iiiiilB S^^^ 
 
 E341 
 .L89 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 DDDD5Dfia33A # 
 

 .^^'\- 
 
 ^^-^^^ 
 
 .•* aO 
 
 .'^V... 
 
 :'V^ **4SI^% -^^^ A^ 
 
 ♦ V 
 
 v^ .-I 
 
 
 
 ■ \.^' 
 
 /\ 
 
 
 
 ^S^ 
 
 ^^^ -♦ 
 
 
 
 
 
 0* r^^s^^i'. "o>- .j^i"^^^* "'^o 
 
 
 '^0^ 
 
 ^^-n^. 
 
 bV^ 
 
 %/ 
 
 
 
 
 .^^"^. 
 
 9^"-. 
 
 
 0^ oo"'. 
 
 ,4o^ ...i^^j^/ ^0^ -^^^>; ^^o^ 
 
 ^.> .h^' -^o -.'^-,* ,0 
 
 
 
 
 v • 
 
 
 
 ♦ AT ^ 
 
 
 
 

 ,. ^^'% ^: 
 
 
 
 
 v-o^ 
 
 ^/^"^^ •'>•'... . V'*^^'* <^^' 
 
 K^^°^ 
 
 'oK 
 
 
 
 
 
 V '*^rt?^* .<b^ 
 
 <^°<. 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ %..-^'^' yj^i£% V.'i*" -'^siej*'. •e. ^«' .'. 
 
 V » 1 * ° 
 
 
 5^ '""^^ ^' 
 
 'bv" 
 
 
 .0^ 
 
 
 
 
 ;•* ^0 
 
 
 .^\.v. 
 
 
 ' .^' 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ .: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^v.^^^ 
 
 ■3^.. 
 
 .<^ ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 -n^o^ 
 
 
 
 ^^•^c^. 
 
 
 ^.Z 
 
 '/>^'\.^^^^^'^-.^' 
 
 
 
If>h 
 
 
 INTERESTING POLITICAL DISCUSSION. 
 
 THE DIFLOMATICK POLICY 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. MADISON UNVEILED. 
 
 [S A SERIES OF ESSAYS CONT.' IMNG STRICTURES UPON THE I.ATE C0RRE5 
 PONDENCE BETWEKN 
 
 MR. SMITH AND MR. JACKSON. 
 
 '* The truest courage is discovered by a bold exjio^-ition of yoxii- own faults. ...It 
 is tile part of a vulgar iniud, to rail not only without but against Evidence." 
 
 BY A~BOSTONIAN. 
 
 XT is propoGed to examine, in a calm and dispassionate 
 manner, without invective, and, as far as is practicable, wiihout undue 
 prepossessions, the very interesting measures of Mr, Madison's fhort 
 Administration— Our observations and arguments will be addressed 
 to that enlightend portion of the community, who examine before 
 they decide ; — who collect, combine and compare facts, before they 
 draw inferences ; and who habitually keep their passions in some de- 
 gree of subordination to their understandings. 
 
 It will be seen by this introduction, that there are other classes of 
 citizens to whom the following candid remarks, the result of close ex- 
 amination and honest and sedulous enquiry, are in no degree address- 
 ed: — Let all such men forbear to read what will only serve to con- 
 firm their prejudices and inflame their passions — for no observatien 
 is more correct than that where men have formed violent prepossess- 
 ions upon slight or ho foundations, those prejudices are only imbit- 
 tered by strong and forcible arguments directed against such favou- 
 rite opinions. — Those, therefore, who believe that our Administra- 
 tion is always in the right, and Great Britain always in the wrong ; 
 those who consider it a proof of hatred to one's own Country to shew 
 that the existing and temporary rulers of it are hurrying it to its 
 ruin ; — and especially those who entertain the ungenerous and un- 
 manly sentiment that every man who examines with Candor the con- 
 duct of a Foreign Nation, or of its Ministers; is either a partisan or a 
 
-5^ 
 
 2 
 
 pensioner of such nation ; had better shut theh- eyes to these essay:-, 
 at the very outset — for they will only tend to inflame their resent- 
 ments by H firm and lesoluie exposu e ot their errors. 
 
 There are some, however, who are neither so candid or so enlight- 
 ened as m be entirely r.pe.i to conviction, nnd yet not so pi ejudiceil as 
 to be proof aj!;ainst its force — who haij learned from sad experience to 
 distrust the sincerity of Mr. Jctfers<>n, aaJ were therefore cai;'able of 
 di»r.ussing with closeness the nature of his measures : -Yet these same 
 persons deem it unfair to examine, with ihc same degree of su picion, 
 the conduct of Mr. Madison. 
 
 A charitable sentiment towards this Gentleman has acquired a 
 wonderful infl ence, owing principally to the undeserved parse in- 
 cautiously bestowed upon a measure little un ierstood, and which, 
 when thoroughly examined, will be found to me- it a high degree of 
 censure. The adjustment wit.) G Britain was a measure so gratify- 
 ing to all the true lovers ot their country, and of its peace, that v\ith- 
 out reflection, they wer? willing to buiy al! past recollection o\ Mr. 
 Madison's conduct, and to believe that a statesman who hud ^rown 
 hoary in the cultivation of deep antipathies to llreat Britain, wh • had 
 staked his literary reputacion (dearer to an author than Country or 
 life) in favor cf principles which rendered a sincere accommodation 
 absolutely hopeless, had, by a sort of miracle, been converted by a 
 feeble, diplomalick s.ipling of Great Britain, into a sincere friend 
 to an honorable accommodation. 
 
 It was openly said that Mr. Madison always had been at heart a 
 Federalist: — that^i? had never pledged himieiflo the system of eter- 
 nal hatred to England which formed the .::iost marked feature in the 
 policy of his predecessor; — that the part which he had borne under 
 that administration was only subordinate and iheatrica! ; 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, and false as his measures now prove this 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 feder- 
 alists. 
 
 Though the counteraction will eventually be as strong as the de- 
 ception was complete, and deep indignation will succeed to momen- 
 tary applause ; yet, at //;/'/ 7}ioment, the difficulties of a public k writer 
 are materially increased. 
 
 Adapted to 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 v.'hat 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 his connection with Mr. Jefferson. 
 
3 . . /ri 
 
 We shall then proceed to consider the arrangement with Mr. Er- 
 skine ; — in which we shall examine the proofs of the imbecility of 
 that young gentleman — th extraordinary course which was adopted 
 of setting upon him all our ministers separately — the errors into 
 which he was led and which produced the violation of his orders ; — 
 The measures the administration adopted to pi event Great Britain 
 from acceding to t!:e arrangement — the proofs that it was never ^-.v- 
 pected the arrangement would b-e agreed to, and of course the evidence 
 it affords of insincerity - the appointment of Mr. J. Q^ Adams to 
 the Court of one of the allies of Bonaparte and enemies or Great Bri- 
 tain, before the rejifciiof! of the arrangement was known, wtth a view 
 as 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 this head we shall no- 
 tice also the conduct of '^cngress at ihe June session, and shew that it 
 was a violation ol the implied barirain with Mr. Erskine, and a de» 
 parture ft'>m Mr. Madison's petsonal assurances :o that Gentleman ; 
 and, lastly, the late couise of Negociation with France, which proves 
 that the arrangement with I'iskine was explained to Bonaparte as a 
 measure whfch must fail, and that it was inten^ied to widen the breach 
 between us and England ; — In this light Bonaparte received and 
 approved of it. 
 
 Having taken this view of the arrangement with Erskine, we shall 
 say a few words about the rejection of it by Great Britain, and the 
 motives and grounds of that measure. 
 
 V^ e shall then proceed to discuss the late negociation with Mr. 
 Jackson. In the progress of this discussion, we shall first consider the 
 foundation of the charge against Mr. Jackson of having insulted our 
 Government : — A'e shall endeavour to shew» that there has been no 
 intimation on his part of any want oi veracity in our administration — 
 that upon the point on which the contradiction has been aliedged to 
 have existed no discordance whatever can be perceived — that he has 
 not advanced anv thing which is not admitted on the pai t of our ad- 
 ministration ; and that, S'.. far from having aggravated his supposed 
 insult, he purposely and delcately abstained in his Isst letter from 
 repeating tlie allegation which was pretended to be offensive. 
 
 We shad then proceed to analyze the whole correspondence, and 
 to shew that the charge of indecorum rests against Mr. £mith : — 
 That his first letter to Air. Jackson was a departure from those esta- 
 blished rule> of delicacy and decorum which invariable usage hus 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 the most remote degree any 
 thing which was denied by our Government, they on the contiary 
 have, in a most explicit manner, not only questioned his veracity, 
 but have directly intimated that he had been guilty of falsehood. 
 
, We shall then attempt to shew the rtal causes of the rupture of 
 the Negotiation — That they are to be found in the very able and 
 perspicuous manner in which Mr. Jsckson had apologized for his 
 own government and had repelled tlie charges made against their 
 sincerity — in tlie impossibility of continuing 3 negotiation in which 
 every pretext for continued hostility was so perfect'y removed — and 
 in the danger to which the admiiiistration was exposed of having 
 their views completely and unanswei ably displayed. We are aware 
 that in prc-ving theie 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 /ji^/: and 
 ultimate reputation of their coun ry, of that reputation which posteri- 
 ty, uninfluenced by our momentaiy passions, wl!) 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, 
 when the passions of our readers lead tliem to prefer deception; — 
 bu- the duty of attempting to inform is not the less imperious because 
 ic is painful and hazardous. Let the writer be sacrificed ; — let him be 
 branded with all tlie epithets which inflamed and bigntted passions 
 can invent : the truth, however will remain unchangeable, and the day 
 will certainly arrive, too late perhaps for our safety, too late certainly 
 for the vindication of the writer, in which all honest and enlightetiei 
 men 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. 
 
 The confidence ftlt by the author in his opinions arises from a con- 
 viction that he has thoroughly examined the late policy of our rul- 
 ers; — that he has proceeded nofatther than he is supported by facts, 
 the evidence of which he shall cite, and of which the publick may 
 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 tliey are unsupported by the evidence. On the other 
 hand, he invites and chdllenges all who may dissent from his opinions, 
 to controvert the facts he may statCj 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 
 principles, and conceded evidence, uninfluenced by existing prejirdi- 
 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 in- 
 vite the most strensous supponeis of the Administration to defend 
 this conduct cf our Government in relation to )irance consistently 
 with even a moderate degree, not of Impartiality (that has long ceas- 
 ed to exist) hut of common honesty and fairness. He shall then de- 
 duce some strong argujnei>ts in support of his opinions of the insin* 
 
^^, /J? 
 
 cere views of our Administration towards Great Britain, Irom tiie 
 unexampled tameness and partiality of their conduct towards France. 
 
 No. il. 
 
 jMr. Madison's character before lie xscas chctul 
 President. 
 
 BEFORE we endeavor to display to our readers one of the deep- 
 est, and most extraordinary pelitical negotiations which our annals 
 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 ajiy terms ; it will be useful to consider whether we had 
 a right to expect such conduct in Mr. Madison — whecher it comports 
 with, or is opposed to former views of liis character. — Fhis is ex- 
 tremely important both to him, and to us in forming a cerrect judg- 
 ment of his measures — For if Mr. Madison has heretofore manifested 
 an impartial and unbiassed disposition towards the two great Bellige- 
 rents — if he has discovered a sincere v/ish 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 befoie we 
 could believe him capable of forming so deliberate a plan to fore;; 
 the former into an open rupture, — If on the other hand, his late con- 
 duct shall appear to be perfectly consistent with xhz former history 
 of his life — if a state of ill humour and ill will towards Great Btitain 
 shall appear to have been the prevailing temperament of his n;ind, 
 and especially if it shall turn out that he has acquired his ii fluence 
 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 premeditated pUn. 
 
 Mr. Madison came into Congress in the year T778 — Our open alli- 
 ance with France h;id 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 a: that early period discovered by the Delegates 
 from the Eastern States. It was soon perceived 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 part as should render us dependent ori 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 n-i\chine to prevent 
 our growth, and to check our solid independence. — To this end, she 
 
early fomeiiteJ a. party in Congress—To this end she even intrigued 
 with our common enemy — To this end she endeavoured to diminish 
 our teriitnrial claims — I'o this end she opposed the cession of the 
 Fisheries to us -To this end in short she insisted that even our Inde- 
 pendence should not be a sine qua non of a treaty. — But the most 
 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, thai there existed in Congress a Gallican and an Anti-Gallican 
 interest — that the New England Delegates were without an excep- 
 tion, of the latter description, and that Mr. Madison and a formida- 
 ble party belonged to the former — We do not mean to intimate ac- 
 tual corruption to which it is believed he was always superiour, but 
 strong prepossessions — It is a fact ihat our ministers were instructed 
 wfiUoiv the -'dvic: of Mom. De f^ergcnnes 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 maie to censure Mr. 
 Adams and Mr. Jay, for the honourable 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 excue surprize that a man 
 who in 1779 and 1780, could pause between the interests of the 
 United Stares and the wishes of France, should in 1808 and 1809 
 elide over, nay almost gloss over the unexampled outrages of the 
 same nation. 
 
 " With France, (says this Guardian of our rights when communi- 
 cating to Congress the late infufferable letter of Champagny indicat- 
 ing his Majesty's unalterable will) with France the other belligerent, 
 the posture or our affairs does not correspond with the measures taken 
 on the part of the I uited ^tales co effecr. a favourable change." 
 
 But whether this is owing to accident, to iht failure of our despatches^ 
 or to the insolent pretensions of France our Lxecuiive gives no inti-_ 
 
 maiioa Why ? Because every man in the nation reads the speech of 
 
 the President, while a comparatively small part will ever see the in- 
 sulting letter of Mr. Champagny. 
 
 Such are the two extremes of Mr. Madison's political life — such 
 was he in 779— such we find him in 1809. — Let us now see how the 
 intrrmediate series has been filled up. It is immaterial to the present 
 discussior^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 soon as that Constitution went 
 into operatior.— It is only with regard to his opinions as to our fo- 
 reign relations, that the history of Mr. Madison is important in the 
 present discussion. « • • 
 
 Upon the breaking out of the war between Great Britam 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 moment attached Iiis fortunes, condemned that NeutTalitv,— 
 
/i-^ 
 
 Mr. Madison was one of the most strenuous cpposers of It, and he 
 wrote a series of political speculations to render that measure un- 
 popular — vVhen 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 
 principal objects of the President, and we owe to the eloquence of 
 Mr Ames, and to the vigorous stand which the Inhabitants of Bos- 
 ton and of New- England genei ally, made to Mr. Madison's proposi- 
 tions, the preservation ot our country from the horrors of war, and 
 the unexampled blessings which have flowed from the prudent and 
 wise conduct of our IllUilrious President. 
 
