The Sun.
London, England, 1810-01-06 00:00:00

tween us.

In fulfilling, a duty which I conceive to be due to
my public chin-aaer, I have never suggested, nor
mean to suggest, that the mode of negociating pre,
scribed by you on this particular occasion—an occa-
sion seleCted for the purpose of removing existing
differences•was otherwise obje&ionable, than as it
appeared to me to be less calculated, than it doe4'
to you, to answer the prolQssed purpose of our VC-
gcciation.

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 misun-
derstanding 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. Pinckney, the conferences
were held, under an expedtation, at least on the part
of the former, of their leading to a written com-
munication ; whereas in ours, I, from the begin-
ning, stated that I had no such communication to
make. There is also this essential. difference be
tween the two cases, that Mr. Pinckney was charg-
ed 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.
objet} 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 al-.
ready given, but because, having been so given, I
could not ima‘gine, until informed by you, that a
repetition of it would be required at my hands.
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,he-
sitation in infOrming you, that his Majesty was
pleased to disavow the agreement concluded .be.
tween you and Mr. Erskine, because it was con-
cluded in violation of that Gentleman's instruetions„
and altogether without authority to subscribe io the
terms of -it. These instruaiong, I now understand
by your letter, as well as from the obvious deduc-
tion which I took the liberty of making in. mine of
the ti th instant, were at the timer in substance,
made known to you; no stronger illustration, there,!
:ore, can be given of the deviation from them vvhich
occurred, than by. a reference.to the terms of your
agreement.

Nothing can be more notorious than the fre-
quency with which, in the-course of a complicated
negociation, Ministers are furnished with a gratin..
dation of conditions, on which they may be suc-
cessively authorised to conclude. So common is
the case which you put hypothetically, that in ac-
ceding to the justice of your statement, I feel mys.
seif impelled to make only one observation upon
it, which is, that it does ❑ot strike me as bearing,
upon the consideration of the unauthorised agree-
ment concluded here, inasmuch 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 honour of acquainting 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 instruc-
tion, he himself states that they were substituted by
you in lieu of tbose originally proposed.
It may perhaps be satitfaCtory that r should say
here that I most willingly subscribe, on this occa-
sion, to the highly respectable authority which you
have quoted ; and I Join issue with you upta
the essentials which that auttiotity requires, to
constitute a right to disavow tne act of a public
Minister.

It is not immaterial to observe on the qtrilifica-
tion contained in a passage you lia-ve quoted,- as it
implies th,-2, case of a Minister concluding in virtue
of a ful I power. Tv thtg it would suffice to answer,
that Mr. Erikine had no full power'; and his ad
consequently does not come within the rang►
,of
yotir quotation, although it cannot be forgotten,
that the United States, have, at no very distaht pe-
riod, most freely exercised Life right of withholding
their ratificaiion from even the authorised ad of
their own diplomatic agents, done under the avowed
sanction of a 'full power.

I conceive that what has been already said, esta-
blishes beyond the reach of doubt or controversy,
that his Majesty's Minister did violate his tottruc•
lions, and the consequent sight in his Majesty to
disavow an act so concluded. That his Majesty-,
bad strong and solid reasons for so doing, will ap-
pear not only from his instructions having been vio-
lated, 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 thin transaction, a fundamental mistake,
WhiCh would suggest that his Majesty had proposed
to propitiate the Government of the United States,
in order tu induce it to consent to the renewal of the
commercial intercourse between the two countries :
as if such had he:enthe relationsof 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 cornmerciid or political,
his Majesty could condescend to 4.4‘ rter objects of
natinnsi policy, and dignity for permission, to trade
with another country.

mceti
part
n] to
be--
larg-

sty 's
t be
t the
hich
is to
)osal

TOM
ai—
r], I
lat

tre-
ated
ada.
312 C.,

1 is

BC*
pon
ring
ree-
fad.
ion.

was
VOtl,
S O.

So
Iced
ruc-
by

say
cca-

you
pbn

,blic

The Hon. Robert Smith, &c.
• Augereau's Proclamation to the Catalonians.

ica-

it

MR: JACKSON TO MR. SMITH.

of
Ned

The HOR. Robert Smith, &c.

