The enquirer — Richmond, Va., 1810-01-23 00:00:00, page 4

instructions. it was n«>t intended he should '
make ns reparation. The vei! attempted to |
be thrown over this transaction, viz. a de
parture trom instructions, is too thin to con
ceal the base perfidy by which it is charac
terise!. . H
I now, sir, proceed to examine the second
part of the arrangement, viz, the orders
in council.
The stipulation fbr a withdrawal of the
order* in council, has also been disavowed,
on account of a departure from instructions.
The departure consists in' Mr. Erskine’s
not obtaining a recognition of three conditi
ons contained in the despatch of the 23d of
January, which Mr. Jackson says was the
only despatch by which the conditions were
prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusi
on of an arrangement with this country on
the matter to which it relates. In page 69
of the correspondence. Mr. Jackson says—
“ In his despatch of the 23d of January, Mr.
Secretary Canning distinctly says to Mr.
Erskine, “ Upon receiving through you on
the part of the American government a d5r>
tinct 8c official recognition'of the th ree above
mentioned conditions, his majesty will lose I
no time in sending to America a minister
fully empowered to consign them to a formal
and regular treaty.”
“ This minister would, of course, have
been provided with a full power ; but Mr.
Erskine was to be guided by his instructi
ons, ind had the agreement concluded here
been conformable to them, it would without
doubt have been ratified by his majesty.”
Let us then turn to the conditions contain
ed 'in the despatch of the 23d of January, to :
which Mr: Jackson refers, vide page IStli, j
correspondence. These conditions are— I
1st. “ That the American government is !
prepared, in the event of his majesty’s con- *
sentingto withdraw the orders in council of!
January and November, 1807, to withdraw j
contemporaneously on its part, the interdic- I
tion of its harbors to ships of war, and all |
non-intercourse and non-importation acts,
so far as respects Great Britain, leaving
them in force with respect to France; and
the powers which adopt or act tinder her
decrees.
2d. “ That America is willing to renounce,
during the present war, the pretension of
carrying on in time of war all trade with
the enemies’ colonies, from which she was
excluded during peace.
3d. •' Great Britain, for the purpose of
securing the operation of the embargo, and
the bona/Lde intention of America, to pre
vent nercitisens from trading with France,
and the powers adopting and acting under
tiie French decrees, is to be considered as
• being at liberty to capture all such Ameri
can vessels as may be found*attempting to
trade with the ports ot any of these powers;
without which security for the observance
of the embargo, tilt- raising it nominally,
with respect to Great Britain alone, would
in fact raise it with respect to all the world
By the arrangement with Mr. Erskine,
the first of these conditions was substantial
ly obtained. The second, Mr. Canning ad*
mits, has no connection with the subject,
and the third, he says, could not with pro
priety constitute any pari of a formal stipu
lation. In page 13th, of the last message
from the President, containing extracts
from Mr. Pinkney, Mr. Pinkney says—
“ Upon the second of the conditions men
tioned in Mr. Erskinc’s instructions, I made 1
several remarks. I stated that it had no I
necessary connection with the principal sub
jeci; that it had lost its importance to Great
Britain by the reduction of almost all the
colonies of her enemies ; that Batavia was
understood not to he affected by it; that it
could not apply to Guadaloupe (the only o
ther unconquered colon’*) since it was admit- j
ted that we were rot excluded from a trade j
with Guadaloupe in peace; that I did no£
know what the governmeut of the United j
States would upen sufficient inducements i
consent to do upon this point; but that it
could scarcely be expected to give the im- ■
plied sanction, which this condition called ,
upon it to give, to the rule of the war of1
1756, without any equivalent or reciprocal |
•upuiiiuuu wiuisuaer. ivir. canning au- j
tnh’ed that the second condition had no ne '
c .asai) connection with the orders i.i coun- i
ril, and he intimated that they would have I
been content t.> leave the subject of it to fu
ture discussion and arrangement. lie ad-', cl
that this condition was inserted in Mr. Era
kine’s instructions, because it hid appeared I
from his own report of conversations with
official persons at Washington, that there
Would be no difficulty in agreeing to it.
“ Upon the third condition I said a very
few w #rds. I re-stated what I had thrown
ou* upon the matter of it in an informal con
vernation in January, and expressed my re
gret that it should have been misapprehtn.
ded. Mr. Uanning immediately said that
he was himself of opinion, that the idea up
0:1 which that condition turns could not well
ft id its was into a stipulation ;%that he had,
nevertheless, believed it proper to propose
the condition tethe United States; that lie
should have been satisfied with the rrjec
tion of it; and that the consequence would |
h ive been that they should have intercepted!
the commerce to which it referred, ifanv i
such commerce should he attempted.”
