The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-01-03 00:00:00

11R.

aOsington, August 15,.1809.
SIR—I do not believe, that in the eintversationS
we have had respecting the practicability of an ad-.
justment of the differences between the United
States and Great Britain, we ever have misunder-
stood one another. Yet, as from 31r. Canning's.
instructions lately published by your Government, •
it untold seem that some opinions are ascribed to
several 3lembers of this Administration, which
they did not entertain, it appearsonecessary to as-
certain ulietherouany point a misapprchensiou
can have taken place,

,
1 e ill forbear. Miking any observations on what
in the _inWeelious..is. wUul. the. tkirtLeunditioise
since it is not asserted that that inadmissible prop°.
sition was suggested at Washington. . .
The points embraced in Mr. Canning's,, first
propositiosi formed the principal topic of our
conversations, relative to a revocation of the
Orslers in Council. Yet in the manner in
which that proposition is expressed, it goes fur.
ther than had been suggested by the Members of
the Administratiun. kis sufficiently evident froin
the proceedings of Congress, both previous and
subsequent to the unratified agreement of -tspril
last, that the United States intended to continue
the rtitriction on commercial intercourse with
France, whilst such of her decrees as violated our
neutral rights continued in force, and to remove
those restrictions in relation to Great Britain, *in
the event of a revocation of the Orders in Council.
But that.state of things, so far as it related to
France, was to result from our own laws,
known cc anticipated by your Government,
• when they authorized an arrangement ; and it was
not proposed by us that the continuance of the
non intercourse u ith France should he made a con-
dition of that arrangement. IVhilst on that sub.
ject, 1, will add an observation, though perhaps
i Hut iininediately connected with the object of this
l letter., I think that the Object of that propusi.
SO far as it ugreed with your previous under.
onling of the iatentions of this .Government,
has been sabstautiaity carried into OU 0,141*

:'rs~ • .

r

part. It is true that your Government might, at
the date of the instructions, have expected from
the-incipient proceedings of Congress, that Idol._
land would be embraced by the restriet:ve laws of
the United States. Nut only, however, was the
omission nominal, since A merit an vessels were at
the time, by the decrees of that country, refused
admission into its ports ; but under the same con-
struction of our laws by which the commercial in.
tercourse with Holland was permitted, that with
Portugal was also considered as legal on the event
of that country being occupied by British troops
in the name of the Prince Regent.
It is therefore principally a; respects the second
condition which relates to the colonial trade, that
erroneous inferences might be drawn from the ex-
, pressions used in Mr. Canning's instructions. Al.
though the subject must have been mentioned here
incidentally; and only in a transient manner, as it
is nue to which I had paid particular attention,
and on which my opinion had never varied, I think
that I can state Kith precision in what view I
have al ways considered it, and must have alluded
to it. •

1. I never could have given countenance to an
opinion that the United States would agree, or
that it would be proper to make any arrangemAtt
whatever respecting the colonial trade, a condi-
tion of the revocation of the Orders in, Council.
The two subjects were altogether unconnected,
and I
am confident that such a proposition was
never suggested either by you, or by any member
of this Administration. Such an arrangemente mild
be effected- only by treaty ;. and it is with a
considerable degree of sorprize that I see. your go-
vernment now asking resistance to the French de-
crees, but the abandonment of a 'branch of our
commerce, as the price of the revocation of the
Orders in Council. This seems to give a new
character to a measure which had heretofore been
represented as an act, of retaliation reluctantly
adopted, and had been defended solely on the
ground of a supposed aequiesciince on the part of
the United States in the injurious decrees of ano-
ther nation. •

