Star.
London, England, 1815-02-06 00:00:00

AMERICAN SvIATE PAPERS.

No. VIIL
'ROM THR AMERICAN HTO TE BRITISH COMMIEBIOIIIIthi
" Ghent, October It, IRI4.
" The undersigned have the honour to acknowledge the re•
esipt of the note of the Plenipotentiaries of his Britannic Ma.
zesty, dated on the Bth instant.
se Satisfied of the impossibility of persuading the world that
the Government of the United States was liable to any well
grounded imputation of a spirit of conquest or of injustice to.
wards other nations, the undersigned, in affording explanations
. on several of the -topics adverted to by the British Plenipoten-
tiaries during this negotiation, were actuated by the sole motive
of removing erroneous impressions.
" Still influenced by the Mlle motive, they will now add, that
at the time when the Spanish Minister was remonstrating at
Washington against the transfer of Louisiana, orders were given
by his Government for its delivery to France; that it was, in
fact, delivered a short time after that remonstrance; and that if
the treaty by which the United States acquired it bad not been
ratified, it would have become, of course, a French colony. The
. undersigned believe that the evidence of the went of Spain to
that transfer has been promulgated. They neither admit the
alleged disability of the Spanish Monarch, nor the Inference
which the British Plenipotentiaries would seem to deduce from
it ; on the contrary, the assent was voluntarily given iu the year
1804, by the same King who, about the same time, ceded Trini-
dad to Great Britain, and prior to the time when be was again
engaged in war with her. The cession by France was immedi-
ately communicated to Great Britain, no circumstance affecting
it, and then within the knowledge of the United States, being
intentionally concealed front her. She expressed her satisfaction
with it, and if in soy passible state of the case she would have
had a right to question the transaction, it does nut appear to the
undersigned that she is now authorised to do so.
" Alter stating, generally, that the Proclamations of Generals
Rutland Smyth were neither authorised nor approved by their
Government, the undersigned could not have expected that the
British Plenipotentiaries would suppose that their statement did
not embrace the only part of the proclawatious which was a
aubject of consideration.
" The undersigned had, indeed, hoped that by stating in their
note of the 9th ult. that the Government of the United States,
from the commencement of the war, had been disposed to make
peace, without obtaiaing any cession of territory, and by refer-
ring to their linos-ledge of that disposition, and to instructions
accordingly given from July, 1812, to January, 1814, they would
effectually remove the impression that the annexation of Canada
to the United States was the declared object of their Govern-
ment. Not only have the undersigned been disappointed in this
expectation, but the only inference which the British Plenipoten-
tiaries Lave thought proper to draw from tide explicit statement,
has been, that either the American Government, by not giving
instructions subsequent to the pacification of Europe, or the un-
dersigned, by not acting wider such instructions, gave no proof
eif a sincere desi7e to bring the negociations to a avourable end.
" '1 he undersigned did not allude, in reference to the alleged
intention to annex Canada to the United States, to any instruc-
tions given by their Government subsequently to January last,
because asking at this time for no accession of territory, it was
only of its previous disposition that it appeared necessary to pro-
deer any proof. So erroneous was the inference drawn by the
British Plenipotentiaries, in both respects, that it was in virtue
. of the instructions of June last that the undersigned were ma.
bled, in their note of the 24th August, to state, that the causes
of the war between the United States and Great Britain having
disappeared by the maritime pacification of Europe, they had
been authorised to agree to its termination upon a mutual resto-
ration of territory, and without making the conclusion of peace
to depend on a successful arrangement of those points on which
differences bad existed.
" Considering the present state of the negotiation, the under-
signed will abstain, at this time, front adduting any evidence or
remarks upon the influence which has been exerted over the
Indian tribes inhabiting the territories of the United States, and
the nature of those excitements which have been employed by
British traders and agents.
" The arguments and facts already brought forward by the
undersigned respecting the political condition of those tribes,
render it unnecessary for them to make many observations on
those of the British Plenipotentiaries on that subject. The treaties
of 1769 and 1783 were those principally alluded to by the under-
signed, to illustrate the practice of Great Britain. She did not
admit in the first, nor require in the last, any stipulations respect-