 In this most critical period of uur National affairs, we find Mr. 
 Madison devoted to the policy of France, courting a contest with 
 Great f-ritain, and ready to hazard our best Interests for the sake of 
 his personal prepossessions — What reason have we to expect, that a 
 man who was in favour of an alliance with France in i 794, when v;e 
 were so little able to engage in a contest with any nation, should not 
 at this moment entertain the same views when our own strength is so 
 materially improved, and when his old, his long continued fovorites 
 the French, increased beyond example in their power, are upon the 
 point of accomplishing their views of universal dominion ? 
 
 Mr. Madison, thwarted in his project ofembarkin,; the United 
 St^'cs in the contest in favour of France, quitted the GovernnieM in 
 disgust, not to retire as a private citizen to submit to measures which 
 he ^oi;id not controul, but to fan the embeis of civil dissension in his 
 native state. 
 
 V. e next find him in the legislature of Virginia, opposing the mea- 
 suivs of Mr, Adams, and as Chairinan of a Committee organizing 'he 
 whole force of that Prouj and Injpeiial ^;tare against the i-neasures, 
 the constitutional measutes =.f Congtess. — In this conduct also we 
 discern hi;. /vre/^/.' prepossessions Uur country was then threatened 
 wi'h a war with ir.nce — ^ o avoid the dangers to which we were 
 ex, osed by French Emissaries, the Alien and Seditior laws were 
 pasbcc — : he whole scope ard object of those laws was to rid our 
 Nation of a set of Spies, with whom :he intriguing policy of France 
 fills every country she w bhes- to subdue. A'r Madison true to bis 
 fiisi prejudices rpposed these laws, though he well knew they were 
 to overall- only upon thr pubiick enemies of our Country. 
 
 he success of the machinations ot Mr Madison and his party is 
 too vtll known, i he Gallick Interest triumphed over the Interests 
 o\ t''e . merican people, and Mr. iv.adison for the last eight years has 
 been enjoying the fruits of thirty years most assiduous labours. 
 
 i he 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 destructive of the best interests of 
 
IGd 
 
 8 
 
 the United States as well as subversive of the honest principles of an 
 Impartial Neutr lity. 
 
 Is Mr. Madison accountable as Sscretary of State for this policy ? 
 Is he to be presumed a partaker in ir ? 
 
 Mr. Madison is a man independent in his circumstances— If he 
 was 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. >ir. Pvtadison not content 
 with his official duties, has \'olunteered in defence of tht measnies of 
 Mr. Jefferson, and it will eventually appear that he was not the dupe 
 or the obedient slave of Mr. Jefferson, but the principal Instigator 
 of those measures which without the slightest occasion have brought 
 us to our present deplorable cendltion. 
 
 Such has been Mr. Madison. What he u we shall proceed to shew — 
 but before I quit this subject, I must beg to be indulged in one or 
 two remarks. 
 
 The great men in every democratick Government, but more especl« 
 ally in our own, however they may appear to lead must in cScct foHo'w 
 the popular Impulse.— It was said by some indiscreet persons that 
 Mr. Macilson might count on the support of the Federalists, and of a 
 portion of /;/■/ o<vjn party 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 demi^cracy. They sacrifice with- 
 out a struggle an old friend as they adopt a new one, like John Q_^ 
 Adams, or if I may be al owed to name him in ihe same line, Willi- 
 am Gray.— Democratick chiefs must fellow, not dictate the mea- 
 sures of their dependents. 
 
 This cannot be more fully exemplified than in the late arragement 
 with Mr. trskine. Was it an honest one ? Was it serious ? Why then 
 not praised by the democrats? Why a studied and costive silence? 
 Why a continuation of the abuse against Great Britain ? When known 
 to be rejected, why such manifest delight? Why the appearance of 
 a triumph : Why the exultation as if the United States had gained 
 a battle ? 
 
 This subject I sliall again recur to with more distinct application. 
 
 No. HI. 
 
 Mr. Ersxjxe's Arrangement considered ia Us Origin, 
 Proinrcss and Issue. 
 
 DIFFICULT as the path to permanent peace and reconciliation 
 10 Great Britain, appeared to be with such a temper as that of our 
 
/hi 
 
 administration, before Mr. Erskine's arrangement, that unfortunate'' 
 measure has not onlv 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 pretend that measure afforded of their desire to 
 conciliate Great Britain — but they adduce the rejection of that agree- 
 ment as evidence, not merely of insincerity, but of perfidy. — In their 
 late discussions with Mr. Jackson, abandoning their cautious policy, 
 and secure as they thought themselves in the confidence of the people, 
 whom they conceived they had managed, they adopted a high and 
 offensive tone, ill calculated to restore a friendly intercourse — tliey 
 repeated and persisted in direct insinuations of a dishonourable breach 
 of faith, and declared that Great Britain still persevered insolent and 
 inadmissible pretensions, notwithstanding the British envoy as repeat- 
 edly, in language the most unequivocal, denied that he v/as directed 
 to persevere in any such pretensions. 
 
 Since then, in place of the dispute about the orders in Council, the 
 questions of Impressment, of the Colonial trade, and of the Chesa- 
 peake, a new cause of contest has been conjured up, to which a still 
 more serious air is attempted to be given. Those 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 examine to the very 
 foundation, the late arrangement with Mr. Erskine, and see, whether 
 it affords any additional just ground for dissatisfaction with Great 
 Britain, and whether it does not oifer 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 testimony 
 very little relevant to the questions in dispute, unksi as it would seem 
 our Administration mean to rely on tzvo grounds^ so affrontive to the 
 British Cabinet, as to shut the door forever to Negociation. Those 
 points are, i st. That Mr. Canning fabricated or voluntarily misrep- 
 resented the three proposals which in his letter of the 23d of January, 
 1809, he states, he understood were either proposed by or were ac- 
 ceptable to our Cabinet — and, 2dly. That although Mr. Jackson, in 
 .behalf of the British ministry, solemnly, on the honour of his sove- 
 reign, declares that i/:ere were no other Instructions on this subject thau 
 those contained in the letter of Mr. Canning of January 23d, yet that 
 in fact other Instructions did exist. 
 
 I repeat, and I beg the public to notice it, and weigh the force of 
 the remark, that it would seem that the object and the only object of 
 publishing Mr. Erskine's explanatory letters is to give rise to two 
 opinions : — That Mr. Canning voluntarily misrepresented the dis- 
 patches of Mr. Erskine as to the three conditioi,s ; and that Mr. 
 2 
 
Enskine had other Instructions than those which the British goverc- 
 ment declare were the only ones. 
 
 Now if a war is intended, 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. 
 
 Since, however, some importance is thus attached to the letters of 
 Mr. Erskine,* it will be well to consider his situation and the weight 
 to which his testimony is entitled. — I say nothing at present of die 
 manner in which these letters were obtained, nor of the suggestion in 
 one of the Southern papers that they were first submitted to our 
 ministers for their approbation ; but I do maintain that Mr. Erskine's 
 o'ivn Interest, owing to his misconduct, has become identified with the 
 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 his 
 own 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 Government that our 
 Administration were ready to accede to certain propositions. — When 
 the authority arrived to close with those proposals, and when he found 
 that the 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 some portion of retpect from our 
 country, and from the minority in his own. 
 
 There was another part of his negociatiou which equally tempted 
 him to a representation favourable to the view^s of our Administra- 
 tion.— The violation of the letter and spirit of the Instructions of Mr. 
 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. — Other Instructions he undoubt- 
 edly had, previously to this arrangement, because the subjects had 
 been often discussed, and had been pending for several years — but all 
 of them had been merged and buried in the orders of January 23d, 
 which 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 
 pertuade an impartial man, that Great Britain or any other nation, 
 in the act of disgracing a minister, would dare to alledge, that he had 
 violated his instructions, and that a particular letter contained the 
 nvhole of them, when the disgraced minister, supported by powerful 
 friends, was possessed of evidence to refute the charge. If such a mon- 
 jscVi as Bonaparte, Vho silences the voice of complaint by confinemen»: 
 • Sec/Note to No. 4. 
 
11 
 
 /C^-b 
 
 :n the Temple or the Castle of St. Murgaiita, could adopt such a 
 course, the thing would be impracticable in Great Britain asjainst a 
 man of Noble Extraction — the son of a distini^^nished 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 tq 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 censure against his own govern- 
 ment, he does not pretend that he had any other IiniruLttons., but he 
 concludes with a threat, that shews he already conceived his own 
 interest to be opposed to that of liis government — The inti.mation is, 
 that he had settled the difticultics with this country, and that thnse^ 
 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 his aid in exciting the publick resentment againit his 
 own country. If irom these causes he was biassed in his statement, 
 he would not be the first man who has done an unwise thing to prove 
 himsflt a prophd. 
 
 Having made these preliminary remarks, let us now see how the 
 proposal for the withdrawing our Non-intercourse I^aws 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 auihority, and a.^ 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, 1st. That v.'e shoidd 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 shoula 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 casu) similarly situated, we should 
 entertain no doubt of the right to reject the convention — But not 
 content with 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 insolent — that they are an aggravation of 
 previous injury. — This might pass if confined to those base journals 
 who have infringed the sacred immunities of a publick minister, but- 
 they have also found their way into the recesses of the Cabinet. 
 
N(uv I ■will meet the whole dlplomatick host on this point witk 
 confidence. — Those Tnbtructions convey no insult, considering the 
 circumstances under which they were framed — They w^cre inserted in 
 a solemn letter from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, which he was 
 permitted to shew in extenso. It could not at that time certainly be 
 foreseen that Erskine would break his Instructions, that a treaty 
 would be formed, and that Great-Britain would be compelled to dis- 
 avow it. — It was addressed to thei^fry 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 
 Jhad no authority for so saying — It was Erskine's duty, if he found 
 Mr. Canning had misrepresented him, to have withheld the proposi- 
 tions, and to have rectified the mistake. 
 
 Grant, therefore, all that Erskine and all that our ministers with 
 so much iophistry 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 he understood from him 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 
 J)roposals. They were proper and respectful, because belie'ved to be 
 our own. — As to the third condition, pronounced the most nffensme^ it 
 is alledged to have been agreed or assented to by Mr. Plnkney, an(J 
 we see no evidence to counteract or control this suggestion. 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 The Origin^ Progress and Issue of Mr. EjiSxiNL's Ar- 
 
 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 new ojcnce, 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 some explanatory concessions. These concessions, pub- 
 lished 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 proots, 
 that Mr. Canning had a right to draw the inferences which he has 
 acnounced. 
 
13 //,<- 
 
 Mr. Erskine's letter of the 14th of August 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 lettei 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 private impressions, 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 our Non-Inter- 
 course as it respected 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 would at once side with 
 that power against the other which might continue its aggressions." 
 
 Upon being pressed nonv, after the affair, 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 must be remembered, is Mr. Erskine's private opinion,- 
 :2fter the disavdival, and is not stated to have been made known to his 
 Cabinet. This distinction of Mr. Erskine, sophistical and absurd 
 enough to be sure, is the same which Mr. Erskine set up in his own 
 defence in the Gazette of the United States, where he says, that he 
 iouicl not have presumed that a British Minister was so ignorant of the 
 American Constitution as to believe that the President l^.ad 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 the land, Con- 
 gress are bound like all other subjects 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 assigns 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." 
 
 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* 
 
Four months after this, and after his disgrace, Mr. Erskine declares, 
 ihat he understood by this, only the direct cohmial trade ; but this he 
 <lid not state to Mr. Canning — and could Mr Canning divine it ? 
 Might not, indeed did not Mr. Canning suppose, that as our trade 
 ■with the colonies of France was reduced by captures of the French 
 iilands, and actual blockade, to almost nothing, that 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 had acceded ; and it is far from being proved 
 that they did not give Mr. Erskine reason to believe that they did 
 agree to them. 
 
 We shall now proceed to prove that the arrangement entered Into 
 with Mr. Erskine affords no proof of a wish on the part of our Cab- 
 inet to adjust our differences with Great Britain ; but that it v/as 
 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 
 be had violated his instructions. 
 
 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 wliom 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 the 
 condition of his Britannick Majesty's having actually withdrawn his 
 Orders in Council. He might, however, have considered hh 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 the power of the Minister. Wliy was it not done ; 
 Because it was known, ive say, not to exist. — The delicacy in this 
 case was truly ajfected. Great Britain could not have takeii offence 
 at the demand of an authority, when that authority was indispensable 
 to the exercise of Mr. Madison's power. - 
 
 But the actual conditions of Mr. Erskine's instructions were knov/n ;' 
 and it was known that the arrangement violated them. 
 
1^ 
 
 Tills is in proof. ' / 
 
 1st. By Mr. Erskine's letter of the 29th April, to his own goveni- 
 xnent, in which he states, that he had discussed 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 accompliihment of the two former conditions, as 
 far as it was in the power of the President of the United States to 
 agree to the first, and consistently with the explanation which I had 
 given of the last." 
 
 Thus then it seems, the conditions were in fact kncnvn ; and if there 
 existed publick reasons, 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 witli certain conditions, not one of luhlch was conceded ? 
 If prudence would before have required a full exhibition of powers, 
 how much were these motives increased by this disclosvire of the 
 expectations of the British Cabinet, and the certainty of their dis- 
 content with the terms actually agreed upon ? 
 
 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 
 tone. The whole evidence is now before the publick ; and it appears 
 that the conditions were not merely the substance, they were the •wholi 
 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. Madison 
 have, knowing he was thus restricted, and knowing he was liable to 
 punishment for violating a law of Congress, to make a convention 
 which he presumed would not be ratified ? 
 
 I have one answer to make, which will be amply sufficient, though 
 I can give twenty : — 
 
 He knew that the party, on which 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 botli cases he was suie of, and he has received, much moio sin- 
 cere praise from his frieuds, than if he had closed v/ith M:'. Jackson's 
 
offer, and had coiulucted, a-j that gentleman li. authorized to do, z 
 final adjustment of all our differences. 
 