From tlii^ then, it appears, that by the 1
arrangement with Mr. Erskine, a fuli equi- ,
valent for the fust condition r.as obtained ; j
and that the British minister acknowledged
t»m the second condition might have been !
left for lutnie diseussi-.n and arrangement,
and that lie would have been contented with !
the rejection of the third. Even therefore,!
supposing this despatch of the 23-1 of Janua
ry, to have been the only instruction Mr. j
Erskine had on this subject, it dors not ap- j
pear that there is any solid ground for disa- -
vowing this pert rf the arrangement. If.
however, we are to credit the solemn decla
ration >f ,,Ir. Erskine, he had several let
ters of instruction. In page 20 and 21, of
the correspondence, Mr. Erskine *ay»_
“ Under these circumstances, therefore,
fiid”ig that I could not obNiin tlse recogni
tions specified in Mr. Canning’s despatch of
the T! or Jan. (which formed but one part of
his i.isti actions to me.) in the formal oiati
nerreq. red. I considered that it would be
in vain to lay before the government of ine
United States the dcs- s ell in question,
which I was at liberty to have done w fx
tf.nso. h d I thought proper But as I had
such strong grounds, for believing that the
object oi his in: jesty’s government could be
atnai' -'d, th -ugh in * different manner, at.d
the spirit, «: h-.' -.t. of my several letters of
instructions he.fully complied wi h, I felt a
thorough conviction upon my mind, that I
should be acting Jo conformity with his ma
j ■* ) \ w;, ics ; and, accordingly, concluded
the late provisional agreement on his mi
j stv’s ban .-.If with the government of the l)
f it i ”
I wii’ j >w, sir. proceed to th third part
o. the uriitiijcriiciiJ, vix. thw pto,iis<i to tend
• v
over a minister with full powers to conclude
a treat) on all the subjects F difference be- I
tween the two countries. This also is disa
vowed. Instead oF a minister *‘f pc-ce, Mr.
; Canning officially notifies Mr. Pinkney, <*ur
minister in London, of his intention of send
ing over a minister for the purpose of giving
our Secretary of State a jirkimj. Ju page
7th, of the correspondence, Mr. Canning in
a letter to Mr. Pinkney, says—
** I forbear equally l'rona troubling you,
sir, with any comment on the manner in
which Mr. Erskine’s communications have
been received by the American government,
or upon the terms and spirit of Mr. Smith’s
share of the correspondence.
** Such obser aliens will be communica
ted more properly through the Hlinister
whom his majesty Las directed to proseed to
America; not on any special mission,
(which Mr. Erskine was not authorised to
promise, except upon conditions, not one of
which he has obtained) but as the succes
sor of Mr. Erskine, whom his majesty has
not lost a moment la recalling*”
Here, sir, the object of Mr. Jackson’s mis
sion is explained, he is sent, says Mr. Can- j
ning, not on any special mission, but as the
successor of Mr. Erskine. The terms and
spirit ot Mr. Smith’s share of thccorrcspon
dence with Mr. Erskine are expressly noted
mul an iii'imation given in form, that they
will be the subject of animadversion. Mr.
Jacksrn appears to have arrived in this
country with dispositions pi * lisely in unison
with the intimation thus thrown out by Mr.
Canning. His misrepresentation of the af
fair at Hampton, fixed on him now by the
oath of respectable persons, manifests but
too strongly the state of his feelings on his
fir- t arrival in this country. . His first letter
belore any correspondence liad taker, place,
calculated to excite unpleasant feelings, is
proof positive that his feelings were not ac
quired here but brought with him. I will
read an . extract—it will be found in page
29 and 30 of the correspondence, and the
style 6nd manner excite the more surprise
because it ia in the first official note addres
sed to the Secretary State
Considering tri^t a very few.days have
elapsed since I delivered to the President a
credential letter from the king my master,
and that nothing has been even alledgcd to
have occurred to deprive me of the facility
of access, and of the credit to which, ac
cording to immemorial usage, I am by that
letter entitled, I believe there does nut exist
in the annals of diplomacy a precadent for
auv.ii ueuimination between two ministers
>vho have met for the avowed purpose of ter
initiating amicably the existing differences
between their respective countries: hut, af- j
ter mature reflection, I am induced to ac
quiesce in it by the recollection of the time
that must necessarily elapse before 1 can
receive his majesty’s commands upon so un
expected an occurrence, and of the detri
ment that would ensue to the public service
if my miniiterial functions wore, in the inter
val, to be altogether suspended. I shall
therefore coir.ent myself with entering my
protest against a proceeding which I can
consider in no other light than as a violation,
in my person, of the most essential rights of
a public ministar, when adopted, as in the
present case, without allcdged misconduct on
his part.”