In
':al,
of
ado

.
1 WithiSkit minutely. calculeting w . hit may be tlie
Degree of pressere felt, at Paris by the difference 'in
he price of soods,. whether landed at Havre or at
itniburgh; I will in my turn, appeitl to yourjudg,
ent, Sir, whether it be 'not a strong and solid
eaten, worthy to guide the councils of a great and
werful Monarch, to set bounds to that spirit- a
ncroachment and universal dominion which would
,end all things to its own stand= ?- Is it no,
'"lg, in the present state of the world, wben.the
:gents of France authoritatively announce to' their
nttims " that Europe is submitting and surrender-
ing by degrees,"- that the .world should know that
there is a-nation which,'-by that Divinegoodness so
,/trongly appealed to in the paper to which I allude*,
IS enabled to falsify the assertion ? ls it not itn7
15°11ant, at such a moment, that Europe and Ame-
a should be convinced, that, from whatever
tlc°.untriea honourable and manly resistance to such
4 spirit may have been banished, it' wilystill be
r 'lend in the Sovereign of the British nation, and in
the hearts of his subjects ? - .
45 to the precautions taken in England to. insure
ft-United
injury upon this occasion the citizens of the
nited States, and which appear to you to be even
i.'et insufficient, I am confident that in every doubt-
-1:11 case the usual liberality cif our tribunals will be
.erci,sed in- determining upon the circurnstances of
it_ _ __ _

`; and it was at Mr. llinckney's express requisi-
ft, that additional instruCtions were given . to the
~. qnmenders of his Majesty's ships of war and pd.-,
ateers to extend to vessels trading to the Colonies,
lantations, and settlements of Holland, the same
ltnption- from -capture and •molestzttion as. was

!re
• anted to vessels sailing for -any of the ports 'of
olland.
. On the subje& of return cargoes from thoSe ports,
• r 9 ust observe, that although' it was intended to
:•,_ vent as far ;is was
by
the inconyeniencies
."cely to be created by 'the unauthorised agreement
tnade-here in April last, yet it was not, and _Could
?lot be intended to obviate all possible inconve?
11Wncies., eV4II such as inight have arisen if no-such
lagreement had ever-been made.

If an. American vessel had sailed horn America
iar tiollaird in time of profound peace) or in tirpe
''ll* War; the ports of Holland not being at the date-
of. sailing under blockade, it might yet have hap-
pteined char, in the period between the commence-
:•ini of such voyage and the arrival of the vessel at
_ _ . . _ .

le port of destin-ation,a-blockade inigla have been
'established before that• port. The vessel arriving
in 'that case, have been warned nct to enter
ke
h • •-
i• port; and would have beep, turnedaway, with

gie -IoSS 'of 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 lessstrict' than such a
Vocicade would be, for as' much as it provides fir
brioinal voyage, commenced in expectatian of
admittedtug to the port of destination, by •Jier-
!Thtting the:entry into the ports of Holland and it
Is no just ground of that it does not super-
,
tp that permission the liberty to re-export a
ergo Of the enemy's goods or produce.
beg leave brieflyto recapitulate the substance of
whh't I have had the honour to convey to yOu, as
Veil in a verbal as in wiiiten cornmuuleatiinjs.
haVe infornied you of the reasons of 'his Alajes-
radisavowal of the a.ereenient go,often mentioned ;
have shewn• thern, iii obedience to the authority
:'!'hich you have quoted, to be both strong-And
0; and -such as to outweigh; iu thejth:garent of
413 Majesty's Government,. every. otberconsidera-
'o4 Which you have contemplated. i have shewn
'flat that agreement was not concluded in virtue of
4 full power, and. that theinstruttions given on 'the
‘)eaasion were violated.

Beyond this point Of explanation, which was sup-
)osed to have been att,tined,
:but which is nbw
tiven, by Me present letter, in tht.fol-ni understood
10 be the most agreeable to the American Govern-
tnent, thy inStruations are prospettive ; they look to
ttlbstituung tor notions of good understanding, erto-
eously entertained; praaical stipulations, on which
real reconciliation of all differences may be sub-
kahtially founded; and they authorise me, not to
renew proposals which have already been declared
41,ere to be unacceptable, but to receive and discuss
44Y proposal made on the part of the United States,
4rld eventaay to conclude a Convention between the
Iwo countries. It is not, of course, intended to call
UPon me to state, as a preliminary- to neg-ociation;
What is the whole extent of those instruaionss.they
must, as I have before 'said, remain subject to my
13wn discretion, until enabled lb apply.. them
to the overtures which I May have the honout
teceiving from you.
I have the honour to be, with great respe&;
Sir, your most obedient humble Servant,
F. J. JACICSON.

