Portland gazette and Maine advertiser. (Portland, Me.) 1805-1818, 1809-12-18
9H.riai Correspondence.
DOCUMENTS
ACCOMPANYINU Tx FKESIDtNI MTS5AGE
The Secretary Of TIE Treafwy 10 Mr..
Erksiae.

! olR-l DO not believe, that IN the con-
veristions we have had refpeeing the prac-
| ticability of an adjuament Of the differen-
| ces between the United States and Great
Britain, we ever have mifunderftood one
another. Yet as from MIR. Cdnning's in.
ftruetions lately puhlilhed by your govern.
ment, 1t would feem that fome opinions
are aicrbed TO teveral members of this adj.
moiitraton, which they did not entertain,
it appears neceiliry to afcertain whether
on any point INTERPRETATION can have
taken place.
] will forbear making any obfervatlons
| on what in the initruetions is called the
third condition, lince it is not ailerted
that that inadmiflible propoiition was fug-
gefed at Warrington.
The points embraced in Mr.. Canning's
firlt proportion formed the principal topic
of our conversations, relative to a revoca-
| ton of the Orders in Council. Yet in the
manner in which that propoftionise xpreiI,.
ed, it goes further than had been fuggef-
| ed by the members of the administration.
1t is efficiently evident from the proceed
| ings of Congrefs, both previous and fubfe-
qnent to the unratified agreement of April
| lat, that the United State intended to con-
tinue the rehnclions on the commercial
| intercourie with France, whilit fuch of her
dccrtes as violate our neutral rights con-
tinued in force, and to remove thofe re-
fittions in rotation to Great Britain, in
the event OF revocation of the Orders in
Council. But that fate of things 70 far
as II related to France was to reiult from
, ctr osua MqvJ known or anticipated BY
your government when they authorized
, an arrangemept-; and it was not propelled
by ust that the continuance of the non-in-
, tercourfe with France ihould be made
| condition OF that arrangement. Whilf
on that fubjeet, will add an obfervation,
though perhaps not Immediately connec.
ted with the Object of this letter. think
that the Object of that propofition, 70 far
as IT agreed with your previous underaand-
ing OF the intentions of this government,
has been fubffantially carried into effect
On our part. II is true that your govern
ment might at the date of the inieructions
have expected from the incumbent pro-
ceedngs of Congreis, that Holland would
be embraced by the relfrietive laws of the
u. States. Not only however was the o.
milton nominal, hnce American vefTels
were at the time by the DEGREES of that
country refaied admllion into its ports
but under the fame contribution of our
laws by which the commercial intercouric
with Holland was permitted. that with
POI 'agal was alto coniidered as legal in the
eve ct that country being occupied by
.,s..'ai troops IN the name of the Prince
Regeat.
!, IS therefore principally as refpeets the
fecond condition which relates to the colo
nial trade, that erroneous inf,rencss might
be drawn from the expreflions uled in MIR.
Canning 'nnruetlons. Although the inb-
jeet muit have been mentioned here Incl.
dentally, and only in tranlient manner
a II Is one 10 which had paid particular
attention, aud on which my opinion had
never varied. think TINT can aate with
prec,hun IN wha, vicw have always con-
iidired II, and rnt have alluded to it.
1. never could have given conntenance
To an op.a III that tue United States would
agree, OF that 1t would i.c properto make
| any arrangement whatever rtipt cling the
| colonial trade. 4 condition Oft the revocation
1.-THE ordersiH Council. The two fnbieefs
| altogether nnconueeied, and I am con-
/ iident that fuch propniilion was never
| fuggeited either by You, on by any member
OF this administration. Such an arrange
,nent could be effetted only by treaty &
it is with confiderabe degree of furprile
that fee your government now aikins
not only rciltance TO the French DEGREES,
but the Abandonment of branch of our
commerce, as the price of the revocation
| OF the Orders in Council. This feems to
! give new character to meafure which
had heretofore been reprelcnted as an aet
OF retaliation reluctantly adopted, and had
been defended foley on the ground of
fnppoEd acquieicence on the part of the
u. 5. in the injurious DEGREES of another
nation.
4. Ia the event ct a treaty embracing all
the points in diipnte. and particularly that
of impreilments, without which truft no
treaty will ever take place, it was my opin
ion, and ] may certainly have exprehed il
that ii the other fubjects of difference were
arranged that respecting the colonial trade
would be easily adjulfed. had conlider-
ed the principles recognized in former
correspondence, between Lord Hawkibury
and Mr.. King on the fnbjea of the colo.
NAL trade, and subsequently again adopted
in the treaty negotiated by Mefirs. Nun.
roe and Pnkney, as a general BATS agreed
| on under different administrations, by both
governments, from which neithercould now
recede, and fniceptible only OF modification
as to details. The ineructions to our
Mniaers in London on that Gibiee had
alin been publl.hed and Wers known u