IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) ,V4 z 1.0 1.1 IM |Z5 ..... I 2.2 JA 1.25 III 1.4 1.6 ^ 6" » p^ /I v: 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, t .Y. 14580 ( ^.t li)^ 3-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreprodut^tions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D Q Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculie I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortiorn along interior margin/ La re liure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whonever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6ti film^es. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible Je se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculies r~~|/ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I ^ Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu^^^s □ Pageu detached/ Pages ddtachdes QShowthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplimentaire D D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6ti film6es A nouveau de faqon & obtenir la meilleure image possible. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires; Wrinkled pages may film slightly out of focus. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmA au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J 12X 16X 20X MX 28X 32X Is J fier le ge The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: D. B. Weldon Library University of Western Ontario The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire film6 f ut reproduit grdce i la g6n6rosit6 de: D. B. WeUon Library University of Western Ontario Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec ie plus grand soin, compt« tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrateJ impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — <► (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimie sont fiimds en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une ampreinte d'impression ou d'iiiustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commen9ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iiiustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la (*'*"*\drB image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symboie — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., pe'jvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque ie document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir de I'angle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenanv le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrommes suivants illustrent la m6thode. ta ure, ] 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 w # ■-'I t: I* » ■• * « 4 ., ^ «( .Si*;- HI P« A tfl ^^: 't ci z\ e< is io) tei rii tij tl) tli tu .mi :'/ . 4 iM. V 1 'Pli' ■.■% *s •* C-:> It fcf^W, i S a BQQSSSimE ««^*=**! 9Mi! l|JTESaitlNG POLITICAL 'DiSGpsibN. THE DIPIiiMAipCk PQLIC Y Mli^ MADrS<# UNVEililb. In A SKRIilS OF B8SAYS Cdl(TAINlNCiir|||»ltTIiaXS UFOH TUB LATE COllRCS* rtfnosiice BBtw^N MK« SMllW Aira MR. JACIg|ON* ** The thitet coqr«f e ts di«<^c(^ ii the part ot a4ul|ar aiind to boM exposition of j/*|(r ••>) AiaHi.f.«I.I •'~^j ie»Ao4l bHt tff aJnf^Evkteiitfe.." I BY A BOSTON IAN* =a=ss LT ic professed to examine, i^ a ca^ anddispaislonate manner, iritliout invective, and, a»far at i»practicable> without ondpe prepouessions, the very interesting measures of Mr. ftfadUpn's fliibrt Administration— Our dbservatiqns and arguments will beiiddressed tptkat.enlightendpqiftioS'Of die communitr^ who examine before 1^ decide i-x^who^-cbllect, combine and compare facts,^^ before thdij dfill# inferen^esV *i^d who habitually keott' their passiootui tome de* grte of subordination to their ooderstanaingst It will be seen by this introdacBoOt that tnere xfc other claues^of citixens to whom the following candid remarks, the result of ejose ex- amination and honest and se&Ious enqtiiry, af e in no degnae address* ed*^— Lee all such men forb«fkr to read what will only serVe to con- drnEi ^'^i* pK|ttdices and inflame their passions— for ho obserration i$||b)'e correct than that where men have formed violirat prepossess- ions upon slight or no foundations, those prejudices aref only imbit^ tered by st|ong and forcible ai^upfients dfr«cted against such favoli* rite opinions.— Those, therefore, who belieye^iKat Qur Administra- ti^n isfalways in the right, ftnd Great .Brjtaiiral ways in the wrong ; those vAiO consider it a pi oiof of hatred' to one's own Country to she^ tbiit the existing and tempo^ry rulers, of It are hurrying it %<0m ruin;— and /esi^cially those whd entertain the ungenerous aaditm- naanly sentiiliKht that every man whvexaAiines wim Candor the eon- dtlct of a Foreign Natiorti or of its Ministers, is either a partijiaii 9tM. * # ■t * I ■A f . ! .*• ■/ •| € '% i> wr ■ Tf.- . 4JP, .«*• pensioner of such nation ; had better shut their eyes to these emyt, Jj at the very outseb— ^er they will only tend to inflame Uieir resent* ment* by a firm and tesolute expoiure of their errors. <|| There are somie^ howerlr* who are neither so candid or so enlight#< ened as to be entirely cp^ to conviction, and yelynot so prejudiced at to be proof against its force— who had learned f^am sad experience to distrust the sincerity of Mr. Jefferson» and were therefore capable of discussing with closeness the nature of his measures ;-~Yet these sama persons deem it unfair to examine, with the same degree of 8U»picion, the conduct of Mr. Madison. A chariubk ^ntimcnt towards this Gentlemaai has acquired a wonderful intfuence, owing principally to the undes(~Ted praise in* cautiously bestowed upon a measure little understood, and which, when thoroughly examined, will be found to merit a high degree of censure. The adjustment jrith G. Britain was a measure so gratify- ing to all the true lovers of their country^ ind of its peace, that with* out reflection, tlHi^ were willing to bury all past recollection of Mr. ^ Madison's conduci, and to believe that: a statesman who had grown hoary in the cultivation of deep sK^tipathics to (vreat Britain, who had Staked his literary reputation (dearer to an author than Country or liie) in favor of principles which rented a sincere accommodation k absolutelv hopeless, had, by a sort of miracle, been converted by a l feeble, diploinattck stripling of Great Britaitti into a sincere friend i to an honorable accommodation. It was openly said that Mr. Madison always had been at heart a ^ Federalist :-«>that ^ had never pledged himself to the system of eter- t nal hatred to England which formed the most marked feature in the policy of his predecessor ;— tliat the part which he had borne under that administration was only subordbate and thtatricals and that no opinion could be formed from that cause of his future measures. Disgraceful as such a supposition was to his character, mean as must his conduct have been thus to have played the hypocrite or the slave, andfslse as his measures now prove Uiis sentiment to have been ;, yet these opinions gained proselytes — and there have been moments in which Mr. Madison, for an act which will eventually destroy his reputation, might have obtained the suffrages of the degraded fedex* alists. Tluyugh the counteraction will eventually be as stroi^ as the de» ceptlon was complete, and deep indignation will succeedto momen* tary applabse ; yet, at this tnomentt the difficulties of a publick writer i a^ materially increased. Adapted ta this state of things must be our course of procedure. — The Political History of Mr. Madison will be first and briefly dis* cussed, in order to shew us what we had a right to expect of him, and to prove that hatred to Great Britain and attachment to French politicks were deeply rooted in his own character totally independent of bis coimection with Mr. Jefferson. ^ tys mpec f, i K • r 'i [v :»" 1 i • J 1 m t .k' '¥■ ^$7'^' % Jtk. '*■ ■■^ m ^: .. "mi w i ;'. #i- ■«:. •% H "^r-vJI • < I : t' ,i^ '% ft.. ;#■ V, '< V >f the appointment of Mr. J. Q^ Adams to the Court of one of the allies of Bonaparte and eneiiiles ot Great Bri* tain» before the rejection of the arrangement was known, with a view aa it will turn out, to form a coalition against Great Biitain, or to combine in the means of resistance ; a measure calculated to excite her jealousy, and to gratify Bonaparte- — Under Htxh head we shall no> pee also the conduct of Congress at the June sessiont and shew that It ^as a violation of the iaaplied bargain with Mr. Erskine, and a dt;« parture from Mr. Madison's peisonal assurances to that Gentlemao j and, lastly, the late course of Ncgociation with France, which prr rea that the arrangement with Erskine was explained to Bonaparte as a measure which must fail, and that it was intended to widen the breach between us and England'}— In this light fi6naparte received and approved of it. Having taken this view of the arrangement with Erskine, we shall aay a few words about the rejection of it by Great Britain, and the motives and grounds of that measure. We shall then proceed to discuss the late negociation with Mr. Jackson. In the progress of this discussion, we shidl first consider the foundation of the charge against Mr. Jackson ,of having insulted our Government : — We shall endeavour to shew, that there has been no intimation on his part of any want of veracity in our administration — that upon the point on which the contradiction has been alledged to have existed no discordance whatever can be perceived — that be has not advanced any thing which is not admitted on the part of our ad- ministration ; and that, so far from having aggravated his supposed insult, he purposely and delicately abstained in his last letiier from repeating the allegation which was pretended to be offensive. We shall then proceed to analyze the whole correspondence, and to shew that the charge of indecorum rests against Mr. Smith ;— That his fiist letter to Mr. Jackson was a departure from those esta- blished rules of delicacy and decorum which invariable usage has ren« dered indispensable — that misrepresentations of Mr. Jackson's pro- posals, and an offensive adherence to them after he had explained them, are to be perceived thoughout the whole correspondence. That instead of Mr. Jackson's intimating in (he most i emote degree any thing which was denied by our Government, they on the contrary have, in a most explicit manner, not only questioned his veracity* but h9Tc directly intimated that he h^d been guilty of falsehood. ,»■ t*' . \ m- k'^ \- . 1* >, \v -m ■# M 4: n We iball then aKempt to shew'the real causes of the tuptmt of the Negotiation — That they are to be found in the very able and perspicuous manner in which Mr. Jackson had apologized for his own governments and had repelled the charges made against their ^ siivcerity — in the impossibility of continuing a negotiation in which ^ every pretext for continued hostility was so perfllfecly rem^d — and in the danger to which the admin'stration was exposed of haVing their views completely and unanswerably displayed. We are aware that in proving thete propositions, not by argument merely, but by quotations from the correspondence^ we shall expose ourselves to the hasty censures of those rash politicians who, regardless of the hi^h and nUimate reputatt^ of their country, of that reputation which posteri* ty, uninfluenced by our momentary passions, will give to us, will stig* matize the writer as the advocate of our enemies. We are aware that it is impossible to make the truth palatable, whe» the passions of our readers lead them to prefer deception ;'— ' but the duty of attempting to inform is not the less imperious because ii is painful and hazardous. Let the writer be sacrificed {-—let him be branded with all the epithets Which inflamed and bigotted passions can invent ; the truth, however will remain unchangeable, and the day will certainly aniye, too late perhaps for our safety, too late certainly- for the vindication of the writer, in which all honest and enlightened inen will concur in the maintenance of his opinions. This may be deemed vanity : It deserves that censure, if to expect conviction from a cool and dispassionate display of facts, and an impartial course Of reasoning is an indication of vanity. Tlie confidence felt by the author in his opinions arises from a con* viction that he has thoroughly examined the late policy of our ruU ers;-^that he has proceeded no farther than he is supported by facts, the evidence of which he shall cite, and of which the publick ma]^ judge. He means to assume nothing but what he proves as he ad- vances ; and he begs the publick to withdraw their belief of his state* ments whenever they are unsupported by the evidence. On the other hand, he invites and challenges all who may dissent from his opinions, to controvert the facts he may state, and the arguments he may de* duce from them. Happy will he be, if for the first time in moments of political ex- citement, the publick verdict shall be rendered in conformity to strict priocipteus, and conceded evidence, uninfluenced by existing prejudi- ces and unmanageable prepossessions: Having dismissed the subject of our negotiations with Great Bri- tain, he shall consider our despatches from France, and the manner in which they are submitted to the publick attention. He shall iit« vite the most strcnmous supporters of the Administration to defend this conduct of our Government in relation to Erance consistently with even a moderate degree, not of Impartiality (that has long ceas- ed to exist) but of common honesty and fairness. He shall then de- duce some strong arguments in support of his opinions of the inun< ;!S|,' « ■^' cere ttewi of oar AdminUtnitioa towards Great Britain, from the uDexampled tameneis and partiality of their conduct toward* France. No. a. ■j»' m »■ Mr. Madison's character before he teas elected President. BEFORE we endeavor to display to our readers one of the deep, est, and most extraordinary p«litical negotiations which our annaU have recorded, a negotiation which establishes beyond a doubt a de> termination either to quarrel with Great Britain or to prevent a peace with her on any terms ; it will be useful to consider whether we had a right to expect such conduct in Mr. Madison — whether it comports with, or is opposed to former views of his character..— This is ex- tiemely important both to him, and to us in forming a correct judg- ment of his measures — For if Mr. Madison has heretofore manifested an impartial and unbiassed disposition'towardi the two great Bellige- rents— if he has discovered a sincere wish to preserve a good under- standing with Great Britain, and a proper spirit of indignation at the injuries of France, it would require pretty strong evidence before we could believe him capable of forming so deliberate a plan to force the former into an open rupture, — If on the other hand, his late con* duct shall appear to be perfectly consistent with the former history of his life~if a state of ill humour and ill will towards Great Britain shall appear to have been the prevailing temperament of his mind, and especially if it shall turn out that he has acquired his influence with his own party, chiefly by fostering such prejudices, surely it will not be deemed uncharitable to consider the unwearied pains which have been taken to produce an irreconcilable rupture, as resulting from a fixed and ptemeditated plan. '^i Mr. Madison came into Congress in the year 1778— Our openaUt>^ ance with France had just then taken place — The views, the ambitious and interested views which led the Cabinet of Versailles to adopt our cause, and which were so frankly acknowledged in Mr. Genet's in* structions, were even at that early period discovered by the Delegates from the Eastern States. It was soon petceived that our indepen- dence was one of the last objects which entered into the policy of France — A separation from Great Britain accompanied by such weakness on our pait as should render us dependent on herself was the extent of her good will towards us. ^ It would astonish those, who are ignorant of the intriguing policy of France to be informed, what was the fact, that this ally so full of professions, moved every wheel in the political machine to prevent our growth) and to check our solid independence.