The Rhode-Island Republican — Newport, R.I., 1810-02-21 00:00:00, page 2

[}\i
,/,
[}
speaking of the disavowal, says, ¢ that any
vinication of his conduct (whutever he wight
have to ol ) souid be of no imyportance, fur
ther, then it nught tend to shiew that no in
tention cxisted ou bis part to practice alz
deception towaras the government of tif
Voited Stues.” He could doubtless shew
copics of the I*ers in which ke had detailed
the ‘conversations, about which Mwr, Cai « ing
speaks, and that he (Mr. Erskine) bad stated
those cobrectly. If so we shall sée thui
these conversations ncither authorize Mr.
Canning to say o suppose that our govern
ment would submit to the three conditions
in the despatch. And it jusiifies the inler
ence, that other instructions were lurnished
to Mve. Erskine. This inference being cor
vect, accounts for Mr. Lrskine’s declaration,
tioat he % conccived he had conlormed to
His M.jesty’s wishes 3 and to the spivit wt
least ol uis instructions upon that subject,”
Eut conld he have thought he conformed to
those instructions centained in the despatch
of the 23d of Jun. ¥ Certuinly not=—he must
reter to other instructions,
Now, Sir, let us see what is stated, or
rather what is not stated in the conversations
spoken of by Mr. Canning. The Sccretary
/nl Brate, in a letier addressed to Mr, Erskine,
bearing date the 9th August, 1809, alter stat-
I s tne three points centained in the despatch
ot the 23d Jununry, requests Mr. Liskine
% to give such cxplanations, #s his condour
would at once suggest, in relation to these
buputed conversations,” Mr. Lrskine in his
answer dated the 14th August relates the
convarsations which he had communicuted to
wir. Canning, in which there is notiiag to
iustily the wssertion of the British muaster,
that iv was understood in tngliond, from these
couversationg that the conditions mentioned
in the degpatch would be acceptable to this
country, Mr. Mauadison is represented to
have stated “ that cvery opinien which he
entetiuined respecting the best interests of
his country led b to wish that a good un
derstanding should take place between Great
Britan and the United States, and that he
© thought that the obvious advantages which
would thereby result to both countries were
a suflicicnt pledge of the sincerity of his
sendiments.”” Mr. Erskine after stating the
time when this conversation took place, adds,
“ Lut ¢ never cousidered that Mre, Mudison
meant, that the governiment of the U, States,
would pledge themselves beyond the propo
sitions eespecting the embargo us above sta
ted” and as proposed to the British govern
~ment in August 1808, ¢ because that was
the extent of the power of the President by
« the constitution of the United Stutes.” It
was not to be expected that the British min
ister would require what the President had no
power to give, a pledge for the course Con
gress would miursue in relation to the two
~countries. But provisioh was made by law
« dor suspending the non-intercourse law as re
luted w England, upon the revocation of her
Urders in’Council, so far as they affected our
neutral rights, About this first point, there
could be no difliculty, and as the 2d point Mr.
Ersging gives the foliewing explanation :
“« fn mcourse ol a private interview [ had
with Mr. Gallatin (the Secretary of the
Preasury) he intimated that the non-inter
coursc law which was then likely to be pas
scid by the Congress might be considerced as
reimoving two very important grounds of dii
terence with Great Brituin: viz. the non<im
portation act as appiicuble to her alone and
also the President’s Proclamation, whereby’
the ships of Great Briwin were excluded
from the ports of the United Stages, whilst
those of France were permitted to entery, but
that by the non-intercourse law both powers
were plaged on the same footing. - He did not
pretend to say that this measure had been
~taken [rom uny motives of concession to G.
© Britain ; but as in fact those eonsejuences
{olloved, he conceived they might be consid
" cred as removing the two great obstucles to a
conciliation. 4 P
¢ He adverted also to the probability of an
adjustment of unather important poiirt in dis
- puie between the two coffutrics, as he suid he
koew that it was intented by the U, Stotes to
ab.pdon the attempt 1o carry on a trade with
- the colonies of belii’gcrenx in time of wan,
. which was not allowed in time of peace, and
to trust to the being permitted by the French,
1o carvy on such trade in peuace, so a 8 to entitle
them W a continuance of it in u*e of war.”
