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

,~

• -
.•
_ .
THE STATMNIAN.

. - -
Ps to Great Britain, they should be left in force'
as to France and the Powers adopting or acting
under her decrees.
This is the condition which alone properly be.
lungs to the t (abject% and it into he remarked, in
the first place, that the British project, of which'
this condition makes a part, contemplated two
things in their nature incompatible ; one, k re.
peal of the prohibitory arts as to Great Britain;
without waiting for the conclusion of a regular
treaty ; the other a pledge, or engagement fur
their continuance as to the other Powers. Now,
from the nature of our Constitution, which, in
this particular, ought to have been attended to
by the British Government, it is manifest that the
Etecutive authority could have given no such
pledge, that the continuance of the prohibitory
Acts, being a subject of Legislative considera-
tion, cou1:1 not have been provided for until the
meetiiig of the Legislature, and that the condition
could not, therefore, but have failed, either in the
imme.liate renewal, Of commerce with Great Britain,
or in the immediate engagern,nt that it should
nut be renewed with France. Tho British Go.
vernment otlgl.t to have•acquieseed in, and, in..
deed, 'might to have been satisfied with the
attainment of tke important object of an im.
mediate repeal of our prohibitory laws ;
and with the consideration, that the other
object,.-not immediately attainable, was im.
tieeessary at the time, berause the prohibilion
at to France was then in ?titer, and because there
was every reason to infer nut only from this fact,
but from the spirit of the communications made
from time to time, and from the overtures before
submitted to the British Government, that, uith.
out a repeal of the French decrees, our prohibi-
tory laws would be continued in. force' against
France, and especially in the case of a repeal of
the British Orders, which would necessarily ran.
der a continuance of the French Decrees doubly
obtinzious.

But if, on this head, doubts could have been
entertained, inqead of rejecting tho arrangement,
ought not the Repealing Act on our part to have
been met with a suspension, at least, of the Or-
ders in Council, until it could have been seen whe.
tiler the non.intercourse law would or would nut
have been continued against France ? Such sus.
pension could not have given,_ in any point of
view, more advantage to the [Jailed States, than
was given to Grcat'Britain by the repeal, which
had taken place on their part.
If this reasonable course could not have been
substituted for the disavowal, why was nut a anal
disavowal suspended with a proposition, that the
arrangement would be executed by Great-Britein
in the event of a cotpplianco on the part of the
United States with the condition required as to
France ?

I am not unaware, you may be told, that the
'non-intercourse taw of the United States did not
extend to Holland, though 'so iiitimately'connect.-
ed with France, and so subservient to her Decrees'
against neutral commerce.
• It would not be improper on this occasion to
observe, that this objection can be the less urged
by Great Britain, at she has herself never in her
alleged retaliations adhered to her principle on
which they were founOetl.
Thus she has, from the date of them, until
very lately, directed them against flue American
trade even' to Russia, although Russia had never
adopted the French decrees, nor otherwise vie.
lated our neutral trade with Great Britain. So,
in her Order of April last, she has discriminated,
not only between the countries devoted to France
by the ties of blood, and other Powers, but be.
Itwee!' Holland, Nyestphalia, and Naples, in en.
furring her prohibitory order against the lint and
not the two last. Whilst, therefore, she finds it..
expedient to make these distinctions, she ought to
presume, that we, too, -may perceive equal pro.
pricey in the distinctions we have made.
But it may be of more importance here to cam.'
pare the British Order in Council of April last,
with the uerraneement of April, made 'by Mr. Er.
skim'. It will thence be seen how little is this-
real difference, and how trivial it is when compared
'to the extensive and serious conseqvencei of the,
disavowal. •
Under the Order in Conned of April, all the
ports of Europe, except France, including the
I kingdom of Italy and Bull:eel, with their depets.
dencies, are opened to our commerce. .
Under the arrangement of April, combined with
our Act of Non-Intercourse, all the ports of Eu-
rope, except France and her dependencies, -i 0.
eluding the Kingdom of Italy, would have been
opened to our commerce.
'The difference then is reducier merely to MI-
, land, and that again is reduced to the difference
-be, woes& a direct trade to the ports ot
and an indirect trade to ilolland through Ton.
'singe% llansburgli, Bremen, and Embden.
Now, as the injuring of the enemies of Great
Britain is the ouly avowed object of her interdict.'
ing Order against our trade, let a computation be
made of the effect which this difference between'
the Order in Council and the arrangement could
ably
have in producing such an injury, And.
let the question he candidly answered, whe-
ther, laying aside all considerations of right and.
• sties, sufficient inducements could have been.
d in that result for rejecting the arrangement,
and 1111 r producing the consequent embarrassments,
es ,well to Great Britain as to the United States.
if it he necessary, as Mr. Jackson has stated,'
to set bounds to a spirit of encroachment and uni.,
f versa, dominion, which would bind all things to
its oitrosnetard, and to falsify, by honourable'
and manly resistance, an annunciation that all
rope is submitting by degrees, effort must be fee-
ble, indeed, which is to be found in the iticonve.
usiousce accru leg to the formidable toe from the tm.
ration of this Order in Council ; and especially
when combine with it the strange phenomenon
of substituting for the law fnl.trade. of the United
States a trade of British subjects, contrary to the
laws of the adverse party, and amounting, with.
oust a special licence, in ilia eye of British low, to
high treason.
Thus much for the Orders in Council. What
has taken place with respect to the Chesaltestk.e
will evally engage your attention.,