— To this end, she t #■ ^ early fomented a party in Congress — To tliis end she even intrigued with our common enemy-^To this end^be endeavoured tu dinunisli our tenitorial claims— To this end she opposed the cession of the Fisheries to us— To this end In short she insisted that even our Inde* jk. pendence should not be a sine qua non of a treaty. — But the most v„f; extraordinary part of this history is» that men could be found in our own councils ready to co«operaie in the French views. It is however a fact, that there existed in Congress a Gallic«n and an Anti'Gailiean interest — that the New England Delegates were without an excep< tion, of the latter description, and that Mr. Madison and a formida- ble patty belonged to the former — We do not mean to intimate ac- tual corruption to which it is believed he was always superioor, but strong prepossessions — It is a fact that ear ministCTS were instructed tojoihu) the advici rf Mont. De Vergennes in relation to a peace— that ^ it was even debated whether the fisheries should be made an indispen- sable condition — and that an attempt was maue to censure Mr, Adams ind Mr. Jay. for the honoiuable peace which in spite of French intrigues they had effected. ^ Thus early and deeply seated in the marrow, were Mr. Madison's Gallick prejudices, and it surely cannot ei^cite surprize that a man ^llVho.in 1779 and 1780, could pause between the interests of the United States and the wishes of France, should in 1808 and 1809 i^ glide over, nay almost gloss over the unexampled outrages of the same nation. <* With France, (says this Guardiu .. of our tights when commuai< eating to Congress the late infufferable letter of Champagny indicat. '^, ing his Majesty's unalterable will) with France the other belligerent, th' pasture of our affairs docs not correspond with the measures taken on the part of the Suited States to effect a favourable change." t J But whetlier this is owing to accident^ to \Xit failure ofnur despatches^ ' or 10 the insolent pretensions of France our Executive gives no inti« mation — Why \ Because every man in the nation reads the speech of the President, while a comparatively small part will ever sec ^e in- sulting letter of Mr. Champagny. ; Such are the two extremes of Mr. Madis'^n's political life — such was he in 1 779 — such we find him in 1809.— Let us now see how the ' intermediate series has been filled up. It is immaterial to the present >|^ discussion to consider his union with Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jay in procuring the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and his subse. quent desertion of the Federal Cause as sbon as that Constitution went into operation. — It is only with regard to his opinions as to our ft* ^^ reign relations, that the history of Mr. Madison is important in the Ijjg ^* present discussion. i$ Upon the breaking out of the war between Great Britain and France, new and important duties and relations took place in the po- licy of the United States. General Washington resolved upon an Impartial Neutrality. — The party to which Mr. Madison has from that mofroent attached his fortunes, coademocd that Neutrality.— Mr. wro popt ous bres frieil %*■ M "Pi V Mr. MadlsdD was one of the most strenuous opposers of it, and he wrote a series of political speculations to render that meabure un-' popular.— When our difficulties with Great Britain assumed a seri* ous aspect, Mr. Madison was among the foremost to widen the breach, and to censure the s^eps adopted by Washington to restore a friendly intercourse between us and Great Britain. — He brought for* ward in the House of Representatives certain resolutions to defeat the Srioeipd objects of the President, and we ovk to the eloquence of f r. Ames, and to the vigorous stand which the Inhabitants ot Bos* ton and of New-Enfflandgenerally, made to Mr. Madison's proposi- tions, the presetvauon ef sur country from the horrors of war, and the unexampled blessings which have flowed froai the prudent and wise conduct of our Illustrious President. In this most critical period of our National affiiiri, we find Mr. Madison devoted to the policy of France, ccuiting a contest with Great Britain, and ready to hazard our best laterests for the sake of his personal prepossessipns.— What reason have we to expect, that a man who was in favour of an alliance with France in 1 7 ^4, when we were so little able to engage in a contest with any nat:'«n, should not at this moment entertain Uie same views when our own ^irf neth is so materially improved, and when his old, his long continued favorites tfie Frencht iBcreasod4>eyond example in their power, are upon the point of aceoaaplishing their views of universal dominion ? Mr. Madison, thwarted in his project ofembatking the United States in the contest in favour of France, quitted the Government in disgust, not to retire as a private citizen to submit to measures which be could not controul, btit to ^an the embers of civil dissension in his xutive state. Vfe next find him in the legislature of Virginia, opposing the mea- sures of Mr. Adams, and as Chairman of a Committee organizing the whole force of that Proud and Imperial tState against the measures, the constitutional measures of Congress. — Iq mis conduct also we discern his foreign prepossessions— Our country was then threatened with a war with France — ^l*o avoid the dangers to which we were exposed by French Emissaries, the Alien and Sedition laws were passed.— The whole scope and object of those laws was to tid our Nation of a set of Spies» with whom the Intrigiting policy of France fills every country she wishes to subdue. Mr. Madispn true to his first prejudices opposed these laws, though he well knew they wete to operate only upon thr publick enemies of our Country. 1 he success of the machinations of Mr. Madison and his party is too well known. The Gallick Interest triumphed over he Interests of the American people, and Mr. Madison for the last eight years has been enjoying the fruits of thirty years most assiduous labours. The history of Mr. Jefferson's administration is one continued tis* sue of devotion to France and of hostility to Britain; peifectly in* deed correspondent to the professions and to the means by which they acquired power, but as certainly destrnctive of the best interests of '# * m IP" I % 8 V the United Sutei ai well as subversive of the honest princiftlei 6f iit Impartial Neutrality. Is Mr. Madison accountable as StcreUrj of State for this policy i Is he to be prefomcd a partaker in it ? Mr. Madison is a man independent in his circumstances — If he vras not, no apology can be made for any man who would not only consent to hold an office under an administration which was pursuing measures opposed to his sentiments, but who would submit to be the immediate organ of such measures. IVTr. Madison not content with his official duties, has volunteered in defente of the measures of Mr. Jefferson, and it will eveniually appear that he was not the dupe 01 the obedient slave of Mr. Jefferson, but the priAtipal Instigator of those measures which without the slightest occasion have brought us to our present deplorable condition. Such has been Mr. Madison. What he it we shall proceed to shew.— i but before 1 quit this subject, I must beg to be indulged in one or (WO remarks, x ;(« The great meii in every democratick Government, but more especi- ally in our own, however they lAay appear to feaJmmt in tStcifotlovi the popular Impulse. — It was said by some indiscreet persons, that Ml . Madison might count on the support of the Federalists, and of a portion of hit wm patty if he should adopt a truly honest and im- partial policy. This is a mistake, and Mr. Madison knows better.-^ The history of M*Kean and of Burr, and of Randolph, shews that there is no sort of compromise with democracy. They sacrifice with- out a struggle an old friend as they adopt a nena me^ like John O^ Adams, or if I may be allowed to name him in the same line, WiluT am Gray.— Democratick chiefs must follow, not dicute die mea- sures of their dependents. This cam ot be more fully exemplified than in the late arragement with Mr. Ejdkine. Was it an honest one i Was it serious i Why then not praised by the democrats ? Why a studied and costive sitence I Why a continuation of the abuse against Great Britain ? When known to be rejected, why such manifest delight ? Why the appearance of t triumph T Why the exultation as if the United States had gained a battle? .t. This subject I shall again recur to with more distinct application. * No. III. Mr. Esskine's Arrangement considered in its Origin, I Progress and Issue. . DIFFICULT as the path to permanent peace and reconciliation to Great Britain, appeared to be with such a temper as that of our administration, Ufort Mr. Erikine's arrangeiMnt, that unfc.tunatc measure has not only superadded new embarrassments, but our min« isters appear to be resolved to substitute it as a principal and an in- surmountable obstacle.— They not only take credit to themselves for the proof which they frttemi that measure afforded of their desire to conciliate Great Britam— but they adduce the rejection of that agree- ment as evidence, not merely of insincerity, but of per6dy.— In Uieir late discussions with Mr. Jackson, abandoning their cautious policy, and secure as they thoueht themselves in the confidence of th« people, whom Uiey eoneeiviid tney had managed, they adopted a high and offensive tone, ill calculated to restore a friendly intercourse— thev* repeated and persisted in dhrect insinuations of a dishonourabte breacn of faith, and declared that Great Briuin still persevaed insolent and inadmissible pretensions, notwithstanding the British mvoy as repeater edly, in language the most unequivocal, denied that he was dmieted to persevere in any such pretensions. Since then, in place of the dispute about the orders iii Comicil, the questions of Impressment, of the Colonial trade, and of the Chesa- peake, a new caqse of contest has been conjured up, to which a still more serious air is attempted to be given. Thcce of us who are opposed to a war, unless it be necessary for our honour, and who think it possible that a set of men who have heretofore deceived us, may deceive us again, will think it prudent to exar/tine to the very ^foundation, the late arrangement with Mi^ £rskine, and see, whether it affords any additional just ground for dissatisfaction with Great Britain, and whether it does not offer new reasons to doubt the sin- cerity of our government. Our ministers appear to place great reliance on the testimony of Mr. Erskine, who having once deceived them, and having betrayed an uncommon share of weakness, one would think they would deem little deserving of confidence. For my part, I consider this testinrany very little relevant to the questions in dispute, wdtu at it would jeem our Administration mean to rely on two grounds t so affrontive to the British Cabinet, as to shut the door forever to Negociation. * Those points are, ist. That Mr. Canning fabricated or voluntarily misrep- resented the three proposals which in his letter of the a 3d of January, 1809, h^ states, he understood were either proposed by or were ac- ceptable to our Cabinet — and, adly. That although Mr. Jackson, in behalf of the British ministry, soknnnly, on the honotir of his sove- reign, declares that thtre w:re fto other Instructions on this subject than those contained in the letter of Mr. Canning of January 23d, yet that in fact other luttruftiont did exist. ^ I repeat, and I beg the public to notice it, and weigh the ffree of 'the remark f that H would teem that the object and the only object of publishing Mr. Erskine's explanatory letters is to give rise to two opinions : — That Mr. Canning voluntarly mi»represei>ted the dis- patches of Mr. Erskine as to the three ccMiditions ; arid that Mr. 2 ♦^^ id Erskine had other Instructions than those which the British govern- ment declare were the only ones. Now if a war is intende^» and is considered desirable or inevitable, it may not be indecent in our government to make such suggestions ; but if not, I can see no motive in publishing Mr. Erskine's letters, as they have no possible tendency but to excite unjust suspicions of the integrity of the British Cabinet. < Sinco, however, some importance is thus attached to the letters of Mr. Erskine,* it will b^ well to consider his situation and the weight to which his testimony is entitled. — I say nothing at present of the manner in which these letters were obtained, nor of the suggestion in one of the Southern papers that they were iirst submitted to our ministers for their approbation ; but I do maintain that Mr. Erskine's eivtt Interest, owing to his misconduct, has become identified with die Interest of our Cabinet — that he is a party, and not a witness— he is a culprit convicted and punished by his own government — ^whose character as a statesman is completely destroyed in Great Britain, and whose only hope is to reconcile himself to the opposition in hhi nwn country and the American Government and People, to whom he is attached by the ties of property and marriage. Mr. Erskine had represented to his own Govern nent that our Administration were ready to accede to certain propositions. — When the authority arrived to close with those proposals, and when he found that tlie parties with whom he had treated denied or shrunk from the supposed agreement, how natural was it to endeavour to justify him- self by qualifying the language he had used to his own Government^ especially after it was ascertained that he had nothing further to hope from them, and might calculate on tome pvrtien of re&pect from our country, and from the minority in his own. There was another part of his negotiation which equally tempteA him to a representation favourable to the views of our Administra- tion. — The violation of the letter and spirit of the Instructions of Ml*. Canning of the 23d of January, was so glaring as to leave no hope of justification either to him or our ministers. — The only possible excuse was to suggest that there were other Instructions — His remarks on this head are vague and inexplicit.