Is thore,firg any thing in this explanation
that justifies the belief, that we were “ willing
to renounce duringihe present wary the pre
tension of carrying on, in time of war, e/
trade, with the ehlemies colonies from which
we are excluded during peace ! So fur from
“ity that an intimation is given of an expecta
ion that the French would permit us to carry
" '&g&uﬁ trade in peace which would entitle us
to continue it in tinie of war, But in order
111 t no doubt snoult remain npon this point,
Me. Erskine, ¢ feels no hesitation, in declar
«ing that he supposed Mr. Gullatin alluded to
-~ tue trade from the colonies of belligerents,
Jireet 10 their mother country, or to the ports
of other beiligerents, because the rigat to
~such trade bad been the point in dispute.
Tue right to carey on a trade from the colo
nizs ol belligerents to the United States had
- mever been called in question. Yet by the
~second condition of the despatch, we are to
venounce all trade in time of war, and we are |
told that this has been proposed, becaus. v ¢
government were willing to assent to it
I'he fact we see is directly the reversa. These
~coaditions were cequired 1o be recogniaed by
. s as prefiminaries- to an arrangement, and
5 Jor the same rewon as before urged, that he
30y g consented to do so. I'jt Mr. Erskin in
{:9“3;,:53' ' same letter, says « that he never receiv- '
. ed any sssurences from the *American gov.
~ ermaent, thae they would pledge themselves
7 {,}%mm condidons speciiied in Mr. Can-
Wr AN _ | i
ment correspondas with that which My, Ers
kine tells us he made to his government,——-
We then discover a mistatement on the part
of Mr. Canning as respects the second condi
tion. For it appears that the conversations
related to the direct trade, from the colonics
of a belligerent to the mother country, and
for this obvious reasory, that this was the
ning's il.ptrmbdpr’:, as preluninavics, nor did
he ever hold out such «n_expecistion to His
Majesty’s government.”” FHe would not dare
to make this asseriion, if it be unfounded ;
because the British governinent having his
communications would not fail to contradict
it, it incorrvectly stied. We have scen then,
that as to the two first conditions, our govern
ment had never consented to recognize the
second in any manner, or either, as prelimin
ories—nd that Mr. Erskine bhad so stated it
‘o the British government,
Now let us hear what he says about the 3d.
condition. % As to the third condition refer
ed to by youn, specified in Mr. Canning’s in
structions, I have only to remark, that I vever
held uny conversation with the members of
the government of the United States, rel ‘tive
to it until my lute negotiation, or had ever
mentioned the subject to Ilis Majesty’s gov
ernment ; it having for the first time been
presented to my consideration, in Mr. Can
ning’s despatch to me of the 23d of Januury,
in which that idea is suggested, and is stated
to have been assented to by Mr. Pinkney.”
Siry the history of this third condition may
be wortny of some further consideration, for
the purpose of shewing the ¢ spirit”’ of the
British Ministry., Mvr. Canning, the author
of this condition, first proposes it to Mr.
Pinkuey in Lonnon, on the 22d day of Junua
ry lasty, and Mr. Pinkney so far from assent
iug to it, tells him, as we find by bis Igtter
of the 23d June, that it would never be admit
ted into a stipulation—yet Mr. Canning tells
Myr. Erskine thai Mr. Pinkney had acsent
cd to it ; *“and he Hattered himsclf that
there would be no difficulty in obtuining
a distinet and official recognition of thesc
congitions from the American govern
ment ! But letus we what Mr. Cuanning
says to Me. Pinkney upon this point, after
the disavowal. In the extract of Mr. Pink
ney’s letier of the 23d of June, Mr, Pinkney
observes, ¢ upon the third condition 1 said
a very few words. 1 restated what 1 had
thrown out upon the matter of it, in an infor
mal conversation in January and expressed
my regret, that it should have been misrepre
sented.” ¢ Mr. Canning immediately siid
that he was himself ol opinion that the idea
upon which that condition turns, could not
well fi« ! its way into a stipulatien j that he
had' nevertheless believed it proper to pro
pose the condition to the United States, tha
he should Liave been satisfied with the rejec.
tion of 1t.”" On seeing the despatch publish.
edy as it was by a call of Puarliament in May,
My, Pinkney could not but fecl surprised to
find it contained such an entire misrepresens
tation of his opinions and conversations—le
therefore takes occasion to express his re
gret that he should bave been misapprehend
ed. :
the second they would have been content to
deave to future discussion and arvangement.
