The Sun.
London, England, 1810-01-08 00:00:00

conile;ioo of a regular treaty; the o.tber a pledge,
or eng•:,gement for their continuance as to the
other • powers. - Now; from .be -nature of out
constituti:;n, which, in this particular, ought to
have been attended to by,the British Government,
it is wanifst that the Executive authority could have'
given no such pledge, that the continuance 'of the
prohibitory A6ts, being a subjeel of Legislative con-
sideration, could no have been provided for until
the niceting of the Legislature, and that the condi-
tion could not, therefore, but have.failed, either in
the imrnedtate renewal of commerce with Great 'Bri«
fain, of infthe immediate engagement that it should
not be renewed with France. The '-British Govern-
ment ought to -have
,acquiesced in,' and, indeed;
ought to have been 'satisfied with the attainment of
the important obje6t of an immediate repeal of our
'prohibitory laws; and with the consideration, that-
the other objeEt, not immediately attainable, was
unnecessary at the time, because the prohibition as
to France was then ip.tbrce, and because there was
every reakin to infer not, only from this hitt
from the spirit of the, communications made from
time to time, and from the overtures before sub-
mitted to. the British Government, that, without a
repeal of the French decrees, our prohibitory laws
would be continued in force against France,. and es-
pecially in tlie.case ofa 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 en-
tertained, instead of rejecting the arrangement,bught
not the Repealtog ACt on our part to have been met
with a suspension, at least,- of the-Orders in Coun-
cil, until it could have been seen whether the Non-
intercourse JA%i, would or would not have been COll-,
'filmed against France ? Such a suspension could not'
'have given, in any point of view; more ‘advantige to
the 'United States; than was given. to Great Britain
by the repeal, which bad taken place on their part.

If this reasonable course could not live been sub-
stituted for the aisavowal, why was not a final di.s-
avowal suspended with a proposition, that the ar-
rangement would be execated by Great Btitain in
the . etent Of a
,compliance on the part of the
United States .with the condition required as to
France ?

1 ail) not unaware you maybe told, tharthe 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 corm-Deice.

It would not •be improper on thiS occa,ion to Ob.;
serve, that this' objection\ can be the less urged bj
Great. Britain, as she has herself never in her al-
leged retaliations adhered to her principle on v..hich
they were founded.

Thus she has, from thq date of them, until very
lately; directed them against the Atnerican trade,
even to Russia, although .Russia had never adopted.
the French decrees, • nor other Wise violAted' bur neu-
pal trade with Great Britain. ',So, in ha Order-of
April last, she has discriminated, not only-helween
the countries devoted to France by the ties of b!ood,
and'other powers,
.but between Holland, Westpha-
lia, 'and Naples,, in inforcing her prohibitory order
*against the first and not the two last. Whilsi, there,
fore, she finds it expedient to make these distind-
tions, she ought to, ptesume, that We, too, may
u
perceive equal propripty. in. the distincous We have
made.

' But. it maybe of more importance here to com-
pare the British Order in COuncil of April last, with
the arrangement of April, -made. by Nit. Et4..itte.—
It will thence be seen how little is the real differ.
once, and how trivial it is when compared.,to
the
,extensive and serious consequences of the dis-
avowal.
, .

Under the Order in Council of April,. all the'
ports of Europe, except Franc*, including the king-
dom of Italy and Holland with their. dependencies,
are opetted to our .coMnierge. .
Under the arrangement of April, combined with
our Act of Non-intercourse, all the ports. of Eu-
rope, except France'and. her dependencies, includ-
ing 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, anti an
rect .trade to' Holland through
,Tonningen, Ham-
burgh, Bremen, and Embden.-

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 Or-
der in Council and the arrangement could possibly
have in producing such arr injury. And then let
the question be candidly answered, whether, laying
aside all consideratiOns of right and justice, sufficient
inducements 'ward Lave been found in that result for
rejecting the arrangement, and for producing the
consequent embarrassments, as well to Great Britain
as to the United 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 honourable and manly
resistance, an 'annunciation that all Europe is sub-
mitting by degrees, effort must be • feeble indeed,
which is to be found in the •inconvenience accruing
to' tjte formidable fine from the operation of this Or-
der in Council; and especially when we combine
with it the .strange phenomenon of substituting for
the lawful trade of the United State; a trade of Bri-
tish subjects, contrary to the laws of the adverse
party, and amounting, without a special license, in
the eye of British law, to high treason.
Thus much for the Orders in Council. What has
taken place with respect to the Chesapeake will
equally' engage ) our atttention. • .
You will perceive, that throughout the early stages
of the correspondence, this case was, in some re-
spects, improperly confounded with, in others im-
pr,,perly. separated from; that of the' Orders in
Council ; aod particularly that pains had been taken
by Mr. Jackson to substitute verbal and vague °bier,
vationi on the disavowal of this part of the arrange-
, men,

