The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-01-18

'hS ar.aHbStucut, no SSpiapattOn OF the ais
avowal would be given-then 1t is said, this
explanation has been already given and re !.
petition could not be expected. But, let us
pursue Mr.. Jackson upon this point, till he
quits 1t. and see if we can discover any thing
but disposition to persevere in ipse,ence
towards our government. The Secretary
OF State in his letter OF the 1914, October, adj
dressed to Mr.. Jackson. informs him, tina.
the President expected q formal and salts
factory explanation OF the reasons for the
refusal Of his Britannia Majesty to carry
the Arrangement made with Mr.. Erskine
into effect; and that he persisted in that OK
pectasion. and in the opinion, that there had
been given no explanation, which could be
deemed adequate either as to the matter o.
the mode. MIR. Smith assures him in this let
ter, page Al, "that the declaration 'that The
despatch from Mr.. Canning to Mr.. Erskine
OF The Esd January, is the only despatch by
which the conditions were prescribed TO Mr..
Erskine for the conclusion of an arrange.
mcnt on the matter to which it relates" was
then " for the first time made to this go
vcrnment." And {" that il that despatch
had been communicated as the time of the
arrangement, or if it had been known that
! tile propositions contained in il. and which
were at first presented by Mr.. Erskine,
were the only ones on which he was author
| ised to make an arrangement, the arrange
mcnt would not have been mad" This de
claration explicitly negatives the fact, which
Mr.. Jackson had attempted to affirm by in
| ference, that the {" Instructions" under
which Mr.. Erskine made the arranc ment
were known to our government. The Sc
cretary OF State then proceeds TO say, page
81, " conclude, sir, with pressing on your
candid attention, that the least which the
President could have looked for in conse-
quence o. the disavowal of transaction,
such as was concluded by your predecessor,
and carried faithfully into effect by this go
verament. was an explanation from yours
| OF the disavowal, no. through the minister
disavowed, but through his successor, an cx.
PLANTATION founded on reasons strong and So
lid in themselves, and presented neither
verbally nor vaguely. but in form, compor-
ting with the occasion and with the respect
due to the character and the good faith of
the disappointed party" Now let ms see,
sir. how MIR. Jackson answers this. In his
letter OF the Esd October. addressed to the
Secretary of State, he first observes, page
So, that he shall without loss of time trans
NIT Mr.. Smiths letter to his courr, where
the various and important considerations
which it embraces viii receive the atten-
ton due to them" Passing over this pa
ragraph, with one remark, that il is decla
ration incompatible with the idea, that he
who makes it has full power to treat, l will
proceed to what Mr.. jackson adds upon the
point of explanation.
9 1t could not enter into my view, to with
hold from you an explanation, merely be-
cause it had been already given, but because,
| having been so given, | could not imagine,
until informed by you, that a repetition Of
| it.wouid be required at my hands. am
quite certain that his majesty's government
having complied with what was considered
to be the substantial duty imposed upon it
on this occasion would, had this been fore
seen, have added to the proofs of concilia-
tory good faith already manifested the far
Their complacency to the wishes of the u. 5
of adopting the form of communication most
agreeable to them, and ofgiving through me
the explanation in question. have there
fore 10 hesitation in informing you. that his
majesty was pleased to disavow the agree
meDt concluded between you and Mr.. Frs
klue. because it was concluded in violation
OF that gentleman's instructions. and altoge-
Their without authority to subscribe to the
terms of it: These Instructions, / now I'M
Gcrstand by your letter, as well as from the
obvious deduction which took the liberty
oil making in mine of the 1th instant were at
the time, in substance, made known to you
no stronger illustration therefore can be Ell
ven OF the deviation from them which oc
Cured than by reference to the terms Of
your agreement"
Mr.. Jackson here more explicitly declares
what he had before in a circumlocutory MN
ner insinuated, not barely, that Mr. Erskine
had violated his Instructions, which was a
question between himself and his govern
! ment aid not sufficient reason for The dis.
avowal, but that these instructions were
known at the time Of the arrangement by
our government. IfMr. Jackson did not vi
oate the rules OF diplomatic decorum, when
he first made this inSinuation, he is without
| excuse. for his diplomatic rutleness, in pre-
sentinE 1t IN the more serious form of asser-
ton. after he was informed by our gov, IN
mcnt that PR. Erskipe's instructions were
not known here. Bur we have nos yet reach
ed tie cnd ot the correspondence upon this
point. In the letter OF the Secretary Of
State to Mr. Jackson, dated 1st Nov. page
66, be remarks
q" abstain, sir. from making any par,i
culGr anim2dversions on several irrelevant
and improper illusions III your letter. not at
all COMFORTING with the prcfessed disposi
ton TO adjust in an alnicabie manner the diff.
ierences unhappily subsis'iDg between the
two countries. Butt would be improper to
conclude the few observations TO which
purpoSely limi, myself, without advcrting to
| our repetition of n language implying
knowledge on the part OF ms government
that the instructions Of yorr predecessor did
not authorise the arrangement f,emed by
him. Af,er the explicit aud percmptory as.
severation that THIS government had no such |
knowledge, AMI that with such Knowledge |
no sncn arrangement would nave been enter |
ed into, the view which YOU have again pre- |