L JANUARY, 1810.

Conduct of the British Minister.

And sec. 208: "If a public person, an ambassador
or general of an army, conclude a treaty or a
'convention without orders from his Sovereign,
6
or without being authorized to do it by the
power of his office, he goes beyond the bounds'
' of his commission, and the treaty is null, as be-
'ing made without a sufficient power."

H. or R.

with the colonies of belligerents in time of war 'which was not allowed in time of peace, and to trust to their being permitted to carry on such trade in peace, so as to entitle them to a continuance of it in time of war." Mr. Erskine adds, he supposed Mr. Gallatin to mean "the 'trade from the colonies of belligerents direct to It appears then that a Minister resident, with- their mother country, or to ports of other belout a distinct, additional authority, called "a fullligerents, because the right of such trade had power," cannot conclude a treaty-that Mr. Ersk-been the point in dispute; whereas the right to ine had no "full power" for that purpose-that an carry on a trade with the colonies of belligerarrangement respecting transitory affairs, such as ents to the United States had never been called that concluded with Mr. Erskine, is an agreement in question, but had been recognised by His "regarding which there is but one and the same Majesty's Supreme Court of Admiralty." Mr. right and the same rules" as regard treaties; and Erskine also says to Mr. Smith, (page 21,) that being concluded "not only without authority but in during the negotiation which led to the concludirect opposition to the most precise instructions," sion of the provisional agreement, he found no as we have seen from the instructions themselves, reason to believe difficulties would occur in the the consequence by the law of nations is, that accomplishment of the two former conditions, the arrangement was null, and not obligatory "as far as was in the power of the President as upon Great Britain. to the first, and from the duty of Congress to as'sert the rights of the United States against the Powers who would adopt or act under the decrees of France;" and that he "received assu

6

satisfactory arrangement might be made in a treaty upon the subject of the second condition, according to his explanation of it."

The resolution further states, that the rupture with Mr. Jackson was for the interest of the United States; to sustain this idea gentlemen in this debate assert that he offered and insisted on propo-rances that no doubt could be entertained, that a sitions which were insulting, and originated in a hostile disposition, and that without acceding to such degrading conditions no treaty of adjustment of differences could have been made. Sir, there, is a mistake in fact in all this. I will recall the attention of gentlemen to parts of the correspondence and documents before us, which will show how entirely incorrect is this statement.

hostile to our interests. As to the third condition, the first trace we have of it is in the conversation of Mr. Canning and Mr. Pinkney on the 18th and 22d of January, as stated by Mr Pinkney.

The origin of the two first conditions is thus settled-both are proved to have originated from the high, and if gentlemen please I will say the pure source of our Administration-the guardians of the honor and interests of our country. WhatMr. Erskine has been introduced and relied on ever may be thought of their policy, gentlemen as a witness in this case by the Administration; cannot, I presume, consistently with justice to I may therefore, correctly I presume, appeal to the British Government and respect to our Adhis testimony for facts. The House will recol-ministration, think them insulting, degrading, or lect that the three conditions which Mr. Erskine was instructed to propose to our Administration. upon our assent to which Great Britain would revoke her Orders in Council as to the United States, which conditions are now deemed so highly insulting, were, first: That we should .withdraw our non-intercourse and non-importation laws so far as respected Great Britain, and continue them as to France. Second, That we should relinquish during the present war the colonial trade, from which we were excluded in time of peace; and third, That the British Navy should aid in enforcing our non-intercourse law with France by capturing our vessels found violating the law.

The proposition contained in the first of these conditions was made by our Administration to Great Britain in August, 1807. Congress have by law assented to it-and Mr. Erskine declares in his letter to Mr. Smith, 14th August, 1809, that Mr. Madison said if either Britain or France relaxed their restrictions upon neutral commerce, "the United States would at once side with that Power against the other which might continue 'its aggressions."

