The New Hampshire gazette — Portsmouth [N.H.], 1810-01-13 00:00:00, page 2

?‘;W;'TTV T".I:T.?,I" ~ ﬂ'».':-;n T—— ‘p—\b\lww" _
arrival of a national ship is announced, bring
ing aot an ordinary messenger but a secretary of
degation charged with important. defpatches.
Mir Exikine, the Britith minister, immediately
addrelfes to the secretary of state a note tender
ing reparation for the affair of the Chesapeake
and exprefling the sincere disposition of his ma.
jelty for an adjultment of all the differences be
tweenthe two countries. ; ;
- T will read an extra& from the firft note—
¢ It having been represented to his Majesty’s
government, thatthe Congress of the U States
in their proceedings at the openinfg of the last
fefli 0, had ‘evinced an intention of pafling cer
tain laws, which would place the relations of G
Britain with the United States upon ‘an equal
footing, in all refpe&@s, with the other beiliger
ens-powers ; 1 have accordingly received his ma.
Jefty’s commands, in the event of such laws
taking place, to offer, on the partof his-majelty,
an honorable reparation for the aggression com
mitted by a Britith naval officer, "in the attack
on the United States frigate Chesapeake.”
“The re;#®ation for the outrage on the Ches
apeake is accepted and the Britith minister im
medistely addreflzs to the secretary of ftatea
second note from which the following is an ex
tralt — ’ o)
«T'he favorable change in the relaticns of his
m=j-Ay with the United Btates, which has been
produced by the a& (usually termed the non-ic
tercourf{e a@) pafles in the last fefion of Con
gress, was also anticipated by his majesty, and
bas encouraged a further hope, that a reconfid.
eration of the existing differences might lead to
their f:tisfaltory ajultment.
¢ On these grounds & expe&tations, I am in
firu&ed to communicate to the American gov
ernment, his majelty’s determination of {fending
to the United States, an envoy extraordinary in
vefled with full powersto conclude a treaty on all
the points of the relations between the two
couantries. i ‘
¢ In the mean time, with a view to contri
bute to the attainment of so desirable an objeét,
his majelty would be willing to withdraw his
orders in council of January and November,
1807, so far as refpeés the U. S. in_the persua
sion that the President would issue a proclama
tion for the rénewal of the intercourse with G
Britiin, and that whatever difference of opin
ion fhonldarife in the intetpretation of the terms
of such an agreement, will be removed in the
proposed negociation.”
This al{o is met with that unfufpe&ing corfi
dence which the circumstances under which it
was ten“ered was calculated to produce-~The
oropofal of the Britith minister is accepted, and
-heimmediately addrcfses to the secretary of Rate
the following note.
“In consequence of the acceptance, by the
Profident, as ttated in your letter dated the 18th
init of the proposals mate by me on the part
of his majaity, -in my letter of the fame day,
for the renewal of the intercourse between the
relpe&ive countries, I am autborifed to declare
that his majesty’s orders in council of Jannary
and November 1807, will have been withdrawn
as respects the United States, on the loth day of
- June next ?
- This pledge, fir, thus solemnly made in the
face of the whole world is accepted by the Ex
ecutive—he.could not have declined it without
supposing the Britith minilter an unpriacipled
{windler. On what principle could the Exec.
utive of the U. S have declined a tender thus
mie ? The accredited minister plenipotentiary
of G. Britain declares, ¢ I am authorifed to de
clare that his m:jefty’s orders in council will
have been withdrawn on the loth day of June
‘next.” Could the Prefifent of the U. S have
doubted the veracity or honor of the minister ?
‘Thefe had never been queltioned. Could he
suppose that Mr. Erskine would artfully facri
fice himfelf to such a proje& against the views
of his government ; for this there could be do
possible temptation. Could the Executive {up
‘pofe that Mr. E:fkine had mistaken the views
of his goverament ? Such a fuppolition could
not be entertained, because his dispatches were
brought by a diplomatic auxiliary, immediately
from his government, not doubted to be poflef
{e} of all its views and well underflood to be
privy to all the Reps taken by Mr. Erskine —
Were the terms offered at such a crisis of a na
ture to render the offer fufpicious-=fo tar from
it that the lanpuage of those who now reprobate
the want of caution was, that they were always
attainable If under flich circumitances the
“opportunity had been met by the scruples and
fubtleties’ now acvanced, let candor decide
whether the authors could not and would not
have appeared in much greater force against the
. administration. Let gentlemen fay, whether
.men of all parties would not have united, in
exccrating the condu@ of the Executive, if in
stead of meeting the overtures of Mr. Erskine,
‘to nfe their own language, with promptitude
and franknefs.” he hadtold him to fend back
“to G. Britain for a patent power as- a prop for
bis veracity. AT e ‘
. "To make a contraé biading, five things are
RS O A e R '
" 1. That the parties have power to consent.
