Star. — London, England, 1810-01-06 00:00:00

ux,r4r.m.m. SHIPPING-0 F F ICE, LEICESTER-STREET, LEICESTER-SQUARE. GIBSON, Partner and Successor to the late • Harry Font, better known by the titles of the Scot, ehoo ieseedsr, or, the Bottle Conjurer°, respectfully informs the Nobi lity and Gentry, that he has removed his Counting-house from the Adelphi Wharf to No. 5, Leicester-street, Leicester-square. Tor the better accommodation of the Public in general, infor mation of Ships sailing for any part of England, Scotland, or Ire, land, the East or West ladies, may be bad gratis. • This eccentric character, distinguished alike for hut:hour and assurance, was the person selected by the Managers of the Hay market Theatre to apologize to the Audience for the non-appear ance of the Bottle Conjuror. On that memorable occasion, Harry almost pacified John Bull in ore of his worst tempers, by promis ing that the Conjuror should e;ittr into a pint bottle instead of a quart ore, on the following evening. The ider.tical bottle, of ma gical fame, was by Harry carefully preserved, and may now be seen by the curious in the possession of R. Gibson. DOCU.TrEATS, ACCOMPANYING THE MESSAGE OF TIIE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.-(CONCLUDED.) MR. JACKSON TO MR. SMITH. Washington, October 23, 1809. SlR—The Letter which you did me the honour to address to me on the 19th inst. was delivered to me on the following day. I shall, without loss of time, i i transmit it to my Court, where the various and im portant considerations which it embraces will receive the attention due to them. In the interval, I would beg leave to submit to you the following observa tions, as they arise cut of the communications that have already occurred between us. In fulfilling a duty which I conceive to be due to my public character, I have never suggested, (nor mean to suggest) that the mode of negotiating pre scribed by you on this particular occasion—an occa sion selected for the purpose of removing existing differences—was otherwise objectionable, than as it appeared to me to be less calculated, than it does to you, to answer the professed purpose of our negotia tion. It was against the general principle of debarring a Foreign Minister, in the short space of one week after his arrival, and without any previous misunder standing WITH Rim, from all personal intercourse, that I thought it right to protest. Since, however, 1 find by your letter, that it is not intended to apply that principle to me, I will only observe, that in the case which you mention to have occurred between Mr. Canning and Mr. Pink ney, the conferences were held, under an expectation, at least on the part of the former, of their leading to a written communication ; whereas in ours, I, from i the beginning, stated, that I had no such communi cation to make. There is also this essential differ ence between the two cases, that Mr. Pinkney was charged to convey an important proposal to his Ma jesty's Government, the particulars of which it might be very material to have correctly stated ; whilst the object of that part of my conversation, to which you seem to attach the most importance, was to say, that I was NOT charged to make any proposal whatever. It could not enter into my view to withhold from you an explanation, merely because it had been al ready given ; but because, having been so given, I child not imagine, until informed by you, that a re petition of it would be required at my hands. I am quite certain that his Majesty's Government, having complied with what was considered to be the substan tial duty imposed upon it on this occasion, would, had this been foreseen, have added to the proofs of conciliatory good faith already manifested, the far ther complacency to the wishes of the United States, of adopting the form of communication most agree able to them, and of giving through me the explana tion in question. I have, therefore, no hesitation in informing you, that his Majesty was pleased to disavow the agreement coacluded between you and Mr. Erskine, because it was concluded in violation of that gentleman's in structions, and altogether without authority to sub cribe to the terms of it. inderstand by your let. Is deduction which I „line of the 11th inst. made known to you ; (Ore, can he given of the furred, than by a refe :ment. ius than the frequency complicated negotia. id; a gradation of con successively authoriz ; the case which you :ding to the justice of impelled to make only is, that it does not consideration of the (ded here, inasmuch had no such gradu :ady acquainted with we had the honour of ie only one by which to conclude were pre- LS, which he was actu been contemplated in :es that they were sub. originally proposed. ,cory that I should say bscribe, on this occasion, wity which you have 'ou upon the essentials :o constitute a right to inister. 