Washington, Ott. 27, iSog.

S/R,—Finding, by your letter of the 17th inst.
that notwithstanding the frequent statements made
12Yme in our conferences of the terms of satistadion
''Bich I am now empowered to offer to this country
for the unauthorised attack made by one of his 'Ma-
3es,jos ships of war upon the frigate of the United
states, the Chesapeake, I have not had the good
fqrtune to make myself distinaly understood by
You, I have the honour to inclose herewith a paper
aI memoranda, containing the conditions on'the
bzis:s of which I am ready to proceed to draw up
kith you the necessary official documents, =in the
lorm proposed in my letter of the 11th instant,
13r in any other form upon which we may here-
after agree.
have the honour to be, with great'respeCi,
sir, your most obedient humble Servant,
F. J. JACKSON.

The President's Proclamation of July 3807, pro-
hibilincr to British ships of war the entrance into
the harbours of the United States, having been an-
hulled, his Majesty is willing to restore the seamen
taken out of the Chesapeake, on reserving
to him-
'elf a right of claim in a regular way, by application
to the American Government, of the discharge of
44;11 of them (if any) as shall be prove) to be either
11;jtiiral-born subjecis of his Majesty, or deserters
'rt4ni hi; Majesty's service.
r. Flit Majesty is willing to :lake a provision for the
',lioljes of such- rad) as were slain on board the

:Chscipeeake, in conseq'tiellce of the unauthorised at-
tack upOn that frigate, provided that such bounty
,shall not he extended to the family of SO man' who
shall have been either a natural-born subje& of his
Majesty, or a•deserftir Ervin his Majesty's service.

MR. SMITH TO MR. JACKSON►

Department of State, Nov. a, ISc9.

Sta,—,-Your letter of the 23d ult. 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 relueance
in -specifying the grounds of the disavowal of the
arrangement with respea to the Qrders in Council,
do- not correspond with the course of proceeding
deemed most becoming the occasion ;.yet as the ex-
planation has at length been thus made, it only, re-
mains, as to that part 'of, the disavowed arrarlge-
ment, to regret that such con-siderations should have
been alloweLi to outweigh the solid objection 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 „cneniies' colonies, and also permission to the
British nary to aid in executing a law of Congress ;
pretensions which cannot but render abortive all pro-
posals whatever upon this subject, •wh4ll,er made
by the United States or by his Britannic Majesty. •
Whilst you have deemed it proper to otter an ex-
planation 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 ariY specifica-
tion of the reasons for the disavowal, nor particu-
larly is it shown that instructions were viblated, as
to the other part, viz. the case of the Chesapehke—
the case in which, in an,especial manner, an expla-
nation Was required, and in which only you pro-
fessed to have authority t 6 trale to this Government
any oveftures.

For the first time it is now disclosed) that the subt•
jells arranged with this Government by your pre=
decessor, are held .not to be, within the authority of
a Minister Plenipotentiary, and that not having had.
a " full. power distind from that, authority, his
transadions on those subjeols might of right be dis-
avowed by his Government." This disclosure,. so
contrary to every antecedent supposition and just in-
ference, gives a new aspect to this business. It the
authority of yoUr predecessor did not ,embrace the
subjeds in (inestion, so aslo bind his bovernment,
it necessarily follows, that the only credentials yet
presented by you, being the same as those presented.
by him, give you no authority to bind it, and that
the .exhibition of a " full power"-for that purpose,
such as you doubtless are, furnished with, is become
an indispensable preliminary to further negociation ;.
or to speak. more strictly, was rvquired in the first
instance by
_the view of the matter itow disclused by
you. Negociation without this preliminary viou7d
not only be a departure from the principle of equa=
lity, which is the essential basis of it, but would
Moreover be a disregard of the precautions and of
the
,sdi-respeet 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 negociation, 13 not inttncied
to be included tither' the whole extent or any paTt
of your inslruaions for the exercise of , it. These,
Of course, as you have justly remarked,' remain sub-
jett to your own discretion.

