The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-03-20
! HENRY WoODTHORPE."
ENGLISH OPINIONS ON THE LATE
CORRESPONDENCE.
(f'rom tile London s'T1mEs" of Jan. 8. J


We this day resume the consideration of
the correspondence between Mr.. Smith and
Mr. jackson. The Introductory part of the
letter, which We insert from the former of
these gentlemen, relates &c subjects of a
subordinate nature. 1t first disclams the
intention OF Offering any insult to the British
Envoy, IN requesting that his future COM
munications might be made III writing and
then quarreis with the mode in which the
explanation had been given, of his Britain
mic majesty's motives for the disavowal OF
MIR. EIskine's treaty. It seems, nothing will
satisfy America but an explanation from Mr.
Jackson and this, Mr.. Jackson says, he
was not prepared officially to make, as his
government had, at the time of his mission
conceived the business 70 have been already
executed by Mr. Canning. We must, how
ever, observe, that if, as Nj Smith states
Mr.. Canning did expressly tell Mr.. Pinkney,
on the 27tn OF May, that the explanation
would "be more properly made by Mr.. En-
skine's successor" there must have been
the grossest laundering imaginable, to send
out that successor uninstructed TO give sucf.
explanation but this was at the time when
ministers were intriguing to get each other
ont of their places--their attention was better
employed, than in studying to preserve con-
sistency in the public acts of the country.
Yet does the explanation itself rest upon
grounds which even Mr.. Smith does not at
tempt to controvert: Certain it is" says
he, " that your predecessor did present, for
SC my consideration, the three conditions
(which now appear in the printed dOcu-
e" ment---thst he was disposed to urge them
more than the nature oftwo Of them Goth
palpabIy inadmissible, and one more than
merely inadmissibIe,) could permit. -
! Here, therefore, we have direct concession
| on the part Of Mr. Smith, that the treaty
concluded was not consentaneous to the in
istructions and the explanation OF its dis
IavowaI, therefore, it properly made, upon
this prirciple, ought certainly not to be deem
ed unsatisfactory to AMERICA.
| And here. uhhappily, the Issue Of the wheie
dispute may be anticipated. The only terms
which our minister was authorized to make
were" says America. inadmissible -
nay, were more than merely inadmissi
ble;" so that neither government chooses
to reCede froC9 It's pretensions, war is ineyi-
table, and explanation useless. Mr.. Frs
kine's act has only protracted the period oil
| its commencement. 1t is, perhaps, super
fluous to specify, that the proposition which
! is here called more han "merely inadmissi
ble," is that whereby il was proposed, that
British ships should enforce the American
embargo against France: A proposition
which, we CoEfess. gave US considerable sur
prize at the first, which undoubtedly ought
to be given up but which MIR. Canning states
ito have sprung from the acquicscence OF Mr.
Pinkney.
The PREPARATION for the Chesapeake, is
next adyerted to: and MIR. Smith here states
that che is authorized to receive, in pro
"per form, whatever explicit explana.i ion;
"you (Mr. Jackson,) may choose to make
"with respect to the grounds Of this part o
"the dissvowal; and that, Che sneeriBglj
"adds,l without enquiriog whether y0e' "a