,S;-. ^f^^... IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 2.0 I4£ i.25 II u |||,.6 .^ 6" ► Photographic Sciences Corporation ^^^ ^' 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4S03 w CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1 Tachnical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa ti Tha Instituta liaa attamptad to obtain tha bart criginai copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may alter any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction. or which may aignificantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. □ Colournd covara/ Couvartura da coulaur I — I Covara damagad/ D n n n Couvartura andommagM Covara raatorad and/or laminated/ Couvartura raatauria at/ou palliculte Cover title miaaing/ La titra da couvarture manque I I Coloured mapa/ □ Cartea gAographiquea nn couleur Coloured inic (i.e. other than blua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured platea and/or illuatrationa/ Planchaa at/ou illuatrationa en couleur Bound with other material/ Rali* avac d'autrea documanta Tight binding may cauae thadowa or diatortion along interior margin/ La re liu?e &«rr6e peut cauaar da I'ombra ou de la diatoraion le long do la marge int^rieure Blank laavaa added during reatoration may appear within the text. Whenever poaaibia, theae have been omitted from filming/ II ae peut que certai.iea pagea blanchaa ajout^aa lore d'une reatauration apparaiaaant dana la texte. maia. loraqua cela Atait poaaibia, caa pagea n'ont pea AtA f ilmiaa. Additional commenta:/ Commantairea supplAmantairaa: L'Inatitut a microfilmi la niailleur exemplaira qu'il lui a itt poaaibia de ae procurer. Lea ditaila da cat exemplaira qui aont paut-Atre uniquaa du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image t«produft'«, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dana a mAthoda normala de filmaga aont indiquia ci-daaaoua. r~~| Coloured pagea/ D D D Pagea de couleur Pagoa damaged/ Pagea andommagAea Pagea raatorad and/oi Pagea reataurAat Jt/ou pelliculAea Pagea diacolourad. stained or foxe< Pages dAcoloriaa, tachaties ou piquAas Pagea detached/ Pagea ditach6as Showthrough/ Tranaparance Quality of prir Qualiti in^gala de I'impreaaion r~n Pagoa damaged/ I — I Pagea raatorad and/or laminated/ rri Pagea diacolourad. stained or foxed/ I I Pagea detached/ rri Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ P o f b tl al o fi al o Includaa aupplementary material/ Comprend du material suppi^mantaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition diaponible Pagea wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissuaa. etc., have been refilmad to anaure the best possible image/ Lea pages totalement ou partiallemenK obacurciaa par un feuillet d'errata. une poiure, etc.. ont At* filmtes A nouveau da fapon i obtenir la meilleure image possible. T al T dl ei b« ril re m • !•" 'i-:;i, Thia item ia filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document eat film* au taux de reduction indiquA ci-deaaoua. 10X 14X 18X 22X 2SX 30X y 12X 16X aox 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here hae been reproduced thanks to the generoeity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iceeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers ere filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meanlrg "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely Included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire filmA f ut reproduit grice A la gAnArosM de: La bibliothAque des Archives publiques du Canada Lea Images suhrantes ont AtA reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compto tenu de la condition at de la nettet* do l'exemplaire fiim«, et en conformity avec lea conditions du contrat d** filmage. Lea exemplairas originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sent fiimAs en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impresslon ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous las autres exemplairas originaux sont filmte en commenpant par la premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impresslon ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui compo- te une telle empreinte. Un des symboles sulvants apparattra sur la dernlAre Image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — »• signlfle "A SUIVRE ", le symbols ▼ signlfle "FIN". Les cartea, planchea, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre fllmis i des tsux de rAductlon diff Arents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, II est filmA A partir de Tangle aupArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes sulvants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 t t 3 •4:,- *■ ■ . 6 i f PUBLIS i f STATE PAPERS, ON THB NEGOTIATION AND PEACE WITH AMERICA, 1814. WITH A PREFACE AND NOTES. «^«^^^»^ ^# ^■^^>^-0^-*^^^^— C«WPER. *'^*'*'*'*'»***^'***^***^*t##^ LONDON: Printed by G. Sidney, Northumberland*8treet, Strand; PUBLISHED BY SHBRWOOD, NEELT AND JONES, PATERNOSTSR- ROW; AND TO BE HAD OP ALL BOOKSELLERS. 1815. -V ■> ,mmi-'i :-ri'i/R H'»T yo i? t .»! a;. . > -u. M ;•!-,.-•,• i ^ PO,' I r ,> a i A 1^0. -ri 3^ •I.- ^•■„> - ;• ■'Mi.} . - d>. '• -ji^^ ;i1; .-ii^-:<4,, PREFACE. /y. 'I ' . '1 ,/.>»• >y Tilfi following documents contain, First, A statement of "Mr. Madison's instractions to the American Plenipotentiaries for the negotiation of a Peace with England. Secondly, The correspondence between the British and American Plenipolentiaries, from the 19th of August 1814, to the 18th of October 1814, at Ghent. Many of these papers have appeared in the newspapers, but ih so irregular and unconnected a form, as to have escaped that particular, attention, which their importance demands from every person, who has any regard for the fame, interests, or security of England, . . Ministers iiave manifested such reluctance to lay before Parlia- ment any information on the course of their diplomatic proceedings^^ that it cannot be doubted, that they will attempt to pursue a simiTkr system on the Ameriean question, unless they should be checked by the voice of Parliament. ' Who, that now considers the disgraceful traiisactions which have taken place at Vienna, as well as the enormous war expenditure, whieh the p(ic\fic policy of our Ministers has entailed upon this country, does not deeply regret the concealment of the " Chatillon" and ** Chaumont" papers, and the blind confidence reposed in Minis- ters, who are tiotu afraid even to answer any question relative to Continental afiairs ; although, until the meeting of Parliament in November, 1814, these men had, (as impudently, as falsely,) boasted, that THEY were the *' deliverers" of Europe ? The same regret will be felt by every person, who neglects the con;^'; sideration of the correspondence at Ghent, between the British and American Plenipotentiaries. When we review the lofty pretensions of the British Ministers; the violence of cheir charges against America ; the repeated declarations of their conviction, that Ame- rica would renew tJie war, when she could do so with advantage;' and the entire omission to adjust all those points of difiference: between the two countries, which, though not the ostensible causes, were, in fact, the real sources of public irritation in America, and ultimately of the war ; — can it be pretended, that the peace nofv signed, is either secure, or honourable ; or is, in reality, any thinj^ more than ai) aiTned truce, which the British Ministers in their cor- respondence distinctly assert, the Americans will break, whenever they may think proper ? Under the name indeed of peace, his Ma- jesty's Ministers have granted to America all the benefits of a sus- f tension of arms, leaving untouched every point of cpntroversy, and caving the rights of England still disputed ; while they have given to Mr. Madison the full advantage of proclaiming to the world, tiiaf'" he had advanced a number of new pretensions, and had not retracted one of them ! , B 11 Nor will it fall to be remarked, that Ministers, in their addresses to the people of England on this peace, take directly the opposite tone, to that which they held to the American Commissioners. At Ghent, they dwelt mucli upon their anxiety for peace " by waving " all riglit on the part of England to a recognition by America of ** the principleii of public law, for the maintenance of which we ** had contended." This was represented as a favor to America, and as a concession ^o induce her to sign a treaty of peace : Yet, when those who feel for the honour of England, condemn this sub- missive favor to America, Ministers aO'ect to represent the non-ex- istence of any explanation, as a fav6r, not granted by England, but conceded by America, inasmuch as America had not exacted by treaty, a confirmation of tivc insolence and injustice, by which she had dri- ven us into war, but had merely placed our riglitu on a footing with her pretensions ! ! If any thing more were wanting to prove the uttsr incapacity of his Majesty's Ministers, it would be amply supplied by the remaining parts of this correspondence. Not content with disgracing the military and naval glory* of their country, Ministers have shewn, that they are equally inferior to the Americans in the science of diplomacy, and even in their knowledge of the English language. ■i \^^P^:^ * The gallant actions of ihe Shannon and Endymron frigates demon- strate, that there is not any deficiency in the brave officers and men of the British navy ; and that, if proper arrangements had been a/^r$/ ndopled by his Majesty's Ministers, the glory of the British arms would never have been sullied. It is owing to the mismanagement of bis Majesty's Ministers, that the capture of one American frigate., in presence of an English squadron, at the end of a war of near three years duration, is considered as a " na< tional triumph" by those, who under a more auspicious government, were only accustomed to confer that distinction upon victories, which terminated in the defeat or destruction of an enemy's fleet ! ! Let it be remembered, that under Lord Liverpool's administration, the Americans have completely destroyed, or captured two British squadrons of equal numerical force ! How were the Americans enabled to accomplish these successes ? Was there any defect of courage or skill in the British commanders or seamen ? Certainly not. The deficiency was in the equipment and preparation of the British squadrons, fur which, the government in Englaud is alone responsible. Vide" the extracts from the Court Martial on Captain Bar- ** clay. Parliamentary Papers relating to the war with America. Printed '* 9th and loth Feb. 1815." Q. How many men had you on board the Queen Cliai lotte, that you could, call experienced seamen ! A. Not more than ten, with the petty officers } we had on board between one hundred and twenty and one hundred and thirty men, officers and all: together. Q. Do you know whether the other vessels that composed the squadron of Captain Baiclay^ were equally deficient in seamen ? -A. All the other vessels were eqtfaily deficient in point of seamen, except the Detroit might have a few more on account of being a larger vessel. Q. At half an allowance, how many days' provision had you on board the Queen Charlotte whenyou went out ? )* J • •• HI aadron i I deroon- % 1 of the ■V opled by er have i - •* misters. j'' luadron, a " «n- in fact, they, aitd tBBV alomk, ar(< personally responsible for all the' violence, enor, and ignorance, manifested in these documents. The conference of the 19th August took place while Lord Castle- reagh was at Ghent; and the ^'^ ultimatum" of the same date, which roused all America, called forth in that Country the greatest exertions of public i^pirit, and laid the foundations of a permanent army, an increased navy, and an improved system of finance, was dictated by Lord Castlereagh, and affords a happy proof of his con- ciliatory spirit, extensive knowledge^ and diplomatic address \ The subsequent letters were all the fruits of the colleciive wisdom and experience of the Cabinet Ministers stationary in Euglaiid, and are only inferior to the memorable production of their diplomatic colleague, which has already been noticed. A reference to the dates of the respective notes will prove, that every letter from the Ameri- can Plenipotentiaries Was referred to England previous to the deli* very of any answer ; and even if the American negotiators had not stated the fact, it is well known, that all the British notes were writ- ten by the Cabinet Ministers sedentary in London, or its environs. It IS evident from the perusal of these documetits, that on the 9th of Aug. the American Plenipotentiaries were ready to have included " the Indians in the pacification/' if the British Ministers had not combined with that question, « A NEW BOUNDARY" for those Sa- vages ; or in other words, if they had not demanded from the Ameri- cans,not only the abandonment of great rights of sovereignty, but the cession of a tract of country, nearly as large as Germany, and mort- gaged to the public creditors of the United States of America, for A. We might have had a week's, at half allowance, of provisions, but not of spirits ; they were preserved for the action, and all consumed on that day ; we bad none served out for several days before. Q. Did you understand that the enemy's vessels were well manned ? A. Yes, they were remarkably well manned ; I believe from the infor- mation I received from the American officers, that the I i^i f IV the semrity and extinction of their natumal debt ! It was not until the i^th of October, that the British Ministers withdrew tliis monstrous demand ; and un the 13th, the American Plenipotentiaries, without hesitation, accepted the modified proposal for an " Indian pacifica- tion," which from the first moment, they declared their readiness to conclude on the very terms, which are now contained in the treaty of peace. The continuance of the war from August 1814, with all its con- sequent aspense, and disgrace, is the exclusive act, therefore, of his Majesty's Ministers ; and is a question, which deserves the strictest enquiry, even from those, who may rt^oice at the conclusion of peace. But, when the article respecting the Indians was settled, why was not peace immediately concluded ? This Article was accepted on the 13th of October, and peace was not signed until the 24th Dec. Here then is another period of two months of expenditure and disgrace to be accounted for ! The Ghent papeis are not complete on this branch of tlie subject j but they prove, that on the 2 1 st October, the British Ministers introduced a new pretension, and attempted to establish a new basis, the practical effect of which was, (artyiciaUy and colotirahly) under anotl er name, to obtain a cession OF TERRITORY J althougb, from the commencement of the negotia- tion, they had uniformly declared all notion of " territorial acquisi- tvm*' to be inconsistent with the views of the British government ! This is sufficient to demonstrate, that the first cause of delay, after the 13th October, was introduced by the British Ministers. A very short period of time will equally prove, that the continuance of that delay was the result of the "»jeio pretensions" of the British Minbters to territorial acquisition, brought forward two months after the conSmencement of their pacific negotiation, and after their repeated declarations, that they not only did not require any acces- sion of territory, but that they were ready to conclude peace " upon " principles* of perfect reciprocity, not inconsistent with the esta- •* blished maxims of public law, and with the maritime rights of the " British empire." The following points deserve special notice, and are fully explained in the correspondence. 1. The assertion of the British Ministers, that the Indian tribes of savages were " Independent States," similar to the Princes of Germany; and, that the treaty of Greenville, concluded in August 17&5, between the American government and the Savages, was *' similar to the treaty of MunsterU" 2. The ABANDONMENT of ihcsc " Independent Allies," for wliom the British Ministers have obtained this prodigious advantage -, namely) that as soon as the treaty of peace between England and America shall be ratified, the Indians are to discontinue hostilities ■*4' * Vide Lord Caitlereagh's Letter to Mr. Munroe, dated Nos. 4, 1813 la this letter, there is not a word conceraing ttrritonnl .[cqumtion. until the onstrous without pacifica- diness to le treaty 1 its con- e, of his stiictfest usion of why was ;pted on th Dec. tuie and L'omplete the 21st ion, and lich was, CESSION negotia- acquisi- ment ! 3f delay, iters. A tinuance i British iths after er their y acces- " upon he esta- tsof the 1 against America, or, are (to ase a grand Ministerial phrase) to be " left to their fate !" So much for the rights and privileges of our independent Allies ! This article is also settled at a most appropriate time— the IStli of October; on the 21st of the same month, the greater part of our ^' independent Allies" concluded a separate peace with the United States of America, the two fundamental conditions of whirh are, 1st, That they shall join the Americans in the vrar against Great Britain ; and 2dly, That they shall be subject to no other power, except the United States ! ! ! S. The British Ministers demanded the possession of the Lakes, with an exclusive right of building and maintaining forts and ships of war, which the Americans were to be precluded from retaining or establishing, either On those Lakes, or on the rivers flowing into them ! The British Ministers insisted, ** that this arrangement was " essential to the security of Great Britain ; that Great Britain was " the weaker power ; that Canada is not sv^e unless this stipulation " be conceded to Great Britain, and that the American government not only entertains views of conquest and aggrandisement, but intends to carry them into execution, whenever a favourable oppor- tunity may be presented." \LL this, the British Ministers prove in the most convincing mannei ^ and, — they magnanimously aban- don the demand, leaving unguarded all the dangers which they had declared to exist, and which they had the additional candour to point out to the attention of our enemies ! A peace concluded under such circumstances, and in such a man- ner, cannot he either secure or honourable. It remains to inquire, why the war with the United States of America has been successless, and ignominious to our arms, and why the peace is disgraceful to our councils, and dangerous to our interests in America and Europe ? (t it ^plained n tribes inces of August ?s, was wiiom intage ; nd and stilities 20th February, 1815. . 1813 ii ;ni Yl ill STATE PAPERS. &c. 1" ( 1 ' t'r.'- ' No. r. Instriictims from Mr. Madison to tJie American Cotnmmiotiers. WASHINGTON, Oct. 17, 1814. The President communicated, on the 13th of October, tg Con- gress, copies of Instructions to the Plenipotentiaries. First, Mr. Monroe's letter, of which the following is the substance :— Department of State, April 15, 1813. Gentlemen, — I had the honour on the ult. to receive from Mr. Adams two lettern, one bearing date on the 30th of September, and the other on the I7th of October last, communicating the overture of the Emperor of Russia to promote peace by his friendly media- tion between the United States and Great Britain. On the day fol- lowing, Mr. Daschkoff, the Russian Minister^ made a similar com- niuiilcation to this Department. ,,•<,.. . The President has not hesitated tc accept the inediation of Russia, and he indulges a strong hope, that it will produce the desired effect. It is not known that Great Britain has acceded to the proposition ; but it is presumed that she will not decline it. The President thought it improper to postpone his decision, until he should hear of that of the British Government. Should the British accept the mediation, the negotiation to which it leads will be held at St. Petersburgh. The impressment of our seamen, and illegal blockade, as exem- plified more particularly in the Orders in Council, were the principal causes of the war. Had not Great Britain persevered obstinately in the violation of these important rights, the war would not have been declared. It will cease as soon as these rights are respected. This has been evinced by a report of the Committee df Foreign Relations of the House of Repreicntatives, and an Act of Congress, passed in consequence of that report. By these documents you will see, that to accommodate this important difference, the United States are disposed to exclude British seamen altogether from the American service. This being effectually done, the British Govern- ment can have no pretext for the practice. How shall it be done ? By restraints to be imposed by each nation on the naturalization of the seamen of the other, excluding at the same time all others not naturalized ; or shall the right of each nation to naturalize the sea- men of the other be prohibited, and each exclude from its sPi-vic9 the natives of the other ? Whatever the rule is, it ought to be reciprocal. If Great Britain is allowed to naturalize American sea- 'K. i 8 meiij the United States should enjoy the same privileges. If it is demanded that the United States shall exclude from their service all native British subjects, a like exclusion of American citizens from the British service ought to he reciprocated. If the first alternative is adopted, the extent of the proposed ex- elusion will depend on the impediments to haturalizatiunj on the efficacy of the regulations to prevent imposition, and the fidelity of their execution. The law of the last Session of Congress relative to seamen, proves how sincerely desirous the Legislative, as well as Executive branch of our Government is to adjust this controversy, on conditions which may be satisfactory to Great Britain. By that law it is made indispensable for every British subject who may here- after become a citizen, to reside five years without intermission within the Unitird States; and so many guards are imposed to pre- vent frauds, that it seems to be impossible that they should be eluded. No British subject can be employed in a public or private ship of the United States, unless he produces to the commander in one instance, and to the collector in the other, a certified copy of the act bv which he became naturalized. A list of the crew, in the case of a private ship, must be taken, certified and recorded by the collector; and the consuls, or commercial agents of Great Britain may object Xo any seamen, and attend the investigation. The com- mander of a public ship receiving a person not duly qualified, shall forfeit 1000 dollars ; and the commander or owner of a private ship, knowing thereof, 500 dollars, to be recovered in an action of debt ; one-half to the informer, and one-half to the United States. It is also made penal, punishable as a felony, by imprisonment and labour, from three to five years, or by fine, from r)00 to JOOO dollars, for any person to forge or counterfeit, or to pass, or use, or sell, aqy forged or counterfeited certificate of citizenship. By requiring five years continual residence in the United States, as the condition of citizenship, few, if any, British seamen would ever take advantage of it. Such as had left Great Britain, and had resided five years in this country, would be likely to abandon the sea for ever. And by making it the duty of the commanders of our public, and of the collectors, in case of private ships, to require an authenticated copy from the clerk of the court, before which a Bri- tish subject who offered his service had been naturalized, as indis- pensable to his admission, and highly penal in either to take a person not duly qualified, and by allowing also British agents to object to any one offering his service, pnd to prosecute by suit the commander or collector, as the case might be, for receiving an improper persoti, it seems to be impossible that such should he received. If the second alternative is adopted ; that is, if all native British subjects are to ho hereafter excluded from our service, it is im- portant, that the stipulation providing for it should operate so as not to affect tiiose who have been already naturalized. By our law, all the rights of natives are given to naturalized citizens. It is con- tended by some, that these complete rights do not extend beyond the 9 . If it is service all sens from josed ex- )n, on the fidelity of is relative as well as nlroversy, By that may here- :ermission sd to pre- be eluded. Lte ship of ler in one )py of the ?w, in the led by the :at Britain The com- [fied, shall ivate ship, of debt J tes. It is mcnt and )0 dollars, sell, aqy ed States, len would and had »n the sea rs of our equire an ch a Bri- as indis- a person object to mmander r person, e British is im- so as not law, all is con- yond the I limits of the United States i that in naturalizing a foreigner, no State can absolve him from the obligation which he owes to his former government, and that he becomes a citizen in a qualified sense only. This doctrine, if true in any case, is less applicable to the United States than to any other power. Expatriation seems to be a natural right, and by the original character of our institutions, founded by compact, on principle, and particularly by the unqualified investment of the adopted citizen with the full rights of the native, all that the United States could do to place him on the same footing has been done. In point of interest, tue object is of little importance to either party. The number to be affected '^y the stipulation is in- considerable ; nor can that be a cause of surprise, when the cha- racter of that class of men is considered. If it is made a condition, that no native British subject, who may hereafter become a citizen, shall be employed in our public or private ships, their exclusion will violate no right. Those who might be- come citizens afterwards would acquire the right, subject to that condition, and would be bound by it. To such a stipulation the President is willing to assent, al- though he would much prefer the alternative of restraints on natura- lization. In requiring that the stipulation to exclude British seamen from our service, with the regulations for carrying it into effect, be made reciprocal, the President desires that you make a provision, autho- rising the United States, if they should be so disposed, to dispense with the obligations imposed by it on American citizens. The President is not particularly solicitous that either of these al- ternatives (making the proposed reservation in case the latter be) should be preferred. To secure the United States against impress- ment he is willing to adopt either. It has been suggested as an expedient mode for the adjustment of this controversy, that British cruisers should have a right to search our vessels for British seamen ; but that the commanders thereof should be subjected to penalties, in case they made mis- takes, and took from them American citizens. By this the British Government would acquire the right of search for seamen, with that of i:ii pressing from our vessels the subjects of all other powers. It will not escape your attention, that by admitting the right, in any case, we give up the principle, and leave the door open to every kind of abuse- The same objection is applicable to any and every other arrangenicnt which withholds the respect due to our flag, by not allowing it to jprotect the crew sailing under it. The great oDJect in regard to impressment is, that our flag shall protect the crew ; and providing for this in a satisfactory manner, you are authorized to secure Great Britain effectually against the employment of her seamen in the service of the United States. This would be done by the adoption of either of the above alter- natives, and the application to that which may be adopted of the checks contained m the law of the last session relative to seamen : r it^ I 10 in aid of which it will always be in the power of Great Britain to make regulations operating in her own ports, with a view to the same effect. To terminate, however, this controversy, in a manner satis- factory to both parties, the President is willing, should other checks be suggested as likely to be more effectual, consistent with the spirit of our constitution, that you should adopt them. The strong fea- ture of the first alternative, which authorizes naturalization, requires the continued residence for five years. In case this be adopted, the President is willing to secure a compliance with that condition, to make it the duty of each alien desirous to become a citizen, to appear in court every year, for the term of five years, till his right shall be completed. This example is given as an illustration of your power ; for to exclusion of British seamen from our service no repugnance is felt. To such exclusion the amicabl? adjustment of this controversy with Great Britain affords a strong motive, but not the only one. It is a growing sentiment in the United States, that they ought to depend on their own population for the supply of their ships of war artd merchant service ; experience has shewn that it is an -abundant resource. A strong desire has heretofore been expressed by the British go- vernment to obtain of the United States an arrangement to prevent the desertion of British seamen, when in our ports : and it cannot be doubted, that a stipulation to that effect would be highly satis- factory as well as useful to Great Britain. It is fairly to be pre- sumed that it alone would afford to the British government a strong inducement to enter into a satisfactory arrangement of the difference relating to impressment. The claim is not inadmissible, especially as the United States have a reciprocal interest in the restoration of deserters from American vessels in British ports. Of the right of the United States to be exempted from the de- grading practice of impressment, as much has been already said, and with such ability, that it would be useless, especially to you, who are otherwise so well acquainted with it, to dilate on its merits. This practice is not founded on any belligerent right. The great- est extent to which the belligerent claim has been carried over the vessels of neutral nations, is, to board, and take from them persons in the land and sea service of an enemy, contraband of war, and enemy's property. All natioris agree respecting the two first articles, but there has been, and still exists, a diversity of opinion as to the last. The Empress Catherine of Russia, a distinguislftd advocate for just principles', placed herself in I7ii0 at the head of neutral nations, in favour of a liberal construction of their rights, and her successors have generally followed her example. In all the discus- sions on these topics, we find nothing of the British claim to impress- ment — no acknowledgement of it by any treaty, or proof of sub- mission to it by any power. If instances have occurred in which British cruisers have taken British seamen from the vessels of other nations, they were, as it is presumed, in cases either not acquiesced in, or of the extraordinary nature only, affording no countenance to their practice and pretension in relation to the tlinted States. Cases IT Britain to the same iner satis - her checks 1 the spirit trong fea- D, requires Dpted) the idition, to citizen, to ! his right ion of your service no stnient of re, but not jtates, that ! supply of shewn that ritish go- to prevent it cannot jhly satis- :o be pre- It a strong difference especially oration of 1 the de- eady said, Uy to you, :s merits, he great- over the persons war, and St articles, las to the advocate )f