— 0/^^ Intiructions he undoubt- edly had, previously to this arrangement, because the subjects had been often discussed, and had been pending for several years — but aH of them had been merged and buried in the orders of January 23d, vrhich alone, as the British government assure us, contained the whole authority on this particular topick. Let distempered Jealousy exert its utmost powers, it can never persuade an impartial man, that Great Britain or any other nation, in tlie act of disgracing a minister , would dare to alledge, that he had violated his instructions, and that a particular letter contained the whole of them, when the Ssgraced minister, supported by powerful friends, was possessed of evidence to refute the charge. If such a mon- arch at Bonaparte, who silences the voice of complaint by confinement • Sffc Note to No, 4. in the Temple or the Castle of St. Mai^arita, could adopt sudi a coarse, the thing would be impracticable in Great Britain against a man of Noble Extraction — th^ son of a distinguished Peer, of a ci-de- vant Chancellor — and the most eloquent man in the kingdom. . One other circumstance goes very much against the weight of Mr. Erskine's statements. As soon as the disavowal of his arrangement was known* an apology for him, feeble and defective enough to be sure, was published in the Gazette of the United States. It was soon understood, alledged, and never contradicted, to have been written by him. In that apology, full of ensure against his own govern- ment, he does not pretend that he had any other Imtnutiotut but be concludes with . a threat, that shews he already conceived his own interest to be opposed to that of hh government.— The intimation is, that he had settled the difficulties with this country, and that ihote* meaning his own masters, the British ministers, must look to ,it, who had stirred, up a hornet's nest about their ears by disavowing his agreement. Such were his feelings before our government called upon him for bis aid in exciting the publick resentment against his own country. If from these causes he was biassed in his statement, he would not be the first man who has done an unwise thing to prove himself a prophet. Having made these preliminary remarks, let us now see how the probfttfd for the withdrawing our Non-Intercourse Laws and the British Orders originated, it wil Inot be denied, that only Six Months previous to this event. Great Britain had peremptorily refused an offer made by Mr. Pinkney precisely like the agreement of Mr. Ers- kine. — It will not be denied, that the first authority, and as the British ministry contend, the only authority, ever given to Mr. Erskine on this subject, was contained in the letter of the 23d of January, which comprised three conditions, ist. That we should continue our laws of Non Intercourse against France and her allies.— 2dly. That we would relinquish such part of the Colonial Trade as we did not enjoy in time of peace. — 3d. That we should by treaty permit the British ships (to do what they would have a right to do without) to capture all our ships contravening this agreement, "it will not be denied, that neither of these conditions was complied with in the arrangement, and if any other Nation had been concerned but Great Britain, and espe- cially if we ourselves were (in pari casn) similarly situated, we should entertain no doubt of the right to reject the convention — But not content witJi abusing Great Britain for the exercise of a right rendered sacred by immemorial usage, and still more sacred by reason and justice, an attempt is made to convert these very conditions, these very Instructions, into a new offence — It is said they are inadmissi- ble :— It is said they are inssolent— that they are an aggravation cf previous injury. — This might pass if confined to those base journals who have infringed the sacred immunities of a publick minister, buit they have also found their way into the recesses of the Cabinet* } ■■i^. It Now I vnll meet the whole diplomatick host on this point with confidence.— ^rhoEe Instructions convey no insult, considering the circumstances under which they were framed»Thcy were inserted in a solemn letter from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskinef which he was permitted to shew in eztenso. It could not at that time certainly be foreseen that Erskine would break his Instructions* that a treaty woald be formed, and that Great-Britain would be compdied to dis< avow it. — It was addressed to Hbs very man who is said to have written to Mr. Canning that our Ministers had agreed to two of the Condi* tions—It must have been the height of impudence and folly in Mr. Canning to have stated to Erskine that he so understood him, if he had no authority for so saying— It was Erskine's duty, if he found Mr. Canning had misrepresented Iilm, to have withheld the proposi- tions, -and to have rectified the mistake. Grant, therefore, all that Erskine and all that our ministers with tt> much kophistry endeavour to explain. Grant, (which I do not admit) that Mr. Erskine misunderstood our ministers as to those conditions ; still Mr. Canning was really deceived.— It is impossible, it is against all human probability, that he would have written to Mr. Erskine *' that be nnderttood frtm Urn that two out of the three conditions were agreed to by our ministers," unless he verily believed it. There is an end then forever to the pretext of insult in these proposals. They were proper and respectful, because beUeved to be our own, — As to the third condition, pronounced the most offens'voe^ it is alledged to have been agreed or assented to by Mr. Pinkney, and yre see no evidence to counteract or control this suggestion. f ■ S No. IV, m The Origin, Progress and Issue of Mr, Exsxufi's Ar- rangement, • WE have already shewn that this famous arrangement originated in several propositions stated by Mr. Erskine to be the result of cer< tain conferences with the members of our cabinet ; and that so far from being the cause of tutu offenut these propositions must have been presumed by Mr. Canning to have been acceptable to our ministers. To disprove this point* the members of our Cabinet have assailed the discontented and disgraced minister, Mr. Erskine, and have induced him to make sonie explanatory concessions. These concessions, pub<- lif hed by our Government in their own vindication, must, according to all fair rules of construction, be considered most strictly against themselves ; and we deduce from them most unequivocal proofs, thac Mr Canning had a right to draw the inferences which he has announced. »>,v«^-.n«,_. th he in as be »7 is- in li. r, le Id >i- h ie ?> :o le d le \e it i 13 Mr. Erskine's letter of the 14th of Angnst Is brought forward as the apology of our Government, and as calculated to prove that Mr. Canning was not authorized to presume that our Government would accede to the three conditions stated in his letter of instructions. The contrary inference may most fairly be drawn from Mr. Erskine's letter. His letter consists of two distinct parts :— -ist. His statement of what he had actually communicated to his own Government ; and 2d. His declaration of what were his own frivati imprettiorut- when drawn out by the denial of our ministers. Upon the first condition, which imported that upon the repeal of the British Orders in Council, we would withdraw onr Non>Inter- course as it req>ected Great Britain, and persevere in our Non* Inter- course with France and her allies, Mr. Erskine states, that Mr. Mad- ison assured him that **the United States woald at once sidb with that power ngmtut the other which might continue its aggressions." Upon being pressed now, after the a£fair, to explain himself, he says, that he never considered this to be a preliminary condition^ because he knew that the President had no such power without the concurrence of Congress. * This, it roust be remembered, is Mr. Erskine's private opinion, after the tSsavowal, and is not stated to have been made known to his Cabinet. This distinction of Mr. Erskine, sophistical zud absurd enough to be sure, is the same which Mr. Erskine set up in his owa defence in the Gazette of the United States, where he says, that he could not have presumed that a British Mitutter was so ignorant of the American Constitution as to believe that the President had such a power. This very argument proves that he never stated this distinction to his own Government, but presumed that they would understand it themselves. The whole of this reasoning is however bottomed upon an error ; for as the President and Senate have a right to conclude Treaties, which ipso facto become the supreme law of tlie land. Con- gress are bound like all other tuljeets of this country, to carry them* into execution.— This principle was settled in the case of Jay's treaty. Upon the second condition, Mr. Erskine stated to his Government that Mr. Gallatin said, ** that it was the intention of the United States to abandon the attempt to carry on a trade with the Colonies of the belligerents in time of war, which was not allowed in time of peace ;" and the reason he asngns is conclusive evidence, that he understood Mr. Gallatin rightly ; — for he adds, ** that the United States would trust to their being permitted by France to carry on such trade in time of peace, as to entitle them to a continuance of it in time of war. t> This is too plain to require any explanation ; it includes the total cession of the colonial trade. This is what Mr. Erskine stated to his Government, and on this express idea is Mr. Canning's second pro- posal founded. * \ mil Wtm ,/'' -^' . i ^•^. 14 ■v. Four months after this, and after his disgrace, Mr. Erskine declares, that he undentood by this* only the direct colmiai trade ; but this he did not state to Mr. Canning — and could Mr Canning divine it I Might not, indeed iSd not Mr. Canning suppose, that as our trade with the colonies of France was reduceid by captures of the French islands, and actual blockade* to almost nothing, diat our Cabinet were ready to relinquish it ? Thus it is proved, that the propositions made in Mr. Canning's letter of the 23d of January, 1809, so far from being insolent, were in fact founded upon what he had a right to presume were principles to which our ministers jiad acceded ; and it \s far from being proved that they did not give Mr. Erskine reason to believe that they did agree to tliem. We shall now proceed to prove that the arrangement entered intp with Mr. Erskine aflFords no proof of a wish on the part of our Cab- inet to adjust our differences with Great Britain ; but that it was rather expected that it would widen the breach. - 1st. There was good reason to believe, at the moment of the ar- rangement, that he had not only acted without full powers, but that he had violated hit imiructiont. This point once established, and it being once conceded that our Government expected a disavowal, it is a proof of great insincerity^ instead of a desire of preserving peace. No point can be more fully settled than that a mere letter of cre- dence, appointing a man a minister resident, or even plenipotentiary, does not of itself include the power to make a treaty. — Hence we find that when ministers plenipotentiary have made treaties, they have exchanged their full powers^with the persons appointed to treat with them, although they themselves may have been resident at the Court of the sovereign with whom the treaty is made for several years. This principle acquired additional force, and if usage had not sanc- tioned it, the particular circumstances in which Mr. Madison stood, would have afforded an ample apology for demanding Mr. Erskine's powers. Mr. Madison is an officer with limited power. This fact foreign nations are supposed, and indeed obliged to know. He was not empowered to restore the Intercourse with Britain, except on tlie condition of his Britannick Majesty's having actually withdrawn his Orders in Council. He might, however, have considered his Majesty's promise to withdraw them, on a day certain, as tantamount to an actual repeal { — but in such case, he had a right, nay, he was in duty bound, to call for tlie power of the Minister. Why was it not done T Because it was known, we say, not to exist. — ^l^he delicacy in this case was truly affected. Great Britain could not have taken offence at the demand of an authority, when that authority was indispensable to the exercise of Mr. Madison's power. But the actual conditioni of Mr. Erskine's instructions vrere known \ and it w»s known that the arrangement violated tiiem. >r:.{^ r IS Tliis is in proof. •/ 1st. By Mr. Erskine*s letter of the Ifdi April, to his own govern* ment, in which he states, that he ha(ll>msca<>sed the three conditions verbatim et seriatim, that is, word for word, and gives the replies of our ministers. 2d. By Mr. Smith's letter of the 19th of October last, in which he admits that the three conditions were known to him. And 3dly. By Mr. Erskine's explanatory letter, written at the request of our government, in which he says, ** that in the discussions upon these conditions, he found no reason to believe, that any difficulties would occur in the accomplishment of the two former conditions, as far as it was in the power of the President of tlie United States to agree to the first, and consistently with the explanation which I had ^iven of tlie last." Thus then it seems, the conditions were in fact known ; and if there existed publick reatom^ arising from Mr. Madison's limited powers, to .require an authority before he abrogated, by his fiat, an act of Con- gress, how much were these reasons increased, with how much more force they operated, when he was informed, that the British Minister was clogged with certain conditions, not one of which was conceded i If prudence would before have required a full exhibition of powers, how much were these motives increased by this disclosure of the expectations of the British Cabinet, and the certainty of their dis- content with the terms actually agreed upon i But a nice metaphysical distinction is set up, rather calculated for the mob, than for the reasoning part of society, that the instructions of January 23d, from Mr. Canning, though known in substance, were not shewn in extenso ; and a species of jockeying law is introduced^ that it was possible there might be provisional instructions of a lower (one. The whole evidence is now before the publick ; and it appearsr that the conditions were not merely the substance, they were the luhote of Mr. Erskine's Instructions, and under the very limited authority of Mr. Madison it was his duty so to have presumed. But I shall perhaps be asked, what motive could Mr. Madisoti have, knowing he was thus restricted, and knowing he was liable to punishment for violating a law of Congress, to make a convention which be presumed would not be ratified ? I have one answer to make, which will be amply sufficient, though I can give twenty :— i He knew that the party, on whjch alone he depended for support, would praise him for any act which would prevent an adjustment with Great Britain. He knew more, that any honest and fair arrange* ment with that nation, would be fatal to his popularity and power. . He was influenced in that case by the "same motives which induced him to adopt the late more extraordinary step, of dismissing a British Envoy under a pretence of an insult, which never existed. In both cases he was sine of, and he has received, much more sin- cere praise from his friends, than if he had closed with Mr. Jackson's ■$7 VI p. offer, and had conductedt as that gentleman Is authorized to do, a final adjttitment of all oor ^Sumtct*. That these suggestions «liNwt the offspring of a jealous and faults finding disposition, the publiek will believe, when I come to consider the offensive measures adopted bj our government, to prevent even the one-sided arrangement of Mr. Erskine from being accepted by die British Cabinet. [Set the Note to thb paper, M«. 4, ia the AfftH^K.'