H. or R. Conduct of the British Minister. from him in consequence of that conduct. And it may be observed that, how ancient soever among nations the custom or usage of sending or receiving Ambassadors, Plenipotentiaries, and public Ministers of that kind may be, the custom or usage, it is reasonable to believe, is bottomed only on the great principle of humanity, and does not impose a perfect obligation either to send such Minister, or to receive him, or to continue him after being received; therefore, not to send an Ambassador, Plenipotentiary, or public Minister-not to receive such Minister-to recall such Minister or to refuse to receive any further com munications from such Minister, is not a just cause of war; and it follows that the acting or not acting, in either of the cases, is not a declaration of war. True it is, that the resolution states, that "the Congress of the United States 'do solemnly pledge themselves to the American 'people, and to the world, to stand by and sup'port the Executive Government in its refusal to receive any further communications from the 'said Francis James Jackson, and to call into ac'tion the whole force of the nation, if it should 'become necessary, in consequence of the conduct of the Executive Government in this respect, to repel such insult, and to assert and maintain the 'rights, the honor, and the interests of the United 'States;" but, it is to be observed, that that pledge goes only to the doing of certain things which may become necessary in consequence of the conduct of the Executive Government in respect to that thing which is alluded to. But if any gentleman is disposed to continue to this resolution the name of answer to a Message from the President, or address to him, or to call it a declaration of war, he certainly may give it any name he pleases; and I hope, said Mr. R., that I may also have the liberty to give it a name that appears appropriate to it. At the last session of Congress a resolution was proposed for consideration in this House, of the import following: "Resolved, That the promptitude and frankness with which the President of the United States has met the overtures of Great Britain towards the restoration of harmony and a free commercial intercourse between the two nations, receives the approbation of this House." DECEMBER, 1809. terms approbated the conduct of the President, and was intended, if adopted, to have been presented to him as an act of this House (but of this House) only, it not being a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress; the effect of that resolution, notwithstanding it ought so to have been, was not conclusive on Great Britain; it also was presented to the House of Representatives at a time when doubts, in consequence of the orders of April 26, existed whether Great Britain would, in good faith, perform the arrangement of April, made by Mr. Erskine with the United States; and the event has indubitably proved the propriety of not adopting that resolution. The resolution under consideration respects the conduct of an Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty towards the Executive Government of the United States, and the act of that Government in consequence thereof; the cause and subject-matter of this resolution, after what has been said by gentlemen in support of it, require but little fur ther elucidation; the act of the Executive Government is, in this case, complete, conclusive, and cannot be contested. It cannot, therefore, with good faith be said, that the disapprobation of that resolution presented at the last session of Congress, and the approbation of the resolution under consideration, argues a change of opinion, or a change of principle. Against the adoption of this resolution, it has been urged that there is no precedent in nature of a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress for it, nor any precedent for it to be found in the acts and proceedings of any nation. Admit that to be so, it will prove nothing. It will be difficult, indeed, to find in the acts and proceedings of any nation a precedent (if one was necessary) to sanction and authorize the adoption of the Constitution of the United States; but the United States judged themselves to be sufficiently ade quate to adopt that Constitution, and it was adopt ed. I will not, therefore, said Mr. R., trouble this House or myself to inquire about a precedent to sanction this resolution; for, if this be a new or novel case, (as has been intimated,) I am willing to assist. And it is certain that the United States, in Congress assembled, have power sufficient to make a precedent in this new case, which in future may be relied on in all cases of a similar nature. of Francis J. Jackson, Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty near the United States, dated the 23d day of October, 1809, and addressed to Mr. Smith, Secretary of State, conveying the idea that the Execu tive Government of the United States had a knowledge predecessor, in behalf of his Government, with the Govthat the arrangement lately made by Mr. Erskine, his ernment of the United States, was entered into without That resolution