The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-01-17
/ have the honor lobe &c,
GEORGE CANNING.
T LIE TRICK

Inc editors OF the n. York Gazette. on
the 10th last. inserted in their papera pro-
ductlon purporting to be Q le,ter from
!" Mr.. Canning TO Mr.. Pinkncv. accon,ho-
" nyinS' MS fctter Of Scht. %, 1908 :" III The
" preface to which 1t is said that 47Nis let
: Ter estabHshes fspo imhor1ant Jaets. The
FIRST IS, that the CFer IF Mr.. Jefsrson TO
" raise "a embargo on the rescindiHg The et.-
" ders an council .vas only comn,un cated 10
F" Ahr Canning by Mr.. Finkney in his in
: diUtdUat coh0cify, ia q verbal
" cation, and with AT cchfeSSion of be-
hcf 2nfy, thot MS g5vcrument qv1iiid rai~e
" me c7ahargo il the British government
" gpould FIRST remope Hei, obnoxious orders
:" in council" To this assertion of the n.
York Gazette, it is oniv necessary to reply.
that the documents which have been sub
mittcc to Cong ess, and to the American
people at large, IN particular the letter of
Mr.. Pinkney to Mr.. Canning and Mr.. Can
ningAsrepty to that, sufficiently prove that
the overture was made in official form bv
the American government, and in official
form and with ~contumelious spirit rejected
by the cabinet Of hondon. A reference 10
the Documents will establish the trnth Of
what 4 say in this respect. "The second
Continue the editors of the Y. York Ga
zette1 is, that Mr.. "Pinknep lin relation
" 10 MIR. Canafag's request TOR the fnfor,
" matto") states IN, eserUedly, Mat zvhen
" me president recommended the embargo,
" ne had no Information Of The fassage IF
" he B2Ifish orders Of council n6zy con,-
I" hiauned f." Ipretend to know n~qthiug-a-
bout the the letter in question ; l neither a.
ver TO De true nor forged. But il mus, be
evident toany nan that it does not follow,
because Mr.. Canning has written certain
th'ags IN a letter TO MIR Pinkney, that
therefore those things must be true. I am
inclined to think Mr. Pinhney did not tell Mr..
Canning what is asserted In this "8ccond
lJGcf!" i know. ccrkaigtgA, that the Ameri-
can government had positive knowledge % the
british orders IN councI BEFORE THE.
EmBhRGO WAS LAID. Admittirg the
reputed letter to be authentic, is it fair 10
draw any inference from it uptil MIR. Pink
ney's answer to it hall appear ? for surely,
II such a letter were written by Mr. Can
ming, Mr. Pinkney made him a reply. AS
the matter-stands, the sffaj,' is altogether
&c fiarfc. 1t would, indeed, be a strange
thing, it The "recaNifuiation'' of an English
secretary is to be received as full evidence of
a tact respecting the government Of the u.
states. Mar. Pinkney could not have made
the broad assertion attributed to him, be-
cause, SURPRISING that lie had transmitted no
Information respecting the orders in council,
now could he tell but what our government
had received intelligence through another
S"""''C' NNith respect TO THIS aiie0peQ
letter, II viii occur to every man Of rehec-
zion, thatifit be genuine, if could only have
been made public by the British government
through its agents here, or by theAmerican
government. On this poine the n York
Gazette observes, 7ve neUer sd7o IL tW
yesterddy, and roe 6eHeVe IL did NOT accom-
lHGny :he documrnf8 ordered 10 b. hubH5hcd
bycongresS." Now, it is Certain that our
executive would not communicate IL Of hat
were possible) to the editors Of the n Y. Ca
zctte. Uhere, hen, I'D they hrocnr~it?
l6ey never saw 1t till " yesterdaU,' The
9sh Instant In whose hands did they see it
at that timel Was it in the posscssi On of
MIR. Barclay, the British Consul ut n. York ?
Or what agency has Mr.. Erskine h d in tins
b%asiness ? Setting aside every other consi-
deraiion. ! think the circumstance proves
concIusiveiy that ne British haze their
presses IN this com ry.u.R Monitor,