The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-04-12 00:00:00

THE STATESMAN.

puled to his Majesty's Government, and should
therefore support the original Address.
Mr. PONiON By explained.
Mr. BARING.— No answers appeared to have been
given to the notes from the American Commissioners
till instructions were received from hence ; so that the
blame or nue it of the treaty rested with Ministers.—
We sent out a Noble Admiral of much experience,
and conversant with the Admiralty business ; a Learn-
ed Civilian from Doctors' Commons, ns a judge of
the laws of nations, and acquainted with all neces-
sary technicalities; and the Hon. Gentleman, as
more immediately connected with the Government.—
No mission had a character and composition more
likely to make a proper settlement; but at last out
came the most meagre treaty ever framed by the most
timid diplomatist, and one that could not have been
imagined after all this great preparation. There
were points he should give up as unwillingly as any
body, yet he did not see why they might not be dis-
cussed, in order to see whether such delicate sub-
jects might not he reconciled to the interests of both
parties, Lathier than leave them with the apprehen-
sion of their revival in all future wars. America
seemed ready to go into discussion. The question
about seamen could not have been left on a worse
renting than it now was, which was quite unsatis-
factory. The separation of the two countries arose
out of a civil war. One of them found it necessary
during war to impress seamen. This difficulty was'
worth considering—to find how our impressment
could be preserved without offending an independent
country, which seemed difficult from the nations
speaking the same tongue. The practice was very
disagreeable, for it was often left to young officers
connuanding bomb vessels. It must touch the ho-
nour of any nation. If any middle way could be
pointed out, we should attend to it. It was said
that from one-fourth to one-third of the American
crews were British subjects, ever' as things now stood.
lie thought this awkward question was really sus-
ceptible of a remedy not very difficult to apply ; and
that something was likely to hare been done towards
it in the negotiations of 180 G. Nothing short of the
Orders intouticil could have enabled the American
Government to go to war. As to the instructions
to the American Commissioners, the Hon. Gentle.
man could not know them at the out-set of the nego.
ciation. On the question of the Indian boundary, the
lion. Gentleman had not spoken with candour. He
had treated the Indians as what he called the
Allies of Great Britain. Upon that subject he (Mr.B.)
agreed, that the savage state of those people was no
reason why they should be abandoned; but Gentle.
men must not suppose that they were people in the
heart of America with whom we should have con-
tracted any alliance. In the Peace of 1783, the
European Powers drew the line with reference to the
Indians : in the time of Lord Chatham, the strongest
resistance was made against France, who wished to
make some stipulatiens with respect to those within.
the Indian boundaries. Ile agreed that this country
ought not to put au end to the war, and leave those
Indians to the mercy of the American Government ;
but that a solemn pacification should be made for
them, and that they should be left where they were
before the war was all that could be required from
us. In the early part of the discussion, the Ameri-
cans resisted any interference with the Indians.—
Thev asked whether a pacification and a boundary
for the Indians was made a sine qua non Y and the
answer was in the affirmative. The question was
then asked, whether the boundary was intended to
preclude the Americans from purchasing lands with-
out the consent of Great Britain, and whether the
Indians would be restricted from selling them ? The
answer was, that they might not purchase, but that
the Indians would not be restrained from selling to
a third person. The Americans said that peace with
the Indians was so obvious as to require no com-
ment. With regard to (he extent of the Indian
boundary, be would maintain, that objectionable as
that point must be to any country, it would not
only not he to the advantage, but to the detriment
of Great Britain, even if we could have enforced it.
--It would have been the most absurd policy
that could be adopted. This Indian territory
would have taken up more than one-half of the United
States, and this was to be put under savage tribes.
Any one who knew what sort of a neighbour an In.
rlian wag, must be aware of the danger of setting up
hordes of savages, who would rob and murder with-
out the least restraint. The effect on America of
establishing the independence of the Indians would
be this : instead of spreading out her people in agri-
culture, it would force her to become a manufactur-
hig, and a great naval power. Even, therefore, if
we could have our vi ill, and could establish those
savages in independence, it would he the worst thing
for this country that could be devised. As to the
lakes, he should say but little, ns it was evident that
this country forced the Americans to have an estab-
lishment on them. All that the Treaty provided for
was, that we should be nt peace, and that all decisions
should he referred to a friendly power. The whole
of it was a mark of the greatest neglect on the part
of his Majesty's Ministers, who left the negociators
at Client in the greatest indecision. Looking at the
delay of the Treaty, it was impossible not to be aware
of the injury of net making peace with America
when the Treaty of Paris was signed. If peace had
been concluded at that time, the country would have
had to boast that we had fought a defensive war with
America in the most honourable manner ; that with
the most trilling force we hail shown ourselves capa-
ble of defending our colonies against all the power of
America; and that we had left an impression on that
country which for half a century would not have been
worn out. The Government, however, had thought
otherwise : they thought that that was a moment for
making an impression onAmerica : they made that trial,
and were foiled both in the North and in the South.
Gentlemen might say, it was not fair to argue from
accidental circumstances, and what had been the re-
sult of the campaign ; but none could say there was
any chance of making an impression on that country,
either in the North or in the South. He should like
to hear the Hon. Gentleman defend the policy of pe-
netrating into America. He should like to ask him,
what could be the object of the expedition to New
Orleans? Supposing we had taken that city, what
benefits would this country have derived ? We should
have plundered some warehouses of cotton, to our
great and eternal disgrace. One half of that article
was purchased by persons in this country on specu-