- 2. That they haveconfemted. -~ -
3. That they have confeated freely. .
{ 4 That the consent is mutual. ‘
- 5. That the execntion is poflible,, e
- " ¥id Martin, Bosk 25 Ch. 15 Sec. §.
. 'The arrangement is not digvo\wed for want
of power on the part of Mr. Erskine; but for a
departure from inftractions. It is admitted by
Mr Jackson that Mr. Erskine had power. lln
69 of the cmefpéﬂdmcﬁ"’,; :Mr e Jackroﬁf'
gﬁm———l mult beg yous very particular at
‘tention to the circumftancé that his majeliy’s.
racification has been withbeld, not becatte the
‘agreement was concladed without a full power,
“but it was alrogether irreconcilable to the in.
fro@ions on which it was profefledly founded.
The gneßion of the full power wasimtroduced,
by yourfelf, 1o give weight, by 2 quotation from
a Biably reloeaed amhor, to YOur complaint of
‘the dilavowal ; in aﬁmo*siﬁaﬁpbrma,
‘that the quotation did not apply, as Mr. Eif
kine had no full power. Never did 1 imagine
or any where attempt, to rest the right of difa
_vowal upon that circumstance.” According
to Mr. Jackson then, = e o
1. Mr. Erdkine had power to conferit.
2. He did consent. ; :
3. He consented freely, for the propofition’
came from him. i | '
4 The consent was mutual, for it isina
written form and signed by both. = =
5. The execution was not only possible, but
-just and easy. -
The five eflentials of a contral were com
plied with ; the contra&, so far as it respected
the U. S. executed with good faith ; no future
ratification was or could be reserved ; the affair
of the Chesapeake was to be concluded here ;
the fipulations as to the ordels in council were
to be carried into immediate effe@. To use
the lagguage of Mr. Canning, the orders in
councﬁnd the embargo were to be contempo
raneouily withdrawn, and Mr, E:fkine was au
thorifed to fix the time—No netice of a depar
ture from inftrutions was given at the time of
making the arrangement.
To disavow with honor the a& of its accred
ited agent, it is incumbent on a government not
only to Thew a palpable and manifeft departure
from inflruions on material and important
points, but also to produce such Rrong and fol
-14 reasons, as manife@ly outweigh not only the
genenal obligatisn, to abide by what has been
done, but also the difappointmentand injury ac
cruing to the other party. Tbi‘;’aprinmp!e ap
plies to cases where mutual ratification is reser
ved. The case before us is of a higher charac
ter—the refufal of the Britith ministry is not
simply to ratify what had been ratified by the
other party, but to carry into cffet on their
part an arrsngement which had been carried
into full eff:& with good faith on the part of the
United States. ‘
I will now proceed to examine,,
3. Whether there has been such a departure
from inftruétions as to warrant a difavewal of
the arrangement without a breach'of good faith
on the part of the Briiith minittzy ? ;
- The arrang=ment entered into with Mr.
Erskine, consisted of three parts—
1. Reparation for the affair of the Chefapeak.
2. A withdrawal of the orders in council.
3. A promise to fend over a minister with
full powers to conclude a treaty on all the fub
je@s of difference between the U. States and G.
Britain. N
Lzt us pass in review the several parts of the
arrangemeant, and {ee how far on each there has
been such a departure from inftruétions, as to
.warrant the course purlued by the Briufh min.
iftry.
1. The reparation for the outrage on the Chef*
apeake— ‘
The inffrucions of Mr. Etfkine on this fubje&
are not knewn tous ; Mr Jackson has not point
ed to any defpatch in which they were contain
ed. There is ffrong ground indeed for believ
ing that as to the Chesapeake, there‘has beén no
departure from inftruions ; the infiru&ioas on
this fubje&, and indeed on the orders in coun
cil are {aid to have Been founded on a represen
tation made by Mr Erskine to the Britith minis
ter Mr Canning. There is a perfe& agreement
between what Mr Canning stated to Mr Pink
ney as the rzparation which Mr Erskipe said
would be acceptable to the American govern
ment and the reparation adtually tendered. In
page 7. of the last meflige containing extrads
from Mr Pinkney’s letters, Mr Pinkney fays,
“ In the interview which took place (on May
25) Mr Canning said, that the Britith minister
had adted in his late negociation and engage
ments with you, pot only without authority,
but in dire& opposition to the most précife in
firu@ions 3 that the infiru@ions a&ually give
en to him had been founded on his own let
ters received here in January, in which were
set forth the particulars of several conve:fations
that had pafied between him and Mr Madison,
Mr Gallatin and yourfelf, but especially the two
last ; that it appeared from these conversations
that, in the opinion of the persons with whom
they were held, the government of the United
States would be willing that G Britain should
confider the measures then contemplated by
Congress, relative to non-intercourse, and the in
discriminate exclusion of belligerent vefl=ls from
our waters, as presenting an opening for the re.