'eon the qualification ave quoted, as it im. icluding in virtue of a suffice to answer, that ; and his act conse the range of your quo . forgotten, that the ay distant period, most ithholding their tati :horised act of their own tder the avowed sanction been already said, esta ibt or controversy, that ite his instructions, and gjesty to disavow an act fice of a great systercuf policy, deliberate,/ 140/1 and acted upon, ink Wit and necessary retaPattom the unpreceditated modes of hostility resorted to.by enemy. There • to have prevailed throughout appears whole of this transaction, a fundamental' mistake, which would suggest that his Majesty had proposed to propitiate the Government of the United States, in order to induce it to consent to the renewal of the commercial intercourse between the two countries ; as if such had been the relations of Great Britain and America, that the advantages of that intercourse were Wholly on the side of the former ; and as if in any arrangement, whether commercial or political, his Majesty could condescend to barter objects of national policy and dignity for permission to trade with ano ther country. Without minutely calculating what may be the degree of pressure felt at Paris by the difference in the price of goods, whether landed at Havre or at Hambusgh, I will, in my turn, appeal to your judg ment, Sir , whether it be not a strong and solid reason, worthy to guide the councils of a great and powerful Monarch, to set bounds to that spirit of encroach ment and universal dominion which would bend all things to its own standard ? Is it nothing, in the pre sent state of the world, when the agents , of France authoritatively announce to their victims, “ that Eu rope is submitting and surrendering by degrees," that the s+orld should know that there is a nation which, by that Divine goodness so strongly appealed to in the paper to which I allude,* is enabled to falsify the assertion ? Is it not important, at such a moment, that Europe and America should be convinced, that, from whatever countries honourable and manly re sistance to such a spirit may have been banished, ;t will still be found in the Sovereign of the British Na tion, and in the hearts of his subjects ? • As to the precautions taken in England to insure from injury upon this occasion the citizens of the United States, and which appear to you to be even yet insufficient, I am confident that in every doubt ful case the usual liberality of our tribunals will be exercised in determining upon the circumstances of it ; and it was at Mr. Pinkney's express requisition, that additional instructions were given to the Com manders of his Majesty's ships of war and privateers to extend to vessels trading to the colonies, planta tions, and settlements of Holland, the same exemp t:on from capture and molestation, as was granted to vessels sailing for any of the ports of Holland. On the subject of return cargoes from those ports, I must observe, that although it was intended to pre vent as far as was practicable the inconveniences likely to be created by the unauthorised agreement made here in April last, yet it was not and could not be intended to obviate all possible inconveniences, even such as might have arisen if no such agreement had ever been made. If an American vessel had sailed from America for Holland in time of profound peace, or in time of war, the ports of Holland not being at the date of sailing . under blockade, it might yet have happened that, in the period between the commencement of such voyage and the arrival of the vessel at the port of destination, a blockade might have been establish ed before that port. The vessel arriving would, in that case, have been warned not to enter the port, and would have been turned away with the loss of the whole object of the voyage. This would be no extraordinary hardship, and would afford no legiti-1 mate ground of complaint. The Order in Council is fer less strict than such a blockade would be, for as much as it provides for the original voyage, commenced in expectation of being admitted to the port of destination, by permitting the entry into the ports of Holland ; and it is no just ground of complaint, that it does not superadd to that permission the liberty to re-export a cargo of the enemy's goods or produce. I beg leave briefly to recapitulate the substance of what I have had the honour to convey to you, as well in a verbal as in written communications. I have informed you of the reasons of his Majes ty's disavowal of the agreement so often mentioned ; I have shewn them, in obedience to the authority which you have quoted, to be both strong and solid ; and such as to outweigh, in the judgment of his Ma. jesty's Government, every other consideration which you have contemplated. I have shewn that that agreement was not concluded in virtue of a full power, and that the instructions given on the occasion were violated. Beyond this point of explanation which was sup posed to have been attained, but which is now given, by file present letter, in the form understood to be most agreeable to the American Government, my instructions are prospective ; they look to substitut ing for notions of good understanding, erroneously en tertained, practical stipulations, on which a real re. conciliation of all differences may be substantially founded ; and they authorise me, not to renew pro posals which have already been declared here to be unacceptable, but to receive and discuss any proposal made on the part of the United States, and eventually to conclude a Convention between the two countries. It is not, of course, intended to call upon me to state, as a preliminary to negociation, what is the whole ex tent of those instructions : they must, as I have be fore said, remain subject to my own discretion, until I am enabled to apply them to the overtures which I may have the honour of receiving from you. I have the honour to be, with great respect, Sir, your most obedient , humble servant, (Signed) F. J. JACKSON. The Hon. Robert Smith, &e. MR. JACKSON TO MR. SMITH. Washington, Oct. 27, 1209. Sir—Finding, by your letter of the 17th instant, that not Nithstanding the frequent statements made by me in our conferences of the terms of satisfaction which I am empowered to offer to this country for the unauthorised.ittack made by one of his Majesty's ships of war upon the frigate of the United States, the Chesapeake, I have not had the good