The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1809-12-01 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER
VOL. X.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1427.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1809.
PAY IN ADVANCE.
WASHINGTON DANCING ASSEMBLY.
A MEETING of the Citizens of Washington is called THIS Evening at W. CATON's hotel at SIX o'clock, for the purpose of making arrangements for the public Dancing Assemblies of the Season. December 1—
CONGRESS.
IN SENATE, Nov. 29, 1809.
On motion of Mr. Goodrich,
Resolved unanimously, that the members of the Senate, from a sincere desire of showing their respect to the memory of the Hon. Samuel White, deceased, late a member thereof, will go into mourning for him for one month by the usual mode of wearing a crape round the left arm.
Nov. 30, 1809.
FOREIGN RELATIONS.
The following motion was submitted by Mr. Giles for the consideration of the Senate.
Resolved, That so much of the President's Message, as respects the relations existing between the United States and Great Britain and France, with the accompanying documents, be referred to a select Committee, with instructions to examine the same, and report thereon to the Senate, and that the Committee have leave to report by bill, or bills, or otherwise.
Mr. Giles introduced the foregoing resolution with observing, in substance, that in presenting the resolution to the consideration of the Senate, he did not mean at this time to suggest any specific course of proceeding, as proper to be observed upon the very delicate and interesting topics embraced by it; nor to pledge himself upon presenting any specific proposition, for the final adoption of the Senate; but he was induced to introduce the subject, at this early period of the session, because he was deeply impressed with the importance of the disclosures made in the Message, & the accompanying documents; as they respect the interests, the character, and even the independence of the U. States. He conceived that considerations so vitally interesting to the nation certainly demanded the most prompt attention, and most serious animadversion of Congress. He had presented the resolution in this generalised form, to give the Committee the freest range in devising and reporting measures, suited to the difficulty and delicacy of the crisis.
LIST OF COMMITTEES
APPOINTED BY THE SPEAKER, In pursuance
Of the Order of the House of Refs.
 Committee of Elections—Messrs. Findley, Clay, Sturges, Troop, Taylor, Van Rensselaer and Gannett.  — of Claims—Messrs. Johnson, Pickett, Butler, B. Brown, Stanley, Cholson and I. B. Porter.  — of Commerce and Manufactures—Messrs. Newton, Dana, Marion, Cutts, N. A. Moore, Sage and Seybert.  — of Ways and Means—Messrs. Phipps, W. Nelson, Tallmadge, Montgomery, Bacon, Smith and Root.  — on Public Lands—Messrs. Morrow, Coudray, Ely, Boyd, Howard, Gold and Calhoun.  — of Revision and Unfinished Business—Messrs. Southard, Shaw and R. Jackson.  — of Accounts—Messrs. Melnau, Kennedy and Turner.  — District of Columbia—Messrs. Love, Van Horn, L. J. Alston, Newbold, S. Smith, Taggart and Haxon. 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Thursday, Nov. 30.
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.
On motion of Mr. Dawson, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the state of the union, Mr. Macon in the chair.
The President's message having been read,
Mr. Smith said that the common mode of proceeding, when in committee of the whole on the President's message, was to refer the several subjects embraced in it to different committees. The message was not yet printed and laid on the table. He had seen inconveniences arising from too hasty a reference of those subjects on former occasions; he remembered last winter unfortunately the subject of our foreign relations had been divided and committed to two separate committees which had interfered with each other. Perhaps, if the House proceeded too hastily on this occasion, similar inconveniences might again occur. In order to give further time for consideration, he moved that the committee now rise.
This motion was agreed to without debate and without a division.
The Speaker laid before the House the following letter, which was read.
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives:
Sir,
An occurrence having recently taken place between a Member of the House of Representatives and myself, produced by circumstances not at all connected with his official duties or opinions, which from the time and place may be considered disrespectful to the House of Representatives, I take the liberty of tendering thro' you my most respectful declarations, that I am the last who would wilfully manifest a disrespect of that reverence which is due to the Representatives of my country, or that sacred regard which is also due to their privileges.
To yourself, Sir, personally, I tender the assurances of my very great respect,
I. A. COLES.
November 29, 1809.
No order having been taken on it, the letter lies on the table of course.
A message was received from the Senate proposing the appointment of two Chaplains of different denominations, to interchange between the two Houses weekly; which was agreed to.
After the presentation of a few petitions, the House adjourned.
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—CONCLUDED.
Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith. Washington, 23d October, 1809.
Sir,
The letter, which you did me the honor to address to me on the 19th inst. was delivered to me on the following day. I shall, without loss of time, transmit it to my court, where the various and important considerations which it embraces will receive the attention due to them. In the interval, I would beg leave to submit to you the following observations, as they arise out of the communications that have already occurred between us.
In fulfilling a duty which I conceive to be due to my public character, I have never suggested, nor meant to suggest, that the mode of negotiating prescribed by you on this particular occasion—an occasion selected for the purpose of removing existing differences—was otherwise objectionable, than as it appeared to me, to be less calculated, than it does to you, to answer the professed purpose of our negotiation.
It was against the general principle of debarring a foreign minister, in the short space of one week after his arrival, and without any previous understanding with him, from all personal intercourse, that I thought it right to protest. Since however I find by your letter that it is not intended to apply that principle to me, I will only observe, that in the case which you mention to have occurred between Mr. Canning and Mr. Pinkney, the conferences were held, under an expectation at least on the part of the former, of their leading to a written communication, whereas in ours, I, from the beginning, stated that I had no such communication to make. There is also this essential difference between the two cases, that Mr. Pinkney was charged to convey an important proposal to His Majesty's government, the particulars of which it might be very material to have correctly stated, whilst the object of that part of my conversation, to which you seem to attach the most importance, was to say, that I was not charged to make any proposal whatever.
It could not enter into my view, to withhold from you an explanation, merely because it had been already given, but because, having been so given, I could not imagine, until informed by you, that a repetition of it would be required at my hands. I am quite certain that His Majesty's government having complied with what was considered to be the substantial duty imposed upon it on this occasion would, had this been foreseen, have added to the proofs of conciliatory good faith already manifested, the farther complacency to the wishes of the United States of adopting the form of communication most agreeable to them, and of giving through me the explanation in question. I have therefore no hesitation in informing you, that His Majesty was pleased to disavow the agreement concluded between you and Mr. Erskine, because it was concluded in violation of that gentleman'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 deduction which I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th instant, were at the time, in substance, made known to you; no stronger illustration therefore can be given of the deviation from them which occurred than by a reference to the terms of your agreement.
Nothing can be more notorious than the frequency with which, in the course of a complicated negotiation, ministers are furnished with a graduation of conditions, on which they may be successively authorised to conclude. So common is the case which you put hypothetically, that in acceding to the justice of your statement, I feel myself compelled to make only one observation upon it, which is, that it does not strike me as bearing upon the consideration of the unauthorised agreement concluded here, in as much as in point of fact Mr. Erskine had no such graduated instruction. You are already acquainted with that which was given, and I have had the honor of informing you that it was the only one by which the conditions on which he was to conclude were prescribed. So far from the terms, which he was actually induced to accept, having been contemplated in that instruction, he himself states that they were substituted by you in lieu of those originally proposed.
It may perhaps be satisfactory that I should say here that I most willingly subscribe, on this occasion, to the highly respectable authority which you have quoted, and I join issue with you upon the essentials which that authority requires to constitute a right to disavow the act of a public minister.
It is not immaterial to observe on the qualification contained in the passage you have quoted—as it implies the case of a minister concluding in virtue of a full power. To this it would suffice to answer that Mr. Erskine had no full power; and his act consequently does not come within the range of your quotation, although it cannot be forgotten that the United States have, at no very distant period, most freely exercised the right of withholding their ratification from even the authorised act of their own diplomatic agents, done under the avowed sanction of a full power.
I conceive that what has been already said establishes beyond the reach of doubt or controversy that His Majesty's minister did violate his instructions, and the consequent right in His Majesty to disavow an act so concluded. That His Majesty had strong and solid reasons for so doing will appear not only from his instructions having been violated, but from the circumstance that the violation of them involved the sacrifice of a great system of policy deliberately adopted and acted upon in just and necessary retaliation of the unprecedented modes of hostility resorted to by his enemy.