neutral and her le discus- I impress- of sub- |m which of other :;quiesced ;nance to Casei» \I": it of this kind, if such there be, afford no proof of a systematic claim in the British government to impressment^ or of submission to it by other powers. This claim is, in fact, traced to another source — the allegiance due by British subjects to the Sovereign, and his right by virtue thereof to their service. This has been distinctly stated in a late declar«tion by the Prince Regent. Knowing the nature of the claim, we know also the extent of ithe right and obligations incident to it. Allegiance is apolitical relation between a Sovereign and his people. It is the obligation which binds the latter in return for the protec- tion which they receive. These reciprocal duties have tlie samp limit. They are confined to the dominions of the Sovereign, beyond which he has no rijghts, can afford no protection, and can pf course claim no allegiance. A citizen or subject of one power, entering the dominions of another, owes allegiance to the latter, in return for the protection he receives. Whether a Sovereign has a right to claim the service of such of his subjects as have left his own domi« nions, is a question, respecting which also a difference of opinion may exist. It is certain that no Sovereign has a right to pursue his subjects into the territories of another, be the motive for it what it may. Such an entry, without the consent of the other power, would be a violation of its territory, and an act of hostility. OfFen- ; ders, even conspirators, cannot be pursued by one power into the territory of another; nor are they delivered up by the latter, except ; in compliance with treaties, or by favour. That the vessels of a » nation are considered a part of its territory, with the exception of ithe belligerent right only, is a principle too well established to be ^^rought into discussion. £ach state has exclusive jurisdiction over i^^ its own vessels. .... The British government, aware of the truth of this doctrine, ha!J endeavoured to avdid its consequences in the late declaration of the Prince Regent. It has not contended that British cruizers have a (right to pursue and search our vessels for British seamen. It assert^ nly that they have a right to search them for other objects, and eing'on board for a lawful cause, and finding British seamen there, , 'that they have a right to impress and bring them away, under the ^laim of allegiance. When we see a systematic pursuit of our Y; vessels by British -cruisers, and the impressment of seamen from them, not at a port of the enemy, where a regular blockade ' had been instituted, and by the blockading squadron, but in every Sart of the ocean, on our coast, afid even in our harbours, it is iflicult to believe that impressment is nOt the real motive, an4 "the other the pr^ext for it. But to pla<.e this argument of t! 5 ^ British government en the strongest ground, let it be admitted that ||the entry was lawful, is it so to commit an act not warranted by ' the purpose for which the entry was made ? There is a levity in this argument. The British government found its right of im- pressment from our ships on that of allegiance, which is a pei^- manent righty equally applicable to peace and war. The right of 12 impressment, therefore, from the vessels of other powers must likewise be permanent, and equally applicable to peace and war. It would not, however, take this broad ground, lest the injustice and extravagance of the pretension might excite the astonishment and indignation of other powers, to whom it would be equally applicable. To claim it as a belligerent right would have been equally unjust and absurd. The British Government was therefore, reduced to dilemma. To acknowledge it would not support the claim on either principle, would be to relinquish it, and yet it could rely on neither. It endeavoured to draw some aid from both. A state of war exists whicli brings the parties together. Great Britain as a belligerent, and the United States as a Neutral Power. British officers Iiave now a right to board and search American vessels, but for what ? Persons in the service of an enemy, contra- bands of war, or enemy's property? This would not accomplish the end. It is, however, the utmost limit of the belligerent right. Alle^ giance, which is an attribute of sovereignty, comes to her aid, and communicates all the necessary power. The national character of the neutral vessel ceases. The complete right of sovereignty and jurisdiction over it is transferred to Great Britain. The remark .contained in the declaration of the Prince Regent, that in impressing British seamen from American vessels. Great Britain exercised no right which she was not willing to acknowledge as appertaining equally to the Government of the United States, with respect to American seamen in British merchant ships, proves only that the British Government is conscious of the injustice of the claim, and desirous of giving to it such aid as may be derived from a plausible argument. The semblance of equality, however, in thi9 proposition, which strikes at first view, disappears on a fair exami- nation. It is unfair, first, because it impossible for the United States to take advantage of it. Impressment is utterly repug- nant to our constitution and laws. In offering to recipro- cate it, nothing was offered, as the British Government well knew. It is unfair, secondly, because if impressment was allowable, a reciprocation of the practice would be no equivalent to the United States. The exercise of a right in common, at sea, by two nations, each over the vessels of the other, the one powerful and the other comparatively weak, won* ^ be to put tlie latter com> pletely at the mercy of the former. Great Britain with her vast navy, would soon be the only p^rty whi<;h made innpressment. The United States would be coijspelled to abstain from it, apd either to submit to the British rule, with all the abuses incident to po^Vj^r, or to resist it. But should the United States be permitted to make impressment from British vessels, the effect wpiiJd h^ unequftl^ Great Britain has, perhaps, thirty ships of Yi^ar ^t sea to one of the Unitfcd States, and would profit of the axrapg^ment in tlmt propor- tion. Besides, impressment is a practice incident to wv, in ynfieb view, likewise, the inequality is npt |es9 glaring, she be»pg at Uafitf thirty years at war to one of the United ^t»tes. It might na^tHTAlly y *■ a 'I vets must and Tvar. injostice ouishment >e equally lavc been therefore, ipport the ,nd yet it rom both. ir. Great al Powet. American ly, contra- nplish the ght. Allc- :r aid, and haracter of signty and ;e Regent, sels. Great sknowledf^e ted States, ips, proves tice of the rived from ^er, in thif fair exami- he United rly repug- ;o recipro- ivell knew. allowable, ent to the at sea, by e powerful atter com> her vast pressment. apd either to poW!?r> d to make upeqoal' one of the at proppr- in wbicb g atli^tf t p»jtH¥Ally 13 have been expected that Great Britain would have given by her conduct some support' to the pretensions, that if she had nut dis- claimed altogether the principle of naturalization, she would at least have excluded from her service foreign seamen. Her conduct, however, has been altogether at variance with her precepts. She naturalizes by special act of Parliament. She naturalizes all persons who reside a certain term in British colonies, all who are born of ■, British subjects, in foreign dominions, and all seamen who have served > |a certain short term in the British service, and would doubtless pro- ' I tect all such as British subjects, if required by them so to do. Should improper impressions have been taken of the probable consequences of the war, you will have ample means to remove them. • It is certain, that from its prosecution, Great Britain can promise to herself no advantage, while she exposes herself to great expenses, and to the danger of still greater losses. The people of the United ■States, accustomed to the indulgence of a long peace, roused by the causes and progress of the war, are rapidly acquiring military habits, and becoming a military people. Our knowledge in naval /tactics has increased, as has our maritime strength. The gal- lantry and success of our little navy, have formed an epoch in naval *\ Jiistory. The laurels which these brave men have gained, not for -themselves alone, but for their country, from an enemy pre-eminent in naval exploits for ages past, are among the proudest boasts of .their grateful and afTectionate fellow citizens. Our manufactures liave taken astonishing growth. In short, in every circumstance in which the war is felt, its pressure tends evidently to unite our peo- ple, to draw out our resources, to invigorate our means, and to make ' ^us more truly an independent nation, and, as far as may be neces- sary, a great maritime power. , A strong hope is, therefore, entertained, that full powers will be ^iven to the Briiish Commissioners to arrange all these grounds of Controversy in a satisfactory manner. In entering on this interest- ing part of your duty, the first object which will claim your attention is, that of blockade. The violation of our neutral rights for illegal blockades, carried to aw cnornious extent by Orders in Mouncilj was a principal cause of the war. These orders, however, Ind with them the blockade of May, 1806', and, as is understood, all other illegal blockades, have been repealed, so that that cause of war has been removed. All that is now expcted is, that the Bri- tish Government will unite in a more precise definition of blockade. The British Government has recently, in tXvo formal acts, givtn .^efinitions of blockade, either of which would be satisfactory. The frst is to be seen in a communication finm Mr, Merry to this ilcpart- lent, bearing date on the 12th of April, 1801. Tlie followir-g Jre the circumstances attending it: Commodore Hood, the Com- fifiander of a British squadron in the West Indies, in 180i^, having declared the islands of Martinique and Guadaloupe in a state of lilockade, without applying an adequate force to maintain it, the :1Secretary of State remonstrated a^jaiust the jllegaliiy of the mea- I If 14 sure, which Vemonstranc^ was laid before the Lords Cofnmissioner^ of the Admiralt)ic in England, who replied, " that they had seat orders not to consider any blockade of these islands as existing, . unless in respect of particular ports, which might be actually in- vested, and then not to capture vessels bound to such ports, unless they shall have been previously warned !«ot to enter them." The se^'ond definition is to be found in u convention between Great Britain and Russia, in June, ISOl, 4th sec. Sd art. whid declares " that in order to determine what characteriises a blockaded port, that denomination is given only to a port where there is,, by the dis- position of the power which attacks it, with ships stationary, or sufficiently near, au evident danger in entering." The President is willing for you to adopt either of these definitions, but prefers the first as more precise and determinate : and when it is considered, that it it was made the criterion by so formal an act between the two governments, it cannot be presumed that the British Government- will object to the renewal of it. An interference with our commerce between enemy's colonies and their parent country, was among the violations of our neutral rights, committed by Great Britain in her present war with France* It took place in 180b', did expensive injury, and produced universal excitement. In securing us against the repetition of it, you will attend to an article of the conventiofi between Russia and Great Britain, entered into on the day of 1801 ; to the eleventh article of the project of a treaty with Great Britain, that wa^ signed by Mr, Monroe and Mr. Pinkney, on the 31st December, 1S06 j and to the instructions from this department, relating to that article of the 20th May, 1807. The capture by Great Britain of almost all the islands of her enemies, diminishes the importance of any regulation on this subject ; but as they may be restored by a treaty of peace, it merits particular attention. It being understoody how- ever, that unless such a trade can be obtained in a proper extent, and without a relinquishment of the principle contended for by the United States, it will be best that the treaty be silent on the subject. A disposition has been shewn by the British Government, to ex- tend this principle so far as to inhibit a trade to neutrals, even between a power at peace with Great Britain and her enemy, as for example between China and France. The absurdity of this preten- sion may prevent its being hereafter advanced. It will not, how- ever, be unworthy of your attention. By an order of the British Government in 1803, British cruisers were authorised to take neutral vessels laden with innocent articles, on their return from an enemy's port, on the pretence that they had carried to such port contraband uf war. This order is directly repugnant to the law of nations, as the circumstance of having contraband articles on board bound to an enemy's port, is the only legal ground for seizure. The claim was relinquished by the British Government, in the 9th article of the project above recited ; you alssioners had sent existing, ually in- s, unless a." The en Great i declares ided port, f the dis- onary, or esident is rs the first ;d, that it the two >vernmcnt s colonies ir neutral th France, universal , you will ind Great ; eleventh kva^ signed er, 1806 j hat article of almost :e of any a treaty x)dy how- er extent, for by the t on the jt, to ex- j-als, even ly, as for is preten- lot, how- cruisers articles, Ithat they fs directly If having the only le British Itedi you will epdeavourj ii^ like manner, to provide against Jt. It is the [practice of British cruisers to compel the commanders of neutral vessels which they meet at sea, eitlier to board them in person with |their papers, or to send their papt^rs on board in their boats by an ' JoRicer. The injustice and irregu. trity of this procedure, need not ^l^be mentionedt You will endeavour to suppress it, in the manner '^proposed in the third article of a project communicated to Mr« l^onroe, at London, in his instructions of the 5th of January, r804. The pretension of Great Britain to interdict the passage of neutral ressels with the cargoes from one port to another port of an enemy, , is illegal, and very injurious to the commerce of neutral powers. , ^|Btill more unjustifiable is the attempt to interdict their passage from It port of one independent nation to that of another, on the pretence ~iat they are both enemies. You will endeavour to obtain in both istances, a security for the neutral right. Upon the whole subject have to observe, that your first duty will be to conclude a peace ^ith Great Britain, and that you are authorised to do it, in case you ~)tain a satisfactory stipulation against impressment, one which ill secure under our flag, protection to the crew. The manner in uch it may be done has been already stated, with the reciprocal Hpulations which you may enter into to secure Great Britain against \t injury of which she complains. If this encroachment of Great jlritain is not provided against, the United States have appealed to Vms in vain. If your efforts to accomplish it should fail, all further egotiations will cease, and you will return home without delay. It possible that some difficulty may occur in arranging this article , Inspecting its duration. To obviate this, the President is willing that it be limited to the present war in Europe. Resting as the United States do, on the solid ground of right, it is not presumable that Great Britain, especially after the advantage she may derive fiom the arrangement proposed, would ever revive her pretension, jjb forming any stipulation on this subject, you will be careful not ^ impair by it the right of the United States, or to sanction the ^inciple of the British claim. t Indemnity for losses seems to be a fair claim on the part of the nited States j and, the British government, if desirous to strengthen e relations of friendship, may be willing to make it. In bringing the claim into view, you will not let it defeat the primary objects , intrusted you. No difficulty can arise from the case of the non-importation act, at ion. the Pre- you will manitest t lie highest degree ut respei t r the Emperor of Russia, and confidence in the integrity and im- trtiality of his views. I shall conclude by remarking that a strong hope is entertained ^|fcat this friendly mediation of the Emperor Alexander will form an •Ipoch in the relations between the United States and Russia, which ..■'■.'.- ,^., 1 I V will be extensively felt, and be long and eminently distinguished by the happy consequences attending it. Since 17«^0, Russia has been the pivot on which all questions of neutral right have essentially turned. Most of the wars which have disturbed the world in mo- dern times have originated with Great Britain and France. These wars liave affected distant countries, especially in their characters as neutral, and very materially the United States, who took no part in promoting them, and had no interest in the great object of either power. No. II. Extract of a Letter from the Secretary of State to the Commissioners, Department of State, June 23 f 1813. The British Government having repealed the Orderi^ in Council, and the blockade of May, 1806, and all other illegal blockadei$, and having declared that it would institute no blockade which should not be supported by an adequate force, it was thought better to leave that question on that ground, than to continue the war to obtain a more precise deiinitiuti of blockade, after the other essential cause of the war, that of impressment, should be removed. But when it is considered that a stipulated definition of blockade will cost Great Britain nothing after having thus recognized the principle, and that such definition is calculated to give additional confidence in the future security of our commerce, it is expected that she will agree to it. The same remark is applicable to the case of impress- ment, for iftlie British Government has issued orders to its cruisers, not to impress seamen from our vessels, and notified the same to this Government, tliat cause of war would also have been removed. In making peace, it is better for both nations, that the controversy respecting the blockade should be arranged by treaty, as well as that respecting impressment. Should a restitution of Territory be agreed on, it will be proper for you to make a provision fur setth'ng the boundary between the United States and (ircat Britain, on the St. Lawrence and the Lakes, from the point at which the line between them strikes the St. Law- rence, to the north-western corner of the Lake of the Woods, according to the principles of the treaty of peace. No. m. Extract from a Dispatch to the Plenipotentiaries of the Umted States at Petersburgh. January 1, 1814. The message of the President, of which I have the honor to trans- mit you a copy, will make you acquainted with the progress of the war with Great Britain to that period. Among the advantages attending our success in Upper Canada, was the important one of making capture of Gen. Proctor's baggage, with all the public documents belonging to the British GiDV€!rnmcnt in his possession. It is probable that these documents will be hid before Congress, as they are of a nature highly interesting to the ■^ fi nguished by tsjahas been i essentially >rld in mo- )ce. These r characters ok no part in ict of either »u' ^. .. mmismners. ?3, 1813. in Council, :kadei$, and lich should tter to leave :o obtain a ntial cause Sut when it c will cost I principle, confidence at she will )f impress- ts cruisersi ame to this noved. In lontroversy i^ell as that be proper tween the the Lakes, St. Law- ; Woods, ied States 1814. r to trans- ss of the Canada, baggage, ^eminent be !!^id to the public. V, Jan. 28, ldl4. [The letter begins by acceding to the proposal* of the British go- vernment to treat directly with the American United States.] On impressment, as to the ri^ht of the United States to be ex- empted from it, I have nothing new to add. The sentiments of the President have undergone no change on that important subject. This degrading practice must cease, our flag must protect the crew, or the United States cannot consider tL-mselves an independent na- tion. To settle this difference amicably, the President is willing, as you are already informed by the former instructions, to remove all pretexts for it to the British government, by excluding all British seu- men from our vessels, and even to extend the exclusion to all British subjects, if necessary, excepting only the few already naturalized ; and to stipulate likewise, the surrender of all British seamen desert- ing in our ports in future from British vessels, public or private. It was presumed by all dispassionate persons, that the late law of Con-, gress relative to seamen would effectually accomplish the object ; but the President is willing, as you find^ to prevent a possibility of failure, to go farther. Should a treaty be made, it is proper, and' would have a cbhci'- liatory effect, that all our impressed seamenr who may be discharged- under it, should be paid for their services by the British government^ for the time of their detention, the wages which they might have obtained in the merchant service of their own country. Blockade is the subject next, in point of impoilance which you wilt have to arrange. In the instructions bearing date on the 15th of April, 1813, it was remarked, that as the British government had revoked its Orders in Council, and agreed that no blockade could be legal which was not supported by an adequate force, and that such adequate force should be applied to any blockade which it might hereafter institute, this cause of controversy seemed to be removed. Further reflection, however, has added great force to the expe- diency and importance of a precise definition of the public law on this subject. There is much cause to presume, that if the repeal of the Orders in Council liad taken place in time to have been known here before the declaration of war, and had had the effect of preventing the declaration, not only that no provision would have * This proposal was communicated in Lord Ca^tlereagh's letter of tht' 4th Nov. 1813. C ' ' ', ' "! i 11.3 1 18 been obtained against impressment, but that under the name of blockade, the same extent of coast would have been covered by Proclamation as had been covered by the Orders in Council. The war which these abuses and impressment contributed so much to product, might possibly prevent that consequence. But it would be more satisfactory, if not more safe, to guard against it by u formal definition in the treaty. It is true, should the British Government violate again the legitimate principles of blockade, in whatever terms or under whatever pretext it might be done, the United States would have in their hands a correspondent resort ; but a principal object in making peace is to prevent, by the justice and reciprocity of the conditions, a recurrence again to war, for the same cause. If the British government sincerely wishes to make a durable peace with the United States, it can have no reasonable objection to ajust definition of blockade, especially as the two governments have agreed in their' correspondence in all its essential features. The instructions of the 15th of April, 1813, have stated in what manner the President is willing to arrange this difference. On the other neutral rights, enumerated in the former instructions, I shall remark only, that the (Catalogue Is limited in a manner to evince a spirit of accommodation ; that the arrangement proposed in each instance is just in itself ; that it corresponds with the gene- ral spirit of treaties between commercial powers, and that Great Bri- tain has sanctioned it in many treaties, and gone beyond it in some. On the claim to indemnity for spoliations, I have only to refer you to what was said in the former instructions. I have to add, that should a treaty be formed, it is just in itself, and would have a hap- py effect on the future relations of the twocountries, if indemnity should be stipulated on each side, for the destruction of all unforti- fied towns, and other property contrary to the laws and uses of war. It is equally proper that the negroes taken from the southern states should be returned to their owners, or paid for at their full value. It is known that a shameful traffic has been carried on in the West Indies, by the sale of these persons here, by those who professed to be their deliverers. Of this fact the proof that has reached this department shall be furnished you. If these slaves are considered as non-combatants, they ought to be restored j if as property, they ought to be paid for. The treaty of peace contains an article which recognises this principle. No. V. Extract. — Mr. Moniioe to the Plenipotetitiaries at Gottenhurgh. '^ _ Department hf State f Jan. 'SOj l^\'L In addition to the claims of indemnity, stated in your preceding instructions, I request your attention to the following : — On the declaration of war by the United States, there happened to be, in the ordinary course of comnjcree, several American vessels and cargoes in the ports of Great KritJiin, vJiich were seized and condemned ; and in one instance an American ship, which fled from Algiers, in consequence of the declaration of war by the Dey, to f e name of covered by acil. The ) much to t would be y u formal overnment ever terms ates would ipal object L'lty of the se. If the cewith the t definition ;d in their' ructions of President istructions, manner to t proposed I the gene- Great Bri- t in some, ily to refer o add, that ave a hap- indemnity 1 unforti- les of war. Iiern states full value, the West professed iched this considered ferty, thry cle which iburglu [jreceding liappened lin vessels [ized and I fled from Dey, to • 19 Gibraltar, with the American Consul, and some public stores on board, shared the like fate. After the declaration of war, Congress passed an act allowing to British subjects six months, from the date of the declaration, to remove their property out of the United States, in consequence of which, many vessels were removed with their cargoes. Some vessels were permitted to depart after the expiration of the time specified In the law. 1 will endeavour to get you a list of those vessels^ No. VI. _ From the Secretary of State to the Commisshners of the United States. February 10, 1814. Should you conclude a treaty, and not obtain a satisfactory arrange- ment of neutral rights, it will be ])roper for you to provide, that the United States shall have advantage of any stipulations more favour^ able to neutral nations, that may be established between Great Critain and other powers, a precedent is found in a declaratory article between Great Britain and Russia, of the 8th of October, ISO I, explanatory of the 2d section, 3d article, of a convention con- cluded between them on the 5th of June of the same year. No. VII. Extract from the Secretary of State to the Commissioners of the ,- United Slates. .. February 14, 1814. ' By the former instructions, you were authorised in making a treaty to prevent impressment from our vessels to stipulate, provided a certain specified term could not be agreed on, that it might continue in force for the present war in Europe. At that time, it seemed probable ti)at the war might last many years. Recent appearances, however, indicate the contrary. Should peace be made in Europe, as the practical evil of which we complain in regard to impressment would cease, it is presumed that the British government would have less objection to a stipulation to forbear that practice for a specified term, than it would have, should the war continue. In concluding a peace with Great Britain, even in case of a previous general peace in Europe, it is important to the United States to obtain such a stipulatipn. No. VIII. Mr. Munro£, Secretary cf State to the Plenipotentiaries of the United States at Gottenburgh. March 21 y 1&14. Gentlemen, — By the cartel Chauncy you will receive this, with duplicates of the commission to treat with Great Britain, and of the instructions and other documents that were forwarded by the John Adams. If a satisfactory arrangement can be concluded with Great Britain, the sooner it is accomplished the happier for both countries. If such an arrangement cannot be obtained, it is important for the United States to be acquainted with it without delav. r ^ C 2 90 No. IX. Mh. Mvnror fo the Envoys Etrtroordinary and MwMters PUwjxi- . . UnUiary qf' the United States, June 25, 1814. At war with Grcnt Britain, and injured by France, the United States have sustained the attitude founded on those relations. No reliance was placed on the good oihccs of France, in bringing the war with Great Britain to a satisfactory conclusion. Looking steadijy to an honourablo oeace, and the ultimate attainment of justice from both powers, the President has endeavoured, by a consistent and !ionorafaIe polity, to take advantage of every circumstance that might promote that result. He, nevertheless, knew that France held a place in the political system of Europe, and of the world, which, as a check on England, could not fail to be useful to us. What effect tl»e late events may have had in these rcsjiects, is the import- ant circumiitaiice of which you are, doubtless, better informed than wc can be. The President accepted the mediation of liussia, from a respect for the character of the Emperor, and a Ixjiief that our cause, hi all the points in controversy, would gain strength by being made known to him. On tl»e same principle, he preferred (in accepting the Bri- tish overture, to treat independent of the Russian mediation) to open the negotiation on the Continent, rather than at L )ndon. It was inferred from the general policy of Russia, and the friendly sentiments and intcriwisition of the Emperor, that a respect for both would have much influence witli the British cabinet, in promot- ing a pacific policy towards us. The manner, however, in which it is understood that a general {xicification is taking place ; the influ- ence Great Britain may have in modifying the arrangements in- ▼ringing the iog steadily ustice from isistent and stance that hat France ■ the world, 9 us. What tlie impoit- brmed than tn a respect :ause, hi all lade known ng the Bri- xliation) to Jon. the friendly respect for in proinot- in which it the influ- ements in- exclusively cise course the Uniteu .i any respect as to form. Com- merce and seamen, the objects ' impressment, majr, with great propriety, be arranged in the sam<^ instrument. Bv stipulating that commissioners shall forthwith be appointed for the purpose, and that all rights on this subject shall in the mean time be reserved, the faith of the British government will be pledged to a fair ex[*cri- ment in an amicable mode, and the honour and rights of the United States secured. The United States having resisted by war the practice of impressment, and continued the ^ar until this practice had been ceased by a peace in Europe, their object has been essen- tially obtained for the present. It may reasonably be expected, that the arrangement contemplated and provided for, will take eflfiect before a new war in Europe shall furnish an occasion for reviving the practice. Should this arrangement, i.owever, fail, and the prac- tice be again revived, the United States will be again at liberty to repel it by war ; and that they will do so cannot be doubted ; for after the proof which they have already given of a firm resistance in that mode persevered in until the practice had ceased, under circum- stances the most favourable, it cannot be presumed that the practice will ever be tolerated again. Information has been received from a quarter deserving attention, that the late events in France have produced such an cilect on the British gorernment, as to make it probable that a demand will be made at Gottenburgh, to surrender our right to the fisheries, to aban- don all trade beyond the Cape of Good Hope, and cede Louisiana to Spain. We cannot believe that such a demand will be made. (Article adverted to.) " Whereat, by the peace in Europe, the essential causes of the war between the United States and Great Britain, and particularly the practice of impressment, have ceased, and a sincere desire exists to arrange, in a manner satisfactory to bcith parties, all questions concerning seamen ; and it is also their desire and intention to arrange, in a like satisfactory manner, the commerce between the two countries ; it is therefore agreed, that conmiissioners shall forth- ? with be appointed on each side, to meet at with full power to negotiate and conclude a treaty, as soon as it may he practicable, for the arrangement of those important interests. It is, never- theless, understood, that until such treaty be formed, each party shall retain all its rights, and that all American citizens who have been impressed into the British service, shall be forthwith dis- charged.