Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-12-16

oe acceptable to my gosernnent. mmedi-
ateiy and most decidedly discountenanced
such proposition, as objectionable under e.
very view. He replied, that, having no other
object IN making the intimation than that of
preventing the treaty from falling through,
ana not knowing hinself in wha; light il
might be receis ed, he had Of course nothing
more to say, after learning from me that Il
would be objectionable.
avail myself of this opportunity to for
ward to you copy Of the act of the iast ses-
sion of Parliament for Consolidating the laws
OF this realm for the abolition OF the slave
'Iaur, as requested in your communication Of
the seth Of May.
have the honor to remain, &c.
m, RICHARD RUSH.
Ibe Hon. John Quincy Adams,
Secretary of State.
No.1 (a)-Mr. G. Canning TO Mr.. Rush.
FOREIGN OFFICE, Aug. 81, 1894.
SU-ln pursuance Of what / stated to You
IN our late conference, have now the honor
to address you on the subject Of the qualified
ratification, ON the part Of your government,
OF the treaty for the more effectual suppress
sion oil TIE slave trade, which was concluded
and signed, in the month of March last, BY
you and his Majesty's Plenipotentiares.
His MaJesty's government have given the
most anxious and deliberate consideration to
this subject, and il The result Of that conside.
ration has been TO decide that they cannot adj
wise his Majesty to accept the American ra,ifi.
cation, notwithstanding the arguments ailedg-
ed by you, IN the name of yonr government
IN Favor OF such acceptance,) entreat YOU to
believe II IS not from any diminished sense Of
the importance Of the matter TO which that
treaty relates.
Nor do they at all underrate the desire
which, az you have assured me, and, they re-
really believe, was felt by the President Of the
United States, to adopt the provisions of the
treaty, such as 1t was transmitted TO America.
But the result is not the less inconvenient.
treaty, (which the basis was laid 10 pro-
positions framed by the American govern
mcnt, was considered, here, as so little likely
to be made a subject of renewed discussion in
America, that not moment was lost in ra,i-
flying it, en the part OF his Majesty and his
AaJesty's ratification was ready tn he ex-
! changed against that Of the United States.
when the treaty came back; not as it had
been sent to America, but with material vsri-
| ations-variatons not confined to those stipu-
! lalions, or parts Of stipulations, which had
been engraftej upon the original proje, bur
extending TO that part Of the original proiet,
| itself, which had passed, unchanged, through
| the negotiation.
| The knowledge that the constitution of the
u. States renders all their diplomatic COM
pacts liable to this sort ofrevision, undoubted-
| ly precludes the possibility Of taking excep-
| ton TO any particular instance in which that
revision is exercised /; but the repetition of
such instances does not serve TO reconcile to
The practice the feelings of the other contract
Ing party, whose solemn ratification is thus
IN negotiations, having been made las all such
concessions must be understood To be made
conditiOnally, are thus accepted as positive
and absolute, while what may have been the
stipulated price vi those concessions, is with.
drawn.
In the instance before us, the question is not
one merely OfforH. A substantial change is
made in the treaty and, as have said, on
point originally proposed by yourself, sir, as
the American plenipotentiary, and understood
to be proposed by the special direction OF
your government.
Thu right Of visiting vessels, suspected of
slOve-t trading, when extended alike to the
West Indies, and 10 The coast Of .9msrico, impT.
ed an equality of vigilance, and did not neces-
sarlly imply the existence of grounds Of sus.
pcIon on either side.
The removal of this right, as tn the coast
lndips, cannot but appear To imply the exis-
tence on one side, and not on the other, of a
just ground either of suspicion OF misconduct,
or for apprehension of an abuse Of authority
To such an equality, leading to such an in-
Terence, his Malesty's government can never
advise his Majesty to consent. Ii would have
been rejected, If proposed in the course OF
negotiation. 1t can still less be admitted as
new demand, after the conclusion of the |
treaty.
With the exception of this proposed omis
sion, there is Huthing in the alterations, /
made by the Senate Of The United States, in |
the treaty DIETER satisfied, as his Maiesty's |
government undoubtedly would have been, iii
they had not been made,l which his Mairs I
TVS government would not rather agree 10 |
adopt, than suffer the hopes Of good, to which !
this arrangement had gwen rise, to bs dsap- |
pointed.
Upon this omission, they trust The Senate |
of the u. States WILL On another coDsidera-
ton Of the subject, see that IL is not eQuita- |
bic 10 insist.
A full power will therefore be sent 10 MIR |
Addin5toD, his Majesty's Charge d'Aff.ires |
at Washington, TO conclude and sign, with III.
TO be appointed by the Anne
rcan government, treaty, verbatim the same
AS the returned treaty wUaId BIZ, with all the
introduced into il by The Senate,
only the proposed omission of the
words and America" in the first article I:
which treaty " transmitted to England, with |
he ratification of The government Of the u . |
States, his Majesty will be ready TO ratify.
But lam 10 apprize you, sir, that his Ma.
Iesiy will not be advised to appoint pIenipo.
tentiaries TO conclude and sign the like irea-
y here, to be, as before, ratified by his Ma.
jesty, and to he again subjected, after rotif
cation by his Majesty, to alterations by the
Senate Of the United States.