The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1810-02-21

tenion existed on his part to practice any
deception towards the government of TIC
United States" He could doubtless shew
copies of the .,ers in which he had detailed
the conversations, about which Mr.. Car ing
speaks, and that he (Mr. Erskine) bad stated
those correctly. Ii so we shall see that
these conversations neither authorize Mr.
Canning 10 say OF suppose that our govern
.ncnt would submit TO the three conditions
IN the despatch. And it justfes the infer
encc, that other Instructions were furnished
to Mr.. Erskine. This inference being cor
rect, accounts ior Mr.. Erskinc's declaration,
tnlt he /" conceived he had conlormed to
Ills MAjesty's wishes and to the spirit at
least oil his Instructions upon that subject"
But conld he have thought he coniormcd to
those Instructions contained in the despatch
OF the 23d OF Jan. !! Certainly not---he must
refer to other instructions
Now, Sir, let US see what is stated, or
rather what is not stated in the conversations
spoken OF by Mr.. Canning. The Secretary
,ot State, in a letter addressed TO Mr.. Erskinc,
bearing date the 9th August, 500, after stat
i.,, the three points contained In the despatch
ot the Esd January, requests Mr.. Erskinc
TO give such explanations, rs his contour
would at once suggest, in relation to these
imputed conversations" MIR. Lrskine in his
answer dated the l4th August relates the
conversations which he had communicated to
MIR. Canning, in which there is nothing to
Justify the assertion of the British minister,
that il WAS understood in t.ngland, from these
Conversations that the conditions mentioned
in the despatch would be acceptable to this
country. Mr.. Madison is represented to
have stated " that every opinion which he
entert.uned respecting The best interests ot
his country led hin to wish that good un-
derstanding should take place between Great
Britain and the United States, and that he
thought that the obvious advantages which
would thereby result to both countries were
sufficient pledge of the sincerity OF his
sentiments" Mr.. Erskine after stating the
time when this conversation took place, adds,
6 but never considered that Mr. Madison
meant, that the government OF the u. States,
would pledge themselves beyond the propo-
siticns respecting the embargo as above sta
ted" and AS proposed to the British govern
mcnt in August 1903, 6 because that was
the extent of the power of the President by
the constitution of the United States" 1t
was not To be expected that the British min
lister would require what the President had no
power TO give, pledge for the course Con-
gress would pllrsuc in relation to the two
countries. But provision was made by law
for suspcnding the non-intercourse law as re-
lated 10 England, upon the revocation of her
Orders in Council, SO far as they affected our
neutral rights. About this first point, there
could be no difficulty, and as the 2d point Mr..
ErsEine gives the following explana tion
I" IN the course oG private interview | had
with Mr.. Gailatin (the Secretary OF the
Treasury he intimated that the non-intcr-
course law which was then likely to be pas
sed Uy the Congress might be considered as
removing two very important grounds of dii-
terence with Great Britain: viz. the non-irn-
portatiou act as applicable to her alone and
also the Presidents Proclamation, whereby
the ships of Great Britain were excluded
from the ports of the United States, whilst
those OF France were permitted to enter. but
thar by the non-intercourse law both powers
were placed on the same footing. He did not
pretend 10 say that this measure had been
taken from any motives of concession to G..
Britain but as in fact those consequences
followed, he conceived they might be consid-
cred as removing the two great obstacles to
conoiiation.
8. lie adverted also to the probability of an
adjustment Of another important poir in dis
pute between the two coHntrIcs, as he said he
knew that it was intented by the y. States to
abandon the attempt to carry on trade with
the colonies of beiigercnts in time OF war,
which was not allowed in time of peace, and
to trust to the being permitted by the French,
to carry ON such trade in peace, SO as to cntitle
them 10 continuance of it in tire of war;"
Is there, Sir, any thing in this explanation
that ius,ihcs the belief, that we were willing
to rcnounce during the present war, the pre-
tension of carrying on, in time of war, all
trade, with the enemies colonies from which
we are excluded during peace So far from
it, that an inlimation is given of an expecta-
tion that the French would permit us to carry
OF such trade i'll peace which would cntitlc us
to continue it in time of war. But in order
That no doubt should remain npon this point,