The enquirer — Richmond, Va., 1810-01-18 00:00:00, page 1

• 4 •
—■*——: ■ .----. -— ■■ ■ i~— - - - - -I,
RICHMOND, THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1810.
0CT Published by Thomas Ritchie, .early op
posite the Globe Tavern, Richmond, Virginia.
CCT* CONDITIONS :—Five dollars a year, to
be paid annnally in advance. Those viho wish to
be considered as annual subscribes, mutt hereafter
designate it at the time of subscribing, otherwise
4 their papers will be discontinued at the expiration
of the first year.
IN CHANCERY.—At a Court held «'<>r Cum
berUnd County, the 27tl> day of November,
1809.
Wiliam Moore & Mary his wife. Plaintiffs—
Against John Hudson, Henry Mots* Hudson,
Thoma.i Hudson. Francis Hudson, William Hud
son, Samuel Hudson, Win Tavlor and Rebecca
liis wife, ami John Hallow and El'zaheth his wife,
legal representatives of William Hudson, de
ceased.
This day came the plaintiffs by their attorney,
nnd it appearing to the satisfacti • i of the court
tii.it two of the defendants, Henry Moore Hud
con and Francis Hudson, arc mil inhabitants of
this state, on the motion of the plaintiffs by their
counsel, It it order at, that the said defendants do
appear Imre on the first day of February term
next and answer the bill of the plaintitla, or the
came shall then he taken us confessed, and the
matter thereof decreed accordin r»>', and that a
copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some
one of the newspapers published in the city of
Richmond, and posted at the hunt door ot the
court-house of this county.
A Copy. Attest,
MILLER WOO DION, jr. D. C. C C.
Ucceinber 9 w52m
HOUSE OF liEFRV.SJLfirVATiriiS.
DEBATE
ON TllK JOINT Jtr.SOLVTlCN
A/ifiroving the conduct eft he Executive,
in relation to the refusal to receive amj fur
ther communication from Francis James
Ju-.kaon.
(CONTINUED.)
1)-c.emher 26.
Mr. Fisk's Rfieech continued.
Blit let us recur once mure t > the extract
from Mr. Pinkney's letter of the 2Jd of
June, and hear what Mr. Canningsays upon
this point. Mr, l'inkney after reciting the
vety conclusive arguments which he had
urged to show, that this condition was of no
importance to Great Britain, adds as foi- ;
low s: “ Mr. Canning admitted that the 2d j
condition had no necessary Connection with
the orders in council, and he intimated that
they would have been content to leave the
bitty ect of it to future discussion a.:d art ange
iiienl. He added that this condition was ni
sei'cd in Mr. Erskine’s instructions, be
cause it had appeared from his own report
ol conversations with official persons at
Washington, that there would be no diffi
culty in agreeing to it.” The reason he as
signs for inserting this condition is equally
f allacious and unfounded, as that he offers
for inserting the third But a of which con
ditioii.i, lie admits, arc of no importance to
Greac Britain, the third he was willing
should be rejected, the subject of the second
they would nave been content to leave tofu
tore discussion and arrangement. Why
then is mi official recognition of ttyssc Condi
tinn i requiv; d, and the not obtaining it made
a pretence tor the disavowal ? The answer ‘
is obvious, we had yielded our restrictive |
system, and Great Britain found her inter
est in disavowing the arrangement, and she '
is left without the semblance of reason or1
argument to palliate the perfidious act. Bio j
explanation is attempted iq be given to our
minister in London. A show ol displeasure
is manifested ut the conduct of Mr. Ers
kinc by his immediate recal, and a n.ere
pretence of nt g.-riating with its is kept u>»,
by the appointment of a f nccessor. But
when the name of this successor was known
* hen , there was hue little ground ofc hope
that the object of his mission was to negoci
at«* with ns But notwithstanding mr gov
ernment had after the disavowal and prior
to the atnval of Mr. Jackson, seen the
gmM attempt of Mr. Canning, to render
the prominent members of o lrndministiai
i n the autli 'is, of the inadmissible and odious
condition? contained in the d'-emtciito Mr.