There appears to have prevailed throughout the whole of this transaction a fundamental mistake, which would suggest that His Majesty had proposed to propitiate the government of the United States in order to induce it to consent to the renewal of the commercial intercourse between the two countries; as if such had been the relations between Great Britain and America, that the advantages of that intercourse were wholly on the side of the former; and as if in any arrangement, whether commercial or political, His Majesty could condescend to barter objects of national policy and dignity for permission to trade with another country.
Without minutely calculating what may be the degree of pressure felt at Paris by the difference in the price of goods whether landed at Havre or at Hamburg, I will, in my turn, appeal to your judgement, sir, whether it be not a strong and solid reason, worthy to guide the councils of a great and powerful monarch, to set bounds to that spirit of encroachment and universal dominion which would bend all things to its own standard? Is it nothing in the present state of the world, when the agents of France authoritatively announce to their victims "that Europe is submitting and surrendering by degrees," that the world should know, that there is a nation which by that Divine goodness so strongly appealed to in the paper to which I allude,* is enabled to falsify the asser-
* Augereau's proclamation to the Catalans.
tion? Is it not important at such a moment, that Europe and America should be convinced, that, from whatever countries honorable and manly resistance to such a spirit may have been banished, it will still be found in the sovereign of the British nation and in the hearts of his subjects?
As to the precautions taken in England to insure from injury upon this occasion the citizens of the United States, and which appear to you to be even yet insufficient, I am confident that in every doubtful case the usual liberality of our tribunals will be exercised in determining upon the circumstances of it; and it was at Mr. Pinkney's express requisition, that additional instructions were given to the commanders of His Majesty's ships of war and privateers to extend to vessels trading to the colonies, plantations and settlements of Holland, the same exemption from capture and molestation, as was granted to vessels sailing for any of the ports of Holland.
On the subject of return cargoes from those ports, I must observe, that although it was intended to present as far as was practicable the inconveniences likely to be created by the unauthorised agreement made here in April last, yet it was not and could not be intended to obviate all possible inconveniences, even such as might have arisen if no such agreement had ever been made.
If an American vessel had sailed from America for Holland in time of profound peace, or in time of war, the ports of Holland or being at the date of sailing under blockade, it might yet have happened that, in the period between the commencement of such voyage and the arrival of the vessel at the port of destination, a blockade might have been established before that port. The vessel arriving would, in that case, have been warned not to enter the port, and would have been turned away with the loss of the whole object of the voyage. This would be no extraordinary hardship, and would afford no legitimate ground of complaint.
The order in Council is far less strict than such a blockade would be, for as much as it provides for the original voyage, commenced in expectation of being admitted to the port of destination, by permitting the entry into the ports of Holland; and it is no just ground of complaint, that it does not superadd to that permission the liberty to re-export a cargo of the enemy's goods or produce.
I beg leave briefly to recapitulate the substance of what I have had the honor to convey to you as well in a verbal, as in written communications.
I have informed you of the reasons of His Majesty's disavowal of the agreement so often mentioned; I have shown them, in obedience to the authority which you have quoted, to be both strong and solid, and such as to outweigh, in the judgment of His Majesty's government, every other consideration which you have contemplated; I have shown that that agreement was not concluded in virtue of a full power, and that the instructions, given on the occasion, were violated.
Beyond this point of explanation which was supposed to have been attained, but which is now given, by the present letter, in the form understood to be most agreeable to the American government, my instructions are prospective; they look to substituting for notions of good understanding, erroneously entertained, practical stipulations on which a real reconciliation of all differences may be substantially founded; and they authorise me, not to renew proposals which have already been declared here to be unacceptable, but to receive and discuss any proposal made on the part of the United States, and eventually to conclude a convention between the two countries. It is not, of course, intended to call upon me to state as a preliminary to negotiation, what is the whole extent of those instructions; they must, as I have before said, remain subject to my own discretion, until I am enabled to apply them to the overtures, which I may have the honor of receiving from you.
I have the honor to be, With great respect, Sir, Your most obedient humble serv't F. J. JACKSON.
The hon. Robert Smith, Esq. &c. &c.
Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith. Washington, 27th October, 1809.
Sir,
Finding by your letter of the 19th inst. that, notwithstanding the frequent statements made by me in our conferences of the terms of settlement which I am empowered to offer to this country for the unauthorised attack made by one of His Majesty's ships of war upon the Frigate of the United States, the Chesapeake, I have not had the good for it to make myself distinctly understood by you, I have the honor to inclose herewith a paper of memoranda containing the conditions on the basis of which I am ready to proceed to draw up with you the necessary official documents in the form proposed in my letter of the 11th inst. or in any other form upon which we may hereafter agree.
I have the honor to be, with great Respect,
Sir,
Your most obedient Humble Serv't F. J. JACKSON. The hon. Robert Smith, Esq. &c. &c.
The President's Proclamation of July 1807, prohibiting to British ships of war the entrance into the Harbors of the U. States having been annulled, His Majesty is willing to restore the Seamen taken out of the Chesapeake on reserving to himself a right to claim in a regular way, by application to the American Government, the discharge of such of them (if any) as shall be proved to be either natural-born subjects of His Majesty, or deserters from His Majesty's service.
His Majesty is willing to make a provision for the families of such men as were taken on board the Chesapeake, in consequence of the unauthorised attack upon her, provided that such bounty shall not be extended to the family of any man who shall have been since a natural-born subject of His Majesty, or a deserter from His Majesty's service.
Mr. Smith to Mr. Jackson. Department of State, Nov. 1, 1809.
Sir,
Your letter of the 23d inst. which was duly received would have been sooner acknowledged, had I not by sickness been rendered for several days utterly unfit for business.
Although the delay and the apparent reluctance in specifying the grounds of the disavowal of the arrangement with respect to the order in Council, do not correspond with the course of proceeding occasioned by becoming the occasion; yet as the explanation has at length been made, it only remains, as to that part of the disavowed arrangement, to regard such considerations should have been allowed to outweigh the solid conditions to the disavowal; it being understood at the same time that His Britannic Majesty perseveres in requiring as indispensable conditions on the part of the United States, an entire relinquishment of the right to trade with enemies' colonies, and also permission to the British navy to aid in executing a law of Congress; pretensions, which cannot but render abortive all proposals whatever upon this subject, whether made by the United States or by his Britannic Majesty.
Whilst you have deemed it proper to offer an explanation with respect to the disavowal of one part of the arrangement, I must remind you that there is not to be found in your letter any like specification of the reasons for the disavowal, nor particularly is it shown that instructions were violated, as to the other part, viz. the case of the Chesapeake; the case in which in an especial manner an explanation was required, & in which only you professed to have authority to make to this government any overtures.
For the first time it is now disclosed that the subjects, arranged with this government by your predecessor, are held not to be within the authority of a Minister Plenipotentiary, and that, not having had a "full power distinct from that authority, his transactions on those subjects might of right be disavowed by his government." This disclosure, so contrary to every antecedent supposition and just inference, gives a new aspect to this business. The authority of your predecessor did not embrace the subjects in question, so as to bind his government, it necessarily follows, that the only credentials yet presented by you being with those presented by him, you have no authority to bind this

exhibition of a "full power" for that purpose, such as you doubtless are furnished with, is become an indispensable preliminary to further negotiation; or, to speak more strictly, was required in the first instance by the view of the matter now disclosed by you. Negotiation without this preliminary would not only be a departure from the principle of equality which is the essential basis of it, but would moreover be a disregard of the precautions and of the self-respect enjoined on the attention of the United States by the circumstances which have hitherto taken place.
I need scarcely add, that in the full power alluded to, as a preliminary to negotiation, is not intended to be included either the whole extent or any part of your instructions for the exercise of it. These of course, as you have justly remarked, remain subject to your own discretion.
I abstain, sir, from making any particular animadversions on several irrelevant and improper allusions in your letter, not at all comporting with the professed disposition to adjust in an amicable manner the differences unhappily subsisting between the two countries. But it would be improper to conclude the few observations to which I purposely limit myself, without adverting to your repetition of a language implying a knowledge on the part of this government that the instructions of your predecessor did not authorise the arrangement formed by him. After the explicit and peremptory asseveration that this government had no such knowledge, and that with such a knowledge no such arrangement would have been entered into, the view, which you have again presented of the subject, makes it my duty to apprise you, that such insinuations are inadmissible in the intercourse of a foreign minister with a government that understands what it owes to itself.
I have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) R. SMITH. The hon. F. J. Jackson, &c. &c.