Why then is an official recognition of these
condifions required, and the not obtuining it
made a pretence for the disavowal ! The an
swer is.obvious, we had yielded our restric
tive system, and Great Britam found her in
terest in disavowing the arrangement, and
she is left without the semblence of reason or
argumnent to palliate the perfidions wct. No
explanation is attempted to be given to Qur
minister in London. A show of dispiessure
is mauiiested at the conduct of Mr.. Erskine
Mr. Pinkney’s statement by saying that he
was himself aware that this condition could
not be admitted into a stipulation, and he was
willing it should be rejected. Yet, sir, the
despatch requires . a distinet and officiil re
cogiition of thia condition. And there we
are toldythat the arrangement was disavowed
because made without this official recogni
tion But Mr. Pinkney was pot less surpri
sed at the statement of his opinion, than were
the Presidenc and Secrotaries «t the entire
mistatement of their conversations with Mr,
Erskine. On seeing the despatch no time is
les? in calling upon Mr. Erskine for an expla
nation. He readily and very candidiy gives
it, and declares that he never had communi
cated to the British government such conver-
Mr. Canning does not pretend that he had
misunderstood him, or that Mr. Pinkney had
ever assented to this condition, but confirms
sations as wergstated by Mr. Canning in the
despatch. 'lﬁ Sccretary of State and
the Secretary of the Treasury state the sub
stance of the conversations they had held with
Mr. Erskine on the subject, and this state-
it had appeared from his own report of con
versations with oflicial persons at Washing
ton that there wownid be no dilliculty in agree
ing to it.” The regson he ussigns for insert
ing this coudition is e maily fullucious and un
founded, as that he offers for inserting the 3d.
Both of which condiiions, he admits arve of
no importance to Great Briwing the third e
was willing should be rejected, the subject of
point in dispute, a very difierent thing
from all trade which is mentioned in the 2d
subject of it to firture discussion andarrange
ment. He added that this condition was in
serted in Mr, Erskine's instructions, because
condition. ~ But let us recur once move to
the extract from Mir. Pinkney’s letter of the
23d of June, and hear what Mr. Canning
says upon this point. Mr. Pinkney ulter re
citing the very conclusive arguinents which
he had urged to show, that this condi{iol" was
of no importance to Great Britain adils as fol
lows ; ¢ My, Canning admitted that the 2d
condition had no necessary connection with
the Ovders in Councily and he intimated that
they would have been content to leave the
Permit me to call your attention to that
part of the election law which requires the
possession of an estate of a certain value as
2 qualification for a voter, and admits the eld
est son of such a voter to all the privileges
of the futher, as soon as he becomes-of. age,
and excludes all the rest. 18 it not aristo
cratical, ridiculous and unjust ? Does it not
permit hundreds of forcigners who have
come among us with money sufficient to
quaulify themselves to all the privileges of
freemien ? (many of whom, within my own
knowledge, bore arins against these very lib
ties). Does it not exclude many who tought
and bled to acquire the liberties which this
law denies them '=—Yes, I know one who
was at the battle of Lexington—one who was
at the battle of Bunker’s Hili—four or five
who were at the investment of Boston—one
who detected the fetters of Col. Church, and
risked his life, and lost his property, by car
rying them to the commander in . chief,
(Washington)—ind bundreds who waded
through the revolution, who are, under this
law, deprived of the elective. franchize—of
the privilege - of ciioosing these by whom
they are to he taxed, and who are invested
with that government which they Aave been,
and their spns are obliged to support. « This
law, which is the offspring of that spirt of
monopoly which always accompany the min
“ions of aristocracy, ought now to be revised—
“this is the proper moment to “ render e jual
| and exact justice to all men.”” Some obser
~vations on the first principles of government,
| by onc ot the sages of our revolution, who
is now at vest with his futhers, are very ap
plicable to my purpose. 1 will lay them be
fore you, because they go to the foundation,
and are wore convincing of our errour than
any arguments I could of mysell introduce.
“ In contemplating government by elec
tion and representation, we amuse not ouni
“selves in enquiring when or how, or by what
right 1t began. lis origin is ever in view.
} Man is himseif the origin and evadence of the
Fright 3 itappertains o him in right of his
existence, and his person is the title deed.
