Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1810-03-20
f % R Il / G. N.
}ENGLISH OPINIONS ON
THE LATE CORES
PoNDENcE.
{ (From the London tTimes' of ga
nuary 3.)-

:
We this day resume the consider.
alton Of the respondence between
Mr.. Smith and Mr.. Jackson. The
introductory part of the letter, which
we insert from the former of these
gentlemen. relates to subjects of SUI
hordinate nature. II first disclaims
The intention Of Offering any insult to
the British Envoy, in requesting that
his future communications might be
made in writi1g; and then qusrrsIs
with the mode in which the explana-
ton Fad been given, of MS Britanic
Maiesty's motives for the disavowal
of Mr. Erskine's treaty. 1t seems
nothing will satisfy America but an
explanation from Mr.. Jackson; and
this. Mr.. jackson saws, he was not pre-
pared officially to make, as his govern.
roent had, at the time IF his mission,
conceived the business to have been
already executed by Mr.. Canning.
We must, however, observe, that If.
as Mr.. Canning did expressly tell Mr..
Finknsy on the 9th OF May, that the
explanation would ssbe more proper.
" made by Mr.. Eiskine's successor 81
there must have been the grosses,,.
bluudering imaginable, to send out
that successor, uninstructed to give
such explanation: but this was at the
time When ministers were intriguing
TO get each other out their places their
attention was better employed than in
studying to preserve consistency in
the public acts OF the country. Yet
does the explanation itself rest upon
grounds which even Mr.. Smith does
not attempt to controvert: g Certain
Il IS, says he, g that your p-edeces-
'sqr did present fer my considerations
the three conditions which now ap-
t.gear in the printed Document-that
he was disposed TO urge them more
Ftkan the nature of.two of them (bcth
'palpsbly iuadmissible, and one more
s.than merely inadinissible) could per-
'.mit." Here, therefore, we have a
direct coucession on the part of MIR.
SINH, that the treaty concluded was
slot coasentaneous TO the instructions
and tlc explanation of It's disavowal.
therefore, If properly made, upon this
principle ought certainly not to be
oeemed unsatisfactory TO America.
And here, unhappily, the issue Of
the whole dispute may be anticipated
j nc cniy terms which our Minister
%.is auti:orise to max e &c were,p says
America, :" inadmissibIe - nay, were
more than merely inadmisslble :" SO
If neither government chooses to re-
eede from us pretensiens, war is ine-
vi'able, and explanation useless. MIR.
lrskiae's act has only prouacted the
period OF It's COMMENCEMENT. L is.
perhaps, supsradous to speciE5s that
the pro POSITION which is mere called
mere than "merely inadmisseble, !" is
thst whereby it was proposed tina,
BRITISH ships should enforce the a
anerioan Embargo against France q
proposition which we confess gave. u,
considerable surprize at FIRST, whici
undoubtedly ought 60 be given UP
but which Wr. Canning states to hav,
spsung from the acqsIescence oil Mr.
PTnkney.
The repaTation for the Chesapeak,
IS next adyertcd 70 : and MIR. Smitl
here states, that che is authorised &
receive IN proper form whateve
FSSP.icit explanations you Mr.. JasS
'son) may choose 90 make win res
fect 70 the grounds Of this part 9
THE disavowal; and that de nicer
ingly adds,) without inquIiin5 whr