ing the Indians who, In one case, bad been her enemies, and in
, the other, her allies, and who, in both instances, fell by the peace
within the dominions of that Power against whom they bad
been engaged in the preceding war.
" The negotiation of 1761 was quoted for the purpose of prov-
ing, what appears ;o be full) established by the answer of Eng-
. land to the ultimatum of France, delivered on the Ist of Septem-
ber of that year, that his Britannic Majesty would not renounce
his sight of proteetiin over the Indian nations reputed to be
within his dominions, that is to say, between the British Settle-
ment* and the Mississippi. Mr. Pitt's letter, 'cited by the Bri.
• fish Pknipotentianes, tar from contradicting that position, goes
• still further: it states, that " the fixation of the new limits to
• Canada, as proposed by France, is intended to shorten the extent
of Canada, which was to be ceded to England, and to lengthen
the boundaries of Louisiana, which Frellie was to keep ; and in
the view to establish what must not be admitted, namely, that
• ' all which Is not Canada is Louisiana, whereby all the Interme-
diate nations and countries, the true barrier to each Province,
• would he given vp to France." This is precisely the principle
uniformly supported by the undersigned, to-wit—that the recog-
• nidon of a boundary gives up to the nation, in whose behalf it
is made, all the Indian tribes and countries within that boundary.
It was on this principle that the undersigned have confidently re- •
lied on the treaty of 17e3, what fixes and recognizes the bona,
dory of the United States, without making any reservation ten
'pectins Indian tribes.
" But-the British Plenipotentiaries, enable to produce a soli-
tary precedent of one European power treating for the savages
inhabiting within the dominions of another, have been compelled,
in support of their principle, to refer to the German Empire, a'
body consisting of several independent States, recognised as such
by the whole world, and separately maintaining with forelp
Powers the relations belonging to such a condition. • Can it be
necessary to prove that there is no sort of analogy between the
political situation of these civilized communities, and that of the
wandering tribes of North American savages?
" in referring to what the British Plenipotentiaries represent
as alarming and novel pretensions, what Great Britain can never
recognize, the undersigned might complain, that these alledged
pretensions have opt been stated, either in terms or in substance,
as expressed by themselves. This, however, is the less material,
as any further recognition of them by Great Britain is not On
usury nor required.
" On the other hand, they can never admit, nor temples the
principles or pretensions asserted in the course of this correspon-
dence by the British Plenipotentiaries, and which, to them, ap-
pear Dowel and alarming.
" The article proposed. by the British Plenipotentiaries' •in
their last note, not including the Indian tribes as parties in the
peace, and leaving the United States free to effect its object in
the Lade consonant with the relations which they have con-
stantly maintained with those tribes, partaking also of the nature
of an amnesty, and being at the same time reciprocal, is not Dee
ble to that objection; and accords with the views uniformly pen-
feared by the undersigned, of placing these tribes precisely, and
hi every respect, .in the same situation as that in which they
stood before the commencement of hostilities. 'llls article thus
proposing only what the undersigned have so often assured the
British Pleanoteniiaries would necessarily follow, if indeed it has
not already, as is highly probable, preceded a peace between
Great Britain and the United Duty*. The undersigned agree to
admit it, in substance, as a provisional article, subject, in the Man-
ner originally proposed by the British Government, to. the appro.
bition or injection of the Government of the United States,
which, having g.veii no instructions to the underiigned on this
point, eatinot be bound by any article they may admit on the
subject. It will, of course, he understood, that If, unhappily,
peace ebottkl not be the result of the present negotiation, the ar-
ticle thus conditionally agreed to shall be of no effect, and WWI
tiot, in any future negotiation, be brought ierviard by either
party, by way of argument or precedent.
" his article having been presented .ae an indispensable
*inert, and being now accepted, the undersigned request the
Beftleb Plenipotentiaries to communicate to them the roject of
a treaty embracing alt the Feints deemed material by Great Bri-
tain; the undertiinieJ engaging on their part to deliver immedis
• ately after a counter project with respect to all the articles to
which they may not agree, and on subjects deemed material by
Ow United States, and which may be omitted in the British
disject. (Signed) " jean QUINCY ADAMS. j. A. BAYARD.
" 11 CLAY. JON: 10,11SiLL. 111. 041.144Teh."
•