*' • . ■ V"^- ^' . ■ . Extract of a Letter from the Secretary of State to the Commissioncn of the United States. Dated June2'J, 18 U. Tlie omission to send ministers to Gottenburgh, without a pre- vious and official notification of the appointment and arrival there of 'Ii= 22 those of the United States, a fohnality, which, if due from eitiier party, might have been expected from that making the overture, rather than that accepting it, is a proof of a dilatory policy, and would, in other respects, justify animadversions, if there was less disposition here to overlook circumstances of form, when interfering with more substantial objects. By my letter of the 25th instant, which goes with this, you will find that the subject had already been acted on under similar im- pressions with those which Mr. Bayard and Mr. Gallatin's letter could not fail to produce. The view, however, presented by them, is much stronger, and entitled to much greater attention. The President has taken thesubjeot into consideration again, and given to their suggestions all the weight to which they are justly entitled. On mature consideration it has been decided, that under all the circumstances above alluded to, incident to a prosecution of the war, you may omit any stipulation on the subject of impressment, if found indispensably necessary to terminate it. You will, of course, not re- cur to this expedient until all your efforts to adjust the controversy in a more satisfactory manner have failed. As it is the intention of the United States, in suffering the treaty to be silent on the subject of impressment, to adm ' the British claim thereon, or to relinquish that of the United States, it is highly important that any inference be entirely precluded, by a declaration or protest in some form or other, that the omission is not to have any such effect or tendency. Any modification of the practice, to prevent abuses, being an ac- knowledgment of the right in Great Britain, is utterly inadmis- sible. Although Gottenburgh was contemplated at the time your com- mission was made out, as the seat of the negotiation, yet your commission itself does not confine you to it. You are at liberty, therefore, to transfer the negotiation to any other place made more eligible by a change of circumstances. Amsterdam and the Hague readily present themselves as preferjible to any place in England. No. XI. flxtract of a Letter from the Senelarfi c\f State to the Comvtissioners of the United States. Dnt'.'d Aiigmt 11, 1814. I had the honour to receive, on the third of this month, a letter from Mr. Bayard atul Mr. Gallatin, of the 23d of May, and one from Mr. Gallatin of the 2d of June. The President approves t!ie arringement cor.Hnunieated by those gentlemen for transferring the negotiaticii wit'.i the British Govern- ment from Gottenhprg to Ghent. By my letters of the 25th and 27th of June, of which another copy is now forwarded, tiie sentiments of the President as to the condi- tions on which it will be proper for you to conclude a treaty of peace, arc mude know to you. This government can go no farther, from eitiiev le overture, policy, and re was less interfering is, you will similar im- itin's letter d by them, ition. The md given to ttitled. ider all the of the war, nt, if found irse, not re- controversy intention of the subject ) relinquish (T inference me form or >r tendency, ling an ac- y inadmis- ^our com- yet your at liberty, nade more tlie Hague gland. nmonersof , J8H. h, u letter and one d by those \ Goverii- )ther copy he condi- treaty of o farther. 23 becatise it will make no sacrifice of the rights or honour of the nation. If Great Britain does not terminate the war on the conditions which you are authorized to adopt, ;.he has other objects in it than those for which he has hitherto professed to contend. That such are entertained, there is much reason to ;>resume. These, whatever they may be, must and will be resisted by the United States. The conflict may be severe, but it will be borne with firmness, and as we confidently believe, be attended with success. No. II. ' NEGOTIATION AT GHENT. ; ; Washington, Oct, 11. . To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States. I lay before Congress communications just received from the Plenipoten- tiaries of the United States, charged with negotiating peace with Great Britain, shewing the conditions on which alone that government is willing to put an end to the war. The instructions* to those Plenipotentiaries, disclosing the grounds on which they were authorised to negotiate and conclude a treaty of peace, will ^be the subject of another communication. JVashington, Oct. 10, 1814. (Signed) JAMES MADISON. (A) Copy of a Letter from Messrs, Adams, Bayard, Clay, and Russell, to Mr, Monroe, Secretary of State, dated Ghent, Jng. 12, 1814. Sir, — We have the honour to inform you that the British Cci- Bmissioners, Lord Gambier, Henry Goulburn, Esq. and William * Adams, Esq. arrived in this city on Saturday evening, the 6th iust. The day after their arrival, Mr. Baker, thrir Secretary, called upoii us to give us notice of. the fact, and to propose a meeting, at a cer- tain hour, on the ensuing day. The place having been agreed upon we accordingly met, at one o'clock, on Monday, the 8th inst. We enclose, herewith, a copy of the full powers exhibited by the British Commissioners at that conference ; which was opened on their part by an expression of the sincere and earnest desire of their government, that the negotiation might result in a solid peace, honourable to both parties. They, at the same time, declared, that * These instructions form Fart First of these documents. - 24 ■ no events whtcU iiad occurred since the first proposal for this nego* ciation, had altered the pacific dispositions of their government, or varied its views us to the terms upon which it was willing to con- clude the peace. ' . ' • We answered, that we heard these declarations with great satis- faction, and that our government had acceded to the proixjsal of negotiation, with tlie most sincere desire to put an end to the dif- ferences which divided the two countries,- and to lay, upon just and liberal grounds, the foundation of a peace which, securing the rights and interest of both nations, should unite them by lasting bonds of amity. The Britislj Commissioners then stated the following subjects, as those upon which it appeared to them> that the discussions woulu be likely to turn, and on which tliey were instructed : — 1. The forcible sehyivp of mariners on board of merchant vessels, and in connection with it, the claim of his Britannic Majesty to the allegiance of all the native subjects of Great Britain. We understood them to intimate, that the British government did not propose this point as one, which they were particularly desirous of discussing ; but that as it had occupied so prominent a place in- the disputes between the two countries, it necessarily attracted notice, and was considered as a subject, which would come under discussion. 2. The Indian allies of Great Britain to be included in the paci- fication, AND a definite boundary to be settled for their territory. The Britisli Commissioners stated, that an arrangement upon this point was a sine qua iion ; that they were not authorised to conclude a treaty of peace which did not embrace the Indians, as allies of his Britannic Majesty; and that the establishment of a definite boun- dary* of the Indian territory was necessary to secure a pbrmanbnt PEACE, not only with the Indians, but also between the United States and Great Britain. 3. A revision of the boundary line between the United States and the adjacent British colonies. With respect to this point, they expressly disclaimed any inten-r tion on the part of their government to acquire an incrkase of ter- ritory, and represented the pio])osed revision as intended merely for the purpose of preventing unccriainty and dispute. * It is important to notice this article. The sine qua von is not merely an Jndiau pacification, but a new and a definite boundary, which i» stated to be ?ieeessary to secure a permanent peace between Great Britain and the United Jitaies. Has Great Britain obtained this boundary ? Can the peace be per- manent without it ? If it can, then the original demand was criminal and absurd) viewed with respect to its ruinous consequences to ihe glory and tinances of Great Britai;! ; on the other hand, if the assertion of the Bri- tish Ministers be true, •' that no peace can !)« permanent without a definite " Indian boundary," why have ihey abandoned thai iudispenoable stipu- lation ] 25 r this nego- eminent ng to con , or great satis - pio[X)sal of to the dif- )on just and ^curing the by lasting subjects, as ns woulu be bant vessels, ajesty to the ernnient did irly desirous ent a place ily attracted come under in the paci- lir territory, nt upon this to conclude allies of his ^finite houn- BHMANBNT nited States I States and any in ten -i LSE of TBR- merely for ^t merely an stated to be the United leace be per- jriminal ami |e glory and of the Bri- it a definite xable stipuo After having stated these three points as^ subjects of discussion, the British Commissioner^ added, that before they desired any answer from us, they felt it incumbent upon them to declare, that the British government did not deny the right of the Americans to the fisheries generally, or in the open seas ; but that the privileges, formerly granted by treaty to the United States, of fishing within the limits of the British jurisdiction, and of landing and drying fish on the shores of the British territorieii, would not be renewed with* out an equivalent. The extent of what was considered by them as waters peculiarly British was not stated, '"roni the manner in which they brought this subject into view^ they seemed to wish us to understand, that they were not anxious that it should be discussed, and that they only intended to give us notice, that these privileges had ceased to exist, and would not be again granted without an equivalent, nor unless we thought proper to provide expressly in the treaty of peace for their renewal. The British Commissioners having stated, that these were all the subjects which they intended to bring forward, or to suggest, re- quested to be informed, whether we were instructed to enter into negotiations on these several points ? and, whether there was any amongst these which we thought it unnecessary to bring into the negotiation ? — and they desired us to state, on our part, such other subjects as we might intend to propose for discussion in the course of the negotiation. The meeting was then adjourned to the next day, in order to aiford us the opportunity of consultation among ourselves, before we gave an answer. In the course of the evening of the same day, we received your letters of tlie 25th and 27th of June. There could be no hesitation on our part, in informing the British Commissioners, that we were not instructed on the subjects of Indian pacification or boundary, and of fisheries. Nor did it seei^ probable, altUoc.e,h neither of these points had been stated with suf- ficient precision in that first verbal conference, that they could be admitted in any shape. We did not wish, however, to prejudge the result, or by any hasty proceeding, abruptly to break off the nego- ciation. It was not impossible that, on the subject of the Indians, the British government had received erroneous impressions from the traders in Canada, which our representations might remove : and it appeared, at all events, important to ascertain distinctly the precise intentions of Great Britain on both points. We therefore thought it advisable to invite the British Commissioners to a general conver- sation on all the points j stating to them, at the same time, our want of instructions on two of them, and holding out no expecta- tion of the probability of our agreeing to any article respecting them. At our meeting on the ensuing day we informed the British Com- missioners, that upon the Jirsty and third, points proposed by them we were provided with instructions, and we presented as further subjects considered by our government as suitable for discussion. lif 26 1st. A definition of blockade: and, as far as might be mutually agreed, of other neutral and belligerent rights. 2d. Claims of indemnity in certain cases of capture and seizure. . We then stated, that the two subjects, 1st of Indian pacification and bounda/y, and 2d of fisheries, were not embraced by our in- structions. We observed, that as these points had not been heretofore the grounds of any controversy between the government of Great Bri- tain and that of the United States, and had not been alluded to by Lord Castlereagh, in his letter proposing the negotiation, it could not be expected, that they $:hould have been anticipated and made the subject of instructions by our government : that it was natural to be supposed, that our instructions were confined to those subjects, upon which differences between the two countries were known to exist ; and that the proposition to define, in a treaty between the United States and Great Britain, the boundary of the Indian pos- sessions within our territories, vas new, and without example. No su^h provisions had been inserit^d in the treaty of peace in 1783, nor in any other treaty between the two countries — no such provision had, to our knowledge, ever been inserted in any treaty made by Great Britain or any other European power in relation to the same description of people, existing under like circumstances. We would say, however, that it could not be doubted, that peace with the Indians would certainly follow a peace with Great Britain ; —that we had information, thnt Commissioners had already been appointed to treat with them j that a treaty*" to that effect might. ' ill ;J '! * A treaty of peace has since been concluded, and ratified on tLe 21st Oct. 1814, by Mr. Madison. The stipulations of the treaty are as follows. Art. 1. li.e United States and the Wyaruiots, Delawares, Shawanoese, and Senecat,* give peace to the Miamie nation of Indians, formerly desig- nated as the Miamie ; Eel River ; and IVeea tribes ; they exlend this indul- gence also to the bands of the Pvtawatimies, which adhere to the Grand Sachem Tobinipee, and to the Chief Onoxa ; to the Oltowas of Blanchard's Creek, who have attached themselves to the Shawanoese tribe, and to such of the said tribe as adhere to the chief called the IVing, in the neighbour- hood of Detroit ; and to the Kickapoos, under the direction of the chiefs who sign this treaty. Art. 2. The tribes and bands above-mentioned, engage to give their aid ta the United States in prosecuting the war against Great Britain, and such of the ^Indian tribes as still continue hostile ; and to make no peace with either, without the consent rf the United Slates. The assistance herein stipulated for, is to consist of such a number of their warriors from each tribe as the President of the United States, or any officer having his authority therefore^ may, require. Art. 3. The Wyandot tribe, and the Senecas of Sandusky and Stoney * These tribes were parties to the treaty of Greenville in Ifgn, and have remained, during the war, faithful to ita stipulations. It is important to remember this fact> in the perusal of the subsequent correspondence. be mutually nd seizure, pacification d by our in- •etofore the Great Bri- ll uded to by m, it could i and made was natural •se subjects, B known to etween the Indian pos- mple. No 1 1783, nor li provision y made by ) the same that peace lat Britain ; ready been Feet might. on the 21st as follows. Ihatvanoese, erly deaig- this indul- the Grand Uanchard's ind to such neighbour- tbe chiefs \hen aid ta 2d such of ith either, stipulated ribe as the therefore, d Stooey and have MM'tant to ice. 27 perhaps; liave been already concluded — and that the United States having no interest, nor any motive, to continue a separate war against the Indians, there ;ould never be a moment when our government would not be disposed to make peace with them. We then expressed our wish to receive from the British Commis- sioners a statement of the views and objects of Great Britain upon all the points, and our willingness to discuss them all, in order that, even if no arrangement should be agreed on, upon the points not included in our instructions, the government of the United States might be possessed of the entire and precise intentions of that of Great Britain respecting these points, and that the British govern- ment might be fully informed of the objections on the part of the United States to any such arranffement. In answer to our remark, that these points had not been alluded to by Lord Castlereagh, in his letter proposing the negotiation, it was said, that it could not be expected that in a letter, merely in- tended to invite-a negotiation, he should enumerate the topics ci discussion, or state the pretensions of his government, since these would depend upon ulterior events, and might arise out of a subsc' quent state of things. In reply to our observation, that the proposed stipulation of an Indian boundary was without example in the practice of European nations, it was asserted, that the Indians must in some sort be consi- dered as an independent people, since treaties were made with them, both by Great Britain and by the United States ; upon which we pointed out the obvious and important difference between the treaties we might make with Indians, living in our territory, and such a treaty as v/as proposed to be made, respecting them, with a foreign power, who had solemnly acknowledged the territory on which they resided, to be part of the United States. VVe were then asked by the British Commissioners, whether in case they should enter further upon the discussion of the several points which had been stated, we could expect, that it would termi- nate by some provisional arrangement on the points on which we had no instructions, particularly on that respecting the Indians, which arrangement would be subject to the ratification of our government ? Creek, the Delaware and Shawanoese tribes, who have preserved their fide- lity to the United States throughout the war, again acknowledge themselves under the protection of the said Stales, and of no otkbk power what- EVKR ; and agree to aid the United States, in the manner stipulated for in the former article, and to make no peace, but with the consent of the said States. Art. 4. In the event of a faithful performance of the conditions of thia treaty, the United States will coniRrm and establish all the boundaries be- tween their lands and those of the Wyandots, Delaware, Shawanoese, and Miamies, as they existed previously to the commencement of the war. In testimony whereof, the said Commissioners and the said Head-men, Chiefs, and Warriors, pf the before-mentioned tribes of Indians have hereunto set their hands and affixed their seals, &c. &c. &c. 88 ^ !' : I'll ,1 ; S ■(.'i' ■'! We answered, that before the subjects were distinctly under- stood, and the objects in view more precisely disclosed, we could not decide, whether it would be possible to form any satisfactory article on the subject ; nor pledge ourselves as to the exercise of a discretion under our powers, even with respect to a provisional agreement. We added, that as we should deeply deplore a Rupture of the negotiation on any point, it was our anxious desire to em- ploy all possible means to avert an event so serious in its conse- quences ; and that we had not been without hopes, that a discussion might correct the effect of any erroneous information which the British government might have received on the subject, which they had proposed as a preliminary hasis. We took this opportunity to remark, tliat no nation observed a policy more liberal and humane towards the Indians than tiiat pur- sued by the United States ; that our object had been, by all practi- cable means, to introduce civilization among them : that their pos- sessions were secured to tiiem by well defined boundaries ; that their persons, lands, and other property were now more effectually pro- tected against violence or frauds from any quarter, than they had been under any former government ; that even our citizens were not allowed to purchase their lands ; that when they gave up their title to any portion of their country to the linited States, it was by volun* tary treaty with our government, who gave them a satisfactory equi- valent ; and that through these means, the United States had suc- ceeded in preserving, since the treaty of Greenville* of 17^5, an uninterrupted peace of sixteen years with all the Indian tribes — a period of tranquillity much longer than they were known to have enjoyed heretofore. It was then expressly stated on our part, that the proposition re- * A fort and settlement in the North Western territory of America, on a branch of the Great Miami River, six miles north west of Fort Jefferson, and abont 23 miles S. £. of Fort Recovery. The treaty of Greenville was concluded on the 3d of August, \79^> by General Wayne, with the chiefs of the following tribes. 1. Wyandots. 2. Delawares. 3. Sbawanoese. 4. Ottawas. 5. Chip* pawas. 6. Putawatimies. J. Miamis. 8. Eel River. 9. Weeas. 10. Kirkapoos. 11. Plan Kashaws, and 12. Kaskaskias. Of these tribes, No. 1 , 2, 3, have continued as Allies to the United States during the present war. No. 4, Q, 7> 8, 9, 10, assisted Great Britain, but are included in the peace amcluded on the 2Ist October, 1814 ; and " engage to take part " against Great Britain." There remains, then, only three tribes. No. 5, II, and 12, who are still in hostility with the United States. Py the Treaty of Greenville, the Indians ceded various large tracts of ter- ritory to the United States ; and amongst othth* stipulations, consented to grant to the Americans *< sixteen tracts m land of 6 and 12 miles square,** to be interspersed at convenient distances, in the reserved Indian Country. In return for thefe cessions, these independent StMes received goods to the amount of 50001 ; and, are to receive, aTtnutdly, goodi't of iheiralueof 24001. nctly under- d, we could satisfactory xercise of a provisional re a fupturc jsire to em- 1 its conse- a discussion 1 whicli the which THEY observed a n tiiat pur- ' all practi- t their pos- ; that their ctualljt pro- in they had ns were not > their title IS by volun* ictory cqui- es had sue- f l/yii, an In tribes — n ^n to have osition re- Linenca, on JefTerton, senville was the chiefs 5. Chip- i^eeas. 10. he United tded in the take part loarestiH icts of ter- sented to ^oare," to ntry. In s to the of 24001. 29 spectlng the Indians was not distinctly understood. We asked whe- ther the^)acification, ano the settlement of a boundary for them, were both made a sine qua non ? Which was answered in the affir- MATivis. The question was then asked the British Commissioners, whether the proposed Indian boundary was intended to preclude the United States from the right of purchasing by treaty from the Indians, without the consent of Great Britain, lands lying beyond that boundary ? — and as a restriction upon the Indians from selling, by amicable treaties, lands to the United States, as had been hitherto practised ? To this question, it was first answered by one of the Commission- ers, that the Indians would now be restricted from selling their lands, but that the United States would be restricted from purchasing them ; and on reflection, another of the Commissioners stated,, that it was intended that the Indian territories should be a harrier be- tween the British dominions and those of the United States ; that both Great Britain and the United States should be restricted from purchasing their lands ; but that the Indians might sell them to a THIRD party.* The proposition respecting Indian boundary, thus explained, and connected with tiie right of sovereignty ascribed to the Indians over 'the country, amounted to nothing less than a demand of the abso- lute cession of the rights both of sovereignty and of soiL.f We cannot abstain from remarking to you^ that the subject of Indian boundary was indistinctly stated when first proposed, and that the ' explanations were at first obscure, and always given with reluctance. And it was declared from the first moment, to be a sine qua non, ren- dering any discussion unprofitable, until it was admitted as a basis. m * WHO was to be the third Party ? The French ? The Indian Territo- ries thus opened to the purchase of a " third Party," are thr»e times aslarge 0i the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland I t These expressions are most correct. TheUerritory thni demanded by the British Ministers, is included in the treaty of 1783, within the " limits and sovereignty, of the United States of Anicrica." it forms what is called the " NoHTH Western TuRRiTORir ," and, (belonging to the Federal, or general government,) is by a law of CongrenK : Ui " be sold for the dis- " charge of the National debt of the United Stales " This territory con- tains two hundred and twenty millions of Acres ; and by an ordinance of Congress July I3th 1737, was formed into " not ]e« than three, nor " more than five Stales, each of which, when it shall have 60,000 free ia- " habitants shall be admitted, by its delegate*, iiito the Congress of tl.e " United Stales, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects I' whatever." As to the rights of '* 5oi/," claimed by the United Slates, it is oi>ly necessaiy to observe, that they are lounded upon actual purchase from the Indians/who have received a satisfactory consideration for the lands, on which their title is extinguished. After this explanation, it is difficult to understand Lord Castleresgb's as- surance, that a " principal object of the British Government in making " peace, was to prevent, by the justice and propriety of the conditions, a ' *' recurrence to war 111" 30 i II' I Knowing that we had no power to cede to the Indians any part of our territory, we thought it unnecessary to ask, (what probably would not have been answered, till the principle was admitted,) where the line of demarcation of the Indian country was proposed to be esta> bllshed ? . The Britisli Commissioners, after having repeated, that their instruc- tions on the subject of the Indians wer«; peremptory, stated, that unless we could give some assurance, that our powers would allow us to make, at least, a provisional arrangement on the subject, any fur- ther discussion would be fruitless, and that they must consult their own government on this state of things. They proposed accordingly a suspension of the conferences, until they should have received an answer, it being understood, that each party might call a meeting, whenever they had any proposition to submit. They dispatched a special messenger the same evening, and we are now waiting for the result. Before the proposed adjournment took place, it was agreed, that there should be a protocol of the conferences ; that a statement should for that purpose be drawn up by each party, and that we should meet the next day to compare the statements. We accordingly met again on Wednesday the 1 0th instant, and ultimately agreed upon what should constitute the protocol of the conferences. A copy of this instrument we have the honour to transmit with this dispatch ; and wc also enclose a copy of the state- ment originally drawn up on our part, for the purpose of making known to you the passages to which the British Commissioners ob- ject ed. Their objection to some of the passages was, that they appeared to be argumentative, and that the object of the protocol was to con- tain a mere statement of facts. They, however, objected to the in- sertion of the answer which they had given to our question respect- ing the effect of the proposed Indian boundary ; but they agreed to an alteration of their original proposition on that subject, which renders it much more explicit than as stated, eitiier in the first conference, or in the proposed draught of the protocol. They also objected to the insertion of the facts, that they had proposed to adjourn the conferences, until they could obtain further instructions from their Government. The return of their messen- ger may, perhaps, disclose the motive of their reluctance in that respect. We have the honour to be, very respectfully, Sir, your humble and obedient servants. (signed) JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, H.CLAY, J. A. BAYARD, JONA. RUSSELL. PROTOCOL OF CONFERENCE, Aug. 8, 1814. The British and American Commissioners having met, their full powers were respectively produced, which were found satisfactory, and copies thereof were exchanged. 31 any part of bably would ) where the . to be esta- bcirinstruc- , that unless Id allow us ct, any fur- onsult their accordingly received an a meeting, lispatched a iting for the ^reed, that statement id tiiat we istant, and oeol of t he I honour to if the state- of making sioners ob- appeared las to con- to the in- )n respect- :reed to an ;h renders )nference, they had |in further messen- |c in that Sir, your SELL. 4. their full lisfactory, The British Commissioners stated the following subjects as those upon which it appeared to them that the discussions between them- selves and the American Commissioners would be likely to turn :— 1. The forcible seizure of mariners from on board merchants ships on the high seas, and in connection with it, the right of the King of V Great Britain to the allegiance of all his native subjects. 2. That the peace be extended for the Indian Allies of Great Bri- tain, and that the BOUNDARY of their territory be definitely marked < out, as a PERMANKNT BAHRiKR between the dominions of Great Britain and the United States. An arrangement on this subject to be a SINK QUA non of a treaty of peace. 