any principle of justice, or without a sacrifice of national independence." This gloomy prospect was for a moment relieved by a circumstance, hailed as most auspicious in the outset, but which ultimately added to the accumulation of difficulties and provocations. We now refer to the negotiation, completed in April 1809 by Mr. Erskine,* an arrangement that suspended, for a short time, the appearance and necessity of war. The proposition made by that minister, that the orders in council, of January and November 1807, should be withdrawn, on the 10th day of June, as far as respected the United States, provided the intercourse should be renewed between America and England, was received with great satisfaction by this government. An immediate answer made by the Secretary of State, that the President would, in pursuance of the 11th section of the statute, commonly called the nonintercourse act, issue a proclamation, so that the trade of the United States with Great Britain might on the same day be renewed, in the manner provided in that act. Accordingly, on the very day (April 19) on which this note was written, the following proclamation was officially published: was "By the President of the United States, a proclamation. Whereas it is provided by the 11th section of the act of Congress, entitled "an act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes," that, "in case either France or Great Britain shall so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States," the President is authorized to declare the same by proclamation, after which the trade suspended by the said act, and by an act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbours of the United States, and the several acts supplementary thereto, may be renewed with the nation so doing. And whereas, * Mr. Rose and Mr. David M. Erskine, were envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary. Mr. Rose left this country in March 1808. the honourable David Montague Erskine, his Britannic majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, has, by the order and in the name of his sovereign, declared to this government, that the British orders in council, of January and November 1807, will have been withdrawn, as respects the United States, on the 10th day of June next-Now, therefore, 1, James Madison, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim, that the orders in council, aforesaid, will have been withdrawn on the said tenth day of June next, after which day, the trade of the United States with Great Britain, as suspended by the act of Congress above mentioned, and an act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbours of the United States, and the several acts supplementary thereto, may be renewed.” Mr. Erskine having likewise offered reparation for the affair of the Chesapeake, the proposition was accepted by the American government; and he declared, at the same time, that a minister, possessing full powers, would be sent to this country, to conclude a treaty on all the points in discussion. But the satisfaction, the arrangement of the 19th diffused, was soon dispelled, for on the 3d of July of the same year, the British minister gave official notice to the Secretary of State, that his government had not thought proper to confirm the provisional agreement he had entered into. It was well known, at the time, that the motive of this refusal of the ministry was the circumstance of the envoy's having exceeded his instructions. In consequence of this communication, the President issued a second proclamation of August 9, 1809, declaring that the nonintercourse act was again in force, in regard to Great Britain. The British government also issued orders to protect from capture such American vessels as had left the United States in consequence of the original proclamation of the President. This was an unfortunate business;-justly a disappointment to the American government and people, exceedingly increasing the probability of war. We believe that no doubt now remains, but that it would have been for the benefit of Great Britain to have confirmed the arrangement of April, 1809, or what was, in reality, equivalent to it, the propo sition of the American government, of the preceding summer. England would not accede to either, on the ground, that such a state of things would amount to a virtual repeal of her orders. Mr. Erskine certainly exceeded his instructions, as he admits himself, in his letters to Mr. Canning ;he attempts no justification of his conduct, in relation to the two conditions of his instructions, concerning the colonial trade, and the enforcing the embargo against France, by the means of English men of war, though he offers satisfactory explanations upon some minor points.* He closes a letter, *These instructions of Mr. Canning, from a letter to Mr. Erskine, of January 23, 1809, not only contain two extraordinary propositious, but as they constitute a principal ingredient in the correspondence between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Smith, we shall extract them entire. "From the reports of your conversations with Mr. Madison, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Gallatin, it appears, 1st, that the American government is prepared, in the event of his majesty's consenting to withdraw the orders in council, of January and November 1807, to withdraw, cotemporaneously, on its part, the interdiction of its harbours to ships of war, and all nonintercourse and nonimportation acts, so far as respects Great Britain, leaving them in force with respect to France, and the powers which adopt or act under her decrees. 