MR. JACKSON TO MR. SMITH, Sir, Washington, 4th Nov. 1809. When I forwarded to you my court your letter of the 19th ultimo, and the answer which I returned to it, I imagined, and I may add, I hoped, that the retrospective correspondence, into which you thought it necessary to enter with me had been closed. You will, no doubt, recollect with what reluctance I acquiesced in your intimation on this head; not, as I believe has been seen, from any difficulty in maintaining the justice of the cause which is entrusted to me, but because I was and still am of opinion, that this sort of correspondence is not calculated to remove differences and soothe irritations of the most unfortunate tendency. As, however, I had no choice but to renounce, for the present, the hope of effectuating this desirable object, or to pursue it in the manner prescribed in your letter of the 9th ultimo, so I am now unwillingly compelled to enter upon the consideration of another letter from you under date of the 1st instant, which but too strongly confirms the opinion I before entertained.
Since, sir, it has been judged expedient to confine to a written form this important and interesting discussion; since that mode has been declared by you to be indispensable, I will first appeal to the written communications which have passed between us; and I do this with the greater satisfaction, because I consider it to be the chief cause of the present remarkable state of things, that in speaking of engagements contracted or supposed to have been contracted between the two countries, understandings or implied engagements have been allowed to take place of written compacts, and have been considered, in some instances, as having the same validity. It is furthermore necessary to place in the most unequivocal light a topic, which I observe to be constantly and prominently restated in your letters, notwithstanding the repeated, but, as it should seem, fruitless endeavors used in mine, to clear it from the slightest shadow of obscurity.
You say "that it is understood that his Britannic Majesty perseveres in requiring as indispensable conditions on the part of the United States, an entire relinquishment of the right to trade with the enemies colonies, and also a permission to the British navy to aid in executing a law of Congress."
This same statement is contained in your letter of the 9th inst. and represented as the substance of what had fallen from me in our previous conferences. In my answer to that letter, I took the liberty of shewing that such a supposition was erroneous, and I have looked in vain to my letter of the 23d, to find in it any suggestion of a tenor. I believe, therefore, that by reference to my two letters you will find, that the statement now
again brought forward is contained in neither of them, that it made no part of my previous conversations with you, and that I have in no way given room to suppose, that I ever made any such statement at all.
That before the orders in council can be revoked, their object must be obtained in some other way, is unquestionably true; but you may be assured, sir, that there is no wish whatever entertained in England, that the British navy should be employed in executing a law of Congress. If the proposal that was made upon that subject, and made, as you now know, because it was believed to be acceptable here, had been adopted, and had become a matter of compact between the two countries, and thereby a part, not of the law of Congress, but of the public law binding upon both parties, and which both would have had a common interest in seeing duly executed; in that case the agency of the British navy would not have had the invidious aspect, which is now attempted to be given to it. At present there is no engagement between the two countries, no laws of Congress, which bear a reference to any such engagement, and consequently it cannot be wished to take any share whatever in the execution of those laws.
In regard to the colonial trade I need only observe, that all or nearly all the enemies colonies are blockaded by British squadrons, it cannot therefore be so much an object of solicitude, as you imagine, to obtain the relinquishment of the trade of any country to those colonies. On the contrary you will find it stated in my letter of the 11th ultimo, to be a "matter of indifference whether the order is "council" (on this subject) "be continued, or an arrangement by mutual consent substituted in its room."
When I informed you that the agreement concluded here in April last, had been framed in deviation from the instructions given for the occasion, my explanation was intended to apply to both parts of that agreement. That nothing, required by the most scrupulous accuracy, may be wanting, I now add, that the deviation consisted in not recording in the official document signed here, the abrogation of the President's Proclamation of the 2d July, 1807, as well as the two reserves specified in the paper of Memoranda enclosed in my official letter to you of the 27th ultimo.
There is another motive for the disavowal of this part of the arrangement, considered to be so strong and so self-evident upon the very face of the transaction, that I am not commanded to do more than indicate it in the manner I have already done. By this forbearance his Majesty conceives that he is giving an additional pledge of his sincere disposition to maintain a good understanding, with the United States.
I am somewhat at a loss to give a distinct reply to that part of your letter which relates to Mr. Erskine's authority to conclude with you in virtue of his general letter of credence, because I do not very distinctly understand the tendency of it. I never before heard it doubted that a full power was requisite to enable a minister to conclude a treaty, or that a mere general letter of credence was insufficient for that purpose.
If it were otherwise, and a government were in all cases to be bound by the act, however unauthorized, of an accredited Minister, there would be no safety in the appointment of such a Minister, and ratifications would be useless. No full power was given in the present case, because it was not a treaty, but the materials for forming a treaty, that was in contemplation.
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 distinct and official recognition of the three abovementioned conditions, his Majesty will lose 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 instructions, and had the agreement concluded here been conformable to them, it would without doubt have been ratified by his Majesty. I must beg your very particular attention to the circumstance that his Majesty's ratification has been withheld, not because the agreement was concluded without a full power, but because it was altogether irreconcilable to the instructions on which it was professedly founded. The question of the full power was introduced by yourself to give weight, by a quotation from a highly respected author, to your complaint of the disavowal, in answer to which I observed that the quotation did not apply, as Mr. Erskine had no full power. Never did I imagine, or any where attempt, to test the right of dis-
avowal upon that circumstance: undoubtedly his agreement would, nevertheless, have been ratified, had not the instructions, which in this case took the place of a full power, been violated.
I am surprized at the transition by which it appears to you that this part of the subject is connected with the authority empowering me to negotiate with you. It will not, I dare say, have escaped your recollection that I informed you at a very early period of our communications, that in addition to the usual credential letter, his Majesty had been pleased to invest me with a full power under the great seal of his kingdom, for the express purpose of concluding a treaty or convention. I well remember your testifying your satisfaction at the circumstance; and I have only now to add that I am ready, whenever it suits your convenience, to exchange my full power against that with which you shall be provided, for the progress of our negotiation.
I am concerned, sir, to be obliged a second time to appeal to those principles of public law under the sanction and protection of which I was sent to this country. Where there is not freedom of communication in the form substituted for the more usual one of verbal discussion, there can be little useful intercourse between Ministers; and one, at least, of the epithets which you have thought proper to apply to my last letter is such as necessarily abridges that freedom. That any thing therein contained may be irrelevant to the subject it is of course competent in you to endeavour to shew and as far as you succeed in so doing, in so far will my argument lose of its validity—but as to the propriety of my allusions, you must allow me to acknowledge only the decision of my own sovereign, whose commands I obey, and to whom alone I can consider myself responsible. Beyond this it suffices that I do not deviate from the respect due to the government to which I am accredited.
You will find that in my correspondence with you, I have carefully avoided drawing conclusions that did not necessarily follow from the premises advanced by me, and least of all should I think of uttering an insinuation, where I was unable to substantiate a fact. To facts, such as I have become acquainted with them, I have scrupulously adhered, and in so doing I must continue, whenever the good faith of his majesty's government is called in question, to vindicate its honor and dignity in the manner that appears to me best calculated for that purpose.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir, Your most obedient, Humble Servant, F. J. JACKSON. The honorable R. Smith, &c. &c. &c.
MR. SMITH TO MR. JACKSON. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, November 8, 1809. Sir,
In my letter of the 19th ult. I stated to you that the declaration in your letter of the 11th, that the despatch "from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d January, was the only despatch by which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine, for the conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which it related, was then for the first time made to this government." And it was added, 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 were the only ones on which he was authorised to make an arrangement, the arrangement would not have been made.
In my letter of the 1st instant, adverting to the repetition in your letter of the 23d ult. of a language implying a knowledge in this government that the instructions of your predecessor did not authorise the arrangement formed by him, an intimation was distinctly given to you, that after the explicit and peremptory asseveration that this government had not any such knowledge, and that with such a knowledge, such an arrangement would not have been made, no such insinuation could be admitted by this government.
Finding that in your reply of the 4th instant, you have used a language which cannot be understood but as reiterating and even aggravating the same gross insinuation, it only remains, in order to preclude opportunities which are thus abused, to inform you that no further communications will be received from you, and that the necessity of this determination will, without delay, be made known to your government. In the mean time a ready attention will be given to any communications affecting the interests of the two nations,
through any other channel that may be substituted.
I have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) R. SMITH. The Honorable Francis James Jackson, &c. &c. &c.