Erskine, and after the rude intimations in
Mr. Pinkney, that tliis new minister came
not on a special minister ; such the tor
bcarance of our government, and such their
desire for an honorable adjustment of our
differences with that nation, that no time
v/iisiost in receiving and acy.vditiug Mr.
Jackson as the successor of Mr. Erskuie.
Having given an honorable reception *o
t: :s minister, our govern nont had a lit t
to expert, that he would a.^gn or attempt
to assign some plausible at least, if nor solid
and satisfactory reasons, for his majesty’s
disavo'/ai of tl;r arrangement, enter- d into!
n'ltn xYir. Hh'sKtne; atiatn.it lie would pro
pose a suus'it nle. Justice and tori tjoi
ird ili.it government to r’» this v:.th ira. k
tu-v» anil prPmptiiude That tu a *.hru!d he
done was not only expected. '••ut made a
point wiili our vermin tu. and 1 trust and
believe that it will ha made a point, and 'n
sir/rd ' a hy the people ot Omrountiy. We
err.the injured party at :1 (treat 1 In tain tin
acknowledged aggro::; , admitting we s»e
ea r.led 10 reparation for the injuries she has
d .r.e ns, making an avenue: ’ a» * v.v us,
which we observe ai d fulfil with go< <1 faith
moor part. *.rul which die refuses to per
t. rm. Shall we not demand some rxplana
nrtien of her cofidtirt, and some suh.vUuie
fur the agreement ti t- !>*-» violate.-I ? No one
wdl any, this is iiiirr iv’nahle. Our attend
• i is (utiicd to Mr. J.u • m as the ori;.m
«>l I,is government, who .. to communicate
i<» us this e\:.bins-.lion an i tfi'nfti r thi* ;mIi
siltute. lV.it hf,w rgi-fgious'y are wc disap
pat ted. I i.v.ead of explanations, we me:
wiiti recrimination, instead of argument a
tic sc, Instead of satisfac*i('4 for (mat injuries,
we are jceriogly told, that ho has nopropo
sa)s to make. F ouling such was the temper,
• i.d such the language of this new negcct.t
fo -, tiie Secretary of St ite, with gvc u ,.ro
priety, apprizes him Fuki his cooiiiiuuicaU
on must lie in the written form
And now, sir, from this written form
w ’ h is, 1 ant Confident, without a precedent
’• ■ arallel in the history of diplomacy, it is
• try c’.fi. colt ho.i vet disagreeable it may
be, to discover that the sole object and in •
tent of Mr. Jackson was. to insult the Ame
rican government. A brief examination of
the correspondence avill warrant this , asser
tion. What is tlw* first, language wc find
in his first letter ? Petulant and recrimina
ting. Protesting against the proceedings
of our govermflent, a . unprecedented in re
quiring his communications to be in writing;
affecting to view “ it as a violation in his
person, of the most essential rights of a
public minister.” He approaches the sub
ject of the disavowal, by insinuating that our
government, from a knowledge ^.f the cir
cumstances. under which the arrangement
was concluded, could have expected no o
ther resuit, than a refusal on the part of his
government to ratify it. His language to the
Secretary of State, is “ you could not hot
have thought it unreasonable to complain of
t,he disavowal of an act, done under such cir
cumstnnccs, as could otiltj lead to the coii
srquenctfs that have actually followed.”
What circumstances ? He has not mention
cd them. Such as were known toonrgiv
ernmeut—our government knowing the Oa
sis upon which the arrangement was made,
had no reason to expect it would be ratified,
and therefore are to be made D irties to the
disavowal, which excludes nil pretence of
complaint. And in the same letter, page
32, he enters into a train of .-•eason’ng to
prove that his position was correct, lie la
bors to establi !i the fact so material to his
purpose, that our government, knew the in
structions under which Mr. Erskine acted.
