The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-12-21
Mr.. GILES. spEEcH-cosrIsuID.

Let me now, sir, call your attention to the
letter of MIR. Smith to Mr.. Jackson, i'm reply
to these highly offensive insinuations, dated
18th of Oct. 1909, pages 46. AZ, of the prin-
ted Documents:
The stress you have laid on what YOU
have been pleased to state as the SUBSTITUTE.
on Of the terms finally agreed on. for the
terms first proposed, has excited no small
degree of surprize. Certain it is, that your
predecessor 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
them Doth palpably inadmissible and one
more than merely inadmissible) could per-
NIT. and that on finding his first proposals TN :
successful the more reasonable terms COM
prised IN the arrangement respecting the or
dcrS IN Council were adopted. And what
sir, IS there in this to cuuntenance the con-
clusion you have drawn in favor of the right
OF his Britannia majesty to disavow the pro
cesding Is any thing more common in
public negotiations, than to begin with high.
er demand, and, that failing, to descend to a
lower To have, if not two sets of instruc-
tion, two, or more than two grades of propo-
sltions in the same set of Instructions to be-
gin with what is the most desirable, and to
end with what is found to be admissible, in
case the more desirable should not be attain
able. This must be obvious to every under
standing, and it is confirmed by universal ex-
perience.
What were the real and entire instruc-
lions given to your predecessor, is auesti :
on essentially between him and his govern
ment. That he had, or at least, that he be
ieved he had sufficient authority to conclude
the arrangement, his formal assurances, du
ring our d scussions, were such as to leave
no room for doubt. His subsequent letter eff
l5th Jane, renewing his assurances to me,
Z" that the terms of the agreement so happi
ly concluded by the recent negotiation, will
be strictly fulfilled on the part of his males
ty, is an evident Indication of what his per-
suasien then was as TO his instructions. And
with view to shew what his impressions
have been even since the disavowai, must
take the liberty ofreferring you to the annex
ed extracts (see c. from his official letter
OF the thirty first July and of the fourteenth
of August.
The declaration, " that the deshatch
from Mr.. Canning to Mr.. Erskine of the 23d
January, is the only deshatch by which the
conditions were prescribed to Mr.. Erskine,
tor the conclusion of an arrangement on the
matter to which IL relates" is now for the
hrst time made to this government, and
need hardly add, that if that despatch had
been communicated at the time of the ar
or if it had been known that tho
contained in it, and which were
at first presented by MIR. Erskine, were the
only ones on which he was authorized to make
an arrangement, the arrangements would not
have been made"
The language of this quotation is at once
so perspieuous, candid and intelligent, that
~ nj
from me. i will, therefore, pass on to Mr.
Jackson's reply. dat, ! Esd Oct. 1905, pages
50, 60, in the following word:
have, therefore, no hesitation in infor
ming you, that his majesty was pleased to
disavow the agreement concluded between
you and Mr.. Erskine, because it was Conclu-
ded in violation of that gentleman's inytYuc-
lions, and altogether without AUTHORITY to
subscribe to the terms of it. These instruc-
lions, Inow understand by YOUR letter, as
well as from the chrioas deduction which
took the liberty of making in mine of the
18th instant, were at the time In substance
made known toyou no stronger illustration,
therefore, can be given of the deviation from
them which occurred, than by reference
to the terms of your agreement.
Nothing can be mere notorious than the
frequency with which, in the course, of a
complicated negotiation, ministers are fur
Dished with graduation of conditions. on
wliich they may be successfully authorised
to conclude. So common is the case which
you put alphabetically, that in acceding to
the justice of your statement, feel myself
impclled to make only one observation upon
it, which is, that it does not strike me, as
bearing upon he consideration OF the un-
authorised agreement concluded here, mas
much as in point of fact. Mt' Erskine had
no such graduated instruction. You are
already acquainted with that which wa. gi
ven, and have had the honor of informing
you. that it was the only one by which the
conditions on which he was to Conclude were
prescribed. So far from the terms, which
he was actually induced 10 accept, hayiae
been contemplated in that instruction. he
himself states that they were substituted By
you in lieu Of those originally proposed"
The first observation which occurs, in
reading this extract, is, that Mr.. Jacksoi
here attempts to get at his object by what,
suppose, he considers an ingenious Con.
ceit, shifting his verbagc--the words, "ccn.
ditions prescribed in the despatch" are here
dropped; and the word Instructions
substituted. Thus enNeavoring to shew,
that Mr.. Erskine's Instructions fbemseiycs
we're in fact ksown T. Mr. Smith at the
time of the arrangement. End how, sir,
do you suppose he attempts TO get at this
iact5 Why, ar, he tells you from Mr..
smiths letter just read, slsinh so far from
Jnstiiying that conclusion, that. it positively
denies IT; and even goes further. it furnish.
&c, and refers To extracts Of two letters from
Mr.. Erskine to Mr. Smith, the one dated
the 3lst July, the other the 18th August
1909: 1t refers also to one Of the 18TH June
all OF which so explicitly to show. that the