2dly, what is of the utmost importance, as precluding a new source of misunderstanding, which might arise after the adjustment of the other questions,that America is willing to renounce, during the present war, the pretension of carrying on, in time of war, all trade with the enemies' colonies, from which she was excluded during peace. 3dly, Great Britain, for the purpose of securing the operation of the embargo, and of the bona fide intention of America to prevent her citizens from trading with France, and the powers adopting and acting under the French decrees, is to be considered as being at liberty to capture all such American vessels as may be found attempting to trade with the ports of any of those powers; without which security for the observance of the embargo, the raising of it nominally, with respect to Great Britain alone, would in fact raise it with respect to all the world. On these conditions, his majesty would consent to withdraw the orders in council, of January and November 1807, so far as respects America."--" Upon receiving through you, on the part of the American government, a distinct and official recognition of the three above mentioned conditions, his majesty will lose no time in sending to America a minister, fully empow dated August 10, the last he appears to have written, with this expression:-"Nothing could have induced me to have deviated, in the slightest degree, from the orders I had received, but a thorough conviction upon my mind, that by so doing, to a certain extent, I should accomplish the object which his majesty had in view, when, by too strictly adhering to the letter of my instructions, I might lose the opportunity of promoting essentially his majesty's wishes and interest." The instructions to this minister, and the entire correspondence, have since been published. In the arrangement made with Mr. Erskine, the American government relinquished the ground, taken immediately after the capture of the Chesapeake, that they would not treat of that affair, except in connexion with the business of impressment. The government, also, expressed no dissatisfaction, that the officer, admiral Berkeley, had not only been recalled, but had recently been appointed to a high command at Lisbon. Nor could America have been satisfied with the partial explanation, given by Mr. secretary Canning to Mr. Pinkney, of the reasons of the disavowal of the Erskine arrangement; particularly as the secretary intimated, that the minister then in America would be furnished with instructions on this subject. Propriety obviously required, the explanation should be given on the spot; and, as the confidence of his government had been withdrawn from the individual who framed the provisional convention, he was an unsuitable person for that purpose. These instructions were never executed by him; a duty that naturally, and with great fitness, fell upon -- "Upon the ered to consign them to a formal and regular treaty.”receipt here of an official note, containing an engagement for the adoption, by the American government, of the three conditions above specified, his majesty will be prepared, on the faith of such engagement, either immediately, (if the repeal shall have been immediate in America) or on any day specified by the American government for that repeal, reciprocally to recall the orders in council, without waiting for the conclusion of a treaty. And you are authorized, in the circumstances herein described, to take such reciprocal engagement on his majesty's behalf." Par. Hist. vol. xvii. Append. 124, 125, 126. . his successor. It is, however, proper to state, that Mr. Erskine was not invested with full power to make a treaty; and he had never exchanged his powers with any persons properly authorized, on the part of the American government. When the convention was made, he stood in the light only of an accredited minister. In a recent instance, our government withheld their sanction from a treaty, concluded by envoys invested with full powers, and especially accredited for that purpose. The ratification was refused, in that case, without the customary form of submitting it to that body, invested, under the constitution, with the examination of treaties. It is, indeed, evident, from an expression, in Mr. Erskine's letter, of April 18th, that he himself did not possess a full power. It is as follows: On these grounds and expectations, I am instructed to communicate to the American government, his majesty's determination of sending to the United States an envoy extraordinary, invested with full powers to conclude a treaty on all the points of the relations between the two countries." At that time, Mr. Erskine was authorized to bind his government, only on the three conditions of his instructions; he was, moreover, authorized to assure the American government, that if they wished to act upon the arrangement, before a formal treaty could be made, full and immediate effect should be given to it in England. The next negotiation presents us with still greater circumstances of irritation, though of a novel character; it began in anger, and was speedily terminated. Francis J. Jackson, the successor of Mr. Erskine, who had been recalled, arrived in the autumn of 1809, in this country. Having presented his credential letters, he had two conferences with the Secretary of State; but verbal communication did not extend beyond that point. On the 9th of October, the Secretary addressed him a note, complaining that no distinct or solid reasons had been given for the disavowal of the Erskine arrangement, with the additional remark that the government was entitled to receive not only a formal disavowal from a public functionary on the spot, but the acknowledged principles of the laws of nations (Vattel) required, that the reasons should be |