Mr. Oakeley, his Majesty's Secretary of Legation, is desired by Mr. Jackson to state to the Secretary of State that, as Mr. Jackson has been already once most grossly insulted by the inhabitants of the town of Hampton in the unprovoked language of abuse held by them to several officers bearing the King's uniform, when those officers were themselves violently assaulted and put in imminent danger; he conceives it to be indispensable to the safety of himself, of the gentlemen attached to his mission, and of his family, during the remainder of their stay in the United States, to be provided with special passports or safeguards from the American government. This is the more necessary since some of the newspapers of the United States are daily using a language whose only tendency can be to excite the people to commit violence upon Mr. Jackson's person. In consequence he requests that the undermentioned names may be inserted in the document to be furnished him.
Francis James Jackson, Mrs. Jackson, Their three Children, Charles Oakley, Esq. His Majesty's Secretary of Legation, Mr. George Ottey, Private Secretary.
SERVANTS. Robert Clavering, Francis Martin, William Attrée, Charles Beecroft, Richard Lowe, John Price, John Lilly, James Wright, Amelia George, Mary Smith, Harriet Patten, Martha Wood, Frances Blacknell.
[Received at the Department of State on the 11th Nov. 1809.]
Mr. Oakeley is desired by Mr. Jackson to say to the Secretary of State:
That Mr. Jackson has seen with much regret that facts, which it has been his duty to state in his official correspondence, have been deemed by the American government to afford a sufficient motive for breaking off an important negotiation and for putting an end to all communication whatever with the Minister charged by his Sovereign with that negotiation so interesting to both nations, & on one point of which an answer has not even been returned to an official and written overture.
One of the facts alluded to has been admitted by the Secretary of State himself in his letter of the 19th Oct. viz. that the three conditions forming the substance of Mr. Erskine's original instruction were submitted to him by that gentleman. The other, viz. that that instruction is the only one in which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which it related, is known to Mr. Jackson by the instructions which he has himself received.
In stating these facts and in adhering to them, as his duty imperiously enjoined him to do, Mr. Jackson could not imagine that offence would be taken at it by the American government, as most certainly none could be intended on his part; but since he has been informed by the Secretary of State that no farther communications will be received from him, he conceives that he has no alternative that is consistent with what is due to the King's dignity, but to withdraw altogether from the seat of the American government, and await the arrival of his majesty's commands upon the unlooked for turn which has thus been given to his affairs in this country.
Mr. Jackson means to make New-York the place of his residence. WASHINGTON, 13th November, 1809.
MR. SMITH TO MR. PINKNEY. Department of State, November 23, 1809. Sir,
My letters in the correspondence with Mr. Jackson, already transmitted to you, sufficiently evince the disappointment that was felt, on finding that he had not been charged to make to this government either the frank explanations or the liberal propositions, which the occasion manifestly required. Instead of this obvious course of proceeding, it was in the outset perceived, that his object was to bring us to resume the subjects of the arrangement of April in a way, that would imply that we were aware that the arrangement was not binding on his government, because made with a
knowledge on our part that Mr. Erskine had no authority to make it, and thus to convert the responsibility of his government for the disavowal into a reproach on this for its conduct in the transaction disavowed. In the first instance it was deemed best rather to repel his observations argumentatively than to meet them as an offensive insinuation. This forbearance had not the expected effect of restraining him from a repetition of the offence. And even on his further insinuations nothing more was done than to admonish him of the inadmissibility of so indecorous a course of proceeding. This also being without effect, nothing remained but the step finally taken. And there was the less hesitation in shutting the door to further opportunities for insulting insinuations, as the disclosures he had made and the spirit of his discussions had so entirely shut it to the hope of any favorable result from his mission.
I will not dwell on his reluctance to give up the uncertainties of verbal for the precision of written discussion; nor on the manner or the time of his denial that he had given any room at all for a statement, which, in order to guard against the misconceptions incident to verbal conferences, I had placed before him in writing, with a request that he would point out any inaccuracies, & to which he did not then object otherwise than by intimating, that he could not have made the statement with the particular view which seemed to be supposed. Nor will I dwell on the various instances in which partial or inconsistent views of the subject have taken place of its real merits. But it may not be amiss to make some observations on the correspondence, as it relates to the justification of his government in having disavowed the act of his predecessor.
With respect to the Orders in Council, the ground of the disavowal is the difference between the arrangement and the printed dispatch of Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d January. According to this dispatch then the arrangement failed in three points.
1st. In not relinquishing the trade of the United States with enemies colonies.
With respect to this point it is not necessary at this time to discuss the right of that trade. It is sufficient to remark, 1st. that as the trade is admitted to have become, in the view of Great Britain, of little practical importance, why has it been made a ground of the disavowal, and, especially, as important considerations only could upon principles of public law have justified a measure of so serious a character? 2d. that as the colonial trade is a subject no wise connected either with the Orders in Council or with the affair of the Chesapeake, why has it been permitted to frustrate an arrangement relating to those subjects; and to those only? 3rd, that as this condition is allowed to have originated in a supposition, that it would be agreeable to the American government, why has it been persisted in after the error was made known by the representation of Mr. Erskine to his government, that neither this nor the other conditions of the despatch of the 23d January were attainable here?
2d. Another point in the despatch, & not in the arrangement, is, that the British Navy might capture our trade to ports prohibited by the United States.
This condition too appears to have had its origin in a mistake of your meaning in a conversation with Mr. Canning, as noted by yourself, and in an inference thence deduced as to the disposition of this government. But this double mistake must have been brought to light in time to have been corrected in the new mission. In urging it Mr. Canning has taken a ground, forbidden by those principles of decorum, which regulate and mark the proceedings of governments towards each other. In his despatch the condition is stated to be for the purpose of securing the bona fide intention of America to prevent her Citizens from trading with France and certain other powers. In other words, to secure a pledge to that effect against the mala fide intention of the United States. And this despatch too was authorised to be communicated in extenso to the government of which such language was used. Might it not have been reasonably expected that such a condition and such observations would at least on such an occasion have been given up by a government willing to smooth the way to an amicable settlement of existing differences?
In his zeal to vindicate his government Mr. Jackson too has attempted a gloss on this most extraordinary idea of calling on a foreign sovereignty, not indeed to make laws for us, but, what is equivalent in principle, to supply a supposed inability to execute them. He calls such an interposition of his government, not an execution of the law of Congress, but of a compact binding as a public law on both

parties, and which both would have a common interest in seeing duly executed. On his own principles there ought to be a reciprocity, not only in the execution of the compact, but in the obligation and interest resulting from it. Besides where there is a reciprocity in compacts between nations touching attributes of sovereignty there is always as much of sovereignty gained as is parted with, so that there be no loss nor indignity on either side.
3. The remaining point in the despatch, not secured by the arrangement, is that which required that whilst our prohibitory laws should be repealed as to Great Britain, they should be left in force as to France and the powers adopting or acting under her decrees.
This is the condition which alone properly belongs to the subject, and it is to be remarked in the first place that the British project, of which this condition makes a part, contemplated two things in their nature incompatible; one, a repeal of the prohibitory acts as to Great Britain, without waiting for the conclusion of a regular treaty, the other, a pledge or engagement for their continuance as to the other powers. Now, from the nature of our constitution, which, in this particular, ought to have been attended to by the British government, it is manifest that the Executive authority could have given no such pledge, that the continuance of the prohibitory acts being a subject of Legislative consideration, could not have been provided for until the meeting of the Legislature, and that the condition could not therefore but have failed, either in the immediate renewal of commerce with Great Britain, or in the immediate engagement that it should not be renewed with France. The British government ought to have acquired in, and, indeed, ought to have been satisfied with the attainment of the important object of an immediate repeal of our prohibitory laws and with the consideration, that the other object, not immediately attainable, was unnecessary at the time, because the prohibition as to France was then in force, and because there was every reason to infer not only from this fact, but from the spirit of the communications made from time to time and from the overtures before submitted to the British government that, without a repeal of the French decrees, our prohibitory laws would be continued in force against France, & especially in the case of a repeal of the British orders, which would necessarily render a continuance of the French decrees doubly obnoxious.
But if on this head doubts could have been entertained, instead of rejecting the arrangement, ought not the repealing act on our part to have been met with a suspension at least of the orders in Council, until it could have been seen whether the non-intercourse law would or would not have been continued against France. Such a suspension could not have given, in any point of view, more advantage to the United States, than was given to Great Britain by the repeal, which had taken place on their part.
If this reasonable course could not have been substituted for the disavowal, why was not a final disavowal suspended with a proposition, that the arrangement would be executed by Great Britain, in the event of a compliance on the part of the United States with the condition required as to France?