For, he says, “ Mr. Erskine then reports
verbatim et seriatim, your observations upon
each of the three conditions, and the reasons!
which induced you to think that others might
be substituted in lieu of them. It may have
been concluded between you that these lat- i
ter were an equivalent for the original con
ditions; but the very act of substitution evi
dently s irws that tlies-i original conditions
were in fact very explicitly communicated
to you, and by vnu of course laid before the
President for his consideration.” Here we
see Mr. Jackson assuming premises, for the
purpose of establishing a conclusion that he
determines to make. A substitute is one,
acting for another—and without attempting
I to snew tnatotner conitttions were substitu
ted,'he proceeds to shew what the act of
substitution would prove ; but he ought first
to shew this acr, before he draws his conclu
sions. But he contents himself with this pe
culiur mode of reasoning, and declaies
“ that he need hardly add, that the differ
ence between these conditions and those con
tained in the arrangement of the l'Sth and
19th of April, is sufficiently obvious to re
! quire no elucidation, nor need 1. lie adds,
jdraw the conclusion, which I consider as ad
• mined by all absence of complaint on the
part of the American government, viz. that
| under such circumstances his majesty had
an undoubted and incontrovertible right to
disavow the act of Ivs minister." Are we
to take this, which is neither reason nor ar
gument, but a perversion of both, as a satis
iactorv explanation of the disavowal? No,
;sir, Mr. Jackson sterns unwilling to leave
jit here. lie is not satisfied with his own
conclusions, but he proceeds to add, in page
38, *' It is my duty, sir, solemnly to declare
I to you, and through you to the President,
j that the despatch from Mr. Canning
j*o Mr. Erskine, which you have made
|th» basis of an official correspondence
| with the latter minister, and which was
jio-.., oy the former to the American minister
j in London, is the only despatch by which)
’ the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Ers
(kmc tor the conclusion of an arrangement
| with tl.'» country on the matter to which it
relates." Here Mr. J ackson adroitly sub
stitutes for thj three conditions, the “ des
patch," which contained tlie instructions and
• eh* the Secretary rf State " and through
him the President” that “ you.” intending
the President and Secretary of State, have
madv ifim dtjjiatch the basi, of the arrange
ment with Mr Eiskine. It is his duty, he
s;i)s, to make this declaration. If it was
nisdnty, it could only be so, hcc iuse he was
so instructed. Audit will he remembered,
that Mr Canning informed Mr. Pinkney,
that the successor of Mr. Erskine would l»e
charged with ‘•observations" to our govern
ment, upon this point. H.-re (hen we have
the observations he is instructed to make.—
In die next paragraph of this let’er he pro
ceeds to say to tlie. Secretary of State, •• If,
vr, i.lie your intent \ i to state, thatnnex
jdana.jf>n whatever Has been given to the
American g veinnient, of the reasons which
induced his M.j.-s y to disavow the act of
my predecessor, 1 must in tli •* case observe,
that in the instructions conveying to him Ins
j .vi jesty’s intentions, chose reasons* were very
riiliy i"i,! forcibly stated; rml if i.z has not
transmitted them to y< u, 1 can tally ultri
bu’.e it to die pe uiiur delicacy and entbar
rassment ot loss tuation, and lie might the
j mere reasotnbl) be led to that reliance o.i j
it. as a tail and ample comtrtinicatUin was
also made upon the subject, !>v his M, j.*s
ty’s Secretary e. State for iotc gn affairs to
Mr. Pinkney.”