 That these suggestions are not the offspring of a jealous and fault- 
 finding disposition, the publick will believe, when I come to consider 
 the offenive measures adopted by our government, to prevent even 
 the one- sided arrangement of Mr. Erskine from being accepted by 
 the British Cabinet. 
 
 [See the Note to this paper, No. 4, in the Appendix,^ 
 
 No. V. 
 
 The Origm, Progress and Issue of Mr. Erskine^ s Ar- 
 rangement, 
 
 IT has been shewn that this arrangement originated in proposals 
 transmitted by Mr. Erskine as from our oivn Government : — That the 
 instructions are formed upon a basis supposed to have been proposed 
 ,by them : — That the convention itself affords 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 witli 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 sucli it has been received — received as a pledge of 
 his devotion to their views, of his disposition to gratify the most 
 favourite v/ishes of their hearts. 
 
 Mr, Madison had further motives sufficiently powerful to induce 
 iilm 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 different parties in our country. To the south- 
 ern states it afforded but an imperfect relief. Fhe necessity of tran- 
 shipment, of a circuitous voyage in order to bring 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 suffered an " irreparable injury " by Mr. 
 Erskine's agreement, and that Great Britain has gained an essential 
 advantage, the people of the United States know and feel the contrary 
 to be the fact. — Fhe 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 she: t 
 interval of freedom abundantly proves. 
 
Another consideration powerfully operated with Mr. Madison. — 
 It had been contended by Mr. Madison and his party, from the time 
 of his famous resolutions in 1795, 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 effect and the experiment of this 
 policy. Although it disappointed all the hopes of its friends, yet the 
 folly of Mr. Er;:kine (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, that their prophecies were correct. 
 If the second nation in Europe could be compelled to relinquish her 
 .general policy, without a substitute, merely by our restrictive ener- 
 gies ; the triumph of Mr. Madison would be complete. 
 
 Although, therefore, he might have known, and as we have shewn 
 <iid 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 opposed the British retaliating Orders ; is it extraordinary 
 that Mr. Madison should be willing to agree to an arrangement, 
 though persuaded that it would be rejecte'd, 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 sufficient to anv reasonable cal- 
 culating politician, yet Mr. Madison looked still deeper. « The pas- 
 « sions of a populace (he must have said to himself) arc 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 oi 
 '< peace with Great Britain Jio/ndar. The federalists and men of 
 "property will support nie, to be sure, but an honest peace with Eng- 
 " 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 negocialior- 
 " that it shall be impossible, absolutely imjiossible, for Great Britain t* 
 "■' accede to the arrangement." 
 
In exainiuing Mr. Erskine's ap;i'ecmciu wc .iccordiugly find a Ian- 
 guaj;e adopted by our cabinet which l)rcatlics 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 duty, 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 w-hich remaining was America) permitted France to in- 
 flict upon her through their fags. 
 
 As soon then as Great Britain found we were disposed to resist the 
 decrees of France, she was ready to withdraw her Ordtu's in Council, 
 inasmuch as our laws, if duly enforced, would supercede the necessity 
 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 respected her tnemy withdraw her Or- 
 ders in Council, yet our Ministers inserted in this firetended and affect- 
 ed pacific arrangement, a clause which took away froni Great Britain 
 the only salvo to her pride — the only apology for her honour. They 
 declared that the act prohibiting intercourse with France did not 
 " proceed from any disposition to produce an equality between the two 
 " nations, but arose from separate and distinct co?mderatio7is.'" In 
 other words, lest you should presume that wc were actuated by a 
 sense of justice to you or by your remonstrances on that subject, wc 
 declare wc had no intention to do you justice, and your acknowledg- 
 nicnt 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- 
 laction 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 
 Avas disreputable in his Britannic Majesty not to punish Admiral 
 Berkeley : — Still we agreed to accept of a satisfaction nvithout it — and 
 if a good understanding had been wished or expected, we ought to 
 have abstained from such offensive terms. 
 
 It caunot be necessary to men of sentiment to add, that to say that 
 it would have been more to his Britanniclc Majesti/s hoiiour to have 
 done a certain thing is tantamount to saying that to omit doing it is 
 ^Uxhonourable. 
 
19 ^f-71 
 
 Is this the administration -which is so alive to the insults of Mi\ 
 Jackson, which no man can perceive and no man point out ? 
 
 The fact is well known, that when these expressions 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 -dmoraentoi arreted rcco?tcil!atio7u 
 
 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 goveni- 
 ment ? In making a treaty without demanding the powers of the 
 agent ? In forming a convention with a man who stated that he Avaw 
 violating his instructions ? Or in the unprecedented affrontive lan- 
 guage made use of after a compromise had been agreed to ? 
 
 In ihe /i7-esent number I have only time to add one more proof to 
 those 1 have already adduced of insincerity. It is a fact, that although 
 this arrangement was made with Great Britain, all the democratic pa- 
 pers contiiuied the same virulent abuse of that government which 
 they had used when we were on the eve of a war. 
 
 But a more inaterial fact is, that Mr. Gallatin, the Secretary of the 
 Treasury ; Mr. Seaver, democratic member of Congress from Nor- 
 folk, on the 4th July, at Dcdham ; and the marshal of this district, are 
 said, all of them, before 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 bad cjcceeded 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. Erski;jje'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 minister to Russia. 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 -wasjirst made, the knowledge that a serious coalition 
 had been just then formed to destroy the commercial power of Great 
 Britain — the illegal and unauthorised appointment of Mr. Short, by 
 Mr. Jefferson, at such a juncture — the nearly unanimous refusal to 
 
 * Mr. Prince, marshal of tiiis District, lias publislicd a note in wliicli he 
 admits his prophetic spirit, but denies that he derived his information from 
 Wasliing-ton. No man could be so weak as to suppose that the Cabinet lield a 
 direct correspondence witii Marshal Prince. — There are athousand ways of 
 communicatint,'- facts and opinions^ Mithout confiding: in the discretion of 
 everv inferior officer. 
 
//^ 20 
 
 sanction that appointment— the solemri vote of the senate on the 
 motior. of Mr. Lioyd (one of the most intelligent merchants in either 
 branch) *•' that uny mission to Russia was inex[iedient and unnecessary." 
 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 \i^,/irst appearance. \Ve have passed thirty years 
 safely and prosperouly without a minister to Russia ; our trade to 
 th.it country inconsiderable in itself, was perfectly well managed 
 without -;ny Consul, and was certainly sufficiently secure with an able 
 Consul General. Russia is not an important naval power ; and it is 
 pn the occctn alone that the the. n-<. of A nericm politics is erected. 
 
 When therefore Mr. Jefferson, at a moment of hostility with Great 
 Britain, nominated a minsiter ;.w ..a^oia; iivaeu he selected for that 
 purpose the man, the most completely pledged of any citizen in the 
 United States — the man who had justified the Berlin decrees as 
 merely retaliatory on the Bitisli rule of 1756, all prudent men stood 
 appalled. Even an obedient Senate, so complaisant in general to the 
 executive, coidd not discern the expediency of multiplying our 
 Foreign relations. A momentary compunction seemed to take pos- 
 sessioKi of the party, which had for so many years opposed tlic exten- 
 sion of our dipioiTiatic connections. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson was dif,graced — The Senate almost unanimously 
 voted that any mission to Russia w.is inexpedient. Without doubt 
 many of them thought that to multiply and to draw closer our connec- 
 tions with the Allies of France wouia lend to increase t:\e difficulties 
 and impediments to a good understanding with Great Britain. 
 
 An ordinary inan^likc the ivite- f this article, would have supposed 
 it an insult, if not a breach of privilege, for a President to repeat the 
 same proposition in three or four months to the same public body 
 which had rejected it — it would seem to be still more extraordinary, 
 that a moment should be selected for this purpose, when we had just 
 concluded a preliminary treaty with Great Britain (if the sa7ne had 
 been sincerely concliidrd,) and when we expected soon to discuss and 
 settle the remaining disputes with that nation. No man could doubt, 
 that the tendency of such a measure w^s to excite the jealousy of the 
 Briush Court. " What, Avould a Briash minister say, does America 
 at the moment of tendering to us the olive branch, arm the deceitful 
 stranger with the sharpest thorns ? Is she not content with the oflen- 
 sive and indecorous language in which she has clothed her offers, but 
 do6s she at this moment, court an intimacy with one of our enemies, 
 ■with whom duiing ner whole political existence, she has hitherto had 
 no political connection ? 
 
 The mission to Russia, when considered in all its views, does not 
 augur a sincere disposition t conciliate Great Britain — and cannot be 
 defended unless some person can shew, against the express vote of 
 the Senate, that the measure was highly necessary and expedient. 
 
 Another fact, the tendency of which is to prove that our Cabinet 
 had no expectation or wish that the arrangement with Mr. Erskine 
 should take effect, is the conduct of Mr. Madison and of Congress at 
 the June session. 
 
21 /7.3 
 
 Mr. Madison, if you take Mr. Erskine's 7?r."}; statement to his o^vn 
 Government, had assured that minister, that if Great Brit.ja would 
 refiral her Orders^ we would take side with her against 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. iMskine, still persists that Mr. Madison told iiim, 
 that although he could not answer for Congress, yet that there was no 
 doubt but that Congress would honestly fulfil this implied stipulation, 
 and would enforce our laws against the oflending power. 
 
 What was the fact I Mr. Madison not only fails to recommend it 
 in his speech, but Congress neglect to include Holland, though within 
 the British orders, tiiough within the absolute dominion of France, 
 though enforcing laws injurious both to our own rights and those of 
 Great Britain. What apology is made for this breach of faiih ? Shall 
 ive say that Mr. Madison's suggestions amounted to no fdedgr ? Did 
 they not bind himself^ at least, to the recommendation ? What is the 
 excuse set up for this violation of a private understanding ? Mr. 
 Smith tells us, that it Avas less important to Great Britain because 
 Holland excluded us from her ports. This if it had been true would 
 have been a singular reason ibr opening our trade with her, but it 
 was not correct — She has never excluded ovir 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 sec that if tiie arrangement with Mr. Erskine had been 
 deemed by Mr. Madison a serious one, he has very ill fulfilled the 
 poor and narrow^ conditions which he had persuaded Mr. Erskine to 
 accept in lieu of those to which he was directed to assent. 
 
 Let us now say 'd.few words upon the rejection of the agreement by 
 Great Britain, for a few only, with the remarks we have before made, 
 Avill suffice. 
 
 Great Britain would have had a right to have refused to ratify the 
 agreement even if Mr. Erskine had pursued his instructions^ because 
 he was not vested with ./;/// /zort'cr.?, and she would only have 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 full Jionver are binding. Now this implies neces- 
 sarily that if they are not made in virtue of a full Jiower^ they are not 
 binding. 
 
 That the General letter of credence of even a I'esident 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 this cascy 
 as that of the very learned Doctor in Law, Thomas Jeffi^rson, 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 says " I will not imitate 
 
« youi^xaniple in tlic rase of the treaty made by Messrs. Muiiroc 
 « and Pinkney. Tlie simple want of authority would not induce mc 
 4' to reject a treaty just and equal. But I reject it because my seiyaut 
 « broke his order's. " Whether he broke them or not, is immaterial to 
 « you. It is sufficient that lie had no power, and you never even 
 *' asked him whether he had, which you know is the established 
 « usage, and which usage you yourselves adopted against our former 
 « minister Hammond. It is therefore, doubly unreasonable that you 
 « should complain of a measure, which I was, on two principles, both 
 « equally recognized by the laws of nations, authorized to adopt." 
 
 That Great Britain did not, as she well might have done, repose 
 upon the general incoinfictency of Mr. Erskinc's powers, M'ho not only 
 did not possess a/z/// ;^o-wer, but of whom our government, contrary 
 to their orjn Jormer conduct, did riot demand any evidence of author- 
 ity, we have the declaration of Mr. Jackson, who states, that although 
 Mr. Erskine had no fioivers to conclude such an 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 goveiniment do not pretend to deny this point. 
 But there is one circumstance worthy of notice. The British Cabi- 
 net had no confidence in the talents of Mr. Erskine — they not only 
 bound him down to precise terms, but they required that even if 
 these terjHs -^rere com/died with., still that they should not be held till 
 they should 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 
 knonv this ? That the instructions were not communicated in cKtenso ? 
 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 
 demand his authority, as we have proved by the letter of Mr. Jeffer- 
 son to Mr. Hammond. 
 
 This brings me to the last remark, which I have to make iii proof, 
 that the agreement with Mr. Erskine was not sincere, but was intend- 
 ed to be vised 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 emotion or complaint. As two perfect 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 
 state them, it was sufficient for her to make this known to us through 
 any chauucl. 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- 
 tential i^heet, to apologize for an act which we and all other nition?, 
 
23 /y^' 
 
 \^\e done without any apology — in shoi't, to apologize lor the neglect 
 of our own ministers in not demanding Mr. Erskine's powers. 
 
 But I cannot quit this part of my subject, which is now completed, 
 without one further remark, that it is somewhat suigular, that our 
 National sensibility should be so local or personal — That while France 
 is allovved to kick us from !• inland to the pillars of Hercules, without 
 j)rovoking any other ol)servation, than that the '■'■ fiosture of our affairs'* 
 is not changed, we should be so extremely sore — so tremblingly alive 
 to all the injuries of Cireat Britain, that even Shakespeare, in his 
 Meiculio, has given us but a tame sketch of our irritable sense of honor. 
 Whether a repeal of a piocUimation shall be dated to-day or to-morrow ; 
 whether an explanation is made through our resident minister — ov 
 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 statMig what we admit to be true, he 
 adopts a larger word, or a more copious expression, or deduces an 
 inference amounting to an intimation of an insinuation, is in our very^ 
 valiant temper, sufficient cause for the dismissal of a minister, ami ^ 
 for incurring the horrors of an interminable war. 
 
 No. VII. 
 
 'Mr. J A c K s o N 's Dismtssal^Its important Consequences 
 
 Its pretended Justijicution. 
 
