The Statesman. — London, England, 1810-01-08 00:00:00

4 1 i w r ii i , II \ 'ORTANT DOCUMENTS, • RELATIVE T!) Tmc NCEi betzormi GREAT BRITAI N and AlltatLCA. — "lir' 4 • No. VT. SMITH TO 118. - P/NCKNEY. Depa rumen of Seat, Nov. 23,1309. . letters in thisorrespuntlencu %kb I n already traMnitted to you, Sufi • 4ce ttt4 disappointlavent that was felt, :hat he bad nut been Os make to this Government either the frank ex - Planation; 44r the liberal propotrition.., which the occasion Invoirettly required. Instead of this obvious course or proceeding, it was in the outset perceived that his object wAs to bring its to resume the saihjeets .1 the arringements of April, in a way that would i ?tidy that we were aware that the arranAement was not Winding nn hi.; Government, because Node smith a knowledge on our part that Mr. Frs. kit . had no atitir,rily to make it, and thus t 4, convert the revitonsibility of his Goternmeot for the disavowal, into a reproach on this for its eondoet in the transaction disavowed. In the first instance it was deemed hest rather to repel his observations stwiment.stively, than to meet them a , 4 au offensive insinuation. This for. tpc.ir.tnca had not the expected effect of restrain. jog him from a repetition of the offence; and even on his fartkr tosion3tionc, -nothing more utas•done than to . premooish him of the inadmissi bility of so indecorous a nuarge of proneeding. This also being without effect, nothing remaine.l bpi the step finally taken, and there was the less hesitation ire shettingthe door to further °itone. wales for insulting insinuatiens, as the disclosures Ise had made, and the spirit of his discussions, had se entirety alitit it to the hope of any favourable restilt frets his mission. I will not ilertil on his reluctance to give up the soicertainties of verbal for the precision of *Wow itiscossien ; nor on the manner or the Ouse of his denial that he had given any room at ‘ll- for a statement, which, in order to guard against the misconceptions incident to verbal con. feretices, I had placed before him in writhing, with a request that he would point out any itlaC curacira, and to which he did untsilhen object otherwise than by intimating, that he could not -have made the statemeut with the particular area which seemed to be supposed. Nor Will I dwell on the various instances in which partial or incon. sistent views of the subject have taken place of its real merits. Bu t it may not he amiss to make some observations on the correspondence, as` it relates to the justification of his Gorernlnent, i•i having disavowed the act of his predecessoi. With • respect to the Orders in Council, the ground of the disavowal is the difference between the arranaement and the printed dispatch of Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23t1 of January. According to this dispatch then, the arrangement failed in three points. • let. In not relinquishing the trade of the United States with enemies colonies. With respect to this point, it is not necessary at this time to discuss the right of that trade. It Is SU irldell t to remark, lit, that as the trade is ad. witted• to have become, its the view of Great Uri tain, of little practical importance, why has it h en made aground of the disvowal, and especi ally, as important considerations only could, upon principles of pulilic• I iw, have jeshilied a measure of so serious a character? 2tl, That as the colonial. trade is a subject no wise connected either with the Orders in Council, or with the affair of the Chu . sapeake, why has it been permitted to frustrate an arrangement relating to those sobjecta„ and to. those only ? 3d, Twat as this condition is allowed to have ocigiiiated into supposition, that it would be . ngeeeable to the Antorican Government, why has • it been persisted in after the error was made known by the representation of Mr. Erskine to his Covet - tenant, that neither this nor the other c•iiitlitions of tle:alispatch of thetad January were • attainable here? 2d. Anether point in the dispatch, and not in the arraugement., is, that the British trays , might capture our trade to ports prohibited by the United States. This rendition too appears to have had its ori gin mite mistake of your meaning in a conversa tion with Mr. Canning, as noted by yearself, and in an inference thence deduced as to the disposi tion of this GoveviiMent. But this double mistake inlet have been brought to light in time to have beets corrected in the mew mission. In urging it, _ Air. Canning has taken a ground, furbishleis by those principles of (it:denim, which' regulate and mark the proceedings of Governments towards each other. In his dispatch, the condition is stated to be for the purpose of securing the bona fide intention of America to -prevent 4ser eiksitoefross; trailing with Frante and certain other powers. Its other words, to secure a pledge to that effect against the main fide intention of the United States. Arid this dispatch too was authorised to he Communi cated in extense to the Goveruinent of which such inguage was used. Might it not have been