newal of amicable difcuflions with this country 3
that it would be disposed, in the case of the Chef-.
apeake, to receive as fufficient reparation, in ad
dition to the prompt disavowal apd recall of ad
miral Berkley, the restoration of the {eamen for
cibly taken out of that vessel.” i |
- In the next page of the fame letter, Mr Pink
ney fays, Mr Canning proceeded to inform me
that in consequence of these representations on
the part of Mr Erskine two sets of infiruétions
had been forwarded,the one reldating to the Ches
apeake, the other to the orders in council.—
What was the representation of Mr Erskine as
to the Chesapeake ? * That the American gov
ernment would be disposed to receive as fufficient
teparation, in addition to the prompt disavowal
ard recall of admiral Berkley, the restoration of
the seamen forcibly taken out of that veffzl.”—
What was the reparation tendered by Mr. Ers
kine ? Precisely what is here stated with the ad
dition only ofaprovition for the faanlies of the'uns
fortunate fufferers,if acceptable to the Anferican
government. No mention is mace of any con
ditions in the reprefenfation of Mr Erskine on
which the infiru@ion was founded=-nor is it
probable that any conditions were contained in
the inftruétion itfelf. Bar, fir, let us rake the
disavowal as stated by Mr. Jackson. In page 63,
of the correfponcence, will be found the memo- |
Tandu mtmde:fd to the Secretary of State ip the
" The Brchident's Proclamaion of July 1807,
prohibiting to Britith ships cf war the entrance -
intq the harbors of the United -States, having -
beea arinulled, bis majelty is willing to reßoie
SPts eU T e B S T S R L RR TR
the ?ﬁﬂ}“eﬂ taken out of the Chels p:&‘-k‘e', ‘ofy ré-
Aerving to himfelf a right to elaim in a regular
~way, by application to the American govern
- ment, the discharge of such of them (if any) as
shall be Froved to be either natural born fulsj&s
of his majelty, or deserters from his majeity’s
f{ervice. , g
- % His majesty is willing to make a provision.
for the families of such men as were fliin on
board the Chesapeake, in consequence of the an
~ authorifed attack uwpon that frigate, provided
that fach bounty shall not be extended to the
family of any man who shall have been ¢ither &
nataral born fubjeét of his majesty, or a deserter
from his majesty’s service.”
. AAnd in page 68, Mr. Jatkfon fays on the sub-
Je& of the Chesapeake— ‘
~ ¢ When I informed you that the agreement
concluded herein April last had been framed in
deviation from the inftru&ions given for the oc
casion, my explanation was intended to apply to
beoth parts of that agreement. That nothing,
required by the most ferapulous accuracy, may
be wanting, 1 now add, that the deviation coa
filted in not recording in the official document
signed here, the abrogation of the President’s
proclamation of the 2d July, 1807, as well as
the two reserves fpecifie’t in the paper of memo.
r«nda inclofed in my official letter to you of the
27th ule.” " G
It appears then that the tender of reparation
for the Chesapeake is cifavowed: =
t Because the repeal of the proclamation of
the President was not recordad in the infirument
by-which the reparation was made. \
24. Because it did not contain 2 {lipulatioh
admitting the right on the part of G Britain to
elaim a discharge from our service of deserters
generally, and particularly of her natural born
fuhje@s, without excepting such as had been na
tuiclized in due form by the United States.
The firlt condition was entirely useless, be
caufethe proclamation was repealed.
| The 2d condition has no conneéion with the
| fubje&) Supulations on the fubje& of deserters
. or on any other {uhj=& ought to have been re.
served far arrangement by treaty. They could
. not honoiably be tendered to the American gov
| ernment as the price of reparation for an injury.
' The nation or individual tendering reparation
- for an injury cannot give better proof of treach.