and the resolution now under consideration are not similar in cause, subject-The resolution states: matter, or effect. The cause assigned for that "That the expressions contained in the official letter resolution was the frankness and promptitude of the President in meeting the overtures of Great Britain, which preceded the arrangerment of April last, virtually implying that that Power had been, prior to that period, in the practice of making overtures of the same nature and extent to the Executive Government of the United States, but without effect, and, for that, virtually approbating the conduct of that Power; and that the Execu-competent powers on the part of Mr. Erskine, for that tive Government of the United States had not, prior to that period, been frank and prompt to meet such overtures of Great Britain, and that, therefore, it had not attended to the interest of the American people. That resolution in express the repetition of the same intimation in his official letter purpose, were highly indecorous and insolent. That dated the 4th of November, 1809, after he was apprized by the asseveration of the Secretary of State that the Executive Government had no such knowledge, and that if it had possessed such knowledge, such arrange DECEMBER, 1809. Conduct of the British Minister. H. OF R. Jackson, Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty. The character of the Executive Government of the United States is well known to be mild, amiable, peaceable, and just; it is presumed that the Government, possessing these qualities, would not have refused to receive any further communications from the same Minister that cause? The resolution states "that the exPlenipotentiary without just cause. What is pressions contained in the letter of Francis J. 'Jackson, Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty near the United States, dated 'the 23d day of October, 1809, and addressed to 'Mr. Smith, Secretary of State, conveying the idea that the Executive Government of the United States had a knowledge that the arrangement lately made by Mr. Erskine, his predeces ment would not have been entered into on the part of the United States; and after also being officially apprized that such intimation was inadmissible, was still more insolent and affronting; and in refusing to receive any further communications from him, in consequence of these outrageous and premeditated insults, the Executive Government has manifested a just regard to its dignity and honor, as well as to the character and interest of the American people. That the letter signed Francis J. Jackson,' headed Circular,' dated the 13th November, 1809, and published through the country, is a still more direct and aggravated insult and affront to the American people and their Government, and it is evidently an insidious attempt to excite their resentment and distrust against their own Government, by appealing to them, through false or fallacious disguises, against some of their acts; and to excite resentments and divisions amongst the people themselves, which can only be dishonorable to their own characters and ruin-sor, in behalf of his Government, with the Govous to their own interests. And the Congress of the United States do hereby solemnly pledge themselves to the American people, and to the world," &c. ernment of the United States, was entered into without competent powers on the part of Mr. 'Erskine for that purpose, were highly indecorous and insolent. That the repetition of the same intimation, in his official letter dated the 4th of November, 1809, after he was apprized Mr. Jackson, in his official letter of the 4th of November, 1809, to the Secretary of State of the United States, uses the following remarkable expression: "But, as to the propriety of my allu-by the asseveration of the Secretary of State sions, you must allow me to acknowledge only that the Executive Government had no such the decision of my own Sovereign, whose com-knowledge, and that if it had possessed such mands I obey, and to whom alone I can consider 'myself responsible." knowledge, such arrangement would not have 'been entered into on the part of the United States, and after also being officially apprized that such intimation was inadmissible, was still more insolent and affronting." In order to manifest the truth of this statement, it will be necessary to examine and recite some parts of the official correspondence between the Secretary of State and Mr. Jackson. Here, then, Mr. Jackson clearly intimates, that as to the propriety of his allusions, he obeys the command of his Sovereign, whose decision only, in respect to the propriety of his allusions he acknowledges; and to whom alone, in respect to the propriety of his allusions, he considered himself responsible. The propriety of this construction of that remarkable expression will not be doubted, The Secretary of State, in his official letter of inasmuch as every general one contains all the par- the 8th of November, 1809, to Mr. Jackson, after ticulars. It follows, then, that the Sovereign of stating that in his letter of the 19th of October he Mr. Jackson is a party in the allusion of