2. In the event of a treaty embracing all the
points in dispute, and particularly that of •im-
pressments, without, which, I trust, no treaty will
ever take place, it was my opinion, and I may cer-
tainly have expressed it, that if the other subjects
of difference were arranged, that respecting the
colonial trade would be easily adjusted. 1 had
considered the principles recognized 'in a former
correspondence between Lord Ilawkesbury and
Mr. King, on the subject of the colonial trade.; and
subsequently again adopted in the treaty negoci red
by Messrs. Monroe and Pinknvv, as a general ba-
sis agreed on ander different Administrations, by
torah Gover►►ments, from which neither could now
recede, and susceptible only of modification as to
details. The Instructions to our Ministers in
London on that subject had also been Pub-
;idled, and were known to your Government.
I therefore believed that the United States, in
the tvent of a treaty, would still be dispased to wave
fur the present, in the manner and on the terms
contemplated by those instructions, their. right to
that branch, and to that branch only, of, the co—
lonial trade, known by the name of direct trade,
th is to say, the trade carried directly froM bel-
ligerent colonies to the belligerrats in 'Europe,
w hen that trade was not permanently, in peace as in
war, permitted by the laws of the .country to
which those colonies belonged. The right to a
trade between such colonies and 'the United
Slates generally, and to that in colonial arti-
cles between the United States and other coun-
tries, never can or will, in my ()pillion, be aban.
Boned, or. its exercise be suspended by this Go-
vernment. On the contatry) it is solely in
Order, to secure, by an express treaty stipula-
lation, that trade against the danger o 1 interrup.
don, and thus by a mutual spirit of accu•tunnda.
Lion to avoid collisions, that the abandonment of
the direct branch cam ever be assented to.

Permit me therefore to request, t!. it roll will
Worn) me, whether you understood me un those
two points, as I certainly meant to be understood,
namely, that the relinlnishnomt, (hiring the pre-
sent war, 'of what is called the direct trade, was
alone contemplated; and that no arrangement on
that subject was st.:gested as a condition of the
revocation of the Orders iu Council.

I him: the honour to be, with the highest re-
svect and considondi Sit:, your obedient ser,
'rant,
• (sivlsl) ALBERT CIALLATIN.
lion. D. M. Erskine, Minister Plenipotentiary, dtee.dcr.,

SIR. ERMINE TO TEE SECRETARY OF TOE TREA.
BURY.

Washington, August 15, 1809.
Sta—l have tbe.honour to acknowledge the. re-
ceipt of .yowi letter of the 13th inst. in which you
.hare Lean. plomykto -say, --tlnst although yon 'ado
not believe. that is the coott4sations we I, & e had
respecting the prafsticahility of an adjustment of
thOgonatcroKlniegitthe United States and Great
Britain', we ever itive tittisiodersiood one another.
Yet, as fru:n Mr.' Canailles instructions, lately
published by my Cavernmcht, it would seetngthat
some opinions are est:: ibed to several Members of
this Administration, which they did not entertain,
it appears necessary to ascertain wWher,•ott any
point, a inisappreheosiuo Can have 'taken place."
In answer to your bigotries, I have great satis.,
faction in aisiiriligy on,
.that there;appeara t 6:
have been no inisittiderstanding respecting trio sub..
stance or mewing of the conversations which passel.
between us, as stated in Mr- Cattning's instructions'
alluded to.
After the most Careful perusal of rim' • state.
meat of the purport of our conversations, I eau.,
not discover auy material difference from the re.
presentation which I have matleLsapint that subjeet:
to the Secretary of State {Mr. .Robert Smith), in 1
toy letter to himof the I.lloltstatit, to which
will therefore beg leave. to rerer you, as l h
therein detailed the substance of the conversation
according to my rec,ollectioti of it ; a !licit is ini
every respect essentially the same as that which
you beem to havitentertaineil. .
During the. c'otiversatioo which we held '
respect.)
ing the mit ticabilily of an ritica%le adjustment of
the die' aces between the two couutriet, whoa

I •

-

reZquishment by the tinited-States daring the
present war, of what is called the colonial trades
was suggested by yoo, I conceived that you meant
(as you have stated) " the trade carried directly
from•belligereut colonies to the belligerents in Euz
rope, when that trade was not pernMitently
peace as in war, permitted by the laws of thu
country to which those colonies belonged.'►

I never supposed that you intended to conve♦
an opinion that the Government of the United
Stites wonld nytke any arrangements respecting
the colonial trade as a condition of the revocation
of the Orders in Council, the two subjects being
altogether unconnected ; nor have I ever repro:
sewed to his. majesty's Governments that suctt
preliminary pledges would be given.

With sentiments of the highest respect, I hare
the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient hum:
ble Scrrant, _

(Sizned)
The /lon. Albert tiallniins .te.

U. M. ERSKINL.

Fnom THE LONDON GdZE7'TE,' Jar. q.

!Mikhail, December 29, 1809.

The Lori! Chancellor has appointed *Nieholai
Tohub Tresidder, of Falmouth, in the County of
Cornwall, Goa. to he it Master Ektraordittaiy iu
the High Court of Ufa:leery.