lation ; but the object of the expeditiou was plan=
der, and nothing else: for if we had taken possession
of New Orleans, the very first warm day the men
must have walked out, if they had any le4s to walk
on. It was a spot on which the Anwricans them-
selves lost two nr three thousand men ; and if ten
thotAand had been sent on that expedition, we cool('
not have had five hundred capable of performing
their duty. It teas his opinion, that the northern
States of America would be the first formidable ene-
my we should have to meet at sea ; and he only
hoped, as peace had been concluded, that a little
more attention would be paid by Government to the
concerns of the two countries, and that means would
be adopted to preserve friendship between them.—
From the circumstances of both countries having co-
lonies, and the great commercial relations that sub-
sisted between them, it was necessary that a treaty
should be made to define those relations more dis=•
tinctly, for, without•it, it was impossible that peace
could be maintained.

Mr. GOULBURN'explained.
Mr. MAItRY/1T spoke in favour of the Address,
contending that in 1787, America had conceded .to
France the right of searching for seamen, which she
refused to Great Britain.

Mr. CHARLES GRANT vindicated the conduct
of the Negotiators iu leaving the question of boundary
to future amicable adjustment ; and argued, that any
complaint that the grounds of war were not stated
in the Treaty ought rather to have come from Ame-
rica than from this country, whose principal objects
had been attained. With respect to the character of
this country, which it was argued was lowered by
her late military attempts, he contended that the
Treaty itself, so favourable to her interests, showed
the respect in which Great Britain was held by the
inhabitants of the United States. The Honourable
Gentleman observed, that no Treaty was, primps,
ever known to have been concluded upon the terms
originally proposed. Those terms generally under-
Went some modification. It was notorious, indeed,
that a negociation with France was some time since
broken otf by this country, because the negotiators
en the part of that Government demanded an ulti-
matum at the outset. With respect to the Indians
be thought them peculiarly entitled to the protection
of this country upon the conclusion or peace, as they
had been our strenuous Allies in war ; and that pro-
tection was the more required by these poor beings,
as the Americans manifested a wish to dislodge them
from their territories under the specious pretence of
extending civilization.
Sir JAMES APINTosti delared an attachment
to the Americans upon this ground, however un.
fashionable the avowal in that House, that that
people were united to us in religion and liberty.—
Of course then he rejoiced in the peace with Anse-
-1 rice lamenting sincerely that it had not been sooner
concluded, and in this view he concurred in the
Amendment. The two peat objects of foreign
po-
licy on the part of this country,, hehad always con-
ceived to he, first the well-beitie of 'other nations,
and secondly, peace with Amerfra • and these oh.
• jects he was sorry to find so decidedly contradicted,
;by the • vulgar prejudices which hod been recently
prevalent, and the promotion was equally incon..
sistent with the character and interest of Great