Mr. J., had stated to Mr. Jackson that the declaration in and consequently that His Britannic Majesty's Mr. Jackson's letter of the 11th, that the despatch Government and the United States are parties to from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d Janthe case stated in the resolution. This case hav-uary was the only despatch by which the condiing originated from the conduct of a Minister Plenipotentiary from one sovereign Power to another, and as all civilized nations are interested in the I conduct of their Plenipotentiaries and public Ministers, it may truly be said, that all the civilized nations of the world are interested in the case contained in the resolution under consideration. It is therefore necessary that this case, novel as is said in the United States of America, be made known to all the civilized nations in the world. This resolution is for that purpose, and that all the civilized nations in the world may know what the decision is; that the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, do pronounce on it. This resolution, therefore, may properly be named a manifesto. tions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which it related, was then for the first time made known to this Government. And it was added that if that despatch had been communicated at the time of the arrangement, or if it had been known that the propositions contained in it were the only ones on which he was authorized to make an arrangement, the arrangement would not have been made. And that in his letter of the 1st of November, adverting to the repetition in Mr. Jackson's letter of the 23d of October, of a language implying a knowledge in this Government that the instructions of his predecessor did not authorize the arrangement, an intimation was distinctly given to Mr. Jackson that, after the explicit and peremptory asseveration that this GovImmediately on reading this resolution, a ques ernment had not any such knowledge, and that tion of the greatest importance presented itself with such knowledge such an arrangement would that is, is this resolution, or, in other words, are not have been made, no such intimation could be the matters therein stated and alluded to, true? admitted by this Government. The Secretary For, if they be not true, it was not right to refuse then proceeds to state: "Finding that in your to receive any further communications from Mr.' reply of the 4th instant, you have used a lan Conduct of the British Minister. guage which cannot be misunderstood, but as reiterating and even aggravating the same gross 'insinuation, it only remains, in order to preclude opportunities which are thus abused, to inform ( you that no further communications will be re'ceived from you, and that the necessity of this 'determination will, without delay, be made 'known to your Government." Mr. Jackson, in his official letter of the 4th of November, 1809, to the Secretary of State, being the letter alluded to by Mr. Smith in his letter of the 8th of November, 1809, after other matters, states, "but as to the propriety of my allusions, you must allow me to acknowledge only the de'cision of my own Sovereign, whose commands I obey, and to whom alone I consider myself re'sponsible; beyond this, it suffices that I do not deviate from the respect due to the Government 'to which I am accredited. DECEMBER, 1809. To which the Secretary of State, in his letter of the 19th of October, 1809, to Mr. Jackson states the declaration, "that the despatch, from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, of the 231 Janua ry, is the only despatch by which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclu 'sion of an arrangement on the matter to which 'it relates," "is now for the first time made to this Government, and I need hardly add, that if that despatch had been communicated at the time of the arrangement, or if it had been known 'that the propositions contained in it, and which were at first presented by Mr. Erskine, were the only ones on which he was authorized to make an arrangement, the arrangement would not 'have been made." 6 6 This asseveration of the Secretary of Statetaking into view the character of the American Government, so well known for its undeviating "You will find, in my correspondence with adherence to candor, sincerity, and truth-ought you, I have carefully avoided drawing conclu- to have satisfied and put forever at rest the mind 'sions that did not necessarily follow from the of Mr. Jackson, relative to the points and insinua. ' premises advanced by me, and least of all should tions against the correctness whereof this asser 'I think of uttering an insinuation where I was eration was made. But, no, the mind of Mr. Jack' unable to substantiate a fact. To facts, such as son was not to be satisfied. A disposition to ac'I have been acquainted with them, I have scru- knowledge truth, when presented to his view at 'pulously adhered, and in so doing I must con- that time, does not appear to be within the range 'tinue, whenever the good faith of His Majesty's of his excellent qualifications. Something other 'Government is called in question, to vindicate