3. A revision of tlie boundary line between the British and Ame- rican territories, with the view to prevent future uncertainty and dispute. The British Comissioners requested information whether the American Commissioners were instructed to enter into negotiation on the above points? But before they desired any answer, they felt it right to communicate the intentions of their Government as to the North American fisheries, viz. that the British Government did not intend to grant to the United States gratuitously, the privileges formerly granted by treaty to them, of fishing within the limits of . the British sovereignty, and of using the shores of the British ter- ritories for purposes connected with the fisheries. AUGUST 9. The meeting being adjourned to th« 9th of August, the Commis- iBioners met again on that day. The American Commissioners at this meeting stated, that upon the first and third points proposed by British Commissioners, they were provided with instructions from their Government; and, that the second nnd fourth of these points were not provided for in their / instructions : That in relation to an Indian pacification, they knew, that the Government of the United States, had appointed Commit - sioners to treat of peace with the Indians, and that it was not im- probable, that peace had been made with them. ■ The American Commissioners presented further subjects consi- lleredbythe Government of the United States as suitable for dis- cussion. l.A Definition of Blockade, and, as far as may be agreed, of other .,,^, neutral and belligerent rights. ' 2. Certain claims of indemnity to individuals for captures and seizures preceding and subsequent to the war. 8. They further stated, that there were various other points to j/7'*vhich their instructions extended, whicjj might, with propriety, be \>bjeets of discussion, eitherin the negotiiiiiun of the peace, or in that ' • of a treaty of commerce, wliicli in the casse of a propitious termina- tion of the present conferences, they were likewise authorized to conclude -. That for the purpose of facilitating the first and most essential object of peace, they had discarded every subject, which ■ was not considered as peculiarly connected with that, and presented m h ' 'M.'i I' ll't m *. » only tliosc points^ which appeared to be intniediatety t'elevatil to this negotiation. The American Commissioners expressed their wish to receive from the British Commissioners a statement of the views and ob- jects of Great Britain upon all the points, and their willingness to discuss them all. Tlioy, (the American Commissioners,) were asked, whether ir those of Great Britain should enter further upon this discussion, particularly respecting the Indian fiouNBAUY,' the American Com- missioners could expect, that It would terminate by some provisional ' arrangement, which tliey could conclude, subject to the ratification of their government ? They answered, that as any arrangement to which they could agree upon the subject must be without specific authority from their Government, it was not possible for them, previous to discussion, to decide, whether any article on the subject could be formed, which would be mutually satisfactory, and to which they should think themselves, under their discretionary powers justified in acceding. (True Copy) (Signed) CHRIST. H UGl^ES, Jun. Sec. of Leg. The meeting was adjourned. Messrs. Adams, Bayard, C/aT/, Russell^ and Gallatin, to Mr. Monroe, Sec>'€tary of State, dated Ghent, Aug. 19, 1814. Sir, — Mr. Baker, Secretary to the British Mission, called upon us to-day at one o'clopk, and invited us to a conference to be held at three. This was agreed to, and the British Commissioners open- ed it by saying, that they had received their further instructions this morning, and had not lost a moment in requesting a meeting, for the purpose of communicating the decision of their government. It Is proper to notice, that Lord Castlereagh had arrived last night in this city, whence, it is said, he will depart to-morrow on his way to Brussels and Vienna. . The British Commissioners stated, that their Government had felt some surprise, that we were not Instructed respecting the In- dians; as it could not have been expected, that tliey would leave their allies In their comparatively weak situation, exposed to our resentment. Great Britain might justly have supposed, that the American Government would have furnished us with instructions, authorising us to agree to a positive article on the subject ; but the least she could demand was, that we should sign a provisional article, admitting the principle, subject to the ratification of our goyero- ment; so that if it should be ratified, the treaty should take effect j and if not, that it should be null and void : on our assent or refusal to admit such an article, would depend the continuance or suspen- sion of the negotiation. As we had represented, that the proposition made by them on that subject was not sufficiently explicit, their Government had di- rected them to give us every necessary explanation, and to state distinctly the basis, which must be considered as an indispbnsabl*. PRBLIMINARY. i Ll ;vant to this I to receive !W8 and ob- llingness to whether ir i discussion, ;rican Com- j i provisional ! ratification they could r from their discussion, med, which liould think acceding. Sec. of Leg. Mr. Monroe, 19, 1814. called upon e to be held loners open- uctions this meeting, for ^vernment. last night on his way nment had ng the In- vould leave sed to our ., that the structioDS, It; but the nal article, lur govern- :ake effect j or refusal or suspen- lem on that It had di- Ld to state It was a »Im qua noiif that the Indlani should be included in the pacification, and as incident thereto, that the boundariks of theijr territory should be permanently established. Peace with the In- dians was a subject so simple, as to require no comment. With respect to the l)uundaries which were to divide their territory from that of the United States, the object of the British Government was, that the Indians should remain as a pbrmanent barkieu betwceti our western settlements and the adjacent British provinces, to pie- vent them froin being counterminous to each other, and that neither the United States nor Great Britain should ever, hereafter, have t!»<* right to purchase or acquire any part of the territory tiius recog- nised as belonging to the Indians. With regard to the extent of the Indian territory, and the boundary line, the Britisli Govcrnm<.'nt would propose the lines of the Greenville Treaty, as^ proper basis^ subject, however, to discussions and modifications. We here stated, that ttie Indian territory, according to these lines, would comprehend a greut number of American citizens, not less, perhaps, than one hundred tliousand ; and asked, what was the in- tention of the British. Govcrtiment respecting them, and under whose Government they would fall ? It was answered, that thosp settlements would be taken into, consideration, when- the line be- came a subject, of discussion ; but that such of the inhabit:iuts as would ultimately be, included within, the Indian territory, inu&t make their own arrangen^ents, and provide foj- t^temselves. The British Commissioners here said, that considering the im- portance ot the question we had to decide, (that of agreeing to a pro- visional article) their Goveriuneut had thought it right, that wc^ shouldafeo be fully informed of its views, with respect to the pro- posed revision of the boundary line, between the dominions- of Great Britain and the United States. 1st. Experience, had proved, that the joint possession of )he Lakes, and a right comjiion to both nationi to keep -up p naval • force on them, necessarily produced collisions, and rendered peac^^ .insecure. , As Great Britain could not be supposed to expect to make conquests in that quarter, and as the province was essentially weaker' than the United States, and exposed to invasion, it was nkcessary for its SBCiiRiTY, that Great Britain should require, tiiat the United States ehould,1)ereafter,keep no .armed iiaval force on the western Lak&8,frum Lake Oiitarioto Lake Superior, both inclusive ; that they should not erect any fortified or military post or establishment on the shores of those Lakes ;)and thai they should not maintain those, u^iich were al- ready existing.f Tnis must, they said, be, considered as a moderate demand,^ since Great Britain, if she h-^d not disclaimed the inten- i - ■ ■ ■ '— ' i^^^— ^^ — .. - ■ - ■ * It is material to observe tfaia branch of the discus!>ion, which is «tat«d in terms almost amounting to a <' fine ^ua nW.** t Have tbetie stipiilations, here deciafed'to be " so necessary for the ''security of Great Britain/' been obtained ? Are tlie Americans to rt.tBifi " joiot possession of the Lakes ;" and, if they are, " is the peace secure ?" % Certainly, it is also admirably caltfutoted^o " prevent, by its justict and " propriety, the lecurrence of war!" II M< 1 Won bf any itrtyrrtisi^ ^ Itfrittyry, mi^ht, witJi propriety, hnve asked a cewiofi *»f the n^iHMrht AiticHcau shores. The tommeriial iinviga- libn an^it»iprcmrt»e wobM be Mt tn the same footing as heretofore. It was expressly sfate^ (in answer » a qoe!«4ofi asked) that HreiA Britain \v»n to retain the rfglii r-»f havrng an artired naval force on those Lakes, and hddiug military posts and establishments on their shores. 5. Tlic buundhry line west of I^ake Superior, and thence to the Mississippi, to be re\'TJi«fftoh. Rwertltrg to the proposed provisionn^ are«atttre of the pfface inhich has been concluded, MioMWrft, no doubt, will bow desuint with f feat C(>m{>l«cent7, oii the advaniitgai of iiaviqg '* Two Strings to ■tfour f Conipar« this lofty declaration with the Q^Utal tefnt «f tho Treaty, coadttUed at Gl«ent«. pu ibc :Mtl)«t •OeeMnber, ' ^ lited any iwere 3Mce rith \yt>nr ittdMed to en«iiutre, whelbcr diit was a tme quanmf To which th$ British CommiMionen dkcliiMd giving t pasltifv answsr. Thfj faU, tKeyhaii been suddenly explicit ; thatlhey had given us one •i/i« qua non ; and when we had disposed of tliat. It would bo tim« enough to give us an answer as to another. W« then stated, that, co^idering the nature and importance of the communication made this dny, we wished the firttish Commis- aioners to reduce their proposals to writinr, before we ^ave thkU) axi answer ; this tliey agreed to, and promised to send us an official note without delay. ^ We need lmrr' ^c!imj<^, that there is not, at present, any liope of peace. > We have the honour to be, &c. JOHN QUiNCY ADAMS, JON^. RUSSi.LL, J. A. BAYftlARD, ALBERT GALLATIN* H.CLAY, (No. L) ♦NOTE OF THE BRITISH COMMISSIONERS, [Received after the above Letter was written.] The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of his Britannic Majesty cb .themselves the honour of acquainting the Plenipotentiaries of the United States, that they have communicated to their Court the result of 'he conference which they had thv? honour of holding with then upon the 9th instant, in which they stated, that they were unpro* vided with any specific instructions as to comprehending the Indiaa nations in a treaty of peace -to be made with Great Brittinj AN0 a« to. defining a BOUNDARY to the Indian territory. The undersigned are instructed to acquaint the Plenipotenriarlcs of the United States, that his Majesty's Government, haviog at the outjet of the negotiation, with a view to the speedy restoration of peace, reduced, as far as possible, the number of points to be dis- cussed, and having professed themselves willing to forego, on some important topics, any stipulation to the advantage of Great Britain, cannot but feel some surprise, that the Governnient of the United States should not have furnished their Plenipotentiaries f^^ instructions upon those pcunts, which could hardly fail to come^-unicr discussion. Under the inability of the American Plenipotentiaries to con- clude any article upon the subject of Indian pacification an6 Indiaq ^onHDAJir, which ahall bind the Government of the United States, his Majesty's Government conceive, thjit thay cannot gire a better ^ This ii Lord Castlere<«{(h's ** ultimatum,*' whiclji proda^ s^ik fl geosni sffttia^tat 9( iadigom^TU tbrqaghaut Aaanai. i''-i^ii mm' 36 I if'i ■4 pfoof of their sincere desire for the restoration of peace, than b^ proffssLng tlicir willingness to accept.a provisional article upon those heads, in the event of the American 'Plenipotontiaiies considering thcmaelves authorised to accede to the general principles, upon which such an article ought to be founded. With a view to enable the Ameiicn nenipotentiaries to decide, how far the conclusion of fiuch an article is within the linnt of their general discretion, the undersigned are directed to state fully and distinctly, the bases, upon •which, ALON£, Great Britain sees any pros|)ect of advantage in the continuance of the negotiations at the present time. The undersigned iiuve already had the honour of stating to the American Plenipotentiaries, that in considering the points above referred to as a sine qua non of any treaty of peace, the view of the British Government is the permanent tranquillity and security of the Indian nations, and the prevention of those jealousies and irrita- tions, to which the frequent alteration of the Indian limits has here- tofo'eg'ven rise. For this purpose, it is indispensably necessary that the Indian nations who have been, during the war, in alliance with Great Britain^ should^ at the termination of the war, be included hi the pacification. It is equal ly necessary, that a defi n ite boundary should be assigned to the Indians, and that the contracting parties should guarantee the integrity of their territory, by a mutual stipulation, not to ac- quire by purchase, or otherwise, L.ty territory within the spefcified limits. The British Government are willing to take, as the basis of an article on this subject, those stipulations of the treaty of Green- ville, subject to modifications which relate to a boundary line. As the unuersigned are desirous of stf.i. ng every p;>:at in connec- tion with the subject, which may reasonal ly infiuence the decision «f the American Plenipotentiaries in the exercise of tlieir discretion, they avail themselves of this opportunity to repeat, wh .t they have already stated, thai Great Britain desires the revision of the frontier between her Non! American dominions and those of (he. United States, not witii any view to an a'jquisitlon ot territory, as such, but for the purpose of securing hci posn tlicm to acquaint the American Plenipotentiaries, that the BrItishGovemment cannot be precluded, by any ihing that has passed, from varying the termf now proposed, in such manner, as the state of the war, at the time of resuming the conferei.^ces, may, in thier judgment, render advisable. * Thh, '(" the rivers^") i« an addition to the demands made in Ihe cooferf'.ice .«' the ix;th August, and is another. proof of Lord Castlereagh'a' moderatioRf and con(;iti(itii3g spirit ! Was ihst great diplmnatist so ignorant oftbepractical consequences of this additional demand, as to imagine, that the in«ertton of a few words would ensure, as s matter of course, its immediate acceptance by the American Plenipotentiaries ? It wo.uld be difficult, in a note, to enumerate ALL the rivers which empty "themst'lves into the Lakes of America," "or ll Vir infinite importance to the commerce of that great Contioent, it will tie sufficient (to shew the absurdiiv of this " moderate, demand,") to point out »few of the rivers, on which the United States was not to •• mainiain any armed vesscjls." The SaMecA River, h: the State of New York, empties itself into La£e Ontario, through the Ononbago River, and bofh are navigable. The Gbnbsbb River, Which runs in Pennsylvn "a, nfWra cou.se ot lOO miles, empties itself into Lake Ontario j and is ?. ;:av), ;ible river of the utmost imporiauce, having various large towns and seti tMrtnt- on its bnnk«: The " Miami of the Lakes/' a navigable River, which fsMs into Lake 3ri£'j and communicates, by "a p(trtaire of five miles, with the Ghfa*' Mia;4i, the Wabisii, and the Mississippi Rivers, forming the gr;^i d channel of commercial communication, between the Lakes and the (lissisiiippi. There are various other Rivers t — Is it a *' moderate demand," to exclude America from her Lakes, and to make one of the principal chanaclsof hef i^Un# ^^ ^erce, dependant tipoD the pleasure of a British Colony i ^ :t 'ii if i/i: Tb6 ati^riHgnifi i^iW ih^r»ttU€^ of tl^ 6e«iMidn GcdI/ttin, to the Secretary of State, dated Qhetit, Oct. 25, \6l\. Sir, — We have the honour of transmitting herewith copiies off k\\ our correspondence with the Biitish Plei.ipotentiarieSi siiifc* the . departure of Mr. DalhiS. Although the negottatior: has not t^rml* nated so abruptly as we expected at that period that it woUlo^ w6 har# nb re.isoti to retract the opinion which we thtft expressed^ that ft* hopes of peace as likely to result from it^ could be entertained. It 19 true, that, the terini which the JSriti&hGovertimenthdd so perempto' rily prescribed at that time^ have beCii apparently Abandohedf arid that the sine qua non then required as d pretiinhtary to all dis^tssidtii upon other topics^ has b*en i'ediiced to an article sectirihg freelrety ah Indian i>acificaiioit, vfhich we hevt r^^-e^d to accept^ Subject td tR^ ratification or rejection of our G '•^»- xtt. But joa will perc6ive> that our request for the exchange of a project of a Treaty has heen €&idtf(2 ; and that, in iHdr last note, the British Plbnip^tentiariM have advanced t demaodi* not only new iind inadfhis^hk, but totally incompatiblfi xmfh their untforth, prwioiis declaratUmSf tliAt Qr^at Br{-> tain had no new id this negotiation to any ac^Uitloti of fitritwy. It will be perceived, that this netc pretension was brought forwjlrd iihtA^^ 4ioiehf c^'ter the accounts had oeea received, that a British force had t^keu possession of all that part of the State of Massachusetts, Q^tuate East of Penobscot river. The British Plenipotentiaries have invariably referred to their Government c\ery note received from us^ and toaited the return qf their messenger, before ibey ht ve transmitted to OS their answer ; and the whole tenor of their correspondence, as i.:«u. *Thi8i8iheproposal^No.9.p. 79.)fortreatingor ^' ^ aMoV* uHp6ssidelis»* brougbtforwardatthistime. ^Oct.21.)f t#rml* wfe Har* ^ that ti» ned. li \^empt6- ct tb iht pcrc6ive> tentierieii iut toinlly r^at BtU itory. It rce had lusetts, ries have Tom us, nsniitted ence) as ossidelist* ibrtofthft Sir JohA CAxitoVir" iifti^dtiltdV ndr^ than thebre- torf^f he* ill df hit test thVfl if Mihikw ih th« r ^ -^qH as thf niaiii[]keF> if) which it has h<4« <;ondueted ^ tlie |)Arl of th^ Britia}] Govern«\^Qt, hav« ooncurrad to couvHM;a us, .hat their OBJECT HAS BBi£N DELAY thf^Ir moilves foTthi^ policy we presuni^ to have been, to keep the aUernrntke qf' peact or a prutract&i uiqr \n their mu /Mt/xis, ubUI a general arrangement qf l^uropean afiaii;s should he accomplitfhed at the Congress i>t' Vie^oa> and ui^tjl th^ eould avail themselves of the oUoantogtw^ witich they have c^i^> pated from thfK success of their arms, during th« present camp^iga in America. Although the Sovereigns, who luid det^rmiii04 to b^ p^en^ at tl\e Congress of Vienna, have been already several weelis as^eipl^jed there, it duey not appear, by the last advices froip ^at J^he^ i|h«t ihe Congress ha.^ beep fprinaUy opened. On the Q^tR^ry, by a 4^* claration from the Pleoipcitentianef of the l^owerf, whp were parties to the Peace of Pwis, of JtOth May law> the 9pi?ping qf the Congress appeal's to have heen postponed tp th^ first of ^ovem^er. A Memorial is said to have been presented by the French Afldbasi* «ador, Talleyrand, in whi^h it U deolared, that Prj^ao^ haying s-eturned to her bouadarie* ia 17^2, q^^ r^pggnii^ pc^e of the aggrandifsements of the Qthar great Powers Qf EuroD^ «ii(C^ th^ period, although not intending ^^ oppose xh^va by war. These circamstauces indicate, that the n«?w basis f<;>r th? Polltip^I (System of £urope) will h(4 hf$o speedily settled ci« had bfP^ ejcpfct^. The principle thus assumed by France is vejry esft^wive in its dil^c^^, and opens a field for negotiation much wider than had beeti antic^- {iated. We think it do^s not promise an aspect of immnidiat^ tra|i* quility to the Continent, and that it will disconcert particularly llie fiMQ^sures which Great Britain has been taking with regard to tlie fu- ture destination of this country, among othei$, fipd to which she ha^ attached, apparently, much importance.-^ We have the honour to h^, with great re«pcei^ ^ir^ your very huml^Ie servantSt JPHN Quivcv AoAJ^fS. J. A, Bav^rd. ■ ' No. II. tPw Minitters Plenipotentiary aftd Ejcirciordinq,rjf of the United §tfiites to the plempotentian^ qf His Britamiic MiQesty* Gh^tH, 4ugust 25, 1314. The undersigned, Ministers Plenipotentiary and Extraordina^^ from the United States of America, hav^e given to the p^cial notje which they have had the honour of receiving from hjis Britannii; Jilajesty's Plenipotentiariea, (lie deliberate attention whiich tlie imr portance of its coat^ts required, and have now that of transmitting .to them their answer, on the sieveral points to which it refers. They would present to the considemtloit vernjiicnt of America *'^ t\m ^oociliaiitvy «diu«|^4aeDt pf th^ <^di&m2fies4ubsistin^i}fitwe$Q IUk im(^§ttfHt»9¥iii\;^m flMIMH fiflli^ 40* r A 11 1 '« oh their part td bring them to a favourable issue, u]^ principlet of •" perfect reciprocity, not inconsistent with the established maxims of '"public la Wi and with the man/ime rights of the British Empire.'* 'This fact alone might suffice to shew, thai it ought not to have been ' expected, thai the American Government, in acceding to tiro pro- position, should have extended its terms, and furnished the under- signed witli instructions,, authorising them to treat with the British Plenipotentiaries respecting Indians, situated within the boundaries of the Ur»lted States. That "uch expectation was not entertained *l)y the British Governmopt might also have been inferred from the explicit JissurAnces which the British Plenipotentiaries gave, on the part of their Government, at the first conference which the under- 'signed had the hdnour of holding with them, ** that no events, subse- *' quent to the first proposal for this negotiation, had, in any n anner, " varied', either the disposition of the British Government, that it '^ might terminate ' in a peace honourable to both parties, or the **' ti^rms upon which they would be willing to cenclude it." It is well known, that the differences which unhappily subsist between Great Britain .and the United States, and which ultimately led to the present war, were wholly of a maritime nature, arising principally from the British Orders in Council, in relation to block- ades, and from the impressment of mariners on board of American ▼essels* The boundary of the Indian territory had never been a subject of difference between the two countries. Neither the prin- ciples of reciprocity, the maxims of public law, nor the maritime rights of the British Empire, could require the permanent establish- menVof such boundary. The novel pretension now advanced could no more have been anticipated by the Government of the United States in forming instructions for this negotiation, than they seem to have been contemplated by that of Great Britain in November last in proposing it. Lord Castlereagh's note makes the termination of the war to depend on a <' conciliatory adjustment of the difference^ ** tlien subsisting'between the two States," and, on no other condi- tion whatever. Nor could the American Government have foreseen, that Great Britain, in order to obtain peace, for the Indians, residing within the dominions of the Unitfd States, whom she has induced to take part with her in the war, would demand, that they should be made parties to the treaty between the two nations, or that the boundaries of their lands should be permanently and irrevocably fixed by that treaty. Such a proposition is contrary to the acknowledged principles of public law, and to the practice of all civilized nations, particularly of Great Britain and the United States. It is not founded on reci- procity : It is unnecessary for the attainment of the object, which it professes to have in view. No maxim of public law has hitherto been more universally esta blished among the powers of Europe possessing territories in Ame>* Viea/ and there is none to which Great Britain has more uniformly and inflexibly adhered, than that of suffering no interposition (>f 4ft * "' u^ii power hr the relations between the acknowledged sotetreign of the territory, and the Indians sttuated upon it. Witiiout the admission of this principle, tliere would be no inteUigible meaning attached to stipulations establishing boundaries between the domi- nions, in America, of civili7.i.d nations possessing territories inha- bited by Indian tribes. Whatever n^ay be the relations of Indians to the nation in whose territory they are thus acknoulipdged to reside^ they cannot be considered as nr. iudependcnt power, by the natioii which has made such acknowledgment. The territory of which Great. Britain now wishes to dispose, « within the dominions of the United ^Jtates, was solemnly acknoM^* ledged by herself, in the 'IVeaty of Peace, of 1783, which esta- blished their boundaries, and by which she relinquished all claims to the government, pr »priet iry and territorial rights, within tho$e boundaries. No condition respecting the In^lians residing therein, was inserted in that treaty. No stipulations similar to that novr proposed, is to be found in any treaty made by Great Britain, br within the knowledge of the undersigned, by nny other nation. The Indian tribes, for which Great Britain proposes now to stipulate, have themselves acknowledged this principle. By the Greenvillr Treaty, of 1795, to which the British Plenipotentiaries have alluded, it is expressly stipulated, and the condition has been confirmed,* by every subsequent treaty, so late as the year 1810-^ " That the Indian tribes shall quietly enjf)y their lands, hunting, "planting, and dwellings thereon, so long as they please, without *' any molestation from the Uuitecl States ; but that when those tribes, ** or any of them, shall be disposed to sell their lands they are to be ** sold only to the United States : that, until such sale, the United "States will protect all the said Indian tribes, in the quiet enjoyment " of their lands, against all citizens of the United States, and against " all other white persons who intrude on the same ; and that the said " Indian tribes again acknowledge themselves to be under the pro- " tection of the said United States, and af no other power what- «« ever." That there is no reciprocrity In the proposed stipulation is evident. In prohibiting Great Britain and the United States from purchasing lands within a part of the dominions of the latter power, while it professes to take from Great Britain a privilege which she had not, it actually deprives the United States, of a right exclu- sively belonging to them. The proposition is also utterly unne- cessary for the purpose of obtaining 'a pacification for the Indians residing within the territories of the United States. The un'^.er- signed have already had the honour of inforPMhg the British Ple- A- * Vide the Treaty of 21st October, 1814, Article 3, Concluded with the Indians by Governor Cass, and General Harrison. This treaty proves, that Little Cass is a more successful diplomatist, than Grbat Cass !•! ! Those who have attended the diplomatic entertainments^ at Vienna, will admit the truth of this remark. 4ft Ikt^kytctitiaHes, that^ imdei^ the system of liberal policf adopted by th« United States* in their relations with the Indians within their tarrilbries, «D uninterrupted peace had subsisted from the year 1795, net only between the United States and all those tribes, but also amodgst those tribes themselves, for a longer period of time than dver had been known since the first settlement of North America. Against those Indians^ the United States have neither interest oor inclination to continue the war. Thky havb MOTHiNa TO ASK ov THKM BUT PEACE. Commissioners on their part> have lieen appointed to conclude it, and an armistice was actually made last . autumn, with most of those tribes. The British Go» a^emmeat may again have induced some oi them to take their side in the war, but peace with them will necessarily follow immedi- ately, a peace with Great Britain. , 1V> a provisional article,* similar to what has been stipulated In some former treaties, engaging, that each party will tre^t for the Indians within its territories, include them in the peace, and use its best endeavours to prevent them from committing hostilities against the citizens or subjects of the other party, the undersigned might assent, and rely odi the approbation and ratification i>{ their Government. They would also, for the purpose of securing the duration of peace, and to prevent colisions which might interrupt, it, propose a stipulation which should preclude the subjects or ^tizens of each nation, respectively, from trading with the Indians residing within the territory of the other. But to surrender both the rights of sovereignty and of soil, over nearly one-third of the territorial dominions of the United States, to a number of Indiansf not, probably, exceeding 20,000. the undersigned are so far from Wing instructed of authorised, that they assure the British Com* * Th« corresponds with the article ultimately proposed on the 8th October, by the British Plenipotentiaries. Wi^ did they not accept it in August ? t In order to form some idea of the exact nature of this branch of tb« question, the ioWowitig abstract exhibits the number of warriorg belonging to each tribe, of these *' independent nations," and the value of goods (sulsidm) paid to them, under the treaty of Greenville, by the United States of America. Namber of warriors. Annual fiiubsidy in goods. Wyandots Delaware Sbawanoese Ottawas Cbippawas Putawptimies Miamis Eel River Kickapoos - 500 • 400 - 300 - 400 - 800 - 500 - - 300 • not known . - ,. — - 300 - The Pian, Kashawi, Kaskaskess, are tribes Intimately connected with the Rtefcapoos, and will, probably, have fbUowad their exam|fle> !n con- cluding peace with the United States of America. jf250 350 850 250 not k«»wn» 250 250 125 125 .