1 be style and manner of many parts of
toe same letter, but too strongly mark th*
temper and viens of Mr. Jackson. The
formal tender of terms for the adjustment
the 2flair -of the Chesapeake, which he
iucw could not honorably be accepted, and
\v ich he k:isw would be rejected, manifests
a spirit ot hostility too obvious to b« deni
e^‘t ' ^ l,e renewal in an informal manner
of the disgraceful proposals on the subject of
the orders in council affords additional proof
of the hostile views with which he was sent.
These informal propositions are stated in
the first letter of Mr. Smith. Mr. Jackson
in answer to this letter says, that the propo
sitions were not made “ with that view,”
VIZ }—^ith a view lotheir being considered
as formal propositions on the part of the
British ministry—finally he denies, that they
were made at all. In a part of the corres
pondence he declares, “ he has a power to
discuss fit even totally to conclude” and after
wards, that he, has “ a full power”—tak
ing his own declarations and Mr. Canning’s
notiucation to Air. Pinkney already cited
and lie can only be considered as an ordina
ry minister, a mere successor of Mr. Ers
l:ine and charged with no special commis
sion except a lashing for Mr. Smith.
With this view, sir, of the grounds on
wlr.Cii the late arrangement has been disa
vowed, I cannot but feel that a course has
been pursued by the British ministry not I
warranted by good, faith. Such a transacti
on in private life, would be called swindling.
It'would stamp with dishonor the character
of ary individuals who could fly from en
gagements fairly entered into and attempt to
cover his bad faith by so flimsy a veil.
The reasons assigned by tbc British mi
nistry for disavowing this arrangement can
not be the real ones. The real reasons have
been ably stated by a gentleman from Penn
sylvania, (Mr. Milnor) and I rejoice on the
present occasion, to see his talents devoted
‘.o his country, ar.d, not employed in s< ftto
ing the injustice of a foreign nation or the
atrocious insolence of its minister. The ob
ject to be accomplished by Mr. Canning is
too plain—plighted faith is violated that Bri
t:sh smugglers may fatten, while the righs
of neutrals are destroyed.
I will now, sir, proceed to offer a few re
m ark son the parts of the correspondence
which bear more particularly on the reso
lotion before the House. M* object will be
to present in succession the parts of the cor
respondent, in which I consider t'ne British
minister Air, Jackson lias attribut’d to the
Executive gov. rnment of the U. S. to use 1
the language of the gentleman from Connec
ticut, (Mr. Dana) the intentional falvifica
lion of a fact. I do not wish to put between
the parts of the correspondence a single re
mark :—
Mr Jarkton to Mr. Smith—fiigra 31, 32.
“ ^ on have not in the conference s we have
hitherto held, distinctly announced any such
complaint, and I have setn with pleasure in
this forbearance, on your part, nn instance
ot that candor, which I doubt not will pre
vail in al! our communications, inasmuch a9
) ”i c°uld not but have tbntight it unreason
able to complain of a disavowal of an act,
done under siichcircuicistatir.es, as could on
W lead to th* consequences that have actu
al ty followed,
“ It was not known when I left. England,
whether .Mr. Er.skinc had. according to the
lioerty allowed him, communicated to you
in extenso his original instructions. It now
appe-ata that he did not. But, In reverting
to hid official correspondence, and particu
larly to a despatch addressed on the 20th A -
pEI tohi* majesty’s Sec r eta ry of State for
foreign affairs, 1 fi-id that lie there states,
that he had submitted to your consideration,
\ v
the three conditions specified in those in- i
structions, as the ground work of an arrange- j
ment which, according to information recei- ’
'ed from this country, it was thought in
England might be made, with a prospect ol
great mutual advantage. Mr. Erskine then
reports verbatim rt seriatim vour obnerva
lions upon each of the three conditions, and
the reasons which had induced you to think
that others might be substituted in lieu of
them. It may have been concluded between**
you that these latter were an equivalent for
the original conditions, but the very act of
substitution evidently shews that those ori
ginal conditions, were, in fact, very expli !
citly communicated to you. and by you .if
course laid before the President for his con
sideration. I need hardly add, that the dif-\
ference between these conditions and those
contained in the arrangement of the 18th i
and 19th of April, is sufficiently obvious to
require no elucidation ; nor need 1 draw the
conclusion, which 1 consider as admitted by
all absence of complaint, on the part of the
American government, vi2. that under such
circumstances, his majesty bad an undoubt
ed and incontrovertible right to disavow the
act of his minister. I must here allude to a
supposition, which you have more than once
mentioned to me. and by which, if it hod anv
the slightest foundation, this right might
perhaps have been in some degree affected.