than truth must, if possible, by some means of his honor and dignity in the manner that ap- other, be directly or indirectly drawn from the pears to me best calculated for that purpose." American Government. What matter is that What are those premises and conclusions? which Mr. Jackson is so anxious about? Only What is that insinuation which he should not this, that the American Government (contrary to think of uttering where he was unable to sub- the truth and real state of the case) might, by the stantiate a fact? What are those facts, such as diplomatic acts of the experienced Mr. Jackson, he had been acquainted with them, that he scru- be drawn in to admit, directly or indirectly, that pulously adhered to, and must continue so to do, it was possessed of a knowledge, at the time the whenever the good faith of His Majesty's Gov-arrangement of April was made, between Mr. Ers ernment is drawn in question, which he (Mr. Jackson) intimates, in order to manifest that His Majesty's Government did not violate good faith by the disavowal of the arrangement made by his predecessor, Mr. Erskine, with the Government of the United States ? kine and the American Government, that Mr. Erskine was not, on his part, authorized by his Government to make that arrangement. It may be well to inquire what are those allusions-what are those premises-what are those conclusionswhat is that insinuation-and what is that factThe expressions in this part of Mr. Jackson's which this accomplished diplomatist mentions in letter of the 4th of November, are dark and ob- his letter of the 4th November; on the enumerascure, but are capable of illustration, and, when tion of which he rests with so much apparent illustrated, will furnish evidence that Mr. Jack-pleasure to which he, indeed, without reason and son did impute to the Government of the United justice did adhere. States a knowledge that, at the time his predecessor, Mr. Erskine, made the arrangement of April with the Government of the United States, Mr. Erskine was not authorized by his Government to make that arrangement. ་ Mr. Jackson states, in his official letter of the 11th of October, 1809, to Mr. Smith: "It is my duty, sir, solemnly to declare to you, and through you to the President, that the despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, which you have made the basis of an official correspondence with the 'latter Minister, and which was read by the former to the American Minister in London, is the only despatch by which the conditions were prescribC ed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement with this country on the matter to 'which it relates." 6 Mr. Jackson, in his letter of the 23d of October, 1809, after acknowledging the receipt of the letter of the Secretary of State, of the 19th of the same month, which contained the asseveration alluded to, and stating some matters, observes: "I have, therefore, no hesitation in informing you, that 'His Majesty was pleased to disavow the agree ment concluded between you and Mr. Erskine, because it was concluded in violation of that gentleman's instructions, and altogether without authority to subscribe to the terms of it. These instructions, I now understand by your letter, as 'from the obvious deduction which I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th instant, were, at the time, in substance, made known to you. No stronger illustration, therefore, can be 'given of the deviation from them, which occur 'red, than by a reference to the terms of your 'agreement." H. OF R. 'inasmuch as you could not but have thought it 'unreasonable to complain of the disavowal of an act done under such circumstances as could only lead to the consequences that have actually fol'lowed." Let the letter of the Secretary of State, of the 19th October, 1809, be read and examined, with the most critical attention, and it will be found impossible to discover in that letter any expression which can in the least sanction the opinion insinuated by Mr. Jackson, viz: that the American Government, at the time that the arrangement was made with Mr. Erskine, possessed a knowledge that Mr. Erskine was not authorized by his Government to make that arrangement. In this paragraph, Mr. Jackson intimates that he understood, by that identical letter of the 19th of October, that the substance of the instructions of Mr. Erskine were submitted to the Secretary of State. Mr. Smith, in that letter, with great candor, observes: "Certain it is, that your predecessor did present for my consideration the three conditions which now appear in the printed document." A man in search of truth would not believe, and far less would he endeavor to impose a belief on others, that the whole instructions of Mr. Erskine were, at the time, in substance, made known to Mr. Smith. Mr. Erskine himself, in his letter dated August 14, 1809, expressly declares it is, in diplomatic language, a very indefinite that he considered that it would be in vain to lay word. If the Secretary of State did not absolutely before the Government of the United States the announce any such complaint, why did not Mr. despatch in question, (that is, the