§ Lord Grenvillerose to put a question to the noble secretary of state, before the house entered on the important discussion which was this night to engage their attention, respecting a topic which of late had been alluded to in the course of debate. The subject to which he referred was the assertion made by the noble secretary, most assuredly with no design to mislead, that the Treaty signed with America by the late administration had been received in America previous to the separation of congress; and that the treaty was refused to be ratified, and was sent back by the .president of the United States. Now, he believed he might safely venture to assert, that neither of these assertions was founded in fact; and if the noble secretary had advanced any such assertions without due consideration, he was convinced that his usual candour would incline him to acknowledge the inadvertence. This, in his mind, was a topic that could not be too much insisted upon, and which was likely soon to come before their lordships in a variety of shapes. Not only, he believed, the Treaty in question had not been received in America before congress separated; but that might very well be the reason why it was supposed the president had refused to ratify, and why a number of insinuations were studiously sent abroad of the predetermined hostile disposition on the part of America. But it was not in America only that such notions were propagated. Every thing here seemed anxiously to be seized that could stir up a spirit of animosity against America, and prepare the public mind for hostilities with that country, than which there was nothing he felt more disposed to deprecate.
§ Lord Hawkesburywas not aware that any thing which had fallen from him on any former occasion, could be so interpreted; and he was desirous to rectify any error or mistake into which he may have fallen upon this subject. To the best of his recollection, what he had before stated on this point, in answer to a question put to him, was this: that an official copy of the Treaty, together with a dispatch from the noble secretary of state (lord Howick), had been received in America antecedent 928 to the separation of Congress; that is to say, it was received by the British minister at Washington on the 2d of March, and the congress, he believed, separated on the 3d; that immediately upon the receipt of it, Mr. Erskine communicated it to Mr. Maddison, who communicated it to the President that the report of the arrival of the Treaty had very generally gone abroad, and in consequence of that report the senate sent a message to the president, expressing a wish to know if it was his intention to make any communication to them previous to their separation: that the answer of the president was in the negative; and that it was generally understood the president was displeased with the omission of the article respecting the question of the impress of seamen; and that, on account of that omission, he had refused to ratify the treaty, This was the sum of what he had before stated on this subject, and he was now ready to repeat it.
Lord Aucklandthought this a matter of such importance, that it could not be too fully discussed and understood. He contended the Treaty was still in America, and that the president betrayed no other wish than to continue and follow up the treaty until it was brought to an amicable conclusion. As to the marginal notes which accompanied the copy of the Treaty, they were not notes added by the American government as the ground of a new treaty, but merely an indication of the points upon which it was desired to have further discussion and information.
§ Lord Hawkesburystated, that the official copy arrived on the 2d of March, and the senate separated on the 3d. As to the marginal notes, they had been presented to the house in the same shape in which they had been received from the American ministers here.
Some further conversation ensued upon this subject, in which lord Grenville urged the want of conciliation on the part of ministers towards America; and contended, that the president could not take the opinion of the senate until he had received the treaty itself. Lord Hawkesbury contended that he might have kept the senate sitting or adjourned it only for a short period. This was admitted by lord Holland, who, however, contended that the president adopted the most conciliatory course in suffering the senate to separate, and in the mean time endeavouring to renew the negociations.