^ No. V. Tbe OrigtHf Progress and Issue of Mr, Ejisxi^£*s At" rangement, IT has been shewn that this arrangement originated in proposals transmitted by Mr. Erskine ot from our own Oovertmunt ^ — ^That the instructions are formed upon a basis supposed to have been proposed by them : — ^That the convention itself aifbrds no evidence of sincerity on the part of our administration, because it was concluded not only without a demand of Mr. Erskine's full powers, without a knowledge that such powers existed, but with the express knowledge that he vio- lated what he had stated to be his instructions. We have endeav- oured to shew a good reason why our Government should be willing to take such a hazardous step with the full conviction that the agree- ment would be rejected — ^that the tendency of it would be to widen the breach between the two countries, and therefore would be the most grateful offering which Mr. Madison could make to his own party, and that as such it has been received — ^received as a pledge of his devotion to their views, of his disposition to gratify the most favourite wishes of their hearts. Mr. Madison had forther motives sufficiently powerful to induce him to take this bold and artful step. The Non-Intercourse with Great Britain, as a substitute to the Embargo, pleased no party in the United States. It was an extorted compromise with the di£ferent parties in our country. To the south- em states it afforded but an imperfect relief. The necessity of tran- •shipment, of a circuitous voyage in order to 1>ring their staple pro- ductions to their best market. Great Britain, afforded them only a ■partial remedy. Whatever may be the pretences of Mr. Madison, that the United States have sufiered an " Irreparable Injury " by Mr. Erskine's agreement, and tllat Great Britain nas gained an essential advantage, the people of the United States know and feel the contrary to be the fact. — The most popular act, therefore, Mr. Madison could have performed, was the opening of the direct trade with Great Britain. — This is well known, and this the experience of the short interval of freedom abundantly proves. ' ,. y Uv* .M . 17 >^ • ,, , k • Another consideration powerfully operated with Mr. Madison.— It bad been contended by Mr. Madison and his party, from the time of his famous resolutions in 1 795, that America held the destinies of Great Britain in the hollow of her hand — that we had only to open our granaries, and slie enjoyed plenty— and to close them, and she starved. The Embargo was the eflfect and the experiment of this policy. Although it disappointed all the hopes of its friendf., yet the folly of Mr. Erskine (to use the mildest term) seemed to ofFer them a J hope of proving to their party, what experience had already con- V need the leaders was not true, Uiat their prophecies were correct. If the second nation in Europe could be compelled to relinquish her j^eneral policy, without a substitute, merely by our restrictive ener» gies i the triumph of Mr. Madison would be complete. Although, therefore, he might have known, and as we have shewn ,did know, that Great Britain never meant to recede from her System of retaliation, but with a substitute on our part, which would com- pletely supercede it aud occupy its place ; yet when he found a feeble minister capable of being cajoled by general professions, and influ- enced by a desire of assisting the party to which his father and him- self belonged in Great Britain, who (always in opposition) had par- ticularly oppottd the British retaliating Orders ; is it extraordinary .that Mr. Madison should be willing to agree to an arrangement, though persuaded that it would be rejected, which would afford a temporary triumph to his principles \ His game was a certain one — he could not be a loser, and he might gain immortal glory. If, said he, Great Britain, unwilling as I know her to be, to enter into a contest with us, shall ratify the unauthorized act of her minis- ter, then we can justly boast that our policy, our restrictive, pacific, energetic policy, has brought to our feet the proud mistress of the ocean ; my praise will be in all the cities ; and France, grateful for my co-operation, will add new praises and new laurels to my brow. — But if Great Britain, indignant at the conduct of her minister, shall refuse to ratify, we shall have created a new cause of complaint ; I shall be fixed more firmly than ever in the affections of my party) and in the good will of France. Though these considerations were siifficient to any reasonable cal- culating politician, yet Mr. Madison looked still deeper. " The pas- « sions of a populace (he must have said to himself) are not so easily « controlled. The leaders must consult these passions, not attempt to " direct them. It is too Herculean a task to hope to render a state 01 « peace with Great Britain fiofiular. The federalists and men of " propeity will support me, to be sure, but an honest peace with Eiig- « land will destroy the firmest administration. To avoid then this «» rock upon which even Washington's administration had almost split, »« I will take care (said Mr. Madison) so to conduct this negociation «» that it shall be impossible, abaolntehj imjiossiblc, for Great Britain tb '* accede to the arrangement." 3 ° .-.V^^ 'm 3 'I - 18 , ^ • In examining Mr. Erskine's agreement we accordingly find a Ian- guage adopted by our cabinet which breathes the spirit of defiance, rather than of friendship ; which resembles rather a manifesto of war than a friendly discussion leading to a permanent peace. When parties suppose they are about to settle their differences, it is common and it is natural to adopt a language of conciliation. In this case we find no courtesy, but a spirit of reproof. Great Britain had contended, that it was our dutjr,to repel the aggressions of France, and she had manifested a disposition uniformly to withdraw her Orders in Council whenever we should take any effectual steps to vindicate our own rights against France, in the vindication of which she herself had a direct interest :— For her Orders in Council were nothing more than retaliating upon her enemy that injustice which neutrals (the only one of which remaining was America) permitted France to in- flict upon her through their flaga. ' As soon then as Great Britain found we were disposed to resist the decrees of France, she was ready to withdraw her Orders in Council, inasmuch as our laws, if duly enforced, would supercede the necessitjr of her blockade. Upon this basis Mr. Erskine's arrangement is professedly founded —-but although this was the only ground upon which Great Britain could with any honour as it respepted her enemy withdraw her Or- ders in Council, yet our Ministers inserted in this firetended and affect' ed pacific arrangement, a clause which took away from Great Britain the only «j/vo.to her pride— the only apology for her honour.. They declared that the act prohibiting intercourse with France did not << proceed from any dispositil>n to pitiduce an equality between the two " nations, but arose from separate and distinct coruiderationa.'" In other words, lest you should presume that we were actuated by a sens of justice to you or by your remonstrances on that subject, we declare we had no intention to do you justice, and your acknowledg- ment and repeal we choose to have considered as a pure concession to us and to our forcible and energetic measures. A still more affrontive clause was added to the acceptance of satis- faction for the Chesapeake. The Government of the United States, did accept, as a full and complete satisfaction, the terms which Great Britain offered. If peace had been the object it should have been received with good will, but in lieu of this, our Minister told Mr. Erskine, after agreeing to the terms, " that it would have been. for the honour of his " Britan- nic Majesty to have punished Admiral Berkeley." Admit the fact thus offensively alledged, if you choose :— Admit it was disreputable in his Britannic Majesty not to punish Admiral Berkeley : — Still we agreed to accept of a satisfaction without it — and if a good understanding had been wished or expected,, we ought to have abstained from such offensive terms. ' ; .;, It cannot be necessary to men of sentiment to add, that to say that it would have been more to hia Britannick Majeaty'a honour to have done a certain thing is tantamount to saying that to omit doing it is dishonourable. ,.,, . - ^ ^ -'.-.V'v M'j^^a?fft:k^ti'^.^ . -jifr'a^jS" n- :e, ar it n |iu e, re te (If re le le J, y d n I f.' Is this the administration which is so alive to the insults of Mr. Jackson, which no man can perceive and no man point out ? The fact is well known, that when these expre ssions were read in the British Parliament all the bitter distinctions of party were melted away,and dissipated in one common sense of indignation at an unmerited, unprovoked and deliberate insult, at a moment of affected rcconciHation. Mr. Erskine has never found a defender in Parliament : No, nor even in the prostituted vehicles of the opposition. Where then do we find the evidence of sincerity of our govern- ment ? In making a treaty without demanding the powers of the agent ? Jn forming a convention with a man who stated that he was violating his instructions ? Or in the unprecedented affrontive lan- guage made use of after a compromise had been agreed to ? In the fireaent number I have only time to add one more proof to those I have already adduced of insincerity. It is a &ct, that although this arrun|;ement was made with Great Britain, all the democratic pa- pers continued the same virulent abuse of that government which they had used when we were on the eve of a war. But a more material /act t«, that Mr. Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury ; Mr. Seaver, democratic member of Congress from Nor- folk, on the 4th July, at Dedham ; and the marshal of this district, are said, all of them, befd^ the disavowal of Great Britain was known in this country, to have publicly declared that they feared the agreement would not be ratified, because Mr. Erskine had exceeded his powers.—. How did these gentlemen divine this ? If from our Cabinet the infor- mation was derived, what becomes of their sincerity ^ what of their honesty in clamoring against Great Britain for an act which their own consciences had taught them to expect ?* ' No. VI. The Origin, Progress and Issue of Mr. Erskine's ■< Arrangement. ANOTHER circumstance, the tendency of which is to prove the insincerity of our Cabinet, in the agreement with Mr. Erskine, is the appointment of Mr. Adams, as mwiistcr to Jlussia. I have been astonished that so little consequence has been attached to this meas- ure, which in any country of Europe, would have excited the most curious inquiry, and the most serious alarm. The time in which his his nomination was^r«; made, the knowledge that a serious coalition had been juat then formed to destroy the commercial power of Great Britain— -the illegal and unauthorised appointment of Mr. Short, by Mr. Jefferson, at auch a juncture — the nearly unanimous refusal to * Mr. Prince, marshal of this District, has published a note in which he admits his prophetic spirit, but denies that he derived his information from Washinn^on. No man could be so weak as to suppose that the Cabinet held a direct correspondence with Marshal Prince.— There are a thousand ways of communicating facts and opinions, without confiding in the discretion of every inferior officer. m 20 sanction that appointment— the solemn vote of the senate on the moiioii of Mr. Lloyd, (one of the most intelligent merchants in either branch) « that any mission to Russia was inexfiedient and unnecetaary" The conviction in the mind of every intelligent man, that this vote of the Senate was correct* are all of them proofs that this measure has some object beyond xXsJirat appearance. We have passed thirty years safely and prosperouly without a minister to Russia ; our trade to that country inconsiderable in itself, was perfectly well managed without any Consul, and was certainly sufficiently secure with an able Consul General. Russia is not an important naval power ; and it is on the ocean alone that the theatre of American politics is erected. When therefore Mr. Jefferson^ata moment of hostility with Great Britain, nomin- expectation or wish that the arrangement with Mr. Erskine should take effect, is the conduct of Mr. Madison and of Congress £(t the June session, *>« Co rep whi Gn 21 u /„ H Mr. Madison, if you take Mr. Erskine's Jirat statement to his own Ctovemment, had assured that minister, that if Great Britun would repeal her Orders^ we would take dde with her ag^nst those nations which kept in force decrees infringing the rights of neutrals and of Great Britain. When called upon by our government to explain, the submissive and suppliant Mr. Erskine, still persists that Mr. Madison told him, that although he could not answer for Congress, yet that there was no doubt but that Congress would honestly fulfil this implied stipulation] and toould enforce our laws against the oflending power. What was the fact ? Mr. Madison not only tails to recommend it in his speech, but Congress neglect to include Holland, though within the British ordefs, though within the absolute dominion of France, though enforcing lows injurious both to our own rights and those of Great Britain. What apology is made for this breach of fiuth ? Shall Hve say that Mr. Madison's suggestions amounted to no filedge ? Did they not bind himBelf, at least, to the recommendation ? What is the excuse set up for this violation of a private' understanding ? Mr. ' Smith tells us, that it was less important to Great Britain because Holland excluded us from her ports. This if it had been true would have been a singular reason for opening our trade with her, but it was not correct — She has never excluded our ships freighted with certain productions of our own country, unless they came within the provisions of the Dutch decree, which copied the decrees of Berlin and Milan. Thus we see that if the arrangement with Mr. Erskine had been deemed by Mr. Madison a serious one, he has very ill fulfilled the poor and naiTow conditions which he had persuaded Mr. Erskine to accept in lieu of those to which he was directed to assent. Let us now say a/fw words upon the rejection of the agreement by Great Biitain, for a few only, with the remarks we have before madO) will suffice. Great Britain would have had a right to have refused to ratify the agreement even if Mr. Erskine had pursued his inatructionay because he was not vested with /u/Z/tou'era, and she would only hkve been obliged to say to us that he had no sufficient authority. This is supported by the quotation from Vattel, made by our own Civilian, Mr. Smith, and which is in fact, and is to be presumed to be the strongest case he can cite— Vattel says that agreements and treaties made in virtue of a fyll power are binding. Now this implies neces- sarily that if they are not made in virtue oi & full power, they are not binding. That the General letter of credence of even a resident Minister plenipotentiary is not a full power, we have the testimony of all the great civilians, but of none who deserve so much weight in tlda caae, as that of the very learned Doctor in Law, Thomas Jefferson, whose authority we cited in a Note to No. IV. But Great Britain is not so mean and ungenerous as to put her disavowal on the mere want of power. She stn's " I will not imitate '•IV «* 22 V « your example in the case of the treaty made by Messrs. Munroe M and Pinkney. The simple wan^ of authority would not induce me <^ to reject a treaty just and equal. But I reject it because my aervant (* Sroke hit order: