The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-05
DOMESTIC.
From Mr.. Canning.
NJ rs

Before / proceed to observe upon that
part of it which relates more Immediately
to the question now at issue between our
two governments, I am commanded, in the
first instance, to express the surprise which
is felt at the total omission of a subject, up
on which, had already been comm anded
to apply to you for information the pro-
clamation purported to have been issued by
the President of the United States. Of this
paper, when last I addressed you upon it,
you professed not to have any knowledge,
beyond what the ordinary channels of pub
lie inform alton afforded, nor any authority
TO declare it to be authentic.
I feel it an indispensable duty to renew
my enquiry on this subject. The answer
which i may receive from you, is by no
means unimportant to the settlement Of the
discussion which has arisen from the en-
counter between the Leopard and the Che
sapcake.
The whole of the question arising out of
that transaction, is in fact no other than
question as to the amount of PREPARATION due
by his majesty for the unauthorized act of
his officer: and you will, therefore, readily
perceive that, in SO far as the government
OF the United States have thought proper to
take that PREPARATION into their own hands,
and to resort to measures OF retaliation,
previously TO any direct application to the
British government, or the British minister
III America, for redress In so far the Bril-
fish government is entitled to take such
measures into account, andto consider them
IN the estimate of reparation which is ac-
knowledgcd to have been originally due.
The total exclusion of all ships of war be-
longing to one of the two belligerent parties,
while the ships of war ofthe other were pro
tected by the harbors of the neutral power,
would furnish no light ground of complaint
against that neutral, il considered in any O.
fther point Of view, than as measure Of re-
taliation for previous injury {: and, SO consi-
dered, it Cannot but DC necessary to take it
into account in the adjustment of the original
dispute.
am therefore distinct!yto repeat the en-
qniry, whether you are now enabled to de-
clare, sir, that the proclamation is to be
considered as the authentic act OF your go
vernn.ent And, if SO, ] am further to en-
Quire:, whether you are authorised TO notify
the intention OF your government to withdraw
that proclamation, OH the knowledge of his
Tnajesty's disavowal of the act which coca
stoned its publication?
lite light in which you are directed to
l., represent admiral Berkelcy's conduct, and
the description which you give OF the cha
factcr OF the measure imputed to him--that
f" he acted as if he had the power TO make
=" war, and to decide the causes OF war 20
sufficiently evince the necessity of compre-
hending in this discussion, all the circum-
stances which have led to, or have followed
the action with the Chesapeake.
Undoubtedly the attack upon national
ship or war, is act of hostility, and the
very essence of the charge against admiral
berkeley, asyou represent it. is the having
taken upon h.msclfto commit an act of hos
tl!ty without the previous authority OF his
government.
The provocation which may have led to
+. such all act, without such previous authori-
~, II 1t cannot Justify, may possibly extern
p uate 1t as the steps which have been taken
in reprisal, though they cannot alter the
character of the original act, may and 60
materially affect every question concerning
tic PREPARATION claimed for it.
On this ground it is, that, while ] am
commanded to repeat to you (what yon con-
slider as so satisfactory that the general &
unqualified pretcnsion 10 search ships of war
fordescrters, is not asserted by this country,
am precluding from concurring in the
" inference, that therefore the Dational cha
g racter OF the men who were violently taken
: from on board the Chesapeake, makes no
6 part OF the present question"
IL the right TO search ships Of war for de-
serters is not insisted upon by this Country,
1t is not because the employment and dcten-
ton OF British mariners on board the natl
onai ship OF any state arc considered as less
injurious towards Great-Britain, than their
employment on board of merchant vessels
"a proposition which would be manifestly
abSurd) 1t is not intended 10 allow that the
sailors of Great Britain may be Justly en-
poyed, against her consent, in foreign ships
OF war but merely that redress is. in that
ctsc, to be sought for by government from
government and not TO be summarily en-
forced by the unauthorized officer Of any of
his majesty's ships of war.
1t follows from this reasoning, that not
only The Irrational character Of the men
taken out Of the Chesapeake is matter for
consideration but that the PREPARATION TO be
made by the British government to that of
the United States, would depend, among o.
ther circumstances, on the question whc-
Tier an act, which the British government
would be justified in considering as an act
Of hostility, had been committed by the go
rernment Of tho u. States Gin refusing to
discharge the British seamcn in their natl
onai seryice) previously to commission Of
all act Of hostility Of an officer Of his majes-
~.
The act Of tie British officer would still
be an unauthorized act, and as such liable
70 complaint and disapprobation but tho
case, as bctwee government and govern
TeDt, wculdJc materially varied,