Star.
London, England, 1810-01-06 00:00:00

tastent doe

don entrance
OA A

--"w
out of trio r 05...,.
in a ropier way, by app.._
of the discharge of seta of diem ‘,..
ElEk.
. ' to 'be either natural-bons se** el bh Ilk,—
•
sorters from his Majesty's service.
His Majesty is willing to make a provision for the families it,
snob men as were slain et baud amp Chrepesths, in consequence
q tbe onveliterloyd attaokAra that Selves, ptovided that such
bounty shall not be inttaoritto tan man who shall
have been either 'a natonnosia esty, or a de-
, serter from his Majesty's service.
. .
Mt. SMITH TO Miti
of State, Nov. 1, 1801.•
I Sir—Your letter ofDetgetnie43 tilt. which was duly
received, would have been sooner acknowledged, had
I not by sickness been rendered for several days at-.
' telly unfit for business.
Although the delay and the apparent reluctance in
specifying the grounds of the disavowal of the ar-
rangement with respect to the Orders in Council, do
not correspond with the course of proceeding deemed
most becoming the occasion; yet, as the explanation
has at length been thus made, it only remains, as to
that part of the disavowed arrangement, to regret that
such considerations should have been allowed to ont-1
weigh the solid objections to the disavowal ; it being'
understood at the same time, that his Britannic Ma
jesty perseveres in requiring, as indispensable condt.,
tions on the part of the United States, an entire re-
linquishment of the right to trade with the enemies'
colonies, and also permission to the British navy to
aid .in executing a law of Congress ; pretentious
which cannot but render abortive all proposals whatH
ever upon this subject, whether made by the United
States or by his Britannic Majesty.
Whilst you have deemed it proper to offer 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 any like specification of I
the reasons for the disavowal, nor particularly is it
shewn 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 re-
quired, and in which only you professed to have au-
•thority to make to this Government any overtures.
For the first time it is now disclosed that the sub-
jects 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'
4, full power distinct from that authority, his transac-
tions on those subjects might of right be disavowed
by his government." This disclosure, so contrary to
every antecedent supposition and just infetence, gives
a new aspect to this business.
If the authority of your predecessor did not embrace
the subjects in question, so as to bind this Govern-
ment, it necessarily follows, that the only creden-
tials yet p-esented by you, being the same as those
presented by him, give you no authority to bind it,
Sind that the exhibition of " a full power" for that,
purpose, such as you doubtless are furnished with, is
become an indispensable preliminary to further nego-
ciation—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 more-
over 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 negociation, 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 animad-
versions on several irrelevant and improper allusions
in your letter, not at all comporting with the profes-
sed 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 Govern-
ment 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 govern-
ment that understands what it owes to itself.
I have the honour to be, kc.
(Signed)
The Hon. F. J. Jackson, &c. &c.

tololl b•
~ or de-

R. SMITH.

MR. JACKSON TO MR. SMITH.
Washington, Nov. 4, 1809.
SlR—When I forwarded to 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 ac-
quiesced in your intimation on this head—not, as I
believe has been seen, from any difficulty in main-
taining the justice of the cause which is entrusted to
me, but because I was and still am of opinion, that
this sort of correspondenceis not calculated to remove
differences and soothe irritations of the most unfor-
tunate 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 ult. io I am now unwillingly
compelled to enter upon the consideration of another
letter from you under date of the Ist instant, which
but too strongly confirms the opinion I before en-
tertained,
Since, Sir, it has been judged expedient to confine
to a written form this important and interesting dis-
cussion • since that mode has been declared by you
to, be indispensible, I will first appeal to the written
communications which lucre passed between us : and
I do this with the greater satisfaction, because I con-
sider it to be the chief cause of the present remarka-
ble state of things, that in speaking of engagements
contracted, or supposed to have been contract eZbe-
tween the two countries, understandings or in:t en-
gagements have been allowed to take place o written
compacts, and have been considered, in some instan-
ces, as having the same validity. It is furthermore
necossaiy to VAR in ;h9 insist untinivocal light a

. -
newly restated in your letters, notwithstanding the
repeated, but, as it should seem, fruitless endeavour;
used in mine, to clear it from the slightest shadow 01
obscurity.
You say " that it is understood that his Britannic
.1* Majesty perseveres in requiring, as indispensable
.0 conditions on the part of the United States, an en_
a tire relinquishment of the right to trade with the
a enemies' colonies, and also a permission to the Bri.
44 tish navy to aid in executing a law of congress."
This same statement is contained in your letter of
the 9th ult., and vepresented as the substance of what
bad fallen from me in caur previous conferences. In
my answer to that letter, L-took the liberty of skewing
that such a supponiticiel—was erroneous ; and I have
looked in vain to my letter ,of the 23d, to find in it
any suggestion of a similar tenon. _ I believe, there-
fore, tt by reference to my two letters you will find
that the statement now a,Tainbrougiii forward is con.
Mined 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 Britieh navy should be employed in executing
a law of Congress. If tls proposal that was made.
upon, that subject, and made, as you new know, be,
cause it was believed to be acceptable here, had
been adopted, and had become a matter of compact
between the two countries, and th'ereby 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 be.
tween the two countries, no laws of Congress which
bear a reference to any such engagement, and conse-
quently it cannot be wished to take any share what-
ever 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 block.
aded by British squadrons: it cannot therefore beso
much an object of solicitude, as you imagine, to ob.
tale 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 ult. to be a " matter
66 of indifference whether the Order in Council,"
(on this subject) " be continued, or an arrangement
66 by mutual consent substituted in its room."
When I informed you that the agreement con-
cluded here in April last, had been framed in devia-
tion 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 tilts
President's Proclamation of the 94 Julyp,lBo7, as
well as the two reserves specified in the paper, of
enclosed in my official letter to you .of the
27tk ult.
There is another motive for the diiavowal of this
part of the arrangement, considered to be. so.strong
and so self-evident upon the very face of the trans-
action, 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 enables
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 is
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 for forming a treaty that was in contem-
plation.
In this dispatch of the 24ad of January, Mr. Secre-
tary Canning distinctly says to Mr. Erskine--a Upon
" receiving through you on the part of the American
" Government, a distinct and official recognition et
the three above-mentioned conditions, his Majesty
66 will lose no time in sending to America a Minister
I, fully empowered to consign them to a formal and
a 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 ma
beg your very particular attention to the circum-
stance, that his Majesty's ratification has been With-
held, taut because the agreement was concluded with-
out a full power, but because it was altogether km
concileable to the instructions on which it was pm-
fessedly founded. The question of the full power
was introduced by yourself to give weight, by a quo-
tation from a highly respected author, to your come
plaint of the disavowal, in answer to which I oh-
served, that the quotation di'd not. apply, as Mr.
Erskine had no full power. Never did I imagine,
lor 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 appears
to you that this part of the subject is connected with
the authority empowering me to negociate with You-
It will not, I dare say, have escaped your recollection
that I informed you, at a very early period of out
communications, that in addition to the usual creden-
tial letter, his Majesty had been pleased to invest mile
with a full power, under the Great Seal of his king•
dour, for the purpose of concluding a Treaty or Con-
vention. I well remember your testifying your sat'?
faction at the circumstance ; and I have now only to
add, that I am ready, whenever it suits your coon'
silence, to enekange my full power against that vat
which you shall be provided, for the progress of our
negociation.
I am concerned, Sir, to be obliged a second tittle°
appeal to thine principlo of .pWic. law, under the