Labstain, Sir, from making any particular ani,
madV-ersions an several irrelevant and improper allu-
siotfS itt your letter, not at all comporrivg with the
protesSeddisposition to adjust in an amicable manner
the differences unhappily subsisting bctween the
two countries. 'But it would be improper to con-
clude the few t blervations to which, 1 purposely
lumt myself, without adverting to your repetition of
a language implying a Kttowledae on the part of this
Government that the instrudions of your predeces-
sordid not authorise the arrangement formed by
hint: After the explicit and peremptory assevera-
tion that this Government had no such, knowledge,
and that with such a knowledge no such arrange-
ment would have been entered itto, the view which
you have, again presented of the subjc6l, makes" it
my.duty. to apprize you, that such insinuations are
inadmissible in the intercourse of a foreign Mini-
ster with a Government that understands what it
owes to itself.,

I have the hononi to be, &c.
(Signed) R.
- The lion. F. j, jacksoii,

MR. JACKSpN TO MR. SMITH.

WashinAtozl, Nov. 4, !sc9.
Strt,,When I forwarded to my Court let-
ter of the 19th ultimo, and the answer which I
te-
turned to it, I imagined, rigid I may add, I hoped,
that the retrospo6tive correspondence, into which
you thought it necessary to enter with me, had been
clo'se'd. You will, ho dottni, recollect with what
teludance I •acquiesced 'in your intimation an 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
iintationg of the most unfortunate tendency. As,
however, I had no choice but to renounce, forthe
present, the hope of effe&uating this desirable ob-
jet, or_ to pursue 'it in the manner prescribed in
your letter of the 9th ult. so I am now unwillingly
'compelled to enter 'upon the consideration of ano-
ther letter from you, under date of the Ist instant,
which but toe strongly confirms the opinion I before
entertained.

Since, Sir, it has been judged expedient to con-
fine to a written 'form this important and interest-
ing 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 satifaetion, be-
cause I Consider it to be the chief cause of the pre-
sent remarkable state of things, that in speaking of
engagements contracted, or supposed to bare been
contraated, between the two countries, understand-
ings or implied engagements have been allowed to
take place of w:itten compaas, and have beet) con-
sidered, in some instances, as having the same vali-•
dity. It is furthermore necessary to place in, the
'most unequivocal light a topic, which I observe to
be const4ntly and prominently re-stated in your
letters, notwithstanding the repeated, but as it should

.senn;:fruitle-5,5 eodovotrs used in tiiine to dear it
from gie slightest shadow of -obsciaity.
\Too say " t'4at it is understood that his Britannic
Majesty perseveres in requiring, 9! iodispensable.con-
iditioni on the 'part of the United States, an entire
,relinquishment of the right. to trade with the
enemies' colonies, and also a per Mission to - the
British Navy to aid. in executing a law of Con-
gress."

_
This same statement is contained in your letter of
the
_9,th nit. acid represented as the substance of what
had fallen from me our previous conferences.—
In my answer to thit letter, I took the liberty. of
strewing that such a supposition was erroneous; and
I have looked in vain to my letter of the fiJd, to
find in it any suggestion Of a similar tenor. h be-
lieve, 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 ail.
That before the Orders in Council can,be revoked,
their objeal must b,e obtained in :some other Way, is
unquestionably true; but you may be assured, Sir,
that there is no wish whatever entertained in Eng-
land, that the British navy should be employed in
executing a law of Congress. If the proposal
that was made upon that subje6l3 and, made, as
you. now' know, because it was believed to be ac-
ceptable here, had been
.adopted and bad become
a matter of compaa between the two countries,
and thereby .a-part, not of the law of Congress, btit
of the public law binding .upon both parties, and
which both would have had a common intzmst in
seeing duly executed ; in that case the agency of the-
British navy would not have had the invidious ai-
peCt 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 refe-
rence.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 ob-
serve, that all or nearly all the enemies' colonies.are
blockaded by British squadrons it cannot there-
fore be so much an objea of solicitude, as you
imagine, to obtain the relinquishment of the trade pf
any country to those colonies. On the contrary,
you will find it •stated in my letter of the 11th ult.
to be a. " matter of indifference whether the Order
in Council,'': (on this subject) "be continued, or
an arrangement by ' mutual consent substituted in

its.roorn."