res. venally expected that such 4 condition and such observations would at least, on such an occasion, have been given up by a Government willing to a/101,th the way to an amicable settlement of exist. log differences? In his zeal to vindicate his Government, Mr, • Jackson too has attempted a gloss us this most extraordinary idea of calliug • on a fortto love. reign'', not indeed tia make laws for nay lott o • what is equivalent in principle, to supply a int), posed inability to execute thesis. Ile calls.such an interposition of his Government tint an execution of the law of Congress, but of a corniigh binding as a public law oil both parties, and whit* both would have a common interest in swing duly exc. cured. On his °wk• principles there ought to be , a iefiprocity, nut only in the execution er the goinpact, but in thWehligatioti anefiuteresureaol4, big from it. Besides, where there is a reciprocity 1t compacts between nations touching attributes of sovereignty, there is always at much of love reignty gained as is parted with, so that there be sao loss nor indignity on either side. 3d. The remitting point in the dispatch, nut retired by the arrangement, is that which required, teat *bast our pinbibitory laws should be repealed DIFFERE., MR. Stn—My Jackcni rienly evin( on rintlinz th to thic Grivoi ,~ • - .• _ . THE STATMNIAN. . - - Ps to Great Britain, they should be left in force' as to France and the Powers adopting or acting under her decrees. This is the condition which alone properly be. lungs to the t (abject% and it into he remarked, in the first place, that the British project, of which' this condition makes a part, contemplated two things in their nature incompatible ; one, k re. peal of the prohibitory arts as to Great Britain; without waiting for the conclusion of a regular treaty ; the other a pledge, or engagement fur their continuance as to the other Powers. Now, from the nature of our Constitution, which, in this particular, ought to have been attended to by the British Government, it is manifest that the Etecutive authority could have given no such pledge, that the continuance of the prohibitory Acts, being a subject of Legislative considera tion, cou1:1 not have been provided for until the meetiiig of the Legislature, and that the condition could not, therefore, but have failed, either in the imme.liate renewal, Of commerce with Great Britain, or in the immediate engagern,nt that it should nut be renewed with France. Tho British Go. vernment otlgl.t to have•acquieseed in, and, in.. deed, 'might to have been satisfied with the attainment of tke important object of an im. mediate repeal of our prohibitory laws ; and with the consideration, that the other object,.-not immediately attainable, was im. tieeessary at the time, berause the prohibilion at to France was then in ?titer, and because there was every reason to infer nut only from this fact, but from the spirit of the communications made from time to time, and from the overtures before submitted to the British Government, that, uith. out a repeal of the French decrees, our prohibi tory laws would be continued in. force' against France, and especially in the case of a repeal of the British Orders, which would necessarily ran. der a continuance of the French Decrees doubly obtinzious. But if, on this head, doubts could have been entertained, inqead of rejecting tho arrangement, ought not the Repealing Act on our part to have been met with a suspension, at least, of the Or ders in Council, until it could have been seen whe. tiler the non.intercourse law would or would nut have been continued against France ? Such sus. pension could not have given,_ in any point of view, more advantage to the [Jailed States, than was given to Grcat'Britain by the repeal, which had taken place on their part. If this reasonable course could not have been substituted for the disavowal, why was nut a anal disavowal suspended with a proposition, that the arrangement would be executed by Great-Britein in the event of a cotpplianco on the part of the United States with the condition required as to France ? I am not unaware, you may be told, that the 'non-intercourse taw of the United States did not extend to Holland, though 'so iiitimately'connect.- ed with France, and so subservient to her Decrees' against neutral commerce. • It would not be improper on this occasion to observe, that this objection can be the less urged by Great Britain, at she has herself never in her alleged retaliations adhered to her principle on which they were founOetl. Thus she has, from the date of them, until very lately, directed them against flue American trade even' to Russia, although Russia had never adopted the French decrees, nor otherwise vie. lated our neutral trade with Great Britain. So, in her Order of April last, she has discriminated, not only between the countries devoted to France by the ties of blood, and other Powers, but be. Itwee!' Holland, Nyestphalia, and Naples, in en. furring her prohibitory order against the lint and not the two last. Whilst, therefore, she finds it.. expedient to