Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1809-12-04
WAsHmeTos, August IS, 1909.

do not believe, that IN the COVersa-
tons we have had respecting the practical
bilisy Of an aliustmens OF the differences
between the United States and Great Bril-
tain, we ever have misunderstood one ano-
ther. Yetas from Mr. Canning's instruc-
sions lately published BY your govern
snens it would seem that some opinions
are ascribed 20 several members of this adj
ADMINISTRATION, which they did not entertain,
isapprars necessary TO ascertain whether on
any point Misrepresentation caa have taken
place.
/ will forbear making any observations
on what in the instructionsis called me third
conditions since it is7not asserted that that
snadmIssible proposition was suggested at
Washinston.
The points embraced in Mfr. Canning;s
first proposition formed the, principal topic
4ot our conversations, relative TO a revoca
ton of the orders in council. Yet in the
manner in winch thas proposition is express
cd, it goes further thanha been suggested
By the members of the administration. 1t
is sufficiently evident from the proceedings
of congress, both previans and subsequent
10 the nnratihed agreement OF April last
that the United States intended to continue
in force, aud TO remove those restrictions
IN relation to Great Britain, in the event OF
a revocation of the orders IN council. But
that state of things so far as it related to
France was to result from our ozon !as2s
known or anticipated bv your government
when they authorised an arrane emcnt and
-sis was not proposed by Us that the continu-
lance OF the non-lnlercourse with France
should be made a condition of that arrange
!. ment. Whllss on that sebject, / Will add
an observation, though perhaps not immedi-
asely connected with the object of this let
ter. ttink that the object of that -propo-
sition, SO far as tagreed with Cur previous
understanding of the Intentions Of this 60
.vernment, has been substantially carried m.
to effect on olr part. Ii is true that you.-
government might at the date of the IN
struetions have expected from the incipienr
proceedings of Congress, THAT Holland would
I he embraced by the restrictive laws of the
United States. Not only however was the
omission nominal, since American vessels
were at the time by The DEGREES OF that coun-
try refused admission into Its ports; but
under the same constEuctsou ofour laws by
which the commercial intercourse with fIo.-
land was permitted, that with Portugal was
also considered as legal in the event of that
country being occupied with British troops
I'D the name ofthe Prince Regent.
Its therefore principally as respects the
second condition which relates to the coloni-
al trade, that erroneous inserences might be
drawn from the expressions used in Mr..
Canning s instructions. Attic the subject
szrnust have been mentioned here incidentally
and Only IN a transient manner as it is one
70 which, had paid particular attentlon,and
on which nay opinion had never varied, |
think that can state with precision in what
view have always considered it, and must
have alludeatoata
i. i never could have given couiatehance
TO an opinion that the United States would
agree, or that it would be proper to make
any arrangement whatever respecting the
colonial trade, condition Of the revoca-
ton of the orders in council. The two sub
iects were altogether unconnected, and |
am confident that such a proposition was
never suggested either by you, or by any
member of this administration. Such an
arrangement could be effected only by trea-
fy; and it is with considerable degree of
surprise that / see your government now
asking not'only resistance to the French de-
erees, but the abandonment of a branch of
our commerce, as the price of the reveca-
zion of the orders In council. This seems
90 give nsw character to a measure which