 WE come now- to the consideration of the most momentous ques. 
 t.on which the United States have ever been called upon to decide 
 since the declaration of Independence : and it is astonishing with 
 what an apparent apathy this question is considered by men of all 
 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 mir.d, and as if 
 it was certam that, like them, it would end in noisy and 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 thev can 
 never extricate themselves with honour ; and they may esteem them- 
 se ves the favourites of Heaven if they escape from it without serious 
 calamity. Our Hue no longer depends on the wavering, noisy, and 
 vapouring councils ol boisterous demagogues, but upon the policy 
 and prudence ot another 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 law, nor will be contested by any 
 
n^ 
 
 24 
 
 person wlio is alive to Ihe true interests and honour of his country. If 
 the offence is palpable and unquestionable, no nation which regards 
 its character, and which wishes to preserve peace, will hesitate to 
 recall its minister who has been guilty of such an 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 
 eitiier intended as an affront, or as an excuse for the rupture of nego- 
 civ lion, 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, %var may be expected to follow ; 
 and Mr. Giles, in this case, with a spirit tvnXy /iroph-tic, has predicted 
 that such will probably be the i'jsult. — Why that gentleman should 
 have presumed it, if Mr. Jackson has been rightfully dismissed for 
 his own personal misconduct, we leave to the public to decide. 
 Should, however, Great-Britain not deem it for her interest, in this 
 instance to declare war, let us consider what will be oivn firedicament ? 
 "We pretend that we have sustained great and unexampled wrongs, — 
 Great-Britain will not send us another Minister, if, (as it will appear) 
 Mr. Jackson has been guilty of no breach of decorum. We shall 
 be compelled, from the hiyariable usage of nations, and respect to our 
 national character, to recall Mr. Pinkney. What then will become 
 of our long-contuuied complaints ; of those deep and premeditated 
 injuries with which our present administration have so frequently filled 
 the public ear, and with which they have so often and so successfully 
 inflamed the public passions ? 
 
 Are we to submit to them, without redress ? or, if we are, shall we 
 forego, forever, the advantages arising from a free commerce not 
 only to Great Britain, but to all the countries to which she now inter- 
 dicts our entry ? I'i'ar then on our side seems to be our only choice, 
 unless we shall prefer to aubmit. Great-Britain never can send anoth- 
 er Minister to this country ; and surely our government never will 
 make another advance to her. — It would be a concession that we 
 ■were in the wrong, to which so lofty a pride as that which dictated 
 the dismissal of Mr. Jackson, for merely an intimation not perceptible 
 to ordinary understandings, could never submit. 
 
 Such then are the serious consequences of this measure — conse- 
 quences far more important than any which ha^e 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 alledged wrongs, and a total suspension of intercourse 
 with her, until either she or ourselves shall so far forget our pride 
 and honour as to court a renewal of intercourse. 
 
 Now, serious and alarming as this posiiion is, no honourable man, 
 no man who regards the rights and dignity of his country, will regret 
 the consequences, if the raeasure was culled for by our honour — it 
 not, let the censure fall upon those persons wlio rashly advised so 
 
25 
 
 ni 
 
 hasty and momentous a step. The administration have defended this 
 measure by the example of General Washington in the case of 
 Genet — the allusion is an unfortunate one, on every account. I had 
 intend^j'd to cite this case against thcm^ 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 of that dlHgraccfuL scene. — 
 That these men, who now affect to be so alive to the national honour, 
 who are so ready to take offence at a look, a word, an insinuation^ 
 should remind us of a period in, which not only the honour of the coun- 
 try was trampled under foot, but in which uie lorcifjn agents who in- 
 sulted us were honoured, feasted, and set up in hostile array by our 
 own citizens against their own government, is among the marvellous 
 events of the evil times on which we have f lilen. Genet was not dismiss- 
 ed, his recall only was requested, and his personal and political friends, 
 Thomas Jefferson and James Madison knew it full well ; Genet was 
 not requested to be recalled merely for any insulting language towards 
 our own government : — It was for a long continued series of overt 
 r/r/.9, for which he might have been tried and punished, that Mr. Genet 
 was suspended : — It was for assuming the fvmctions of his office be- 
 fore he was accredited ; for promoting military expeditions in our 
 territory ; for resisting the executions of the laws ; for openly defy- 
 ing the executive authority, to which were only su/irradded personal 
 insults, which were repeated for several months before the pru- 
 dence and patience of General Washington were exhausted. Mr. 
 Jefferson and Mr. Madison can tell, why the President was so for- 
 bearing. They can tell us how large, how powerful Avas the combina- 
 tion of then* friends, agahist our government and in favour of Genet. 
 Let us now proceed to examine the concealed insult, which is said 
 to LURK soMEWHEKE in Mr. Jackson's correspondence. There 
 •were several interesting circumstances attending the disclosure of this 
 pretended insult, which led many judicious men to suspect, that the 
 transaction would not bear the closest examination. The people at 
 large are not capable of expending the time and devoting the atten- 
 tion necessary to the perusal and comparison of a long correspondence 
 expressed in the studied language of diplomatic men. It was known 
 to the administration, that if an unequivocal declaration should be 
 made to the public, that Mr. Jackson had insulted our government, 
 this would reach every head, and inflame every heart in the United 
 States, while the slow and laborious vindication or disproof of such a 
 charge, received with distrust, into minds already prejudiced, would 
 make but a feeble progress. The act of publishing the statement of 
 Mr. Jackson's insult in the Mitirmal InteUig^ncer was the act of the 
 government : That statement proves to be a copy of the official note 
 addressed to Air. Jackson. The government then, ten days only be- 
 fore the meeting of Congress, published an account of the dismissal 
 and of its pretended causes and called upon the people to resent this 
 conduct before any evidence of it was laid before them. The JVation-. 
 al Intelligencer endeavoured to excite the highest degree of irritation 
 4<nd succeeded in it. Tinding that the public mind M-ould become too 
 
 4 
 
ni 26 
 
 nmch excited, liiey cliun^^'ed their tone, and bes^i^ed the people to re- 
 slruin their rage, and not to violate the immimiues of Mr. Jackson's 
 office by an outrage on his person. If the formal noiice of the insult 
 was the act of the government, so also was this ; and yet this very- 
 administration make it a subject of complaint against Mr. Jackson 
 that he demanded a safe conduct against the populace whom tl^e pa- 
 trons of the A'ational Inielligencer endeavoured to appease, and whose 
 lury 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 appearance, is the cliange in the 
 ttrms of the charge brought against Mr. Jackson. We were at Jirst 
 told, that he had given the lie du-ect. — Even the M'atioyial Intelligenc- 
 er led us to suppose, that he had charged the government with the 
 knowledge of Mr. Erskine's instructions, of which they had declared 
 they had no knovJedge ; we 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. 
 This leads us to a belief that if Mr. Jackson's circular had not reach- 
 ed the press, we shcuid never hiive seen Mr. Smith's very extraordi- 
 nary letter to Mr. Pinkiicy. 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 ihe 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 November 23d, 1809 : 
 
 " It ivas never objected to him, that he had stated it as a fact, that the 
 three /iropositions in question, had been submitted to me by Air. Erskine, 
 nor that he had stated it, as made known to him by the instructions of 
 Mr. Canning, that the instruction to Mr. Erskine, containing those 
 three conditions, was the only one from which his authority was derived^ 
 to conclude an arrangcmtnt on the matter to whieh it related. The ob- 
 jection was, that a kriowledge of this restriction of Mr. Elrskine, was 
 imputed to this Govermnent, and the rejietition of the imjiutation, after 
 it had been peremptorily disclaimed.'* 
 
 The amount of thio paragraph and charge is simply this, that Ml'. 
 Jackson either by direct assertion, implication, inference, or insinua- 
 tion, did either say or suggest " that our government knew that Mr. 
 " Erskme had no other inUruclions than those which they adnnt were 
 « made knuwn to them," and that he repeated this insinuation after our 
 government disclaijucd such knowledge. — Had Mr. Jackson so have 
 conducted ne would have been not omy insolent, but extremely weak. 
 
27 '^^^ 
 
 — For it would have been ridiculous in him to impute to our govern^ 
 nient the knowledge of such a negative^ which it was almost impos- 
 sible they could have known, besides, that such an imputation would 
 have been contradictory to other parts of his owri letters. — In his liet- 
 ter of the 1 1th of October, he tells iMr. Smith " that although when he 
 " left England it was believed that Mr. Erskine, had shewn his in- 
 *' structions in extenso — yet it now a/ificared 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 the only despatch by which the condi- 
 *' tions of an arrangement were prescriijed ;" — and he adds no insimt- 
 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, luuivcidably implied 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 of/act he was 
 guilty of this folly. The first instance in which any mention is made 
 of the instructioiis of Mr. Erskine is in Mr. Jackson's first let'er of 
 October 1 1th. After stating that it was believed that Mr. Erskine had 
 commur.icated his powers in extenso, when Mr. Jackson left England, 
 and admitting the fact unconditionally and frankly " that he had not," he 
 proceeds to state, that by Mr. Erskine's letters it appeared that the three 
 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 injers, that the substitution of other 
 articles instead of those proposed by Great Britain was a proof that the 
 conditions nvere known to us. He only adds to this simple and intelli- 
 gible idea, one " remark that our government must now perceive how 
 "widely the agreement difters from the conditions -presiihed., -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- 
 sinuation that our cabinet knew or might have known, or miglit have 
 inferi . d that these were Mr. Erskine's only instructions ? Mr. Jack- 
 son adds, that the despatch of the 23d January was the only one by 
 ivhich the terms were prescribed. — This clause is simple unaccompa- 
 nied with any inference gf 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 ouglit to ex- 
 pect to find not only a reproof or notice of any olVensive 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 subsiiuition of other tei-ms instead of 
 those which Mr. Erskine was authorised to propose ; — but he does 
 not intimate that Mr. Jackson had drawn from those circumstances a 
 conclusion that our government hcid a knowledge of the restricted 
 powers of Mr. Eskine. Now, as Mr, Jackson had not in fact, as we 
 
f<^0 ' :28 
 
 have shewn, drawn any such conclusion, and as Mr. Smith did not tell 
 him that he supposed he had, how could that minister divir.e it or 
 give any explanation of it ? Mr Smith adds, " that if the government 
 " 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. 
 AVhy ? Because Mr. Jackson had made no such insinuation. Biu if he 
 had made it, it would have been no oflFence until our government de- 
 nied it, which they never did till this clause was inserted in Mr. Smith's 
 letter of Oct. 1 9th. 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 deUcately 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 facts admitted by our 
 Cabinet. 
 
 " These instj'uctiotis (Mr. Erskine^s) I now understand by your 
 letter as well us the deductions which I took the liberty of making' in 
 mine^ of the Wth inst. were at the time in substance, made known to 
 ■ y07i." 
 
 " You arc already acquainted with that which was given (alluding to 
 ■he communication of Mr. Canning^ s letter to Mr. Erskine^ which was 
 shewn to JMr. Pinkney.,) and I have had the honour of informing you 
 that it was the only one by which the conditions were jirescribed. 
 
 These are the only sentences which aifcct this qucstibn, in this 
 letter. It is impossible to conceive of language more clear — it is 
 difficult to form an idea of expressions more respectful or less offen- 
 sive. Yet the next we hear from Mr. Smith, on this subject, is in 
 the highest possible tone of haughtiness and aff'ront : — He assures 
 Mr. Jackson, without any qualification, that his language is imfirofier 
 and irrelevant, and that Mr. Jackson had insinuated which '.,- ■ have 
 proved 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 rclieat the insinuation which he had never made. 
 ^Ir. Jackson had insinuated only what our government admitted^ thai 
 they knew the substance of Mr. E7-skine\s /towers, and the only infer- 
 ence he made w..s that his Miijcsty was not held by an agreement 
 Avhich so essentially departed from them. The language of Mr. 
 Jackson heretofoi-c was 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 circumstances. In that letter we affirm, that 
 not one line can be found, alluding to the contested point. There is 
 a moderation, accompanied with firmness, which Mr. Smith would do 
 well to imitate : — The only passage which can be pretended to refer 
 '« the dispute. -is the last pa-.^graph, where Mr. Jackson regrets that 
 
29 l^i 
 
 iic should be charged iti unqualified terms, Avith irrelevant and im- 
 proper arguments, and adds, " that he should not think of uttering 
 an inninuution, where he was unable to substantiate a. fact.'" 
 
 Now it is said, and said with justice, that if Mr. Jackson had made 
 an improper insinuathn before^ this was in effect, an adherence i' -t, 
 snd an oHensivc one. This ivc admit ; — but as he had made \\i in- 
 sinuation, as wc have proved, but oi facts admitted by our Cati.-.ct, 
 and especially as he had 720;^ made the indmiation now charged upon 
 him, it was not a breach of delicacy to assert, that he had made no 
 insinuations unsupported by facts. 
 
 No. \ III. 
 
 Mr. Smith's offensive Insijiuations, 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 the letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney, can be supported by 
 any fair construction of Mr. Jackson's letters. What then, is the 
 result ? Why, that the certainty of a continuance of a state of irrita- 
 tion and danger, and the possibi/ity of the horrible calamities of War, 
 are to be endured by the people of the United States, on account of 
 an imaginary insult, of such extreme tenuity, of such an impercepti- 
 ble and intangible form, that it requires all the sophistry of Mr. Giles, 
 in a speech of twenty pages, to present a faint and feeble picture of 
 it. — An insult of so subtle and changeable a nature, that every man 
 v.'ho would point it out, varies in the selection of the offensive passage, 
 and in the construction of the parts selected. 
 
 Who are the men, who v,ould thus inflame the Nation to mortal 
 hatred and inextinguishable I'age ] Are they the same persons, who, 
 in a moment of pre^en<led reconciliation, told his Britannic Majesty, 
 that his offer of reparation for the Chesapeake did not com/iort with 
 his honour or dignity ? Or are we to be hurried on to our ruin, under 
 the belief, that sejisibiUly and rights are all on our side, and that while 
 the sovereign of another nation shall not even look awry at us, v/e may, 
 without offence, impeach his good faith, and question his honour ? 
 
 Let us endeavour, for the first time, towards Great Britain, to adopt 
 the golden rule of Christianity, which, if it be not respected as an 
 authority in our Cabinet, it is hoped, has yet some influence with 
 the sober and religious part of our people ; and while we are courting 
 a war, on account of pretended insults, in the letters of Mr. Jackson, 
 let us see whether the language of iVi r. Smith be wholly faultless — in 
 sliort, whether it be not unnecessarily affrontive. 
 
 The correspondence, in the late case, was opened by Mr. Smith, 
 by his letter of the 9th of October, and we doubt, whether so abrupt, 
 
/n 30 
 
 so rude and offensive a note can be found in the whole annals of diplo- 
 macy, if we except the uniform tenor of the French corresfwndence 
 ivith us. 
 