, tar an explicit and formalexplanation, salt
a, wag obviously due. It will be seen also, that,
when finally brought to the point, he reterred.for- a
iistitication of the disavowal to thede.parture of Mr.
from his instructions, without shaving what
instructions were, and to allusions to an ex-
pression it the arrangement, without giving to
his meaning the distinctness pre-requisite to a just

It appears, however, that he lays great streis on

the proposal enclwed in his letter of the 27th Oc-
tober, 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
his proposal, as he had before complained hat no
answer had been given to his verbal disclosure on this
head in his interviews with me.

With respect to his intimations in conversation, es
they were preceded by no proper assignment of the
reasons for not having executed the original adjuSt•
meat.; 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,
Ist, That besides his reluCtant and indistinct ex-
planation of the disavowal of the_original- adjust-
. ment, he did not present his_ proposal until he
had made such progress in his offensive insinua-
tion as made it proper to wait the issue of the re-
ply 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 under-
stand that the ordinary credentials, such alone as he
had -delivered, could • !tot 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 he bad any. such
full power to exhibit, in relation to this particular
case. It is true, that in his letter of the 23d of OC-
' tobei, he had stated an authority eventually to con-
. elude a Convention between the two countries: .With-
. out adverting to the ambiguity of the term eventual-
ly with the mark of emphasis attached to it, and to
other uncertainties in the' phraseology, ,it is cleOr
that the authority referred to, whatever it ,may
is derived from instruCtions silbjea to his own dis-
Cretion, and not from a patent commission, such as
Might be properly called for. It is true also that in
si ,his letter of the 4th of Novernber subs,-quent to his
proposal, he says he was possessed of a full power in
dire form for the express purpose of Concluding a
Treaty or Convention.
Bat it still remains uncertain, whether. by the
Treaty or Convention to, which it related was not
meant an- eventual Cr provisional treaty on the
rat gene-
relations between the two countries, without any
reference to the case of the Chesapeake. Certain it is
'that the British Government, in former like case, as
will be seen by the adjustment of that part of the
affair at Nootka Sennd, 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
poiot.

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 be) that the deviation consisted
'• in nett 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 inclosed in my- official
letter to you of the 27th ult."
Consideling then the conditions in the proposal
as an ultimatum, in what light are we compelled to
view such an, attempt to repair the outrage com-
mitted on the frigate Chesapeake; and to heal the
disappoinknent 'produced by a disavowal of a previ-
ous 'equitable reparation ?
It is impossible on such an occasion not to recal
the circumstance's which constituted the charatier
of the outrage to which such an ultimaturnis now
applied. A national ship, proceeding on an im- •
portant service, was watched by a 'superior naval
: force enjoying at the time the hospitality of. our
ports, was followed, and scarcely out of our waters
when she. was, after an insulting,summons, attacked
in an -hostile manper, and the ship so injurU 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 co death.
under a military sentence. The three seamen,
though American citizens, and therefore on every
supposition detained as wrongfully as the ship would_
have been detain-ed, have, eotwithstanding, re-,
mained in captivity between two, and three years ;
and, it may be..acided, 'after, it• has long ceased to
be denied, that they are American citizens. •
Under these circumstances we are called, upon to
ransom the captives.

Ist. By acknowledging that a precautionary pro-
clamation, justified by events preceding the outrage,
by the outrage itself, and by what immediately fol-
lowed it,. was unjustifiable; and 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 acknowledgement had been uni-•
foil* asserted by this. Government to be utterly in-
admissible, and, what, is 'particularly remarkable,.
at a time when the proclamation, as is •well under-
stood, was no longer, in force.- The occasion obvi=
ously invited a silent assumption of the existing
fad, and this would have excluded the difficulty
heretofore found to be insuperable.
By throwing into complete oblivion the con-
du& of the Officer answerable for the murderous:,
transaction, with a knowledge too, on our part,,
that instead of being pouished,,or even brought to
tt,331, he has been honoured 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 de-

serters generally, and particularly of her natural
born subje&s, without excepting such as had :been
naturalized in due form under the laws of the United.
States.