The second condition, Mr. Erskine says, page 18, Mr. Gallatin "so far assented to as to say 'he knew it was the intention of the United 'States to abandon the attempt to carry on a trade

6

Mr. Canning, speaking of the proposal which had been made by the United States for the removal of the embargo as to Great Britain, asks, "In what way was the effectual operation of our embargo as to France, after it should be taken off as to Great Britain, to be secured? That our vessels though cleared for Great Britain would go to France, whatever penalties our laws might denounce against offenders, and he therefore 'presumed that the Government of the United States would not object, after it had itself de'clared a commerce with France, &c., illegal, and its citizens who should engage in it delin'quents, and after having given to Great Britain by compact an interest in the strict observation of the prohibition, complain if the naval force of this country should assist in preventing such commerce." Mr. Pinkney does not state any objections by him to this idea; Mr. Canning (though it now appears erroneously) conceived that Mr. Pinkney assented, to the stipulations; Mr. Erskine was therefore instructed to propose it.

Here was the origin of this third conditionit was suggested by Mr. Canning to Mr. Pink

H. of R.

Conduct of the British Minister.

JANUARY, 1810.

negotiation with Mr. Jackson would have been useless, as he insisted on the preliminary admis sion of the three degrading conditions. Sir, it is not strange that gentlemen should stumble upon the same mistake over which our Secretary seems so frequently to have broken his shins. It is not

ney on the 22d of January. Mr. Pinkney did not object to it, his assent to it was therefore inferred. though doubtless erroneously, since Mr. Pinkney says, 6th June, his observations "did not look to 'the admission of this object into any stipulation; he viewed it only as a consequence, that might ' and would if France persisted in her unjust de-true that Mr. Jackson insisted on these conditions; crees grow out of arrangements similar to those 'offered in August last."

the very reverse-his express and repeated declaration that he did not insist on them appears in the documents before us. It is certain that Mr. Smith, not less than three times in the correspondence, asserts that Mr. Jackson does insist on these conditions, and Mr. Jackson as often expressly disclaims any such demand.

6

เ

On the 11th of October, Mr. Jackson writes Mr. Smith, page 72: "On the subject of His Maj esty's Orders in Council, I have had the honor of informing you that His Majesty having caused to be made to the Government of the United States certain proposals founded upon principles, some of which were understood to originate in American authorities, and others to be acqui'esced in by them; and having afterwards ascer tained, in the manner mentioned in a former part of this letter, that the sentiments of the American Government were so different from what they were at first understood to be, I was not instructed to renew to you those proposals, nor to press upon your acceptance an arrange " ment which had been so recently declined, es pecially as the arrangement itself is become less important and the terms of it less applicable to the state of things now existing."

As to the character of this third condition, degrading as its admission into a stipulation would be, neither our Minister at London nor our Ad ministration appear to have taken any alarm at its proposal; not even as conveying an "insinuation." Mr. Erskine tells Mr. Smith, page 21.) "the third condition you certainly told me could 'not be recognised by the President, but you' added, what had great weight upon my mind, that you did not see why any great importance should be attached to such a recognition, because it would be impossible that a citizen could 'prefer a complaint to his Government on ac'count of the capture of his vessel while engaged in a trade absolutely interdicted by the laws of his country." Mr. Pinkney considered it as a consequence that would grow out of the arrangement; and Mr. Canning in his conversation with Mr. Pinkney, 22d of June, as detailed by Mr. Pinkney in his letter of the 23d, says, "he had misapprehended Mr. Pinkney in January; that he was himself of opinion that the idea upon which that condition turned, could not well find its way into a stipulation-that he should have been satisfied with the rejection of it." In page 39, he says: "Such, sir, are the grounds This is the history of the three conditions up to 'on which it has appeared to His Majesty to be the arrival of Mr. Jackson in the United States.' unnecessary to command me to propose to the The two first, if not suggested by, were at least ap- Government of the United States, any formal proved by members of our Administration; the agreement to be substituted for that which His third originated in a misapprehension of Mr. Majesty has been under the necessity of disa Pinkney's conversation; its recognition was by vowing; but I am directed to receive and dis Mr. Smith in his conversation with Mr. Erskine cuss with you any proposal which you may be treated simply as "not important;" by Mr. Pink-authorized to make to me on this head." Mr.J. ney considered barely as unnecessary, as its operation would follow as a consequence of the adjustment proposed: but in August, 1809, by Mr. Smith considered, and I agree justly so considered, as irreconcilable to the dignity and interest of the United States." It is a little strange that a mere proposition coming from Great Britain, should excite the liveliest sensibility, when the actual execution of the same project by France has been, so far as we know, silently acquiesced in! Sir, we all know France has a decree, for enforcing our embargo by capture of all our ships found abroad during its continuance, as being in contravention of that law. The Administration may have remonstrated against this decree of Napoleon as "irreconcilable with the dignity and interest of the United States." No evidence of that fact has been submitted to us. these circumstances of the case officially appearing before me, I cannot so far violate my feelings and my understanding, as to say, that the mere proposal of these three conditions was an insult to the United States.

