502 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 



led the undersigned to the too hasty conclusion, that one of the affi- 

 davits forwarded to him from Washington, and by him transmitted 

 to Lord Aberdeen, was the deposition in question. Such, however, 

 is not the case. The depositions accompanying the note of the under- 

 signed, are those of two of the crew, sons of the master, one of them 

 a "boy of fourteen. The Earl of Aberdeen will perceive from Lord 

 Falkland's letter of the 2d of January, that his lordship had conjec- 

 tured that such was the fact, and was consequently disposed to exon- 

 erate William Doughty, the master of the vessel, from the charge of 

 ingratitude, and of having made a deposition at home at variance 

 with his professions of thankfulness both at Sydney and Halifax. 



It does not appear that Captain Doughty had returned home at the 

 time that Messrs. J. and J. Starling, of Portland, in Maine, the owners 

 of the " Argus" represented the case to the Department of State at 

 Washington. 



With respect to the depositions of Edward and Joshua Doughty, 

 the undersigned agrees with Lord Aberdeen that they are " confused 

 and obscure," and that they are in some important particulars inac- 

 curate, and he has much pleasure in adding that Mr. Dodd, the com- 

 mander of the " Sylph" so far from treating the crew of the " Argus " 

 ■with harshness, seems to have manifested to them every possible kind- 

 ness consistent with the performance of his duty, as an officer charged 

 with the execution of the provincial law. 



But although the depositions of the Doughtys are materially in- 

 correct, the undersigned is inclined to think them not open to the 

 charge of international falsehood, wilful and shameless misrepre- 

 sentation, and gratuitous malice ascribed to them by Mr. Dodd with 

 the sanction of Lord Aberdeen. The statements for instance of Ed- 

 ward Doughty that the capture of the " Argus " took place on the Gth 

 of July, and of Joshua Doughty that it took place on the 9th of July, 

 to which Lord Aberdeen alludes as a contradiction showing a light 

 respect to the obligation of an oath, are the undersigned thinks, hardly 

 sufficient ground for so heavy an imputation. The capture having 

 taken place on the 6th of August (not on the 7th as stated by Lord 

 Aberdeen,) both the depositions are in that respect of course inac- 

 curate; but it is in a point of no prejudice to the captors, nor benefit 

 to the deponents or their cause. Had they combined to swear to a 

 false account, they would not have differed in details of this kind, 

 nor would they have assigned a wrong day to the capture. The dep- 

 osition was sent to the undersigned not in the original, but in a copy 

 apparently written in haste and containing, either for that reason or 

 the rapidity with which it was taken down before the magistrate, 

 several clerical errors. The undersigned is disposed to think that the 

 words " on the ninth " in the deposition of Joshua Doughty should 

 read " in the month." This would remove the only point of contra- 

 diction between the brothers, and leave no error in reference to the 

 date, but that of " July " for "August," an error for which the under- 

 signed is unable to account, but which from its nature cannot well be 

 other than inadvertent. 



The report of Mr. Davenport, the collector, is itself not wholly 

 free from contradiction in some important points. He observes in 

 the earlier portion of it that the Argus was brought into Sydney in 

 the morning of the seventh of August as was the fact, but in the last 

 paragraph he says that this took place on the night of the seventh ; 