make these distinctions, she ought to presume, that we, too, - may perceive equal pro. pricey in the distinctions we have made. But it may be of more importance here to cam.' pare the British Order in Council of April last, with the uerraneement of April, made 'by Mr. Er. skim'. It will thence be seen how little is this real difference, and how trivial it is when compared 'to the extensive and serious conseqvencei of the, disavowal. • Under the Order in Conned of April, all the ports of Europe, except France, including the I kingdom of Italy and Bull:eel, with their depets. dencies, are opened to our commerce. . Under the arrangement of April, combined with our Act of Non-Intercourse, all the ports of Eu rope, except France and her dependencies, -i 0. eluding the Kingdom of Italy, would have been opened to our commerce. 'The difference then is reducier merely to MI , land, and that again is reduced to the difference -be, woes& a direct trade to the ports ot and an indirect trade to ilolland through Ton. 'singe% llansburgli, Bremen, and Embden. Now, as the injuring of the enemies of Great Britain is the ouly avowed object of her interdict.' ing Order against our trade, let a computation be made of the effect which this difference between' the Order in Council and the arrangement could ably have in producing such an injury, And. let the question he candidly answered, whe ther, laying aside all considerations of right and. • sties, sufficient inducements could have been. d in that result for rejecting the arrangement, and 1 1 11 r producing the consequent embarrassments, es ,well to Great Britain as to the United States. if it he necessary, as Mr. Jackson has stated,' to set bounds to a spirit of encroachment and uni., f versa, dominion, which would bind all things to its oitrosnetard, and to falsify, by honourable' and manly resistance, an annunciation that all rope is submitting by degrees, effort must be fee ble, indeed, which is to be found in the iticonve. usiousce accru leg to the formidable toe from the tm. ration of this Order in Council ; and especially when combine with it the strange phenomenon of substituting for the law fnl.trade . of the United States a trade of British subjects, contrary to the laws of the adverse party, and amounting, with. oust a special licence, in ilia eye of British low, to high treason. Thus much for the Orders in Council. What has taken place with respect to the Chesaltestk.e will evally engage your attention., . You will perceive, that throughout the early stases of the correspondence, this case was, its some respects, improperly confou n ded with, In others iniptoperly separated from, that of the .Orders 'in Council ; and particularly.that pains had been takets by Mr. Jackson to substitute vet. I-bal and vague observations on the disavowal , ref this part of the arrangement, for an evli It and formal explanation, such as was obvioully slue.— It will be seen alsogehet, when finally brought to the point, he referred for a justification of the disavowal to tho.departiire of Mr. Erskine from his instructions, without slbewing what those in structions were, awl to illusions to an expression in the arrangement, without giving to his meaning I the distinctness pre.requisite to a jute reply. It appears, however, that lie lays great stress on the proposal enclosed in his letter of the 27th October, as at once indicating the departure of Mr. Erskine front his instructions; and as con. tensing the conditions on the basis of which he was. reedy to enter on an adjustment. And from a note from the Secretary of the British Legation, I it appears that he has complained of nut having received an answer to his proposal, as ho had be fore complained that no answer had beets given to his verbal disclosure on this head in his ititersiews with me. , With respect to his intimations in conversation,. as they were preceded by . no proper assignment of •the reasons foe not having executed the original adjustment, it cannot be necessary to remark, that no such notice, as lie wished to obtain, could, with any sort of propriety, have been taken of them. . With respect to his written project, it will suffice to remark, • Ist, That besides his reluctant and indistinct explanation of the disavowal of the original adjust ment, he did not present his proposal 'nein he had made such progress in hit offensive insinuation as ' made it proper to wait the issue of the reply about to be given to it ; and that this issue had uecessa rily put a stop to fUrther communications. 