S TAR ,
RALEIGH, FEBRUARY 2, 1809.
Vol. I.
No. 14."
C7 PVBLIIBKO TT ThVKSDAT, BT Jofc
fc IUndesiox, at r trrta end or FatettI-iu.-Steet,
ea Casso's corner. Price
Three Dollar fee avkvm, tataple half
tSAELTIM ABTAECE- SlKOLE PaPER 10 CENTS.
STATE PAPERS.
To the Senate snd now of KeprftcnUtirri of th Uaited
b At.
I communicate to Congress ceruin letters which
itself was not distinctly stated as an overture autho
rised by tdj government the second, ttjut tho be
neficial consequences likely to result to this country
from the acceptance of that proposal, were 44 pursu
ed through more ample 44 illustrations."
With regard to the first of these supposed differ
ences, I feel persuaded, sir, that upon further rc col
lection, it will occur to you that at our first confe
rence, I told yea explicitly that the substance of
what I then suggested, that is to say, that your or
ders being repealed as.to us, we would suspend the
embargo as to Great Britain) was from my govern-
L . t ' J
Tiessed between the British Secretary of State, Mr. mem i u tne marker oi coivaucung and urns-
Canning, ana m.r. ru:iutji i"ui" i -
i twlmi. When the documents concern- ders,
tentiarr at London.
ing the relations between the
riia Itritain Wert yjH hf C
United States and
tgrrtt Wind com
mencement of the session, the answer ot Mr. Pinck
ney to the letter of Mr. Canning had nor TV' re
ceived, and r communication of the h.. Uone
would have accorded neither with propriety nor with
the wishes of Mr. Pinckney. When that answer
afterwards arrived, it was considered thm as what
had passed in conversation hod been superseded by
the written and formal correspondence on tne sub
ject, the variance in the statements of what had ver
bally . oassed was not of sufficient importance to be
' made the matter of a distinct and special communi-
cation, . The letter of Mr. Canning, however, hav
- ing lately appeared in print, unaccompanied by that
of Mr. Pinckney in reply, and having a tendency to
make impressions not warranted by .the statements
of Mr. Pinckney, it has become proper that the
whole should be brought into public view.
Th : Jefferson.
January 17, 1809.
London, Sept 24, 1808.
Sra I ani now enabled to transmit to you a copy
tf Mr. Canning's answer, received only last night,
to my note of the 23d of August.
This answer was accompanied by aletter of which
also a copy is enclosed, recapitulating what Mr. Can
ning supposes to be 44 the , substance of what has
passed between us at our several interviews, previ
ous to the presentation of my official letter." ,
To the accompanying paper I think it indispensi
ble that I should reply without delaj -Supporting
with politeness, but dth firmness, the statements
which L have already had the honour to make to
you, of the conversations in question, and correcting
. i ! i n : I
some errors upon points, wnicn rar. canning nas
thought fit to introduce into his letter, but which I
had not (Supposed it necessary to mention in detail
my dispatches. , .t
I shall not detain Mr. Atwater with a view to this
reply ; but will take care to forward a copy of it by
an early conveyance. My official note and the an
swer to it being perfectly explicit, Mr. Canning's
misapprehensions (for such they are) of previous
verbal communications can scarcely be very impor
tant in a public view ; but it is, nevertheless, of some
consequence that, whatever may be the object of
his statement, I should not make myself a party to
its inaccuracies, by even a tacit admission of them.
I do not perceive that a formal reply to the more
official paper can now be of any advantage ; but I
shall probably take occasion to combine with my re
ply to the one paper some observations upon the
other.
I regret extremely that the views which I have
been instructed to lay before this government, have
not been met by it as I had at first been led to ex
pect. The overture cannot fail, however, to place
in a strong light the just and liberal sentiments by
which our government is animated, and in other
respects to be useful and honourable to our country.
I have the honour to be,
With the highest consideration,
Sir, your most obedient humble servant,
Wm. Pinckney.
Hon. Jamet Madison, l3V . t9V.
Here follows the letter of Mr. Canning to Mr.
Pinckney, published in our last.