Whether he broke them or not, is immaterial tb *< you. It is sufficient that he had no power, and you never even *< asked him whether be had, which you know is the established « Usaffe, and which usage you yourselves adopted against our former M miruster Hammond. It is therefore, doubly > inreasonable that you « should complain of a measure, whic>^ . was,4.a two principles, both <( equally recognised by the laws of nations, authorized to adopt." That Great Britain did not, as she well might have done, repose rn the general incom/ieteney of Mr. Erskine's powers, who not only not possess tk/ull fiower^ but of whom our government, contrary to their own Jormer conduct) did not demandany evidence of author- ity, we have the declaration of Mr. Jackson, who states, that although Mr. Erskine had no fiowera to conclude such &n arrangement, yet that his Britannick Majesty did not disavow his agreement on that ground, but solely because, though acting without powers, he violated, in a gross manner, his instructions. ' These instructions are now before the public. Every man knows that they were violated, in letter and in spirit — and our own government do not pretend to deny this point. But there is one circumstance worthy of notice. The British Cabi- net had no coniidence in the talents of Mr. Erskine— they not only bound lum down to precise terms, but they required that even if these terms were comfilied vrithj still that they should not be held till they ahould receive in England, an official note, declaring the consent of our government to them. This was tantamount to a positive reser* vation of a ratification. Shall we be told, that our government did not know this7 That the instructions were not communicated in extenso ? I answer, this is not the fault of Great Britain. She authorised her minister to shew them, and we were bound by the law of nations to derpand his authority, as we have proved by the letter of Mr. JefTer* ton to Mr. Hammond. This brings me to the last remark, which I have to make in proof, tliat the agreement with Mr. Erskine was not sincere, but was intend- ed to be used as a source of new difficulties, and to be the apology for a rupture. If that arrangement had been made bona fide, and with an honest disposition to bring about a solid peace with Great Britain, the* disa« vowal of it would have been received as all nations receive events of that sort, without emodon or complaint. As two fier/ect reasons, as we have shewn, existed to justify Great Britain in rejecting the agree- ment, for neither of which was she accountable to us further than to 4tate them, it was sufficient for her to make this known to us through any channel. I shall, on a future occasion, consider the high mettled and fastidious ground taken by our government, that a special envoy should be sent with a special power, with a certain technical form of words, and should make a formal procession to the Capital in a peni- tCTitial fiheet, to apologize for an act whicli we and all other nations /■:. 23 have don*' without any apology— in short, to apologize for the negfeet of our own ministers in not demanding Mr. Erskine'a poweva. But I cannot quit this part of my subject, which is now completed- without one further remark, that it is somewhat singular, that our National sensibility should be so local or personal— That while Franco is allowed to kick us from Finland to the pillars of Hercules, without provoking any other observation, tban that the **fiotture of our afihirs IS not changed, we should be so extremely sore— so tremblingly alivo to all the uijuries of Great Britain, that even Shakespeare, m his Mercutio, has given us but a tame sketch of our irritable sense of honor. Whether a repeal of a proclamation shall be dated to-day or to-morrow ; whether an explanation is made through our resident minister— or the offending minister, or his successor, or whether, though the suc- cessor makes the explanation, he uses a legal form of words for that purpose, and lastly, whether, in stating what we admit to be true, he adopts a lai'ger word, or a more copious expression, or deduces an inference amounting to an intimation of an inunuation, is in our very valiant temper, sufficient cause for the dismissal of a minister, an4 for incurring the horror^ of an interminable war. tt.. «,;- No. VII. 'Mr. Jackson's Dismissal — Its imfortant Consequences-^ Its pretended Justification. WE come now to the consideration of the most momentous quesr tion which the United States have ever been called upon to decide since the declaration of Independence : and it is astonishing vith what an apparent apathy this question is considered by men of al) ranks, of all grades of understanding and acquirements. They seem to treat it as if it bore some degree of resemblance to the questions which have for several years past agitated the public mind, and as if it was certain that, like them, it would end in noisy s^d vapid decla- mation. It is, however, no less a question than that of a ruinous war, or a disgraceful peace. The position in which the late dismissal of Mr. Jackson has placed the United States is one from which they can never extricate themselves with honour ; and they may esteem them- selves the favourites of Heaven if they escape from it without serious e(ilamity. Our fate no longer depends on the wavering, noisy, and. vapouring councils of boisterous demagogues, but upon the policy and prudence of a* other nation, upon whose good-will we can no longer calculate— Let us explain ourselves. The right to dismiss a foreign Minister for indecorous or offensive conduct, (however it may have been questioned, and indeed denied, as we shall shew, by Mr. Madison's party,) can never be doubted by any man acquainted with public lav, nor will be contested by any person who is alive lo the true interests and hunour oi liis country. It' ^he offence is palpable and unquestionable, no nation which regards us character, and which wishes to prescrvp peace, will hesitate to recall its minister who has been guilty of such ati offence. The har- mony of the two nations is not in such a case in any degree affected. But if the case be a questionable one, and especially if the time, conduct, and circumstances be such as to render it obvious that is was either intended as an affront, or as in excuse for the rupture of nego- ciation, it becomes impossible for the injured nation to recall his Minister, to disgrace him in the eyes, of the world, and to renew the interrupted intercourse. If such a dismissal be, moreover, accompanied with circum- stances of insult and aggravation, vfar may be expected to follow ; and Mr. Giles, in this case^ with a spirit truly /iro/ihetic, has predicted thrt such will probably be the result. — Why that gentleman should ha/e presumed it, if Mr. Jackson has been rightfully dismissed for ordinaiy understandings, could never submit. Such then are the serious consequences of this measure— -conse- quences for more important than any which have yet followed from any measure adopted by any administration in our country. Either war upon us by Great-Britain, war by us against her, or a submission to all her allcdgcd wrongs, and a total suspension of intercourse with her, until either she or ourselves shall so far forget our pride and honour as to coui't a renewal of intercourse. Now, serious and alarming as this position is, no honourable man, no man who regards the tights and dignity of his country, will regret t!ie consequences, if the measure was called for by our honour — if not, let the censtu'c full upon tliosc persons who rashly advised so I f * \ 25 hasty and momentouiPSrstep. The admiolatradon hare defended this measure by the example of Qeneral WAeamaTov in the case of Grne/— the allttsion is an unfortunate ont) on every account. *I had intended to cite this case against them, and I could not have dreamed , that Mr. Madison or his friends would have had the imprudence to induce us to take a retrospective view ef thai Ungrateful ac*ng.-m That these men, who now affect to be so ative to the natimMd honour) who are so ready to take offence at a look, a word, an irumtationy should remind us <^ a period in which not only the hmiour of the ooun<* try was trampled under foot, but in which the foreign agents who in- sulted us were honoured, feasted, and set up in hottile array by our own citizens against their own government, in among the maweilous events of the evil times on which we have fiillen. Genet was not dumia— edt his recall mvly was re>, m IS I much excited, they changed their tone, and bv^vR^d the people to re- Strain their rage, and not to violate the immunities of Mr. Jackson's office by an outrage on his person. If the formal notice of the insuk was the act of the government, so also was this ; and yet this very administrati(m make it a subject of complaint against Mr. Jackson that he demanded a ttife conduct against the populace whom the fia- troru of the National IntelUgencer endeavoured to appease, and whose fiiry they appeared to dread. A second circumstance, which tended to excite a suspicion of unfairness, was the attempt to divert the pub- lic attention from the alleged insult which was the avowed cause of the rupture of the negotiation, to the propositions pretended to have been made by Mr. Jackson. This was a subject more complex, more ' difficult for the people to comprehend. But the resort to it was a subterfuge which we shall endeavour to remove. A third circum- stance, which has a very suspicious appearimce, is the change in the ttrma of the charge brought against Mr. Jackson. We were at Jirat told, that he had given the lie direct.— Even the JVational Intelligenc- er led us to suppose, that he had charged the government with the knowledge of Mr. £rakinc'a instructional of which they had declared they had no knowledge ; wr; supposed the contradiction was upon some plain, specific, and important fact : but as soon as Mr. Jackson's ex- planation appeared, it was thought necessary to write a letter to Mr. Pinkney, and to explain the charge. A very different view is given of the affair in this letter from the first statement in the Intelligencer. Thb leads us to a belief that if Mr. Jackson's circular had not reach- ed the press, we should never have seen Mr. Smith's very extraordi- nary letter to Mr. Pinkney. Under circumstances so inauspicious to truth, did this transaction .appear before the public. Let us now pro- ceed to shew, from the documents, that there is not even a shadow for the charge as it stands corrected, and dwindled down to pigmy size in the letter to Mr. Pinkney. The charge as it is now corrected and explained, may be found in the following extract from Mr. Smith's letter to Mr. Pinkney, of No% ember 23d, 1809 : <( It waa never objected to him^ that he had atated it aa afact^that the three firofioaitiona in gueation^ had been aubmitted to me by Mr. Erakincy nor that he had atated it, aa made known to him by the inatructiona qf Mr. Canning, that the inatruction to Mr. Erakine, containing thoae three conditional waa the only one from which Ma authority waa derived, to conclude an , langement on the matter totvhieh it related. The ob- jection was, that a knowledge (f this restriction of Mr. Erakine, waa imfiuted to Shia Government, and the repetition of the imputation, after it had been fieremfitorily disclaimed." The amount of this paragraph and charge is simply this, that Mr. Jackson either by direct assertion, implication, inference, or insinua- tion, did either say or suggest " that our government knew that Mr. <( Erskine had no other insti uctions than those which they admit were <( made known to them," and that he repeated this inainuaiion after our government disclaimed such knowledge.— Had Mr. Jackson so have conducted he would have been not only insolent, but extremely weak. \ ■^■' 27 .-sr' —For it vrould have been ridiculous in him to impute to our govern- ment the knowledge of, such a negative^ which it was almost mipo^- . slble they could have known, besides, that such an imputation would have been contradictory to other parts of his ovm letters.— In his let- ter of the 1 ltlt«f October, he tells Mr. Smith " that although when he *< left England it was believed that Mr. Erskine* had shewn his in- « stvuctions in ear/CTwo— yet it now afifieared he did not**. This was a candid dismission of Mr. Smith's declaration on this subject ; and in the same letter he adds, " that the. letter of the 23d January, from Mr. *' Canning to Mr. Erskine, was tht.only deafiatch by which the condi- « tions of an arrangement were prescribed ;"— and he adds no insinu- ation or inference that our government knew this to be the fact. On the contrary, the declaration to Mr. Smith in so solemn and formal a manner, implied, unavoidably imfilied that our government did not know that fact before. If, then, it would have been absurd and con» tradictory in Mr. Jackson to have insinuated such a knowledge of the restriction of Mr. Erskine, let us see whether in point oifact he was •guilty of this folly. The first instance in which any mention is made of the instructions of Mr. Erskine is in Mr. Jackson's first letter of October 1 1th. After stating that it was believed that Mr. Erskine had communicated his powers in extenso, when Mr. Jackson left England, and admitting the/act unconditionally and frankly " that he had not" he proceeds to state, that by Mr. Erskine's letters it appeared that the Uiree conditions which formed the basis of his instructions had been made known to our cabinet, and that all the arguments and observations upon those conditions by our minister had been stated by Mr. Erskine to his own government, from all which he infer a^ that the substitution of other articles instead of those proposed by Great Britain was a proof that the eonditiona 'were known to us. lie only adds to this simple and intelli« gible idea, one " remark that our government must now fierceive how . « witlely the agreement differs from the conditions presribed, and of « course how just were the claims of Great Britain to refuse her assent . « to it." Is there in all this the remotest intimation, inference or in- • unuation that our cabinet knew or might have known, or migttt have inferred that these were Mr. Erskine's only instructions? Mr. Jack- son adds, that the despatch of the 23d January w&s the only one by which the terms were prescribed.— This clause is simple unaccompa- nied with any inference of insinuation whatever ; and we assert con- fidently, that no other passage can be found in this first letter relative to this subject. In Mr. Smith's reply to this letter we ought to ex- pect to find not only a reproof or notice of any offensive terms, had there been any but a particular designation of the part which was deemed offensive. — Mr. Smith does express his surprise, that Mr. Jackson should lay so much stress on the want of complaint on the part of our cabinet, and on the substitution of other terms instead of those which Mr. Erskine was authorised to propose ; — ^but he does not ^ntimate that Mr. Jackson had drawn from those circumstances a conclusion that our government had a knowledge of the restricted flowers qf Mr. Fskine. Now, as Mr. Jackson had not in/act, sls yye MX m If '^r'fA '\ have she'mi, drawn any such conclusion, and as Mr. Smith did not telP h|m that he supposed he had, how could that minister divine it or give any explanation of it ? Mr. Smith adds, « that if the goverhment *< had known that the conditions presented by Mr. Erskine were the *( only ones on which he was authorized to make the arrangement, it ** never would have been made." This was the moment for him to have told Mr. Jackson that he understood him to insinuate in his first letter that our government had such knowledge. This was omitted* Why ? Because Mr. Jackson had made no »uch iminuation. But if he had made it, it would have been ro offence until our government de> nied it, which they never did till this clause was inserted in Mr. Smith's letter of Oct. 19th. The offence, if any, must be found, therefore, in the subsequent correspondence. The next letter from Mr. Jackson in reply to this denial now Jirst made by our government of their knowledge of the restricted nature of Mr. Erskine's powers, is dated Oct. 23d : — In this letter he most delicately abstains from any insinu- ation of the knowledge of our government of Mr. Erskine's restric- tions :— The only sentence in relation to this subject, are the follow- ing, and are in strict and exact conformity to the fects admitted by our Cabinet. «.H.