- % T'he true, and only true basis of repre
sentative governments, is equality of rig hts.
LEvery man has a right to one vote, and no
- more, in the choice of representatives. The
vich have no more right to exclude the poor
from the right of electing and being elecied,
than the pgr have to exclude the rich ; and
- whenever it is attempted or proposed, on ei
ther side, it is a question of force, and not of
right. Who is he that would exclude another ¢
' that other has the same right to exclude him.
% That which is now called aristocracy,
implies an inequality of right—<but who are
the persons that have a right to establish this
inequality ; will the poor exclude them
seives! No. Will the rich exciude them
selves 7 No. By what right then can any be
excluded ! ¥t would be a question if any
men, or class of men, kave a right to exclude
themselves ; but be this as it may, they can
THE revision of the Election Law of
this State having been frequently the theme
ol conversation in the circtes in which 1 am
conversant, and hoping it will be made part
of the business of the ensuing session, at
least so far as to appoint @ conunitice to en
quire into the expediency of altering and re
vising it us fur as it relates to the qualifica
tion of voters, I tuke the liberty of offering
a few remarks on the subject. 1 blush when
I reflect that I enjoy a privilege which is
not common to all my feilow citizens—a
privilege to which all are entitled by nature
and by right, and from which one part of the
citizens cannot be deprived, but by the usur
pation of the pther part ; or which is the
same thing ineflect, the continnance of that
which wes in the first place an usurpation.
And 1 am astoniched at its continuance when
there cannot be found a single man in the
State who will advocate it upon any other
ground than that of exfiedience, without the
least ray of justice. Andin this State, where
civil and religious liberty is so pre-eminent
ly estabiished, it is astonisMing, that the first
principle upon which these inestimabie priv
ileges are founded, should be so far departed
from, as to deprive nearly one half of the
citizens of that 1% ht, which is the boast of
frcemen and the only foundation on which a
republick can rvest secure—that is, the equal
ity of the rvight of suffrage.
by his ititiediute re€ull, und § niege pretence”
of negociating with us is kept up, by the ap
pointment of a 4 successour.—~But when the
name of this Successour wgs known here,
there was but litlle ground of Lope that the
object of his mission was to negociate with
us. But noiwithstanding our government
had afier the disavowal and prior to the ar
rival of Mr Juckson, seen the gross uttempt
oi Mr. Canning, to render the prominent
members of our administration the authors
of the inadmissible and odious condiions
contuined in the despatch to Mr. Erskine,
and after the rude intimations to Mr.
Pinkney, that this ncw minister, came not on
a special mission 3 such was the forbearunce
of our government, and such their desire for
an honourable adjusiment of our differcnces
with that nution, that no time was lost in re
ceiving and acerediting Mr, Jackson as the I
successour of Mr. Lrskine.
To the Members of the Honourable
General Assembly of the Stae of
Rhode- island.
LIEGISLATORS,
FOR THE RHODE-ISLAND REPUBLICAN.
MDilcellany.
“ Inequality of rights is created by a com
bination in one part of the commumty, to
exclude another part from its rights. When
cver it be a law that the rights of wvoting, or
of electing and being elected, shall appertain
cxelusively, to frersons frossessing a cvriain
quantity of profrevty, be it litile or muchy it 1a
a combination of the fpersons fpossessing that
guantity, to excluc= rhose who do not frossess
the same quanlity—it is invesing themselves
with power, as @ self-created part §f society,
tn the exclusion gf the rest. In any view
of the case, it is dangerous and inmpolie
tick, sometimes ridiculous, anc alweys un
just, to wake property the eriterion of vot
ing. If the sum, or v@lue of the properiy,
upoen which the righ"to'. take ploce, be
considerable, it will exelude a majority of
the peopie, and unite them in a cosmon in
terest against the government, and against
those who support ity aud, as the power is
always with the majaority, they can overturn
such a government and its supporters, when
ever they please, .
“ If in order to avoid the dunger, a small
quantity of property be fised us the criterion
of 3)(: vight, it exhibits liberty in disgrace, by
putting it in competition with accident or in
significuance. 'When a brood mare shall for
tunately produce a foal or a mule, that, by be
ing worth the sum in question, shail convey
to its owner the right of voting, or, by its
death, take it from bim, in whom does the
origin of the vote exist ? Is it in the man or
in the mule? When we consider how many
ways .property may be acquired without mer
it, and lost without crime, we ought to spurn
the idea of making it the criterion of rights.