Mr. PINCKNEY TO Ma. CANNING.
t rating the subject, upon which I had no precise or
was my own. I even repeated to you the
words of my instructions as they were upon my me
mory and I did not understand, either then or af
terwards, that there was any doubt as to their exist
ence or their sufficiency, or any desire to have a
more exact and foitnal communication of them
while the result of our discussions was distant and
uncertain. I said undoubtedly that I had been di
rected to require the revocation of the British or
ders in council ; but I said also, that, although th
government of the United States still supposed it
self to be authorised to expect their repeal upon the
ground of right as it existed from the first, (a sub
ject, however, which I informed you I did not wish
at that Um" to Hgitate) I was, notwithstanding, em
powered to give you the above-mentioned assuran
ces, which would, as I presumed, hold out induce
ments to Great Britain, as well on the score of poli
cy as on that of justice, to fulfil that expectation. I
should scarcely have undertaken to offer such assu
rances as from myself, or upon my own 44 convic
tion" that xiif Present would act in conformity
with them. And I should still less (if that were
possible) have ventured to ask of you that you would
make them, in that form, the subject of repeated
conferences, and even of reference to others, as pla
cing the question of a recall or continuance of the
orders in council, upon new grounds of prudence
and equity. And I confess to you sir, that when I
was afterwards informed that, if I would ubtain ui
answer to my overture, I must make it in writing,
and that I must not look for'any previous mum at ion
of the nature of that answer, I .did not allow myself
any longer to anticipate with much confidence such
an issue as I desired.
The second difference which your letter suppo
scs to exist lietween my note aad verbal suggestions,
cannot, 1 think, in any view be very material. I will
say something upon it, however.
The general idea to which the note refers is that
justice and interest conspired to recommend that
you should take advantage of my proposal. The
particular positions are, that, if your orders and our
embargo should be rescinded in the manner sug
gested, our commercial intercourse would be im
mediately revived ; that, if France followed your ex
ample and retracted her decrees, the avowed pur.
pose of your orders would be accomplished ; that
if France refused to retract, the American embargo,
continuing as to her, would occupy the place of
your orders, and perform their office, even better
than they could perform it themselves, without any
ol the disadvantages inseparable irom such a sys
tem.
I meant to suggest, that upon your own princi
pies it would ho extremely difficult to decline my
proposal, that your orders inculcate, as the duty of
neutral nations, resistance to the maritime decrees
of France, as overturning the public law of he
world, and professedly rely upon that duty, and an
imputed abandonment of it, for their inducement 8c
Great Cumberland Place, Oct. 10, 1808.
' Sir- At our h.'st interview (on the 20th of June)
verbal communication was not discountenanced, but
commended : .For, after I had made myself under
stood as to the purpose for which the interview had
-been requested, you asked me if I thought of taking
a more formal course ; hut immediately added that
you presumed I did not ; for that the course I had
adopted was well suited to the occasion. My re
ply was in substance, that the freedom of conver
sation was better adapted to our subject, and more
likely to conduct us to rn advantageous conc'usion,
than the constraint and formality of written inter
course, and that I had not intended to present a note.
At the second interview (on the 22nd of July) it did
not occur to me that I hud uiy reason to conclude,
and certainly I did not conclude, that verbal com
munication had not continued to be acceptable as a
Sreparatory course ; and it was not until the third
itcrview (on the 29th of July) that it was rejected
as inadmissible. But even then I was not told, and
had not the smallest suspicion, that this rejection
was to be ascribed, either wholly or partially, to the
motive which your letter has since announced to me.
That this motive had, nevertheless, all the influence
now imputed to it, I am entirely confident, and I
take notice of it only because, as I have not men
tioned it to my government in my official account
of our conferences, I can no otherwise justify the
omission, cither to it or to you, than by shewing that
4 had in truth no knowledge of the fact when that
account was transmitted, v
You observe, that 44 the principal points, in which
the suggestions, brought forward by me in personal
conference, appear to you to have differed in some
decree from the nrorjosal stated by me in writing,
re two; the first, that in conversation the proposal
their jusutication ; that, of these orders, that of the
Tth of January 1807., (of which the subsequent or
ders of November are I said, in your official reply to
my note of the 23rd of August, to be only an extcn
sion, 44 an extension in operation riot in principle")
was promulgated and carried into effect a few weeks
only after the Berlin decree had made its ap
pearanr, when the American Government could
not possiuly know that such a decree existed, when,
there had been no attempt to enforce it, and when
it had become probable that it wouldnot be enforce
ed at all to the prejudice of neutral rights, that other
orders were issued, belore the American govern'
ment, with reference to any practical violation ofits
rights, by an attempt to execute the Berlin decree
in a sense different from the stipulations of the trea
ty subsisting between the United States and France,
and from the explanations given to General Arm
armstrong by the French minister of marine, and
afterwards impliedly confirmed by Gnnl ilham.