fortune to make myself distinctly understood by you, I have the ho nour to enclose herewith a paper of memoranda, con taining the conditions on the basis of which I arr A ready to proceed to draw up with you the necessa T y official documents, in the form proposed in my letter of the 11th instant, or in any other form upon which we may hereafter agree. I have the honour to be, strtOrY and solid reasons for' with great respect, Sir, your most obedient humble (Signed) F. J. JACOON, • only from his instruc- Tirserv,ant. ‘. Toe Hon. Robert Smith, &c. but from the circum, r Assercan's proclaistatioss to tbit Catalonians. that t tnougm. Ic riga( to prot.est.. Since, however, 1 find by yot not intended to apply that print only observe, that in the case wh . • have occurred between Mr. Cant ney, the conferences were held, ui • at least on the part of the former. a written communication ; where the beginning, stated, that I hat cation to make. There is also ence between the two cases, that charged to convey an important jesty's Government, the particuh be very material to have correctl object of that part of my convers . . seem to attach the most importai I was NOT charged to make any It could not enter into my vie you an explanation, merely beta ready given ; but because, havi c.mld not imagine, until informe petition of it would be required t: quite certain that his Majesty's C complied with what was consider tial duty imposed upon it on t had this been foreseen, have add conciliatory good faith already i ther complacency to the wishes c of adopting the form of commu able to them, and of giving throe tion in question. I have, therefore, no hesitatio , that his Majesty was pleased to di: concluded between you and Mr. i was concluded in violation of tl structions, and altogether withot tribe to the terms of it. These.instructions, I now und( ter, as well as from the obvious took the liberty of making in rpi were at the time in substance m; no stronger illustration, therefore deviation from them which occur relict to the terms of your agrees Nothing can he more notoriou with which, in the course of a c von, Ministers :ire furnished will ditions, on which they may be St , . ed to conclude. So common is put hypothetically, that in accedi ; . ycur statement, I feel myself im . one observation upon it, which i i strike me as bearing upon the c unauthorised agreement conclud . . as, in point of fact, Mr. Erskine i . , ated instruction. You are alrea •. that which was given, and I have acquainting you, that it was the the conditions on which lie was t( scribed. So far from the terms, ;t - -ally induced to accept, having 13( fs that instruction, he himself states , mitted by you in lieu of those ore; (. It may perhaps be satisfactory here that I most willingly subscri i• to the highly respectable author quoted ; and I join issue with yot is which that authority requires, to >,' disavow the act of a public Mini It is not immaterial to, observe contained in the passage you ha t plies the case of a Minister cone . fill tower. To this it would su *Mr. Erskine had rio full power; quently does not come within the tation, although it cannot be United States have, at no very freely exercised the right of wii ficatiln from even the authorise diplomatic agents, dune tinder of a full power. I conceive that what has. bee • blishes beyond the reach of doubt his Majesty's Minister did violate the co isequent tight in his Majc 0 3 concluded. That his Majesty had strahg so doing, will appear not onl: tioas having been violated, lit tastent doe don entrance OA A -- " w out of trio r 05...,. in a ropier way, by app.._ of the discharge of seta of diem ‘,.. ElE k. . ' to 'be either natural-bons se** el bh Ilk,— • sorters from his Majesty's service. His Majesty is willing to make a provision for the families it, snob men as were slain et baud amp Chrepesths, in consequence q tbe onveliterloyd attaokAra that Selves, ptovided that such bounty shall not be inttaoritto tan man who shall have been either ' a natonnosia esty, or a de , serter from his Majesty's service. . . Mt. SMITH TO Miti of State, Nov. 1, 1801. • I Sir—Your letter of De tge tn i e 43 tilt. which was duly received, would have been sooner acknowledged, had I not by sickness been rendered for several days at-. ' telly unfit for business. Although the delay and the apparent reluctance in specifying the grounds of the disavowal of the ar rangement with respect to the Orders in Council, do not correspond with the course of proceeding deemed most becoming the occasion; yet, as the explanation has at length been thus made, it only remains, as to that part of the disavowed arrangement, to regret that such considerations should have been allowed to ont- 1 weigh the solid objections to the disavowal ; it being ' understood at the same time, that his Britannic Ma jesty perseveres in requiring, as indispensable condt., tions on the part of the United States, an entire re linquishment of the right to trade with the enemies' colonies, and also permission to the British navy to aid .in executing a law of Congress ; pretentious which cannot but render abortive all proposals whatH ever upon this subject, whether made by the United States or by his Britannic Majesty. Whilst you have deemed it proper to offer an ex planation with respect to the disavowal of one part of the arrangement, I must remind you that there is' not to be found in your letter any like specification of I the reasons for the disavowal, nor particularly is it shewn that instructions were violated, as to the other part, viz. the case of the Chesapeake—the case in which, in an especial manner, an