despatch of the Jackson in direct terms say so, without using the 23d of January,) which he was at liberty to have word distinctly? In this, it may be fairly inferdone, in extenso, had he thought proper. If, then, ferred that the Secretary of State did announce a Mr. Erskine did not think proper to lay that des- complaint of His Majesty having disavowed the patch in extenso before the American Govern act of his Minister; but it being only in a verbal ment, a man in search of truth will not utter an conference, Mr. Jackson did not think proper, insinuation that the American Government did when he was obliged to clothe his ideas with visat the time know the substance of it. The char- ible signs on paper, to acknowledge that Mr. Smith acter of Mr. Erskine is well established for his had distinctly announced such complaint. Such adherence to truth-will not be impeached by an an acknowledgment would not have suited Mr. insinuation that he did contrary to what he him- Jackson's plan of insinuations, premises, concluself declares he did do. If this be one of Mr. Jack-sions, and facts, which he was determined to son's facts, to which he will adhere in vindication adhere to in vindication of the good faith of His of the good faith of His Majesty's Government, Britannic Majesty's Government. This word disit would be well for him to adduce other evi-tinctly may have afforded one reason to break off dence to support it, otherwise the good faith of His Majesty's Government will rest on as bad a foundation as this one of Mr. Jackson's facts. But, Mr. Jackson, in the paragraph of his letter of the 23d of October, before alluded to, observes: "These instructions, I now understand by your letter, as well as from the obvious deduction which I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th instant, were at the time, in substance, made known to you." Here it may be inquired, what is that obvious deduction, which conveyed that convincing evidence to the very discerning intellect of Mr. Jackson? This paragraph of Mr. Jackson's letter contains some of his allusions, premises, conclusions, insinuations, and facts, to which in his letter of the 4th of November he alludes, and which he must scrupulously adhere to in vindication of the good faith of His Majesty's Government. In this paragraph he intimates that in the records of the British mission there was no trace of a complaint on the part of the United States of His Britannic Majesty having disavowed the act of his Minister; and because there was no such trace, there was no such complaint on the part of the United States. It is, however, a known fact, that that disavowal was complained of from East to West, from North to South, and from one extremity of the United States to the other. Mr. Jackson also insinuates that the Secretary of State, in the conferences held with him, did not distinctly announce any such complaint. Distinctly! The word distinctly, with Mr. Jackson, might have a meaning 6 แ verbal communications with Mr. Jackson. Mr. J. having intimated that on the records of the mission there was no trace of complaint on behalf of the United States of His Britannic Majesty having disavowed the act of His Minister, and that Mr. Smith, in the conferences, had not distinctly" announced any such complaint, assumes these insinuations for premises, and then proceeds, on his plan of insinuation, to infer that forbearing to complain was an instance of candor on the part of Mr. Smith; that that candor caused Mr. Smith to think it unreasonable to complain of the disavowal of the act, and he did not complain of the disavowal of the act, because it was done under such circumstances as could only lead to the disavowal of the act. This is the substance of the reasoning of Mr. Jackson, bottomed on the insinuation that no complaint was made on the part of the United States of His Britannic Majesty having disavowed the act of his Minister. And these are some other of the allusions, premises and conclusions, insinuations and facts, which Mr. Jackson must continue to adhere to in vindication of H. OF R. Conduct of the British Minister. DECEMBER, 1809. to your consideration the three conditions specified in those instructions, as the groundwork of an arrangement, which, according to informa in England, might be made with a prospect of great mutual advantage." the good faith of His Majesty's Government. With respect to the insinuations, that on the record of the mission there is no trace of complaint, and that Mr. Smith in the conferences had not "dis-tion received from this country, it was thought. tinctly" announced any such complaint, Mr. Smith, in his official letter of the 19th of October, 1809, observes: "If there be no trace of complaint against In respect to the insinuation, contained in the the disavowal in the archives of the mission, it words "As the groundwork of an arrangement is because this Government could not have en- which, according to the information receive tertained such complaint before the reasons for from this country, it was thought in England 'the disavowal had been explained, and especially might be made with a prospect of great mutes! as the