pagny, as well as by a correspondent practice, had
any sufficient opportunity ot opposing that decree
otherwise than it did appose it : that your orders,
thus proceeding upon an assuming acquiescence noj
existing in fact, retaliated prematurely, and retaliated
a thousand-fold, through the rights of the United
States, wrongs rather threatened than felt, which you
were not authorised to presume the United States
would not themselves repel as their honour and
their interests required ; that orders, so issued, were,
to say the least of them, an unseasonable interposi
tion between the injuring the injured party, in a
way the'most fatal to the latter ; tliat by taking jus
tice into your own hands, before you were , entitled
to do so, at the expence ot every thing like neutral
rights and even at the expence of other rights, just
ly the objects of yet greater sensibility, and by inflict
ing upon, neutral nations, or rather upon the United
States, the only neutral nation injuries inhtately
more severe and extensive than it was in the power
of France to inflict, you embarrassed and confound
ed, and rendered impracticable, that very resistance
which you demanded of us ; that my proposal des
troyed all imaginable motives tor continuing, what
ever mijht have been the motives for adopting this
new scheme of warfare ; that it enabled you to with
draw, with dignify and even with . advantage,
what should not have come between France and us ;
that iu necessary tendency was to place us at issue
with (hat power,' or, to other words, in the precise
situation in which you hare maintained we ought
to be placed, 11 it should persist in iu obnoxious e
dicts ; that the continuance of our embargo, bo mo
dified, would be at least equivalent to your orders ;
for that, in their most efficient state, your orders
could do do more, as regards the United States, than
cutoff their trade with France and the countries
connected with her ; and that our embargo, remain
ing to France and those countries, would dq,ex
actiy the same ; that if the two courses were bare
ly, of teten nearly upon a level, in point of expedi
ency, preat Britain ought to be forward to adopt
that' which was consistent with the rights and res
pectful to the feelings of thrr thwrny-prposair
however, had powerful recommendations which the
orders in council had not ; that it would re-establish
without the hazard of any disadvantage, before new
habits hod rendered it difficult if not impossible, a
traffic which nourished your most essential manu
factures, and various other important sources of
your prosperity ; that k would not only restore a con
nection, valuable in all its viiws, but prepare the
way tor the return ot mutual kindness, tor adjust
ments greatly to be desired, and in a woi io all
thoscconsequences which follow in the train of mag
nanimity and conciliatin, associated with prudence
and justice.
Among the observations intended to illustrate my
opinion of the certain, probable, and possible effects
ol the concurrent acts which my proposal had in
view, were those to which you allude in the 6th pa
ragraph of your letter. Having stated that renew
ed commercial intercourse between Great Britain
and the United States would be the first effect, I re
marked, in the progress of the conversation, that the
edicts of France could not prevent that intercourse,
even if t ranee should adhere to them, although Ci.
UiitAin, by her supenour naval means, might be .
ble to prevent the converse of it; that the powe
of France upon the seas was in no degi ee ade ;uate
to such a purpose, and if it were otherwise, that it
was not to be supposed that the Urn ted States resu
ming their lawful commerce with this country, after
a recti of the British orders in counci?, would take
no measures against systematic interruptions of that
commerce by force and violence, if such should be
attempted
If, when I was honoured with the different inter
. r . . . . . .