I am not unaware, you may be told, that the non-intercourse law of the United States did not extend to Holland, though so intimately connected with France, and so subservient to her decrees against neutral commerce.
It would not be improper on this occasion to observe that this objection can be the less urged by Great Britain, as she has herself never in her alleged retaliations adhered to the principle on which they were founded.
Thus she has from the date of them, until very lately, directed them against the American trade even to Russia, although Russia had never adopted the French decrees, nor otherwise violated our neutral trade with Great Britain. So, in her order of April last, she has discriminated, not only between the countries devoted to France by the ties of blood, and other powers, but between Holland, Westphalia and Naples in enforcing her prohibitory order against the first and not against the two last. Whilst, therefore, she adds it expedient to make these distinctions, she ought to presume, that we too may perceive equal propriety in the distinctions we have made.
But it may be of more importance here to compare the British order in Council of April last, with the arrangement of April, made by Mr. Erskine. It will thence be seen how little is the real difference, and how trivial it is when compared to the extensive and serious consequences of the disavowal.
Under the order in Council of April all the ports of Europe, except France, including the kingdom of Italy and Holland with their dependencies, are opened to our commerce.
Under the arrangement of April, combined with our act of non-intercourse, all the ports of Europe, except France and her dependencies, including the kingdom of Italy, would have been opened to our commerce.
The difference then is reduced merely to Holland, and that again is reduced to the difference between a direct trade to the ports of Holland, and an indirect trade to Holland, thro' the neighboring ports of Tonnigen, Hamburg, Bremen and Emden.
Now, as the injuring of the enemies of Great Britain is the only avowed object of her interdicting order against our trade, let a computation be made of the effect, which this difference between the order in Council and the arrangement could possibly have in producing such an injury. And then let the question be candidly answered, whether, laying aside all considerations of right and justice, sufficient inducements could have been found in that result for rejecting the arrangement, and for producing the consequent embarrassments, as well to Great Britain, as to the U. States.
If it be necessary, as Mr. Jackson has stated, to set bounds to a spirit of encroachment and universal dominion, which would bind all things to its own standard, and to falsify by honorable and manly resistance an announcement that all Europe is submitting by decrees, the effort must be feeble, indeed, which is to be found in the inconvenience accruing to the formidable foe from the operation of this order in Council, and especially when we combine with it the strange phenomenon of substituting for the lawful trade of the United States, a trade of British subjects, contrary to the laws of the adverse party, and amounting, without a special licence, in the eye of British law, to high treason.
Thus much for the orders in Council. What has taken place with respect to the case of the Chesapeake will equally engage your attention.
You will perceive, that throughout the early stages of the correspondence this case was in some respects improperly confounded with, in others improperly separated from that of the orders in Council; and particularly that pains had been taken by Mr. Jackson to substitute verbal and vague observations on the disavowal of this part of the arrangement for an explicit and formal explanation, such as was obviously due. It will be seen also that when finally brought to the point, he referred for a justification of the disavowal to the departure of Mr. Erskine from his instructions without showing what those instructions were, and to allusions to an expression in the arrangement without giving to his meaning the distinctness pre-requisite to a just reply.
It appears, however, that he lays great stress on the proposal enclosed in his letter of the 27th October, as at once indicating the departure of Mr. Erskine from his instructions, and as containing the conditions on the basis of which he was ready to enter on an adjustment. And from a note from the Secretary of the British Legation, it appears that he has complained of not having received an answer to this proposal, as he had before complained that no answer had been given to his verbal disclosures on this head in his interviews with me.
With respect to his intimations in conversation, as they were preceded by no proper assignment of the reasons for not having executed the original adjustment, it cannot be necessary to remark that no such notice, as he wished to obtain, could with any sort of propriety have been taken of them.
With respect to his written project, it will suffice to remark:
1st. That, besides his reluctant and indistinct explanation of the disavowal of the original adjustment, he did not present his proposal, until he had made such progress in his offensive insinuation as made it proper to wait the issue of the reply about to be given to it, and that this issue had necessarily put a stop to further communications.
2dly. That although he had given us to understand that the ordinary credentials, such alone as he had delivered, could not bind his government in such a case, his proposal had neither been preceded by nor accompanied with the exhibition of other commission or full power: Nor, indeed, has he ever given sufficient reason to suppose that he had any such full power to exhibit in relation to this particular case. It is true, that in his letter of the 23d October, he has stated an authority eventually to conclude a Convention between the two countries. Without adhering to the ambiguity of the term eventually with the mark of emphasis attached to it, & to other uncertainties in the phraseology, it is clear that the
authority referred to, whatever it may be, is derived from instructions subject to his own discretion, and not from a patent commission, such as might be properly called for. It is true also that in his letter of the 4th of November subsequent to his proposal, he says he was possessed of a full power in due form for the express purpose of concluding a treaty or convention.
But it still remains uncertain, whether by the treaty or convention to which it related, was not meant an eventual or provisional treaty on the general relations between the two countries without any reference to the case of the Chesapeake. Certain it is that the British government in former like cases, as will be seen by the adjustment of that part of the affair at Nootka Sound, which is analogous to this case, did not consider any such distinct full power as necessary; nor is there the slightest ground for supposing that Mr. Erskine, although confessedly instructed to adjust this very case of the Chesapeake, was furnished with any authority distinct from his credential letter. That Mr. Jackson has any such commission is the less to be supposed, as it is but barely possible, that possessing it he should not on some occasion or in some form have used a language susceptible of no possible doubt on this point.
But proceeding to the proposal itself, it is to be kept in mind that the conditions forming its basis, are the very conditions for the deviating from which Mr. Erskine's adjustment was disavowed. Mr. Jackson, if not on others, is on this point explicit. "I now add, says he, that the deviation consisted in not recording in the official document signed here the abrogation of the President's proclamation of the 2d July, 1807, as well as the two reserves specified in the paper of memoranda enclosed in my official letter to you of the 27th ult."
Considering then the conditions in the proposal as an ultimatum, in what light are we compelled to view such an attempt to repair the outrage committed on the frigate Chesapeake and to heal the disappointment produced by a disavowal of a previous equitable reparation?
It is impossible on such an occasion not to recall the circumstances which constituted the character of the outrage to which such an ultimatum is now applied. A national ship, proceeding on an important service, was watched by a superior naval force enjoying at the time the hospitality of our ports, was followed & scarcely out of our waters when she was, after an insulting summons, attacked in a hostile manner; and the ship so injured as to require expensive repairs, the expedition frustrated, a number of the crew killed and wounded, several carried into captivity, and one of them put to death under a military sentence. The three seamen, tho' American citizens, and therefore on every supposition detained as wrongfully as the ship would have been detained, have notwithstanding remained in captivity between two and three years; and, it may be added, after it has long ceased to be denied that they are American citizens.
Under these circumstances we are called upon to ransom the captives,
1st. By acknowledging that a precautionary proclamation, justified by events preceding the outrage, by the outrage itself and by what immediately followed it, was unjustifiable, & that a repeal of it was properly a condition precedent to a reparation for the outrage. And this requisition is repeated, too, after such an acknowledgment had been uniformly asserted by this government to be utterly inadmissible, and what is particularly remarkable, at a time when the proclamation, as is well understood, was no longer in force. The occasion obviously invited a silent assumption of the existing fact, and this would have excluded the difficulty heretofore found to be insuperable.
2d. By throwing into complete oblivion the conduct of the officer answerable for the murderous transaction, with a knowledge too on our part, that instead of being punished or even brought to trial, he has been honored by his government with a new and more important command.
3d. By admitting a right on the part of Great Britain to claim a discharge from our service of deserters generally, and particularly of her natural born subjects, without excepting such as had been naturalized in due form under the laws of the United States.
It has not been explained, whether it was meant, as the universality of the term "deserters" would import, to include American citizens who might have left the British service. But what possible consideration could have induced the British government to expect that the United States could admit a principle, that would deprive our naturalized citizens of the legal privileges, which they hold in common with their native fellow-citizens.