2dly, That although he had given us to ander stand that the ordinary credentials, such alone as be had delivered, could not bind his Government in such a case, his proposal had neither been pre Ceded by nor accompanied with the exhibition of other commission or fti'l power. Nor. indeed, has he ever given sufficient reason to suppose that he bad any such full power to exhibit in relation to this particular case. It is true, that'in his let ter of the 23d of October, he had stated an au thority eventually' to conclude a Convention be tween the two Countries. Without adverting to the ambiguity of the term eventually with the mark of emphasis attached to it, and to other un certainties in the phraseology, it is cleat that the authority referred to, whatever it may be, is de rived from instructions subject to his own discre tion, and not from a patent commission, such as might be properly called for. It is true also. that in his letter of the 4th of November, subsequent to Isis proposal; ho says he was possessed of a full power in due form for the express purpose of con. eluding a Treaty or Convention. But it still remains uncertain, whether by the Treaty or Convention to which it .related was not' meant an eventual or provisional treaty on Oro general relations between the two countries, with out any reference to the case of the Chesapeake.. Certain it is that the British Goveroment t in for mer like case, as will Ins seen by the adjustment of that part of the affair at Nootka Sound, which is analogous to this case t did not consider any such distinct full power as necessary; nor is there the slightest ground for supposing that Mr. Erskine, although confessedly instructed to adjust this very case of the Chesapeake, was furnished with any authority distinct from his credential letter. That Mr. Jackson •has any such commission is the less to be supposed, as it is but barely possible, that possessing it, he should not, on sumo occasion, or in some form, have used a language susceptible of tor possible doubt on this point. But proceeding to the proposal itself, it is to be kept its mind, that the conditions forming its W. sis are the very conditions, for the deviating from which Mr. Erskine's adjustment was disavowed. Mr. Jackson, if not in others, is on this point ex plicit. " I now add (says he), that the deviation consisted in not recording in the official document signed here the abrogation of the President's pro. demotion of the 2d July, 1807, as well as the two reserves specified in the paper of memoranda' encloses' in my official letter to you of the 27th ult." Considering then the conditions in the proposal. as an ultimatum, in what .light are we compelled . to view such an attempt to repair the outrage cons. nutted on the frigate Chesapeake, and to heal the disappointment produced - by a disavowal of a pre. nissassagaitable reparation 2 - It is impossible on such in occasion not to re. cal the circumstances which constituted the cha racter of the oistrage to which such au ultimatum is now applies?. A national ship, proceeding on' an important service, was watched by a superior naval force, enjoying at the time the hospitality of our ports, was followed, and scarcely out of our waters, when she was, after an insultipg summons, attacked in an hostile manner, and the ship so in jured as to require expensive repairs. the espedi. tion frustrated, a number of the crew killed and , wounded, several carried into captivity, and one of them pet to death under a military sentence. The three eeetnee, though American citizens, and therefere on every supposition detained as wrong folly as she 'ship would here beets detained, have, dotwithatan !leg, remained in captivity between two and three years ; and, it may be added, after it hat long ceased Le be denied, that they are American citizens.' Under Mete circumstances we qro called upon to ransom the captives. Ist. By acknoe hedging that a precautionary proclamation, justified by events preettlitig the outrage, .by the outrage itself, and by what ins. mediately followed it, was unjustifiable, and that a repeal of it was properly a co:Wickes precedent to a reparation for the outrage. And this requi. sitioe is repeated too, after such an aeknowlsalg moot had beets uniformly asserted by this Cioveiss- ' mesa to be utterly inadmissible, anti, what is par. titularly remarkable, at a time when the pruela. I - • mation, as is welt understood, was no longer i f t force. Thb •cession obviously invited a silent assumption of thu existing feet, and this 1, 101114 have excluded the difficulty heretofore found to be insuperable. _ _ 2,1 By throwing into complete oblivion the conduct of the Officer answerable for the mur. olerous transaction, with a .knowledge, too, on our part s that instead of being punished, or even bfought to trial, he has been honoured by his Ga. vcroiment with a new and more important coal. mond. 31; By admitting a right on the part of Great Britain to claim a disaterge from our service of deserters gent-rally, and particularly of her nate. ral horn sabjects, without excepting such as 114 d been naturalized in due form under the laws of the United States. IA has not been egplainesl, whether it was meant, as the universality of the term " desertei" wined import, to include American citizens who might have left the British service. But what possibl e ' - Consideration could have induced the British G o „ vernment to expect that United, States could admit.a principle that /would deprive our cameral. iscd citizens of the legal privileges which they h,d4 in common with their native feikiw.citizens. The British Government ought not to have made