^H/atn, tlbit'my aifrangtment for that {»ufp6se would be »• ttatitaneouftly rdj«ctl;d by their gtivernmont. Not only has this txtraordinary deiAand - been made a iin^ qua non, to be admitted ibkhout dMcuMtun, and aa ai psristiiuifAiiT barii, but it IS accompanied by othefaeqaaUjr inadmissible^ whidk the British PlenipotentiaHea stat; to be so «6nnocted with it, tjiat they may reasonably influence the decisioA af the undersigned upon it, yet leaving them uninfohiied liow fa*' these -other deaaaikb May also be insisted on, as indispensable oonditiena of a peict. • At littk are the tlndersigned instructed or autborixed, ^o accede to ths jmypositiohs of the British Government, in relation to the inilitarf occupation of the Western Lakes. If they have found the prbpoaed iaterference of Great Britain in the concerns of Indiana rfsiding Within the United States, utterly incompatible with any establbhel maxim of public law, they are no less at a loss to discoveri by what rule of perfect reciprocHty, the United States can be required to renounce their equal right of maintaining a naval force upon those Lakes, and of fortifying their own shores, while Great Britaiil reserves exclusively the corresponding rights to herselft That, in ix>it]t of military preparation^ Great Britain, in h«r possessions in Nortli America, has ever been iki a condition to be termed, With propriety, the weaker power in comparisoti with die United States, the undersigned believe to be incorrect, iri point oi fact. In regard to the fortificution of the shores, and tr the force* actually kqit on foot tipon those frontiers^ thcy believe the supe« riorlty to have always been on the part of Great Britain. I^ the proposal to dismantle the forts upon her shores, strike for ever the military flag upon her Lakes, and lay her whole frontier defenceleaai^ in the presence of her armed and fortified neighbour, had proceeded^ not from Great Britain to the United States, but from the United States to Great Brit;dn, th& undersigned may safely appeal to the bosoms of his Britannic Majesty's Plenipotentiaries, for the fcelii^;! with which, not only in regard to the interests, but the honour of their tiation, they would have received such a proposal. - What would Great Britain herself say, if, in relation to another frontier^ where she has the acknowledged superiority of strength, it wero proposed, that she should be reduced to a condition even of equalitjr with the United States } The undersigned farther perceive, that under tl»e alleged pur- pdiB of opening a direct communication betweea two of the British produces in Americo, the British Government require a ces- sion of territory^ forming a part of one of the States of the AmeriotA Union ; nhd that they propose, for the purpose apecifically alleged, to draw the boundary-line westward, not from the Lake of the Woods, as it tioW is> but from Lake Superior. It muit be per- fiectly immaterial to the United State)}, whether the object of the ^ritish Government, in demanding the dismemberment of the United ^teS) is to acquire territory, as such, or for purposes less iiftbl^ in th« eyes of tk$ world, to be >Mcribed- to tne 4e$ire of T ■Ml aggrantftzement. Wlisrtever the motive may be, and with whatever consistency viewi of conquest may be disclaimed, while demandini; ff)r lietself, or for the Indians, a cbssign of territorv moke bx- TENstvB than the whci:,b island of Great Britain, the duty niatked out for the undieraigned is the same. They have no authority to cede any part of the territory of the United States ; and tonu stipulation to that effect, Will^'^hey subscribe. ^The conditions proposed . by Great Britain, have no relation to ■ the subsisting . differences between the two countries ; they are ih^onsistent with acknowledged principles of public law: they are f6uw()ed* neither on reciprocrity, nor on any of the usual bases of negotiation, neither on .that 'of the nti possidetis, or of status^ ante bellum ; they would inflict the most vital injury on the United States, by dismembering their territory, by arresting their natural growth and increase of population, and by leaving thqr northern and westerii frontier equailly exposed to British invasion, and to Indian aggression ; they are, above all, dishonourahlb to the United States, in demanding from them to abandon territory and a portion of their citizens, to admit a foreign interference in their domestic concerns, and to cease to exercise their natural rights on their own &*bdres, and in their own waters. A treaty coi^cluded on such terms would be but an armistice. It cannot be supposed, that America would long submit to conditions so injurious and degrading. It is impossible, .in the. rtatural course of events, that she should not, at the first favourable op|K)rtunity, recur to arms for the recovery of her territory, of her rights, of her honour. Instead of settling existing diflferences, such a peace would only create new causes of war, sow the seeds of a permanent hatred, and lay tk^ foundation of hostilities, for an indefinite period. ■ Essentially paciScj from her political institutions, from the. habits of her citizens, from her physical situation, America reluc- tantly engaged in the waf. She wishes for pe^ce \ but she wishes for it upon those terms of recipr6cHty, honourable to both countries, which can aV>"^ render it permanent. The causes of war between the United States and Great Britain, having disappeared by the mari- time pacification of Europe, the Government of the United States does nat desire to continue it, in defence of abstract principles, which have, for the present, ceased to have any practical effect. The undersigned havtf been accordingly instructed to agree to its termination, both parties restoring whatever territory they may have taken, and both reserving all their rights, ip relation to their respective seamen. To make the peace between the two nations solid and PERMANENT, the undersigned were also instructed and have »'•'■■ ' — '-" ■• ...'■ y - ■ — ■ '■ ■»■■<■■» .awp ■■ I I III fcipi n il. !■■ Mill! 11 M il , w^, ^ I M l 1,.^,. I ■ » ■ ■^■^ t This general ofjection to the demands of the British Ministers, is afterwards most ingeniously, and with great wit, brought forward by them in tjielr note of the 2l8t October 1814, as a basis, on which the Abierican Plet)ipbtentiaries cannot, of courjff, object to treat !! It is difficult which most to admire, the simplicity, or the stupidity of persons, who could imagine, that te by ! ! 1 could deceive the Americans, by di^othatic skili |uch as this* ■■¥ be«nprtfparc<] to enter into the amicable discission of all tliQ^epoiptl^ on which di^erenccs or uncertainty had existfd, and which Micur hereafter tend in any degree whatever, to interrupt the harmony of the two countries, Mfithout, however, making the conclusion of the peace at all depend upon a successful result of th^ discussipu^ It is, therefore, with deep regret, that the undersigned have seen, that OTHER views are entertained by the British Government, and that NEW and unexpected pretensions are raised, which, if persisted in, must oppose an insuperable obstacle to a pacification. It is not necessary to refer such demands to the American Government fur its instruction j Uiey will only be a fit subject of deliberation, when it becomes necessary tu decide upon the expedisncy of an absolute •surrender of national independence. Ttie undersigned request the British Plenipotentiaries to accept the assurance of their high consideration. , . (Signed) JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, : JAMES A. BAYARD, JONA.TH AN RUSSELL, ILCLAY, A. GALLATIN. To the Plenipontentiarics of His Britannic Majesty, &c*.. ^ Ko.lll.^British Note, / " •• From the Bntish to tJie American Ministfrs. * , ^ .•• "— » Ghevtf September 4, 18.\4,-' The undersigned hftve the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the Note of the American Plenipotentiaries, dated the 24th ultimo. Jtis with unfeigned regrety that the undersigned observe, both in the tone and substance of the M-htile Note, so littk proof of aay disposition on the part of the Government-of the United States to enter into an amicable discussion of thie several points, submitted by the undersigned, in their former cornmunication. The under^ signed are perfectly aware, that in bringing forward those points for consideration, and stating with so much frankness, as. they did* the views with which they were proposed, tbey-departed Iroiti the usual course of neigotiating, by discloshig all the objects' b^ their Government, while those which the American Gove nment had in view were withheld ; but in so doing, they were principally actuated by a sincere desire of bringing the negotiation, as soon as possible, to a favourable termination, and in some measure by their willingness to comply with the wishes expressed by the American Plenipoten- tiaries themselves. It is perfectly true, that the war between his Majesty and the UnitedStates was declared by the latter power, upon the pretence of maritime rights alleged to be asserted by Great Bri- - tain, and disputed by the United Stated;. If the war thus declared by the United States had been carried on b) them for objects purely of a maritime nature, or if the attack which had boen made on Ca- nada had been for the purpose of diversion, or in the way of defem^ against the British forces in that quar^r, any question as to the ftiQundades 9f Canada might have bee^ considered as unuccessary; but it IS notorious to ffie whole world, tfrat the conquest of Ctnadsy and its permanent annexation to the United States, was the de- clared omect «f the American Oovernment. If, in eonsequene« of a difrercQt course of events on the continent of £urop«^ hii Majesty's Goviprnment had been unable to reinforce the British armies in Canada, and the Unite;) States had obtained a decided superiority in diat quarter, is there any^ person who doubts that they would have availed themselves of their situation to obtain on the side of Canada important cessions of territoiy, if noit the efitire aftiandonment of that country by Great Britain ? Is rlie American Government to be .allowed to pursue, so far as its means will ena> ble it, a systena of aoqiiisition and agj^randisement to the point of annexing entire provinces to their dominions ; and is his Mnjesty- to be pre<;lttded from availing himself of his means, so far eb tlicy will enable hlip^to retjun thos9,points which the valour of British arms may have placed iq his power, because they happen to be situated within thj! jterrttoHes allotted under former treaties to the Govern- ment of the United States ? Such a principle of negotiation was never avowed at any .period antecedent to that of the revolutionary government of Frant:e. If the policy of the United States had been essentially pacific, a« the American Plenipotentiaries assert it ought to be, from their political .institudops, from the habits of their citi- zens, and from their physical JsituatioB, it ra^t not have been ne- cessary to propose the pveeautionary* provisions now under discus- tioo. That, of late years, at least, the Amevioan Govevoment have ibaen inAuenoed by a very diifereot poliay, by a spirit of aggrandkee- ^mentnot necessary to thdir own aecuntf, but increasing with the Jfctcnt of their empice, has been too clearly manifested by their fiKipfressive occupation of Indian >tarritorie6-'*by the acquisition of Xtouitiana j by lite 'moKC lecent attempt to wreat by Ibree -of arus 4i9m a4»tion in amity, Wbera ara^tbe proofo ? 'VMl^Jjird [Livetfo^ gonmuvieate them to F^liameot? Is Mif pacific ifMlieyJo jhtrlbqndin ^ Aifpericaii Coatcriptiou Bill) ia-lbencw noeiiism'ei i^Mm^nce r/ecaotly a^OfM ,by Coffgre^ ; in Mr. Seorftary li^iKiQe't op|e- J^t«d Istjterfui the nec^ksity pf l^i^g,a,Btfpdu^,ariOT,of,««|^MEfir ttowti or.wi Jtfc. jS^preiary JouesC4.ftill mQRB 0)9041 pV>Uf XCjwyrM^ lhc(4a9ltitli^ of tbe Amtrlcan Ndvy ^ I t^e ii" sequence e British 1 decrkledi hftt they I on the le entire American will ena- ' point of Majesty- ar HB they kish arms : situated : Govern- iation was )lutionary had been t it ought their ciji- , been ne- st discus- oent have grandizfi- wUh the by ihiiT li^ition of ; of arus le avowed h1 States. Iciiunions hey mmt maluDg ieTaneee, •ggran- wtioD) Is liaioDS mment treaty of ^icyofthf proofo? fir (KMtfic liDC^siiiei ^• have avowed to be a principle oftheir policy, and which, ai such, will UNoouAT£Dtv BSRKNRWKD,* whenevcrany succeeding w«r between the two countries shall afturd a prospect of renewing them with success. The British Plenipotentiaries proposed, that t)ie military possession of the Lakes, from Lake Ontario to Lake Superior, should be secured to Great Britain, because the command of those Lakes would afford to the American Government the meaiM of cem- mencing a war in the heart of Canada ; aiul because the command «f them, on the part of Great Britain, has been shewn by experience to be attended with no insecurity to the United States. When the relative strength of the two Powers in North America is consideved, it should be recollected tliat the Britii»h dominions in that quarter do not contain a population of 500,000 peri^ons ; whereas the ter- ritory of the United Stattes contains a population of more than swon millions ; that the naval rt^sources of the United States are at hand for attack, and that the naval resources of Great Britain are on the other side of the Atlantic. The military possession of those Lakes, is not, therefore, necessaiy for the protection of the United States. The proposal for allowing the territories on the southern banks of the Lakes ahovcmeRtioned to remain in the possession of the government of the United States, provided no fortifieatbns should be erected on the shores, and no armament |iermitted on the waters, has been made, for the purpose of maniliesting, that security, and not ivcquisition of territory, is the object of the British Government, and that they have no xlesife to throw obstacles in the wayiof any commerce, which the people cC the United States may be desirous of carrying on, upon the Lanr-es ia time of peace. The undersigned, with the anxious wish torectiif all misunderstanding, Irave thus more fully explained the ^t itself. With respect to the boundary of the district of Maine, and that of the North Westcnf frontier of the United, States, the undersigned were not prepared to anticipate the objeo^ tions 'Contained in the note of the American PlenipoterftiarieS)-**' thw were instructed to treat for the revtsiou of their bMoundary line,' with the Statement which they have cubsequently made, that they had no autfiority to cede any part, however insignificant^ of the territories, of the United .States, although the proposal left it^open to them to de« mand an equivalent fur such cession, either in fitontier or otlierwise* * Has (he treaty of peace secured the British dominions in North Ame« lica '* agvmst those attempts at oonqaest, which- wtt the andoubt^diy as* ** KiwivVthe^ American GeytmiMDt?** Jif irhasnot, is the fteaty -either SICVKtOr ROKOVRAB&B ? f '"^ «6 Tlic Ainerlcan Plenipotentiaries must be aware, that the botim!ary nf the district of Maine ims never been correctly ascertained; that the one asserted atpresent by the American Government, by which the direct communication between Halifax and Quebec becomes in-> tcrrupted, was not in contemplation of ihc British Plenipotentiaries who concluded the treaty of 1783, and that the greater part of the territory in question is actually unoccupied. The undersigned are i)ersuaded that an arrangement on this point might be easily made, if entered into with the spirit of conciliation, without any prejudice to the interests of the district in question. As the necessity for fixing some boundary for the north western frontier .ias been mutually acknowledged, a proposal for a discussion on that subject cannot be considered as a demand for a session of territory, unless the United States are prepared to assert, that there is no limit to their territories in that direction; and that, availing themselves of the geographical error u])on which that part of the treaty of 17^3 was founded, they will acknowledge no boundary whatever. Then unquestionably any proposition to fix one, be it what it may, must be considered as demanding a large cession of territory from the United States. Is the An'itiican Government pre- uared to assert such an unlimited right, so contrary to the evident intention of the treaty itself? Or, is his Majesty's Government to understand, that the American Plenipotentiaries are willing to ac? Icnowledge the boundary from t Lake of the Woods to the Mis- sissippi (the arrangement prop Sy a convention in 1803, but not ratified) as that by which theii ouvernment is ready to abide ? The British Plenipotentiaries aie instructed to accept favourably such a proposition, or to discuss any other line of boundary, which maybe submitted for consideration, it is with equal astonishment the undersigned find, that the American Plenipotentiaries have not only declined signing any provisional article, by which the Indian nations who have taken part with Great Britain in the present 4.'ontest may be included in the peace, and may have a boundary ' assigned to them, but have also thought proper to express surprise •at any proposition on the subject having been advanced. ' The American Plenipotentiaries state, that their Government could -^not have expected such a discussion, and appear resolved at .'pnceto reject any proposition on this head; representing it as a de- mand, contrary to the acknowledged principles of public law, tan- tamount to a cession of one third of the territorial dominions of the United States, and required to be admitted without discussion.- . The proposition which is thus represented, is,that the Indian nations .which have been during the war in alliance with Great Britam should At its termination, be included in the pacification; and, with 3 view to their permanent tranquillity and security, that the British Xjlpvernracnt is willing to take as a basis of an article on the subject of a BOUNDARV for those nations, the stipulations which the American Government contracted in 1795, subject, however, to modiifications. •After the .declaration, pubUcly made to those Indiaa nations by the •Clovernor General of Ctnada, that Great Butain^ would not desejt tlicm, could the Aiuericuu Government really persuade itself, thfit iio proposition relating;; to those nations would be advanced, ami (lid Lord Custkrcagh's note of the 4th of Novcnaber 1813, imply so great a sacrifice of honour, or exclude from discussion every subject, excoptine what immediately related to the maritit^e questions referred to in it ? When the undersigned assured the Amerieun Plenipotentiaries of the anxious wish of the British Go- vernment, that the negotiation might terminate in a peace honour- able to both Parties, it could not have been imagined, that the Ame- rican Plenipotentiaries would thence conclude, that liis Majesty's Go- vernment was prepared to abandon the Indian nations to tlieir fate ; nor could it have been foreseen, that the American Government would have considered it as derogatory to its honour to admit a pro- position, by which the tranquillity of those nations miglit be secured. The British Plenipotentiaries have yet to learn, that it is contrary to the acknowledged principles of public law to include ahies in a negotiation for peace, or that it is contrary to the practice of all civilized nations to propose, that a provision should be made for their future security. The treaty of Greenville established the boundaries between the United States and the Indian nations. The American Plenipotentiaries must be aware, that the war, which has smce broken out has abrogated that treaty. Is it contrary to the established principles of public law for the British Government to propose, on behalf of its allies, that this treaty shall, on the pacification, be considered subject to such modifications, as tjie case may render necessary ? Or is it unreasonable to propose, that thivS stipulation should be amended, and that on that foundation some arrangement should be made, which would provide for the existence of aNcUTRAi. power BETWEKN Great Britain and the United States, calculated to se- cure to both a longer continuance of the blessings of peace ? So far was that specific proposition respecting the Indian boun- daries from being insisted upon in the note, or in the conference which preceded it, as one to be admitted without discussion, that it would nave been difficult to use terms of greater latitude, or which appeared more, not only not to preclude, but to invite discus- sion. If the basis proposed cduld eonvey away one-third of the territory of the United States, the American Government itseilf must have conveyed it away by the Greenville treaty of 179^. It is impossible to read that treaty without remarking, how inconsistent the present pretensions of the American Government are, with its preamble and provisions. The boundary line between the lands of the United States and those of the Indian nations is therein expressly defined. The general character of the treaty, is that of a treaty with independent* nations ; and the very stipulation whic! he A 1 1 a>« * Can those nations be considered as " independent" which allow Americans to hold "sixteen tracts of land of six and twelve miles <.(| ** within their lands; and which acknowledge themselves' to be \mCi "* protection of the United States, and of no wh«r power whatever f £ the rican Plenipotentiaries refer to, that the Indian nations should sell their land", only to the United States, tends to prove, that but for that stipulation, the Indians had a general right to dispose of them. The American Government has now for the first time, in effect, deelarcd, that ^11 Indif^n nations within its line of demarcation are its subjects, living there upon sufferance, on lands which it also claims the exclusive right of acquiring, thereby menacing the final extinction of those nations. Against such a system, the undersigned must formally protest. The undersigned repeat, that the terms on which the proposition has been made for assigning to the Indian nations some boundary, manifest no unwillingness to discuss any other proposition directed to the same object, or even a modification of that which is offered. Great Britain is ready to enter into tlie same engagements with respect to the Indians living within her line of demarcation, as that which is proposed to the United States. It can, therefore, only be from a comj)lete misapprehension of the proposii'ijn, that it can be represented as being not reciprocal. Neither can it, with any truth, be represented as contrary to the ac- knowledged principles of public biw, as d(?rcgatory to the honour, or inconsistent with the rights of the American Government, nor as a demand required to be admitted without discussion. After this full exposition of the sentiments of his ^lajesty's government on the points above stated, it wii' be fcr the American Plenipotentiaries to determine, whether they ar;^ r»;ady now to rontinuc the negotia- tion ; whether they ar^ disposed to refer to their government for furtfer injitruetions; or lastly, whether tliey will take upon them- selves the responsibility of breaking off the negotiation altogether. The undersigned reqjest the American Plenipotentiaries to accept the assurances of their high consideration. (Signed) GAMBTER, HEMIV GOl^LBURN, WILLIAM ADAMii. No. IV. lite American to tlie British (Jommisdoners. Cm tilt y Si'ptetubcr J>, 181 L The tjndorslgned have had the honour to receive the note of his Britannic Majesty's Plenipotentiaries, dated the 4th ini>tant If, in the tone or subsnance of the former note of the undersigned, the British Commissioners have perceived little proof of any disposition on the part of the American Government, for a discussion jf some of the propositions advanced in the first note, which the Mndc- igned had the honour of receiving from them, they will ascribe it to the nature of i>he propositions tlicmselves ; to their apparent incom- patibility with the assurances in lK)rd Castlereagh's letter to the American Secretary of State proposing tins negotiation ; and with the solemn assuraiiL-es of the British Plenipotentiaries themselves to the rnderiigncd, at their first conferences with tU«in. The uudei- s ^ 51 lould sell It but for of them, in efFeet, ation are I) it also the final dersigned terms on le Indian 5CUSS any )dification I the same !r line of ttates. It m of the reciprocal, to the ac- e honour, nt, nor as A.fter this rnment on otentiaries J negotia- iment for •on them- iltogether. io accept LBURN, DiWIS. ►,1811. Me "f his It If, in ^ned, the is posit ion of some Idt' igned ribe it to lit in com - jr to the land with Ijsclves to Le uudei- sigfned, in reference to an observation oi the British Plenipoten^ tiaries, must be allowed to iay, that the objects which the gwvern- mentof the United States had in vicv., have not been withheld. The subjects considered as suitable for discussion, were fairly brought forward in the conferences of the 9th ult. and the terms on which the United States were willing to conclude peace, were frankly and expressly declared in the note of the undersigned, dated the 24th ultimo. It had been confidently hoped, that the nature of those terms, so evidently framed in a sincere spirit of con- ciliation, would iiave induced Grci.t Britain to adopt them as the basis of a treaty : and it is, with deep regret, that the undersigned, if they have rightly understood the meaning of the la5ft note of the British Plenipotentiaries, perceive, that they still insist on the ex- clusive military possession of the Lakjs, and on a permanent buun- j)AUY and iNDKPi5Nj>KNT territory for the Indians residing within the dcHninions of the United States. The first demand is grounued on the supposition, that the Ame- rican Government has manifested, by its proceedings; towards Spain, by the acquisition of Louisiana, by purchases of Jnuiaa lands, and by an avowed intention of permanently annexing the Canadas to the United States, a spirit of aggrandisement and con- quest, which justifies the demand of extraordinary sacrifices from them, to provide for the security of the British possessions in Ame- rica. In the observations which 'me undersigned felt it their duty to make on the new demands of the British Government, they confined their animadversions to the nature of the demands them- selves • they did not seek for illustrations of the policy of Great Britain ?n her conduct in various quarters of the globe towards other nations, for she was not accountable to the United States, Yet the undersigned will say, that their governirent has ever been ready to arrange, in the most amicable manner, wuh Spain, the ques- tions respecting the boundaries of Louisiana and the Floridas, and that of indemnities acknowledged by Spain to be due to America < citizens. How the peaceable acquisition of Louisiana, or the purchase of lands, within the acknowledged territory of the U.uted Stat( , both made by fair and voluntary treaties for satisfactory equivalents, can be ascribed to a spirit of conquest dangerous to their neigh- bours, the und^irsigned aio altogether ; a loss to understand. Nor has the conquest of Canada, and its permanent annc^iation to the United States, been the declared object of their government. From the commencement of the war, to the present time, the American Government has been always' willing to make peace, without obtain- ing any cession of territory, and on the sole condition, that the maritime questions might be satisfactorily arrange^* Such was their disposition in the month of July, 1812, when they instructed Mr. Russel to make the proposal of an armistice; in the month of October of the same year, when Mr. Monroe answered Admiral Warren's proposals to the same effect; in April, 1813, when in- structions were given to three of the undirsigQeii, theo appoiuicU to £2 rj f/.<. II 52 treat oT peace, vnder tlie mediation of Rus.nia; and in January, 1814, when tlie irtstrut;tions, under which the undersigned are now acting, were prepared. The proposition of the British Plenipotentiaries is, that in order to secure tiie frontiers of Canada against attack, the United State* should leave their own without defence ; and it seems to be forgotten, that if their superior population, and the proximity of thehr resources, give them any advantage in that quarter, it is balanced by the great diflference between the military establishments of the two nations* No sudden invasion of Canada by the United States couM be made, without leaving on their Atlantic shores, and on the ocean exposed to the great superiorhy of the British force, a mass of American property far more valoable tlian Canada. In her relative superior force to that of the United States in every other quarter. Great Britain may find a pledge much more efficacious for the safety nf a single vulnerable point, than in stipulations ruinous to the interests, .ind degrading to thelionour of America. The best security for the possessions of both countries will, however, be found in an equal and solid peace, in a nwtual respect for the rights of each other, and in the cuUivfttion of a friendly understanding between them. If there be any source of jealousy in relation to Canada itself, it will be found to exist solely in the undue interference of traders and agents, which may be easily removed by proper restraints. The only American forts on the Lakes known to have been at the commencement of the negotiation held by British force, are Michillimackinac and Niagara. As the I7nitcd States were, at the same time, in possession of Amhcrstberg and the adjacent country, it is not perceived, that the mere occupation of those two forts could give any claim to His liritannic Majesty to large cessions of terri- tory, founded upon the right of conquest ; and the undersigned may l)e perriitted to add, timt even if the chaiie«s of war should yield to the British arms a momentary possession of other parts of the territories of t\u- I tiircd States, sucli events would not alter tlieir views with regard to the terms of peac^, to whic h tliey could give thiir consent. Without reourrirg to examples drawn from the revolutionary Governi/i'Mits of France, or to a more recent and illustriouK triumph of fortitude in ad^'crsity, they liave been taught fty their own history, that the occuparion of their pnncip;d cities would produce no despondency, nor induce their sul)niission to the dismemhernicnt of their empire, or to the abandonment of any one of the rights which constitute' a part of their national indepen- dence. The general position, that it was c(msistent with the prin- ciples of public law, and with the {)ractice of eivili/ed nations, to include allies in a treaty of pi.'aee, and to provide for their security, never was called in question ny the undersigned; but they have denied the right of (ireal Britain, according to those principles and iiKii OWN PRACTicr, tolnti'ifcre In any .manner with Indian tribes residing wi I fii5J the terrftoricK of the United States, as acknowledged by hersfcit, to convider vuch tiibcs as lier allies, or to treat for theai January, tare now in order cd Sta*t'a forgotten, resources, the great I nations* be made, 1 exposed American ; superior ter. Great afety nf a I interests, ity for the an equal ich other, een them. a itself, it of trader* ints. e been at force, are ne, at the It country, orts could s of terri- iL'"ticd>nay ould yield rts of the liter tl'.eir could give from the cent and ;en taught ipal cities on to the nt of any indcpcn- thc prin- ations, to security, hey luivc* iples and ian tribes lowledgcd for theai 53 They will r the facts and with the United States. meats alr^'ady brought forward by tiiem in support of this position, and vhi'^h remain unanswered. The observations made by the British Plenipotentiaries upon the :reaty of Greenville, and their assertion, that the United States now, for the first time, deny the absolute independence of the Indian tribes, and claim the exclusive right of purchasing their lands, require, however, some notice. If the United States had now asserted, that the Indians within their boundaries, who have acknowledged the United States as their only protectors, were their subjects, living only at sufferance on their lands, far from being the iirst in making that assertion, they would only have followed the example of the principles unifoimly and invariably asserted in substance, and frequently avowed in ex> press terms, by the British Government itself. What was the meaning of all the colonial cl.arters, granted by the British monarchy, from that of Virginia, by Elizabeth, to that of Georgia, by the immediate predecessor of the present king, if the Indians were the sovereigns and proprietors of the iands bestowed by those charters ? What was the meaning of that article in the treaty of Utrecht, by which the Five Nations we.'e descril)ed in terms as subject to the dominion of Great Britain ; or that of the treaty with the Cherokees,^ by which it was declared, that the King of Great Britain granted them the privilege to live where they pleased, if those subjects were independent sovereigns, and if these tenants, at the license of the British King, were the rightful lords of the lands, where he granted them permission to live ? What was the meaning of that proclamation of his present Britannic Majesty, issued in 17^»3, declaring all purchases of lands from the Indians null and void, unless made by treaties held uudei the sanction of his Maj»^ s Government, if the Indians had the right to sell their lands to wli >u they pleased ?t What wj* vhe meaning of boundary- * A. D. 1730. " Upon which, tl ■ Cherokee Chiefs, tjliing on their " knees, (before Sir Alexander Cuming, His Majesty's Commissioner) *' solemnly promised fidelity and oledu ce, railing upon ail that was " terrible to fall upon them, if they violaied their piotnije." The Treaty with the Cheroke* Chiefs, was drawn up and signed at Lon- don, by Alured Popple, Secretin y to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, on one side, and by the marks of the six Chiefs, on the.other. The preamble states, '• that they laid the rr -n of their nation, with the scalps '* of their enemies, at His Mnjcsiu ct, as a pledge of their loyalty , Ike. Among the articles of the Treat), ihe following do not much resemble the stipulations of a Treaty betwceii iicoepenbent States : " The Cherokees shall not suffer their people to trade with white men ** of any other naiion but the English ; nor permit whiet men of any •** other nation, to build any forts or cabins, or plant any corn among them, *' upon lands belonging to the Great King (George II.)