“ But the offensive part of the case is, that
this exclusion from the right of voting, im
plies a stigmma on the moral character of the
person excluded. (In thia S ute a_man who
has not suflicient estate to qualify him as a
voter, stands on the degraded footing, with
respect to that right, as a man who has suffi
cient estate, but has been convicted of theft,
forgery, or other high crimes, i.c. they are
both excluded {rom the right of voting) ; and
this is what no part of the community has a
right to pronounce upon ancther part, whose
character stunds as fair as their own. No
external circumstance can justify it. Wealth
is no proof of moral character, nor poverty
of the want of it ; on the. contrary, wealth is
often the presumptive evidence of dishonesty,
and poverty the negative evidence of inno
cence. If therefore property, whether little
or much, be made the criterion, the manner
by which that property has been acgnired,
ought to be madg a criterion aiso.
“ The right o‘? voling for representatives
is tle primary right by which other rights
are protected. L'o tuke away this right is o
redyce a mun to slave.y, for sluvery consists
in being subjeck o the will of another, and
he who has no vote in the election of repre
sentatives is® in this case. The proposal
therefore to disfranchize any class of wen is
as criminal as the proposal to take awoy pro
perty. - When we speak of rights, we ought
16 unite with it the icca of duties ¢ righte be
come dutics Ly recipority. The right
which ] enjoy becomes my duty to guareniee
it to anotlier, and he ‘to mes and he who
violates ‘the duty justly incurs & forfeiture of
the right. SR |
*ln a political view of the cuse, the strength o
and permanent security of guvernment is in
proportion te the number of people intcrest
ted in supporting it. The true policy there
fore is to intevest the whole by an equallity of
right, for.the danger arises from exciusion.
: [T be conchuded in our next.)
not have a right to ekclude another. The
poor will not delegate sach a right to the
rich, nor the rich to the poor; and to as
suwe it, is not euly assuming arbitrary pow
er, but to assume a right to commit robbery.
Personal rights, of which the right of voting
for representatives is one, are a species of
property of the most sacred kind ; and he
that would employ bhis pecuniary property,
or preésuine upon the influence it'gives him,
to dispossess. or rob enother of his property
or rights, uses that pecuniary property as he
would fire-arms, and deserves to have it ta
ken from him. ,
* I uave never been so fortunate as to have any
petsenal acquainiance with Mr. Madison., But tho
virtues of’ u JMadison have been known to the world,
longer than we have been knowa as anation. Could
my n&&ltal of his important services add to their
I'c?\ 1 could freely do it. 1 think the swrongess
evidence we can have of lis greatness & goodncss,
1s that he was the ehosen man of his immediate pre
decessor, and sull remains in his confidence. The
value of these two great imen has appeared as con
spicuous in cultivating the arts of peace, as in the
confiict of owr nationat independence.
* Peace undoubtedly is owr greatest good, as long
as peace can be honourabie ! But T fear that if we 7
tip the cup of congiliation any higher, we shall have
(o drink the dregs | Ihe nation which has becnour
secrel or open enemy for more than foity vears, hes
now by their last megeenger of instl, hespedgte
measire of our wvvr?l, am! I rhink must have pre
paked the minds of i who prefer their own couniry
to any other, for the last resort. 1 think Mr. M disen
will not wait forthe consent of the JArmolds or Pieker
ings of our country. Although he has nét recom
mended a declaration of wur to Congress, T think he
will not suspend it long, without there is an immedi
ate cliange of measures with the change of minisiry,
before he will recommend it with the promtitude il
which he has dismissed their insulter of nations.
Presidont i D AMS writes ike 75 again.
It can Leébut a few duys before T must leave my
country and my friends. 1 wait the moment 'with
impatience ; for although Thsve spent a lony life ot
enjoyment, life is vow a great burthen to me. Con.
vemng with my friends that are about me, orata
distance, makes life more toleralie. But w is the
reatest consolation T bave, that 1 shall Jeave the
zuwu'ﬂovcmncm of my country in se good huuds 7
Euxtract of a Letter from the Immortal General
THE VOICE OF ST.IRK AGAIN !
STARK, written last December.
——