Let us f .f n moment look n‘_ the prcvarl
f ♦‘i‘,n. to whicithe Bnti !i ministers res.irt. |
Hpon the <1 .,nv »•.✓.»! bring toade, Air Pink !
is informed by Mr. t n iing, that an ex I
(plans.ion will ;>c given by the successor ot j
Erskine. 'L hts successor tells our go
vernment that Mr. I'rskine was iusttucted
to explain, anvl il hr has no*, it was because
a “ lull ai.tl ainoie” couiinnntcntion was]
made upon the so'.ject by his majesty’s sc
uetary for* foreign affairs to Mr. Pinkney*
in London we are referred to Washington, I
and heu; we are directed to L mdon, fur the j
explanation or reasons of this disavowal.
“ Astothe expectotirn entertained here”
continues Mr. Jack • mi, p ig r ;>4, •* tint tin*!
explanation < f hn M:ije» y's s'-ire in this
transaction t hould l>s math: through me, J
ought content mysff w i< Ii simply observing
that I was n t provided with in-ornc ions to
that ed :c', her mi ..' v. as known, that the
explanation in<|uc.-»<ion uad a.ready been gi
ven.” And i i p :t Zi, the same lc «* ados,
•* l say this in ieg.»rd to tins ongn.d noli
fication «»f l.'< M .j. sty's detcfinmation and
of the motnes <>t it, which being already
r ade, It co iId not be sn|*pos< d m London
•hat a repetition »>f them would ho. expec
; ted from m ; mid of c 'tirsc no socb case has
beent'ores*'a in my mati nb in t
this an attempt to shuffle the question out o
sight f First we are told, that as we knew
Mr. Erskine’s instructions did not authorise
the arrangement, no explanation of the dis
avowal would be given—then it is said, this
explanation has been already given and a re
petition could not be expected, llut, let us
pursue Mr. Jackson upon this point, till he
quits it. and see if we can discover any thing
but a disposition to persevere in insolence
towards our government. Tile. Secretary
of State in his letter of the 10 h October, ad
dressed to Mr. Jackson, informs him, that
the President expected a formal and satis
factory explanation of the reasons for the
refusal of his Britannic Majesty to carry
the arrangement made with Mr. Erskiue
into effect ; and that he persisted in that ex
pectation, and in the opinion, that there had
been given no explanation, which could be
deemed adequate either as to the matter or
the mode. Mr. Smith assures him mi this let
ler, page 47, *• that the declaration “ihrtthc
despatch tr >m Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskiue
ot the C3d January, is the only despatch by
which the conditions were prescribed toMr.
Lrskint for the conclusion of an arrange
ment on the matter to which it relates,” was
•then ** for the first time made, to ihis go
vernment.” And •* that if that despatch
had been communicated at the time of the
arrangement, or if it had been known that
the propositions contained in it, and which
were at first presented by Mr. Erskine,
were the only ones on which hr was author
isetl to make an arrangement, the arrange
ment v'oukl not have been-mad ” This de
claration explicitly negatives the fact, which
Mr. Jackson had attempted to affirm by in
ference, that the “ instructions” under
which Mr. Erskine made the arranr ment
were known to our government. The Se
cretary of State then proceeds to say, page
54, “ I conclude, sir, with pressing on your
candid attention, that the least which the
President could have looked for' in conse
quence o» the disavowal of a transaction,
such as was concluded by your predecessor,
and carried faithfully into effect by this go
vernment. was an explanation from yours
of the disavowal, not through the minister
disavowed, but through his successor, an ex
planation founded on reasons strong and so
lid in themselves, and presented neither
verbally nor vaguely, but in a form, compor
ting with the occasion and with the respect
due to the character and the good faith of
the disappointed party.” Now let ns see,
sir, how Mr. Jackson answers this. In his
letter of the 23d October, addressed to the
Secretary of State, he first observes, page
58, that he shall •* without loss of time trans
mit Mr. Smith’s letter to his com l, where
the various nr.d important considerations
which it embraces will receive the atten
tion due to them.” Passing over this pa
ragraph, with one remai k, that it is a decla
ration incompatible with the idea, that be
who makes it has full power to treat, I will
proceed to what Mr. Jackson adds upon the
point of explanation.
