The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-12-07

the door 20 farther opportunities for insulting
insinuations. as the disclosures he had made
and the spirit Of his discussions had 40 entire.
,y shut it tn the hope OF any favorable result
from his mission.
will not dwell on lis reluctance to give
up the uncertainties of verbal for the preci-
sion of written discussion nor On the man
ner or the time of his denial that he had Civ
en- any room at all for a statement. which.
in order TO guard against the misconcepti
ons incident to verbal conferences, had pla-
ced before him in writing, with request
that he would point out any inaccuracies,
and to which he did not then object other
wise than by intimatiDg, that he could not
have made the statement with the harsicu.
Tar vieSo which seemed 10 be Suhhoscd -
Nor will dwell on the various instances i'm
which partial or inconsistent views of the
subject have taken place of it's real merits.
But it may not be amiss to make some ob
servations on the correspondence, as it re
lates to the justification Of his :. opcrnncnt
in having disavowed the act his predeces-
Sor.
With respect to the Orders in Council,
the ground of the disavowalis the difference
between the arrangement and the printed
OF the Esd January. According to this des-
points.
LIST. In not relinquishing the trade of the
u. States with enemies colonies.
With respect to this point it il not neces.
Sary ut this time tn discuss the right OF that
trade. 1t is sufficient to remark, lst. that
as the trade is admitted to have become, in
the view OF Great Britain. of little practic al
Importance. why has it been made ground
OF the disavowal. and, especially, as impor-
tant considerations only could upon princi-
pies of public law have justified measure
OF so serious character 3D. that as the
colonial trade is a subject no wise connected
either with the Orders in Council or with
the affair of the Chesapeake, why has it beenl
permitted to Illustrate an arrangement re-
iarng to those subjects and to those only ?
Srd, that as this condition is allowed to have
originated in superstition, that it would be
agreeable. to the American government, WHY
has 1t been persisted in after the error was
made known by the presentation OF Mr..
Erskine to his government, that neither this
nor the other conditions of the despatch of
the Esd Jan. were attainabe here
End. Another point in the despatch. and
rot IN the arrangement, is, that the British
Navy might capture our trade to ports pro-
hibhed by the U. States.
This condition too appears to have had
Its origin in mis- AXE of your meaning in n
conversation with Mr. Canning. as noted by
yourself, and in an Inference thence deduced
as to the disposition of this government
But this double mistake must have been
brought to light in time to have been cor
rected in the new mission. In urging Mr..
Canning has taken ground, forbidden bv
tnose principles OF decorum, which regulate
and mark the proceedings of governments
towards each other In this despatch the
condition etoteI 70 he =
securing the bona fide intention Of America
to prevent her citizens from trading with
France and certain other powers In other
words, 10 secure pledge to that effect a
galnst tho mala hde intention of the United
States. And this despatch too was authori
rlsed to be communicated i'm cxtenso to the
government of which such language was u
sed. Might it not have been reasonably ex.
pected that such a condition and such obser
vations would at least on such an occasion
have been given up by government willing
TO smooth the way to an amicabe settlement
OF existing differences?
In his zeal to vindicate his povern,o,n,
Mr.. Jackson TOO has attempted a gloss on
THIS most extraordinary idea of calling on a
foreign sovereignty, not indeed to make laws
Tor US, but what is equivalent in principle
to supply supposed inability to execute
them. He calls such an intcrposi,ion of his
government, not an execution of the law of
Congress, but OF a compact binding as pub
Tic law on both parties, and which both
would have a common interest i'm seeing du
ly executed On his own principles there
ought to be a reciprocity, not only in the ex.
ecution of the compact, but in the obligation
and iHterest resulting from it, Besides where
there is reciprocity in compacts between
nations touching attributes of sovereignty.
there is always as much of sovereignty gain
ed as is parted with, so that there be no loss
nor indignity on either side
s. The remaining point in the despatch,
not secured by the arrangement, is that
which required that whilst our prohibitory
laws should be repealed as to Great Britain.
they should be left in force as to France and
the powers adopting or acting under her de-
Crees.
This is the condition which alone proper.
" belongs TO the subject, and it is to be re-
marked IN the first place that the British
PROJECT, OF which this condition makes part,
contemplated two things in their nature in.
compatible; one repeal of the prohibito-
rry acts as to Great Britain, without waiting
Tor the conclusion Of regular treaty, the
other, pledge or engagement for their con
tinuance 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, il is manifest
That the Executive authority could have
given no such pledge, that the continuance
OF the prohibitory acts being a subject of lie.
gisative consideration, could not have been
provided for until the meeting of the Lee
glslature. and that the condition could not
therefore but have failed, either in the i'm
mediate renewal oF connrpe,.ce ,p;,I,