 ■ This letter is in the nature of a manifesto, rather than of a friendly- 
 inquiry. It charges Great Britain with perfidy — it declares, by anti- 
 cipation, that she had no afiology for it — it alledges, that she had 
 made no explanations of her conduct, but that she had accompanied 
 this neglect by new and insulting pretensions. It goes further, — It 
 specifies those pretensions, though, as we shall hereafter shew, they 
 had been absolutely denied by the British minister, in previous con- 
 versations, and in fact, no such propositions have ever been suggested 
 by him. After all these charges, as unqualified, unmeasured and in- 
 decorous in their language as they turn out to be unfounded in point 
 of fact, the common rules of diplomacy would have required that !Vlr. 
 Smith should have concluded, which he did not^ with some expres- 
 sions of confidence in the dififiosition of Ms Britamiic Majesty to re- 
 concile his conduct with good faith, and with the principles of justice. 
 These professions, insincere enough, to be sure, are a species of 
 counterfeit coins, of little or no intrinsick value, but which usage has 
 rendered an indispensable medium of Diplomatick Intercourse. And 
 tvho ought more scrupulously to adhere to the use of them, than our 
 inflammable rulers, who can calmly hazard the existence of a Nation, 
 for a supposed failure of etiquette ? 
 
 If Mr. Jackson had replied to this letter of Mr. Smith, (which, we 
 must recollect, was the commencement of the correspondence) " that 
 the temper in which Mr. Smith's letter was conceived, too much re- 
 sembled the ungracious tone in which Mr. Erskine's arrangement wss 
 expressed, to leave any hope of benefit from the protraction of the in- 
 tercourse," all impartial men would have thought him justified. 
 
 That it must have had, and that in fact, did have, as was doubtless 
 intended, an inauspicious and unfavourable effect on Mr. Jackson's 
 mind, and on the future style of the negotiation, there can be no doubt. 
 It is not a favourable mode of commencing a settlement of antient 
 controversaries, to begin with a blow. 
 
 The second instance of indecorum on the part pf Mr. Smith, which 
 falls very little short of contradiction, and whatever it may fail of amount- 
 ing to that, may be fairly placed to the account of prevarication, is of 
 vast importance, because the saiae insult, if it be one, to the British 
 minister, is repeated by Mr. Madison in his message. It is the alle- 
 gation made in Mr. Smith's first letter, that he learned with surprise 
 and regret, that Mr. Jackson, so far from coming prepared to make 
 explanations for the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's arrangement, had 
 been directed to insist upon terms, inadmissible and affrontive. 
 
 Mr. Smith represented in this introductory letter : — 
 
 1st. That Mr. Jackson had no instructions to make any explanation 
 of the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's agreement. 
 
 2dly. That in the affair of the Chesapeake, he had no authority to 
 assign any reasons for the refusal to accept that part of Mr. Erskine's 
 agreement, but that his powers were limited merely to tending a note 
 
1 /W^3 
 
 oflering the terms of satisfaction, on condition, that he should receive 
 a simultaneous answer from our governnent, accepting those terms 
 as satisfactoiy. 
 
 odly. That he Avas not authorised to offer any new proposals for the 
 repeal of the Orders in Couneil of Nov, 1807. 
 
 And Lastly, That it was the intention of the British Government, 
 not to revoke those orders, but upon the three famous conditions, 
 which were declared inadmissible by our Government, and which had 
 formed the basis of Mr. Erskine's instructions. 
 
 Now I propose to prove, not only that this statement was in every 
 respect, except as to the third proposition, untrue and unsupported by 
 the correspondence ; but that it was offensively adhered to, after Mr. 
 Jackson's explicit declarations to the contrary, not only by Mr. Smith, 
 but by Mr. Madison in his message. 
 
 If this shall be made out satisfactorily — if it shall be proved in a man- 
 ner to defy contradiction, or refutation, then it will follow, that our 
 Government are chargeable, not only with an unfair, but a disreputa- 
 ble misrcprcsentaton of the views of the British Cabinet, and with a 
 formal contradiction of Mr. Jackson's solemn asseveration. — It should 
 here be remembered, that Mr. Jackson is the representative of a Sov- 
 reign power, which treats with us on equal terms, and that to call in 
 question his veracity, is to doubt the veracity or honour of his Sov- 
 reign. 
 
 Let us take up each point distinctly, and in the order iu which Mr. 
 Smith states them. 
 
 1st. Did Mr. Jackson tell Mr. Smith that he had no instructions to 
 offer any explanation of the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's agreement— 
 and has he failed to make any ? — 
 
 Mr. Jackson admits, that he had made no formal communication of 
 the motives for the disavowal, for which he assigns two reasons. 
 
 1st. That Mr. Canning had hastened with an ardent zeal to satisfy 
 our Government before any complaint had been made by our minister, 
 to explain to Mr. Pinkney the motives of the disavowal ; and this not 
 by an empty and insincere declaration of Mr. Erksine's having violated 
 his orders, but by a candid disclosure of his actual instructions. — This 
 was more than the laws of Nations required — It would have been suf- 
 ficient to have declared, he had no full powers, but Great Britain wa? 
 unwilling that her good faith should be called in question. — She would 
 not defend herself on ordinary and sufficierit ground — She produces 
 the private instructions, and demonstrates the violation of them in 
 toto. — Those instructions moreover, were supposed to have emanated 
 from our own proposals, and she would have been justified, in retort 
 ing the breach of faith upon us ; but she delicately abstained. — She 
 confined herself to her own justification, apd by the laws of nations, by 
 our own former example in former treaties made by us, she was fully 
 exonerated. 
 
 Secoiidly. The second reason for not having offered an explicit de- 
 fence of the disavowal through Mr. Jaskson, was, that Mr. Erskine 
 had been directed to make it, and it was supposed, when Mr. Jackson 
 
AC4 2^ 
 
 came away, that he had done it. — Great Britaip., he declares, was uii- 
 Nvillingto rest so long under the imputation of a\vant of good iaith, and 
 therefore instantly ordered her minister iierc to explain her m.olives. 
 
 One would suppose this would satisfy the most fastidious and capti- 
 ous Government, but Mv. Jackson, anxious to remove every possible 
 objection to an amicable adjustment adds, 
 
 " But, If beyond this, any incidental discussion, or explanation, 
 "should be wished for by'this Government, I came fuily prepared to 
 " enter into them — I even consider them to /mz'e taken place between 
 <' us. — I have certainly derived great satisfaction from the several 
 " hours we have spent in conference on these mibjects" 
 
 We here perceive,that the explanations had in fact been made , 
 though not in the formal manner which the scrupulous nicety of our 
 Government, required — We see moreover, that he came fully author- 
 ized to supply whatever was deficient iii the explanations of Mr. Can- 
 ning or Mr. Erskine. 
 
 To this fair offer Mr. Smith replies in his letter of Oct. 19, that his 
 objection was not so much to the want of explanation as to the failure 
 of that solemnity and formality which such an important case requir- 
 ed — Let us examine this principle — We make a bargain with a minis- 
 ter without demanding his powers — It appears not only that he pos- 
 sesed none, but that he had violated his positive and clear instructions. 
 The law of nations in such a case requires no apology from the na- 
 tion which refuses to confirm the agreement of its unauthorised and 
 culpable agent — We on the other hand demand not an explanation 
 Avhich was given to us and which we had no right to require, but a 
 solemn and formal embassy, and a penitential and apologetic document 
 from a Nation, which had only exercised its acknowledged rights. 
 
 We may judge from this circumstance of the temper with which 
 this Negociation has been conducted, and how impossible it is, that 
 Great Britain should ever satisfy our Cabinet. " We should not be 
 contented, said Mr. Ames, with a temper like this, if the Treaty left 
 King George his Island, not even if he stipulated to pay rent for it." 
 
 But Mr. Smith, not content with this haughty requisition, proceeds, 
 in the same letter, to contradict Mr. Jackson. 
 
 « As you have disclaimed any authority to offer explanations for the 
 disavowid," Sec [See page 47 of the printed documents.] 
 
 M r. Jackson, however, irritated by this repetition, after his express 
 offer to make any additional explanation wiiich might be deemed 
 necessary, in place of recrinunuting language, chooses the more 
 prudent course of taking away all pretext from his opponent, by stat- 
 ing formally the grounds of the disavowal. 
 
 '" I have therefore no hesitation in informing you, that his Majesty 
 was pleased to disavow the agreement concluded between you and 
 Mr. Erskine, because it was concluded in violation oi XhvX gentlcman'.s 
 instructions, and altogether rjithout authority, to agree to the terms oJ' 
 it." 
 
 Here one would suppose this question at rest. The true, the only, 
 and two sufficient reasons were assigned wiiich jught to have satisfied 
 any impartial and honourable mind. 
 
Still the pertinacity of ouv minister'did not cease. — Still it was 
 deemed necessary to affront his Britannic Majesty, through his rep- 
 resentative. In Mr. Smith's letter to Mr. Pinkney, (page 82, of the 
 printed documents) he says, that besides Mr. Jackson's indhtiru-t and 
 reluctant explanation of the reasons for the disavowal, he did not make 
 his proposal till he had made such progress in his offensive insinua- 
 tion as made it proper to wait the issue of his reply about to be given 
 to it. 
 
 It is here seen, that this most distinct, plain, correct and forcible 
 explanation— an explanation the most perfect that could be given, 
 couched in distinct and appropriate language, to wit: that Mr. Ers- 
 kine had no authority, and had violated his instructions, is declared to 
 be rehictant and inexjilicit. Nor did the misrepresentation and con- 
 tradiction end here. It ascended to a higher source — Mr. Madison, 
 lo77g after this, referring solely to this point, declares in his Message, 
 that " It could not be doubted that the new minister could at least be 
 charged with conciliatory explanations." 
 
 " Reasonable and universal as this expectation was, it also has not 
 been fulfilled." 
 
 We now pass to the second charge of Mr. Smith against Mr. 
 Jackson, and the British Cabinet, that Mr. Jackson not only assigned 
 720 reason for the disavowal of that part of Mr. Erskine's arrangement 
 which regarded the Chesapeake, but that he had only proposed to 
 tender a note offering a satisfaction which should be simultaneous 
 with our acceptance of the satisfaction. 
 
 This charge in its.^'"*^ branch is totally unfounded, and in the 
 second part of it, the ground taken by the British minister is perfectly 
 defensible not only by the law of nations, but bv the circumstances 
 which attended their former offer of satisfaction ibr this unauthorised 
 injury. 
 
 1st. Then, the first part of the charge that Mr. Jackson, did not 
 come prepared to assign any reason for the rejection of this part of the 
 agreement, is unfounded. 
 
 Mr. Jackson in his first letter, declares, " that he was authorised to 
 rejj€-v the offer made by Mr. Erskine, notwithstanding the imgracious 
 manner in which it had been formerly received. — You have said, 
 addressing Mr. Smith, that you so fully understood the particulars of 
 that offer, that I deem it unnecessary to recapitulate them here." 
 
 This clause imd&vs sfiecifcally the terms, because Mr. Erskine's 
 arrangement was in our own possession, and Mr. Smith had declared 
 his full knowledge of them. It does more : It assigns the reason why 
 that part of the agreement was not fulfilled—" because of the ungra- 
 cious msxiner in which it was accepted." 
 
 We have shewn in a former number, in what the ungraciousness 
 of this manner consisted— but shall it be insisted that Mr. Jackson 
 was bound to repeat the offensive terms ? If a man calls me a liar or 
 a thiei, is it not enough for me to allude to his offensive epithets, but 
 must I be compelled to repeat the outrageous expressions ? 
 
But Mr. Jackson is more explicit ; he tells Mr. Smith '•' that his 
 Majesty Avoiild be just-led 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 
 -unaccejilable 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 the 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 restrained 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- 
 nity ;" that it was dishonorable in him to make it ; that the agree- 
 ment v/as rejected. This is the reason assigned, and yet we are told 
 this is no exjilanation. 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 unaccefitable to our government, and 
 yet we complain that this unaccejitable and insufficient satisfaction 
 is withheld ! ! — Proh Pudor ! ! 
 
 The second part of this charge in I'elation to the Chesapeake is 
 now to be considered. Is it aflProntive to us ? Is it injurious that 
 Great-Britain should insist upon having our acceptance of the sat- 
 isfaction simultaneous, cotemporaneous with the offer ? 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, which 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 affrontiiie 
 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 I 
 
 But lastly, hei'ie 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 mil ? 
 
35 ^^7 
 
 But Mr, Smith and Mr. Madison so far from confiding in these 
 positive assurances of Mr. Jackson of his /towers 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 examine these pretensions which arc 
 declared inadmissible, but at present my object is simply to shew, 
 and that I have fully done, that our 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 Government 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 tlie reasons ? The most respectful to us, the most 
 justifiable in themselves. They are, 
 
 1st. Because it would hijve 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 Avhich 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 her terms , 
 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." 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 Mr. Smith's misrepi^sentation of Mr. Jackson's Let- 
 ters continued: — and some Remarks upon the Principles 
 pretended to he set up hy Great-Britain agai?ist the 
 United States. 
 
 WE pass now to the examination of the la.^t charge preferred 
 by Mr. Smith against Mr. Jackson : — , 
 
/?^^ 
 
 56 
 
 " yViai he had been instructed to insist ic/ion the three conditions 
 0*' Mr. Canninif, which had been declared by our Government in- 
 ad7}iissidte." 
 
 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 ascertain 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,y?r.9^ instance to expect they v/ould be conceded. 
 
 Mr. Jackson in his first letter of Oct. 9th, in answer to this 
 charge explicilij' declares, " yViat he was not authorised to renew 
 these proposals which had been found to be unaccefitable to us, and 
 that he could not ha-ve 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 
 Jirojiosilions which our cabinet might see Jit to make to Great-Bri- 
 tain." — Mr. Smith, in his answer to this positive and explicit, 
 clear and unambiguous declaration, that Mr. Jackson was ?iot di- 
 rected to persevere in these claims, replies. That he perceives 
 that any agreemeyit on this subject must include a stifiulation on 
 the part of the United States to relinquish the trade with the ene- 
 mies colonies even in branches not hitherto interrupted by British 
 orders for capture, and also a sanction to the enforcing of an act of 
 Congress by the British JVavy." — Mr. Smith adds, " That a known 
 determination on the part of his Britannic Majesty to adhere to 
 such exivaordinsivy pretensions would preclude the hope of success- 
 in the negotiation." 
 