“ It could not enter into my view, to with
hold from you an explanation, merely be
cause it had been already given, but because,
having been so given, I could not imagine,
until informed by vou, that a repetition of
it,would be required at my hands. 1 am
quite, certain that bis majesty 's g ivemment
having complied with what was considered
to be the substantial duty imposed upon it
on this occasion would, bad this been fore
seen, have added to ttie proofs of concilia
tory' good faith already manifested, the far
thvr complacency to the wishf * of tho U. S
of adopting the form of communication most
agreeable to them, and of giving through me
the explanation in question. 1 have there
fore no hesitation iu informing yen, that his
majesty was pleased to disavow the agree
rneut concluded between you and„Mr. Ers
kiiie, because it was concluded in violation
of that gentleman's instructions, and altoge
ther without authority to subscribe to the
terms of it: The.*c instructions, 1 now un
derstand by' your letter, us well astrnm the
obvious deduction which I took the. liberty
of inakingin mine of the 11th instant were at
the time, in subst: nee, made known to you;
no stronger illustration therefore can begi
ven ot the deviation from them which or.
curred th in by a reference to the terms of
your agreement.”
Mr. Jackson here more explicitly declares
what he had before in a circumlocutory man
ner insinuated, not barely, that Mr. Erskine
hacl violated his instructions, which was a
question between himself and bis govern
ment, a. (1 not a sufficient reason for .be dis
avowal, but that these instructions were
known at the time of ilie arrangement by
our government. If Mr. Jackson did not vi
olate t lie rn es of diplomatic decorum, when
lie first made this insinuation, he is without
excuse, for his diplomatic rudeness, in pre
senting it in the mure Serious form of asser
tion, after lie was informed by onr gev rn
ment that Mr. Erskine’s instructions were
not known here. But we have not yet reach
ed tl-c eml ot the correspondence upon this
point. In the letter ot the Secretary of
State to Mr Jack'i'ni, dated 1 .t Nov. page
6(5, he remark*—
I abstain, sir. from making ray parti
cul»:r animadversions <»n several irr; levant
and imprnj er allusions in your let»er, not at
all comporting with the prrfessed dispnsi
tion to adjust in an amicabic manner thedif
I'erences unhappily subsiding between the
two cornui'ics. But it would be improper to
conclude the few observations to which 1
purposely lim'r my adf, without adverting to
> >ur repetition of a language implying a
knowledge on the part of this government
that the instructions of vo ir predecess u*did
not authorise the arrangement ft med by
him. After thevs; !icit and peremptory as.
severatioti tliat this government hud no such
knowledge, an l that wiih «acti a knowlrdge
m> mien arrangement would have been enter-1
ed into, the view which you have again pre
sented nf the subject, m.k -t it rny duty to I
apprise you that such insinuations arc inad
intisible in the intercourse of a foreign inin
islet- with a government that understands
what it owes to itself.”
A language, mild, dignifi* 1 and forbear",.• j,'
r\ ince.s a Hiiiceruy f »r n> gi ciatu n, and a pa
tient perseverance not to be exhausted even
bv sneers and sarcasms, iinle s they convey
ed the direct and detest able charge r.f false- I
luoj. It th.smvt with a corresponding con
f dilatory disposition outlie part of the llri
tish negociator? No sir. And I regret that
the answer is so obvious, and conclusive ir
the negative. In the conclusion of his lettci
addressed to the Secretary of State, dated
♦th Nov. page 72, we find him obstinately
persevering in his offensive insinuations, and
unfounded assertions. His own language is
the best evidence of his fixed determination
to treat our government with insolence. It
is as follows :
“ \ on will find that in my correspondence
with you, I have carefully avoided drawing
conclusions that did not necessarily' follow
from the premises advanced hv me, and last
of alt should I think of uttering an insinua
tion, where I was unable to substantiate a
tact, lotacts, such as I have become ac
quairtted with them, I have scrupulously ad
hered. and in so doing I must continue, when
ever the good faith of his majesty’s govern
mentiscilied ia question, to vindicate its
honor and dignity in the in.inner thatap
pears to me best calculated for that purpose ”
He avows, that the conclusions lie had
drawn, were correct, that his insinuations
could be substantiated by facts, and that he
■ |V>,0J,hl adhere to the assertions he had made.