You have informed me that you understood
that Mr Erkine had two sets of instructions,
by which to regulate his conduct ; and that,
upon one of them, which bad not been commu
nicated either to yon or to the public was to
be rested the justification or the terms finally
agreed upon bet ween you and him. It is iny {
duty. sir. solemnly to > sre to vou, and I
through you to tl «_ President, that the de- 1
spatch from Mr. Canning .o Mr. Erskine,
which you have mad- the brsi- rl an‘official
correspondence with the lager minister and
which was read by the former to the A me
rican minister in London, is die only desj ten
by which the conditions were prescribed to
Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an »r
rangement with -his country on the matter ,
to which it relates.”
Mr. Smith to Mr. Jackson-parrs 46,
46.
“ i he declaration, “that the .1 spatch j
from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskinc, of me ;
23d January, is the only despatch hv which
the conditions were prescribed to Mr. £rs.
kine for the conchr ion ol an arrangement
on the matter to which n relates,"’ is now,
for the first time, made to this government.
And I need haidly add, that if ihat des
patch had hem communicated a. the time
of the arrangement, or if it had bees known
that the propositions contained in it, and
which were at first presented by Mr. Frs
kine, were tue only ones on which he was au
thorized to make an arrangement, the ar
rangement would not have been made.”
Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smit/t-‘fiagea 57
58.
“ I have, therefore, no hesitation in in
forming you, that his maj *sty was pleased
to disavow the agreement concluded be
tween you , and Mr. Erskine, because it
was concluded in violation of that gentle
man’s instructions, and altogether without
authority to subscribe to the terms of it.
These instructions, I now understand by your
letter, as well as from the obvious deducti
on which I took the liberty of making in
mine of the 11th instant, were, at the time !
in substance, made known to you : no stren
ger illustration, therefore, can he given of
the deviation from them which occur •
red, than by a reference to the terms of
your agreement.
“Nothing can be more notorious, than
the frequency with which, in the course of r.
complicated negotiation, ministers are fur
nished with a gradation of conditions, on
which they may be successively authorized
to conclude. So common is the case which
you put hypothetical! v that, in acceding to
the justiceof your statement, 1 feci r.iysc f
impelled to make only one observation upon
it, whicli is, that it does not strike me as
bearing upon the consideration of the unau
thoriged agreement concluded here i • >
much as, in point of fact, Mr. Ersk ne had
no such graduated instruction. You ; .v ;>.l
ready acquainted with that which was g.v !
cn ; and I have hhd the honor of informing
you, that it was theordyone by which he
conditions, on which he was to conclude. 1
were prescribed. So far from the terms',
which lie was actually induced to accept,
having been contemplated in that ins’.umu
on, he himself states, that they were sub
stituted by you in lieu of those origiually pro
nosed.”
Mr. Smith to J\lr. Jackson.
“But it would be improper to conclude!
the few observations to which I purposely I
limit myself, without adverting to your re '
petition of a language implying a knowledge
on the part oi'this government, that the in
structions of your predecessor did not autho
rise the arrangement formed by him. Af
ter the explicit and peremptory asseveration
that this government had no such knowledge,
and that with such a knowledge no such ar
rangement would have been entered into,
the view which you have again presented of
the subject, makes it thy duty to apprize
you, that such insinuations ue inadmissible
in the intercourse of a foreign minister with
a government that understands what it owes
to itself.”
Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith-have* 70,
71.
“ You will find that, in my correspondence
wnh you, 1 have carefully avoided drawing
conclusions, that did not necessarily follow
from the premises advanced by me, and
least of all should I think o' uttering an i-isi
oration, wheie I was unable to substantiate
a tact. I o fact«, such as I have become
acquainted with them, I have scrupulously
adhered, and in so doing, I must continue.
Whenever the good iaith of bis majesty’s go
vernment is called in question, to vindicate
its honor and dignity, in the manner that
appears to me best calculated for that pur
pose.”
In the first part of the correspondrnce cit
ed, Mr. Jackson makes three, separate and
distinct charges; 1, That the arrangement
was made under such circumstances as coi ' l
only lead to a disavowal. 2. That the in
structions of Mr Erskine were comrnunicat
ed to Mr. Smith, and by him to the President.
