Portland gazette and Maine advertiser. (Portland, Me.) 1805-1818, 1814-11-07
II Free bit Candid Discussion Of The
late Negofiafion-No.A d.

1
WE come now 20 a mott important
qucttion Is there any juH reafon to be-
lievc that Great Britain intended to Unfit
on any other article than Peace with the
Indians and;fecuri,y for their poGt Hions,
70 that they might be permanent barrier
10 fecure the Canadian provinces ?
IL the fri conference the Brni(h OPEN
ed fome fubjetts Of difcuflion, one OF
them only. the Indian territory and peace
they cecis-ea q fine qua non ut iudifccn~
llsbe- Without that, they wcnld make
no peace. This in common fenfe was
declaring that the others were not indis-
pentable. II they had afterwards with
out change of circumstances brought
forward either of the others as indifpen.
fable conditions it would have been Deem
ed unfair or perGdious.
Our minilters adroitly with view to.
create doubts afk,d them whether any
Of the other articles were alto intended
as fine qua non.
If the Brtifh were inifructed to make
them fuch, there was no resfon why
they. fhould not avow it They had be-.
fore done 10 frankly when afked whether
the Indian peace and Indian boundary
were both fine qua non.-Ihey an(wer-
ed yes
But if they replied to the other quef-
ton, that they were not, it would have
been committing shemfelves to our minif-
tiers and giving up the qucitions For as
loon as our negotia;ors ihouid know that
they were NOT initIn6fcd to Unfit upon
them, they would have refufed to difcufs
them.
The Britifl, n.inifcrs warily took the
only courfe left to them They aofwer-
ed when you have replied to our prcpo(ed
fine qua non it will be time enough to
talk Of another. eve have been, fay
they, Efficiently explicit" and so they
were. They Rated four fubjeas of which
one only they declared to be fine qua
non.
In confirmation Of this in the lait letter
of the Britiih Minifsrs after they receiv-
ed their nc W inltructions they refer to the
Indian peace and boundary only as a ine
qua non.
The other points mul therefore be con.
fidered only as fubjeds offered for diseuf-
Gon, to be modified, or wholly conced-
ed according as our miniaers might prefs
other claims and demands.
With this view of the fubjed which
am perfuadsd is correct, it Is almoit un-
neceilary to ditcuts the other proportions.
1t is wholly uncertain whether every one
of them would not have been given up.
1t is probable they would have been mod
ihed in fuch way as to meet our views,
insereits, feelings and honour.
infer this from, the manifett deGre of
Great Britain to make peace, defire
mott evidently proved BY the terms Offer
ed.
But as falfe rumours have gone abroad,
and an imp,eilionis attempted to be made
tina, the terms proposed were degrading
to US, luch as ga coDquering nation on
y would impofe upon conquered pco-
ple' and as the very propoial of fuch
terms even if not intended to be United
on ought juitly TO excite the indignation
of free people. it is of fome conlequence
to look at thefe terms. keeping in mind
however that they were mere propoia!s to
be Modliied or even abandoned
If Great Britain had propoled that we
ihouId change our P.eiident, if fhe did
not mean to make it ipe qua non, Gill
it would be afronrive.
But were any Of the terms fhe propo-
fed Ofthis attrontive character
Let US take one of which fhe feemcd
to make the mott. he agreement that
we ihould demolifh our forts and keep
no feet on the LAKES.
Is this infulting ? II it is 70 it mutt be
becaule it is unufual- becaufe no great
nation ever fubmi,ted to fuch thing
bccaufe it was wanron and unnecefTa-
ry humiliation Of US without benefit to
her or beeaulc it would be very injurious
to US.
If on the other hand It has been com.
mon Ripu!arioa between great and pow
erful nations when neither of them was
humbleG-f it was really important and