The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-05-19

l SuOJcCS.
The British paper states, that the King
was not prepared to disclaiu or derogate
| from right on Which the security of the Bril-
fish navy might essentially depend, espe-
claliy IN conjuncture when he was en-
gagged in wars which enforced thencces-
| sity of the most vigilant attention to the
preservation and supply of his naval force
that he had directed his corn nissioners tc
give to the commissioners of the u. States
the most positive assurances that INSTRUCT
ons had been given, and should be repeated
and enforced, to observe the greatest caution
In the impressing of British seamen, TO pre-
serve the citizens of the United! States from
molestation or Injury, and tliat immediate s.
prompt redress should be afforded on any re-
presentation OF injury sustained 5y them: 1t
then proposes to postpone the article rela-
oseNo itnpressfoeit on account of the diff
cnlties which were experienced in arranging
any article on that subject, and to proceed %
conclude q treaty on the other points t.at
were embraced by the negotiation. AS a
motive TO such postponement, and the condi-
ton OF it, it assures It's that the British COM
mlsslohers were instructed still to entertain
the discussion of any plan which could be de,
vised to secure the interests of both states
without injury to the rights of either
BY this papefitis evident that the rights
OF the United States were expressly to be re-
served; and not abandoned, as hasbeen most
enormously supposed: that the negociatio,
on the subject of inpressmcnt was TO Be post
Poned tor limited time, and for a special
object only, and to be revived as soon as that
object was accomplished !; and in the interim
that the practice of ..npressment was to COR
respond essentially with the views and inte-
rests of the United States. lis, indeed. evil
dent, from correct view of the contents of
| that paper, that Great Britain refused tod
claim or derogate only from what she called
her right, as IL also is, that as her refusal was
made applicable TO a crisis of eXtraordi ,ary
peril, 1t authorised the reasonable expecta-
ton, If not the just claim, that even in that
the accommodation desired, would be hereaf.
ter yielded.
In our letter to you of November IL, which
accompanied the paper under consideration.
and In that OF January 3, which was forward
with the treaty. these sentiments were full.
ly confirmed. In that of November IL. we
communicated one important fact, which Left
no doubt OF the sense i'll which it was intend
ed by the British commissioners, that that
paper should be construed by us In calline.
your attention to the passage which treats Of
imPressment, in reference to the practics
which should be observed in future, we PC
marked that the terms " high seas" were NOT
mentioned in it, and added that VIC knew
that the omission had been Intentional. II
was Impossible that those terms could have
been omitted intentionally SUith our k,lo1o-
cage, Tor any purpose other than toadmit a
construction t.iat 1T W as intentledt lat iluiess
ments should be confined TO the land: | d,,
not mean to imply that it was understood be-
tween the British commissioners and US, that
Great Britain should abandon the practice of
| Impressmcnt On the high seas altogether. I
mean, however, distinctly to state that il
was understood that tile practice hcretofcrc
pursued by her should be abandoned. and
that no impressment should be made OIL the
high seas under the obligation of that paper.
except IN cases OF an extraordinary nature
to which no general prohibition against II
| could be construed fairly to extend. The
cases to which allude we're described in orr
letter OF November II. They. suppose, a
British ship of war and merchant vessel of
the U. States; lying in the Tagus or some o.
Their port, the desertion of some of the sal
lors from the ship of war to the mcrclau.
vessel, and the sailing of the latter with sucir
desesters on board, they being British sub
jects 1t was admitted thatno general pr
hibitfon against imprcssmcnt could he con-
straed to sanction such ctses of Injustice. and
fraud; and to such cases it was understood
that the practice should III future be con6n-
| ed.
1t rs a just claim on our part, that the g.
| plantations which were given of that pa,,er
| by the British commissioners when thcr-
presented 1t TO us, and afterwards while tho.
negotiation was depending, which we conn
municated toyou in due order of time, Should
be taken into view, i'll fair estimate of ot,I.
conduct in that transaction. AS the ARRANGE.
ment which they proposed was Of an informal
nature, resting an uhders afiii lg between
| the parties in certain degree confidential
| it could not otherwise than happen that sucl,
explanations would BE- given us in the co1rs,.
of the business, of the views Of their govern
neDt in regard to it. And if an arrange
ment by informal understanding is admissi-
bic in any case between nations, it was orr.
duty to receive those explanations to give
! them the weight to which they were Justly
entitled, and to communicate them to voi
with our impression of the extent of the ~,
| legation, which they imposed. 1t is in that
mode only that what is called an informal m
Outstanding between nations can be entered
into, 1t presumes a want Oppression in the
written documents connected with it, which
is supplied by mn ual explanations and con-
fdenceI Reduce the transaction to form and
it becomes a treaty. That an informal uu-
dcrstanding was an admissible mode of ar
ranging this interest with Great Britain is
made sufficiently evident by your letter of