(1.1 'I COURT. M4RTI4L. •
MUUAY

TRIACOF LTEUT.GENRRAL SIR JOHN A. _
WINCHRSTIR—PGURTEENTH DAY
SATURDAY, lira. 4.
Sir JOHN MURRAY made a statement in reply to
the fresh evidence which had been brought against
him. Admiral Hallowell had complained of his ac-
cusation of his having kept back the first letter from
him to Sir E. Pellew. *He had never, however,
made that an accusation against the Admiral; he
had only said, that he had regretted that circum-
stance at the time, and still did regret it. As to the
letter which he had written to the Admiral on the
9th, he did not know that it had any particular re-
ference to the last which be had received from him.
At the time he wrote that letter, he did, however,
disbelieve the report communicated of 2,000 French
having arrived at Tortosa, and a body of their ca-
valry at Ampulla. He did -believe, however, that
1,000 had arrived at Tortosa (as General Copons had
informed him) ; and he believed that to be the num-
ber also from a proposition made to him from Tor-
tosa, to attack that place, and that the inhabitants
would endeavour to deliver up one of the gates to
him during such attack. He had, however, received
no such intormation as would make it necessary for
him to raise the siege on the 7th or Bth, as the Judge
Advocate had contended he ought to have done. As
to the manner in which the dispatch of the 14th was
sent off, Admiral Hallowell had waved entirely the
secrecy, and had merely endeavoured to prove that,
there was no hurry. He must, however, say, that
he wrote the dispatch in the idea that there was gre•
hurry, and for that reason he did not wait to have it
regularly copied. It was purely by accident that he
discovered that the Admiral had written a letter;
and if it had not been for that accident, he did not
believe that the Admiral would have ever made the
signal he stated, of notice to the fleet that there was
an opportunity of bending letters to England. Major.
General Donkin was still here in attendance, and,
although, from laudable motives, he had refused to an-
siver a question that he had asked him about those cir-
cumstances, yet if the Court would put the question
to him, he had no doubt but that he would explain it.
As to the variety of orders he was said to have given
on the 12th, he could easily explain them. The first
order given to General Clinton at an eatly hour in
the morning, to advance three battalions of his and
as many of General Whittingham's division to the
Goya, was to cover a retrograde movement to be
made by General Copons. That General, however,
having fallen back in; the night, the order of course
was countermanded, having no longer any object.
As to the second and third order, they were an¢
stantially the same: the principal difference however
was, that the last did not give such precise directions
about keeping out of the tire of Tarragona on his
march. The order for sending his baggage to a
place where it could be embarked in safety, did not
appear to him to be an order that could be well com-
plained of. As to the last order for his final em-
barkation, it was not surprising that he should trust
some part of the arrangements to a General of such
rank as Sir William Clinton. He had never recol-
lected so much accuracy in orders and dates as Gene-
ral Clinton had shewn on the present trial, which was
the more remarkable, as he was deficient in his recol.
lection in many other points. As • Sir William had,
however, never himself commanded an army in the
field, he thought that he should not put so harsh. ft:
construction on the number of orders which were is.
sued on the day of the 12tb. It was singular, however,
that Sir W. Clinton should not be able to gain time
to do what he was desired to do by those orders, but
that what he was expressly desired not to do, that be
did with the greatest alacrity. Ile alluded to the
spiking the guns, and that strange mistake be made
in not recollecting the signal which be himself had
arranged with *the officer at the battery. It would
have been natural to suppose that a consciousness of
his own error in this respect should have inclined
him to be somewhat more charitable in his construc-
tions on the conduct and motives of others. He was
surprised at Admiral Hallowell wishing to press
upon the Court a letter which he wrote on the 19th
of June, when he himself had objected to his pro-
ducing a letter from Mr. Tupper, on the ground
that it was written atter the transactions. He pro.
bably ought not to have felt this surprise, as it was
so much in unison with the rest of the Admiral's
conduct throughout the trial.
Sir John Murray then proposed to caU General
IDonkin to the point he had stated. The Court, how-
ever, overruled the proposition, conceiving it irrele-
vant to the trial.

Mr. LARPENT then said, that there was one obser-
vation in the statement of Sir J. Murray which he
must explain. As to his having given private ad-
vice to Admiral Hallowell about the production of
a letter, all he had adviced him to do was to produce
it to the Court, and take there opinion on it. It was
their province, and not his, to decide on what ought
to be admitted. When he was,out of Court, he was
as ready to give his advice to one patty as to the
other ; and in point of fact, he- had given advice to
Sir John Murray much oftener than to the Admiral.
The JUDOS ADVOCATIL'S Reply.
Mr. LARPV4T then•began his reply as to the first
and second charges. He had at first :append that
such reply would be unnecessary, but 'as Sir John
Murray had gone into such great length of argument
in answer to the observations he bad made, and as
he had taken quite a new ground of defence, be found
it his duty to claim the right of a prosecutor to reply.
As, however, many of those arguments were an-
swered by his first observations, he should refer the
Court to them. He was most anxious, in this case,
to be considered as not wishing to press any point
aping the prisoner further than his duty required of
ham. Notwithstanding the compliments which had
been paid him by Sir Jobn Murray, he felt that it
was his duty to endeavour to do away the effect that
his argument, which appeared to him fallacious,
might otherwise produce. As he had not bad time
for much aarangement in reply, he should follow the
principal points of defence which Sir John Murray
had set up.against the charges brought by him. The
first point that he should take notice of was the diffi-
culty of which S.r John Murray complained of having
been put to, from the contrariety of the first and
third charges. This difficulty, he conceived, to be
not from the planner the charges were framedi hut'
from has own conduct. He crnild conceive that one,
plain and duct answer night have peep given toi