The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-12-05


Although it may not have been Your In
tentisn to have given to this subject pos
ture which it would not have naturally as
sumed. yet such has been the tendency OF
some of your remarks. and particularly OF
the conclusion yon have drawn from the two
circumstances, LIST. That TO trace of com.
plant from this governmer, againt the dis
avowal appears in the records of the British
mission. or was distinctly announced by me
in our conferences and Cd. that from the
official correspondence of Mr.. Erskine with
his government. it appears. that although
he did not communicate in cxtenso his ORR
ginal Instructions. he submitted to me the
shree conditions therein specified and re-
ccived my observations on each.
1t there be no trace of complaint against
the disavowal in the archives Of the mission,
1t isbecause this government could not have
entered such complaint before the reasons
tor the disavowal had been explained. and
especially as the explanations were Justly
and confidently expected through the new
tunct,onary. And as to the supposed reserve
on my part on this subject in our several con.
ferences, did imagine, that my repeated
intimations to YOU of the necessity OF salts
Factory explanations, as TO the dsavowal,
were sufficient indications of the dissatisfac-
ton ct this government with respect to the
disavowal ITSELF
The stress you have laid on what YOU have
been pleased to state as the substitution of
the terms finally agreed on, for the terms
hvst proposed, has excited no small degree
OF surprize Certain It's, that your prede-
cessor did present for my consideration the
three conditions which now appear in the
printed document-that he WAS disposed TO
urge them more than the nature of two of
tbem (both palpably inadmissble and one
more than merely iuadinssible) could per-
nit, and that on finding his first proposals
unsuccessful the more reasonable terms
comprizcd in the arrangement respecting
the orders in council were adopted And
what, sir, is there in this to countenauce
the conclusion you have drawn in favor of
the right OF his Britannia Majesty to disa-
vow the proceeding? Is any thing more
common in pubic negotiations than to be-
gin with higher demand, and, that fail
ing, to descend toa lower! Tohave, if not
two sets OF instructions, two or more than
two grades OF propositions in the same set of
instructions, to begin with what is the most
desirable and to cad with what is found TO be
admissible i'll case the more desirable should
not be attainable This must be obvious TO
every understanding, and it i. confirmed by
universal experience.
What were the real and entire INSTRUCT
ons given to your predecessor, is a oncstion
IL,
nat he had, or at least. that he believed he
70 mad sufficient authority to conclude the ar
rangement, his formal assurances, during
our discussions, were such rs 70 leave no
room Tor doubt. His subsequent letter of the
18Th June renewing his assurance to me
a. that the terms of the agreement so happi
ly concluded by the recent negotiation
will be strictly fulfilled on the part of his
Majesty is IN evident indication of what
nus persuasion then was as to his INSTRUCT
ons. And with view to shew what his i'm
pressions have been even since the disayow-
Al, must take the liberty of referring YOU
% the annexed extracts (See CO. from his
official letters OF the 31st July and of the Nth
of August
he declaration " that the dispatch from
Mr.. Canning to Mr.. Erskine of the esd
January, Is the only dispatch by which the
Conditions were prescribed to Mr.. Erskine
Tor the conclusion of an arrangement on the
matter to which it relates is now for the
1Irst time made to this government. And
need hardly add, that If that dispatch had
been communicated at the time of the ar
rangement, or if it had been known that the
propositions contained in it and, which were
at hrst presented by Mr.. Erskine, were the
only ones, on which he was authorized 20
make an arrangement, the arrangement
would not have been made.
AS you have disclaimed any authority to
offer explanations for the disavowal as Won
have been willing to ascribe the want of
such authority to the consideration that other
channels had been preferred, and as Won
nave even considered the circumstances nm
oer "hich the arrangement took place to be
shch as could only lead to disavowal. and
therefore as superseding the necessity of
any explanation whatever, it is to be re
GREETED, that you had not deemed it proper
TO render precise and explicit, that part of
your letter which seems to imply that Won
htd IN our conversations, in relation to the
affair OF the Chesapeake, following the
words OF your instructions, held out rot opIy
the manner IN which the reparation had
oeen accepted, but even the form in which
II mad been rendered, SIS warrantirp his Ma
Jesty in even retracting the oiTer of repara-
uon, and that you had elucidated the obser
walton by reference to the particular ex-
presslons which, at all events pu. it totally
out OF his power to confirm any act CON
tanning the M
Whatever may have been your intention
III ms part OF our conversation, or whatever
may be the import of the passage to which
nave Just alluded, Ihave now the honor of
-aghifying to You. that am authorized to
receive IN proper form whatever expIicit
explanations you MAY chusc 10 make with
respect 10 the grounds Of this part of the
.@hSAVo"Ai and without enquiring whether
your authority be derived from Instructions
MAT have 5cen addressed to Yourself or that
nave deHOivcl on you as the successor of the
minister who had declined to execute
them.
As you have. at the same time. been nlc,s