3. That the instructions communicated were
the only instructions which Mr. Erskine had
on the subject to which they related.
In the 2d passag* of the correspondence,
which I have cited, Mr. Smith, passing o
ver the offensive insinuation, as to the cir
cumstances under .which the arrangement
was made, declares, that • it is now for the
first time communicated to him, that the
instruction alhi<’ d to by Mr. Jackson war,
the only one Mr. Erskine had, and that
with such a knowledge no arrangement
would have been mad*.
t« the 3d pss**ge of tlie correr-ponnenc'e
cited. Mr Jackson, after a construction h«d
been placed on bis insinuations, repeats and
ndheresto them.
In the 4:h passage. Mr. Smith declares to
him, that after the explicit declaration made
on his part, the insinuations of Mr. Jackson
arc inadmissible.
Jn the 5til passage, without any regard to
the declarations of Mr. Smith, without no
ticing the. formal intimation given, that his
insinuations are inadmissible—Mr. J irk son
declares—I have made no insinuation where
I cannot substantiate a fact. To facts 1. bull
adhere.
Take the case, sir. as between two indi
viduals in private life:—A says to B you
have concluded with my agent an arrange
ment he was not authorized to make—tiis
powers were shown to you, and with a com
plete knowledge that his powers were total
ly inadequate, you have net ert lie less con
cluded a bargain
H very courteously replies, that it is now
for the first time made known to him, that
the agent of A. had no power to make the
arrangement entered into That with such
a knowledge, he should not have concluded
a bargain with him.
A in return, declares that the powers of
h's .«gent were fully made known to li and
that B knew at the time of making the con
tract, that the agent had no power
B in return says, that after the explicit
declaration made by me, that I had no
knowledge of the want of power on the part
of your ngeiit, the insinuation contained in
your letter is i ladmi-sible
A in return declares, I havc^ made no
insinuation which ! am unable to substanti
ate by facts To facts I shall adhere
I appeal, sir, to any gentleman who regard
hi* charater whether such a transaction lie
twee:! individuals,could terminate in anything
but hostility. From the time of Shakespeare,
it has been settled that gentlemen cannot in
their intercourse with each other, go further
than ret art courteous of reply valiant. It
.pp'ears rhat Mr. Jackson on the present oc
casion has overleaped the reply valiant and
proceeded to the lie direct. If it had been
a- case between individuals there would
have been nothing left but to run or fight.
1 will now sir, examine some of,the reni
u against me adoption ri me reso
1 mien—Hie gentlemen from Connecticut
(MV. Dana) says tha' before he ran give-the
pledge contained in the resolution of calling
into.ac'ion the whole resources of the nation
he this, inquire wiiat those resources are—
Tiie resources of the U Sta»e-. are the same
with those of every other country, where
the people are not ground dotvn l»v oppres
sive taxes The ordinary revenue of no
country where freedom exists, can he equal
to me i: rraordinary expences produced by
war—Public credit is the fund >n which u’l
free countries must draw; our credit as a
nation stands high ; an honest c -mpliauce
with our engagements ensures to us the
boating capital of our own country which is
ample ; it is as easy for the government of
the u States fo command f. -ty millions o'
dollars as five. Hut says the gentleman it is
a defiance of war—are you prepared to .sus
tain it ? Did you not suffer the ofiendi m
squadron after the outrage oa the Che. •
peake to remain in your waters without an
attempt to dislodge them? I remember well.
Sir, tlir circumstances which ai••.este I the
proceedings of Congress alter the at u !. on
the Chesapeake The gentleman was him
self at that time an old and respecte.htf men.
her, possessed of talents tnsupport whr.tcv.er
proposition he might ' fif; r. VVhy did lie not
sour up the lazy drones, who »t Mr ‘ time
r inducted liie affairs ol the natim? lumbar
k: din the sitme vessel, if. he h;.s slurqboied
m I) s post while national honai wa wrecked,
he ulus' bear his portion ef the biaine.
It really appears to me. I.owo • (without
meaning any thing (iit. -net il.il to the v • ;L
• -ui) r hit for i'wis- who 'Yi' s-'ur.i at in.- trio
■ >f the -stuck on the <’nes?.j'>o'».ce, »■ i mine tor
>v rd non and ••••>•, ** why was not the oft’^rding
squad n driven ou* " n ton toiioIi in 1 : of
* t-i . d capu in < : scrihru bv Si.i.dlot, who
si - m i.Vt o'- bimsetf and the pa-o-ei gcr.s in «
rn '■ -wli i •- Ho robbed, cried out: .oor •••« the
: 0 ’her .»• b «-rglit, that he would. lri\c his
•• ’ ' ” Silt, sir, the gt nth 'ail fr;.n:
C .'V ticut Mr Dana) feels Home scrup' *s »«
i». u i; iiiigms on the f •••racl-r o*' Mr.