^'«tt{, »w *«it«i -cv v « These instructions (Mr. Erskine's) I now 'trndef^OOni by your letter as well as the deductions which I took the liberty of making in tmne^ of the llth inst. were at the time in substance, made knoivn to you." « You are already acquainted with that which ivas given (alluding to the communication qf Mr. Canning's letter to Mr. Erskine^ which wo* ohevm to Mr. Pinkney,J and I have had the honour of informing you that it was the only one by which the conditions were firescribed. These are the only sentences which affect this question, in this letter. It is impossible to conceive of language more clear~it is difficult to form an idea of expressions more respectfiil or less <^en- sive. Yet the next we hear from Mr. Smith, on this subject, is in the highest possible tone of haughtiness and affront :<— He assut^^ Mr. Jackson, without any qualification, that his language is imfirofHT and irrelevant, and that Mr. Jackson had insinuated which we horue firoved he had not^ that our government knew that Mr. Erskine's in- structions did not authorise him to conclude the arrangement, and that he must not refieat the insinuation whip h he had never made. Mr. Jackson had insinuated only what our government admitted, that they knew the substance of Mr. Enkine^s fiowers, and the only infer- ence he made was that his Mejesty was not held by an agreement which so essentially departed from them. The language of Mr. Jackson heretofore >vas not considered good cause for dismissing him, but we are told that in his last letter he persisted in the same insinu- ations, with aggravating ciixumstances. In that letter we affirm, that not one line can be found, alluding to the contested point. There is a moderation, accompanieid with firmness, which Mr. Smith would do well to imitate :— -The only passage which can be pretended to refer to the^lispute, is the last paragraph, where Mr. Jackson regrets that an /: 29 he should be diarg^d in unqualified terms, tnth irrelevant and ii&« proper arguments, and adds, « that he should not think of uttering an insinuation^ where he was unable to substantiate a fact*' Now it is said, and said with justice, that if Mr. Jackson had made «D improper insinuation be/ore^ this was in effect, an adherence ti it, and an offensive one. This we admit /—but as he had made no ith sinuatioTi, as we have proved, but of facta admitted by our Cabinety and especially as he had not made the insinuation, now charged upon him, it was not a breach of delicacy to assert, that he had made no insinuations unsupported by facts. , : <■•. i .( t, • i "trsf No. VIII. i''i :>• -> ,« .■••«f^;i.'H~.)ir rt^f^ .<-* Mr. Smith's offensive Insinuations^ and irritating Lan* guage to Mr. Jackson. WE have shewn, that neither the original charge of insult, pre^ ferred against Mr. Jackson, in the note, by which his functions were suspended, nor the milder and corrected explanations of that charge, in !r mi . m iti.i IV'} ■ fj. 34 But Mr. Jncksoh is more explicit ; he tells Mr. Smitli " that his Majesty would be justified in rejecting that agreement not only on account of the form in which his Minister had tendered it^ but of the manner in which that tender had been received." He adds, " that he had elucidated that observation by a reference to the particular expressions which made the terms of satisfaction appear unacce/itable to the American government, at the very moment when they were accepted." The just and honourable pride of Mr. Jackson forbad his repeat- ing to tne world the insulting expressions, but an American who thinks as I do, that our government put an unnecessary impedi- ment in the way of adjustment, is restraiued by no such delicacy. It was because our government declared " that the offer made by his Britannick Majesty did not comport with his honor and dig- mty ;" that it was dishonorable in him to make it ; that the agree- ment was rejected. This is the reason assigned, and yet we are told this is no exfiianation. A Virginia nobleman would not hesitate to take away the life of a fellow-citizen on such a ground^ and yet we are told this is no reasonable ground for rejecting a bargain. This phrase purposely introduced, shews, as Mr. Jackson says, that the satisfaction given was unaccejUable to our government, and yet we complain that this unacccfitable and Insufficient satisfaction IS withheld ! l—Proh Pudor ! ! The second part of this chai-ge in relation to the Chesapeake is now to be considered. Is it affrontive to us ? Is it injurious that Great-Britain should insist upon having our acceptance of the sat- isfaction simultaneous, cotemporaneous with the offer f Is it unrea- sonable that she should insist on seeing the letter agreeing to re- ceive the satisfaction ? We think not, because 1st. Mr. Jackson states that this is the invariable course of Eu- ropean governments in like cases. Is this denied by Mr. Smith ? We have three letters of his, af- ter this assertion, and Mr. Jackson's principles are not questioned. But 2dly. If no such usage had before existed, here were special Reasons for the adoption of such a rule. Great-Britain, through Mr. Erskine, had tendered a full satis- faction for the Chesapeake affair, wbich had been accepted by us— but owing to his neglect of demanding our answer and agreeing to it beforehand, our government had inserted the most affrontive language ever introduced into a diplomatick correspondence. Was it then unreasonable, that Great-Britain should be unwilling again to confide in our delicacy — again to repose in our sense of decorum ? But lastly, here was a serious controversy about to be adjusted, here was a trespass on our rights about to be compromised by the payment of money, and the acknowledgment of wrong. Did any prudent man ever pay his money, or tender his satis- faction without seeing his discharge, without reading his receipt in full ? If such imprudence does not occur in private life, how could it be expected of a nation which had no extraordinary rea- son to confide in our good will ? C C( U V ir t t t But Mr, Smith and Mr. Madison so far from confiding in these positive assurances of Mr. Jackson of Ma fiowera in relation to the Chesapeake, and of his being clothed with the fullest authority, continue in the future correspondence and in the Message after the whole negotiation was closed, to insinuate that he had no com- petent power—that he had made no specifick offer, and that his intimations were accompanied with inadmissible pretensions on this point. I shall hereafter distinctly exanune these pretensions which are declared inadmissible, but at present my object is simply to shew, and that I have fully done, that oui: Cabinet have in very indeco- rous language contradicted Mr. Jackson's most solemn asseverations, and misrepresented in a glaring manner his observations. As to the third charge brought against Great-Britain, that of having made no proposals for the repeal of the orders in council, it is the only one in which our Govemment have not come to a flat contradiction of Mr. Jackson's declarations. But it will be seen that they do not stand on better ground as to this charge. It is true that Mr. Jackson did not come authorized to receive or to make any other proposals for the repeal of the orders in council. And what are the reasons ? The most respectful to us, the most justifiable in themselves. They are, 1st. Because it would h^^ve been indelicate and indeed affrontive to renew the propositions which, although they probably first emanated from our Cabinet, we had seen fit to disavow and reject. 2dly. Because we, claiming the repeal of a measure which Great- Britain had adopted as a just retaliation on her enemy, she had a right to expect that we should propose a substitute of resistance to her enemy which would take the place of her orders, and would fulfil the duty which she contended we were bound to perform in order to entitle us to our neutral privileges. -But lastly, and the most important reason of all, was, that she had in repeated instances tried the effect of propositions in vain. In the case of Mr. Rose and Mr. Erskine she had stated hertermsy and as soon as they were known we had demanded something higher which she could not grant — ^besides, as the last proposal came from her and we had rejected it, she had a right to expect a proposal from us." ' \ ■■* -% m I Mo. IX. Mr. Smith's misrepresentation of Mr. Jackson's Let-- ters continued: — and some Remarks upon the Principles pretended to be set up bt/ Great-Britain against the United States. WE pass now to the examination of ihc last charge preferred by Mr. Smith against Mr. Jackson :— 36 v-t " That he had been intitructed to insist u/ion the three conditions 0*" Mr. Canning^ which had been declared by our Government in- admissible." As this charge is still persevered in, and as it is made the chief cause of complaint against the British nation, it is of great im- portance to ascertuin whether Mr. Jackson was directed to per- severe in these claims ; recollecting, however, that there is abundant evidence that our Government authorised Great-Britain in the ^rat instance to expect they would be conceded. Mr. Jackson in his first ^letter of Oct. 9th, in answer to this charge explicitly declares, " That he was not authorised to renew these proposals which had been found to be unacce/itable to «*, and that he could not have made such a proposal inasmuch as it would be inconsistent with his other declaration^ that he was not instruct- ed to make any proposal whatever on this subject^ but to await the profiositiona which our cabinet might see Jit to make to Great-Lri- tain." — Mr. Smith, in his answer to this positive and explicit, clear and unambiguous declaration, that Mr. Jackson was not di- rected to peijievere in these claims, replies, That he perceives that any agreement on this subject must include a stifiulaiion on the fiart of the United States to relinquish the trade with the ene- mies colonies even in branches not hitherto interru/ited by British orders for cafiture^ and also a sanction to the enforcing of an act of Congress by the British JVavy." — Mr. Smith adds, " That a known fletermination on the fiart of his Britannic Majesty to adhere to such extraordinary /trf/cnAiORA would preclude the hope (fsuccesa in the negotiation." ,.. r > i • It is impossible to conceive of a more fialjiable contradiction^ or a more unfair representation ; and one < un hardly conceive any other motive for such conduct thae the wish to produce, not only a collision with Great-Britain, but a prejudice in the minds of the uninformed part of the people of the United States. Mr. Jackson would have been justified in replying to this insult in warm and intemperate language ; but he did not lose sight of the dignity of his office, and the interests of both countries to pre- serve a good understanding. To this flat contradiction he mod- estly replied, in his letter of October 23d — " That his government ordered him not to renew firofiosals which have been already declared here to be unacceptable^ but to receive and discuss firofiosals on the part of the United States^and eventually to conclude a convention between the two countries. It is not of course intended to call upon me to state as a preliminary to negotia- tion, what is the whole extent of those instructions." From this mild and temperate answer it follows, that he was jiot instructed to insist upon the offensive conditions, but that he had a full power to conclude a treaty, of which though he could not before hand state the utmost limits, yet it was fairly to be in- ferred they were far short of the conditions which had been de- clared offensive, and upon which he was not authorised to insist. ;■•>• to pos adji suit I GrJ ha. for her to offer any terms whatever so long as this rod was- h' . t rrorein over her head. On thia Jioint Mr. Rose's mission i nated. And let us ask every man of honour, if com- pensation \.as demanded of him for any act of his servant's, whether he would give it while the complaining party threatened to chastise him ? Between nations this is impossible : And of all the nations in the world, and of all the administrations which ever existed in any nation, ours, one of the most captious, ought to be the last to find fault with this objection. It is, I confess, truly n/ioint of honor ; and the only question is. Which is right ? I admit that neither party which is in the right, ought to sacrifice this point of honor, unless for the sake of preserving peace, which is more interesting than any point of etiquette. But in this case we can acknowledge the repeal of the Proclamation without dishonour, because we never pre- tended that it was a hostile measure ; but on the other hand^ Great-Britain, who considered it an inault, could not agree to treat with us without a formal acknowledgment of the repeal. But, says Mr. Smith, this adherence to punctilio is the more unrea- sonable in Great-Britain, because it was well known that the Proc- lamation had exfiired ofitaelf. He was I think not aware of the natural answer to this, which would have been made if he had not scaled Mr. Jackson's lips, that if the Proclamation had fx/.'Verf, there could be less reason for a »a^2on disposed to ficace to refuse to note that fact in the proceedings. And why this delicacy on the part of Great-Britain ? Because she could not conifiensate us so long as the record of so hostile a measure remained against her. The only other inadmissible pretension of Great-Britain which our Cabinet urge is, The reservation of Great-Britain^ that she will not fiay the bounty to such of the sailors wounded in the Chesapeake, nor will she re- 43 s ? turn such of them aa she has taken, who may appear to have been deserters from his Majesty's service, or natural born subjects of his Britannic Majesty. Now without entering into the question so fully settled by the American people, that they will not go into a contest for British sailors, we would simply remark, tliat an objection of this sort comes with a very ill grace from a Government, one of whose captains last year entered the British territories, seized a school- master as a deserter in the act of giving instruction in a peaceful village, shot him dead upon the spo\, and to which officer, after a formal Court Martial, his sword has been returned with honor. If this does not amount to a claim of deserters, we confess we do not know what does. No. X. Mr. Mjdison's conduct towards France^ and that of France towards us. The authors vindication and conclusion. ,« . .,ij . < ,* - ,- >. . « France has shifts, and toe have men.