.

You will perceive, that throughout the early
stases of the correspondence, this case was, its
some respects, improperly confounded with, In
others iniptoperly separated from, that of the
.Orders 'in Council ; and particularly.that pains
had been takets by Mr. Jackson to substitute vet.
I-bal and vague observations on the disavowal ,ref
this part of the arrangement, for an evli It and
formal explanation, such as was obvioully slue.—
It will be seen alsogehet, when finally brought
to the point, he referred for a justification of the
disavowal to tho.departiire of Mr. Erskine from
his instructions, without slbewing what those in-
structions were, awl to illusions to an expression
in the arrangement, without giving to his meaning
I the distinctness pre.requisite to a jute reply.
It appears, however, that lie lays great stress
on the proposal enclosed in his letter of the 27th
October, as at once indicating the departure of
Mr. Erskine front his instructions; and as con.
tensing the conditions on the basis of which he was.
reedy to enter on an adjustment. And from a
note from the Secretary of the British Legation, I
it appears that he has complained of nut having
received an answer to his proposal, as ho had be-
fore complained that no answer had beets given to
his verbal disclosure on this head in his ititersiews
with me. ,
With respect to his intimations in conversation,.
as they were preceded by.no proper assignment of
•the reasons foe not having executed the original
adjustment, it cannot be necessary to remark,
that no such notice, as lie 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
explanation of the disavowal of the original adjust-
ment, he did not present his proposal 'nein he had
made such progress in hit offensive insinuation as
' made it proper to wait the issue of the reply about
to be given to it ; and that this issue had uecessa-
rily put a stop to fUrther communications.
2dly, That although he had given us to ander-
stand that the ordinary credentials, such alone as
be had delivered, could not bind his Government
in such a case, his proposal had neither been pre
Ceded by nor accompanied with the exhibition of
other commission or fti'l power. Nor. indeed,
has he ever given sufficient reason to suppose that
he bad any such full power to exhibit in relation
to this particular case. It is true, that'in his let-
ter of the 23d of October, he had stated an au-
thority eventually' to conclude a Convention be-
tween the two Countries. Without adverting to
the ambiguity of the term eventually with the
mark of emphasis attached to it, and to other un-
certainties in the phraseology, it is cleat that the
authority referred to, whatever it may be, is de-
rived from instructions subject to his own discre-
tion, and not from a patent commission, such as
might be properly called for. It is true also. that
in his letter of the 4th of November, subsequent to
Isis proposal; ho says he was possessed of a full
power in due form for the express purpose of con.
eluding a Treaty or Convention.
But it still remains uncertain, whether by the
Treaty or Convention to which it
.related was not'
meant an eventual or provisional treaty on Oro
general relations between the two countries, with-
out any reference to the case of the Chesapeake..
Certain it is that the British Goveromentt in for-
mer like case, as will Ins seen by the adjustment
of that part of the affair at Nootka Sound, which
is analogous to this casetdid 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 sumo occasion, or
in some form, have used a language susceptible of
tor possible doubt on this point.
But proceeding to the proposal itself, it is to be
kept its mind, that the conditions forming its W.
sis are the very conditions, for the deviating from
which Mr. Erskine's adjustment was disavowed.
Mr. Jackson, if not in others, is on this point ex-
plicit. " I now add (says he), that the deviation
consisted in not recording in the official document
signed here the abrogation of the President's pro.
demotion of the 2d July, 1807, as well as the
two reserves specified in the paper of memoranda'
encloses' in my official letter to you of the 27th ult."
Considering then the conditions in the proposal.
as an ultimatum, in what .light are we compelled.
to view such an attempt to repair the outrage cons.
nutted on the frigate Chesapeake, and to heal the
disappointment produced-by a disavowal of a pre.
nissassagaitable reparation 2 -
It is impossible on such in occasion not to re.
cal the circumstances which constituted the cha-
racter of the oistrage to which such au ultimatum
is now applies?. A national ship, proceeding on'
an important 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 insultipg summons,
attacked in an hostile manner, and the ship so in-
jured as to require expensive repairs. the espedi.
tion frustrated, a number of the crew killed and,
wounded, several carried into captivity, and one
of them pet to death under a military sentence.
The three eeetnee, though American citizens, and
therefere on every supposition detained as wrong-
folly as she 'ship would here beets detained, have,
dotwithatan !leg, remained in captivity between
two and three years ; and, it may be added, after
it hat long ceased Le be denied, that they are
American citizens.'
Under Mete circumstances we qro called upon to
ransom the captives.
Ist. By acknoe hedging that a precautionary
proclamation, justified by events preettlitig the
outrage, .by the outrage itself, and by what ins.
mediately followed it, was unjustifiable, and that a
repeal of it was properly a co:Wickes precedent
to a reparation for the outrage. And this requi.
sitioe is repeated too, after such an aeknowlsalg-
moot had beets uniformly asserted by this Cioveiss- '
mesa to be utterly inadmissible, anti, what is par.
titularly remarkable, at a time when the pruela.