Under

We are told in this debate, repeatedly, that a

6

6

continues: "As no disposition has hitherto been 'shown on your part to make any proposal, it has 'been impossible for me to state by anticipation (nor was I instructed so to do) what might be the answer that I should eventually think it my duty to return to you; consequently, I could not have made with that view the statement con tained in the 4th section of your letter, and the three subdivisions of it. Such a statement

6

would have been obviously inconsistent with the former part of my overture, which you very correctly record in the 3d section, viz: that I was not instructed to make to you any proposal whatever upon this subject."

10

Again, 4th of November, page 68, Mr. Jackson writes Mr. Smith: 'You say that it is understood that His Britannic Majesty perseveres requiring, as indispensable conditions on the part of the United States, an entire relinquishment of the right to trade with the enemies' colonies, and also a permission to the British navy to aid in executing a law of Congress."

"This same statement is contained in your let ter of the 9th instant, and represented as the

JANUARY, 1810.

Conduct of the British Minister.

substance of what had fallen from me in our previous conferences. In my answer to that ' letter, I took the liberty of showing that such a supposition was erroneous, and I have looked in vain to my letter of the 23d, to find in it any suggestion of a similar tenor. I believe, therefore, that by reference to my two letters you 'will find, that the statement now again brought 'forward is contained in neither of them, that it 'made no part of my previous conversation with you, and that I have in no way given room to suppose that I ever made any such statement at all."

H. OF R.

also an offer to produce his power and enter on the negotiation whenever the Secretary should appoint. If the sincerity of Mr. Jackson was doubted, the production of his authority was tendered and might have been inspected. Stress is laid on the word "eventually," as covering an ambiguity. This appears to me a refined quibble: to conclude "eventually, can only mean to conclude in the event of their agreeing upon terms. Strike the word out, the expression is not stronger or more explicit: continue it, the force is not diminished, or rendered obscure. This refusal stands without explanation and without excuse. "The case of the Chesapeake remains unsettled." Sir, no man more sensibly feels, and none would at greater hazards avenge that insult and wrong, if atonement be improperly withheld, than myself. Why is it at this time unadjusted? The British Minister, Mr. Erskine, offered an amend, which our Administration acknowledged to be satisfactory, and consented to accept. Yet the Secretary of State, in the very act of acceptance, indulging a spirit of asperity at least unnecessary at that stage of the business, not only expressed dissatisfaction at the terms, but conveyed an unequivocal insult to the King of Great Britain. In this note accepting the terms offered, he adds, a different course would better have

Language affords no terms of negation clearer than those employed by Mr. Jackson. He unequivocally denies insisting upon any previous conditions, or having made any previous proposals whatever. Yet gentlemen tell this House and the nation, that negotiation was useless, because Mr. Jackson insisted on the three conditions contained in Mr. Erskine's instructions! The testimony afforded us by the Administration itself, satisfies my mind that such declaration is wholly founded in error. Neither, sir, can I subscribe to the declaration contained in this resolution, that in the rupture with the British Minister, the Administration have manifested a just regard to the interests of the United States. The interests of our country demand peace, as essential to the enjoy-comported with the honor of His Majesty! In ment of commerce and the fruits of agriculture, and as best suiting the dispositions of our people. This rupture, far from securing, puts in jeopardy the peace of the country; without improving our means to sustain war, widens the breach already subsisting between Great Britain and us, and interposes new obstacles to those already existing to a settlement-a result the very reverse of a just regard to the interest of the United States.

