Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-09-16

.szra---.-ss-z--ESyr---s
te Of his speech the written reply of the Sc
eretary of State made To Mr.. Erskine's written
communication.
What more could have been done BY our go
vernment Before the orders were issued, MIR
Pinkney endeavored to prevent them; as soon
as they were Issued he demonstrated against
then, although not officially informed of their
existence; the British government replied that
Mr-E sAlne would be made the channel ofcom-
mnnicating them as soon as they were tested by
the judgments of practical men they were &C
coroiing'y transmittch to MIR. ErslSine, who, in
February, 1T appears, OSr60Hy communicated
these orders to the Secretary of State, who
made verbal reply, with an express view to its
transmission to Mr.. Canning, which reply must
have been sent by the Usage On the 2Sd of
February, Mr.. Erskine made his fret spritten
communication, q1ier the sailing of the Usage,
to which Mr.. Madison made a written reply
which went by the first conveyance, and was
received long before the delivery of Mr. Cans
ning's speech.
Mr.. Canning must further have known, that
without some reply by his government to the
answer of Mr.. Madison nothing further on the
part ofJhe United States was due. There can,
moreover, be no doubt but that Mr.. rnkney,
IN his interview with Mr.. Canning, OH the ar
rival Of the Usage, would have taken up the
subject ofthe orders, had he not been discou-
ragged by the belief of its inu,ility.
tresnlts from these facts that the statement,
ascribed to Mr.. Canning, falsely, we hope, is
untrue in every important feature of it; and it
equally follows that the Executive here did G.
very thing Incumbent on them.
The fact is that there WAS no room to expect
from G:eat Britain, by the return fthe Usage,
any thing ofimportance, unless il were some
favorable change in the measures OF G.. Britain
ada?' ed TO the known aud Just demands ofthe
u. States. Glad not, indeed, the Usage been
detained in France or England, and returned
within the time calculated, the public expec-
tation would have been regulated by the state
ofthngs al the iimc of her leaving the United
States; instead of intermediate events with
which her mission could have nothing to do.
Further-Wha, communications could Mr..
Canning have expected from the u. States
ther than were actually received when he deli
vered his speech N Parliament Communica-
tons relative to our affairs generally They
had been put aside by the British adnnistra
ton having declined to negotiate with our mi
MISTER relative to those parts of the treaty on
which the two government were not agreed
This fully appears in the printed correspond
encc- Relative 20 the case Of the Chesapeake
Surely not, after She footing on Which MIR. Rose
had closedi i. without sublecting us to the Just
imPutation of an abiect spirit. The sole diff
Guilty OF Mr.. Canning to acting upon the bust
ness in London arose from its implication with
the general subject of impre ssments. These
having been agreed 10 be separated by our GO
vernment, and this difficulty removed, had Mr.
Canning felt sincerely disposed to make us
satisfactory PREPARATION for an act acknowledge
ed by him to be decidedly wrong, the door re-
manned open for him To have done so in London,
on the return of Mr. Rose, and he would have,
undoubtedly, with this view, addressed him
self to Mr.. Pinkney, who might and would in
such case have bonorably resumed the busi-
ness Relative to the orders in Council Sure
iy not, willie remonstrance remained in her
cabinet unanswered.
1t would seem, from Mr. Canning's remarks,
as II all that had passed was consder,e. as lea
wing Great Britain under no obligation to do or
say any thing to this country while 1t tied mp
the u. >. to propose something to- or solicit
something from her In the mean time a dar-
ing altemptis made to make the people of c.
Britain believe that her government has silen-
ced or satisfied that of the u s. and to make
the people ofthis country believe that their go
Neifimcnt has been either negligent or insldi-
Gus IN the management of the public interests
From these facts the futility of the charge of
negligence or fUrbearancc by the administrati-
on in relation to the wrongs of c. Britain is a.
bndantly established a charge which is the
more impudent, when compared with the I'M
ceaslng efforts 30 create a belief that there has
been an excess of zeal in arraigning the con-
duct of that particular nation. An intelligent
man, standing aloof from the collisions of par
~, must be lost in astonishment at the ephe-