The British government ought not to have made such a proposition; because it not only, like others, naturalizes aliens; but in relation to the United States has even refused to discharge from the British service native citizens of the United States, involuntarily detained. If an American seaman has resided in Great Britain, or has married therein, or has accepted a bounty in her naval service, his discharge therefrom, on the regular application to the British government, has been invariably refused by its board of admiralty. This I state on the authority of the official reports made to this department. It is, therefore, truly astonishing, that a knowledge of these facts, such a pretension should have been advanced at all, but above all, that it should have been made a sine qua non to an act of plain justice, already so long delayed. This is the more to be regretted, as the omen does not favor the belief we would willingly cherish, that no predetermination exists in the councils of His Britannic Majesty irreconcilable to an amicable arrangement of an affair, which, affecting so deeply the honor of the United States, must precede a general regulation of the mutual interests of the two countries.
After the correspondence with Mr. Jackson was terminated, two notes, of which copies are herewith sent to you, were presented to me in the name and by the hand of Mr. Oakeley, the British Secretary of Legation.
The first requested a document, having the effect of a special passport or safe-guard to Mr. Jackson and his family during their stay in the United States. As the laws of this country allow an unobstructed passage through every part of it, and, with the law of nations, equally in force, protect public ministers and their families in all their privileges, such an application was regarded as somewhat singular. There was no hesitation, however, in furnishing a certificate of his public character, and to be used in any mode he might chuse. But what surprised most was the reasons assigned for the application. The insult he alluded to was then, for the first time, brought to the knowledge of this government. It had, indeed, been among the rumors of the day, that some unbecoming scene had taken place at Norfolk or Hampton between some officers belonging to the Africaine and some of the inhabitants, and that it originated in the indiscretion of the former. No attention having been called for, and no enquiries made, the truth of the case is unknown. But it was never supposed that Mr. Jackson himself, who was on board the frigate, had been personally insulted. Nor is it yet perceived in what way he considers it as having happened. It is needless to remark that any representation on the subject would have instantly received every proper attention.
Another ground on which a protection was asked for, is the supposed tendency of the language of our newspapers to excite popular violence on Mr. Jackson's person. Had he been longer and better acquainted with the habits and spirit of the American people, he would probably never have entertained an apprehension of that sort. If he meant to advert on the free language of the newspapers, he might justly be reminded that our laws, as those of his country, set bounds to that freedom: that the freedom of British prints, however great with respect to public characters of the United States, has never been a topic of complaint, and that supposing the latitude of the American Press to exceed that of Great Britain, the difference is infinitely less in this respect between the two, than between the British press and that of the other nations of Europe.
The second note seems to be essentially intended as a justification of the conduct of Mr. Jackson in that part of his correspondence which has given umbrage. If he intended it as a conciliatory advance, he ought not to have preceded it by a demand of passports, nor by the spirit or the manner in which that demand was made. He ought, in fact, if such was his object, to have substituted an explanation in the place of his reply to my premonitory letter. But whether he had one or other, or both of these objects in view, it was necessary for him to have done more than is attempted in this paper.
It was never objected to him that he had stated it as a fact that the three propositions in question had been submitted to me by Mr. Erskine, nor that he stated it, as made known to him by the instructions of Mr. Canning that the instruction to Mr. Erskine containing these three conditions was the only one from which his authority was derived to conclude an arrangement in the matter to which it related. The objection was that a knowledge of this restriction of the authority of Mr. Erskine was imputed to this government, and the rejection of the imputation
even after it had been peremptorily disclaimed. This was so true an attack on the honor and veracity of the government, as to forbid all further communications from him. Care was, nevertheless, taken at the same time to leave the door open for such as might be made through any other channel, however little the probability that any satisfactory communications would be received through any channel here.
To the other enclosures I add a printed copy of a paper purporting to be a circular letter from Mr. Jackson to the British consuls in the United States. This paper speaks for itself. As its contents entirely correspond with the paper last referred to, as easy were unnecessary for the essential object of the letter, which was to make known Mr. Jackson's change of residence, and as the paper was at once put into circulation, it can only be regarded as a virtual address to the American people of a representation previously addressed to their government—a procedure which cannot fail to be seen in its true light by his sovereign.
The observations, to which so much extent has been given in this letter, with those contained in the correspondence with Mr. Jackson will make you fully acquainted with the conduct and the character he has developed, with the necessity of the step taken in refusing further communications from him, and with the grounds on which the President instructs you to request that he may be immediately recalled. You are particularly instructed at the same time in making these communications to do it in a manner that will leave no doubt of the undiminished desire of the U. States to unite in all the means the best calculated to establish the relations of the two countries on the solid foundation of justice, of friendship and of mutual interest.
With great respect, &c. R SMITH. Wm. Pinkney, Esq. &c. &c.
Mr. CANNING to Mr. PINKNEY. Foreign Office, May 27, 1809.
Sir, According to the intimation which I gave to you in our last conference, I have now the honor to inclose to you a copy of the Order in Council which his Majesty has directed to be issued for the purpose of preventing as far as possible any inconvenience or detriment to the Merchants of the United States, who may have entered into commercial engagements on the faith of the unauthorized engagements of Mr. Erskine previously to the notification in America of his Majesty's disavowal of those engagements.
Having had the honor to read to you in extenso the instructions with which Mr. Erskine was furnished, it is not necessary for me to enter into any explanation of those points in which Mr. Erskine has acted, not only not in conformity, but in direct contradiction to them.
I forbear equally from 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 consideration.
Such observations will be communicated more properly through the Minister, whom his Majesty has directed to proceed to America—nor on any special mission (which Mr. Erskine was not authorized to promise, except upon conditions not one of which he has obtained) but as the successor of Mr. Erskine whom his Majesty has not lost a moment in recalling.
I have the honor to be with great consideration,
Sir, Your most obedient, humble servant, (Signed) GEORGE CANNING.
[Here follows the Order in Council of May 24, 1809, as already given in the National Intelligencer.]
Mr. PINKNEY's answer. Great Cumberland Place, May 29, 1809.
Sir, I have received the communication which you did me the honor to address to me on the 27th instant, and will hasten to transmit it to the Secretary of State of the United States.
No instructions or information from my government concerning the transactions in America to which your communication alludes having yet reached me, I can only express my concern that the conciliatory arrangements concerted and concluded, as you have done me the honor to inform me, between the American Secretary of State and his Majesty's accredited Minister at Washington, acting in consequence, and professing to act in pursuance, of regular instructions from his Court, are not likely to have all that effect which was naturally to

have been expected from them. I have the honor to be, With great consideration, Sir, Your most obedient, Humble servant, WM. PINKNEY. The Right Honorable GEORGE CANNING, &c. &c. &c. BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, A PROCLAMATION.
WHEREAS in consequence of a communication from His Britannic Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, declaring that the British Orders in Council of January and November, 1807, would have been withdrawn on the tenth day of June last; and by virtue of authority given, in such event, by the eleventh section of the act of Congress entitled "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies and for other purposes," I, JAMES MADISON, President of the United States, did issue my Proclamation bearing date on the nineteenth of April last, declaring that the Orders in Council aforesaid would have been so withdrawn on the said tenth day of June, after which the trade suspended by certain acts of Congress might be renewed; and whereas it is now officially made known to me that the said Orders in Council have not been withdrawn agreeably to the communication and declaration aforesaid: I do hereby proclaim the same, and consequently that the trade renewable on the event of the said orders being withdrawn, is to be considered as under the operation of the several acts by which such trade was suspended.
Given under my hand & the Seal of the United States at the City of Washington the ninth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine, and of the Independence of the said United States the thirty-fourth. (Signed) JAMES MADISON. By the President, R. SMITH, Secretary of State. (CIRCULAR) TREASURY DEPARTMENT, August 9th, 1809. Sir,
You will herewith receive the copy of a Proclamation of the President of the U. States, announcing that certain British orders in Council were not withdrawn on the 10th day of June last, and consequently that the trade renewable, on the event of the said orders being withdrawn, is to be considered as under the operation of the several acts by which such trade was suspended.
The act "to amend and continue in force certain parts of the act entitled 'An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes,'" passed on the 28th day of June, is therefore in every respect applicable to Great Britain and her dependencies, as well as to France and her dependencies; any thing in my circular of 29th June last, to the contrary, notwithstanding.
It results that from the receipt of this, you must in every instance, except as hereinafter expressed, refuse clearances for British ports, requiring, as usual, bonds from all vessels bound to permitted ports, in the manner provided by the 3d section of the act aforesaid. But as many British vessels have or may come into the ports of the United States in consequence of the President's Proclamation of the 19th of April last, he directs that you will permit such British vessels to depart without giving bond, either in ballast, or with the cargo on board when notified of the enclosed Proclamation: it being however understood that this indulgence shall not be extended to any other vessels than such as are now in the ports of the United States, or such as may hereafter arrive, having sailed from a foreign port before information of the enclosed Proclamation shall have been received at such port.
