Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-04-01


lsition TO make 4 particular incident, in which
they were in the wrong, Instrumental to an
accommodation in case where MS govern
ment held different doctrine. 1 urged in
reply, that the proclamation could not be
considered as an act OF hostility or retalia-
ton for injuries, though the aggression had
provoked and would have justified any the
strongest act ofreprisal, but as mere mea-
sure of police. which had become indispen-
sable for the preservation of order within
the iInits of the ". States i informed him
that the men who had landed from the squa-
dron, in defiance of the proclamation, and
of the law on which it was founded, had
been restored to it that with respect to the
other point in difference, said to be made
in the case of deserters from British and
French ships, was unacquainted with the
| fact, but was satisfied, f the statement was
correct, that the difference was imputable
to the local authorities, and not TO the ma
ltional government, because asthe u. States
were not bound by treaty to restore deser-
4 tiers from the service of either nation, it
was not presumable that their government
would interfere in the business. observed,
however, that il such a preference had
been given, there was natural and justi-
fable cause for it, proceeding fire. Il the con-
duct of the squadrons OF France and Eng
Hand, on the coast Of the u. 5. and on the
main ocean, it being well known fact that
the former did not maintain as n right or
adopt in practice the doctrine of the latter,
to impress seamen from our merchant ves-
sells. | then discussed at length, and urged
with great earnestness the justice and po-
Icy of his terminating 1T this time all the
differences which had arisen between our
governments from this cause, by an arrange
ment which should suppress the practice OH
the part of Great Britain, and remedy the
evil of which she complained.
In aid of those reasons which were ap-
plicable to the merits of the question, ur-
ged the example given ~ the late minis
try, in the paper of Nov. 9Th, presented to
MIR. Pinsney and myself, By the British
commissioners, which had, as I thought,
laid the foundation Of such an arrangement.
l stated that as it was stipulated by that
paper, that the negotiation should be KEEP,
lopen for the purpose of arranging this great
Interest, without prejudice to the rights of
either power, it was fairly 70 be understood
as the sense of both parties, that our rights
were to be respected, till that arrangement
was concluded whence it would follow that
the same effect would be produced in prac-
tice, as lift had been provided for by trea-
lty. Irelied on this paper and the construc-
ton which / thought it admitted, with
which, however, the practice had since in
no degree corresponded, to shew the extent
to which the former ministry had gone in
meeting the just views of our government,
and thereby to prove that the present min
tistry in improving that ground had nothing
to apprehend from the preceding one. Mr.
Canning admitted that the view which
had taken Of this paper derived much sup.
port from its contents, and the time and
circumstances under which it was present.
ed, but persisted in his desire to keep the
subjects seperate. proposed, as an expe-
dient to get rid of his objection, that we
should take up and arrange both points in
formally, N which case, provided it was
, done in a manner to be obligatory, offer
ed to frame my note which should demand
reparation for the outrage, in general
, terms, SO as that it should not appear by
/ official document, that the subjects had any
: connection in the negotiation. / urged that
: unless it was intended to make no provision
against impressment from merchant ves-
) sells, could see no objection to his meet
} ing me on that ground, as after what had
passed, it was impossible to take up either
: subject without having the other in view,
, and equally so to devise any mode which
should keep them more completely sepa-
, rate, than that which l proposed. Mr.
Canning still adhered to his doctrine Oh
having nothing to- DO with impressment
from merchant vessels, till the affair of the
Chesapeake was disposed of, after which
, ne prof, 5sed his willingness to proceed to
= the other object. In this manner the con-
ference ended, without having produced
The arrangement which ] had hoped from
, il. Mr. Canning's conduct was in all other
respects conciiatory.
My noe 10 Mr. Canning was founded on
the result Of this conference. AS it mad
no, been in my power to come to any agree
ment with him on the general subject OF
inpressmeHt from merchant vessels, | con-
!. sidered it my duty to combine it with the
affair of the Chesapeake, in the paper
whi,;h presented him TO claim reparation
for 1he outrage. l thought it best, howe
.er, to omit the other acts, of which 1t was
desired that the PREPARATION should consist.
} 1t seemed probable that specification of
each circumstance, in the note, would in
crease the fndisposition of the ministry to
, accommodate, and give it supper. with the
nation, in a complete rejection Of the de-
, mand. ] expressed myselftherefore in re-.
gard TO the other acts, IN general and con-
ciliatory terms, but with all the force in
my power The details had been commu-
nicated TO MIR Canning in conference too
recently to be forgotten Still it was Just
that no improper inference should be drawn
} from the omission of them. To prevent it,.
obtained an interview Of Mr. Canning i'm
mcdiately after my note was presented, in
which, after reminding him OF the omission