I-
•

mation, as is welt understood, was no longer ift
force. Thb •cession obviously invited a silent
assumption of thu existing feet, and this 1,101114
have excluded the difficulty heretofore found to be
insuperable. _ _

2,1 By throwing into complete oblivion the
conduct of the Officer answerable for the mur.
olerous transaction, with a .knowledge, too, on
our parts that instead of being punished, or even
bfought to trial, he has been honoured by his Ga.
vcroiment with a new and more important coal.
mond.

31; By admitting a right on the part of Great
Britain to claim a disaterge from our service of
deserters gent-rally, and particularly of her nate.
ral horn sabjects, without excepting such as 114 d
been naturalized in due form under the laws of the
United States.

IA has not been egplainesl, whether it was meant,
as the universality of the term " desertei" wined
import, to include American citizens who might
have left the British service. But what possible' -
Consideration could have induced the British Go„
vernment to expect that United, States could
admit.a principle that /would deprive our cameral.
iscd citizens of the legal privileges which they h,d4
in common with their native feikiw.citizens. The
British Government ought not to have made sock
a proposition ; bee.at-o it out only, like o!iwrs,
naturalizes aliens, bat in relation to. the United
States has even -refused to discharge (rem the
Britlsh service native eitigent of the Unite,'
Stato, iuvolontarily deteintal.. If an •American
seaman has resided in Gecat.Britain, or Las '
married therein, or has accepted d bounty is
her naval service, his discharge therefrom, oft
the regular application to the British Go.
vernment, has been, invariably rrfused by its
Board. of Admiroity. This I state on the
thorit.v of the official reports made to this Deeart.
•
men% It therefore, truly astoniAitig, that,
with a know Icke of these facts, sueli n pretension
should have been edvinced at all,: but, above all,
that it shosild have been made st sine qua nen to as
act of plain justice, already so long delayed.
This is the more to be regretted, as the omen dors
not favour the belief we wonld willingly cherish,
that no predetermination exists in the Councils of
his Britannic Majesty irreconcilable to au arnica.
ble arrangement of an affair, which, affecting so
deeply the honour of the United States, must pre.
cede a gonerarregulation of the mutual interestsof
the two countries.