 It is impossible to conceive of a more palpable contradiction, or 
 a more unfair representation ; and one can hardly conceive any 
 other motive for such conduct than the wish to produce, not only 
 a collision Avith Great-Britain, but a prejudice in the minds of the 
 uninformed part of the people of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Jackson Avould 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 proposals which 
 have been already declared here to be unacceptable, but to receive 
 and discuss proposals 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 
 not instructed to insist upon the offensive conditions, but that he 
 had a full power to conclude a treaty, of which though he could 
 not brfore hand state the uUnost limits, yet it was fairly to be in- 
 ferred they wcrc/ar short of the conditions which had been de- 
 clared ftTensive, and upon which he was not authorised to insist. 
 
37 
 
 /^^ 
 
 So far we have unequivocal proof of the anxiety of Great-Britain 
 to close with us n/ion atiy terms ; and this disclosure of her dis- 
 position, and of the full powers of Mr. Jackson to conclude a final 
 adjustment of all differences, produced the very laconic and in- 
 sulting letter from Mr. Smith, which put an end to the conferences. 
 
 In answer to the second solemn asseveration of Mr. Jackson, that 
 Great-Britain insisted on no conditions which our Government 
 had deemed inadmissible, Mr. Smith replies on the 1st of No- 
 vember — 
 
 " That it is understood that his Majesty perseveres in requiring 
 as indis/iensable conditoins an entire relinquishment of the colonial 
 trade, and also a permission to the British 7iavy to aid in the exc' 
 cuting a law of Congress." 
 
 This it has been shewn was absolutely false ; and one would 
 naturally expect to find no small degree of temper in Mr. Jack- 
 son's reply — but he cautiously abstained from imitating the inde- 
 corous example of Mr. Smith : — Reciting, therefore, at large this 
 off'ensive clause in Mr. Smith's letter, he says — 
 
 " This same statement is contained in your letter of the 9th inst. 
 and represented as the substance of our previous conferenc£s. In 
 my cmswcr^ I took the liberty of shewing that such a supposition 
 •was erroneous, and I have looked in vain to my letter of the 23rf 
 to find any suggestion of that nature. I believe, therefore, that by 
 reference to my two letters you ivill find that the statement now 
 AGAIN brought forward is contained in neither of them, that it made 
 no part of my conversations with you, and that I have in no way 
 given room to suppose that I ever made such a statement at all.^^ 
 
 Our language, though remarkable for its strength, does not 
 furnish the means of a more direct and positive denial of a charge ; 
 and one would have supposed it impossible for any man, with 
 honest views, to persist in it after such unequivocal declarations. 
 But Mr. Smith and Mr. Madison have disappointed us — they rely 
 more upon the folly and blindness of their partizans than one could 
 have conceived to be possible. 
 
 In spite of all this evidence we are still told, with the most un- 
 paralleled indelicacy, that Mr. Jackson was directed to persist in 
 pretensions which our government had repeatedly declared to be 
 inadmissible. 
 
 In reviewing the whole correspondence, we discover this to be 
 the result, that Mr. Jackson was not authorised to insist on the 
 conditions stated in Mr. Canning's letter, although they were 
 known to have been previously agreed to by our own officers ; — 
 that on the contrary, he Avas ordered to receive our proposals and 
 fully empowered by special authority to conclude a treaty on such 
 terms as should be mutually advantageous ; — and further, that the 
 events of the war had rendered the conditions stated in Mr. Can- 
 ning's letter less important to both parties, and therefore it was 
 to be expected that Great-Britain would more readily consent to 
 
\l^v 
 
 38 
 
 modify them. — All this is stated by the British Minister ; and al- 
 though from our reception of all former proposals he could not 
 see any benefit, nor could he be expected to state before hand the 
 full extent of his instructions, yet from what he intimates it is 
 unavoidably to be presumed he was directed to agree to something 
 more agreeable to us than the former conditions. 
 
 It was precisely the discovery of this full Jioiver and of this dis- 
 position to concession, which produced Mr. Jackson's dismissal. 
 Let any impartial man peruse this ,whole correspondence, and 
 he will find an invariable disposition to seek an occasion of collision 
 on the part of our cabinet, and as sedulous a desire on the part of 
 
 Mr. Jackson to avoid it One thing he must particularly notice, 
 
 that although Mr. Jackson's offensive insinuations (if any man can 
 discover them) must be found in the early part of the correspon- 
 dence, yet there was not the slightest intimation of discontent on 
 our part until Mr. Jackson's letter of the 23d of October disclosing 
 his full powers and removing every possible obstacle to a final, 
 full and satisfactory adjustment. 
 
 It is then proved, that the sharp, irritSiimg iniroductory letter of 
 our Secretary of State, comprising four articles of charge against 
 the British Minister, was perfectly refuted in the subsequent cor- 
 respondence ; but notwithstanding the British Minister's allega- 
 tions they were offensively adhered to. I anticipate, that those 
 outrageous partizans who exclusively arrogate to themselves the 
 virtue of patriotism, will here interrupt nie by saying, that the 
 declarations of our Ministers are more to be relied upon by a True 
 American than that of " Cojienhagen Jackson." — I grant every 
 thing on this subject to national prejudice — I agree, which is as 
 much as can be asked of me, that on an indifferent subject, Mr. 
 Jackson, though supported by fact and evidence., is not to be cred- 
 ited by an Anierican Patriot in opposition to Mr. Smith unsup- 
 ported by any proof ; but still I must humbly contend for the 
 peace of our country, for the avoidance of the horrors of war, that 
 where the point oi discordance consists in what are or are not the 
 pretensions ufion which Mr. Jackson does insist^ that his declaration 
 solemnly repeated as to the extent of his pretensions is conclusive 
 €vide7ice of those pretensions. 
 
 We shall now state one or two other instances of Mr. Smith's 
 offensive, and as far as we can see, unprovoked harshness towards 
 Mr. Jackson, the representative of his Britannic Majesty. 
 
 Mr. Smith, most unaptly and unfortunately, had cited a case 
 from Vattel, to shew that Great-Britain had no right to reject the 
 arrangement with Mr. Erskine — That case was, unhappily, most 
 directly against our side : It went to prove, that " where a bargain 
 was made by a minister in virtue oifuil powers it could not be re- 
 jected without solid and weighty reasons." 
 
 • Mr. Jackson turned both parts of this quotation against Mr. 
 Smith, and with unanswei'able force : — 
 
39 /^/ 
 
 1st. That Mr. Erskine had not as Mr. Vattel sii/i/ioses in his 
 quotation, full powers. 
 
 2diy. That his Majesty had solid and weighty reasons for the 
 rejection — to wit, the total violation o/" instructions — the failure to 
 obtain any of the conditions or objects expected by the agreement. 
 
 How does Mr. Smith reply to these forcible oljjections ? — By 
 a sarcasm which partakes as much of temper as of weakness — 
 
 " I understand, Sir, (says he to Mr. Jackson) for the first time, 
 that you object to Mr. Erskine's iva?it of full powers. If that be 
 an objection, the same a/i/ilies to yourself, and we ought not to have 
 heard you as long as wc have done, because you have exhibited no 
 full powers." 
 
 This was an admission of the principle ; for if it had been true 
 that a minister plenipotentiary ex officio had a right in all cases 
 to bind his sovereign, it would have been the most natural, the 
 most perfect, and certainly a less insulting answer. 
 
 But Mr. Smith's reply was defective on another ground, as 
 proved by the correspondence between Mr. Jefferson and Mr. 
 Hammond, cited by me in a former number : — For though a full 
 power is requisite to conclude and sign, yet a general letter of 
 credence is sufficient to negociate. Thus in common life we are 
 satisfied to make a bargain with a reputed attorney, but when 
 we come to take the deed or contract, we require and we exam- 
 ine the letter of attorney — In this case Mr. Jackson was only pav- 
 ing the way to a treaty : — It was therefore premature and indeco- 
 rous to demand his powers : — It was still more than that to de- 
 mand them in so taunting a manner ; — but, what is still worse, 
 Mr. Jackson declares that he had long before this verbally stated 
 to Mr. Smith that he possessed such full powers. To these very 
 irritating remarks of Mr. Smith's, which one would have ex- 
 pected would have roused the utmost resentment of a haughty 
 man, as Mr. Jackson has been represented by our democi^ats, he 
 calmly replied, in his letter of the 4th of November — 
 
 " That he ivas sur/iriscd at the transition by which it appeared 
 to Mr. Smith that this part of the subject was connected with the 
 authority empowering him to negociate with Mr. S?nith. It will 
 ?iot, (says Mr. Jackson) escape ijour recollection that I informed 
 you, at a very early period, that in addition to the usual credential 
 letter his Majesty had been pleased to invest me with a full power 
 ■under the great seal of his kingdom, for the express purpose of 
 concluding a treaty of convention. I well remember your testify- 
 ing ijour satisfaction at the circumstance, and I now add, that 
 whenever it suits your convenience I am ready to exchange my 
 inW ^owcY against that with which you shall be provided for the 
 progress of the negociation." 
 
 Thus we see that the lacerating taunt of Mr. Smith was not 
 only unprovoked, but in face of a positive knowledge, that Mr. 
 Jackson was furnished with special and plenary powers. 
 
One would imagine that it would be impossible, in a free coun- 
 try, a country enjoying- the privileges of the press, for a Minister 
 to question, after such a declaration, Mr. Jackson's powers, which 
 such Minister had a right at the -very moment to demand and ex- 
 amine. — But we shall find that it is more easy to palm off an impos- 
 ture in this Enlightened Country, than we could imagine ; — and 
 the result of this affair will shew, that even when detected, its 
 effects on the authors of it, will not be perceptible, unless it be 
 to raise them in the estimation of their devoted partizans. 
 
 After this offer of Mr. Jackson to shew his full fionvcrsj Mr. 
 Smith says in his letter to Mr. Pinkney, of Nov. 23. 
 
 " That although Mr. JackaOJi had given us to tinderstand that 
 the ordinary credentials^ such alone as he delivered^ could not bind 
 his government^ in such a case, his jirojiosal had neither been fire- 
 ceded by, nor accompanied with the exhibition of other coinmission or 
 full flow er.''^ 
 
 In this paragraph two ideas are endeavoured to be conveyed — 
 
 1st. That Mr. Jackson's objection to Mr. £rskine's ordinary 
 credentials as the Joundation of a treaty, was an unfounded one, 
 although Mr. Smith and Mr. Madison must know that it was fier- 
 fectly correct and sufifwrted by our own conduct in the case of Mr. 
 Hammond. 
 
 2dly. That Mr. Jackson really had no other fiower because he 
 had not exhibited any. 
 
 If any man, after reading the above, can find any means of get- 
 ting rid of a direct and indecent contradiction, we shall, for the 
 honour of our Cabinet, be happy to see them pointed out. 
 
 Amidst these charges of perfidy and falsehood, advanced so 
 liberally against the British Cabinet and Minister, one loses sight 
 of a great number of offensive and rude clauses and injurious sug- 
 gestions. It would be hardly worth our time and the public pa- 
 tience to notice the strong and offensive paragi^aph which notifi- 
 ed Mr. Jackson of his indiscoverable and indescribable offence ; 
 but there is one sentence which, for the honor of our country, I 
 hope, (some one will be able) to explain differently from its ap- 
 parent meaning. In Mr. Smith's letter (page 81, of the printed 
 documents) he thus wi'ites to Mr. Pinkney — 
 
 " You will fierceive that throughout the early stages of the cor- 
 rrsfiondence, this case (that of the Chesapeake^ was in some re- 
 sfiects impropei'ly confounded with, in other improperly sejiarated 
 from that of the Orders in Council." 
 
 Now in the name of candour, what course was Mr. Jackson to 
 take ? If he connected it with the Orders in Council, it was imfirofi- 
 er : — If he sc/iarated it from them, he was equally m fault. Is it 
 not then clear that Mr. Jackson could not satisfy our government 
 at any rate ? This we have long known, and this the present doc- 
 uments prove beyond all contradiction — They who run, may read 
 it — and even the blind may perceive it. 
 
41 /^3 
 
 \Vc. have now finished this part of our subject — and we flatter 
 ourselves redeemed the pled^^e we had given to the public. It is 
 obvious from what has been said, that Great-Britain adheres to no 
 
 offensive propositions in relation to her Orders in Council : That 
 
 those Orders rest, as they always have done, on ground which 
 our own Government have admitted to be correct in principle, 
 that of retaliation on her enemy: — That Great-Britain was will- 
 ing to repeal them on the terms which her Minister assured her 
 weve Jiro/wscd hy us: — That finding we would not admit them 
 she will not renew or insist upon them — that Mr. Jackson's rea- 
 soning upon them in his letters is simply to convince us that they 
 arc 7iot now imfiortant to either them or us : — And the fair infer- 
 ence is, that when we propose any terms short of them, and yet 
 amounting to a resistance to the French decrees^ Great-Britain 
 will accept theni. That she had a right to expect as much as this 
 from us is certain, because Mr. Jefterson told Congress, and his 
 party boasted last ijear, that we had made her such an offer : Such 
 an offer, however, never has been ?nade and never nvill be : and 
 the discovery that Mr. Jackson will agree to such a firofiosal^ is 
 the true reason why the negotiation is now broken off. 
 
 If then, as it appears, Great-Britain does not insist upon any 
 pretensions as conditions for the repeal of her orders in council 
 to which we cannot subscribe ; if she places it simfily on the 
 ground of an effectual resistance to the decrees of France, which 
 we have voted shall not be submitted to, let us examine if there 
 are any other pretensions of her's which should be a barrier to an 
 accommodation. 
 
 Let us here premise, that in national controversies where there 
 is neither judge, jury, nor umpire, perfect justice is not to be ex- 
 pected. Neither party ought to expect, however thev may claim, 
 to obtam every thing they may deem right. Something ought on 
 both sides to be sacrificed to harmony ; and the nation which in- 
 sists upon the attainment of all its pretensions cannot be consid- 
 ered as being honestly desirous of peace. 
 
 Mr. Madison tells us that Great-Britain in the affair of the 
 Chesapeake insists upon pretensions which had been declared 
 inadmissible. As this is the only point on which Great-Britain 
 makes any pretensions, or insists on any conditions, as we have . 
 shewn, and as^ she most certainly does in this case insist on two 
 preliminary points, it is important to see how far these are un- 
 reasonable, and how far they are good causes for hazarding our 
 peace. 
 