. ery of the basest kind, than to clog it with dist
| graceful con\itions which insure its reje@ion, =
. Who, fir, are the natural born fubj=&. of Great
| Britain * All\perfons born within thie diminions
. of G Britain, whether naturalifed by the laws
gos other countrics or not. We are refufed repa
| ration for an atrocious injury, because we will
- not purchase it by a furtender of the rights of
- our naturalifed citizens. The disavowal of the
i repatation for the Chesapeake manifeft not only
| bad faith on the part of the Britith ministry, but
i proves irrefitibly o my mmd, thar if such a con
| dition was contained in Mr Eilkine’s initruc
- tions, it was not intendeu hé should mak: us re
| paration. The veil attempted to he thrown ov
| er this tranfadion, viz. a departure from in.
' ftruélions, is too thin to conceal the base perfidy
by which it is chara&erifed. i o
I now, fir, praceed to examine the second part
~ of the arrangement, viz. the orders in councik
- The Qipulation for a withdrawal of the o 1 -ers
10 council has also been disavowed, on account
of a departure from inftru@ions. Thedeparture
confifis in Mr. Lifkine’s not obtaining a recog:
nition cos three conditions contained in the def.
_patch of the 23d of Japuary, which, Mr. Juck.
son {ays was the only defpatch by which the con.
ditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the
conclusion of an arrangement with this country
on the matter to which it relates. In page 69
of the correspondence, Mr Jackson fays——¢ln
_his defpatch of the 233 of January, Mr. Secreta
ry Canning diflindiy fays to Mr. Lifkine, ¢ Up
on receiving through you on the part of the A
merican government a diftiné and official recog
nition of the three abovementioned conditions,
his majelty will lose no tume'in fending to A me
rica a minilter fully empowered to consign them
to a formal and regular treaty ” .A
¢ This minister would, of course, have been
provided with a full power ; but-Mr E:fkine was
to be guided by his inftruttions, and had the a
greement concluded here been conformable to
them, it would without doubt have been ratified
by his majelty.” : _
Let us then turn to the conditions contained
in the defpatch of the:23d of January, to which
Mr Jackson refers, vide page 13th, correspond
ence. : :
These conditions are— ' -
1 That the American govetnment is pre
pared, in the event of his majefy’s consenting to
withdrawn the orders in council of Janvary and
November, 1807,t0 withdraw contew poranecus-.
ly on its part, the interdi&ion of its harbors to
ships of war, and all non intercoutfe and non.
itpportation adts, so far asrefpeéts Great Britain,
leaving them in force with refpeét to France, &
_the powers which adopt or £&t under her decrees.
2d- % That America is willing to renotnce, .
during the present war, the pretension of carry
ing on in time of war all trade with the enemies
colonies, from which she was excluded curing
peace.. et e R :
3d. % Great Britain, for the purpose of secur
ing the operation of the embargo, and the dona
fide intention of America, to prevent her citizens
from trading with France, and the powers a
dopting and a&ing under the French®eccrees; is
to be considered as being at liberty to capture all
such American veflels as may be found attempt
ing to trade withthe ports of any of thele powers ;
withoat which security for the observance of the
embargo, the raising it nominally, with respect
1o Great Britain alone; would in fa& raise it with
yelpe& vo ull the world?? . o .« . o 0 O
By the arrangement with Mr. Erskine, the
firlt of these conditions was fubftantialiy obtain
ed. The second, Mr. Canning admits, has no -
conne@ion with the fubjeét, and the third, he
33 Goul notarth propricty condiroteapy part
of a formal Ripulation. Inpage 13th of the
lak mefluge from the President, containiog ex -
S, SRR SR e T USy NG RE T i I B ioBV SR
tralls from Mr Pinkney, Mr Pukndy fugem
+ * Upon the second of the conditions menti s
ed in Mr Erskine’s infiructions T made fevir 45
remarks. - I stated that it bad no necefliry cords
nedion with the principal fuljs@ ; that it had
Istt its importance to Great Britain by the ey
du&ion of almost ‘all the colonies of her enemics
—rhat Batavia was underflood not to be afteét
~ed by it ; that it cou'd not apply to Guadaloupe
(the only other uncongs®:red -colony}) since it
. was admitted that we were not excluded from
r a trade with Guadaloupe in peaze; that I did
' not know wha: the government of the U. States
il ‘would upon fufficient infucements consent to do
. upon this point ; b‘ut.‘thag it cnu}d fcarc;ly tze
| expeétzd to give the implied fancion; which this
{ condition called upon it to give, to the rule of
| the war of 1756, without any equivalent or re
. ¢ciprocal ﬂr}pulation whatsoever. Mr Canning
| admitted i%at the second condition. had no ne.
g ceiliry connefijon with the orders in council,
i and he.intimated “that they would have’been
| content to leave the subject of it to future difs
! cuflionand arrangement.: He added that this
| condition was inserted in Mr. Erdkine’s infiruc
| tions, because it had appeared from his own re
| port_of conversations with official persons at
Wathington, that there would be no difficuity in
] agreeing toit. ¢ »
“ Upon the third condition I f3id a very few
words, I re stated what I had thrown out un.