J i-h-sou, m nr. ned with tie highest Ofder
nt power- IT. - »sses for him that sort of
f-.e!i sr wine. i • ■ .ud io a young man flushed
wiiii ini .l.i-i ring into life vi • I'br
tt'i. i.Mmsned char. • ' . v, i!ddo ^ t*.
irt. Who, - g
stripling w:th a cha>v ■ #, , i nn j he is lu.e* lj
a conspicuous cIui-ac . >.»- ‘'ime, to use an
cxpr- s ion of Pindar, hi: u< > 1 tr> the skies
i.< curling sal- kr ; Ik: wil.' • • I', known iw
.11 story ; > Arnold or any ot •' . . piciu oh cha
r.cter. 11 Denmark lie pr< f . : pence to toe
government, and made war on people ; here
lias chang 'd Ilia system, to n- j the l av uage
of tin gentleman 4 <*m Connecticut, in hasin.le
war on th? pvlace ami professed peace to 'he
people. Wi ile he grasped with in. • >! hie
friendship th- li. k! of the crown prince, the iw
iess banditti lie he led, sacked then od
bore ( IT n triumph the Danish Hee VV* . > .
transiu .ion !>..!* remain on the icrords >. hi
toi v, tin? chutaoler of Mr Jsrkson wilt li d a
conspicuous place in the annals of f ine. Blit
why, sir, shall we leel delicacy t’>r th chtM’ae
ter of? man, who in his intercourse with ns has
violated every principle of decorum mkI . .n
cy ? 1 lie gcnlh-nian (rum Connecticut pVlr Dh
"■') objects to the Wording of the 1'CS‘dllttCn.—
I he term", are h ird, tuch as the President would
not use. 1 do not know v. bethel tor g’ntie
nmn s.ud as no Christian ought to use, but cer
tainly such as ought not to he used oy any hr inch
oi the government J'he energy with which
the gentleman expressed Ids feelings on this
part oi tlie subject, brought forcibly to my mind
the story related by Sterne of Francis the first,
who said to hi. minister, he w-.uid give to a
neighboring republic the honor of standing God
mother for his next chil : The minister remon
strated, Francis is obstinate; a courier amioit'i
cos gliat the republic accepts the honor, hut
claims as Godmother the right of naming the
child : well says Francis, she will i all it Louis,
or Henry, or some other Christian name ; no,
says the Minister, she insists on its being called
Shmlrach Meshech-Abeduego Francis in wrath
declares it is not a Christian name ; it is not
such a name as any Christian ought lo use ; it is
a name no government ought to pronounce.
The name deteired Francis from aceep ing me
honor he had solicited. Perhaps on the pr sent
occasion the hard names in th? re ml., ion may be
the only objection of the g« nil .’tntn li mn Connec
ticut. He Ins declared that the privilege of nn
ambassador does not authorise him to attribute to
-i government the intentional falsification of u
f.ct: that it does not auth iao him to profess
peace in the people and make war on the pal ice.
IJut the gentleman notwithstanding the r sltong
declarations, will not even trust himself lo look
at the resolution. He seems, sir, t<» be under
that aort of embarrassment which » go I of sen
tirrv.nt and feeling experiences, when very dcs
pc lely in love, and ncr wishes opposed by tier
friends; >hr likes the lover, but sue cannot dis
oblige her friend*. ; she v. ui not evrr. trust her
eyes to dwell on him j whether lii-t tale is tun or
njt site fears ,o lea.it , without examination
■
turn* from Mm : <*i>mntv1lTs or or
irvmner*, ami t'rovH linn HV precisely d.o
gentler.an from f:ono*cti»*ut d >estho renoWnii,
without knowing whether it is true or fid**.
A gentleman from New York (Mr. Eract*)
hxa exercised much ingenuity in attempting to
shew tbit Mr Jrckson hx« not he**n insolent_
i have ro doubt but that i* I was to pl-c~ »n
upide on my <’••■ k, tbc gentleman conic, deliver
a very ii’peniof, speech to shew that it was if;l
'I' *w,t :,tt apple. ftippoae in his attempt he
s touid establish, that instead of being n fine
bfow-town pippin, it was only a sour e—ih ——- 1
I his is refthv what tin- gentleman line dono by
h*3 consiriKlion «>! tin correspondence, bo fir .vs
reap ets the couth** r oi A, r. Jackson ; forafirr
s'l his iitgc-nuily, he concludes with saving,
Mr Jackson has he-n r.’. Jr*, very Hide indeed,_
1 am willing t'> join-issue on this point, & would
for one have had no objection to striking out in
solent, iin«l inserting very t inle, if that would iiu\o
secured the gentleman’s vote.