t his is his meaning, for in the precedingpa
! ragraph. he says, “but as to 'the propriety
lot my allusions, you must allow me to ati
knowledge only the decision of my own sove
reign, whose r-mma'vU I obey, and to whom
al me I consider myself responsible.” VVhat
language, sir, would be more insolent and
affronting than this? It contains not only an
insinuation, hut a re iteration of the detesti
ble charge, that our government were guil
ty of falsehood. If the Executive had con
tinned the correspondence, after this, it
would have degraded itself and thecountrv.
1 here then remained no oilier course to be
pursued, more proper than the on.- taken by
the executive, to refuse to receive any fur
ther communications from this minister, and
informs his government, of his offensive con
duct. This course I approve. This part of
the resolution has my approbation.
Jf. sir, there would remain any doubt, af
ter examining those parts of the correspon
dence, which I have already rnticed, that
ini. J4CK.WH nas insmicu onr government,
and that he designed so to do; I would ask
the attention of the committee to what he
says respecting the orders in council, the af
fair of the Chesapeake, and the object of
his mission to this government. These are
subjects of importance, of great moment and
interest to the country, subjects to which
tiie attention of the nation is at present di
i reeled. I may therefore, sir. he excused in
j turning again to tire correspondence, to hear
j what this new minister has to say in rclati
on to thim.
In the letter of Mr. Jackson of the 11th
October, page 38, of the printed documents,
we find a paragraph, touching the orders
in council, which cannot, I think, be mis
taken. It is in the following words;
“The elfct of this new order is to relieve
the system tinder which the former orders
were issued, from that which has always
been represented in this country, ns the
most objectionable and offensive part ot it,
the option given to neutrals to trade with
the enemies of Cirr at Britain through Bri
tisli ports on payment of a transit duty.—
.This was originally devised and intended as
a mitigation of what is certainly more cor
rect, but more rigid in principle, the total
and unqualified interdiction of all trade with
the enemy. If, ho : ever, this mitigation
was felt ns an aggravation, and as has
been sometimes warmly ^asserted. as an in
suit, that cause of complaint is now entirely
removed. By the order in council of the 26?h
April, 1802, all trade with France and
Holland, and the ports of Italy, compfelten
(led under the denomination of the kingdom
of Italy, is siirrply prohibited altogether. No
option is afforded, and consequently notrnn-l
"it duty is required to be-paid. In another
respect, the order in council of the CGiii A
pril, must be admitted to he more restrict- J
ive, than those of Nov. 180r.“
Sir, let me mow ask, if, in this paragraph
of studied, labored invective, it is possible I
for any one, who understands the English
language, to perceive any thing but insult?
What, sir, after this country had suffered
so much by these orders, and complained
so loudly against them, because they eXclit
tied a p»rtton of out- trade, and shackled the
remainder with a transit duty, are we to be
told, that we are relieved by “ tiim/du firo
hi biting the trade altogether?" Not only
told this, hut uquired to teceivc the decla
ration, as the unexceptionable language of
friendly negociation ? No, sir, this is too
much! The Executive would have been
justified, I have nod abt, by tlie people, ifit
nad peremptorily tefused to receive anv
further communications, than this first let
ter. from ..Ir. Jackson. That it did not so
j refuse, is only to be attributed to the sincere
! r- nd strong desire of the governmen:, to have
j an amicable adjustment of jpur differences
with England.