on’the matter of it in an informal conversation
in Janunary, & exprefl:d my regret that it thould
have been misapprehended. Mr Canning im
mediately said that he was himfelf of opinion,
that the idea upon which that cendition turns
could not well find its way into a Ripularion g
that ke had, nevertheless, believed it proper to
propose the cendition to the United States ; thae
he should have been fatisfied with the rejeion
of it ; and that the cons: quence would have veen
that they should have intercepted the commerce
to which it referred,if any such commerce thould
lbe attefapteds™ .
| From this then, it appears, that by the ars
rangement with Mr Erskine, a full equivaleat
! for the fi; & condition wus obtained ; and that
the Britith minifier ackcowlecges that the 24
[ condition might have been left for furure discus
- ficn and arrangement, and that ke would have
- been contented with the rejection of the third —
- Even therefore, supposing this defpatch of the
234 of January, to have been the only inftruc
~tion Mr Erskine had on this fubjet, it does not
~appear that there is any solid ground for disa
vowing this part of the arrangement. If. how
ever, we are to crecitthe solemn-declaration of
M: Erskine, bhe had several letters of inGru&@ion.
In page2o and 21, of the correspondence, Mp
Erkine fays— .
~ “ Under these circum@ances, therefore, finde
ing that I coul * not obtain the recognitions {pe-.
cified in Mr Cavning’s defpatch «f the 234 of
Januvary (which formed but one part of his in
structions to me ) in the formal maener requir
~ed, I cOnficere that it would be in vain to iay
before the government of the United States the
defpitch in quettion, ghich 1 wepstr #3717 to
hawe Jore 1n ¥XTeNsO. had I thought proper.
But as I ha such strong grounds for believing
that the i j» & of his maj-ly’sgovernment could
be attainec, thou:h in a different manner, and
the f})irwt lealt,of my several letters of infirutiions
be fnlly’Cémphed with, Ifeita thorough conviea
tion upod my mind, that I fhouid be .&ing in
conformity with bis majesty’s wishes ; and. ac
cordingly, concluded the late piovifional agrees
ment on his majesty’s behaif with the govera
ment of the United States ?
L Speech to be continued next week ]
Britilb Influsnice operaling upon Federal Party
X Shiril. B
When President Madison ertered into the
arranzem=nt{ propoie! by Mr. Erskine, the
Federalilftsunanimoufly approved of & applaud
ed it, and even affe@ed to claim Lrn as one of
their party, for that aét. They {oid we always
could have bad the fame terms, if President Jef
ferfon bad not from Fiench influence, been cife
_inclined to afettlement with Great Britian. To
their confufion, however, the Britith govern.
ment dilavowed the arrangement and refafed to
carry it into execution, after it had been execn
ted with-good fvith on our part. This refuted
the federal calumny that our adminifiration
was paftial o France and heltile to G Britain.
But fill, said the Federalifis generally, Presi
dent Madison’s condué was meritoricus ; as it
maoifefted a willingness 1o be on good terms
with Great Britain, altho’ the dttempt has un<
fortunately been defeated ' v R
~ But, strange to teil, since Jackson’s insult to
-our Government, and his faflious appeal to the
President, the Feceral leaders huve turped righe
abont, and are already endeavouring to induce
their followersto concemn Prelident Madison
for this very measure, which they now pretend
was adopted rzfhly and incautiously and withs
out due examiration of Mr Eifkine’s Powers,
Such base thufling and prevarication would, in
the intercourte of commen life, fix the brand
of rafcality upon the chars@er of any man.
Had the Preficent hefirated an< quibbled about
Mr Erskine’s authority, when, in his accredited.
charaéter of w.inilter Pluipotentrary he offered”
and declared he was avilionizeq, 10 enter into.
A{uch 3 ftipalation, the Republicans would have
censured bim, and the Federalifls would have
been ful-mouthed in their censure, To the 2
-honest part of the Federalilts this subj:& is full
of instruction. G TR R
- The plea of necgfity can no more éicufe Britain for -
man who had roined himfelf by %ﬂemymr@
{poliations and _imprefiments, than it would cxanerate: -
dog b the bighway: - - 100 B G
St SRR % e e, eROReI e e
ambition. would be about as wife as for a traveller to furs
-rendet his puric mwgﬂtl{h id meet with
ancther who would demand it. A man of couirage would.
ehltcesiy apml Gom SRRNE L T
Sopa e Lt iM S