I,t-has not been explained whether it was meant, i
as the universality of the term " deserter" would
unpor.t, to include American- cit;zens who might
late left the British service. But what possible '.
tonsii,erationcould have induced the. British Go.
verint ent to expect' that the 'United States could
i,..
admit a principle that would deprive our natural-
ized ctizens of the legal privileges, which they hold

in. common with theft. native feiloi,v citizens. The
British Government ought not to have made such a
propopition ; because it not only, like others, natn,
relives aliens, but in relation to the United States
has even refused to discharge from the British see-
vice native citizens of the United Srates, involun-
tarily,detained. If an American seaman has resided
in Great.. Britain, or has married therein, or has ac-
cepted 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, - with a kno-W- .
'age 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 a& of plain
justice, already so long delayed. , This is the more
to be regretted, as the omen does not favour the
belief we would willingly cherish, that no pre-
determination exists in the Council's of his Britannic
Majesty irreconc;lable td an amicable arrangement
an affair, which, affeding so deeply the hoqour
of.the United States, must precede a general, regu-
lation of the mutual interests of .the two countries;
After, the correspondence with Mr. Jackson was
terminated, two notes, of which copies are here-
with sent to you, were presented to qie in the name
and by the hand of Mr. Oakley, the Bridal. Secre-
tary of Legation.
The first requested a document, haiing the effect
of a special passport or safeguard to Mr. Jatksar:
end his faintly during their stay in the United States.
As the laws' of this.country allow an unobstrn6led
passage through every part of it, and, with the-
•law of nations, equally in force, proted public'Mi-
nisters and their families in all their privileges, such
anapplication, was regarded as somewhat singular. ,
There was' no hesitation, however, in furnishing
a certificate of his public charataer, and to be. used
in any mode he
.might chuse. But what surprised
most was the reason assigned for the application.
.The insult he alluded
.to was then, for the first
time, brofight to. the knowledge of this Government.
It had, indeed, been among the rumours of the day,
:that some unbecoming scene had taken place at
Norfolk,. or Hainpton, between some officers ,be-
longing to the 4,fricaine, and some of the
inhabi-
tants, and, that it originated in the indiscretion of
the former., • No attention having been called for,
and no inquiries made, the truth of the case is -un-
kaown. But it was never supposed that Mr. Jack-
son himself, 'who was on board the frigate, had been
personally insulted ; nor is it yet perceived in what
way lie considers it as having happened. . It is,
needless to remark, that any representation on the-
subje& 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 violeuF op Mr.
Jackson's person. Had he been longer and batter
acquainted with the habits and spirit of.the Ameri-
can people, he would probably Dever have enter-
tained an apprehension of that sort. If he meant to
animadvert on the tree language of ale newspapers,
he might justly be reminded that our laws, as those
of 'his country, set bounds to that freedom ; that
th 6 freedom of British prints, however great with
respect to public charaelers of the United States, has
never been a topic of complaint ; and that, suppos-
ing 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 intetictel
as a justification of the condo& of Mr. Jackson in
that part of his correspondence which has given um,-.
brage. 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
.thatdemand was made. He ought, in faal, if such
was his objed., to have substituted- an explanation ih.
the place.. of his reply to my premonitory fetter.
But whether he had one•or other, or both of these
objects in view, it was necessary fir hitt') to have
done more than is attempted in this paper.
It was never objeded to him that he had statedit •
as a fad that the three propositons• iii question had
been submitted to me'by Mr. 'Erskine, nor that he
stated it as made known to him.by the instruations
of Mr. Canning, that the instruction to Mr... E-
rskine, containing those three conditions, was the
only'one from which his authority was derived td
conclude an arrangement in the matter to which it,
related. • The objection Was, that a knowledge of
this restriaion of the authority of Mr. Erskit.e was
imputed to this Government, and the repetition of
the imeutation.even after it bad beeit so frequently
disclaimed. This was so gross an attack on the ho-
bour and veracity of the Governtnent, 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 thrziugh any
other channel, however little the probability that
any satisfactory communications would be received
through any channel here.

To the other inctosures 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 entire-
ly correspond with the paper last referred to, so
they were unnecessary for the ostensible object of
the kite', which was to make known Mr, Jack-
son's change of residence, and as the paper was at
once put into circulation, it can only be regarded as
a verbal address to the American people of a repre-
sentation 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 his
been given in this letter, with those contained in the
corrzspondetice with Mr. Jackson, will make you
fully acquainted Avith the conduct. and the cbaraOer
he has developed,with the necessity 'of the step
taken in refusing further communications from him,
and with the grounds on which the Presicknt
struels you to request that he may be immediately
recalled. You are particularly instruated, at the
same tiMe, in making these communications, to do
it in a manner that will leave no doubt•of the un-
diMinished desire. of .the United States to unite in
all tie means the best calculated to establish the
relations of the two countries on the, solid founda-
tion.of 'justice, of friendship, and of mutual into-
-rest. With great tespea, ace.
,

It. SmI7H.

Vim. Pinckney, Esq. &c,