; Britain. The support of his Right Hon. Friend's
Amendment appeared to him to rest upon two pro-
positions, first, that the commencement of the nego-
ciation had been unnecessarily delayed; 2dly, that
. that delay was attributable to his Majesty's Ministers.
As to the first proposition, it was ob vious that the ter-
mination of the war with France having put an end to
thecause of war with America, a negociation ought to
have been immediately commenced, as some of
the American negotiators very properly ob-
served, so early as Inst April in London. Yet our
Ministers postponed that negociation, and thus oc-
casioned the death and disaster which followed—thus
did this country conclude a treaty after discomfiture
and defeat which might have- been concluded in vic-
tory and triumph. But as to the second proposition,
the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), and his
Honourable Friend who spoke last, alleged that Mi-
nisters declined to commence the negociation in May,
because it was understood that the American Presi-
dent was resolved to insist upon our abandonment
of the right of impressment, which Ministers were
resolved not to give up. Those Gentlemen, how•
ever, be it remembered, attempted to justify the
delay complained of, by reference to a fact which
was not known to Ministers until August, until the
negociation actually commenced. But why was not
the proffered mediation of the Emperor of Russia ac-
cepted? Upon this point not a single word of expla-
nation or excuse had been heard from the other side;
and really the negation of this offer on the part
of Russia was a most extraordinary proceeding.—
If the Americans disputed our maritime rights, which
he was as unwilling as any man in that house to sur.
render, Russia had solemnly recognised those rights
in her Treaty with us in 1801, and that power was
in close alliance with es at the time her mediation
was proffered. Upon what rational ground then did
Ministers reject the umpirage of Russia upon a con-
treversy in which that power was actually bound to
our side of the question by her own recognition of
the principle in dispute ? Here then was another
and a stroin ground of complaint (in addition to
those already stated), against the delay of Ministers
to commence a negociation with America.
Lord CASTLEREAGH, in a speech of consider-
able length, defended the conduct of Ministers in the
negociation with American ; &welling particularly on
the points of the refusal of the mediation of Russia,l
the delay in the progress of the negociations, and the
stature of the proposition respecting the ludian
• boundary.
Mr. J. P. GRANT supported the amendment.
Mr. ROBINSON contended that no unnecessary
delay had been occasioned by the British Commis-
sioners ; and that in point of fact had the 'Treaty
been signed almost as soon as the negotiators met, it
could not have prevented the catastrophe at Wash-
ington.
Mr. J. P. GRANT explained.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the Amendment
Against It - 128
Adjourned et Half-past Tekelve.

A Court of Common Council is summoned to meet
at Guildhall on Friday next; at twelve o'.;lock.

,L 7 r-- ••••••j--

310 ST IMPORTANT ,STA. k

COPT OF A LETTER OP TIIE PRINCE SE
TO LORD VISCOUNT EASTLEOEA(2II, DATED VIE :ANA,
inc. 15, ISL./.

