood royal, and to push the French government to the admission or denial of that principle, and to avoid a denial, or tergiversation, to have the French government itself acknowledge the principles it had at first laid down, and attempted to justify it by change of circumstances. This, he concurred, was sufficient to exonerate his majesty's ministers from the charge of having inserted in the declaration a matter not borne out by the fact, and to rescue from unjust imputation the character of a lamented minister, whose conduct, with respect to this negotiation, entitled him to the consideration of all who should come to the knowledge of it.
Lord Erskine , in answer to the noble lord, observed, that the substance of the verbal communication, as transmitted to writing by lord Yarmouth, on June 18, did not make any express mention of the uti possidetis . Lord Yarmouth had been instructed to show his full powers, in case the cession of Sicily should not be insisted upon. Lord Lauderdale , while he rejoiced that the address to his majesty would be carried unanimously, regretted that so much extraneous matter had been introduced into the debate by the noble lord opposite. It was not his intention to prolong the debate by entering into the extraneous matter, nor by attempting to enforce what had been so well urged by his noble friend near him, (lord Grenville). While he could assure the noble lord opposite that he had never in any communication with the French minister admitted any alteration of the uti possidetis , he was surprised to hear the noble lord call for his evidence. For when he reflected on the effect the evidence of another noble lord (Yarmouth) given most fully and decidedly to this point, he on the noble lord's mind, he was sure the evidence the noble lord asked of him must be perfectly negatory. It did happen, however, that there was sufficient evidence that the note particularly alluded to by the noble lord, was never sent. It was dated on 4th September, on which day Talleyrand told him that the emperor of Russia had refused to ratify D'Oubril's treaty, and with an intimation that the French government would be disposed to give better terms, told him to write for fresh instructions. It was not likely that two proceedings so opposite should have taken place on the same day. Yet, when the papers were looked to, they would be found to contain the testimony of lord Yarmouth. On the 20th of April, Mr. Fox wrote a letter, to which no answer was received till the 2d of June. Lord Yarmouth had stated, that Talleyrand told him he had been looking about in the mean time for some fit person to be the bearer of a confidential communication on the subject of peace, and that he had pitched on him. Lord Yarmouth was sent back on the 14th, with two notes, one containing matter for a verbal answer to the verbal communication he had brought, and another to M. Talleyrand, informing him that lord Yarmouth had Mr. Fox's full confidence. There was no irregularity in this. Mr. Fox followed the line that had been chalked out to him. He had answered verbal communications by verbal, and written communications by writing. Lord Yarmouth waited upon Talleyrand, and in his first conference refused to proceed further, unless Sicily was considered as a state not conquered, nor likely to be so, conformably to Talleyrand's own expressions on a former occasion. Talleyrand said, Sicily may be conquered before the end of the war, and Naples never could be secure without that island. Lord Yarmouth reverted to Talleyrand's former expressions on this subject, and observed on the particular propriety of adhering strictly to verbal engagements. Talleyrand allowed the justice of the observation, and did not deny that his former expressions were fairly represented, but contended merely that the change of circumstances was sufficient to justify the increase of the demands made on the part of the French government. It was possible the noble lord might not have understood all lord Yarmouth's expressions. It had been his misfortune some times to have made use of expressions which the noble lord had found it difficult to understand. But Talleyrand had not misunderstood lord Yarmouth, and that minister had never denied that the basis originally proposed was fairly represented by lord Yarmouth, though another basis was afterwards set. The noble lord could find nothing in the papers to prove, that the assertion of the basis of the uti possidetis in the declaration was a falsehood. But in aid of his want of proofs there, the noble lord had recourse to Bonaparte's speech to the legislative body, where a readiness to treat on the basis of the treaty of Amiens was expressed. Certainly no basis could be more remote from the uti possidetis than that of the treaty of Amiens. This could be nothing but a wilful confusion of things wholly distinct. The communications at this time, and up to the arrival of lord Yarmouth, were but an amicable correspondence between two ministers, one of whom he was sure sincerely wished to restore peace and the repose of nations. The dispatch of 2d August shewed that all prior communications had no other effect than clearing the ground till the verbal notification by lord Yarmouth, which contained an offer of treating distinctly on the basis of the uti possidetis .—The noble lord thought he had remained too long as Paris. If the noble lord had read the papers, and could point out to him where he could consistently with his duty have come away sooner, he would plead guilty to that charge. From the day on which difficulties had arisen, with respect to the basis, till 29th August, he had receded daily to demand his respassage. On that day he had renewed his demand. His note of milder tone led him to hope the negotiation might be brought to a better conclusion. The refusal of Russia to ratify D'Oubril's treaty, was communicated to him, with a wish that he should wait for fresh instructions. He was then attacked with an unfortunate insinuation, which continued him for a few days. From that forth no effort had been omitted to bring the negotiation to a speedy issue. He hoped he had not been guilty of any want of politeness in pressing the matter to a decision; he certainly had experienced no want of politeness towards him. For the calumnious insinuation, which he had not seen till his arrival here, could not be considered as an incivility shown to him at Paris. He thought this explanation was enough to put at rest the question that had been raised. The question being put, the address was carried unanimously.