After the correspondence with Mr. Jackson was
terminated, two notes, of which copies art here.
with sent to you, were presented to me in the
name and by the hand of Mr. Oakeley, the Bri.
fish Secretary of Legation.
The first requested a document, having the ef.
feet of a special passport or safeguard to Air.
Jackson and his family during their stay in the
United States. As the laws of this country allow
an unObstruded passage through every part of it,
and, with the law •of nations, equally in force,
protect public Minisieri and their families its all
their privileges, such an application was regarded
as somewhat singular. There was no hesitation,
however, in furnishing a certilicate of his publis -
character, and to ba used in any mode he might
choose. But what surprised must was the
reason assigned for the application. The in.
suit he alluded to was then, for the first time,
brought to the knowledge .of this Govern.
anent. It had, indeed, been among the rumours
of the day, that some nabecoming scene had taken
place At Norfolk, or '
Haniptos►, between some
Officers belonging to the Africaine, and some of
the inhabitants, and that it originated in the indis.
cretion of the f ,rmer. No attention having been
called for, and mainqairief made, the truth of dui
case is unknown." But it was never supposed that
Mr. Jackson himself, who was on board the fri.
gate, hvl been porsonally i►►sulted : nor is it yet
perceived in what way' he considers it as having •
happened. It is needless to remark, that any re.
presentation on the subject would have instantly
received every limper attention.
Another ground on which a protection was
asked• for, is
.the supposed tendency of the
guage of our newspapers to cacao popular tin.
knee on Mr.. Jackson's person. Had he been
longer and better acquainted with the habits and
spirit of the American people, he would probably
never have entertained an apprehension of that
sort. If he meant 'to animailyert on the free lan.
guage of the newspapers, ho might justly be re.
minded' that our laws, as those of his country, set
'bounds to that freedom : that the freedom of Bri.
flab prints, hoWever, groat with rtspect to public
characters of the United States, has never been a
topic of cemPlaint ;sand that supposing the lath
'bide of tit American press ta► exceed that of
4014 Uritsaiar.also diiinsessen is.-14rigely km is

this rpspect between the tato,' Ikon -between Ike
British °press. and ilskt'of the—other nations of
Europe.
The second note seetes to bar•Aisentially intend-
ed as a justification Of the conduct of Ms. 44.
ion Jo that part of his corteepandeuca which 41
given tomkrage. If he intended it as a concitiO2rl
advance, he ought not to have preceded it by
demand of passports, nor by the spirit or 14
manner in which that demand was made. 110
ought, in fact, if such was his object, to have
substituted an explanation in the place of his Fitiq
to my premonitory letter. But whether he 1213
one or other, or both of these object% in view, 3
was necessary for him to boa dune more than it
attempted in this paper.
It was never objected to him that ho had sled
it as a fact that the three propositions in iliesfie4
I had keen submitted to me by Mr. Erskine, nut
that he stated it as made known to him by. the in•
inflictions of Mr. Canning, that the instruction IS
Mr. Erskine, containing those three conilittens,24
the, only one fruns which his authority was derived
to conclude an arrangement in the matter 1012110
it related. The objection was, that a knowledge
of this resfrictiog of the authority of Mr. Erski94
was imputed to this Ciovernment, and the repel.
Lion of the imputation even after it had been la
freqoently disclaimed. This was so gri,” 2^ al'
talc on thp honour aod voraeiiy of toe polcritt
Aunts al to forbid all further commisnicatioosfrn"!
sh.i2i! 641.2 1142 tlCTerthplois taken, gt,i4tr ttre