" MY Loan,—Feu desire me to make known IO
you in what manner I conceive the affair of Naples
ought to be settle' in Congress; for, as there is tl
necessity of settling it, it is a point upon which there
ought not to be one moment of uncertainty in a mind.
; like yours. It would be for ever a subject of re-
proach, and I will say, eve(' an eternal subject of
shame, if the right of sovereignty over an ancient and
fine kingdom, like that of Naples, being contested,
i Europe united fur the licit time (and probably for
the last) in general Congress should leave undecided
a question of this nature, and sanctioning in some
degree usurpation by its silence, shored give ground,
for the opinion, that the only source of right is farce.
I have not, at the same lime, to convince your Etta
cellency of the rights of Ferdinand IV. England
has never ceased to recognise them: In the war in
which he lost Naples, England wls his ally. She
has been since, and is so still.. Never has she recoge
nistd the title that the person who now governs at
Naples assumes, nor the right which this title sop*
poses : therefore, in coneurrireg to assure the rights
of King. Ferdieand, England has only (ere plain
thing to do—which is to declare in Congress a hat
she has always recognised, that Ferdinand I V. is the
legitimate Sot ereigu, of the Kingdom of Naples.
" Perhaps England, heretofore the ally of Verdi..
• nand IV. desires still. to be, so. Perhaps she may
believe her honour demands that she should assist,
if need be, with her forces, for 'his regaining the
Crown of which he has been recognised the Seal=
reign—hut this is not an obligation that can flo*
from a pure and simple acknowledgment of the
rights of this prince, because the recognition of a
right dries riot naturally carry with it any other obli-
gation, than that of doing nothing that may be. cone
trary to such right, and of not supporting any peel
tension that may be set up against it. It -does not
carry with it the obligation of fighting in his defence.
•44 It may be that 1 deceive myself, but it appears
to me• infinitely probable, that a frank and unani-
mous declaration of theowers of Europe, and the
certitude of the person who now governs at Naples,
that he would not be supported by tiny one, would
render useless the employment of forte; but If the
contrary should happen, those only-of the Miles of
; King Ferdinand would be necessary, who should
! think proper to lend him their support.
46 is it feared that in this case the war should
spread beyond the limits of the Kingdom of Naples,
and that the tranquillity of Italy should again he in-
terrupted ? Is it feared that foreign troops should
again traverse Italy ? These fears may he obviated
by stipulating that the Kingdom of Naples should
• not be attacked by the Italian Continent. Austria
appears to be engaged. towards him, who governs et
Naples, to guarantee him from all attack oat !hie
side ; and if, as we are nssured, Austria has only
engaged herself fel. this (hose tan it 'be Opposed that •
the Emperor has given his guarantee against the righti
of a Prince, at once his uncle an his father-in-law,
to the possession of a kingdom rebid) he lost in mak:
Ing common cause with Austria), she cannot be em-
barrassed in reconciling with justice and with the
natural sentiments of affection, the engagements into
which extraordinary circumstances made tier enter.
64 It appears to me, therefore, that wi•may at nue
and the same time satisfy all our duties, and all out
interests, and all our engagements by an Article such
as the following:-
4" Europe, united in Congress, recognizes his
Majesty Ferdinand IV. as King of Naples. All the
Powers engage to one another not to favour, nor to
support directly or indirectly any pretension opposite
to the rights which appertain to him in this title; but
the troops which the Powers, foreign to Italy, and
' the Allies of his said Majesty, may march to the sup-
port of his cause, cannot traverse Italy.'
" I persuade myself, my Lou!, that Y. E. is se-
. ficiently authorized to subscribe such a clause, anl
that you have had no need of a more special autho-
,rization ; but if you should think, otherwise, I shall
request of you to require this authority without
delay, as you have been good enough to permit me
so to do (ainsi qu'etle a Lien :under me le permettre).
" Agree, &c.
(Signed) " Le Prince ale TALLEY RAND."

41,700•••••••••
•
;7-
:410*
D .
!4)
es
d.
d
It
it
e
•
a
1.:4••
Lt
i.
14
.4'
it
e.
it
rt
ii
I,
11
d
in
it
ir
• - •
it •
ti
I.
le
•
If
IS
4
O
It•
r.,
t
It
•
d
•
I
h
If
•
o
e
r
e
a
!)-•
3
.•
•
1
•
I