 1st. She insists, « That in the record of the satisfaction which ive 
 shall agree to accefit, a memorandum shall be made that our Proc- 
 lamation interdicting the entry of British shijis of war has been re- 
 pealed." 
 
 This Mr. Madison in his covered language entitles. « J demand 
 that the first step should firocced from us." 
 
/9^ 42 
 
 This is nut so. It is now admitted on all sides that the act of 
 the British Admiral was unauthorised ; and of course his Govern- 
 ment were only responsible for disavowal and reparation. 
 
 The law of nature, of nations, of common courtesy, and the 
 common law of the land, all require that in such a case, a recourse 
 should first be had to the Master of the ofTcnding servant, and 
 after he refuses to do justice reprisals may take place. 
 
 In this instance we took the reparation into our oum hands : 
 7rc inflicted the first punishment : — IVe deprived Great-Britain 
 of her rights ; for it was her rii^ht to enter our ports so long as 
 her enemy was permitted so to do. 
 
 It was pretended that this was a mere measure of precaution : — ■ 
 If it were so, it ought to have been revoked as soon as Great- 
 Britain declared her disapprobation of the act of her servant. No 
 danger any longer existed any more than at the moment when 
 we suffered the proclamation to expire. 
 
 But with Great-Britain it was different. It was absolutely im- 
 possible for her to o^ej- afiij terms whatever so long as this rod 
 was held z« terrore?n over her head. On t/iis point Mr. Rose's 
 mission terminated. And let us ask every man of honour, if com- 
 pensation was 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 a//om; of hoJior ; 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 cafi 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 en insult, could not agree to treat 
 with us without a formal acknowledgment of the repeal. But, 
 says IVIr. Smith, this adherence to punctilio is the more unrea- 
 sonable in Great-Britain, because it was well known that the Proc- 
 lamation had exjiired of itself. He was I think not aware of the 
 natural answer to this, which would have been made if he had not 
 sealed Mr. Jackson's lips, that if the Proclamation had expired, 
 there could be less reason for ajm^/ojz disposed to peace to refuse to 
 note that fact in the proceedings. And why this delicacy on the 
 part of Great-Britain ? Because she could not compensate 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 reser-vation of Great-Britain, that she will not pay the bounty 
 10 such of the sailors wounded in the Chesapeake, nor will she re- 
 
43 /f<- 
 
 iurn such of them as she has taken, who may appear to have been 
 deserters /rom his Majesti/s service j or natural born subjects of 
 /lis Britannic Majesty. 
 
 Now without entering into the question so fully settled by the 
 American people, that they Avill not go into a contest for British 
 sailors, we would simply reiTiark, that 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 spot, 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 wc 
 sjo not know what does. 
 
 No. X, 
 
 Mr. Mjdison's conduct toxvards France, and that of 
 France towards us. The authors 'Vindication and 
 conclusion. 
 
 " France has ships, and we have men." 
 
 Mr. Jefferson. 
 
 « 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 Avould have ex- 
 pected some appearance of decorum, some shew of independence, 
 some token of an insincere desire to preserve 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 designed 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 Great-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 fatally 
 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 
 EIGHT 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 tivice in the same jiam' 
 
t^,6 
 
 a 
 
 fijilet in order that in one form or the other they might be sure 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 sn/i/iressed. This is not all — whole letters and the 7vhole 
 history of our late Negotiation with France are kept behind the 
 curtain. 
 
 This conduct is the more \mpardonable, 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 with France, such 
 deeds of darkness that even Avhen all hopes are gone, when abor- 
 tive, when dead born, they are to be buried without examination ? 
 
 If such shameless suppressions would have answered in ordinary 
 times, shall we submit to them when mc are called upon to take 
 the solemn alternative oi war or disgrace ? Shall we seethe gaunt- 
 let thrown to Great-Britain, under the pretext of insults which we 
 cannot perceive — shall we see her envoy dismissed, while cL-thed 
 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 
 — did they not carry remonstrances, demands, or proposals 1 If so, 
 where are they ? Why arc they suppressed ? 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 16th Sept. last, declares that Mr. Champagny's note, which 
 I shall \)YesQi\\.\y consider, \«, *■*■ a. dejinitive ariswer to our proposals" 
 — This note is not only definitive, but it is insulting in the extreme. 
 It is not only a. flat refusal, but it is a most cutting and sarcastic 
 taunt. Why should we not know then what these proposals were, 
 which Mr. Armstrong says lie has made ? If they were reasonable 
 and moderate, ovir 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 fght both, we ought to suppress the wrongs 
 of our intended ally in order to inake our Union more solid and 
 complete ? But the people have «not yet decided vjhich party they 
 -xw'iWjoin, and they wish to have the whole conduct of both displayed 
 iaii'ly by the Government. 
 
45 >^^ 
 
 If the Government continue to smother the wrong-s and injuries 
 of France, the People will state an aciount 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 'voere^ ive admit in fiubstance 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 i ot 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- 
 Jirisals which circu7nstances im/iose." 
 
 It is alledged by Bonaparte's good friends in this country, that 
 the French decrees arc retaliatory merely. Grant them this point 
 solely for the sake of argument. Still France is fiej-Jidious, because 
 in Nov. 1806, when her Berlin decree passed, Great-Britain did 
 not enforce any firinci/iles but what she enforced when our treaty 
 with France was 7nade. If, then, Avith the knowledge of the British 
 rule of 1756, and of the British rules of blockade, she stipulated to 
 permit us to carry British goods, and 7i€ver to stop us by nominal 
 blockades, she is guilty of base perfidy by her Berlin and INIilan 
 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 Emjieror'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 
 irddress a sermon upon integrity to the man whom he had plun- 
 dered, or the murderer boast to the expiring victim of his revenge, 
 the gentlencs 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 elVect a favorable change." 
 
 But let us be a little more explicit upon the insulting nature ot" 
 this letter. 
 
/^K 46 
 
 In 1806, 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 : 1st Because 
 Great-Britain did not the7i enforce any principles which she had not 
 enforced during the whole war, and at the moment of our treaty 
 with France. 
 
 2dly. Because we had not violated the treaty on our part. 
 
 3dly. Because there had been no previous complaint to us, nor 
 any demand that we would resist any pretensions of Great-Britain, 
 all which Avould 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 destrvictionof her trade. 
 
 We remonstrated against these French decrees, and Mr. Ai'm- 
 strong so early as 1807, declared to Mr. Champagny, "that te 
 appeal to our treaty or the law of nations as it respects France 
 would be literally afijiealing to the dead." 
 
 This was 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 aggressor, he 
 replies, " The right of pretension of blockading by proclamation, 
 rivers, and coasts, is as monstrous (revoltante) as absurd." 
 
 When we had been persevering in 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 
 princi/ile exceedingly ojijwsed 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 principle. 
 
 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." 
 
 COMMEjYTAR Y. 
 
 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 we7y 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 replies of 
 France. 
 
47 /ff 
 
 Still further — On the 24th of November 1806, an order was 
 passed by Bourienne, minister of France at Hamburs^, that all 
 English merchandize/'3w/(C3w.«oi"-!:'frA<7ow^/;7.§-, should be confiscated. 
 Similar decrees were issued in the free cities of Lubeck and Bre- 
 men by France. In Aut^ust, 1807 the same thint^ took place at 
 Leghorn, and on the 19th Sept. 1807, in the Papal territory. Bona 
 fide American property was seized under these decrees upon land 
 in neutral and friendly states. 
 
 Mr. Madison directed Mr. Annstrong 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 concjucsts France has resfiected 
 private firofierty — The warehouses and the shops have remained 
 to llic 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 fwr-^on who had so often com- 
 plained to him of tlic seizure not of jirivate property, merely, but 
 of netitral property — not in an enemy's country solely, but in a 
 Friendly state, "that France respects even an enemy's private 
 •Jirofierty in an enemy's country." — Mr. Amistrong 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 enemies, 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 avooI ? — From whom 
 was this seized ? From Individuals, his allies, the S/ianiardsy 
 whose only crime was their loyalty to their legitimate sovereign, 
 whom Bonaparte had perfidiously kidnappod 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 
 private pyo/ierty, and therefore was the fair object of plunder ? 
 We have not forgotten the robbery of the sacramental plate 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 of her 
 justice — she will regard the rights of private property on the ocean 
 as much as she has heretofore done upon the Continent I I 1 
 
 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 tlie tameness of the language of Mr. Madison. 
 
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 vessel 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- 
 plaiidcd this geyicrous 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 ;/ireseni 
 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 
 Nevv^ 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 cowczir, is to every 
 impartial man extremely suspicious, and we can no longer wonder 
 at the supfiression 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 vindicate 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 Otic class of citizens, a cool disapprobation from another, and 
 but a 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. 
 
 The writer of this examination cannot, he does not hope to turn 
 the current of these prejudices. It would require more than mor- 
 tal 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 ti-uth may at such a period hope to find a reluctant 
 admission. 
 
4^ ••. .. ^oi 
 
 I do not address those base and sordid minds who deny the 
 RIGHT 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 nations — Such men arc 
 formed and fitted only to be slaves. In this respect many, if not 
 most of our people are several centuries behind their ancestors, 
 the British nation, in the estimation of the fieo/ile's rights. 
 
 In Great-Britain, that land of slavei^ and corruption, as our sons 
 of liberty call her, the press has no such restraint — not only in 
 the ^cYioA^ fir ece ding a war, but during a nvar itself, the opponents 
 of that war can, with impunity, and without censure, question the 
 justice of the cause, and denounce tlic 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 war, 
 or in their severity towards the ministry during that war ? 
 
 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-Britain ? 
 
 Base indeed, and worthy only of being the slaves 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 disregai'd for our own country, why 
 not expose us to contempt and execration by refiublishing our es- 
 says ? Are the people not as capable of judging as these venal 
 e^ditors ! 
 
 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 oi our ozyn ad- 
 ministration pending a controversy betvvcen 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 hoAV 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 tlie 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 Press a 
 mere pretension ? And shall we renounce its privileges at the very 
 moment Avhen alone they become important ? In times of peace 
 and quiet, it is very immaterial what the press does or does not 
 7 
 
inculcate ; bul in limes of danger and turbulence its value is felt : 
 shall it 1)e, then, restrained v/hen it is most wanted ? Shall we be 
 permitted to discuss who shall or shall not be constables or clerks 
 in 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 c»se of the Chesapeake, and of the 
 first unfair and false 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 ninl- 
 Icd 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 Jilausiblc 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 in wdiat light these despatches, and the late conduct 
 of our government, were viewed here. It Avas found, moreover, 
 that the dismissal of Mr. Jackson might be followed by a declara- 
 tion of war against Great Britain, and that the best mode of avoid- 
 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 a 
 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 fiofiidarity 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 luuch deeper, more aggravated wrongs remain wholly 
 unatoned for by France. ' 
 
 We hope she knows farther, and avc are sure she estimates 
 more seriously the great interests of liberty — that the preservation 
 
51 ^,^^ %o^ 
 
 of America from the j^rasp of France, is vastly more important 
 than any smaller consideration, and that much is to be endured 
 lather than to suflTer 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 w ill recollect that Great 
 Britain had her long Parliament, and her CromwcUs, and France 
 her Robcspierres and Marats, but that such ephemeral appear- 
 ances are no indication of the general course of National policy. 
 
 It is hoped and believed that the 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 aftVontive expressions as 
 rendered it certain it would not be accepted. 
 
 That Mr. Jackson is chargeable with no insulting expressions 
 Avhich 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 Secretary of State. 
 
 That the British Minister and British government have both been 
 charged with the most improper conduct in this late negociation, 
 without, as far as we can discern, the slightest evidence. 
 
 On the contrary, that the most injurious conduct and the most 
 insulting insinuations from France, have been wholly overlooked. 
 
 We owe an apology to the publick for the very incorrect form 
 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. We 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 an early moment to the publick. 
 
- X*M 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 * Important J^'ote to the Diplomalick Conduct of Mr. 
 Madison unveiled — -JSb. IV, 
 
 Full Powers of a Minister necessary in addition to his letters of 
 credence. 
 
 TO prove that the ideas suggested in this number, of the total incompetence of a 
 general letter of credence to authorise the conclusion of a treaty, are not only cor- 
 rect, but founded upon an atithoriiy which iidll not be controverted by the United 
 States or by Mr. Madison, I shall insert the correspondence between Mr. Jefferson 
 and Mr. Hammond on this subject. 
 
 I think this the more impovi«nt, as an idea has been circulated in this town, found- 
 ed, as it is pretended, on the authority of Mr. John Quincy Adams, that our govern- 
 ment had no right to demand Mr. Erskine's special powers ; and tliat it would have 
 been insolent in them so to have done. Let those av^o have been influenced by this 
 opinion, read the following letters, and then answer liow Mr. Madison could be jus- 
 tified in not demanding Erskine's full powers ; and how he can^ with any decorum, 
 object to the disavo\\ al, by Great-Biitain> of an Act, not merely unauthorised, but 
 contrary to positive Instructions. 
 
 " PhUadellMa, Dec. 13, 1793. 
 " Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, to Mr. Hammond, Minister Plenipotentiary of 
 Great-Britain. % 
 
 "SIR — I have laid befo?-e the President of the United States the letters of Nov. 
 30th and Dec. 6th, with which you honoured me, and in consequence thereof, and 
 particularly of that part of your letter of Dec. 6th, where you say jou arefiilly au- 
 thorised to entev into ». Negotiation, for the purpose of arraw^???^ the Commercial 
 Intercourse between the two countries. I have the honour to inform you, that I am 
 i-eady to receive a Communication oi your full fioivers for that purpose, at any time 
 you may think proper, and to proceed immediately to their object. I have the honoj' 
 ito be, JScc. &c. T. JEFFERSON." 
 
 Mr. Hammond, in his replj', says, he is only instructed, not empowered to conclude 
 a treaty ; but he coincides in the principle, and adds, that as he is a Minister />/«!- 
 ipotentiary, and is instructed, he thinks it sufficient " for the commencement of a pre- 
 /iminurji negotiation." 
 
 It will be observed that ]Mr. Hammond had been before accredited as a Minister 
 Plenipoten tia ry . 
 
 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 plenipotentiary Kinr\\\v,\\tn\ \\\t],\ a distinct set of full powers, and offered to 
 shew them, but our Cabinet declined to meet his ofter. 
 
 NOTE I. 
 