Continued reference to the application of Mr. Livingston for a writ of Habeas Corpus, in the case of James Alexander and Peter V. Ogden. On the application for the return of the above writ, and being satisfied that what applied for the same, was within the belief and the power, that unless the same was allowed returnable within time, the same would be beyond the reach of the process of this court—thereupon the same was allowed returnable within time. (Signed) JAMES WORKMAN. General Wilkinson requests the hon. Judge Workman may have the goodness to receive the general answer to the Supreme Court of the Territory in the case of the traitor Bollman, as applicable to the traitors who are the subjects of this writ. (Signed) JAMES WILKINSON. On motion of Mr. Livingston, ordered, that gen. James Wilkinson, to whom a writ of Habeas Corpus was directed, commanding him to bring up the bodies of James Alexander and Peter V. Ogden make a further and more explicit return thereto, or shew cause on Monday next, at the opening of the court, why an attachment should not issue against him. Further return of Gen. Wilkinson, in the case of Peter V. Ogden. The undersigned, commanding the armies of the United States has taken upon him the responsibility of arresting Peter V. Ogden, on a charge of misprision of treason against the government and laws of the United States, and has the honour to inform the honourable James Workman, judge of the county of Orleans, that the body of the said Peter V. Ogden, is not in his power, possession or custody. New Orleans, Dec. 26, 1807. (Signed) JAMES WILKINSON. On this return Mr. Livingston moved that an attachment do issue against brig. gen. James Wilkinson. (Signed) THOMAS S. KENNEDY. Clerk of the Orleans County Court. (The same return and the same motion were made in the case of Mr. Alexander.) Copy of George T. Ross's affidavit respecting general Wilkinson. George T. Ross, sheriff of the county of Orleans being duly sworn, deposeth and saith that on the occasion of serving a rule of the court of the county of Orleans, on brigadier general James Wilkinson, the said general observed that if he, this deponent, should come again, he need not be surprised if admittance was refused him. This deponent then asked if the remark applied to his coming as a private gentleman or his coming in his discharge of his duty as sheriff, to which the said general replied, that the remark applied only to his coming in his official character. (Signed) G. ROSS, Sheriff of Orleans. New Orleans, January 11. 1807. Sworn before me this 11th day of Jan. in the year of our Lord, 1807. (Signed) JAMES WORKMAN, Judge of the County of Orleans. NEW-YORK, February 28. Capt. Davis, of the Manchester packet, arrived in town last evening with the January mail, having left the packet at Gravesend Bay. She sailed from Falmouth on the 13th ult. and left Bermuda 12 days since. The editors of the New-York Gazette have received London papers to the 11th of January, six days later than those received by the ship Oliver Elaworth. The complexion of these papers are much more lively than our last—the gloomy state of the French army, and the brilliant prospects of their opponents, gave new life to the enemies of the powerful Napoleon. It will be seen by the subsequent extracts, that the French head quarters were at Warsaw, and that nothing had prevented offensive and decisive operations in that quarter, but the extremely distressed situation of the French army. It also appears that the Russian army were profiting by the distresses of their enemy—their strength and hopes were daily increasing. These papers contain two very important state papers. One is the proclamation of the king of Prussia, stating the reasons of his refusing to ratify the armistice. The other is a note of Talleyrand (prince of Benevento,) presented to the Prussian plenipotentiaries on signing the armistice. The king of Prussia states that previous to the conclusion of the armistice, a basis of peace had actually been agreed upon, but from which the continued successes of the French led Buonaparte to depart; and on account of his growing demands, no hopes of peace could be entertained. As to the armistice, his majesty states that it was impossible for him to comply with the conditions of it, as the Russians were advancing not only to his aid, but to defend their own frontiers, which the French armies menaced. On the 9th of January the American ship Diana, Noble, arrived at Falmouth in 7 days from Rochefort. It was currently reported when he sailed, that the Russians had been defeated by the French on the banks of the Vistula—but the time was not mentioned, nor any circumstances to enable us to decide whether the report is entitled to any credit. The West-India fleet sailed from Falmouth the 6th, under convoy. An order of council was to appear in the London Gazette of the 10th of January, and is in substance (says the Morning Chronicle) that “no neutral ships be permitted to trade from any port under the control, or in the possession of the enemy. The neutral trade from neutral nations to the enemy's ports, is permitted—but the neutral trade from ports to ports is prohibited.” On the other hand the Morning Herald observes that this matter will speedily decide the question, whether England, who has no commercial marine of her own, can continue with the carrying trade, as pursued by neutralists, or which this measure goes completely to extinguish. She will now, in return for her increased blockade, be hermetically sealed up, without an opportunity of exporting her produce to any part of the globe. The direct trade from America is permitted, but, under this salutary regulation, the Americans will not be allowed to carry on the trade between France, Spain, Italy, Holland, &c. A copy of the treaty with Great-Britain has come out in the packet; and a London paper states, that a duplicate was going by the Enterprise direct for New-York. Price of Stock at London, Jan. 10—Bank Stock 211 1/2; 3 per ct. Consols 59 3/4; omnium 3 2 3/4; annuities for 21 years 61 3/4. London, January 5.—Sir Harford Jones has presented a letter of credence to government from the Russian court. He had a full opportunity of seeing the Russian army, and we have his authority to say, that at present an army is in a state of great preparation, and that he hopes to meet the army of Prince Murat, who is in command of the Russian army under general Barclay de Tolly and Barclay. One of the ships said to be Admiral Lord Howe's