The gentleman’s argument on the second part
ot ti e n soluiion ,* Ihiiula! principally ou the; a
circumstance of the condition-, in the despatch s
ot theSod of I 'vu.-ny l aving originated ii> a repre
sentation b> Erskine, of cc Main conversati
ons with members of can- own g ivernment IF
these conditions originated, a:, tin* gentlcrrr.il
supposes, in the idea that thuy would lid accep
ts >u to the America* government, wiiv are they
persisted in after the error was made known by
r-*p resell tat i' n of Mr. Erskine to his own gd
vom;r,.nt ? Yv’f.y ere they urged a.' n ground
t'f disavowal ? If the propos'd vies did not cri
gw >te w»ih ill*- British govei-unulit. they have
1”" n completely adopted by An-. Canning. But
sir, if * lie g.-in'.on n from New York consider*
the conditions in t!:< :spV.ch of the 22 l of Janua
ry, offensive, that the Executive, of the United
States ought i«t out. fi have dismissed Mr. Jack
son on their bring . ■ Iered; whxt does Jie think
of ‘i e disavowal of the arrangement, rented a
voxvodly or. the failure of Mr Erskiqe to obtain a
recognition of these conditions ? 'I he gcntle
•n-o has t favored us with his opinions on this
subject, * on die • ppeal j he cannot, 1 am cer
tain, reconcile to himself the justification of ei«
I regret, sir, that another geftll ..man from N.
• ork, f Me Cold) who in his ordinary depot-t
in in a id manner displays so nrr it moderation
am mildness, should have seized vi. nn occasion
like ilic present to express so much bitter f*.-cl
in.‘ against the »;’• ministration of his own
vr-rnment. I wish not to mis represent any tiimg
tilt- gentleman has said, and if I Ua, shall fuel
m*ppy m being put tight. . Its gentleman telU
that Mr. J.v kson could nut have intended to
make the charge, that the American government
knew Mr. Ernkine hail no power to make the ,r
ranpement entered into. Ixmause that ground is
not taken !>y the British ;;ov; runn. l. The Bi ii
minister, he .«ays, v-'tdd have been guihy of n
high misdemeanor, if he had gone further than
was allowed by bis own government. This idea,
of a nigh misdemeanor has, I fear, op. ated too
strong on the gentleman’s mind Instead of
viewing the transaction as it really pretexts itself,
l;e appears to ha’. t~ argued it precisely as if Mr.
.1 aoKson whs aira'e ned for an indictableoffence—
h»:C tiiat it 'vas i s *u*y to »-x#pei"e all bis inge
r,!iiy in si.. ]■ umstaneps calculated to pal
li.e.e or r jfu-u ; • conduct The gentleman sr vs,
that M-v Si «ii ! agitated the 1,'iesiT. n of dif
ferent seta <f "'rftrwrtion* and that thiw was
cnlnted to w -uind and irritate Mr. J tekson, !.•«;
cause it. can e’vy be considered as. a charge of
pe- lidy against the British govensrjrnl, after the
ground taken before all-Europe, of disavowing
tno arrangement, because Mr. Eri k e violated
bis instructions If, Sir, th«i gvs ieman is so
i. ic’i alive to an imputation on the Bit: go
vernment why . iss . not tee! **■ >■ inv hon.i of
his own co’.vury ? How do we Msmi hori.i e- :-.U
Europe. with the i.rrar g rr.- nt disavowed, b.v
ci-.ttae Mr. Erskinc din . tin * iccogr.it;.n».
ot tie tii4griu-e.fi 1 < . i,. , u- d*>-n,,t. 1, *,f
the 33 it lanuarv ? In*, akii’g of the app.-.d
to theoeo ie by ? Jackthe gentleman a;»
pd.fs La it the mild.tr • n incai reel. Its says too,
there | arc n ary p .limiting circumBtiincti—the
terms i.i e not at -«ll ini'kirnnvitorv ; :<s lut It- ofTVn
s >c as could have been ir. id v-.'hi;:- in vi-w ini;
tn-. conduct of the Iliili. b minister the gentlc
"■ ■■ ; • . - f
uacle Toby, he judges with n k -art < " inn titt
conduct .tn i l.-oliVi a «.( i.is own go miv; it.