explanations were justly and confidently advantage," it would have been better if Mr.Jackexpected through the new functionary. And as son had stated explicitly how that information was 'to the supposed reserve on my part on this sub- derived. He does not state it as from Mr. Er ject in our several conferences, I did imagine kine; and Mr. E., in his letter of the 14th August that my repeated intimations to you of the 1809, to the Secretary of State, observes: Ba 'necessity of satisfactory explanations as to the I certainly never received any assurances from 'disavowal, were sufficient indications of the dis- the American Government that they would 'satisfaction of this Government with respect to pledge themselves to adopt the conditions spec the disavowal itself." This plain, candid state- 'fied in Mr. Canning's instructions as prelimina ment of the Secretary, at once sweeps away theries, nor did I ever hold out such an expectation foundation of the fanciful structure of insinuations, allusions, premises and conclusions, built by Mr. Jackson on his insinuation of no complaint. to His Majesty's Government." And Mr. Er kine, in that letter, further observes: "As to the 'third condition referred to by you, specified in Respecting the business of explanation, which Mr. Canning's instructions, I have only to re Mr. Jackson was often requested by the Secretary mark, that I never held any conversation with to make, Mr. J., in his official letter of the 11th of the Government of the United States relative to October, 1809, observes: "As to the expectationit, until the late negotiation, nor had ever men 'entertained here, that the explanation of His Ma-tioned the subject to His Majesty's Government jesty's share in the transaction should be made it having for the first time been presented to my through me, I might content myself with simply consideration in Mr. Canning's despatch to me observing, that I was not provided with instruc. of the 23d January, in which that idea is suggest tions to that effect, because it was known thated, and is stated to have been assented to by Mr. 'the explanation in question was already given." 'America." 'Pinkney." Mr. P., in the account he gives of Mr. Canning, in his letter dated May 27, 1809, an inofficial conversation held between him and to Mr. Pinkney, observes: "Having had the honor Mr. Canning on the 18th, and continued on the 'to read to you in extenso the instructions with 22d of January, 1809, states, that in that conver which Mr. Erskine was furnished, it is not ne- sation, Mr. Canning suggested to him that he cessary for me to enter into any explanation of (Mr. C.) presumed that the Government of the 'those points in which Mr. Erskine has acted not United States would not, after it had itself de only not in conformity, but in direct contradic-clared a commerce with France &c. illegal, and tion to them. Such observations will be com-its citizens who should be engaged in it delin'municated more properly through the Minister quents; and after having given to Great Britam whom His Majesty has directed to proceed to by compact an interest in the strict observation of the prohibition, complain, if the naval In this business of explanation, therefore, it ap- 'force of this country should assist in preventing pears, by Mr. Jackson's statement, that he was not such a commerce." And Mr. Pinkney, in his provided with instructions to make explanations; letter of the 23d of June, 1809, after observing he and Mr. Canning states that such observations had an interview yesterday with Mr. Canning, (that is, explanations) will be communicated more states: "In conversing upon the third condition, properly through the Minister whom His Majesty I said a very few words. I restated what I had has directed to proceed to America, as the suc-thrown out upon the matter of it in an informal cessor of Mr. Erskine. Mr. Jackson was that Min-conversation in January, and expressed my regret ister. Between Mr. Canning and Mr. Jackson, therefore, the question of explanations remain. So much for Mr. Jackson's insinuation respect ing no complaint. Mr. Jackson, in his letter of the 11th of October, 1809, to the Secretary of State, after admitting that Mr. Erskine had not communicated his instructions in extenso to the Government of the United States, observes: "But, in reverting to his official correspondence, and particularly to a despatch of the 20th April, addressed to His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I 'find that he there states that he had submitted that it should have been misapprehended." By the foregoing, it appears, that the third condition, in place of information having been received respecting it from America, originated with Mr. Canning himself. This pretended information, it is presumed, is one of Mr. Jackson's facts or circumstances. Information, proceeding from the American Government, intimating that America is willing to renounce, during the present war, the pretension of carrying on in time of war all trade with the enemy's colonies, from which she was excluded in time of peace, cannot be proved to have gone to England. Let all the documents be |