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

IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS,

RELATIVE TO THE
ERENCES BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND

AMERICA.

UR. SMITH
.710 MR. PINCKNEY.

Department of State, Nov. 23, 1809.
Si tos--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 Go-
vernment either the frank explanations or the liberal
propositions which the occasion manifestly required.
Instead of this obvious course of proceeding;- it was,
is the outset perceived that his objeet was to bring
us to resume the subjects of the arrangements of
April, in a si,ay that Would imply that we. were aware
that the arrangement was not binding on his .Go,.
vernment, 'because made with a knowledge on (stir
part that Mr: Erskine had no authority to make it,
and thus to convert the responsibility of his Gverri.-
mem for the disavoWal,s 'into a reproach on this for
its Condo& in the transa&ion disavowed. In the
first'instance it was-deeMed best rather to repel his
observations argurrientatively, than to meet them as
an offensive insinnaton.. This forbearance had not
the expeoted effe& of restraining him from a repel
• tition of the offence; and &vett on his farther
tniatiens, nothing more was done than to premonish
him of the inadnaisSibility of so indecorous a course
of proceeding'. This also being witliout effect, no-
thing remained hut the step finally taken; and there
was the less hesitation in shutting the door to further
opportunities for insulting insinuations, as toe dis-
• closures be had made, and the "spirit of his discus-
, sions, had so entirely shut it to the hope of any fa-
vourable result from his Mission.
1 will not dwell on his reluetance to give up the
uncertainties of verbal for the precision of written
discussion ; nor on 'the manner or the time of his de-
nial that he had given any room at all for a state-
. ment, which, in order to guard against the miscon-
ceptioes incident to verbal conferences, I had placed
- before hint in writing, 'with a request that he would
point oat any inaccuracies, and to which tie did
not then object otherwise than by intimating, that
he could not have made the statement with the par-
ticular view' which ,seemed to be supposed, Nor will
I dwell on the various instances in which partial or
inconsistent views of the subjet%have taken place of
its real merits. But it may not be amiss :to make
' some observations on the correspondence, as. 'it re--
, lates to the
,justification of his Goliernment in having
disavowed 'the ad of his predecessor.
With respeCt to the Orders in Council, the ground
of the diSavowal is the difference between the arratte-' '
ment and the printed dispatch of Mr. Canning to
Mr. Erskine. of the 23d, January. According to this
dispatch Theo, the arrangement failed in three
points.
In not relinquishing the trade of the United
States•with enemies' colonies. •
With respe& to this point, it is not necessary, at
' • this time to discuss the right- of that trade. It. is-
' sufficient to remark, Ist, that as the. trade is admit,
• ted to have become, in the view of Great Britainoof.
little praolical importance, why has it been made a
ground of the disavowal, and espac'tally, as important
considerations only could, upon principles of public
law, have justified a .ruca3uic of oo acricas a Charac-
ter ? 2d, 'That as the colonial trade is a subje&mo
wise connefted either, with theprders in Council, or
with the affair of the_Chesapeake, why bas it been per-
milted to frustrate an arrangement' relating to those
subjekis; and to those, only ? spd. That as this
condition is alloWed to have originated in n supposi-
tion, that it would be agreeable to the American
Government, why has it been persisted in after the
error was male known by the representation of Mr.
Erskine to his Government, that neither this nor the
other conditions of the dispatch of the 23d January
were atrainable here ?
2d. Another point in the dispatch, and 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 i mistake of your meaning in a conversation with
MroCanning, as noted by yourself, and in aniinfe-
Terme thence deduced as to the disposition of this
Government. But this double mistake must have
been brought to light in time to have been correCied
in the neW mission. In urging it, 'Mr. Canning has
taken a ground; forbidden by those principles' of de-
corum, which regulate and mark the proceedings of
Governments towards each other. In his dispatch
the condition is stated to be for the purpose of se.-
, curing the Dona fide intention of America to Pre-
sent her citizens from trading with France-and cer-
tain other powers. In other words, to secure a
pledge to that etre& against the mala ,fide intention
of the United States. And this dispatch too was au-
thorise.d to be communicated in extenso to the Go-
vernment of which such language was used. Might
• .• it not have been reasonably expelled that such a con-
dition 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 ditterences ?
. .

In his zeal to vindicate his Government, Mr.
Jackson too'has attempted a gloss on this most extra-
ordinary idea of callilT on 3 foreign sov=ereignty, not
indeed to make laws for us, bet what is equivalent
in principle,. to 'supplra.supposed inability to exe,
vine them... He calls such an interposition of his
Government not an execution of the law of Con,
gres:i, but of a compad• binding as a:public law on
parties, and which both would have a common'in-
terest in seeing duly, executed. 'Ou his' own Kin-
LipleS there. ous.ht to be pa recipwcity,. not- only in
the exe( unoti.of the compa6l, hot in obl:gafion
interest resulting from it. Beside a where .here
a reciprocity in compaas between nations toad),
ing attribwei of sovereignly, there is of ways. as
much of sovereignty gained as 'is parted whit, so
i hat there be `no loss nor indignity on either -I,,Ae.
3d. 'Tne r,..tnainitig point in the dispkitch, not
secured by the arrangement, is that, which
that Alikt our prohibitory laws sh.ou;cl rq,c,,:jed
as w Great Britain, they should be left in for;:e
to France and the powers 'adopting or aFting' under
her dtgrees.
This is the condition whiCh alone properly belongs
to the subject.; and it is to be remarked., in the tit--;
plaCe,.that the British proje6t,• of which this .COrldi-
ton Makes a part, contemplated two things 'u' heir
uatute'inCompatible -; one, a repeal of the prohibitory
,(15 as to Great Britain, without waiting for tba