When I informed you that the agreement con-
cluded here in April last, .had been framed in devi-
ation from the instruaions given for the occasion,
my explanation was intended to apply to both parts
.of that agreement. That nothing, required by the
most scrapujous accuracy, may be wanting, I now
add, that the deviation consisted in not recording in-
the official document signed here, the -abrogation of
the ?resident's Proclamation of the 2cl 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.

There is another, motive for the disavowal of this
part of the -arrangement, considered to be so strong
and So Self-evidenCupon the very face of the trans-
a6tion, 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. Ers-
kine's authority to conclude with you in virtue of
his general letter of credence, because I do not very
distintitly understand the tendency .of it. I never
before hear:: it doubted that a fell power was requi7
site 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 aft, however unautho-
rized, of an accredited Minister, there would be no
safety in the appointment of such a Minister, and
ratification Would be useless; No full power was
given in the-present case, because it was not a treaty,
but the materials tor forming a treaty which was in
contemplation:

In this dispatch of the 23d of January, Mr. Se-
cretary Canning distinCtly says to Mr. Erskine—
Upon receiving through you on the part of the
American Government a distinct •aad official recog-
nition, of the three above-Mentioned conditions, his
'Majesty will lose no time in sending to AmeArica a
Minister fully empowered to consign them to Vor-
trial and regular treaty."
This Minister would, of course, hare been pro-
%ided with a full power; but Mr. .Brskine was to be
guided by his instructions, and ,had the agreement
concluded here been conformable to them, it ‘Yould,
without• doubt, have been ratified by his Majesty. 1
must beg. ypur very particular attention to the cir=
cumstance, 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 instrudions on which it was
professedly founded. The question of the full power
was introduced by yourso.ll to give weight, by a quo-
tation from a highly respe&ed author, to your com-
plaint of the disavowal, in answer to which I ob-
serVed, that the 'quotation did not apply, as Mr.
Erskine had no full power. Never did 1 imagine,
or any where attempt, to rest the right of disavowal
upon that circumstance; indubitably 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 surprised at the transition, by which it ap-
pears to you that this part of the subject is conoetted
with the authority empowering me to negociate with
you., It will not, I dale say, have escaped your re-
colleginn 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 purpose of concluding a
Treaty, or Convention. I well remember your testify-
ing your satisfaction at the circumstance ; and I
have now only to add, that I am ready, whenever it
s'Os your convenience, to exchange my full power
ogainst that with which you shall be provided, for
the \progress of our negociation.
I am concerned, Sir, to be obliged a second time
to appeal to those principles of public law, under the

.3arletioll at d proteCtion of which I was sent to this
country. , Where there is not freedom Of co!ntnuni,-
'cation in the form substituted for the more usual one
of verbal discussion, there can be_litile.4eful inter-
course between Ministers; and one, az least, of the
epithets which you thought proper to applyto
last letter, is such as necessarily abridges. that fieedom.
That any thing therein contained may be irrelevant.
to the-sabjed it is of course competent ingot} to en!..
,deavour to spew; and gs
.far as you succeed in so
doing, in so far will my argument lose of its validity ;
but as to the propriety, otiniy allucions, you must al-
low me to acknowledge only the, decision of my Own
Sovereign, whose command, I obey, and to whom
alone I can consider .myself responsible. Beyoiul
this, it suffices that I do riot detinte (tom the respect
due ro the,GOvernrnent to which I am accredited.'
You will find that in my correspondence with pm,l
have carefully avoided drawing conclusions, that
did not necessarily fallow from the premises advanced
by rue, and least of all should I think of utterin an
insinuation, where I was
.unable to subitantiate a
fact. To fads, such as I have becoMc acquainted
with
.theiti I have sciupulously adhered ; and in so
doing, I nmst continue, whenever the good faith of
his Majesty's Governinent is cr:lled in question, to
vindicate its honour and dignity, in the ma.iner that
appears to me best calculated 114 t pUrpose.
I have the Iltinour to be,
With great respeti, Sir,
Your" moat obedient humble Servant;
F. J. JAchsON.