By adverting to ihc preceding p M-t of this
letter, in which Mr. .1 tekaon mentions the
laflftirof the C hesaoer.kc, we find he is not
| instructed toms.ke reparation for t.uit out
i rage, on: upon terms mat would be Ii'Jtjhi
atiog and disgraceful to this Country. Our
I government are nqiiirrtl formally to revoke
I the proclamation, yliich has long since
: mm dune away, to stipulate, in tact, to
ptircha*' the proffered reparation. The
searuen to be restored, mart not be either n t
turaI born snbjectsof his majesty, or desert
ers from its majesty's s* nice.
Well, sir, as they were claimed, ami for
cibly taken as natural born subject* or de
serter*. of course, by tut* terms of this stipu
latino, none would l>e restored. We ire re
qolred, alter this length of time has passed,
now to receive that sort of eparation which
joes directly to justify the attack.
When we look tor the object ot Mr Ja^k
son’s mis non, v-e find throughout all his Je
ters, 1 toted not refer to any in particular,
that he has no substitute to pta' iose for the
arrange*®?! t made with Mr, Krskiae, ful
tilled by our government, and violated by
iiis ; tbit he has tin proposals to make us,
which might lead ton treaty ; he is only nu
thoriaru tu receive and discuss pr< p r>al-.—
We must he thus placed in the attitude ot
the (<fiendiiig n itio.i. Is this tube endu <d ;
Sir, afterin« many injuries we have sul.er- <
cd, cie wet> r.ckr.ow ledge out selves in the1
j wrong, subscribe to a falsehood, hv vfi* ring
' proposals for redress to the offei drr ? Su b
j disgrace is without precedent in th** annals
, of diplomacy. And nothing, but the spirit ot
j insolence would ‘-ive induced the British mi
i nistcr to make nueii intimations to the Atneri
| can government. IIow would the British
• government have met such treatment from
j our minister ? Suppose we had murdered,
i a lew of bis majesty’s subjects, seized and
{ confined four or live thousand more, obstruct
ed the navigation of the river St. Lawrence,
j plundered their property to the amount of
fifty or sixty millions i f dollars, of which his
majesty complained ; entered into an ar
rangement for making reparatim, which lie
observed with good faith, but which we had
perfidiously violated ; and after ail this, sent
a min.ster to tell that nation, that hr had
no proposals to make, that his instructions
wer»: *• prospect!ve,” aV.a to charge their
ministry with falsehood? The minister who
should thus trifle with that government,
would l>c instamlv disoiiast-d, if not ordered
to lcsve the countrv.
\> hy disavow tn*» rfrrcinjtj^fprnt so far as
it rcla-es to the nfftir of he Chesapeake?
I' is not denied, hot Mi. JirsKiae acted m
pursuance of his authority upon this point.
And when we are told, that he violated ilia
instructions, that reason d ies not apply to
this part of the case, if it were admissible.
I he cause of ihe disavowal is to b*' found
only in die monopolising system of that go
vernment. That svstem. which IVT. Jack
son tells ns, was *t deliberately adopted and
acted upon, in just fc necessary retaliation i.f
the unprecedented modes of hostility resort
ed to by the enemy." A system, jus ified.
only by the pretence, that it i’s “ to set bounds
to that spirit of encroachment and univer
sal dominion, which would bend all things to
its own standard." Hut. sir, we arc not to
I be told, at this day, that the object of ihe
present war, on the part of Great Britain,
I's resistance to the spirit of encroachn cut.
It is a contest for commercial profits. Sup
pose we were to declare war against the
Dey of Algiers, because his suhj, cts would
not exchange their present form of govern
ment for one like ours——could we expect to
be justified in the eyes of the world, in ap
pealing to the necessity of this war, as an
excuse f r xiolating the rights of other na
tions? No, sir, the pretence would he in
solent, especially when offered to the injur
ed. Yet we are re quired to take this as a.
satisfactory reason f*r British blockades, or
ders in council, and depredations upon otir
property !