views oeiore mentioned, I had been able to conjec
ture tne nature ot the arguments winch were to
have an influence against my proposal as I now find
them stated in your answer to mv note, I should
probably ..have ventured to suggest, in addition to
tneremara actually submitted to your considera
tion, that if 44 the blockade of the European ccnti
nent," by France and the iwwers subservient to or
in combination with her, to which your oruers as
44 a temperate but determined retaliation were qi
pwrf, has been 44 raised even betort it had been
well established," or if 44 that system," so opposed
44 of which extent and continuity were the viul prhv
cipies, has been broken up- into fragments utterly
harmless and contempabie, there see ms scarcely
to be lett, in your own view ot the subject, any in
teiugibie justification tor perseverance in such ol
the retaliatory measures of Great-Bi itc in, us one
rate mrougn the acKnowiedced ntrhts of a nower
confessedly no party to that combination, and reudv
to fulfil her fair neutral obligations, if you will suffer
nertoooso. under sum circumstances, to aban
don what is admitted to have lost its only legitimate
object, is not 44 concession ;" it is simple justice.
1 o r ranee, indeed, it might be concession. B-.it it
is not France, it is the government of America, nei
ther subservient to France, nor combined with
r ranee, a tjurd party, whose rights and interests
your orders deeply affect, without any adequate ne
cessuy according to your own shewing, that requires
their recal and that too upon terms which cannot
out promote the declared purposes of these order
it any remain to be promoted. 1 say 44 without any
adequate necessity according to your cwn shewing;
for 1 am persuaded, sir, you do not mean to teil us
as upon a hasty perusal of your answer to my note
mignt oe imagined mat those rights and interests
are to be set at nought, lest 44 a doubt should renu in
to distant times of the determination and the abi;uy
of G. Britain to have continued her resistance," or
that your orders my, indefinitely, give a new law
to the ocean, lest the motive to their repeal should
be mistaken by your enemy. If tins nitht indeed
be so, You will perhaps peiTnit me to say, that high
ly as we may be disposed to prize the firm attitude
and vast means of your OUftlixat this eventful mo
ment, it would possibly suggest to some minds .
reluctant doubt on the subiect of vour observation
" that the strength and power of G. Britain are not
lor herself only, but for the world.
It, appeared to me that my overture was not likely
to be successful, and I urged, accordingly, the pro
priety oi going on in a course which wurl lead us
to a better issue That course was, t'iut we should
understand one another as to our resj ecUve views,
and that a concise note, which I had in fact prepar
ed since the last meeting, should tUen be presented
and acted upon. You informed me that my wish
in this particular, could not be acceded to ; that, i
I presented a note, you must be left at perfect iibei
ty to decide upon what it proposed ; that you couid
not give me even an intimation ol the probabie con
sequences ot it; and, in a word, that you would nci
mer uivue nor discourage sucn a proceeding, i ou
added that there were some points, belonging to the
sumeci, wnicn u would be proper to oiscuss in
writing ; one of which was the connection between
our Jbmbargo and your Orders of November, sup
posed to be implied by. my proposal. I remarked
that, with an actual result in view, and with a wish
to arrive at that result without delay, it could not be
advisable to entangle ourselves in a written cones
pondence, undefined as to its scope and duration,
upon topics on which we were not likely to agree ;
ana uw, u x were to iramc my note, wiui know
ledge that it waa to provoke argument Instead of
leading at this cash to a salutary change in the
state of the world, you must be conscious that I too
must argue. And where would this end 'Td
what wholesome consequence would it conduct us?
At the close of the interview I observed that as the
footing, upon which the subject was now placed,
made delay of no importance, I aliould take time
to prepare such farther proceeding as the occasion
required. , .
On the 26th of August I had the honour to see
you again, and, after entering more at Luge, than I
had before believed to be proper, into a
w
turn of the Ucd oL
"adhering td your Orders in Council, and, after rea?
ding to you parts of my instructions, I delivered ail
official note in which the proposal was mack in the
form required.
Something was said at this interview of the affair
of the Chesapeak, and the President's proclama
tion, which, it is not, I presume, necessary tp re- .
peat. It will be sufficient to state, that you asked .
me what was to be done with these subjects t and
that my reply was, that they had no connection with
the present ; but that I could say, with confidence,
that my government had every disposition to attcrid
them, with a view, to such an adjustment, as
would be honourable to both parties. I did not sup
pose that it was expected (for you did not intimate
such an expectation) that renewed negocLtion upon
these points should, as well as the repeal, upon
ternis, of your orders in conncil, be invited by a for
m .i overture from the government of America.