The President also directs that, until a decision from Congress on that unexpired point shall have been obtained, or until otherwise instructed, seizures or prosecutions for supposed contraventions of either the abovenamed act or of the non-intercourse act of 1st March last, arising from acts which would, in conformity with his proclamation of the 19th April last have been considered as lawful, shall be suspended in the following cases, viz:
1. All vessels which have entered a British port since the 10th of June last, or which may hereafter enter such port, having sailed for the same,
before information of the enclosed proclamation had been received at the port of departure; so far as relates to any forfeiture or penalty which may accrue or have accrued by reason of their having thus entered a British port.
2. All vessels which have arrived, either from British ports or with British merchandise in the United States, subsequent to the 10th of June last; and also all vessels which may hereafter thus arrive, having sailed for the United States, before information of the enclosed proclamation shall have been received at the port of departure; so far as relates to any forfeiture or penalty accruing from having arrived or arriving in the United States, from British ports or with British merchandise.
3. All vessels now owned by citizens of the United States, and sailing under the American flag, which, being in a foreign port at the time when the enclosed proclamation will be made known at such port, shall with all due diligence depart therefrom, and return without delay to the United States; so far as relates to any forfeiture or penalty accruing from their arriving in the United States, from British ports, or with British merchandise.
In the abovenamed cases of vessels arriving in the United States, and which are for the present exempted from seizure, the vessels and cargoes may be admitted to entry.
The time when the enclosed proclamation shall have been known at the ports of departure respectively, must be ascertained by the best means in your power; and you may refer doubtful cases to this department.
Application may of course still be made in all cases for an absolute remission of the forfeitures & penalties in the manner provided for by law; the instruction herein given to abstain from prosecutions & seizures in the abovenamed cases, being only intended to prevent the expenses and inconvenience to which the parties concerned would otherwise be exposed.
I am respectfully, Sir, Your obedient servant, ALBERT GALLATIN. Gen. Armstrong to Mr. Smith, Secretary of State. Paris, 4th September, 1809. Sir,
The letter of which I send you a copy, was received during my absence and detained in Paris till my return. The note promised in it has not yet been received. Mr. Warden informs me, that the Council of Prizes has been ordered to suspend their proceedings with regard to our vessels.
I have the honor to be, sir, with high consideration, Your most obedient and Very humble servant, JOHN ARMSTRONG.
Count Champagne to Gen. Armstrong. Vienna, 8th August, 1809. TRANSLATION.
Sir, You have desired that one of the American vessels which are in the ports of France might be authorized to depart for the United States with your despatches. I have taken the orders of his Majesty on the subject of this demand, and his Majesty always disposed to facilitate your communications with your government, has permitted the departure of the vessel you shall designate. I inform the ministers of the marine and of the finances of this disposition, requesting them to ensure the execution of it so soon as you shall have made known to them the name of the vessel and the port from which she is to depart.
I have the honor, sir, to apprise you that I shall forthwith address to you a note by order of his Majesty on the actual situation of our relations with the United States. Please to profit by the departure of the vessel to make this known to the federal government, and permit me also to send by that conveyance some despatches to the Minister Plenipotentiary of his Majesty to the United States.
Accept, sir, the assurances, &c. &c. (Signed) CHAMPAGNY. His Excellency General Armstrong, &c. &c. &c.
Extract of a letter from Gen. Armstrong to Mr. Smith, Secretary of State. Paris, 16th September, 1809.
"I received on the 6th inst. on my return from Holland, two notes from Count Champagne, copies of which I have the honor to enclose. In one of these you will find an exposition of the principles which have governed, and which will continue to govern the conduct of his Majesty with regard to neutral commerce. To this, which was offered as a definitive answer to our propositions, I have believed that any reply, before I had received
the further instructions of the President, would have been premature."
"Mr. Lawrence arrived at L'Orient on the 9th and Mr. Haswell at Paris, with your despatch of the 12th August last, on the 13th inst. Immediately communicated to Count Champagne the President's proclamation interdicting anew all commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain, and gave such other explanations as the case appeared to require."
Extract of a letter from Count Champagne to General Armstrong, dated Altenburg, Aug. 22, 1809. TRANSLATION.
"I have the honor to address to you the subjoined note, which his Majesty has ordered me to send to you, and which I have announced in my last despatch. If France does not do at this time all that the United States of America can desire, your government will be able to see that neither prejudice nor animosity influences its conduct; that it is the effect of its attachment to principles which the Americans, more than any other people, are interested in supporting, and of the necessity of reprisals which circumstances impose. The Emperor will consider as an happy event that which shall enable him to contribute to the prosperity of America, in leaving to its commerce all the liberty and all the extension which can render it flourishing."
Official note from Count Champagne to Gen. Armstrong. TRANSLATION. Altenburg, Aug. 22, 1809. Sir,
His Majesty, the Emperor, apprised that you are to send a vessel to America, has ordered me to make known to you the invariable principles which have regulated and which will regulate his conduct on the great question of neutrals.
France admits the principle, that the flag covers the merchandise.
A merchant vessel, sailing with all the necessary papers (avec les expéditions) from its government, is a floating colony. To do violence to such a vessel, by visits, by searches, and by other acts of an arbitrary authority, is to violate the territory of a colony: this is, to infringe on the independence of its government. The seas do not belong to any nation: they are the common property of mankind, and the domain of all.
Enemy merchant vessels belonging to individuals ought to be respected: Individuals who do not fight ought not to be made prisoners of war. In all her conquests France has respected private property. The warehouses and the shops have remained with their proprietors. They have been free to dispose of their merchandise as they pleased, and at this moment a great number (couvois) of waggons, loaded principally with cotton, pass through the French armies, through Austria and Germany, on their way to such places as commerce has directed.
If France had adopted the usages of maritime war, all the merchandise of the continent of Europe would have been accumulated in France, and would have become a source of immense wealth. Such would have been, without doubt, the pretensions of the English, if they had had on the land that superiority which they have obtained at sea. We should have seen, as in the times of barbarism, the vanquished sold as slaves and their lands parcelled out. Mercantile avidity would have usurped every thing: and the return to barbarous usages would have been the work of the government of a nation that has improved the arts and civilization. That government is not ignorant of the injustice of its maritime code—but what signifies to it, what is just? It only considers what is useful to itself.
Such are the principles of the Emperor on the usages and the rights of maritime war. When France shall have acquired a marine proportioned to the extent of her coasts and her population, the Emperor will put more and more in practice these maxims, and will use his endeavors to render the adoption of them general.
The right, or rather the pretension of blockading by a Proclamation rivers and coasts is as monstrous (revoltante) as it is absurd. A right cannot be derived from the will or the caprice of one of the interested parties, but ought to be derived from the nature of things themselves. A place is not truly blockaded until it is invested by land and by sea: it is blockaded to prevent it from receiving the succours which might retard its surrender. It is only then, that the right of preventing neutral vessels from entering it, exists: for the place so attacked is in danger of being taken, and the dominion of it is doubtful, and contested by the master of the town and him who blockades or besieges it. Hence the right of preventing even neutrals from having access to it.
The sovereignty and the independence of the flag are like the sovereignty and independence of the territory, the property of all neutrals. A state may give itself to another, may destroy the act of its independence, may change its sovereign: but the rights of sovereignty are indivisible and unalienable; none can give up any part of them.
England has placed France in a state of blockade. The Emperor by his decree of Berlin, has declared the Britannic Isles in a state of blockade. The first measure kept neutral vessels at a distance from France, the second has interdicted to them England.
By her Orders in Council of the 11th November, 1807, England has laid a toll on neutral vessels, and has obliged them to pass through her ports before they should go to the places of their destination. By a decree of the 17th of December, of the same year, the Emperor has declared those vessels, whose flag shall have been violated, degraded, trodden under foot as no longer belonging to their nations, (dénationalisées.)
To screen itself from the acts of violence, with which this state of things threatened its commerce, America laid an embargo in her ports; and although France, who had done nothing more than resort to reprisals, saw her interests and the interests of her colonies wounded by this measure, nevertheless the Emperor applauded this generous determination of renouncing all commerce rather than acknowledge the dominion (domination) of the tyrants of the seas. The embargo has been raised, a system of exclusion has been substituted for it. The continental powers leagued against England make a common cause, they aim at the same object, they will reap the same advantages, they ought also to run the same risks. The ports of Holland, of the Elbe, of the Weser, of Italy, and of Spain, will not enjoy (jouiront) any advantage of which those of France may be deprived. They will both (les uns et les autres) be either open or shut at the same time to the commerce of which they may be the object.
