Star.
London, England, 1810-06-28 00:00:00

distinctly recognize conditions which had already been
declared to be wholly inadmissible. To what valua-
ble end, my Lord, loose conversations, having in
view either no definite result, or none 'that was at-
tainable, could, under such circumstances and upon
such topics, be continued, it would not be easy to
discovers and I think I may venture to assume that
the subsequent written correspondence has completely
shewn that they could not have been otherwise than
fruitless, and that they were not too soon abandoned
for that more formal course, to which from the be-
ginning, they could only be considered as preparatory.
" After remonstrating against the wish of the
American Government to give to the further discus-
sions a written form, Mr. Jackson disposes him-
self to conform to it ; and speaking in the same
letter of the disavowal of the arrangement of April,
he declares, that he was provided with instructions to
explain the motives of it ; and he seems to intimate
that explanation through him was unnecessary, not
only because it had already been made through other
channels, but because the Government of the United
States had entered into an arrangement with a
knowledge that it could only lead to the conse-
quences that actually followed.' In the conclusion
of the fourth paragraph of the letter, he informs Mr.
Smith that the dispatch of Mr.. Canning to Mr. Er-
skine, which Mr. Smith had made the basis of an
official correspondence with the latter Minister, and
which had been read to the American. Minister in
London,' was the only dispatch by which the condi-
tions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclu-
sion of an arrangement with the United States on the
' matter to which it related.
66 Mr. Smith's answer to this letter bears date the
19th of October ; and I beg your Lordship's permis-
sion to introduce from it the following quotation :
The stress you have laid on what you have been
pleased to state as the substitution of the terms finally
agreed on (in the arrangement of April on the Or-
ders of Council) for the terms first proposed (by Mr.
Erskine,) has excited no small degree of surprise.'—
Certain it is, that your predecessor did present for
my consideration the same conditions which now ap-
pear in the present document—that he was disposed
to urge them more than the nature of two of them
(both palpably inadmissible, and one more than
merely inadmissible) could permit—and that, on find-
ing his first proposal unsuccessful, the more reason-
able terms, comprised in the arrangement respecting
the Orders in Council, were adopted—and what is
there in this to countenance the conclusion you have
drawn in favour of the right of his Britannic Ma-
jesty to disavow the proceeding? Is any thing
more common in public negotiations, than to begin
with a higher demand, and, that failing, to descend
to a lower ? To have, if not two sets of instruc-
tions, two, or more than two grades of propositions
in the same set of instructions ; to begin with what
is the most desirable, and to end with what is found
to be admissible, in case the more desirable should
not be attainable ? This must be obvious to every
understanding, and is confirmed by universal expe-
rience.
" Whet are the real and entire instructions given
to your predecessor? is a question essentially between
him and his Government. That he had, or at least
that he believed he bad, sufficient authority to con-
clude the arrangement, his formal assurances during
our discussions were such as to leave no room for
doubt. His subsequent letter of the 15th June, re-
newing his assurance to me, that the terms of the
agreement so happil., concluded by the recent nego-
ciation, will be strictly fulfilled on the part of his Ma-
jesty,' is an evident indication of what his persuasion
then was as to his instructions. And with a view to
shew what his impressions have been ever since the
disavowal, I must take the liberty of referring you to
the annexed extracts (see C.) for his official letters of
the 31st of July and of the 14tli of August.
" The declaration, that the dispatch from Mr.
Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d of January is the
only dispatch, by which the conditions were prescribed
Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement on
the matter to which it relates, is now for the first time
made to this Government.—And I need hardly add,
if that dispatch had been communicated at the time of
the arrangement, or if it had been known that the
propositions contained in it, and which were at first
presented by Mr. Erskine, were the only ones on which
he was authorised to make an arrangement, the ar-
rangement would not have been made.
" I suppose, my Lord, that it was impossible to
disclaim for the American Government in more pre-
cise and intelligible language than is found in this
quotation, all knowledge of Mr. Erskine's instructions
incompatible with a sincere, honourable, and justifia-
ble belief that he was, as he professed to be, fully au-
thorized to make the agreement in which he under-
took to pledge the taith of his Majesty's Govern-
ment Yet in Mr. Jackson's next letter, of the 23d
of October, to Mr. Smith, he says—' I have there-
fore nn hesitation in informing you, that his Majesty
was pleased to disavow the agreement concluded be-
tween you and Mr. Erskine, because it was.in viola-
tion 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 deductions 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.'
" Your Lordship will allow me to take for granted,
that this passage cannot be misunderstood. Its direct
and evident tendency is to fasten upon the Govern-
ment of the United States an imputation most injuri-
ous to its honour and veracity. The charge, that it
had all along been substantially apprized, however it
might affect to be ignorant, of the instructions which
Mr. Erskine's arrangement was said to have violated,
had before been insinuated; but it is here openly
made, in reply, too, to a paper, in which the con-
trary is formally declared by the official organ of the
American Government.
" This harsh accusation, enhanced by the tone of
the letter in which it appealed, was in all respects as
extraordinary as it was offensive. It took the shape
of an inference from facts and asseverations which
necessarily led to the opposite concluslon.itatwan,s
preferred as an answer to a claim of expumip
which Mr. Jackson professed not to be authorized by
his Government to offer at all, but which he chose so to
offer from himself as to convert explanation into insult.
It was advanced got only without proof and against