explanation was re quired, and in which only you professed to have au •thority to make to this Government any overtures. For the first time it is now disclosed that the sub jects arranged with this Government by your pre decessor, are held not to be within the authority of a Minister Plenipotentiary, and that not having had a' 4 , full power distinct from that authority, his transac tions on those subjects might of right be disavowed by his government." This disclosure, so contrary to every antecedent supposition and just infetence, gives a new aspect to this business. If the authority of your predecessor did not embrace the subjects in question, so as to bind this Govern ment, it necessarily follows, that the only creden tials yet p-esented by you, being the same as those presented by him, give you no authority to bind it, Sind that the exhibition of " a full power" for that, purpose, such as you doubtless are furnished with, is become an indispensable preliminary to further nego ciation—or to speak more strictly, was required in the first instance by the view of the matter now disclosed by you. Negotiation without this preliminary would not only be a departure from the principle of equality, which is the essential basis of it, but would more over be a disregard of the precautions and of the self respect enjoined on the attention of the United States by the circumstances which have hitherto taken place. I need scarcely add, that in the full power alluded to, as a preliminary to negociation, is not intended to be included either the whole extent or any part of your instructions, for the exercise of it. These, of course, as you have justly remarked, remain subject to your own discretion. I abstain, Sir, from making any particular animad versions on several irrelevant and improper allusions in your letter, not at all comporting with the profes sed disposition to adjust in an amicable manner the differences unhappily subsisting between the two countries. But it would be improper to conclude the few observations to which I purposely limit myself, without adverting to your repetition of a language implying a knowledge on the part of this Govern ment that the instructions of your predecessor did not authorise the arrangement formed by him. After the explicit and peremptory asseveration that this Government had no such knowledge, and that with such a knowledge no such arrangement would have been entered into, the view which you have again presented of the subject, makes it my duty to apprise you, that such insinuations are inadmissible in the intercourse of a foreign minister with a govern ment that understands what it owes to itself. I have the honour to be, kc. (Signed) The Hon. F. J. Jackson, &c. &c. tololl b• ~ or de- R. SMITH. MR. JACKSON TO MR. SMITH. Washington, Nov. 4, 1809. SlR—When I forwarded to my Court your letter of the 19th ultimo, and the answer which I returned to it, I imagined, and I may add I hoped, that the retrospective correspondence, into which you thought it necessary to enter with me, had been closed. You , will, no doubt, recollect with what reluctance I ac quiesced in your intimation on this head —not, as I believe has been seen, from any di ffi culty in main taining the justice of the cause which is entrusted to me, but because I was and still am of opinion, that this sort of correspondenceis not calculated to remove differences and soothe irritations of the most unfor tunate tendency. As, however, I had no choice but to renounce, for the present, the hope of effectuating this desirable object, or to pursue it in the manner prescribed in your letter of the 9th ult. io I am now unwillingly compelled to enter upon the consideration of another letter from you under date of the Ist instant, which but too strongly confirms the opinion I before en tertained, Since, Sir, it has been judged expedient to confine to a written form this important and interesting dis cussion • since that mode has been declared by you to, be i ndispensible, I will first appeal to the written communications which lucre passed between us : and I do this with the greater satisfaction, because I con sider it to be the chief cause of the present remarka ble state of things, that in speaking of engagements contracted, or supposed to have been contract eZ be tween the two countries, understandings or in:t en gagements have been allowed to take place o written compacts, and have been considered, in some instan ces, as having the same validity. It is furthermore necossaiy to VA R in ;h9 insist untinivocal light a . - newly restated in your letters, notwithstanding th e repeated, but, as it should seem, fruitless endeavour; used in mine, to clear it from the slightest shadow 01 obscurity. You say " that it is understood that his Britannic .1* Majesty perseveres in requiring, as indispensable .0 conditions on the part of the United States, a n en _ a tire relinquishment of the right to trade with the a enemies' colonies, and also a permission to the B r i. 44 tish navy to aid in executing a law of congress." This same statement is contained in your letter of the 9th ult., and vepresented as the substance of wh at bad fallen from me in caur previous conferences. I n my answer to that letter, L-took the liberty of skewi ng that such a supponiticiel—was erroneous ; and I have looked in vain to my letter ,of the 23d, to find in it any suggestion of a similar tenon. _ I believe, there fore, tt by reference to my two letters you will find that the statement now a,Tainbrougiii forward is con. Mined in neither of them ; that it made no part of my previous conversations with you ; and that I have in no way