 IN perusing again the very extraordinary letter which Mr. Smidi addressed to 
 ]\lr. Pinkney on the subject of Mr. Jackson's negotiations, after that minister was 
 silenced by the imperative order of our Cabinet, there ai-e several otlier instances of 
 juisrepresentiitiori « hieji exhibit no ordinai-y share of meanness under the restricted 
 situation of the Brilisli minister — One cannot i'efrain therefore from considering this 
 letter as an ap])cal to the pa.ssions and prejudices of (he peoi)!e in a case where the 
 display of the whole truth was dreaded. 
 
53 , ZoS^ 
 
 * •. • 
 
 The firM, that occurs to rnc, is the passionate recital of the affijir of tlic Chesft- 
 ])eakc — To whom was this addressed ? To Mr. Pinkney w ho had been made ac- 
 j|uainted with all the facts aiid all the ar^imcnts, two years since, by Mr. Madison, 
 Secretary of Stale — Why then repeat them ? Why repeat them with tliat sort of 
 rolouring, which if not a deviation from truth in itself, is intended to produce false 
 impressions in others ? Why repeat, that the three sailors detained from the Chesa- 
 peake were all Jlmerican rilizens, when the Government t'wk depositions in the 
 founty ofBristol in Mas.sachusetts, and hnoiv, that one of them, Daniel Martin, 
 w as a native of Bonaire in Spanish America ; that although once hound an apprentice 
 in this state, he ab.sconded, and T-oft/H/anT;/ entered the British service — To repeRt 
 after this fact w as known, that this man was a citizen wa.s little short of falsehood — 
 AVhy omit to acknowledge that the seaman who was hung was a native of London, 
 an<l had not been two days in our country, a deserter from a friendly shij) claiming the 
 rightsof hospitality, before he was knowingly entered on board the Chesapeake ? — 
 VV'hy suppress the fact that the other tivo seamen, born slaves, instead of citizens, de- 
 serted from an American shi|i, Capt. Crafts, ^vhose affidavit the Government possess, 
 an<l voluntarily entered into tlie British service! This gi-oss attempt to renew old 
 misrepresentations, though it does not surprise us, ought to make the people ex- 
 tremely cautious of receiving the declarations of men who are capable of making 
 them. 
 
 A .second instance I woidd cite of this spirit of misrepresentation evident in Mi: 
 SniJtli's letter, is the reason he assigns for not considering the apolog) sent by Mr. 
 Jackson to him sufficient — An apologv in which the British niini.ster declares that 
 he had no intention of injuring the feelings of the American (iovernment — Mr. 
 Smith says that this could not be considered as an apology, because Mr. Jackson 
 *' had before demanded his passports." Every man knows (hat the detnand of pass- 
 ports by a minister puts an end to all negotiation ; but the passports here intended are 
 passports fo ^i/jM/m? counti-j-, and such it was intended the Aeo/;/e should consider 
 Mr. Jackson s demand — But in truth, he only demande<l a saleconduct, a protection 
 against violence, and even this is objected to him as a crime — Was he in no dan- 
 ger ? Who will answer for this ? Will those who excited the people against him 
 respond ? Will the patronsof the IntelI5gencer,who are the officers oj our Governnjcnt 
 say, there was no danger ? Did they not entreat, did they not even threaten the 
 people with the mild penalties of the law if they should give way to their " natural 
 indignation, and insult Mr. Jackson's person ?" 'There is another instance of misrep- 
 resentation in tliis pan of Mr. Smith's letter to Mr. Pinkney ; he chooses to consid- 
 er Mr. Jackson as having complained against the American i)resses — This*Avas a 
 uierc man of straw which .Mr. Smith erected in order to shew the people how dex- 
 terouslj he could demolish him— Mr. Jackson did not complain of the licentious? 
 abuse of the press, hut he adduced tliat abuse as a reason why his person might not 
 l>e safe, and it tvus a good one. 
 
 NOTE II. 
 
 SINCE the pul tication of the foregoing essavs, the despatches from our minister iu 
 London, Mr. Pinkney, relative to the agreement with Mr. Erskine, have been called 
 for and published — These con'&rm m evei-y point the remarks which we had before 
 made ou this subject— It appears by these publications that the proposals made 
 through Mr. Erskine were the result of what Mr. Canning understood to be the 
 propositions of our own government. That these propositions, before they were 
 sent w ere stated to Mr. Pinkney, and that that minister so far from giving Mr. Can- 
 lung reason to believe that they would not be acceptable, from his own letters it ap- 
 ])ears he rather favoured the same opinions— One point is clearly established, and 
 supports Mr. Erskine's statement in his explanatorv letter, that 'Mr. Madison had 
 declared that our Government " would take side with Great Britain if she should 
 
 repeal her orders in council and France should refuse to repeal her decrees" Thi; 
 
 Mr. Erskine also explicitly states.— Mr. Caiming put the smallest and narrowest pos- 
 sible construction upon this declaration, tliat it only extended to our enforcing our 
 -\on-Intercourse with France. 
 
 One other important point is apparent from this newly pubUshed correspondence 
 tromourown mmister in London.— That our Government were informed, prior to 
 the arrival ol Mr. Jackson, that neither the article respecting the colonial trade, 
 nor that respecting the permission of the Briti.sh navy to enforce our laws, would be 
 insisted upon. That the agreement with Mr. Erski'ne was not rej.cted on cither of 
 
54 
 
 tliesfe g^'outidf — but thattlie only point of im\)orta!ice was the failure of any stipula- 
 tion to keep ill force our Noii-Iiitcrcourse with France. 
 
 That it was perceived, when Mr. Erskiue's agreement was rejected, that our law 
 interdicting the intercourse with Frahce was to e.xpire in June, and there was no 
 stipulationthat it should be renewed — It seems then the 07ily objection to that agree- 
 ment was the neglect on our part to stipulate that we would enforce our Nou-lntcr- 
 conrse with France, and that the two other ai'ticles of the conditions prescribed to . 
 Mr. Erskine were withdrawn. 
 
 What then can we say not only to the honor hut the honesty of a Cabinet Avho 
 were in jjossession of these positive declarations of the British minister long before 
 ;Mr. Jackson's arrival, and would still persist that Great Britain still insisted on these 
 oftcusi\e conditions which they had withdrawn before Mr. Jackson's mission, and 
 which Mr. Jackson as positively disclaimed lia\ing any authority to urge ? As to the 
 enlv condition, on which thej insisted, that we should resist the French decrees, it 
 was the same which Mr. Jefferson says he explicitly auOiorized Mr. Pinkuey toagi-ce 
 to, and which is perfectly reasonable in itself. 
 
 NOTE III. 
 
 IX Number VIT. of our remarks we demonstrated the distinction between the con- 
 duct of President Washington in the case of Genet, and the unjustifiable proceedings 
 of Mr. Madison in relation to Mr. Jackson — and we stated that it would appear 
 that the same party who were now so ready to dismiss the British Minister, at that 
 time, upheld the insolent Minister of Fi-ancc, and denied the/wwer of the President 
 to dismiss a Foreign Minister. 
 
 That this subject may be fully luidei'stood, I shall compare the cases of the conduct 
 of French JVIinisters, the forbearance of former administrations, the defence of these 
 Ministers by Mr. Madison's friends, with the pretended insult of Mr. Jackson, and 
 the high mettled sensibility of the present Administration — 
 
 In a case of a French privateer which tlie Government ordered to be stopped, 
 jMr. Genet declared he would " appeal from the President to the people for their 
 direct interference." This was certified by the Chief Justice of the United States, 
 and one of our senators — Tliese high officers of our own country were abused 
 and vilified, and Mr. Genet, a foreign Minister, was declared by Mr. Madison's polit- 
 ical frtends to be more deserving of credit. The French Minister tlien addressed a 
 letter to the President which was instantly published in the publick papers, by Genet 
 himself, dated August 13, 1793, from which I make the following extract. 
 
 "To you alone have I declared that the Federal Government, ixv from manifesting 
 any regard for our generous conduct toward this country, for the advantages which 
 we were offering toher commerce, were sacrificing our interests to those of our 
 enemies. To ijou have I represented that this conduct (of the American Govern- 
 ment) did not appear to correspond with the r/ew* q/'^/ic Peo/^/e." 
 
 Here was a direct appeal to the people, and an impudent distinction set up between 
 the views of that people and of their rulers. But Mr. Madison's friends in the Chron- 
 icle of the same day thus excuse and justify this conduct; " evei" publick minister is .\ 
 entitled to decency and respect while he pursues a line of conduct consistent with 
 the duties of his office — whether the Minister of France has experienced this gen- '| 
 erosity, let the publications decide," and alluding to this offensive letter it is added. « 
 " Wliat proceeding could have been more frank and proper than for him (Mr. j 
 Genet) to apply to the President, whom he is" said to have insulted, for a vindication " 
 of his conduct ? The address of Mr. Genet, while it bespeaks the franhness of a 1 
 Republican, carries in it a decency as it respects the honour and dignity of the Gov- | 
 ernment of the United States." — Again speaking of the same act, " was it extraordi- . 
 narv that a minister of a foreign country should conduct himself 7WO»'w/^ on such an 
 occasion ? But if Genet did sav that he would appeal ironxthc President to the People, 
 what is there so criminal in it ? The people would not suddenly destroy the Presi- ; 
 dent or injure liis official dignity." Sec Chronicle Dec. 18, 1793. j 
 
 This was the language of all Mr. Madison's party upon the occasion of Mr. Genet's 
 outrageous insults, palpable, gross and unquestionable insidts to Gen. Washington — | 
 Fhese are the men who now "^call upon us to whet our resentments to the keenest I 
 edge against Mr. Jackson for pretended insinuations which no man can discover— These '■ 
 :!i-e the men who with affected delicacy after inflaming our passions urge us not to 
 oocome Cannibals, and not to feast ourselves on the mangled limbs of the offeuding 
 vniuister — 
 
55 
 
 Ouriiig the same tempcs'aions perio(i, tempestuous hot-aii^e such meii as Mr. .T<r- 
 fersoii and Mr. Madison had, "a language official antl Inngiiage confidenlial," because 
 such kind of men openly or covertly joined the banners of a foreign minister against 
 our own government. Antoine Charbonet Do plaine. Consul of France at Boston, 
 eiilered with a military force a vessel witliin our waters, and with like force 
 retained tlie possession w her against Samuel Uradford, Esq. then acting under the 
 authoirty of the United States. 
 
 For this illegfd act the exe<(riatur of this/)i/?mr OfTicer, Mr. Duplainc w.-is revoke;! 
 — Genet denied the President's /lovoer to revoke it, and addressed a letter to our Er- 
 ecH<he through the news paj)er ttliicli was then puldished under Mr. Jett'erson's 
 patronage, declaring that lie had cxaoiined the Constitution of the United'Statcs, and 
 that he was salisficd that the I'resideiit was vested with 7to such aiit/ioviti/ — One can- 
 not credit the evidence of the records of these times, that a foreign minister should 
 have had the impudence to question the powers of our oiiii Chief Magistrate under 
 our o-um (Constitution — But this extraordinary fact can not only be i)roved, but a 
 nundjer tA' ahk- ivrilers, some of wIktui I dare say Mr. Madison well knows, appeared 
 in support of the Fiench Minister, and either suggesting the idea to him, or borrow- 
 ing it from him, contended throuffhoiU all the democratic presses that the President 
 had no power to dismiss even a consul, much less a pubKck minister — We would 
 here just emuiire of Mr. Civilian Smith, whether any amendme::! has been made 
 \n x}.\\% part of our Constitution ~ 
 
 NOTE IV. 
 
 Wli suggested in the foregoing stiletures that Mr. Erskine ^^ as induced by our 
 administrat^in to withdraw luajjrelimintni/ conditions under the erroneous impression 
 made upon his mind by our mmister, that it was not in Mr. jMadison''s poiuer by the 
 constitution to make any agreement which should bind Congress. 
 
 This construction was not only foolish but contrary to past interpretation — 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 
 Lc sacrificed — Everyone knows that in the case of Jay's treaty tiie contrary doc- 
 trine was settled, and Mr. JeRcrson was guilty of perfidy in this offer which lie 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 continue to resist France" if he supposed he had no right to hind Congress — 
 In short can any honest man doubt that the President and" senate have a right to 
 make and ratify a treaty by which a stipulation should be made which would require 
 the concurrence of both branches to carry it into execution ? — 
 
 We are now autliorized from a source, the lorrectnessot which the administration 
 will r.ot dispute, to state, " that Mr. Erskine was persuaded not to insist on the prc- 
 liminary coriditions from what we consider a mistaken view of Mr. Madison's au- 
 thority — but that he was led to believe that the only objection on tliis head was to 
 the delivery of a formal note agreeing to those prelinunaries — that his agreement 
 was- however provisional and was founded on an expectation, and nmlerstajiding of 
 wliat the course of measures Congress would pursue, wotild be." 
 
 " That although he thott|^that it would be impossible for Mf. Madison to stipii- 
 late as a preliminary condition, that the United States would place themselves in 
 actual hostility with such powers as might execute decrees in violation of neutral 
 rights, yet Mr. Erskine hasdeclared in writing that he had the most positive rea- 
 sons for believing that such con.sequences would follow." 
 
 It is added by Mr. Erskine, " that his government had an undoubted right to disa- 
 vo^o 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 liave been realized, the expectation which 
 ]Mr. Erskine before stated to Mr. Canning that we would take side with Great-Britaiu 
 — that we would proceed to hostility against France, let the records of the .Turn- 
 session of Congress decide — At that session it was not known that Mr. Erskine's 
 ai-inigement had been disavowed, and we have there a good sample of Mr. IVIadison's 
 notions of snot] faith- 
 
39 
 

 •**o< 
 
 
<iS 9^ 
 
 ^^ • o « •' 
 
 
 
 
 .^^•v 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 "^/'■^''•\f° 
 
 •n-o< 
 
 •^oV* 
 
 
 
 '^-..'^ 
 
 * A 
 
 
 •^- ^v , . , , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^q,. *:^T^\o- 
 
 •. "> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " ^oV^ 
 
 ^"-^^^ ^., 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^■^ t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >$^-^ 
 
 ?> / 
 
 
 ^^^^-T^ 
 
 ?fwEftf%W^|ND% 
 
 
 G rt^yfli e. PA' 
 
 
 Vflle,P4 
 
 0^ ^b 
 
 
 
 ^q. ^:^T** .,0^ ■>. '% j^-* .^^ ^-