Thus, sir, France acknowledges in principle the liberty of the commerce of neutrals and the independence of maritime powers. She has respected them until the moment when the maritime tyranny of England (which respected nothing) and the arbitrary acts of its government have forced her to measures of reprisal, which she has not adopted but with reluctance. Let England revoke her declarations of blockade against France; France will revoke her decree of blockade against England. Let England revoke her Orders in Council of the 11th November, 1807; the decree of Milan will fall of itself. The American commerce will then have regained all its liberty and it will be sure of finding favor and protection in the ports of France. But it is for the United States by their firmness to bring on these happy results. Can a nation that wishes to remain free and sovereign, even balance between some temporary interests, and the great interests of its independence and the maintenance of its honor, of its sovereignty, and of its dignity.
Please to accept, sir, the assurance of my high consideration. (Signed) CHAMPAGNY.
FOR SALE WILL be offered at Public Sale on Thursday the 21st December next, if fair, if not the next fair day, on the premises—the well improved Tract of LAND, now occupied by the Subscriber, 19 miles from Georgetown and the city of Washington, 9 from Montgomery Court House and 2 miles from Milford Mills on the Potomac, containing about 250 Acres, nearly one half of this Tract abounds in wood and the greatest proportion of the other half has lately been cleared and under good enclosures; the soil is equal to any land in the neighborhood, and is well adapted to the growth of corn, wheat, clover and on almost every part of it are never failing springs of excellent water. The improvements consist of a new and well finished frame dwelling-house 36 feet by 19, and an adjoining building 19 by 15, with other necessary buildings, and a young orchard of the best selected fruit. The subscriber, being desirous to remove from this part of the country will sell this valuable property for the moderate sum of three thousand two hundred dollars, one-half the purchase money to be paid in hand, when an unquestionable title will be given on securing the payment of the balance. Any persons that may be disposed to purchase are invited to view the situation previous to the day of sale. Also for sale on reasonable terms 2000 acres of excellent land in Allegany county, which can be seen on a few days notice being given to the subscriber. Montgomery C. H. Md. Dec. 1, 1808.—5t. JOHN ORME.
STRAYED OR STOLEN FROM the Commons of the City, on Monday night last, a mouse-colored HORSE, between 15 or 16 hands high, with a film on his left eye; he had but three shoes on and was hopped on the evening he was missed. Underneath his neck was a narrow white stripe occasioned by the rubbing of the collar. Two dollars reward will be given for him if taken within the district, and five if out of it, to any person who will return him to PATRICK DONAHO, Near the Hotel. Nov. 24—3t.
RUNAWAYS. WAS committed to the jail of Washington county in the district of Columbia, the following runaways, viz. on the 20th inst. a black man who calls himself BEN TAYLOR, and says he belongs to Benjamin Dawson of Loudoun county, Virginia, and says he was hired to Wm. Wright of Westmore and county Virginia, says he is 52 years of age; he is 5 feet 6 inches high, had on when committed a straw hat, drab great coat much worn, an old brown roundabout, home made vest, cotton shirt, blue cloth trousers, old shoes and stockings. Negro JOHN on 24th inst. who says he belongs to Captain John Harrison of Anne Arundel county, Maryland; says he is 13 years of age; he is 6 feet 2 inches high—had on when committed an old black hat, blue kersey roundabout, Marseille vest, white thickset pantaloon and old shoes. The owner of the above Slaves are desired to come and prove them and take them away or they will be sold for their jail fees and other expenses as the law directs. C. TIPPER, Keeper of the jail for Washington Boyd Marshal. November 30—w3t
WEISKOFF AND KELLER, CONFECTIONERS, High-street Georgetown, RETURN their sincere thanks to the Ladies and Gentlemen of the city of Washington for the liberal encouragement they have received these two years past, and solicit a continuance of their patronage. They have now on hand an assortment of PRESERVES, viz. Ginger, Lime Buds, Green Sago Beans, Citron, Oranges, Limes, Licorice, Guyava and Currant Jelly, and an Assortment of CONFECTIONARY—also Soft-shelled Almonds and Raisins. Parties can be supplied with all kinds of Cakes, also with Ornaments for Tables, by giving sufficient notice. December 1—6t
NOTICE. THE Subscriber will sell on Wednesday 20th October next, in conformity with an order from the Orphans Court of Prince Georges county in the state of Maryland at the late dwelling house of Mrs. Eleanor Beall, within two miles of Bladensburg of said county, deceased—all the Personal property belonging to said deceased, consisting of about 40 barrels of Corn, Tobacco, Wheat, Horses, Cattle, Hogs, Sheep, and a variety of Household and Kitchen Furniture, &c. Terms 12 months credit, the purchaser giving bond with approved security. JAMES SHAW. December 1—3t
NEW STORE. THOS. W. PAIRO has just received from Philadelphia and opened in his New Store, in F street, near the Bank, a complete assortment of CHEAP FALL GOODS. Amongst which are Superfine blue, black, scarlet, drab, brown and mixed Cloths, and Superfine drab, black, white and scarlet Cassimeres, Ladies Pelice Cloths and Pelice Plannels; an assortment of Flannels, Blankets and coarse Woollens, Carpetings, silk, cotton and worsted Hosiery, Irish, and German Linens, new fashioned Buttons, Furniture and a variety of other cheap Calicoes and Chintzes, silk, moleskin and Imperial and Windsor Cords, Knives and Forks, Spanish Segars, Netting and Knitting Cotton, Socks, Nuns Threads, Home-spun, &c. &c. ALSO Old Madeira, Sherry, Teneriffe, Port and Claret Wines, Brandy, Jamaica Rum, Gin, Whiskey and Cherry-Bounce, Coffee, Teas, Loaf and Lump Sugars, Philadelphia Porter and Ale; and by the first vessel from Philadelphia, London Pianos, Lisbon Wine, and fresh Teas. December 1—3t
ALL Persons having claims against the Estate of Col. Luke Marbury, deceased, late of Prince Georges county, are requested to exhibit the same, legally proved to the Executors, and all those indebted to said Estate are requested to make payment to JOHN F. ROWE, COLMORE BEANS, } Executors. November 6—w6t
FIFTY DOLLARS REWARD. RUN AWAY from the Subscriber on or about the 23d of Oct. last, SAMUEL DEEDLE, an apprentice to the Cabinet-Making business. He is just 20 years of age, about 5 feet 4 or 5 inches high, proportionably stout, has dark brown hair, queued when he went off; tolerable fair complexion, grey eyes, prominent nose, a kind of fluted dent on his chin, a small mole on one cheek, and a strong beard with whiskers, chews tobacco, and according to his size he has a tolerable large face. Had on when he went off a white hat and drab suit, and carried with him 3 or 4 close-bodied coats, one black, one a dark mixture, one crossbarred ging-ham, &c. pantaloon and boots. Whoever will apprehend the said runaway and lodge him in any jail in the U. S. so that I get him again, shall receive the above reward—whoever harbors or employs said apprentice will be prosecuted according to law. Masters of vessels are forbidden to take him off at their peril. BENJAMIN ADAMSON. Alexandria, Nov. 17—taw5t
NOTICE. WAS committed to the jail of Frederick county, Md. in the 10th inst. as a runaway, a Negro man who calls himself HENRY, he is about 5 feet 9 or 10 inches high, well made and very black, with large whiskers, supposed to be about 30 years of age, he has a small scar on his forehead, one on his left eye brow, and a small scar under his left eye, he likewise has a small knot on the back of the right hand, has lost the first joint of the second toe on his left foot. His clothing when committed were a mixed cotton coat, striped cotton waistcoat, a cotton shirt, a pair of buckskin pantaloon, a fur hat half worn and a pair of shoes. He had with him a large bay horse, saddle, bridle, and saddlebags, and says he belongs to Mr. John Ray of Bath county, Virginia, about 12 miles from the Warm Springs. The owner is hereby requested to come and release said Negro, otherwise he will be sold for his prison fees agreeably to law. EZRA MANTZ, Sheriff of Frederick county, Md. November 3—w8t
The Editors of the American at Baltimore, the Star at Easton and National Intelligencer at Washington, are requested to publish the above 8 weeks in their respective papers and forward their accounts.