given room to suppose that I ever made any such statement at all. That before the Orders in Council can be revoked, their object must be obtained in some other way, i s unquestionably true ; but you may be assured, Sir, that there is no wish whatever entertained in England that the Britieh navy should be employed in executing a law of Congress. If tls proposal that was made . upon, that subject, and made, as you new know, b e , cause it was believed to be acceptable here, had been adopted, and had become a matter of compact between the two countries, and th'ereby a part, not of the law of Congress, but of the public law binding upon both parties, and which both would have had a common interest in seeing duly executed ; in that case the agency of the British navy would not have had the invidious aspect, which is now attempted to be . given to it. At present there is no engagement be. tween the two countries, no laws of Congress which bear a reference to any such engagement, and conse quently it cannot be wished to take any share what ever in the execution of those laws. In regard to the colonial trade, I need only observe, that all or nearly all the enemies' colonies are block. aded by British squadrons: it cannot therefore beso much an object of solicitude, as you imagine, to ob. tale the relinquishment of the trade of any country to those colonies. On the contrary, you will find it stated in my letter of the 11th ult. to be a " matter 66 of indifference whether the Order in Council," (on this subject) " be continued, or an arrangement 66 by mutual consent substituted in its room." When I informed you that the agreement con cluded here in April last, had been framed in devia tion from the instructions given for the occasion, my explanation was intended to apply to both parts of that agreement. That nothing, required.by the most scrupulous accuracy, may be wanting, I now add, that the deviation consisted in not recording in the official document signed here, the abrogation of tilts President's Proclamation of the 94 Julyp,lBo7, as well as the two reserves specified in the paper, of enclosed in my official letter to you .of the 27tk ult. There is another motive for the diiavowal of this part of the arrangement, considered to be. so.strong and so self-evident upon the very face of the trans action, that I am not commanded to do, more . than indicate it in the manner I have already done. By this forbearance his Majesty conceives that he is giving an additional pledge of his sincere disposition to maintain a good understanding with the United States. I am somewhat at a loss to give a distinct reply to that part of your letter which relates to Mr. Erskine's authority to conclude with you in virtue of his general letter of credence, because I do not very distinctly understand the tendency of it. I never before heard it doubted that a full power was requisite to enables Minister to conclude a treaty, or that a mere general letter of credence was insufficient for that purpose. • If it were otherwise, and a Government were in all cases to be bound by the act, however unauthorized, of an accredited Minister, there would be no safety is the appointment of such a Minister, and ratification would be useless. No full power was given in the present case, because it was not a treaty, but the materials for forming a treaty that was in contem plation. In this dispatch of the 2 4 ad of January, Mr. Secre tary Canning distinctly says to Mr. Erskine --a Upon " receiving through you on the part of the American " Government, a distinct and official recognition et the three above-mentioned conditions, his Majesty 66 will lose no time in sending to America a Minister I , fully empowered to consign them to a formal and a regular treaty." This Minister would, of course, have been provided with a full power ; but Mr. Erskine was to be guided by his instructions, and had the agreement concluded here been conformable to them, it would, without doubt, have been ratified by his Majesty. I ma beg your very particular attention to the circum stance, that his Majesty's ratification has been With held, taut because the agreement was concluded with out a full power, but because it was altogether km concileable to the instructions on which it was pm fessedly founded. The question of the full power was introduced by yourself to give weight, by a quo tation from a highly respected author, to your come plaint of the disavowal, in answer to which I oh served, that the quotation di'd not. apply, as Mr. Erskine had no full power. Never did I imagine, lor any where attempt, to rest the right of disavowal upon that circumstance : indubitably his agreement would, nevertheless, have been ratified, had not the instructions which in this case took the place of a full power, been violated. I am surprised at the transition, by which it appears to you that this part of the subject is connected with the authority empowering me to negociate with You- It will not, I dare say, have escaped your recollection that I informed you, at a very early period of out communications, that in addition to the usual creden tial letter, his Majesty had been pleased to invest mile with a full power, under the Great Seal of his king• dour, for the purpose of concluding a Treaty or Con vention. I well remember your testifying your sat'? faction at the circumstance ; and I have now only to add, that I am ready, whenever it suits your coon' silence, to enekange my full power against that vat which you shall be provided, for the progress of our negociation. I am concerned, Sir, to be obliged a second tittle° appeal to thine principlo of .pWic. law, under the