plain English, Mr. Smith says, in a paper to be submitted for the sanction of the King: "The King has not acted as became a man of honor!" In private life, unquestionably such an acceptance of tendered satisfaction would have compelled its retraction. We find therefore, the King having rejected the arrangement, Mr. Jackson in his letter to Mr. Smith, 11th of October, assigning the reasons of the rejection, declares His Majesty, We have been asked by the gentleman from was warranted in doing so both by the form in Virginia, (Mr. EPPES,) why are not our difficul- which his Minister had tendered that reparation, ties with Great Britain settled? If the question and by the manner in which that tender had had been why they were not now in a train of been received"-that he had, in conversation settlement, I should say because the Administra- before, "referred to the particular expressions tion, rejecting overtures for negotiation, have shut which made the terms appear unacceptable even the door in the face of the messenger of peace.to the American Government, at the very moOn the 23d of October, Mr. Jackson informs Mr.ment when they were accepted, and which at Smith that his instructions authorized him "to at all events puts it totally out of his Majesty's ' receive and to discuss any proposal made on the power to ratify and confirm any act in which 'part of the United States, and eventually to con- 'such expressions were contained." 'clude a convention between the two countries." Regarding the affair of the Chesapeake, Mr. And on the 4th of November he informs him-Jackson made proposals for settling it; they were "It will not, I dare say, have escaped your recol- stated to be the same which Mr. Erskine was inlection, that I informed you at a very early pe- structed to offer. But we are told these had been riod of our communications, that, in addition to previously refused, and to have accepted them 'the usual credential letter, His Majesty had been would have been disgrace. If this be granted, 、 pleased to invest me with a full power under the does it follow there would have been any degragreal seal of his Kingdom, for the express pur-dation in again refusing them? To this hour pose of concluding a treaty or convention. I well remember your testifying your satisfaction 'at the circumstance; and I have now only to add that I am ready, whenever it suits your conve'nience, to exchange my full power against that with which you shall be provided, for the pro'gress of our negotiation."

Here is a solemn declaration that he had a "full power" to treat and conclude a treaty, and

the proposal remains unanswered. How shall a settlement ever be effected, if, when an unacceptable proposition is made, the objections are not stated, so that others may be substituted? I understand not this policy, nor admire pride when the great interests of a nation are at stake. To me, sir, it appears, that in this business of the rupture with Mr. Jackson, the best interests of the United States have been overlooked, or im

H. OF R.

Conduct of the British Minister.

molated on the altar of punctilio. I conclude, sir, by declaring that, in my opinion, this resolution is calculated to excite the feelings not only of the British Monarch, but of a powerful people; that, without fitting us for battle, it tends to increase the animosity already unhappily existing; that it shuts the door to further negotiation; fixes a stain on the national character in condescending to use language unworthy a great people; and finally, I cannot but fear it will prove (if the gentleman from New York (Mr. FISK) will permit me the use of his figure) the winding-sheet" of the peace of this country.

66

Mr. FINDLEY spoke in favor of the resolution. Mr. GARDENIER, after some prefatory remarks, moved that the further consideration of the resolution be postponed to the third Monday in February.

A motion was made to adjourn, which was negatived, by yeas and nays, 82 to 26.

JANUARY, 1810.

by Mr. MARION to adjourn, which was negatived, 40 to 24.

Mr. MARION wished to adjourn to meet again this evening, as gentlemen appeared determined to sit it out.

This motion was not in order.

A motion being again made to adjourn, was negatived 42 to 21.

Mr. FISK moved that the attendance of the absent members be required forthwith."

Mr. DANA called for the reading the clause of the Constitution and of the rule of the House authorizing such a motion.

