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."

In this extract the secretary distinctly states, that Mr. Jackson's letter furnished the government with the first information, that Mr. Canning's despatch of the 23d of January contained the conditions upon which a treaty alone could be concluded; a positive declaration, that the American government did not know before that Mr. Erskine did not possess other instructions, than those shown to the secretary; and if the government had possessed that knowledge, the convention never would have been made. It is important to mark this expression, because here the controversy on that particular point could well have terminated; neither party was under any obligation to return to it. The language of these letters, both of secretary and minister, had not been particularly mild or conciliatory. They both obviously wrote under some degree of irritation. But no permanent offence had been given, Mr. Jackson having declared, he was satisfied with the explanation offered by Mr. Smith respecting the form of intercourse. Mr. Jackson's answer, under date of

October 23d, is in the following words:

"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 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 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; no stronger illustration, therefore, can be given of the deviation from them which occurred, than by a reference to the terms of your agreement. Nothing can be more notorious than the frequency with which, in the course of a complicated negotiation, ministers are furnished with a gradation of conditions, on which they may be successively authorized to conclude. So common is the case, which you put hypothetically, that in acceding to the justice of your statement, I feel myself impelled to make only one observation upon it, which

is, that it does not strike me as bearing upon the consideration of the unauthorized agreement concluded here, inasmuch as, in point of fact, Mr. Erskine had no such graduated instructions. You are already acquainted with that which was given, and I have had the honour of informing you, that it was the only one, by which the conditions on which he was to conclude, were prescribed. So far from the terms, which he was actually induced to accept, having been contemplated in that instruction, he himself states, that they were substituted in lieu of those originally proposed."

This language may bear a double construction, though the presumption undoubtedly is, that a foreign minister would not attempt to insult a government, to which he was accredited, in the gross manner that one form of interpretation would imply. If Mr. Jackson intended only to say, that the convention was disavowed, because it was in violation of Mr. Erskine's instructions, that, as he had now ascertained those instructions were known to the American government, and as he had himself informed them, that those were the only instructions Mr. Erskine possessed, the American government could not have been surprised the convention was disavowed, assuredly no cause of objection or exception could justly lie to this language. There is manifestly no intimation in this construction, that the American government knew at the time of the convention all the instructions of Mr. Erskine, and the government always admitted that they had seen a part of his instructions. The other interpretation of this language, and the one the government obviously assigned to it, is, that the American government did know at the time of the convention, that the instructions exhibited by Mr. Erskine were the only ones he possessed. Whatever construction may be affixed to this language, the remark is just, that to renew the intimation, was, on the part of the foreign envoy, a gratuitous proceeding. Owing to indisposition, the Secretary of State did not reply to this letter before the 1st of November. He observes:

"I abstain, sir, from making any particular animadversions on several irrelevant and improper allusions in your letter, not all comporting with the professed disposition to adjust, in an amicable

manner, the differences unhappily subsisting between the two countries. But it would be improper to conclude the few observations, to which I purposely limit myself, without adverting to your repetition of a language, implying a knowledge on the part of this government, that the instructions of your predecessor did not authorize the arrangement formed by him. After the explicit and peremptory asseveration, that this government had no such knowledge, no such arrangement would have been entered into, the view which you have again presented of the subject, makes it my duty to apprize you that such insinuations are inadmissible in the intercourse of a foreign minister with a government that under- “ stands what it owes to itself."

Whatever character may be ascribed to this language, it put it in the power of Mr. Jackson to explain that portion of his letter, at which the American secretary had taken offence. The secretary himself, in the course of their short correspondence, had already offered an explanation upon another topic that appeared to be peculiarly irritating to the minister. Mr. Jackson was, evidently, a man of talents; his correspondence is conducted with ability; certainly with more power of argument and expression than that of any of his predecessors; he had been employed many years in the diplomatic service of his country; and was, therefore, in every respect, competent to judge of the meaning Mr. Smith had ascribed to his language. It was quite apparent, that a direct attack by a foreign functionary upon the honour and veracity of a government was, under all circumstances, inadmissible. After Mr. Smith had undertaken to interpret, on his part, the language of Mr. Jackson, and to attribute to it a meaning, that every diplomatic agent must know was exceedingly offensive, there was presented to the latter gentleman the alternative, either of confirming or rejecting the construction of the American secretary. On the other hand, Mr. Jackson obviously did not consider, that he was under any obligation to offer an explanation of his own language. The government, with whom he was sent to treat, had undertaken to interpret the phrases and sentences of his letters, and the accuracy of their constructions not only rested in

their discretion, but he, in justice, could only be made answerable for his own expressions, and not for the interpretation of others. This appears to have been the view the British minister took of this unfortunate business; and with these impressions he replied to the letter of Mr. Smith. We subjoin an extract from Mr. Jackson's answer of November 4th:

"I am concerned, sir, to be obliged a second time to appeal to those principles of public law, under the sanction and protection of which I was sent to this country. Where there is not freedom of communication in the form substituted for the more usual one of verbal discussion, there can be little useful intercourse between ministers; and one, at least, of the epithets, which you have thought proper to apply to my last letter, is such as necessarily abridges that freedom. That any thing therein contained, may be irrelevant to the subject, it is of course competent in you to endeavour to show, and, as far as you succeed in so doing, in so far will my argument lose of its validity; but as to the propriety of my allusions, you must allow me to acknowledge only the decision of my own sovereign, whose commands I obey, and to whom, alone, I can consider myself responsible. Beyond this, it suffices that I do not deviate from the respect due to the government, to which I am accredited.

"You will find that in my correspondence with you, I have carefully avoided drawing conclusions that did not necessarily follow from the premises advanced by me, and, last of all, should I think of uttering an insinuation where I was unable to substantiate a fact. To facts, such as I have become acquainted with them, I have scrupulously adhered, and in so doing, I must continue, whereever the good faith of his Majesty's government is called in question, to vindicate its honour and dignity, in the manner that appears to me the best calculated for that purpose."

On the 8th of November, the following letter was sent to Mr. Jackson, from the Department of State :

"In my letter of the 19th ult. I stated to you, that the declaration in your letter of the 11th, that the despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d January, was the only despatch by which the conditions 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 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.

"In my letter of the 1st instant, adverting to the repetition in your letter of the 23d ultimo, of a language implying a knowledge of this government that the instructions of your predecessor did not authorize the arrangement formed by him, an intimation was distinctly given to you, that after the explicit and peremptory asseveration that this government had not any knowledge, and that with such a knowledge, such an arrangement would not have been made, no such insinuation could be admitted by this government.

"Finding that in your reply of the 4th instant, you have used a language, which cannot be understood, 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 received from you, and that the necessity of this determination will, without delay, be made known to your government. In the mean time, a ready attention will be given to any communications affecting the interests of the two nations through any other channel that may be substituted."

Mr. Jackson immediately withdrew with every member of his mission from Washington; he made New-York the place of his residence. The Secretary of Legation was desired, by the British minister, to give notice of that circumstance to the Department of State. The government, without delay, requested the recall of Mr. Jackson. And on the 14th of March 1810, Mr. Pinkney, the American minister in London (whose commission had been renewed in February 1808), received notice that Mr. Jackson had been directed to return to England, but his recall was not accompanied with any mark of the displeasure of his own government. We have not thought it proper to pass over in entire silence the recall of Mr. Jackson, though the extracting a portion of the correspondence has exceeded the limits, we have in most cases prescribed for ourselves. Being the second instance