Norfolk Gazette And Publick Ledger

THE PUBLIC LEDGER

To shew the very sad body of the time his form and pressure.

WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 26, 1809.

The intelligence of the 24th of May from London, received at Boston via Halifax, is so very extraordinary, that we find considerable difficulty in yielding our belief to it. It is to be remarked that what is said to have passed on the night of the 23d of May in the House of Commons, is nothing more than the London Editors abstract of what he says was said by Lord Henry Petty and Mr. Canning; the remarks of those members would have been more satisfactory. Not withstanding we must yet doubt the accuracy of this intelligence to the extent stated, we cannot treat the whole as a mere fabrication, it is stated with so many circumstances, that some thing must have occurred, the nature of which has in some measure served as a foundation for the account now before the publick. If true as stated, either Mr. Erskine has intentionally acted against his instructions or has ignorantly mistaken them, or the British minister has authorized a negociation which he has afterwards denied. To suppose Mr. Erskine to have acted against his instructions from design, is an imputation upon his honour and understanding that he does not merit? For what minister would thus act ; with a certainty of being soon exposed and disgraced, against the supposition that Mr. Erskine has mistaken his instructions, there are too many objections, which being stated with great perspicuity in the remarks which accompany this intelligence, need not be repeated by us. The last supposition, that Mr. Canning would give instructions, and deny that he had given,such is equally improbable, because the instructions would be demanded, and under such circumstances no minister dare refuse them. The consequences would be inevitable, and the disgrace of Mr. Canning and his associates in power unavoidable.

We must confess that we should be very sorry to have a confirmation of this intelligence, because it must produce a state of things, which will be injurious to the best interests of our country. The measures which were rescinded by this negotiation, were never such as met our approbation, but they were nevertheless the measures of our government, and when enacted into laws, commanded our obedience and support, we should therefore hold in detestation a government which by artifice and chicanery, that would have disgraced any of the predatory states of Barbary, had imposed upon the confidence of our government. Before however we adopt this opinion of the British government; as applicable to the case under consideration, we deem it our duty to wait until we have more authentick information upon the subject.

It does not appear by what conveyance the account of the negotiation reached England ; the arrival of the Rosamond is not noticed. This intelligence was not in London on the 22d of May, but by this account it must have been there on the 23d by one o'clock, as appears by the meeting of the merchants with Lord Bathurst, stated in the account now received. Now we consider it highly improbable, that intelligence of this importance, should be officially acted upon, in so few hours as must have elapsed after its arrival, that is between the 22d and 23d of May at the hour of one o'clock. This, with some other circumstances brings the veracity of this information into question.

If contrary to our hopes and expectations, the British government have authorized this negotiation, of which the stipulations on our part have been complied with, and refuse to comply with the stipulations made by their minister, then there is an end of all further confidence in the present administration of that country, and must render any further negotiations with that government extremely difficult, if not impracticable, for such an instance of abused confidence, is without an example.

British Negociation. This subject has already been noticed by us, and our opinions expressed. We were at first inclined to doubt the correctness of the information, but there are too many corroborating circumstances, to permit us now to doubt. We do believe that this negociation has met the disapprobation of the British government, and that the expressions imputed to Mr. Canning, or others similar to them, have been used by that minister. If Mr. Erskine has exceeded his instructions, the fault is his and not that of his government, but upon this fact we offer no opinion.

It is said in some of the accounts, that although the British government disapprove of what their minister in this country has done, and mean to recall him, that nevertheless the engagements made by him with our government, will be observed. We do not see any thing in the remarks imputed to Mr. Canning, which is repugnant to this. Mr. Canning is made to say, that Mr. Erskine has acted contrary to his instructions, and that what he had done would not be "approved by his majesty." The convention in Portugal was disapproved by the government of Great-Britain, yet it was punctually observed in all its parts. In the same manner, and on the same reason, the British government is bound to fulfill this engagement made by Mr. Erskine. The United States have performed all the stipulations made on their part, in confidence that neither the government of Great-Britain, nor its accredited agent, would deceive them. The arrangement made between Mr. Smith and Mr. Erskine, differs from treaties which are negociated, where the conditions are to be complied with at a future time.