** - "' ' * Mr. Jefferson. ; * ". • u France wants money, and must have it." Mr. Madison to Mr. Randolph. FROM the authors of such sentiments, one would not look for any exhibition of impartiality, or for any expressions of indig- nation towards France, for her accumulated wrongs — ^but from a man of Mr. Madison's prudence and talents, one would have ex- pected some appearance of decorum, some shew of independence, some token of an insincere desire to preser/e a nominal impartial- ity. In reviewing the President's late message, with its accom- paniments, we are astonished to find the mask which even Mr. Jefferson d«signed to wear, superciliously thrown away. — Mr. Madison, secure of his office and of his popularity, disdains any labour, even to save appearances, and while his speech breathes nothing but hostility, and war towards Greot-Britain, it is worse than silent as to the wrongs, the injuries and insults of France. The proofs of this partiality have been too long and too fatality felt, to require a very minute display of them at this moment. I shall confine myself to a few instances which have recently occurred. The documents which accompanied the President's message, fur- nish the first proof. While the correspondence with the British Cabinet and our complaints against Great-Britain, occupy eighty RIGHT pages, all the evidence of our intercourse with France is comprised in seven. While every document in relation to the British controversy is communicated at large, even down to the notes of the Secretary of Legation, while some parts of Mr. Ers- kine's letters are extracted and published tnvicr in the same fiam- ■'\ 44 fihlet in order that in one form or the other they ntight be L-re to meet the publick eye, some of the publications of the letters of Gen. Armstrong to our Government, and of Mr. Champagny to General Armstrong, are mutilated extracts^ and the most material parts are aupfireased. This i» not all — tohole letters and the ivhole history of our late Negotiation with France are kept behind the curtain. This conduct is the more unpardonable, inasmuch as the publick expressed its just indignation and its merited jealously on the at- tempt to suppress the French Documents last winter— How did we in that case obtain a disclosure of the disgraceful nature of our Negotiations with France ? By the voluntary exhibition of the Ex- ecutive ? No. The suppressed documents published in Boston, dropped down upon us we know not how— the light flashed upon us, we know not whence ! And are the American people to be always kept in this state of palpable blindness ? Are our Negotiations witli France, such deeds of darkness that even when all hopes are gone, when abor- tive, when dead bom, they are to be buried without examination ? If such shameless suppressions would have answered in ordinary times, shall we submit to them when we are called upon to take the solemn alternative of war or disgrace ? Shall we see the gaunt- let thrown to Great-Britain, under the pretext of insults which we cannot fierceive — shall we see her envoy dismissed, while cluthed with full powers to complete an adjustment, declaring that he is not ordered to insist on pretensions which we have deemed inad- missible, but is ready to receive and discuss our own proposals, and yet not be allowed to examine the conduct of France, with whom both our own and their minister allege the door of ne- gotiation is for ever closed ? The publick have been amused the last summer^ with repeated messages to France — several vessels have been despatched thither —^vA. they not carry remonstrances, demands, or proposals ? If so, •«4iere are they ? Why are they sufifiressed ? While a negotiation is pending, reasons of state may require secrecy — ^but this is not the case. General Armstrong, in the mutilated extract of his let- ter of 1 6th Sept. last, declares that Mr. Champagny's note, which I shall presently consider, is " a dejinitive answer to our protiosals" —This note is not only definitive, but it is insulting in the extreme. It is not only ^Jlat refusal^ but it is a most cutting aiKl sarcastic taunt. Why should we not know then what these firofiosala were, which Mr. Armstrong says he has made ? If they were reasonable and moderate, our resentment ought to be the more excited against France. Why then attempt to rouse the passions altogether on one side ? Shall it be said that as we mean to join one party against the other and not to ^ght bothy we ought to suppress the wrongs of our intended ally in order to make our Union more solid and complete ? But the people have not yet decided which party they will join, and they wish to have the whole conduct of both displayed fairly by the Government. of Gr sh( lat 45 If the Government continue to smother the wrongs and injuries of France, the People will atate an account for themselves — If Great-Britain be charged by Mr. Madison, with perfidy because she refused to ratify the act of an unauthorised agent made in vio- , lation of his instructions, which were, we admit in substance made / known to us — The people will not forget that with Napoleon Bon- aparte we have made a treaty signed with his own sign manual, which guarantees to us the right to carry even British goods on British account — a treaty which declares that no blockade shall be laid by either party unless the same be actual — the people will not forget that it is not even pretended that we have violated this treaty— it is not even suggested in Mr. Champagny's most imfiudent letter. Like the treaty before made with France, in which we were told that France " could only find a real disadvantage in ad- hering to the terms of the treaty," so Mr. Champagny tells us, that the Emperor's decrees are the effect " of the necessity of re- firisals which circumstances imfiose" It is alledged by Bonaparte's good friends in this country, that the French decrees are retaliatory merely. Grant them this point solely for the sake of argument. Still France is /lerfdioua, because in Nov. 1806, when her Berlin decree passed, Great-Britain did not enforce any firincifiles but what she enforced when our treaty with France was made. If, then, with the knowledge of the British rule of 1756, and of the British rules of blockade, she stipulated to permit us to cany British goods, and never to stop, us by nominal blockades, she is guilty of base perfidy by her Berlin and Milan decrees. If we are told that Mr. Jackson,. the British envoy, insulted us, by repeating in nearly the same words a concession made by Mr. Smith, our own minister, what shall we say to Mr. Champagny's haughty note in which he puts an end to all our negotiations, by announcing his Imperial Majesty's " invariable determination ?" To our complaints, that our treaty had been violated, our ships captured and seized in French ports, and on the high seas, to the amount of twenty-five millions, our seamen imprisoned as enemies, our vessels burnt without any form of trial, and our property con- fiscated in neutral countries, Mr. Champagny replies by a discourse on the Emperor's morality. Irony of this sort to a bleeding, suf- fering, and insulted nation, would have roused the Roman pride or the feelings of our fathers — as well might the abandoned female in a brothel deliver a discourse upon modesty, the pick-pocket address a sermon upon integrity to the man whom he had plun- dered, or the nnurderer boast to the expiring victim of his revenge, the gentlenes and suavity of his character. Yet Mr. Madison communicates this most insolent letter to Con- gress with only the equivocal remark, " that the posture of our affairs with France does not correspond with the measures taken on the part of the United States to effect a favorable change." But let us be a little more explicit upon the insulting nature of this letter. r m m iv 46 In 1 806, Bonaparte, in violation of our treaty with him, declared the British islands in a state of blockade. He could not do this by way of retaliation justly : Ist Because Great-Britain did not then enforce any principles which she had not enforced during the whole war, and at the mon. ;nt of our treaty with France. 2dly. Because we had not violated the treaty on our part. Sdly. Because there had been no previous complaint to us, nor any demand that we would resist any pretensions of Great-Britain, all which would be requisite to make the retaliation just. It was, in fact, avowed to be the consequence of a resolution of Bonaparte to destroy Great-Britain by the destruction of her trade. We remonstrated against these French decrees, and Mr. Arm- strong so early as 1807, declared to Mr. Champagny, "that to appeal to our treaty or the law of nations 9S it respects Fraiice would be literally afifiealing to the dead." This >yas the right sort of spirit. What is Mr. Champagny*s answer to this remonstrance ? As if France had been an angel in purity^ and as if she had not been the confessed aggreasor^ he replies, " The right of pretension of blockading by proclamation, rivers, and coasts, is as monstrous ^revoltante) as absurd." When we had been persevering m our remonstrances for this very conduct for three years, we are gravely told, that such beha- viour is very provoking and very unjust, and that France is in firincifile exceedingly ofifiosed to it. This cost France one- hour's labour, of Mr. Champagny, and the expense of the paper and pos- tage, which is well repaid by twenty-five millions of our property seized upon this very firincifile. Again — In 1807, a French Admiral seized a number of American vessels on the ocean, and burnt them without trial. This was the first time such a practice had ever been attempted, Mr. Armstrong mildly remonstrated, or rather asked, whether it was understood that France countenanced such an unheard of proceeding ? We had no answer to this demand till this letter of Mr. Cham- pagny, who sarcastically tells us, " that a merchant vessel is a moving colony^ to do violence to such a vessel by searches, visits, or other arbitrary acts of authority, is to violate the territory of a colony." , . ... ,* ., COMMENTARY. It appears then that though the French will not allow the princi- ple of searching or visiting a merchant vessel, they make no scruple to burn the colony of a neutral state, and to sink the territory of a •friend. They have made a still better reply to Mr. Armstrong by issuing new orders, to burn every vessel which would not bear the expense of carrying in— which orders have been actually executed in several instances. Yet Mr. Madison is silent as to both these modest refilies of V I'ance. 47 Still further — On the 24th of November 1806, an order was passed by Bourienne, minister of France af Hamburg, that all English merchandize, to whomsoever belonging., should be confiscated. Similar decrees were issued in the free cities of Lubeck and Bre- men by France. In August, 1807 the same thing took place at Leghorn, and on the 19th Sept. 1807, in the Papal territoiy. Bona fide American property was seized under these decrees upon land in neutral and friendly states. ' > ■ • * *' • • Mr. Madison directed Mr. Armstrbiig to complain of this con- duct, and the first and only answer we received after waiting three years is in these words—" In all her conquests France has resfiected firivate firofierty— The warehouses and the shops have remained to the owners." It would strike any person as fabulous who did not understand the French diplomatic character, to hear that any man could have the audacity to reply to the very person who had so often com- plained to him of the seizure not of firivate property, merely, but of neutral property— not in an enemy's country solely, but in a Friendly state, "liat France respects even an enemy's firivata firofierty in an enemy's country." — Mr. Armstrong should have replied that if that was true^ it would be better and more safe to be the enemy of France than her friend. But as applied to her enemiea^ the falsehood and effrontery is not the less palpable — Have we forgotten the Bulletins issued after the perfidious entry into Spain, in which the Emperor boasts of his having obtained 50,000 bales of Spanish wool ? — From whom was this seized ? From Individuals, his allies^ the Sjianiardny whose only crime was their loyalty to their legitimate sovereign, whom Bonaparte had perfidiously kidnapped and violently de- throned — Have we forgotten his profaning the altars of the Al- mighty, and sacrilegiously robbing the sanctuaries of the Most High ? Will he with his infidel spirit, contend that this was not firivate firofierty^ and therefore was the fair object of plunder ? We have not forgotten the robbery of the sacramental /date in Por- tugal, and the indignation which it produced in the minds of the Portuguese, when the fortune of arms put these robbers into the power of the injured and indignant sufferers. We should do injustice to France, however, if we omitted to no- tice one instance of her frankness in this communication of Mr. Champagny.— He assures us that when France shall have regain- ed her Maritime power, when she shall be able to render her mandates universally respected, she will respect the liberty of the seas in as great a degree as she does the liberties of the na- tions whom she conquers on land ! ! — We have then the rule qf her justice — she will regard the rights of private property on the ocean as much as she has heretofore done upon the Continent .' I ! There is one other idea upon this point which we would present to our readers before we quit this subject, and which may account for the tameness of the language of Mr. Madison. II ft if 48 Before our Embargo was imposed it will be recollected, that Gen. Armstrong stated to the Americans in France, that such a ■ measure would undoubtedly take place in America — Letters from France and Holland from private Merchants to their Correspon- dents in this Country, confidently spoke of such a measure before it had been even suggested in our country — A despatch vest j1 ar- rived from France, and in three days after the embargo was im- posed — Mr. Masters, a democratick member of Congress, declar- ed, " that the hand of Napoleon was in this thing." Our venera- ble watchman. Col. Pickering, suggested to us the same idea — we now have the proof that it was agreeable to France from this letter of Count Champagny — He declares " that the Emperor a/i- filauded this generous determination of renouncing all commerce , rather than acknowledge the dominion of the tyrants of the seas." A like omen, and a similar prophecy has occurred in the firesent case — A Senator of France, in a recent publication in France, has declared " that the United States are about to join the general co- " alition against Great-Britain — that as a pledge of that intention, their New Ambassador had reached Copenhagen, and that Mr. Jackson had been dismissed. It is a singular fact that a vessel from France did arrive in the United States, and her despatches from our minister in France did reach Washington about two or three days before the dismissal of Mr. Jackson. That such circumstances should so frequently concttr, is to every impartial man extremely suspicious, and we can no longer wonder at the sufifiression of all the late negotiations with France, and the studied silence of Mr. Madison on that subject. Having now finished the developement of the subject which I had originally proposed, it remains for me to vinaicate the mo- tives of this public appeal against our own administration. It would be affectation to conceal, that so deep rooted are the prejudices of our citizens against any impartial display of the questions between us and Great-Britain, that any writer who may undertake it, however pure may be his motives, and however well founded his arguments, is sure to incur the most violent invective from one class of citizens, a cool disapprobation from another, and but % feeble and timid support from the rest. This is inevitable from the nature of our government, in which it will be always an unwelcome task to stem the popular prejudi- ces ; that our citizens have strong antipathies against Great-Britain, and are indifferent to the insults and injuries of France, the history of the last twenty years most abundantly proves. TJie writer of this examination cannot, he does not hope to turn the current of these prejudices. It would require more than mpr- tul power to arrest the progress of such inveterate prepossessions. But there arc moments like the present in which the imminence of the danger may rouse the thoughtless, and stimulate the lethar- gick. Even truth may at such a period hope to find a reluctant admisiion. 