Mr. WILSON moved to adjourn. The yeas and nays on the motion being required, Mr. W. withdrew the motion.

A quorum now appearing, Mr. FISK withdrew his motion for compelling the attendance of absent members; and Mr. TAGGART proceeded in his speech, and concluded about half-past seven

Mr. GARDENIER's motion was then negatived-o'clock. yeas 39, nays 74, as follows:

Mr. GARDENIER made a motion to recommit the resolution, and spoke at some length in favor of the motion. His object appeared to be a modification of the language of the resolution.

This motion was negatived-yeas 45, nays 71, as follows:

YEAS-Daniel Blaisdell, James Breckenridge, John Campbell, John C. Chamberlain, William Chamberlin, John Davenport, jr., William Ely, James Emott, Barent Gardenier, Thomas R. Gold, William Hale, Nathaniel A. Haven, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Richard Jackson, junior, Herman Knickerbacker, Joseph Lewis, jr., Edward St. Loe Livermore, Robert Le Roy Livingston, Nathaniel Macon, Vincent Matthews, Archibald McBryde, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, John Stanley, William Stedman, James Stephenson, Lewis B. Sturges, Jacob Swoope, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Jabez Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Laban Wheaton, Ezekiel Whit-ingston, Nathaniel Macon, Vincent Matthews, Archiand James Wilson.

man,

NAYS-Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, Adam Boyd, John Brown, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Howell Cobb, James Cochran, James Cox, William Crawford, Richard Cutts, Joseph Desha, John W. Eppes, William Findley, Jonathan Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Barzillai Gannett, Gideon Gardner, Thomas Gholson, jr., Peterson Goodwyn, Daniel Heister, William Helms, James Holland, Benjamin Howard, Jacob Hufty, Robert Jenkins, Richard M. Johnson, Thomas Kenan, William Kennedy, John Love, Aaron Lyle, Robert Marion, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Pleasant M. Miller, William Milnor, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, John Porter, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias Richards, John Roane, Erastus Root, John Ross, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, Daniel Sheffey, Dennis Smelt, John Smilie, George Smith, Henry Southard. John Taylor, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Weakley, Robert Whitehill, and Robert Witherspoon. Mr. TAGGART commenced a speech against the

resolution.

A motion was made to adjourn and negatived, by yeas and nays, 59 to 15.

Immediately after this, it appearing that there was not a quorum present, a motion was made

YEAS-Daniel Blaisdell, James Breckenridge, John C. Chamberlain, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., William Ely, James Emott, Barent Gardenier, Thos. R. Gold, William Hale, Nathaniel A. Haven, Jona than H. Hubbard, Richard Jackson, junior, Robert Jenkins, Herman Knickerbacker, Joseph Lewis, j Edward St. Loe Livermore, Robert Le Roy Liv

bald McBryde, Pleasant M. Miller, Jonathan O. Moseley, Thomas Newbold, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pit kin, jr., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, Daniel Shef fey, Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, John Stanley, William Stedman, James Stephenson, Lewis B Stur ges, Jacob Swoope, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Jabez Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Laban Wheaton, Ezekiel Whitman, and James Wilson.

NAYS-Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, junior, William Anderson, Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, Adam Boyd, John Brown, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Matthew Clay, Howell Cobb, James Cochran, James Cox, William Crawford, Rich ard Cutts, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, John W. Eppes, William Findley, Jonathan Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Barzillai Gannett, Gideon Gardner, Thomas Gholson, jr., Peterson Goodwyn, Daniel Heister, William Helms, James Holland, Benjamin Howard, Jacob Hufty, Richard M. Johnson, Thomas Kenan, William Kennedy, John Love, Aaron Lyle, Robert Marion, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Thomas Newton, John Nicholson, John Porter, Peter B. Porter, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias Richards, John Roane, Erastus Root, John Ross, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, Dennis Smelt, John Smilie, George Smith, Henry Southard, John Taylor, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Weakley, Robert Whitehill, and Robert Witherspoon.

Conduct of the British Minister.