." Vide History *' of the Carolinias, page 7, vol. l. " By this proclamation, all private subjects were prohilitcd from *' purchasing lands from the Indians ; but^ if the latter should, at any time. 54 lines of American territories, in all the treaties of Great Britain with other European powers having American possessions, particu- larly in the treaty of 1/63, by which she acquired from France the sovereignty and possession c? the Canadas — in her treaty of peace with the United States in 1783 ? — nay, what is the meaning of the north-western boundary-line now proposed by the British Com- missioners themselves, if it is the rightful possession and sovereignty of independent Indians, of which those boundaries dispose ? Is it, indeed, necessary to ask, whether Great Britain ever has per- mitted, or would permit, any foreign nation, or without her con- sent, any of her subjects, to acquire lands from the Indians, in the territories of the Hudson's Ray Company, or in Canada ? In formally protesting against this system, it is not against a novel pretension of the American Government-^it is against the most solemn acts of THEIR OWN Sovereigns, against the royal proclamations, charters, and treaties of Great Britain, for more than two centuries, from the first settlement of North America, to the ])resent day, that the British Plenipotentiaries protest. From the rigour of this system, however, as practised by Great Britain, and all the other European powers in America, the humane and liberal policy of the United States has voluntarily relaxed. A celebrated writer on the law of nations, to whose authority British jurists have taken particular satisfaction in appealing, after stating, in the most explicit manner, the legitimacy of colonial settlements in America, the exclusion of all rights of uncivilized Indian tribes, has taken occasion to praise the first settlers of New England, and the founder of Pennsylvania, in having purchased of the Indians, the lands they resohtd to cultivate, notwithstanding their being furnished with a charter from their sovereign. It is this example whi«h the United States, since ■ ■ ■-* — ...... , , ,, .u . . Mi» . , , ,. ■.,.-■■ ,....-.. ■ >w^ ■■' ' '■■ " " ~- *' be inclined to dispose of their property, it must, for the future, be *' done to the King, by the general consent of theirnatiou." Vide also Mr. Stuart's (Superintendant of Indians) Speech to the Indians, at Mobile, in 1763; in which he tells them, "that while they continue *• dutiful and obedient, the eye of their father (the King of England) will " be upon them, his hand will be open to relieve their wants." Again-^ " The Great King (of England) has a n^A/ to expect your gratitude and ** oliedience j for all he requires is, with a view to your own tranquillity and " happiness." Again—-" The King of Great Britain loves peace and ** justice, but will punish all murders and rebellion !" " All individuals " are prohibited from purchasing any of your lands j but, as you know, ** that your white brethren canno^^trrf you, when you vis.it them, unless " yoxx give ihQttx grounds to plant, \\. \t, expect fd, that you will cede lands ** to the King for that purpose." Is this »)roper language to be employed towards * independent states,' ' like the Princes of Germany ?" Or were the British Ministers ignorant of these facts, when they compared the Savages to the Lanoorav rs, Margraves, and Electors of Europe ? The situation of the Indians, as described by Mr. Stuart in 1 763, is precisely that, wliich the Plenipotentiaries of the United Stales of America describe^ as the actual condition of those savages. Britain particu- nce the A peace ■ of the h Com- ereignty se ? Is IBS per- ler con- s, in the formally etension mn acts charters, from the that the system, iUropean United ; law of larticular manner, usion of o praise sylvania, ohtd to ter from ;s, since Hure, be Indians, continue nd) will Again -^ ude and lity and ce and ividuals know, unless e lands iployed ere the AVAGES 1 763, is America 5S tley became, by their Independence the sovereigns of the territory, have adopted and organized into a political system. Under that system, the Indians, residing within the United States, are so far independent, that they live under their own customs, and not under the laws of the United States ; that their rights upon the lands where they inhabit or hunt are secured to them by boun- daries defined in amicable treaties between the United States and themselves ; and that, whenever those boundaries are varied, it is also by amicable and voluntary treaties, by which they receive from the United States ample compensation for every right they have to the lands ceded by them. They are so far dependent, as not to have the right to dispose of their lands to any private persons, nor to any. power other than the United States, and to be under their protection alone, and not under that of any other power. Whether called subjects, or by whatever name designated, such is the relation be- tween them and tiie United States. That relation is neither asserted now, for the first time, nor did it diginate with the treaty of Green- ville. These principles have been uniformlt recognized by the ^ Indians themselves, not only by that treaty, but in all the other previoui, as well as subsequent, treaties, between them and the United States. The tr«'aty of Greenville neither took from the Indians the right, \.' 'eh they had not, of selling lands vUhin the jurisdiction of the United States to foreign governments or subjects, nor ceded to them the right of exercising exclusive jurisdiction within the boundary- line assigned. It was merely declaratory of the public law, in relation to the parties, founded on principles previously and univer- sally recognized. It left to the United States the rights of exercising sovereig»^ty and of acquiring soil, and bears no analogy to the proposition of Great Britain, which rcjuires the abandonment of both. The British Plenipotentaries state in their last note, that Great Britain is reidy to enter into the same engagement with respect to the Indians living within their line of demarcation, as that which is j)roposed to the United States. The undersigned will not dwell on the immense inequality of value between the two territories, which, under such an arrange- ment, would be assigned by each nation, respectively to liie Indians, and which alone would make the reciprocity merely nominal. The condition which would be thus imposed on Great Britain not to acquire lands in Canada from the Indians, would be productive of no advantage to the United States, and is, therefore, no equivalent for the sacrifice required of ihem. They do not consider that it belongs to the United States, in any respect to interfere with the concerns of Great Britain in her American possessions, or with her policy towards the Indians residing tlieie j and they cannot con- sent to any interferencv'^, on the part of Great Britain, with their own concerns, and particula ly with the Indians living wirms their territories. It MAY b« the Interest of Great Britain to limit her settlements r;ii Hrs. 56 in Canada to their present extent, and to leave the country to the west a perfect wilderness, to be for ever inliabited by scattered tribes of banters ; but it would inflict a vital injury on the United States to have a line run througii their territory, beyond which their set- tlements should for ever be precluded from extending, thereby arresting the natural growth of their population and strength : placing the Indians substantially, by virtue of the proposed guarantee, under the protection of Great Britain, dooming them to perpetual barbarism, and leaving an extensive frontier for ever exposed to their savage incursions. With respect to the mere question of peace with the Indians, the undersigned have already explicitly assured the British Plenipo- tentiaries, that so far as it depended on the United States, it would immediately and necessarily follow a peace with Great Britain. If this be her sole object, no provision in the treaty to that effect is neces- sary. Provided the Indians will now consent to it, peace will be immediately made with them, and they will be reinstated in the same situation, in whichthey stood, before the commencement of hostilities. Should a continuance of the war compel the United States to alter their policy towards the Indians, who may still take the part of Great Britain, they alone must be responsible for the consequences of her owji act in having induced them to withdraw themselves from the ^rotect^on of the United States. The employment of savages, whose krtown^ rule of warfare is the indiscriminate torture and butchery of women, children, and prisoners, is itself a departure from the princi- ples of humanity observed between all civilized and Christian Nations, even in war. The United States have constantly protested, and still protest against it, as an unjustifiable aggravation of the calamities and horrors of war. Of the peculiar atrocities of Indian warfare, the Allies of Great Britain, in whose belialf she now demands sacrifices of the United States, have, during the present war, shewn many deplorable examples. Among them, the massacre, in cold blood, ot wounded prisoners, and the refusal of the rights of burial of tlie dead, under the eyes of British Officers, who could only plead their inability to controul these savage auxiliaries, have been repeated and. are notorious to the world. The United States might, at all times, have employed the same kind of force against Great Britain, to a greater extent than It was in her power to employ it against them ; but from their reluctance to resort to means so abhorrent to the natural feelings of humanity, they abstained fioin the use of them until compelled to the alternative of employing tliemsclves Indians, who would otherwise have been drawn into the ranks of their enemies. The undersigned, suggesting to the British Plenipotentiaries the propriety of an article by which Great Britain and the United States should reciprocally stipulate never hereafter, if they should again be at war, to employ savages in it, believe that it would be infinitely more honourable to the Christian temper of both parties, ttiorc advantageous to the Indians themselves, and better adapted to ever same I) it was ictance inanity, Ir native k been itiai'ies Inited Ishould ]uld be parties, )ted to 37 secure their permanent peace, tranquility, and progressive civiliza- tion, than the boundary proposed t)y the British Plenipotentiaries, With regard to the cession of a part of the district of Maine, as to whicli, the British Plenipotentiaries are unable to reconcile the objections made by the undersigned with their previous declaration, they have the honour to. observe, that at the conference of the 9th ultimo, the British Plenipotentiaries stated, as one of the subjects suitable for discussion, a revision of the boundary lin6 between the British and American territories, whh a view to prevent uncertainty and dispute ; and that it was on the point thus stated, that the undersigned declared, that they were provided with instructions from their Government : a declaration which did not imply that they were instructed to make any cession of territory in any quarter, or to agree to a revision of the line, or to any exchange of tenitoiy, where no uncertainty or dispute existed. The undersigned perceive no uncertainty or matter of doubt in the Treaty of J788, with respect to that part of the boundary of the District of Maine, which would be affected by the proposal of Great Britain on that subject. They never have understood, that the British Plenipotentiaries who signed tiiat treaty, had contem- plated a boundary dilFerent from that fixed by the Treaty, and which requires nothing more, in order to be definitively ascertained, than to be surveyed in conformity with its provisions. — ^This subject not having been a matter of uncertainty in dispute, the undersigned arc not instructed upon it ; and tliey can have no authority to cede any part of the State of Massachusetts, even for what the British Government might consider a fair equivalent. In regard to the boundary of the North-western Frontier, as soon as the proposition of Indian boundary is disposed of, the undersigned have no objection, with the explanation given by the British Plenipotentiaries, in their last note, to discuss the subject. The undersigned, in their former note, stated with frankness, and will now repeat, that the two propositions — 1st, of assigning in the proposed treaty of peace a definitjb boundary to the Indians living within the limits of the United States, beyond which boundary they should stipulate not to acquire, by purchase or otherwise, any territory: 2dly, of securing the exclusive military possession of the Lakes to Great Britain, are both inadmissible ; and that they cannot subscribe to, and would deem it useless to refer to their Government any arrangement, even provisional, containing either of those propositions. With this understanding, the undersigned are now ready to continue the negotiation ; and, as they, have already expressed, to discuss the points of diiference, or which might hereafter tend in any degree to interrupt the harmony of the two countries. The undersigned request the British Plenipotentiaries to accept the assurance of their high consideration. (Signed) JOHN QUINCEY ADAMS, H. CLAY, JAMES A. BAYARD, A.GALLATIN. JONATHAN RUSSELL, To the Plenipotentiaries of his Britannic Majesty, &c. 58 No. V. T7 cation. By making this engagement, subject to revision at a given period, it is hoped that the objection to the establishment of a boun- dary, beyond which the settlements of the United States should be for ever excluded, may be effectually obviated. ' The undersigned have never stated that the exclusive military possession of the Lakes, however conducive, they are satisfied it would be to a good understanding between the two Countries, with- out endangering the security of the United States, was to be con- sidered as a sine qua non in the negotiation. f — Whent ver the ques- tion relative to the pacification of the Indian nations (v»hich, subject to the explanations already given, is a sine qua non) shall be adjus* ted, the undersigned will be authorized to make a final proposition on the subject of Canadian boundaries, so entirely founded on prin-» ciples of moderation and justice, that they feel confident it cannot be rejected. This proposition will be distinctly stated by the under- signed, upon receiving an assurance from the American Plenipoten- tiaries, that they consider themselves authorized to conclude a provi- sional article on the subject, and upon their previously consenting to include the Indian nations in the Treaty, in the manner abovjk described. The undersigned avail themselves of this opportunity of sine re- qua * This is the Jirst time that the British Miuisters modify their uon." h is important to remark this fact. + Vid« Conference pf the igth August, *' We," (say the AnJerican Plenipotentiaries) " were induced to enquire whether the question of the Lakes was a sine qua non ? To this the British Commissioners declined giving a. positive answer; they said they bad been sufficiently explicit; that they bad given us one sine qua non, and when we had disposed oS that^ it would be time enough to give us an answer as to another.*' *e ; but it t's ever to t-operatcd 1)6 British lie United ffored any Bgatory to vhich aro igned are tot to sign Led States to all the the year tue of the concluded he British article by Wt selves, cha e the of demar- at a given af a boun- Duld be for B military satisfied it ries, with- be con- he ques- , subject be adjus- >ropo8ition on prin«» cannot \e under- lenipoten- e a prpvi- senting to er ABOva r of re- ' sine qua Anoerlcan lion of the s declined r explicit ; isposed of ;h it 61 newiog to the American Plenipotentiaries the assurance of their high cuosidt^iatioii. .,,..; (Signed) ., . ,: GAMBIER, ,,', , , .,.....•■:,, ,.;, .. . ......uii: HENRY GOULBURN,;..,,,, VVILLUM ADAMS, Tlie Jdinistei's Plenipi^entiary and Ecotraor- dinary of the United it . " Ghent, Sept, 26, 18U/ in replying to the note which the undersigned have Iiad the honour of receiving from his Britanliic MBJesty's Plenipotentiaries, dated the lUth instant, they are happy to concur with tuem in the sentinnent of avoiding unnecessary discussions, especially such as may have a tendency to create irritation. They had hoped that, in tlie same spirit, the British Plenipotentiaries would not have thought allusions again necessary to transactions foreign to this negotiation, relating to the U^iited States, and other independent nations, and not suitable for discussion between the United States and Great Britain. The observation made with respect to Louisiana is the more extraordinary, as ilie cession of that province to the United States was, at that time, communicated to the British Government,* *Copy of a letter from Lord Hawresbvry {now Earl of Liyerpool) to Ma. £vrv« Kino, dated May I9, 1S03. Downing Street, May ig, ISOSr'** Sia, Having laid before the King your letter of the 15th of this mouth, in which you inforiD roe, that a treaty was signed at Paris on the 30tb of last month, bjr the Plenipotentiaries of America and France, by which the complete Sovereignly of the town and territory of New Orleans, as well as of all Louisiana, has been acquired by the United States, I have received His Majesty's commands, to express to you the pleasure with which his Majesty has received this intelligence, and to add, that His Mdjesty re- gards the care which has been taken so to frame this treaty as net to infringe any right of Great Britain in the navigation of the Mississippi, ai the most satisfactory evidence of adi^osition on the part of the Government of the United States, correspondent to that which his Majesty entertains, to pro- mote and improve that harmony and good understanding which so happily subsist between the two Countries, and which are so conducive to their mutual beneiBt. I have it also in conmand to assure you,; Sir, that the sentiments which you have expressed in making this communication, are considered by bis Majesty's government as an additional proof of that cor* diality and confidence which you have uniformly manifested in the whole course of your public Mission, and which have so justly entitled you to the esteeip and rega^rd of his Majesty's government, I desire you to accept theassurance of tlie distinguished consideration witjl|i which I have honour to be, &c. (Signed) HAWKESBURV. RufusKing, Esquire, ^c. tSfc. (sfc. 61 11; : wlio expressed tlieir entire satisfaction with it, and lias subsequently received tlie solemn Sanciion of Spain licrseif. The undersigned will further sny, that whenever the transactions of the United States in relation to the boundaries of Louisiana and Florida, shall he a proper subject of discussion, thcv will be found not only susceptible of complete justification, but will demonstrate the moderation and forbearance of the American Government, and their undeviating respect for the rights of their neighbours. The undersigned are far from assuming the exclusive right to decide what is, or is not, a subject of uncertainty and dispute, with regard to the boundary of the district of Maine. But until the Bri- tish Plenipotentiaries shall have shewn in what respect the part of that boundary which could be affected by their proposal, is such a subject, the undersigned may be permitted to assert that it is not. 'i'he treaty of IJS.J described the " boundary as aline to be drawn ** along the middle of the river St. Croix, from its mouth in the ** Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the ** highlands which divide the rivers that 'all into the Atlantic Ocean ** from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence, and thence along << the said highlands to the nonhwesternmost head of Connecticut "river." Doubts having arisen as to the St. Croix designated in the treaty of 1783, a provision was made by that of 17-Hfor ascertaining it; and it may be fairly inferred from the limitation of the article to that aole object, that even in the judgment of Great Britain, no other {Subject of controversy existed in relation to the extension of the boundary line from the source of that t;v"i. That river and its source having been accordingly ascertained, the undersigned are prepared to propose the appointment of Commissioners by the two Governments, to extend the line to the highlands, conformably to the Treaty of 1783. The proposal, however, of the British Pleni- potentiaries was not to ascertain, but to vart these lines in such a manner, as to secure a direct communication between Quebec and Halifax ; an alteration, which could not be eflected without a cession by the United States to Great Britain, of all that portion of the State of Massachusetts intervening between the province of New Bruns- wick and Quebec j although unquestionably included within the boun- I ^, f * The British Cabinet now attempt to assert, that they were not ac- quainted with the " circumstances" of this transaction, when Lord Liver- pool signified to the government of the United States, His Britannic Ma- jesty's satisfaction at the cession to America, of the Province of Louisi-na ! If this be true, Lord Liverpool, (Secretary of State for Foreign affairs) expressed a deliberate opinion on a great political arrangement, of the nature of which, he mow admits, that he was ignorant ! ! This cannot be admitted as any justification of his conduct, iut it sufficiently accounts for Mr. Pitt's recorded declaration in Parliament of Lord Liverpool's unfitness for the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and hit sus&saUENT KEMovAL by Mr. Pitt from that important situation. )s^qucntty idcrsigned ted Stntt's ihall he a usccptiblc 'ation and ideviating ! right to lUte, with 1 the Bri- B part of is such a is not. be drawn h in the irth to the tic Ocean >nce along mnecticut the treaty ining it ^ :le to that no other 1 of the r and its gned are the two mably to Plcni- such a bee and cession he State Bruns- ; boun- not ac- \d Liver- pnic Ma- auisi ^na ! affairs) of the lannot be I for Mr. [ness for 63 dary lines fixed by thnt'trcaty. Wlietherit wns contemplated on the part of Great Brhain to ohtain the cession, with or without an equivalent in frontier or otherwise, the undersigned, in stating that they were not instructed or authorised to treat on the subject of cession, h&ve not declined to discuss any matter of uncertainty or dispute, which the Britiih Plenipotentiaries may point out to exist, respecting the boundaries in that or any other quarter; and are therefore, not liable to the imputation of having rendered their povers on the subject nugatory, or inadmissably partial in their operation. The British Plenipotentiaries consider the undersigned as having declared — * That the United States will admit of no line of boundary between their territory and that of the Indian nations, because the natural growth and population uf the United States would be thereby arrested.'— The undersigned, on the contrary, expressly stated in their last note. — < That the lands inhabited by the Indians were secured to them by boundaries, defined in amicable treaties between them and the United States :' but they did refuse to assign, in a treaty of peace with Gr^^'.at Britain, a definite and permanent boundary to the Indians living within the limits of the United States. On this subject, the undersigned have no hesitation in avowing, that the United States, while intending never to acquire lands from the Indians otherwise than peaceably, and with their free consent, are fully determined in that manner, progressively, and in propo-:ion as their growing population may require, to reclaim from :. state of nature, and to bring into cultivation, every portion ofthe territory con- tained within their acknowledged boundaries. In thus providing for the support of millions of civilized beings, they will not violate any dictate of justice or humanity ; for they will not only give to the few thousand savages, scattered over that territory, an ample equi- valent for any right they may surreiMler, but will always leave them the possession of lands more than they can cultivate, and more than adequate to their subsistence, comfort, and enjoyment by cultivation. If this be a spirit of aggrandizement, the undersigned are pre- pared to admit, in that sense, its existence ; but they must deny that it affords the slightest proof of an intention not to respect the boundaries between them and European nations, or of a desire to encroach upon the territories of Great Britain. If, in the j^rogress of their increasing population, the American people must grow in strength proportioned to their numbers, the undersigned will hope, that Great Britain, far from repining at the prospect, will contemplate it with satisfaction. They will not sup- pose, that that Government will avow, as the basis of their policy towards the United Slates, the system of arresting their natural growth WITHIN their own territories, for the sake of preserving a perpetual oesart for savages. If Gteat Britain has made sacrifices to give repose to the civilized world in Europe, no sacrifice is required from hej by the United States to complete the work of general pacification. This negotiatioa -at least evlncesy^ on their pai% no (lis})b4tk>n to claim any othei' right, tlmn.that of preserving, their incleijchdeiu;e entire^ and of goveroiog thbiu own territories without foreign inter* ference. Ot the two Proclamations, purported copies of which tliC British Plenipotentiaries liave thought proper to inclose with their last note^ the undersigned might content themselves with remarJiing) that neither of them is the act of the American Government. They are enabled, however, to add, v;ith perfect confidence, that neither of tliera was authorized or approved by the Government. The undersigned are not disposed to consider as the act of the Britwh Government, 4i»c Proclamation of Admiral Cochraiae,* here- with iaiclosed;, Excri inc a portion of the population of tiic United Spates, under tlie promise of military employment, or c^ ifee settle- tiisat m tli€ West IndieK. to jREAC|iBRY and risbrllipn. The undersigned very sincerely regret to be obliged to say, th?^t an irresistible mass of evide»ice, consisting principally of the correspondence of British officers and agents, part only of which has .already been published in America, establishes beyond all ra- tional douht, the fact, that a constant system of excitement to those hostilities vvus pursued by the British traders and agents, who had access to the Indians, not only without being discountenanced, but with fjequent encouragement by the British authorities ; and that * It is to be hoped that, for the honour ef the British Name, this pah- TlCULAAaUESTION will undergo a strict PARI.IA3(B^TABY tNV£STIGATIOK. " The National Inteliigfiicer," (the ojfficiai paper of the American Go- vernment) contains the following account:—- '* We learn that the enemy have descended the Rappahannock. An ac- count from there states, that their descent up the river was marked by plundering z^A lurning on both shores almost every thing within their reach. Their conduct at Rappahaiuio k was scarcely exceeded at Himpton for its brutality and tvanton destruction of property. They havff laid in ashes the court-hpuse, prison, collector's office, clerk's office, andalargfe warehouse, and scarcely a building escai);'d plunder or damage. It appears likewise, that the neghoes mIio joined the enemy were armed by them>and tuwed into the town with lioe>jse to commit any excess ; they broke into the family vault of Colonel Kitchie, and ransacked the ashes of the dead." * Five coffins, (says a.leiter) were opened, their escutcheons torn off and castaway, and their ruoiilderii>g contents MUTILATED ad left exposed j the plea was the hope of plumler ' " Ministers, however, will answer, that this is the accusation of an enemy, — Let us, then, hear what a friend says on the same subject. *' Let not the English Orators, (observes Mr. Randolph) declaim against the enormity ot French principles, when England permits herself to arm and discipline our slaves, and to lead them intothe field against their masters, in the hope of esciting, by their example, a generalinsur- jfction, atjd thus make Virginia, another St. Domingo. And deoi ihe talk of Jacobinism ? What is this, but Jacobinism, and of the vilest stamp? Is THIS (England) the country thai basaboliibed tbe Sla¥e Trade?" &c. &c. . .... ' _. ............ *< 4,tion to n ihte^r- ich ilie th thuir larking, . They Deitlier of tlie ,* here- Uttited 8 settlpr to say, y of the »f which lall ra- to those who had ced, but and that HIS PAR- IGATIOW. ic^n Go- An ac- larked by Ihin their impton '©■ laid in dalav^ appears :in,and Irokointo DBAD." off and ied } the etwmy. against lerself to agaioit ll insur- id deoi Ihe vilest BlfkVfi <65 If ttfigywrer diisufccfed flielndkiris frofti cofhlrrrendng Kb^tiliWes, it ^t «hly by drgitig them, ds in prudence, to suspend tlieff httickj, ttntHOffeat BritJrtri Could recognize theth as heiriillies in the war. When. In the conference of the 9th ultimo, the undersl^hed ftivitel discttssltin u^ri tht proposal of Indian pacificntioti an1> bbutidary, as i^eli tis upon all the subjects presented by the British Plenipotentiaries foi* distussion, they expressly stated their motives to be— 1st. To ascehain, by discussion, whether an article oh thb subject C6uld be formed to which they could subscijhe, ancl \vhicK Would be satisfactory to the British Plenipotentiaries ; and, 2dly, Thit if no Such article could be formed, the American government tn^ht be informed of the views of Great Britain upon that pdi'it, afid the British government of the objections on the part of the IJirittfd States, t6 any such arrangement. The undersigned HAVte, in fact, already proposed no less thiin TfiiEfe articles on the subject, ALL of which they view as better calculated to secure peace attd trattquiility to the Iiidlans, than any one of the proposals for tha:t purpose made by the British Plenipotentiaries, The undersigned had repeated their assurances to the British , Plenipoteritiaries, that peace, so far as it depended on the United SfJiteS, would immediately follow a peace witli Great Britain; and added, that the Indiaiis would thereby be reinstated in the scnnt situation, which they stood before the commencement of hostilities. The British Plenipotentiaries insist in their last note, " that the Indian *' nation^ shall be incltided in the treaty of peace between Great ** Britain and the United States, and be restored to all the rights, "privileges, and territories, which they enjoyed in the year 1811, " previous to the commencement of the war, by virtue at tlie treaty ** of Greenville, and the treaties subsequently concluded between ** them and the United States." Setting aside the subject of boundary, which is presented ai for discussion only, there is no apparent dijference with resj)ect to the object in vie\t; "the pacification and tranquihlty of the *' Indians, and placing them in the same situation inwliid) they stood *' before the war,'*-*-aW which will be equally obtained in the hianner proposed by the undersigned; the only point of real diffcMence being this, that the British Plenipotentiaries insist, that it should be done by including the Indians as Allies of Great Britain, in tlie treaty of peace between her and the United States. The United States can- not consent, that Indians residing witMn their boundaries, as fto- hiowledged by Great Britain, shall be included in the treaty of peaces in any manner, which will recognise them as independent nationSf whom Great Britain, having obtained this recognition, would her^- iafter have the right to consider in every respect as such. Thus to recognise those Indians as independent and sovereign nations, would take from the United States, and transfer to those Indians, all the rights of soil and swercigntxf over the territory which they inhabit > and this being accomplished through the agency of Great Britain, would place them effectually and exclusively under htir protection^ F 66 IP'. instead of being, as heretofore, under that of the United States. It is not perceived, in what respect, such a provision would differ from an absolute cession by the United States of the extensive territory in question. The British Plenipotentiaries have repeated the assertion, that the treaty by which the Indians placed themselves under the protection of the United States, was abrogated by the war; and thence infer, that they are no longer to be considered as under the protection of the United States, whatever may be the import of the term ; and that the right of Great Britain to interfere in their behalf in the negotiation of peace, can only be denied on the ground, that they are regarded as subjects. In point of fact, SEVJSRAL TRifiiis, parties to the treaty of Greenville, hav£ constantly B££N, and STILL ARE, at PEACE with the United States. Whether that treaty be or be not abrogated, is a question not necessary to be now discussed. /The right of the United States to the protection of the Indians within their boundaries, was not acquired by that treaty ; it was a necessary consequence of the " soverbjgnty and indepbn- ** DENCE of the United States." Previous to that time, the Indians liv- ing within tlie same territory, were under the protection of his Bdtan- nic Majesty, as its sovereign. The undersigned may refer the British Plenipotentiaries to all the acts of their own government, relative to the subject, as proof, that it has always considered this right of protection as one of the rights of sovereignty, which it needed no Indian treaty to confer, and which the abrogation of no Indian treaty could divest. They will particularly bring to thrir recoUection, tliat when a similar proposi,tion of considering Indian tribes as independent nations, to serve as a barrier between the French and English territories, was made by France to England, it was immediately rejected by a minister, to whom the British natioQ is accustomed to look back with veneration, and rejected on the express ground, that the King would not renounce his right of protec- tion over the Indians within his dominions. But whatever the relations of the Indians to the United States may be, and whether under their protection or not. Great Britain, having by the treaty of 1/83, recognised the " sovereign rv of the United States," and agreed to certain limits as their boundaries, has no right to consider any persons or communities, whether Indians or others, residing within those boundaries, as nations independent of the United States. The United States claim, of right, with respect to all European nations, and particularly with respect to Great Britain, the entire sovereignty over the whole territory, and all the persons embraced icithin the boundaries of their dominions. Great Britain has no right to take cognizance of the relations subsisting between the several communities or persons living therein. They form as to her, only parts of the dominion of the United States ; and it is alto- gether immaterial, whether, or how far, under their political insti- tutions and policy, these conununitios or persons are independent states, allies, or subjects. With respect to her, and all other foreign nations, they are pwts of a whole, of which the United States mc the SOLE and AUioi urr SovEauiCNs. The allegation of the |iropcan entire [braced llias no len the In as to Is alto- insti- ?ndent tbreiga Watbs of the 6? British Plenipotentiaries, that ii is inconsistent with the pra6tic^ 6t principles of Great Britain to abandon, in her negotiation for peace, those who have co-operated with her in war, is not applicable to the Indians, but on the erroneous • assum^ption of their independence, which, so far as she is concerned, has been fully disproved. And although no power from these tribes to the British government to treat in their behalf, would, for the same reation, be admitted by the undersigned, they may, nevertheless, observe, that the British Ple- nipotentiaries having produced no such powers, having no authority to bind the Indians, to engage for their assent to the pacifii^afion, or to secure the continuance of peace on their part whilst speakiA^ of them as allies, do really propose to treat for them, not as if they were independent nations, 6m* as if they were the subjects of Great Britain. The undersigned, so fa^ from asking, that in rela- tion to the Indians, Great Britain should pursue a course inconsistent with her former practice and principles^ only desire, t^'^t she should follow her own example respecting them, in her former treaties with other European nations, and with the United States. No provision for the Indians is found in the treaty of 1763, by which France ceded Canada to Great Britain, although almost all the Indians living within the territory ceded, or acknowledged to belong to Great Britsun, had taken part witli France in the war. No such provision was inserted in the treaty of peace of 1785, between Great Britain and the Unfted States, although almost all the Indian tribes living within the territory recognised by the treaty to belong to the United States, had, during the war, co-operated with Great Britain, and might have been considered as her aD'^es more justly than on the present occasroni So far is cOnctfrns the relations between Great Britain and the United States, these Indians can be treated for only on the prin- ciples by which amnesties are stipulated in favour of disaffected persons, who, in times of war and invasion, co-operate with the enemy of the nation to which they belong. To go as far as possible in securing the benefit of the peace to the Indians, now the only object projessed by the British government in their present sine qua non, the undersigned offer a stipulation in general terms, " that no " person or persons, whether subjects, citizens, or Indians, residing " within the dominions of either party, shall be molested or annoyed, ** either in their persons or their property, for any part they m ly have " taken in the war between the United States and Great Britain j but ** shall retain all the rights, privileges, and possessions, which they " respectively had at the commencement of the war ; they, on their ** part, demeaning themselves peaceably, and conformable to their ** duties to the respective governments.'* This the undersigned have no doubt, will effectually secure to the Indians peace, if they themselves will observe it, and they will not suppose that Great Britain would wish them included in the peace, but upon that condition. The undersigned have never inti^ mated, thiit tlteir Government had not furnished them with anjf F2 ifistructions linee Jaauaty last. On the codtraiy, the? disdactl;f |ol4 the British Plenipotentiaries, in conference, (though it appe&rs to have escaped their recollection,) that instructions had been received Vy the undersigned, dated at the close of the month of June. The undersigned will now add, that those instructions were drawn with 9 full knowledge of the general pacification in Europe, and with so liberal a consideration of its necessity bearing upon all the differences that had been until then subsisting between Great Britain and tha United States, that the undersigned cannot doubt, that peace would long since have been concluded, had not an insupbbablk bar against it been raised by the nbw and unprecedented demands of the British Government. With respect to the proposition which the British Plenipoten- tiaries inform them they will be prepared to make, in relation to the Canadian boundaries, which lippears to them so entirely founded on principles of moderation and justice, but the nature of which, they think proper at pre&ent to wit))hold, the undersigned can only pledge themselves to meet any proposition from the British Plenipoten- tiaries, characterised by moderation and justice, not only with a per- fect reciprocity of those sentiments, but with a sincere and earnest desire to contribute to the restoration of peace, by every compliance with the wishes of Great Brit.iin, compatible with their duty to their country. (Signed) JOHN QUINCEY ADAMS, JAMES A. BAYARD, H. CLAY, JONATHAN RUSSELL, A. GALLATIN." No. VII TTie British to the Jmerican Commissioyiers. Ghent, October 8, 1814. The undersigned have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of the Plenipotentiaries of the United States, dated on the 36*thult. As the continuance of the negotiation exclusively depends upon the question relating to the pacification and rights of the Indian nations, the undersigned are un willing to extend their observations to the other subjects brought forward in the note of the American Plenipotentiaries, further than may be required for necessary expla- nation. In adverting for this purpose to the acquisition of Louisiana, the undersigned must observe, that the instrument by which the consent of his Catholic Majesty is alleged to have been given to the cession of it, l>as never been made public. His Catholic Majesty was no party to the treaty by which the cession was made, and, if any sanc> tion had been subsequently obtained from him, it must have been, like other contemporaneous acts of that Monarch, involuntary, and as such, cannot alter the character of the transaction. The Marquis of Yrujo, the Minister of his Catholic Majesty at Washington, ma letter addressed to ihe President of the United States, formally pro- trated against the cession, and the right of France to make it. Yet, in the face of this protestation, so strongly evincing the decided opi- appears eccived ;. The vn with with so erences md the B would LS SAR s of the iipotcn> n to the nded oa ch, they f pledge lipoten- h a per* earnest jpliance duty to )AMS, »» TIN. 814. of the on the upon Indiqn vation» nerican expla- ia> the consent cession vas no sane- been, , and irquis , ina y pro- Vet, dopi- eg nion of Spain, as to the illegality of the proceeding, the President of tiie United States ratified the treaty. Can it be contended, that th6 annexation of Louisiana, under such circumstances, did not mark a spirit of territorial a^randizement ? His Britannic Majesty did certainly express satisfaction when the American government communicated the event, that Louisiana, a valuable colony in the possession of France, with whom the war had just been renewed, instead of remaining in the hands of his enemy, had been ceded to the United States, at that time professing the most fiiendly disposition towards Great Britain, and an intention of providing for her interest in the acquisition. But the conditions under which France had acquired Louisiana from Spain, were not communicated ; the refusal of Spain to consent to its alienation was not known ; the protest of her ambassador had not been made ; and many oth^r circumstances attending the transaction, on which it is now unnecessary to dilate, were, as there is good reason to believe> industriously concealed.* The proof of a spirit of aggrandizement, which the undersigned had deduced from the hostile seizure of a great part of the Floridas, under the most frivolous pretences, remains unrefuted; and the un- dersigned are convinced, that the occasion and circumstances, under which that unwarrantable act of aggression took place, have given ffse throughout Europe to but one sentiment, as to the character of the transaction. After the previous communication which the undersigned have had the honor of receiving from the American Plenipotentiaries, they could not but feel much surprise at the information contained in their last note of their having received instructions dated subse- quently to January^ 1814. The undersigned have no recollection whatever of the American Plenipotentiaries having communicated to them, either collectively or individually at a conference or otherwise, ^receipt of instructions from the government of the United States, ddtedat the close of the month of June, and they must remind the American Plenipotentiaries that their note of the ^h ult. distinctly stated, that the instructions of January, 1814, were those under which they were acting. If, therefore, the American Plenipoten- tiaries received instructions drawn up at the close of the noonth of June, with a liberal consideration of the late events in Europe, the ufndersigned have a right to complain, that while the American go- vernment justly considered those events as having a necessary bear- ing on the existing differences between the two countries, the Ame- rican Plenipotentiaries should nevertheless, have preferred acting under insttuetions which, from their date, must have been framed vi4tlioiitthe contemplation of such evbnts. The British government never required that all that portion of the * Ali this reasoning alforda unanswerable prooft of the •* conciliatory dis- *'pt)!rttion" of the British' Ministers, and is extremely appropriate in a pacific negotiation !'! After perusiDg thi«, and the preceding notes, who shall dare tb accnae hit Majesty's Ministers of a desire to introduce into discussion any topics, *' calculate to rnooucB ixritatiom V* 10 l!i^ 1%}^' state of Massachusetts intervening between tlie province of New Brunswick and Quebec, should be ceded to Great Biitain, but only that small portion of unsettled country which interrupts the coinmur nication between Halifax and Quebec, there being much doubt, whe-' ther it docs not already belong to Great Britain. _ The undersigned are at a loss to understand, how Vice-Admiral Cochrane's proclamation illustrates any topic connected with the present negotiation, or bears upon the conclusion which they con- tended was to be drawn from the two proclamations of the America! generals. These proclamations, (distinctly avowing the intention of the American government permanently to annex the Canadas to the United States,) were adduced not as matter of complaint, but simply for the purpose of proving, what had been denied as a fact, viz. that such had been the declared intention of the American governmetlt. Tiie undersigned observe, that although the American Plenipotear tiaries have taken upon tl ^mselves generally to deny, that the pro- clamations were authorir l 1 or approved by their government, with- out stating in what mode that disapprobation was expressed, yet they avoid stating, that the part of those proclamations containing that declaration in question had not been so authorised or approved. It i^ inpleed in)ppssible to imagine, that if the American govern- ment had intimated any disapprobation of that part of Gen. Hull's proclamation, the sam^ declaration would have been as confidently repeated four months after by Gen. Smyth. "^ His Majesty's government have other ample means of knowing, that the conquest of the Canadas, and their annexation to the United States, was the object and policy of the American govern^ ment. For the present the undersigned will content themselves with referring tp the remonstrance of the legislature of Massachusetts iu June 1813) in which this indention js ^pnQunped as matter of notoriety. The undersigned deny, that tlie American government had proved, or can prove, that previous to the declaration of .war by the United States, persons authorised by the British government, endeavoured to excite the Indian nations against the United States, or that endea-? vours df that kind, if made by private persons, (which the under- signed have no reason to believe) ever received the countenance of his Majesty's government. The American Plenipotentiaries have not denied, that the Indian nations had been engaged in war with the United States, before the war with Great Britain had commenced, and they liave reluctantly'^ confessed, that so far from his Majesty having induced the Indian nations to begin the war, (as charged against Great Britain in the notes of the 24th August and 9th ult.) the British government aC" * This *' reluctant confession" is simply, •' that if Great Britain ever dis- " suaded the Indians from commencing hostilities, it proceeded from motives " of prudence." Although Lord Liverpool may obtain /«,»tbaD bedeinand^, no person can deny, (after this method of interpreting the words, " retuc-> fant confession,") that his Majesty's Government have taken a larj^e yiev^' — — of the English language' ! ! , j, .„ / .. ,.„,-", . 71 tuilly exerted their endeavours to dissuade the Indian natiors from commencing it. As to the unworthy motive assigned by the American Plenipoten- tiaries to this interference so amicably made on the part of Great Britain, its utter improbability is sufficiently apparent from consi< dering by which party the war was declared. The undersigned, thwefore, can only consider it as an additional indication of that hostile disposition, which has led to the present unhappy war between the two countries. So long as that disposition continueSy* it cannot but render any effort on the part of Great Britain to terminute this contest utterly unavailing. The American Plenipotentiaries appear unprepared to state the precise ground, upon which they resist the right of his Majesty to negotiate with the United States on behalf of the Indian nations, whose co-operation in the war his Majesty has found it expedient to accept. The treaty of Greenville, to the words, stipulations, and spirit of which the undersigned have so frequently appealed, and all the trea- ties previously and subsequently made between the United States and the Indian nations, show, beyond the possibility of doubt, that the United States have been in the habit of treating with these tribes as independent nations, capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, and exercising territorial rights. If this be so, it will be difficult to point out the peculiar circum- stances in the condition of these nations, which should either exclude them from a treaty of general pacification, or prevent Great Britain, with whom they have co-operated as Allies in the war, from proposing stipulations in their behalf at the peace, unless the American Plenipotentiaries are prepared to maintain, what they have in effisct advanced, that although the Indian nations may be inde- pendent in their relations with the United States, yet the circum- stance of living within the boundary of the United States, disables them from forming such conditions of alliance with a foreign power, as shall entitle that power to negotiate for them in a treaty of peace. The principle upon which this proposition is founded, was advanc- ed, but successfully resisted, so far back as the trbaty of Mun- svBR ! ! An attempt was then made to'preclude France from negotiat- ing in behalf of certain states and cities in Germany, who had co- operated with her in the war, because although those states and cities might be considered as independent for certain purposes, yet being within the boundary of the German empire, they ought not to be allowed to become parties in the general pacification with the Emperor of Germany, nor ought France to be permitted in that negotiation to mix their right and interests with her own. The American Plenipotentiaries probably aware, that the notion of such a qualified independence, for certain purposes, and not for others, could not be maintained, either by argument or precedent, have been compelled to advance the novel and alarmino pretention^ that all the Indian nations living within the boundary of the United States, must, in effect, be considered as their subjects, and, conse- * Has it g£Abeo I,'.. ■Si I*' ' l )l:-iA 72 q\jient|y, if engaged in war agauist the United Stntea, beeoniQ Uiiblo to be treated as rebels, or disaffected persons. They have further st«ited» tiiat all the territory which these Indian nations occupy, is at the^ disposal of tlte United States; that the United States have ii right to dispossess them of it ;. to exercise that right, whenever their policy or interests may seem to then) to require it ; and to confino tliem to such spots as may be selected, not by the Indian nationii, hut by the American government. Pretensions, such as these Great Britain Cu\n nkvkh, Rii^caGKizK '.* however reluctant hit Royal Uigh" pcss the Prince R«gent may he to continue the war, that evil must ba preferred, if peace can only be obtained on such conditions. To support ti\qie pretensions, an^ at the satne time to show, that the prqsqHt conduct of Great Bi'itaiii is inconsistent with her former praqtice and principles, the American Plenipotentiaries have referred t(x the treaty of peace of IJ^ii, of 1763* and to the negotiations of \'4^l, during the .administration of a miniister, whom the American Ptenipotentiavies have stated, and tiuly stated, to be high in the estimation of his country. The (mMsiott to provide in the treaty of 1 7S3» for the pacification jof. the Indian nations, which were to be included within the prdf posed boundary of the United States, cannot preclude Great Hilt tain from now negotiating in behalf of such tribes or nations, unless it be assumed, that the occasional non>e;ic.ei'cise of a right, i^ an abandonment of it. Nor can the right of protection, Which the American Plenipotentiaries have failed in showing to have he«in ever claimed by Great Britain, as incident to sovereignty, have beeo transferred by Great Britain to the United States, hy a treaty^ t^ which the Indian nations were not parties. I«^,the pe^ce of 17<)3, it was not necessary for Great Britain to ti'eat for the pacification of the Indian nations, and the maintenan($e oif their rights and privileges, because there had been no Indian nations living without the British boumkries, who had co-operated with Gr^at Britain, in the war against France. With respect to the negotiations of 17GI, hetween Great Britain and France, on which the American Plenipotentiaries more particu-* larly rely, they appear, in the judgment of the undersigned, to havt fnuch misunderstood the whole course of that negotiation. It is very true, that the Fiench government brought forwai'd* at one periwi of the negotiatiort, a proposition, hy which a certain ter* ritory, lying between the dominions of the two contracting parties* was to have been allotted to the Indian nations. But it does not appear, that this formed a part of their ultimatum ; and it ia cleaiv that Mr. Pitt, in his answer, did not object to the proposition. He objected, indeed, to the proposed line of demarcation between the countries helunging to the two contracting, parties, upon two grounds : fi>;st> tl>at the proposed northern line wbuld hare giveJD to F^rance, vvliat the French themselves had acknowledged to be part of Canada, the, whole of which, as enjoved by his most Chri&tkn Majesty, it had been stipulated^ was to be ceded entirely to Great 01 a * Are not *' these pretensions recQguiaed" by the treaty of peace con- cluded at Ghent ? 73 BriUia ; secondly, t|ia,t the southern part of the prpppscd line of dQ.iparQatioa would h^ve included within the houndary of Louisiana, th(5 Cherokees, the Cre«jks, the Chickasaws, the Cl^o^mws, and ano- ther nation, who occupied territories which had never been included within the boundaries of t!iajt spttJenjent. So far was Mr. Pitt from rejecting, as alleged by the American Plenipotentiaries, the propo- sition ojf considering Indian nations a& a barrier, that at one period oi the negotiation he complain^di that there was no provision for such a barrier; and he thus energetically urges his objections, in his letter to Mr. Stanley, th« British Plenipotentiary at Paris, dated on the 20th June, 17^)1 : " As to. the fixation of new limits to " C^nadai towards the. Ohio, it. is, captious, and insidious, thrown out " in hop^, if agreed to, to shorten thereby the extent of Canada, und> " to lengthen the boundaries of Louisiana, and in the view to esta- , " bllsh, what must not be admitted, nan>ely» tliat all which is not *'= Canada, i«,Louisian4,wheveby all the internaediate nations, and coun- ". tries, tlie true barrier to each Province, would be given m).toJFrance/* The undersigned confidently expect, that the Ameijcan.Plenipo* tentiaries will not a^ain reproach the British government with acting inconsistently with Its former practice and principles, or repeat the assertion made in a former note, that a definition of Indian bonn' . dortjF, with a, view to a neutral barrier, wa^ a new and unprecedented demand by any Europeaa power, and most of all by Great Britain: the very instance selected, by the American Plenipotentiaries, unde- niably proves, that such a proposition had been entertained both by Great Britain and France, and that Mr. Pitt, on the part of Great Brititiu, had more particularly enforced it. It remains only to notice two objections which the American Ple- nipotentiaries! h^ve urged against the proposal of Indian pacification, advaticed by the undersigned: firsts li.at it is not reciprocsfl; sij^cundly, that as the United States, could- have no security that the Indian nations would conclude a peace on the terms proposed^ the objection would be in efifect immaterial. The article now proposed by the undersigned, and herewith en- closed, is free from both objections, and appears to them so cha- racterised by a spirit of moderation and peace, that they confidently anticipate the concurrence of the American Plenipotentiaries. In making a last eflbrt* in this stage of the war, the undersigned ■ ■* I ■ ■ " ■ - ' ■ — ■ ■■■ ■ ■■■■---■■-■ ■ — ■ — ' ■ ■ ■■■■ — ■■ f mm\tmm ■>■ * -I.. ■.■■i». * AUioQu^b this is called a tofit effort, it is the ^st propositipn made by the Bciti^b Ministers for an Indian pacification, xiucotintcii'd with the qnes^ tion of an Indian boundary. The whole of this correspondence proves, that the Atnerigan PUniPQtentiaries never objected to an Inpian pacifioatioii j but they DID objeet to the adjustment of an Iwuian boundary, or, in other words, to a large cession by the United Stdifs, of their rights of soil and sovereignty; and» it appears, that notwithstanding, all the conrindnj^rea- sqni^tt of the British cabintt, the objection of the Americans has lemsuc* c^^a^ The n^iom^i^t aq lud^n pacifigation wa» proposed, unconnected with ni^ t^(jljiQ,n\ b^mdfxry, it w^s immediately accepted by tht? Americfli Pieiujpote^tiarieff AJii these grand phra^s, on the par^ of the.Briti&^Mini«^ terci are intended to shift off the responsibility of J)S{.a.y from their owi^ shoulders: they are ♦* vox et prseterea lai/ii/," i s; 74 are not apprehensive, that the motives which have ii)fluenced his Royal Highness the Prince Regent to direct a renewal of the pro- position^ with its PRESENT MODIFICATIONS, can be misunderstood or misrepresented. Whatever may be the result of the proposition thus offered, the undersigned deliver it as their ultimatum, and now await with anxiety, the answer of the American Plenipotentiaries, on which their continuance in this place will depend. Article proposed by the British Plenipotentiaries. *' The United States of America engage to put an end, immediately *• after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostilities with all the *' tribes or nations of Indians with whom they may bo at war, at the " time of such ratification, and forthwith to restore to such tribes or na- ** tions, respectively, all the possessions, rights, and privileges, which **, they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in 181 1, previous to such " hostilities : provided always, that such tribes or nations shall agree ** to desist fror^ all hostilities against the United States of America, ** their citizens and subjects, upon the ratification of the present treaty ** being notijied* to such tribes pr /lations, and shall so desist accord- «ingly." " An'' his Britannic Majesty engages, on his part, to put an end, ** immc itely after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostilites " with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom he may be at ** war, at the time of such ratification, and forthwith to restore to such ** tribes or nations respectively, all the possessions, rights and privi- '* leges, which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in 1811, ** previous to such hostilities : provided always, that such tribes or *' nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against his Britannic ** Majesty and his subjects, upon the ratification of the present treaty '' being notified tp suc4i tribes or nations, and shall so desist accord- "ingly." No. VIII. From the American to the British Commissioners, Ghent, October 13, 18U. The undersigned have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note of the Plenipotentiaries of his Britannic Majesty, dated on the 8th instant. Satisfied of the impossibility of persuading the world that the government of the United States was liable to any well-grounded im- putation of a spirit of conauest or of injustice towards other nations^ the undersigned, in affording explanations on several of the topics adverted to by the British Plenipotentiaries during this negotiation^ * Is THIS article intended to afford a proof, that the Indians are ** inde- pendent states" especially when interpreted with reference to the subse- quent comments of the American Plenipotentiaries ? In their note of the 13th October, No. 8, they say, "that this article partakes of the nature of an " amnesty" and the British Ministers do, not contradict this construction ! Js sudian interpretation consistent with the relation of independent allies ? ! ! ( ubse- f the of an tion ! } ti I ' • • T 15 were actuated by the sole motive of removing erroneous impres- sions. Still influenced by the same motive^ they will now add, that at the time when the Spanish minister was remonstrating at VVashing-r ton against the transfer of Louisiana, orders were given by his government for its delivery to France ; that it was, in fact, delivered a short time after that remonstrance; and that if the treaty by which tlie United States acquired it, had not been ratified, it would have become, of course, a French colony. The undersigned believe that the evidence of the assent of Spain to ^hat transfer, has been promulgated. They neither admit the alleged disability of tho Spanish monarch, nor the inference which the British Plenipoten- tiaries would seem to deduce from it ; on the contrary, the assent was voluntarily given in the year 1804, by the same king, who, about the same time, ceded Trinidad to Great Britain, and prior to the time when he was again engaged in war with her. The cession by France was immediately communicated to Great Britain, no circumstance affecting it, and then within the knowledge of the United States, being intentionally concealed from her. She expressed her satisfaction with it ; and if in any possible state of the case, she would have had a right to question the transaction, it does not appear to the undersigned, that she is now authorised to do so. " After stating, generally, that the proclamations of Generals Hull and Smyth, were neither authorised nor approved by their government, the undersigned could not have expected, that the British Plenipotentiaries would suppose, that their statement did not embrace the only part of the proclamations, which was a subject of consideration. The undersigned had, indeed, hoped, that by stating in their note of the J)th ult. that the government of the United States, from tlie commencement of the war, had been disposed to make peace, without obtaining any cession of territory, and by referring to their knowledge of that disposition, and to instructions accordingly given from July, 1812, to January, 1814, they would effectually remove the impression, that the annexation of Canada to the United States was the declared object of their government. Not only have the undersigned been disappointed in this expectation, but the only inference which the British Plenipotentiaries have thought proper to draw from this explicit statem^t, has been, that either the Ame- rican government, by not giving instructions subsequent to the pacification of Europe, or the undersigned, by not acting under such instructions, gave no proof of a sincere desire to bring the negotiations to a favourable end. The undersigned did not allude, in reference to the alleged intention to annex Canada to the United States, to any instructioni given by their government subsequently to January last, because asking at this time for no accession of territory, it was only of its previous disposition, that it appeared necessary to produce any proof. ^o erroneous was the iniference drawn by the British Fienipotentia- M I'. ir' ■ (Si'; ,1 ^=1 nil ifil' ilesi in both respects, that it was ia virtue of the instructions of June last, that the undersigned were enabled, in their note of tha S4th August, to state, that the causes of the t/hf between the. United States and Great Britain, having disappeared by tlie maritime paci- fication of Europe, they liad becrf authoinsed to agree to its termioa- tion upon a mutual restoration of tttrritory, and without making the conclusion of peace to depend on a successful arrangement of thosft points on which differences had existed. Considering the present state of the negotiation, the undersigned will abstain, at this time, from adducing any evidence or remarks upon the inHuence which has been exciied over the Indian tribes in- habiting the territories of the United States, and the nature of those excitements which have been employed by British traders and agents. The arguments and fuels already brought forward by the under* signed respecting the political condition of those tribes, render it unnecessary for them to make many observations on those of the British Plenipotentiaries on that subject. The treaties of 17^ and 1783, were those principally alluded to by the undersigned, to illustrate the practice of Great Britain. She did not admit in the first, nor require in the last, any stipulations respectii^ the Indians* who, in 6necase, Imd been. her enemies^and in the o(/ier, her allies, and who, in both instances, fell by the. peace within the dominions of that power, against whom they, had been engaged in the preceding war. ..;..