40 I do not addreaa those base and sordid minds who deny the HJGHT of a citizen of a free country to address the understand- ings of his fellow countrymen at such critical moments, upon questions between ourselves and ^foreign nationa — Such men are formed and fitted only to be alavea. In this respect many, if not most of our people are several centuries behind their ancestors, the Britiah nation^ in the eatimation qf the fieofile'a righta. In Great-Britain, that land of slavery and corruption, as our sons of liberty call her, the press has <)o such restraint — not only in the periods fireceding a war, but during a toar itself^ the opponents of that war can, with impunity, and without censure, question the justice of the cause, and denounce the motives of the administra- tion which brought it on. Who will dare to question the virtue of Col. Barre and Mr. Burke, or of lord Chatham, in their opposition to the American luar^ or in their severity towards the ministry during that toar ? What democrat in our country ever censured Mr. Fox, whose Speeches they published and praised for his hostility to the war against France both before and after its commencement ? And, in more recent instances, who censured lord Grenville, Mr. Baring, or Mr. Brougham, for their attack on their own min- istry in the questions between us and Great-Britam ? Baae indeed, and worthy only of being the alavea of a Tyrant^ must be those men who would so far degrade our national char- acter, as to contend that we are unable to hear both sides of the question without hazard. If, as those people pretend, our argu- ments and our remarks are proofs of our devotion to another na- tion, and of our contempt or disregard for our own country, why not expose us to contempt and execration by refiublishing our ea- saya ? Are the people not as capable of judging as theae venal editors ! But there is another class of people who are entitled to more respect, and who enquire, what is the benefit derived to our coun- try, by exhibiting the unsoundness of the principles of our own ad- ministration pendiiig a controversy between us and foreign nations ? We answer, our government, like that of Great Britain, is a government of opinion, that opinion when once well ascertained ought to and must govern .our rulers — this is the very foundation of a free government. But how is this opinion to be formed or to be known ? A member of Congress does not correspond with ten persons out of fifty thousand of his constituents — It will be said that he carries with him their sentiments, but suppose a question arises like this of Mr. Jackson after he leaves home, how is he to know the public feeling ? We answer — Through the medium of the press — that palladium of our rights.— Is all the zeal which we have displayed heretofore in favour of the Liberty of the Preaa a mere pretension ? And shall we renounce its privileges at the very moment when alone they become important ? In times of peace and quiet, it is very immaterial what the press does or does not 7 T inculcate ; but in times of danger and turbulence its value is felt : tthall it be, then, restrained when it is most wanted ? Shall we be permitted to discuss who shall or shall not be constables or clerks m a petty village, and be denied the discussion whether our coun- try, our lives, and our fortunes shall be put in jeopardy by an un- necessary war? ' ^'» ''^"^ This doctrine of the Liberty of the press is strangely managed. When the public papers in the case of the Chesapeake, and of the first unfair and fjilse promulgation of the pretended insult of Mr. Jackson, took side with the government, we were then told they were the vox dei, and not to be resisted. « The people have loil- led it" said the National Intelligencer, « and it must not be op- posed." But when these same public presses, recovering from the panick, and the effects of misdirected passions, began to ex- press a different opinion, they were denounced. The sentiments of more sober thought were declared to be the offspring of sedi- tious opinions. The motives of the foregoing writings were these — It was be- lieved that there was a manifest disposition to bring about a rup- ture with Great Britain ; it was perceived that the documents fur- nished no new and no filauaible occasion for it ; it was known that our members of Congress left their respective states before this state of things was understood, and it was deemed important to let them know m what light these despatches, and the late conduct of our government, were viewed here. It was found, tn* '•Over, that the dismissal of Mr. Jackson might be folk>wed by t lara- tion of war against Great Britain, and that the best mode )id-^ ing such a calamity would be by uniting the people and the legis- latures of the states, the most opposed to such a disastrous mea- sure, in legal and constitutional means of averting it. It was, and it is still hoped, that if petitions should be presented at the foot of Mr. Madison's throne^ he may revoke his determination as to the rejection of the Envoy of his Britannick Majesty. It is also hoped that Great Britain, notwithstanding the rejection of her Minister on frivolous pretences, which is the usual prelude to war, will yet be diverted from adopting, as a precautionary step, the seizure of our vessels and property, an event which would certainly lead to «. war^ much to be deplored on both sides. The only hope entertained by the writer of this article, is deri- ved from the belief that Great Britain understands the policy of our Cabinet — that while their feelings and wishes are all on the side of France, they do not choose to hazard their fio/iularity by an un- just and unfounded war against Great Britain — that a majority of the Eastern States, and two fifths of the others, are opposed to a war on such flimsy grounds as have been yet brought forward, and so long as much deeper, more aggravated wrongs remain wholly unatoned for by France.! We hope she knows farther, and we are sure she estimates more seriously the great interests of Uberty-~that the preservation / - ^^ T t \ i ^1 af America from the ^rasp of France, is vastly more important than any smaller consideration, and that much is to be endured rather than to suffer such an event to take place. She will not we are persuaded permit herself to mistake the temporary policy of the democratic party, for the real interest and feelings of the American people. She will recollect that Great Britain had her long Parliament, and her CromwelU, and France her Robespierres and Marats, but that such ephemeral appear- ances are no indication of the general course of National policy. It is hoped and believed that tlie promise made by the writer has been in some measure fulfilled. That it has been shewn that we had a right to expect such a negotiation and such an issue from Mr. Madison's former character. That the arrangement of Mr. Erskine was concluded, mala fide, without demanding his powers, knowing that such as he did exhibit were violated, and accompanied with such affrontive expressions as rendered it certain it would not be accepted. That Mr. Jackson is chargeable with no insuldng expressions which we can discern— with no indecorum towards our Cabinet, but that the most harsh and indecorous language has been adopt- ed towards him by our Secretanr of State. That the British Minister and British government have both been charged with the most improper conduct in this late negociation, wi^out, as far as we can discern, the s1i(;htest evidence. On the contrary, that the most inj . ious conduct and the most insulting insinuations from France, have been wholly overlooked. We owe an apology to the publick for the very incorrect fohn in which these ideas are conveyed. It has been Our endeavour to present a perspicuous view of the subject, rather than to exhibit it in an enticing dress. Wc are aware that many imperfections and inaccuracies will be found in the style, but they have arisen from the strong desire which was felt to present this interesting sub- ject at tm early ifioment to the publick* , ,, •' :5-^ ■ ■;'r;i- s. Jl» .i ' 't ,- -• • ■■ i'\ 'i ^ - S ■ 1 V "■»«.' ■mm i^nvC'V^ -■•\j.-^ ; .■■?(Ks!.v ":'\^:0i:ft i-:rr'tW. APPENDIX. v.'y^.P'K'^ V t''^?l;'?7^''4~"' . A iiiA \i,> A * Important Xote to the Diplcmatick Conduct of Mr. Madison unveiled — Ao. IV. Full Powers efa Minister necessary in aMtion to his letters of credence. TO prove that the ideas au^csted in thu" number, of the total incompdftcnce of a general letter of credence to authorise tiie cdn-Uision of a treaty, are not only cor- rect, but founded upon an authority which .Ml not be controverted by the United States or by Mr. Madison, I shall insert th : correspondence between Mr. Jefferson and Mr. liainmond on this subject. I think this the more important, as an idea has been circulated in this town, found- ed, as it is pretended, on tlie authority <^f Mr. Jolin Quiiicy Adams, that our govern- ment had no right to demand Mr. Erskinc's special powers ; and that it would have been insolent in them so to have done. Let those who have been influenced by this opinion, read the following letters, and then answer how Mr. Madison could be jus- tified in not demanding £rskinfc*8 full pmvera ; and how he can, with any decorum, object to the disavowal, by Great-Britain, of au Act. not merely unautliorised, but contrary to positive Instructions. " PhiladelpMa, Dec. 13, 1793. " Mr. Jeffercon, Scorctaiy of State, to Mr. Hammond, Mhiister Plenipotentiary of Great-Britain. " SIR — ^I liave laid before the Preside.it of the United States the letters of Nov. SOth and Dec. 6th, with which you honoured me, and in consenuence tliereof, and particularly of that part of your letter of 13eo. 6th, where yon say you arc fully au- thorited to enter into A Negotiation, for the purpose of an"rt/»MV/§- the Commercial Intercourse between tlie tw« countries. I have the honoiir to mfurm you, that I am ready to i*eceive a Communication of t/onr full powers for that purpose, at any time you may think proper, and to proceed immediately to their object. I have the" 'lonor to be, &c. &c. T. JEFFERSON." Mr. Hammond, in his reply, says, he is only instiiicted, not empowered to conclude a treaty ; but he coincides in the principle, and adds, that as ho is a Minister /'/c»- ipotentiary, and is instructed, he thinks it sufficient " for the vommencement Qi» pre- liminary negotiation." It will be observed that Mr. Hammond had been before acoWiVerf as a Minister Plenipotentiary. In proof that Great-Britain adheres to the same principle which Mr. Jefferson set up in 1793, against a British Minister, we find that Mr. Jackson, in addition to his letters plenipotentiari) i» (unmheti with a not relrain therefoi-e fi-om considering this lottiT as an appeal to the passions and prejudices of the people in a case whore the display ui'thc whole truth was dreaded. Z' ? \ The fii-rt, that occurs to me, it the paanonate recital of tlie aiTair of the Chesa- peake — To whom was this addressed f To Mr. Pinkncy who had been made ac- iiuainted with all the facts and all the arguments, two years since, by Mr. Madison, Secretary of State— Why then repeat them ? Why repeat them with that sort of colouring, which if not a deviation from troth in itself, is intended to produce false impressions in others ? Why repeat, tliat the thre<; sailors detained from the Chesa- ]»eake were all Jitnerican citizeru, when the Government took depositions in the county of Bristol in Massachusetts, a.. ■) E 'f-.i-.J,.'- IV.'* NOTE IV. WE sug^sted in the fonegoing strictures that Mr. Erskine was induced by ouV administration to withdraw Ks preliminary conditions under the erroneous impression made upon his mind by our mmister, that it was not in Mr. Madison's power by the Constitution to make any ag;reement which should bind Congress. This construction was not only foolish but contrary to past mterpretation— If it were true, it would follow that the treaty making power is vested in both houses instead of the president and senate — Foreign nations never could safely treat with us'-~this might suit a shuffling administration, but the honor and interests of the nation would be sacrificed — ^Every one knows that in the case of Jury's treaty the contrary doc- trine was settled, and Mr. Jefferson was guilty of perfidy in this offer which he de- clares he made to Great Britain in the summer of 1808, "that if Great Britain would repeal her orders in council and France should refuse to repeal hers, we would coiitinue to resist France" if he supposed he had no nght to bind Congress— In short can any honest man doubt that the President and senate hnvc a right to make and ratify a treaty by which a stipulation 'ilioiild be made which would require the concurrence of both branches to can-y it i xccution ? — We are now authorized from a source, tht inossot whicli the administratioa w ill not dispute, to state, " that Mr. Erskine \vii -siciiled not to insist on the pre - fiminary conditions from what we consider a mistuken view ot Mr. Madison's au- thority — but that he was led to believe that the only object i< in on this head was to the delivery ofa formal note agreeing to those prelimimtries — that his agrei ment was however /»rOT)»»io»ia/ and was founded on an eT/»ecta<*o/i,an< understand] of what the course of measures Congress would pursue, would be." " That although he thought that it wouhl be impossible for Mr. Madison to stipu- late as a prelimuiary condition, that the United States would place themselves in actual hostility with sucli powers as might execute decrees in violation I' neutral rights, yet Mr. Erskine has declared in writing that he had the most positivbrea- SONS for believing that such consequence^ would follow." It is added by Mr. Erskine, " that his goveminent had an undoubted right to rh'sn- vow his agreement, and had done every thing which became an honourable Nation to prevent any evil consequences to the Citizens of this country." How far these hopes and expectations have been realized, the expectation winch Mr. Erskine before stated to Mr. Canning that we would take side with Gv ■■■ itaiii —that we would proceed to hostility against France, let the reconls ot ..June session of Congress decide — At that session it was not knoitm that Mr. Krskine's armgement had been disavowed^ and m e have there a good sample of Mr. Madisou'a notions of good faith- I I