The Hon. R. Smith, &c. &c &c.

, Min.,......P.

MR. SMITH TO MR. JACXSON.

SIR, Department of State, Nov. .g; test.
In my letter of the toll], Wt. I sti:ted to you the
declaration in your letter of the 1 ith that the die.
patch " filan Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of .the
23d of January, was the only dispatch by which the
conditions were 'prescribed to Mr. Erskine, for the
conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which
it related, was then fbr the first time Made to this
Government." And was added, that if that
had been•communiCated at the time of the arrange-
ment, or if it bad been known that the propositions
contained in it were the only ones on which he was
authorised to make an arrangement, the al.atige.
ment would not have been made.

In my letter of the St inst. adverting to the re-
petition in your letter of the tad ult. of a language
implying a knowledge in this. Government that the
instructions of your predecessor did not authorize
the arrangement formed by him, an intimation was
distinally given to you, that after the explicit and pe-
remptory. asseveration that this Government had not
any such knowledge, and that with such a kinow-
ledge, such an amingement would not' have been
made, no such insinuation could be admitted by this
Government.

Finding that in your reply of the 4th inst. 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 pre-
chide opportunities which are thus abused, to in-
form you, that no further •communicatioris. will be
received from you, and' that the necessity of this,de-
termination witl,l wiihunt delay, be made known, to
your Government. In the mean time a ready attemion
will be given to any communications affecting gma
inn rests of the nations, through any other channel,
tha; may be substituted.

_
I have the honour to be, &c.
(Signed) K. SMITH:
The Hon. Francis lames Jackson, &c. &c.

Mr. Oakley is desired by Mr. Jackson to Say to
the Secretary of State :

" That Mr. Jackson has seen with much regret,
that fiats, which it has been his duty to state in his
official correspondence, have been deemed' by the
American Government ro„afford a sufficient motive
for breaking off an important negociation, and for
putting an end to all communication whatever with
the Minister charged by his Sovereign with that ne-
gociation, so interesting to both nations, and on one
point of which an answer has not even been returned
to an official and written overture.
" One of the faas alluded to has been admitted
by the Secretary .of State himself in his letter of the
19th that the thtee conditions forming the
substance of Mr. Erskine's original insu-udion were
submitted to him by that Gentlen.E:n. The other
viz. that that instruaion is the onlyl one in which
the- conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for
the conclu3ion of an arrangement on the matter -to
which it related, is ktioW'n. to Mr. Jackson by the
instructions which he ba4rhirnself received.

Instating these taCts,andria adhering to them, as
his duty imperiously enjoined him to do, Mr. Jack-
son could not imagine that offence would be taken
at it by 'lrt-r Atuenca'n Government, as must cer-
tainly bone could be intende:! r 24-1; *out since
he has Teen informed by the Seci•,-tary of Staty thai
no farther communications will be received 1;rom
him, he conceives that he has rya alternative that is
consistent v. ith what is due to the King's dianitv_
but to: withdraw ahogether from the seat of the
American Government, and wait the arrival of his
Majesty's commands upon the unlooked-for turn
which has thus been given to his arfaiis in this
country.

Mr. Jackson means to make New York the place
of his residence.
Washington, Nov. 13, 1 809.

The investigation which is taking place under the '
auspices of the Treasurer of the Navy, as to the best
mode of distributing prize-money, that those shares
may be promptlyrealizedio our gallant tars, has given
universal satisfaction to the Country, particularly at
the out-ports. It embraces every man,' from the
highest to the lowest in the Navy ; and from what
has already occurred in the inquiry, it will prove
highly beneficial to the service, and of (Treat advan-
tage to the Nation. We are happy to find that Mr.
ROSE has undertaken the arduous task, to which he
is so thoroughly competent, as a Gentleman of bu-
siness, and from whose knowledge and experience
we anticipate the most favourable results.
Yesterday evening between seven and eight.
o'clock, a person of respealable appearance, dreised
in a blue coat, knocked at the door of Mr. Swaltow,
in Tavistock-plade, Russel-square, to inquire about
Some wine, which he said was ordered, and while
the servant went,' up stairs to make the proper in-
quiry, he stole out of the parlour a tea Caddy and
other effeas to the' amount of about nine guineas,
with which he escaped andeteaed.