- *^ The negotiation of 1761 wfis quoted for the purpose of prov- ing what appears to be fully established by the answer of England to the ultimatum of France, delivered on the 1st of September of that year, that his Britannic Majesty would not renounce his right of protection over the Indian nations reputed to he within his domi- lUons, that is to say, between the British settlements and the Missis- sippi. Mr. Pitt's letter, cited by the British Plenipotentiaries, far from contradicting that position, goes still further : it states, that ** the fixation of the new limits to Canada^ as proposed by Prance, *^ isintended to shorten tbe extent of Canada, whidk was to be ceded '< to England, and to lengthen the boundaries of Louisiana, which *^ France was to keep ; and in the view-toesteblish what must not be 'f admitted, namely, that all which is>not Canada is IiOuisiana,wfaereby '^«U the intermediate nations and countries, the true barrier to each ''province, would be given . up to Fninot»." This ia precisely the principle uniformly supported by the undersigned, namely^— that the recognition of a boundary gives up > to the natian, in.whme behalf it is made, all the Indian tribes and cduntriies wiTMirt that boundary^ n was on. this principle < .thai itlie imdersi§ned JBave confidently relied on the treaty of 17B8, which fixes and seeognisesthie boundary of th« United States, wiUioatmakii^ any reaorvation respecting JodiaA tribes* Bni the Britisl>/Pl$n»potentiaries» .unable to iMfoduoe & aaU^oy {wcMdeat of one European power treating for th»6af«ge»anbabitiDg f prov- Dgland nber of ghtof domi- ilissis- ies, far , that ranee, ceded which ot be ereby each ly the the alf it try* [relied ryof iaA iiAiy itiog 77 within the dov lons of another, have been compelled, in support of their principle, to refer to the German Empire, u bo.-h: j^ ^ BAYARD, •■■'• >^/ *-^ .w--. ■:' . >'.. ... ; - 'i ■ ^^vM ■'• H. CLAY, ■ 'v-h- ■•' r -^t-^^v'vr- ■ '•;•■;•,..' •■■^' -i/M JOHN RtJSSELL^f^''. *•■^'^'- ,; . ,;,, ..,^fr , .-^/^ A.GALLATIN/* > ^v^;.' ■' . No. IX. •-«^Mnh.=.v. British Note, from the British to the Americmi Ministers, '• * October 2lst, 1814. i The undersigned have had the honour of receiving the note of the American Plenipotentiaries, of the ISth instant, communicating the acceptance of their article, wiiich the undersigned had proposed on the subject of the pacification and rights of the Indians na^ ions. The undersigned are happy in being thus relieved from the ne- cessity of recurring to several topics, which though they arose? in the course of their discussions, have only an incidentn) con« nection with the differences remaining to be adjusted between the tWo countries. With a view to this adjustment, the undersigned preferring,, in the present state of the negotiation, aGKN*;».«L statement* to the FOEMAL arrangement of articles, are willing so far to comply with the request of the American Plenipotentiaries, contained in ti»eir last note, as to ivave the advantage to which they think ti>;y were fairly entitled, of requiring from them the first project of a Treaty. The undersigned having stated, at the first con^erf nee, the pwnts upon which His Majesty's Government considered the discussions between the two countries ps likely to turn, cannot better satisfy the request of the American Plenipotentiaries, than by referring them to that conference for a statement of tliC points, which, in the opinion of His Majesty's Governmrat, ykt renjain to be ad- justed. With respect to the forcible seizure of mariners from on board merchant vessels on the high seas, and the right of tho King of Great Britain to tlie allegiance of all his native^sr" Vets, and with respect to the maritinae rights of the British Empire, the undersigned conceive, that after the pretensions asserted by the Government of the United States, f more satisfactory proof of the conciliatory spirit of his Majesty's Government cannot be given, than by not requiring any stipulations on those subjects, which, though most important in themselves, no longer, in consequence of the maritime pacification of liluropc, produce the same practical results. On the subject of the fisheries, the undersigned express' d with so much frankness, at the conference already referred to, the views ♦ This the British Ministers afterwards call a '* projet of a treaty," and are much surprised, that the American Plenipotentiaries do not interpret th« words " general stalementf' in the same manner. d Statesj DAMS?,- rs, .r» ■" 1814. ; note of inicating proposed nations. 1 the ne- ey arose ital con* vven the I fringe in t* to the ply with ] in titeir yy w're eet of a le pwnts icussions T satisfy ig them l, in be the ad- Ifrom on King of ind with jrsigned jinent of jciliatory .han by though of the results. 'dvvith lie views ty," and tpret ib« 79 of thek Government, that they consider any further obseryatiom on that topic, as unnecessary at the present time. Av>.nu ■. •>< !/ n -■ On the question of the boundary between the dominions of His Majesty and those of the United States, the undersigned are led to expect from the discussion which this subject ha? already under- gone, that the North Western boundary, from the Lake of the Woods, to the Mississippi (the intended arrangement of 1803) will be adraitted without objection. In regard to other boundaries, the American Plenipotentiaries, in their sfote of August 24, appeared in some measure^ to object to the propositions then made by the undersigned, as not being on the basis of uti possidetis. The undersigried are willing to treat on that basis, subject to such modification as mutual convenience may be found to require ; and they trust that the American PlenipotCk.tiaries will shew, by their ready acceptance of this basis, that they duly appr.M'ate the modbration of his Majesty's Government, in so far consulting the honour and fair pretensions of the United States, as, in the relative situation of the two countries, to authorise such a proposition. Tlie undersigned avail themselves of this opportunity, to reno'W to the American Plenipotentiaries, the assurance of their high consideration. (Signed) GAMBIER, HENRY GOULBURN, WILLIAM ADAMS. Giwta, Oct. 2\st, 18 H. (True Copy) C. HUGHES, Jan. Secretary to Legation United States. M^. X. American NotCj from the AntericoH to the British Ministers. October 24th, ISU. The undersigned have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the Note of the Britisli Plenipotentia/ies of the 21st instant. Amongst the genenil observations which the undersigned, in their Note of the 24th August, made on the propositions thkn brought for- ward on the part of the British Government, they remarked, that those propositions " were founded neither on the basis of uti pc>s^idetis, nor *' on that oi status ante helium," But so far were they from suggesting the uti possidetis, as tiie basis on which they were disposed to treat, that in the same Note, they expressly slated, " that they had been " instructed to conclude a peace, on tiie principle of both parties ** restoring whatever {erritofy tiiey might have taken." The under- signed also dcclaced, in that Note, thai they had no authority to cede any part of the territory of the United States ; and that to no stipulation to that eifcct, would tliey subscribe : and in ihe Note oi 9th September, after having shewn, that the basis of uti possidetis, such as it was known to exist at the commencement of the nego- tiation, gave no claim to His Britannic Majesty to ccsuions of ter- I !1 'a ' 't 80 ritory) founded upon the right, of eohquest, tb^tddtd^ that evett ** if the chances of wtir should give to the British firms a moAventnry *f possession of other parts of the territory of the United States, such ** events would not alter their views witli regard to the termfe of peacfr, ** to which they would give their consent." The undersigned can now only repeat those declarations, and decline treating upon the basis of uti possidetis, oi upon any other principle, involving a cession of any part Of the territory of the United States. A;^ they have uniformly stated, they can treat only upon the principles of a mutual restoration of whatever territory may have been taken by either party. From this principle they cannot recede ; and the undersigned, after the repeated DfscLAUATiaN» of the British Plenipotentiaries, that Great Britain Bad no View to ACQUISITION of TEARiTORY in this negotiation, deem it necessary to add, that the utility of its continuance, depends on their adherence to this principle. The undersigned having declared in their note of 24th August, that, •* although instructed and prepared to enter into an amicable " discussion of all the points, on which differences or uncertainty had " existed, and wliieh might hereafter tend to inteiTupt the hjirmony ** of the two countries, they would not ma1l)j action )ics em- wliich present |es, the AMS, LL, linary. \tary of 14. us to licU we ' We have the honour to be, with perfect refipec% yout obedient servants^ ■ <■ ' ■ r , JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, J. A. BAYARD^ H. CLAY^ JONATHAN HUSSKLL. A. GALLATIN. To the Hon. Jfjmcs Monroe, Secretary of State. No. XIL British Note, fr(»n the Sritish to the Amer'wan Ministers. Oitohcr ^ i . The undersijifoed have fhc honour to acknouh^dgc the receipt of the note addressed to them by tlio American Plenipotentiaries on the 24th instant, in which they object to the basis of nti p>>ssidt;tit proposed by the undersij^ned, as tbat on which they are willing to treat in regard to ])art of the boundaries between the dtnninions of his Majesty and those of the United States. The American Plenipotentiaries in their note of the 18th instant, Requested the undersigned to communicate to them the "pROjKTofa treaty," embracing all the points insisted on by (ireat Britain, en- gaging on their pnrt to deliver immediately after, a contra projet as to all the articles to which they might not agree, and as to all the sub- jects deemed material by the United States, and omitted in the projet of the undersigned. The undersigned were accordingly instructed to waive the ques- tion of etiquette, and the .idvantage which might result from re- ceiving the first commuwication ; and conliding in the enragement of the American Plenipotentiaries, communicated in their notes of the 21st instant, all the points upon »vhieh they are instructed to insist. The Americf»n Plenipotentiaries have objected to one essential part of the projet thus communicated ; but before the undersigned can enter into the discussion of ibis ()l)jection, they must reouire from the American Plcnipolentiaries that, pursuant to tluir engage- ment, they will deliver a eontr.i-projet containing ail their )bjections to the points submitted by the undersigned, together with a state- ment of such further points, as the (iovernment of the United S rates consider to be materi.d. The undersigned are autln)rised to slate dist?net'y,- that the article as to the pacilieation and rights of t!ve Indian nations having been accepted, they have brought forward in ibeir note of the 21 at instant, ALL the propositions they have to offer. They have no further demands to make, no other stipidations on which they ur* instructed to insist, and they rtre empowered to sign a treaty tjf peace forth- with in conformity with those stated in their former note. The undersigned trust, therefore, that the American Plenipoten- tiaries will no longer hesitate to bring forvvard, in the form of articles li'' $9 or otherwise as they may prefer, vhose- specific propositions, upon which they are empowered to sign a Treaty of peace between the two tuiuuricis. The undersigned avail themselves of the present opportunity to renew to the PJenipcytentiaries of the United States tiie assurance of their high consideration. (Signed) iGAMBIER, H. GOULBURN, VVM. ADAMS. C. HUGHES, Jun. (True Copy.) Secretary to the American iV|issioQ, m -I (To be Coiiiimted.J upon he two nity to nee of RN, S. fissioQ, 83 A PPENDIX . CojAes of Petitions to His Royal Highness the Prince Regent,-^from Liverpool, Glasgow, Port Glasgow and Newark, and Grenock, Copy t—PETITIOM of Merchants, &c. of Liverpool. TO HIS RGYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE REGENT of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The humble Address and Petition of the Merchants, Ship Owaers, Underwriters and others, interested in the Shipping Commerce of the Port of Liverpool ; Sheweth, That Your Petitioners, as well as the other Merchants and Traders of this United Kingdom, have for some time experienced very great hardships and losses, from the capture and destruction, by American Privateers and Cruizers, of their vessels, trading in St. George's Channeli and on the Western and Northern Coasts of Ireland and Scotland. That Your petitioners expect that such depredations may increase ver7 materially, as the season advances, and during the winter months, which will add to the facility the Enemy experienced in effecting their captures^ and in returning unmolested to ports in their own country. That Your Petitioners perceive that the American Vessels of War, both National and Private, have lately adopted a novel and extraordinary practice (particularly ns it regards the latter) of burning and destroying such Prizes as they have no reasonable expectation of getting safely into port ; a system as we are info iced, sanctioned and encouraged by the American Govern- ment, and as we believe rewarded by them : which belief is strengthened by the great anxiety always shown by the Commanders of Cruizers to get possession of and preserve the Registers and other Papers of such Vessels as they destroy. That Your Petitioners have observed with regret, that the Lords Com- missioners of the Adruiraltv have not before now taken decisive measures to remedy this grievance, although applications have been made to them by other public Bodies to that effect. Thus situated, we throw ourselves for protection upon Your Royal Highuess's paternal « «• (, of the just and legitimate interests of His Majesty's subjects; and vrtx mbly pray thi:t Your Royal HighiitiS will graciously ccndescend lo take into \our Royal consideration, tin) grant and unavoid- able mischiefs and calamities tl^ativiuit result from the want ofsufllcientrRo* 1 bOTiMw, not onb' (o Vout |>B(kiionui«,but tn the general manufacturingind trading iMi^r»»i« of this Country, and to the Maritime Power u( ih« State Ati'l Vciur Petitioners, ai in duty bound, shall ever pray. On behalf of thi: Meeting. (Higued) /f w. Nicholson, Mayor, — i(.— Chairman. Copy of PETITION of the Merchants. Manufacturers, Ship Owners, and Underwriters of the City of Glasgow \ TO H/S ROYAL HIGHNESS IHk i'MINrfi REGENT, Acting in the Name and on the Behalf of His Maj«sty. The Petition of the Merchants, Manufacturers, Ship Own«rs, and tJndtf* writers of the City of Glasgow ; Most humbly Sheweth. THAT the number, the audacity, and the success of the American Priva« teers, with which our channels have lately been infested, have proved injurious to the Commerce, are humbling to the pride, and discrsoitablb TO THOSE, who direct the great Naval Power of this Nation. That, at a time when we are at peace with all the rest of the Worlds when the whole British Navy remains at our disposal, when the maintenance of our Marine costs sox.ar6b a sum to the C ountry, when the Mercantile and ibippJDg Interests pay a tax for protection under the form of Convoy I,, 84 duty, and when, in the pletiHade of our powef, we have declared the whole American Coast under blockade, it is equally distressing and mortifying, that our ships cannot with safety traverse our own Channels ; that Insurance (iannot be effected but at an excessive premium ; and that a hofde of American Cruizers should be allowed unmolested to capture, burn orsipk, our own Vessels, in our own Inlets, and almost in sight of OMr ot<;n Harbours ! ! That Your Petitioners in particular have sustained severe loss from iho depredations already committed ; and that they have every reason to appre- hend itili more serious suffering, not only from the extent of their Coasting Trade and the number of vessels yet to arrive; from abrdad, but as the trme is fast approaching when the outward txiund Shipsmust proceed for Convoys to Cork, and when during the winter season the opportunities of the Enemy Vill be increased, both to capture with ease, and escape with impunity. That Your Petitioners are reluctantly compelled, by the coldness' and MEGLECT with which the temperate and respectful representations of the Mercantile Interest of this Kingdom, transmitted to the proper departments of His Majesty's Government, have been received, at once to approach the Throne, and to lay their grievances before Your Royal Highnc8s,towhom the just complaints of His Majesty's subjects can never be addressed in vain. May it therefore please Your Royal Highness, acting in *he Name and Behalf of His Majesty, to take the case of Your Petitioners into Your Gracious Consideration, and lo direct such measures to be adopted, as shall to Your Royal Highness seem meet, promptly and adequataly to protect the Trade on the Coasts and in theChanneiv of this kingdom from the numerous, insulting, and destructrve depre-^ dations of the American Cruizers. And Your Petitioners will ever prny. [Signed by Five hundred and fifty-four persons ] Copy :--PETITIONof Merchants, &c. &c. of Port Glasgow nnd Newafk. TO HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE REGENT, Acting in the Name and on the Behalf of His Majesty, The humble Petition of the Merchants, Ship Owners, and Manufacturers of Port Glasgow and Neivark ; Sheweth, That for some time past a most unparalleled destruction of Ships and Trade in the British Channels.particularly St. George's, has been eflfectet? by American Privateers, in which they seem to roam at ple.isure, and u>it fl- out cluck, as well as without /)ren'i/ert/ } which is the more astonishing, as the most material part of the destruction of our Commerce has taken place since the general peace u|wn the Continent, which left a sufficient portion of the great Nawal force of the Empire at liberty to protect its Trade, and particularly upon its own Coast : That as tlie insolence of that enemy still contimies, in the most daring approachfs in every part of our Channels, without rjfWtual measures being taken to prevent die rninous consequences of such destruction, at least as far as appears to the Pet it iunt*rs, they are under the necessity, thorig!r with extreme regret, in this manner most humbly to approach Your Royal Hiffaness with their complaint : May it therefore please Your Royal Highness as acting in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, to take this matter into your gracious consiileration, and as toyonr Royal Highness shall seem meet to direct such measures to be taken as may effectually check the enemy's audacity, and protect the Commerce of his Majesty's subjects, especially upon the Coasts, and in the Channels of the Kingdom. [Signed by erghty-three Persons,] Town Hall, Port Glasgow, 10th September, 1814. iie whole ing, that nsurance liofde of sipk, our ours ! ! rom J ho appre- Coasting e ihre ia mvoys to ! Enemy jitjr. sEds' dtrd ins of the lartments approach ,towhom d in vain, le Name etitioners measures promptly Channel* ve depre-' Newark. T, lers, and of Ships eflfectecJ Ird tinth- jhing, as in place portion ide, and daring iiieasures lat least thoB^'.r If Koyal ■e name [to your 11 seem check lajesty's 1 of the •1 t 85 Copy :«-t>£TrnON of the Merchants, tec. of the Town of Oreenock. TO HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE REGENT, * ■' Acting in the Name and on the Behalf of His Majesty. The Petition of the Merchants, Ship Owners, and Underwriter*, of the Town of Greenock^ Most humbly Shewetb, THAT the losses recently sustained by the Trade of this Port, from Cap- tures made by American Cruizers on the Coasts of the United Kingdom, hive been orbat beyond all former expbribncb, and hav« taken place under circumstances which call for the most serious iNauiRY both into the causes by which they have been produced, and the means of preventing the recur- rence of nmilar evils in future. That the impunity with which these depredations have been carried on (often within stght of our own shores, and almost in our friths and harbours) the length of time during which they have been continued, and the leisurely and cofifident manner in which the r-^emy have conducted their operations, afford undeniable proof (if any indeed were wanting) of the inadrquacy of the Force employed to guard those important but vulnerable points, the complete protection of which was always, till now, esteemed an object of the first necessity. That as a want of the means of defence cannot, in the present situation of the Country, be alleged in extenuation of these facts, there seen:^ (in the judgment of your Petitioners) to remain no other ground of explanation than a kbolbct not easily reconcilable, either with a competent knowledge of maritime affairs, or a due regard to the important commercial interests thus exposed to hazard. That, under these circumstances, Your Petitioners feel themselves com- pelled to submit their grievances to the consideration of Your Uoyal High- ness, the more especially, as the answers received to various representations on this subject, addressed to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty by some of the most rbspbctablb Mercantile Bodies in tlie Kingdom, so far from having proved satisfactory to Your Petitioners, have only tended further to lessbn their confidencb in the Wisdom of those councils by which the Naval Affairs of the Country are at present administered. May it therefore please Your Royal Highness, to take tiiiii matter into your gracious consideration, and to direct such measures to be adopted, as shall to Your Royal Highness seem meet, for the more effectual protection of the Trade on the Coasts and in the Channels of the United Kingdom, from the depredations of the enemy's Privateers and Ships of War. And Your Petitioners will ever pray. [Signed by sixty-three Persons.] True Copies. Whitehall, I3th February, 1815. J. BECKETT. APPENDIX No. II. The Addhkss of the City of London, on the Peace with Amekica. " To HIS Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, Regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. " The humble, loyal, and dutiful Address of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, in Common Council assembled. ♦' May it fleasb your Royal Highness, " We, his Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, in Common Council assem- bled, present ourselves before your Royal Highness to offer our zealous and heartfelt congratulations, on the auspicious circumstance of the signature of a treaty of peace with the United States of America. '* We consider this event as the fortunate and desirable termination of that prolonged series of political calamities which, whatever may have been ni !i m u il: f. Ifc^ m I \^ ■■-**■■'■■;■■■ ' ' their causes^ or in whatever degree they were unavoidable, have^ at varioui periods of their disaslrons course, filled his Majesty's loyal uuLjects with anxiety for the welfare of these kingdoms, and with deep afilictif ti for the unavailing slaughters, desolations, and miseries, with which they have co- vered the civilized and Christian World. " We had concluded an arduous struggle against a formidable rival of the power and prosperity of this empire, in a manner creditable to our resources, and glorious to his Majesty's arms by sea and land } and as the rupture with the United States of America was but an efTect of the mutual hostilitir^o of the pre>existing Belligerents, it was reasonable to hope, that Pbace with America would have been the immbdiatk consequence of the pacificatiou of Europe. " Alive to the honour, as well as to the interests of the United Kingdom, we ought not to conceal from your Royal Highness, that we should have been ^r more gratified , had the object of the negotiations been soonba accomplished, or had suitable means been employed and promptly exert- ed for supporting the character and insuring the triumphs of the British flag. " Our regrets would, we acknowledge, have been much more poignant, under the circumstances of the great superiority of our means and recources, were it not NOTORIOUS, that our occasional losses in the varied scene of naval hostilities, are to be attributed not to any deficiency of decision and energy in the Britiiih character, nor to any want of gallantry and perse- verance on the part of our naval commanders and seamen, but to the WANTofnuB information as to the force and construction of the Ame- rican ships of war, and to the inapplicable description of the force em- ployed against them. " We should not have done justice to our feelings, had we [assed over in silence, the topics at which we have thus briefly and reluctantly glanced } but we contemplate, with satisfaction, the prospect of speedy returning to that state of society, which affords free scope to the commercial energies of this great empire, and the approaching renewal of an intercourse with a great, free, and rising people, connected with us by so many ties and sympathies— an intercourse which has been mutually advantageous, and has greatly pro- moted the power and prosperity of this nation. Nor do we view, with less pleasure, the opportunities, which will thus be afforded for pimimishinc our unexampled expendituwe ; for the removal of the most galling and debasing of our taxes, such as we hope never again to have occasion to name ; and for reforming those abuses, which, in a series of pvotracted conflicts, creep into, and deform, every state, unless carefully watched, and zealously guarded against. "That we may, uninterruptedly, devote ourselves to the pursuits, and enjoy the blessings of peace, and that the Royal House of Brunswick may and united people, is the ardent wish of his London. Signed, by order of Court, " HENRY WOODTHORPE." The loyal citizens of London will discover, in the correspondence at Ghent, why tlie peace with America was so long delayed. Parliament will, it is hoped, demand why it has, at last, been concluded, without attaining ant of those objects, which the British government has declared to be neces- sary, for the " security and fbrmanency of the Peace ?" It may also be useful to enquire, what portion of Mr. Vansittart's new Taxes is rendered necessary by the prolongation of the American War j and how much of the new peace establishment is required, for the maintenance of the rights and interests of Great Britain in America, under the " oloki- " ovf and sbgurc Peace," which Lords Liverpool and Castlereagh have obtained at Ghent, on the 24th December, 1814? lone reign over a free, happy, a Majesty's faithful citizens of Lo I it at various i'ojects with Jtif n for the ley have co- e rival of the xt »■: sources, lure with the litifto of the Pbace with I parificatiou 1 Kingdom, ihould have ;en soombu nptly exert* the British re poignant, i recources, ed scene of lecision aud and perse- but to the f the Ame- ! force cm- ssed over in ]y glanced j eturning to energies oi irith a great, mpatbies— greatly pro- with less MINISHINC galling and >n to name ; conflicts, d zealously rsuits, and iwick may wish of his ORPE." at Ghent, will, it is ining ant be neces- art's NEW War J and lintenance '* OLOXI* eagh have ■■'■) • J, • ,1 ■}>■?;•;. !•■''' ^. '"\ :■■ '■' ,-•>, '.•■■;S- ;I1