Sir, if further evidence \\ould be nncessa
ry to pi ove the insolence of ,this minister to
our government, it i* to be tun al in his Ut
ters delivered by Mr. Oakley to, the Secre
[ tnr • of State, dated 13 h November. In the
first of these notes, Mr. Oakley\s d sired
to State to the Secretary of Slate—‘Vhat Mr.
Jackson had been grossly insulted t the in
habitants of Hampton, in the abutve lan
guage held by' some rf them to cewral ofli
cei's hearing :he king* uuiiorm, iat spe
cial passports were u.dispcnsible to is safe
ty, that this u is ihe more necessary, ycau.s*
the language of cur news papers ha«i ten
deucy u> excite the people to comni vio
lence upon his person.” No1 satiafiriwith
the insolence he had offered to the ljecu
tive, lie extends it to the people, fyh is
the barbarous state of American mtiers,
that he shall be destroyed try the hh of
violence, unless the government extji fG
liim tlieii special protection! The ol jr „f
tin- next note, is m reitprnte the ofiare
charge, lor •* which he had been dismiil ’*
“ He had seen with much regret thatp;,
which it had been hisdutyto state, luufn
deemed a sufficient motive for breaki ■ tr
an important neg ciatioaThe term ‘j&V
is selected, and several times repeat in
this note, tor the purpose of repeu.’ng c
insult to the government. The plain \
lish.of this ijo-e, is, if you are c ffhndvU
what Mr. Jackson lias said, he now r< ii;s
the assertions in the strongest terms* o
language affords! And yet, sir,do we hr
gemlemen declare that they cannot perci e
any insult in all ibis ? And they call u n
us to prove ti»e etiavge contained in the -
solution. '
on\ it more evidence be necessary, it /to
be found in the lett r beaded •• Circuit”
which under false and fallacious disgysea,
is an appeal to the people, andsuppoie the
assertion contained ia the resolu i n. (And
this is a part of that minister’s ci.ndyct, up
on which the Execu itc lias expressed ao
opinion, and upon which 1 thi.,k‘this hon-e
bound by the duty we owe to ouiyelves and
nur country, to express an opinion. An .ap
peal by a foreign minister, from the decision
of the Executive to the peonfe merits the
severest reprenension. If Otis be not an
ajipeal to the people, what is it t Is it the
usual course oj diplomacy for ministers to
inform consuls of the paiticui is relating u>
their attempts at neg elation, and authorise
the publication of such iuf-nnation t No
sir. It is unprecedented. '1 his publication
could not he with this view, because the
statement it contains is both “false and
fallacious." It is false, in asserting that the
negotiation was broken off, because he bad
sta r l tacts. It is fallacious in holding out
the idea, that our government were Headed
at h s stating, first, “that tne three conditi
ons forming me substance of Mr. l’rskine’s
original im. ructions were submitted to the
Secretary of S\r.e." becrndly. that Mr.
J ickson icuuw that that instruction was the
only one in which the conditions were pre
scribed to Mr. Kr&kine. Our government
d d not dismiss him for stating these facts._«
flut lor repeating, after he was a-'prised that
the declaration w is inadmissible, that our
R ivurnmcfit knew that the despatch of the
«I.l of January Contained the only instruct!,
mi to Mr. Kiskine under wlfidi he made
the nrrangorm nt. A very different things
fromihede. oration, tliat Mr,Jackson knew
it Contained the on y instruct'd s Vet, he
»ay -. he Ct aid not imagine that off nee would.
jc taken at his stating these facts andudher
ng to them, as none could be interned.'" ./
Auemptirg under this false and fallaci. i.f
iiaten-.ent to make an impression upon .r
Ann ric.m pc pie, (hat our government vy
iffcndtd, and bad broken iff an impo* la *
Vfgociaujii without a came. An act 0j‘{|t
•ociiy, for which, 1 ihmk, he shoul'j be or "
I'ercd out of the country,
(Mr. Fitk'i ajtrcth to l>e continual J