I will not trouble you with many observations
more.
You state in your letter that44 there was One point
upon which you were particularly anxious to receive
precise information, and upon which, from my Van
dor and frankness, you were fortunate enough to
obtain it." This was 44 whether in fact the orders in
council of November, had been known to the go
ernment of the L. States, previous to the message
)f the President proposing the embargo, so as to bo
a moving consideration to that message." I quote
this passage, principally, that I may reuJ! to your
recollection, that my suggestions, upon the subject
of U- wene not made officially, 0s being authorised, -or
furnished, by any communication from my go
vernment, or in answer to any direct . enquiries n
your part. 1 hey were very briefly made, near the
close, as I think, of your third interview, in conse-
uence of your mtimauon, intended perhaps to a
mount to an enquiry, that my proposal implied, that
the embargo had been produced by the orders of
November ; to which you added that this could not
W truit tcit ami Iwuuvlwwlwi wL-t ytrensahl V " '
that it even re mired to be made the subject of seme
notice or discussion in writing as intimately connec
ted with my proposal, if it should be brought for-
v ud in that shape ; and 1 understood you to Figu
this as one of the reasons why a written overture
was indispensable. In replying to that intimation,
and the remarks which followed it, I professed to
speak, as I did in fact speak from general informa-
Kn only, and disclaimed, as it Was my duty to do,
Jl authority to say more, upon the nature and ori
gin of the embargo, than 1 had some time before
communicated to you, in obedience to the orders
of the President. The purpose of mv observations
was chiefly to shew that there was no inducement
for e tnbarking in formal discussions upon this point ;
and I assured vouthat it was not in my power, either
as respected instructions from my government, or
knowledge of facts, to do so.
My suggestions were to the following effect: that
I believed that no copy of your orders of November
had arrived in the U. S. at the date of the President's
message ; that a recent change in the conduct of
France to our prejudice did appear to be known ;
that intelligence had been received, and a belief en
teitaincd, of your intention to adopt some further
measure, as a measure ol retaliation against France,
by which our commerce nd our rights would be
effected ; that there was reason to conclude that you
had , equally adopted such a measure ; that fas I -
leclea from American "newspapers) this had ap
peared from private letters, and ti e newspapers of
mucounny, received m tne L. t:. some days before
the message ot the Presto nt, and ptob.-bly known
to the government ; that, in a vord, various infor
mation i oncurted to shew tin t our trade was likely
lobe uss.iltd by the combined efforts of both the
beiiit-'e ent parties ; and that the embargo was a
nieasu.e ot wise and peaceful precaution, adopted
under this view of reasonably anticipated peril.
itie orders had been othcially communicated.
not to me, but to Mr. Madison, through the British
miniver ai Washington, it seemu;, therefore, to
be proper (unless my instructions should make it
otherwise) that the view, which the government of
the U. S. took of them, should find its way to you
through the Same channel i and, accordingly, the
letters of Mr. Madison, tohkh I have referred in
my note of the 23d of Augus&Jid open, at fneat
length, a discussion, which I cod, ha ve -no incu ce
ment to shun, although Tdid nctt to tiu :ik
myself authorised to commence It I .
TITrtX take
v B lardi-rx, at the itsu;il price.
They will he accom
modated wiih an excellent unixconvenient Room, knd
every rrqulir'e i.UeMion shall b- paid Lo them. . '
s tuiiiil, is small laid set. ct, liKinur onlv Oil '.
.lItll.l'S.
Mrs. VV
merchant with his clci-k us ',
2G, 1809.
LOTS
SITUATE in theCityof Kalcih, sold for the City Taxes
due tlv rvon in lbjd, to wit: Nos. 4, 13, 14 26. 2T,
2, 29, 30, -W, 42, 60, 272 and 273.
The Surplus Money arising from tjjie sale of vhe shove
lMi, will he paid f the respective WnearB on application,
provided tlifcy shew thir rWit thereto.
Wm. PEACE, City Trtaturtr.
-
- .
fcr-