Oi» il.c: 1 tit.ii of Apr 1 last, say s tile gentleman,
the edm ni'tr:.*. • ii was icdim -d to the .fink of
non. !.< non-iu.:*rcou>-s. buckled :i in 1 „ste,
was ftb-.o. totii.av—all ii. me.is"i‘. s had i tiled
—never were thei • stronger temptations for nn
administrat-Qn to ge- rid, by honorable moans, of
system which I tad produced or.'v rnir'to uur
st-lvt ■ What, s.:r, is tiie amount of this , burg • ’
- . tci: - ly t a: , .0 ir.-uie by the British nd'iih iy
ur.d k-, u:-principled envoy—coli c“ton l-• ween
th". American government and Mr. Er»kln.*—•
coucl suing an amn.gemect k- .. ving l.c was .a t
a'i-! orizeo to make ii I have so. -.-n it siomewlierc
Muted, that in arbitrary coin.!fit s there is noth
ibg e.’.cites so much dre«d an.mg .lie people as
, -- "n.noj m nn * n imi HUM K ir
cy. It always precedes acts of injuiti o ami
crudity. Nor ahull I eter ag sin heai a politician
declare, as the. gentleman lias (lone, that modera
t ioti and justice is :• lesson of wisdom, without
having forcibly recalled to my mi id this odious
custom in arbitrary countries While, sir, the
gentleman is thus harsh in at Li Luting improper
motives tu the administration of hiv own govern
ment, he can discover nothing insulting in the
corn s; irience of Mi. ] kson—If there is any
insult, sajc licgcntlcri.au, ii is too deep for rnv
understanding. Opinions on afFiirsof honor du*
• od on >ur orgipi/itier. I \v..s once acquainted
' th a respectable mnn in V.rginia, apr. i ll ion.-r
utv mul a Senator ion, who, on receiving a
lev, with r. cane, turned round to the person v no
hod given it, and asked, arc vou in earnest ? Yc. ,
sayi the ;» rson,perfectly—V iy v.oll, replied the
Senator, I am gl >d of it, for. r .iiv 1 ah cold not
like such jests The notions of this gentleman
ns to what constituted an in null were singular,
as singular, I think, s those, at i r* ent express
ed hy the gent!; man from Nr w York The gen
tleman is (nr placing a cent in* i, lest seine Ii 'I
apt''t should cnu. the embargo ag/m » ise If,
sir, a r ntmel is to he pi a ed, let it-be pin . ed at
the election poll Let the goddess of liberty
Ihetv ti<k« her stand, and wm n the voters n* they
advai.ee, of lie dangers of division and disunion.
Li i her uni !d to the people «vhnt has destroyed
nil free governments— What destroyed the first
confederated repukl.c under tfie Amphyctionic
council 1 What d*'dr ived the Achaean league
which succeeded it ? Wlmt bus destroyed all iliw
rs'iioti, governments oK nv*d-■,-»# Europe ? Divi
sion produced by foreign i fl u m e Thegen'ic -
niioi says, our citizen haw: (i.’pyed and arc no >v
enjoying the igs v.v. d Iivhii being fieed
(rum tin: shackles of e/ob-rgo, non-intercour ;
ami all our restrictive system. Wlir.n, sir, in
ancji nt tiim*« ad ugktcr of one (.f the Ron u
kings dii.v* in trium-h over the mangled body
of her ft vu father, she rpsi t*> power and i*
wealth. It was by a violation of every moral
principle. So, s:r, those who have violated ine
laws of «he:r cbuiltry may li»'-e reaped the pro
fits ot ini«|iiity, by committing a crime (.lie
first gratis in » f>ee country, arraying themseh.:»
in opposition to the vi'.l of the « ommunity. 1; *t
w' y, sir, *!ocs the gentleman; ak - up the arlir of
the emharg . sod non*intercourse ? They * re
use .".a si. rid *y his own party. They would
serve or. th« pr< sent occasion as h convenient rig
for the gentleman him* elf to cieep under. W . ii
raped on to explain his •’pc* eh or l is vote,it wo hi
have been o»»H necessary to propvunee the shot'
• ! embargo. It in much e'.-'er for any j «u.
tl. him i to pr.iimsm c tins word than cxplai.; to
toe p< n;.ie the reasons W»y, atu " al! our re i-iu*
live IVYS t'is erase' . ( US' d .Ticultics . 1.
Orbat jJrilai.i remain without a pro- jicctnf ad
jiistuu.rt.
C tb‘itr tft Lc c*. /. uc ! J