★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<head>Morning Chronicle, Feb<hi rend="superscript">y</hi> 4, 1824.</head> | <head>Morning Chronicle, Feb<hi rend="superscript">y</hi> 4, 1824.</head> | ||
<head>House of Commons, Feb<hi rend="superscript">y</hi> 3<hi rend="superscript">d</hi></head> | <head>House of Commons, Feb<hi rend="superscript">y</hi> 3<hi rend="superscript">d</hi></head> | ||
<p>Mr Canning.... "I am particularly desirous of saying<lb/>something regarding the Treaty with the U.S. to which indeed my<lb/> Noble friend adverted, but the documents he supposes on the Table of this<lb/> House found their way into the America Newspapers. In the beginning<lb/> of the last session a proposal was received from the U.S. to join<lb/>by treaty in putting an end the the illicit <add>Slave</add> trade by conceding<lb/>to each force an immaterial and limited right of search. The treaty<lb/> for this purpose was drawn up by the Minister of the U.S. and in<lb/> <add>the</add> course of <del> | <p>Mr Canning.... "I am particularly desirous of saying<lb/>something regarding the Treaty with the U.S. to which indeed my<lb/> Noble friend adverted, but the documents he supposes on the Table of this<lb/> House found their way into the <sic>America</sic> Newspapers. In the beginning<lb/> of the last session a proposal was received from the U.S. to join<lb/>by treaty in putting an end to the the illicit <add>Slave</add> trade by conceding<lb/>to each force an immaterial and limited right of search. The treaty<lb/> for this purpose was drawn up by the Minister of the U.S. and in<lb/> <add>the</add> course of <del><unclear>nexation</unclear></del> <add><del>negotiation</del></add> <add>negociation</add> it received at our hands some alterations of<lb/> minor importance. By the constitution of the U.S. the power of <add>ratification</add> <del><gap/></del><lb/><del><gap/></del> does not lie in the Executive Minister but in the Ex<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> M<hi rend="superscript">r</hi> and<lb/>the Senate in conjunction: of the inconvenience of such a regulation<lb/> this case affords a proof; <del><gap/></del> <add>but such</add> being the fact, we have no reason<lb/> to complain that though the ratification had been given by his<lb/>Majesty, it was refused by the U.S. except on the condition of<lb/> an alteration. What is singular is, that one of the <del>changes</del> <add>changes</add><lb/> proposed, and that the most material was in the original draft of<lb/> the treaty. I need only say of it that it was an alteration which<lb/> withdrew all the reciprocity on which that treaty was founded. The<lb/> stipulation had been that search should be permitted to American <lb/> ships in the West Indies, and the British Indies on the coast of<lb/> America. The Government of the U.S. withdraws the last so that the<lb/> mutual right of search would be conceded in our possessions in<lb/> the W. Indies, but denied on the coast of the U.S. As a matter of<lb/> justice to the W. Indies it was impossible to acquiesce in this<lb/>proposal, since it would admit by implication that the slave laws<lb/>were evaded by our colonists which I deny and were not<lb/> evaded by the Americans on their own coast. The course we took was<lb/> this: The U.S. had made an alteration which we could not admit,<lb/> and we proposed to cancel the first treaty and sent out<lb/>full powers to negociate another treaty verbatim like the<lb/>former, with the single exception of the word America. The<lb/>refusal to ratify such a new treaty on the part of the U.S.<lb/> I really think could not stand the test of public discussion.<lb/> By raising the offence of slave trading into piracy we gave<lb/> a test of our sincerity which admits of no contradiction.<lb/>It seems to me therefore that after a little cool reflection<lb/> the Americans will feel that they have no voice but to adopt<lb/> the course we have recommended. I have much satisfaction<lb/> in adding that the whole discussion was carried on with the<lb/> utmost amity and I have myself not the slightest doubt that the<lb/> personal feeling of the Executive of the U.S. is entirely with this <gap/> <unclear>entry</unclear>."</p> | ||
Morning Chronicle, Feby 4, 1824. House of Commons, Feby 3d
Mr Canning.... "I am particularly desirous of saying
something regarding the Treaty with the U.S. to which indeed my
Noble friend adverted, but the documents he supposes on the Table of this
House found their way into the America Newspapers. In the beginning
of the last session a proposal was received from the U.S. to join
by treaty in putting an end to the the illicit Slave trade by conceding
to each force an immaterial and limited right of search. The treaty
for this purpose was drawn up by the Minister of the U.S. and in
the course of nexation negotiation negociation it received at our hands some alterations of
minor importance. By the constitution of the U.S. the power of ratification
does not lie in the Executive Minister but in the Exr Mr and
the Senate in conjunction: of the inconvenience of such a regulation
this case affords a proof; but such being the fact, we have no reason
to complain that though the ratification had been given by his
Majesty, it was refused by the U.S. except on the condition of
an alteration. What is singular is, that one of the changes changes
proposed, and that the most material was in the original draft of
the treaty. I need only say of it that it was an alteration which
withdrew all the reciprocity on which that treaty was founded. The
stipulation had been that search should be permitted to American
ships in the West Indies, and the British Indies on the coast of
America. The Government of the U.S. withdraws the last so that the
mutual right of search would be conceded in our possessions in
the W. Indies, but denied on the coast of the U.S. As a matter of
justice to the W. Indies it was impossible to acquiesce in this
proposal, since it would admit by implication that the slave laws
were evaded by our colonists which I deny and were not
evaded by the Americans on their own coast. The course we took was
this: The U.S. had made an alteration which we could not admit,
and we proposed to cancel the first treaty and sent out
full powers to negociate another treaty verbatim like the
former, with the single exception of the word America. The
refusal to ratify such a new treaty on the part of the U.S.
I really think could not stand the test of public discussion.
By raising the offence of slave trading into piracy we gave
a test of our sincerity which admits of no contradiction.
It seems to me therefore that after a little cool reflection
the Americans will feel that they have no voice but to adopt
the course we have recommended. I have much satisfaction
in adding that the whole discussion was carried on with the
utmost amity and I have myself not the slightest doubt that the
personal feeling of the Executive of the U.S. is entirely with this entry."
Identifier: | JB/044/137/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 44. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
044 |
constitutional code |
||
137 |
|||
001 |
morning chronicle, feby 4, 1824 |
||
copy/fair copy sheet |
1 |
||
recto |
f63 |
||
j whatman turkey mill 1829 |
|||
jonathan blenman |
|||
1829 |
|||
13922 |
|||