sock a proposition ; bee.at-o it out only, like o!iw rs, naturalizes aliens, bat in relation to. the United States has even - refused to discharge (rem th e Britlsh service native eitigent of the Unite,' Stato, iuvolontarily deteintal.. If an •American seaman has resided in Gecat.Britain, or Las ' married therein, or has accepted d bounty is her naval service, his discharge therefrom, oft the regular application to the British Go. vernment, has been, invariably rrfused by its Board. of Admir o ity. This I state on the thorit . v of the official reports made t o thi s D eeart. • men% It therefore, truly astoniAitig, that, with a know Icke of these facts, sueli n pretension should have been edvinced at all,: but, above all, that it shosild have been made st sine qua nen to as act of plain justice, already so long delayed. This is the more to be regretted, as the omen dors not favour the belief we wonld willingly cherish, that no predetermination exists in the Councils of his Britannic Majesty irreconcilable to au arnica. ble arrangement of an affair, which, affecting so deeply the honour of the United States, must pre. cede a gonerarregulation of the mutual interestsof the two countries. After the correspondence with Mr. Jackson was terminated, two notes, of which copies art here. with sent to you, were presented to me in the name and by the hand of Mr. Oakeley, the Bri. fish Secretary of Legation. The first requested a document, having the ef. feet of a special passport or safeguard to Air. Jackson and his family during their stay in the United States. As the laws of this country allow an unObstruded passage through every part of it, and, with the law •of nations, equally in force, protect public Minisieri and their families its all their privileges, such an application was regarded as somewhat singular. There was no hesitation, however, in furnishing a certilicate of his publis - character, and to ba used in any mode he might choose. But what surprised must was the reason assigned for the application. The in. suit he alluded to was then, for the first time, brought to the knowledge .of this Govern. anent. It had, indeed, been among the rumours of the day, that some nabecoming scene had taken place At Norfolk, or ' Haniptos►, between some Officers belonging to the Africaine, and some of the inhabitants, and that it originated in the indis. cretion of the f ,rmer. No attention having been called for, and mainqairief made, the truth of dui case is unknown." But it was never supposed that Mr. Jackson himself, who was on board the fri. gate, hvl been porsonally i►►sulted : nor is it yet perceived in what way' he considers it as having • happened. It is needless to remark, that any re. presentation on the subject would have instantly received every limper attention. Another ground on which a protection was asked• for, is . the supposed tendency of the guage of our newspapers to cacao popular tin. knee on Mr.. Jackson's person. Had he been longer and better acquainted with the habits and spirit of the American people, he would probably never have entertained an apprehension of that sort. If he meant 'to animailyert on the free lan. guage of the newspapers, ho might justly be re. minded' that our laws, as those of his country, set 'bounds to that freedom : that the freedom of Bri. flab prints, hoWever, groat with rtspect to public characters of the United States, has never been a topic of cemPlaint ;sand that supposing the lath 'bide of tit American press ta► exceed that of 4014 Uritsaiar.also diiinsessen is.-14rigely km is this rpspect between the tato,' Ikon - between Ike British ° press . and ilskt'of the—other nations of Europe. The second note seetes to bar•Aisentially intend ed as a justification Of the conduct of Ms. 44. ion Jo that part of his corteepandeuca which 41 given tomkrage. If he intended it as a concitiO2rl advance, he ought not to have preceded it by demand of passports, nor by the spirit or 14 manner in which that demand was made. 11 0 ought, in fact, if such was his object, to have substituted an explanation in the place of his Fitiq to my premonitory letter. But whether he 121 3 one or other, or both of these object% in view, 3 was necessary for him to boa dune more than it attempted in this paper. It was never objected to him that ho had sled it as a fact that the three propositions i n ilie sfie4 I had keen submitted to me by Mr. Erskine, nut that he stated it as made known to him by. the in• inflictions of Mr. Canning, that the instruction IS Mr. Erskine, containing those three conilittens,2 4 the, only one fruns which his authority was derived to conclude an arrangement in the matter 10121 10 it related. The objection was, that a knowledge of this resfrictiog of the authority of Mr. Erski 9 4 was imputed to this Ciovernment, and the repel. Lion of the imputation even after it had been la freqoently disclaimed. This was so gri , ” 2 ^ al ' talc on thp honour aod voraeiiy of toe polcritt Aunt s al to forbid all further commisnicatioosfrn"! sh.i 2 i! 6 41 .2 114 2 tlCTerthplois taken, gt,i4tr ttre v - --y --. ~