they had no intention of performing. On gracious clause,-inserted, as Mr. Smith the contrary, the embarrassments of Mr. afterwards alleged, against his remonMadison's administration, in consequence of strances, and by Mr. Madison's express the non-intercourse act which he inherited direction:-" I have it in express charge from his predecessor, were so vexatious at from the President to state, that while he the time that Mr. Erskine entered on the forbears to insist on a further punishment negotiation, that the President was in the of the offending officer, he is not the less humour of making concessions; and if he did sensible of the justice and utility of such make very material concessions to Great an example, nor the less persuaded that it Britain, during that negotiation, we must would best comport with what is due from regard them as extorted by his difficulties, His Britannic Majesty to his own honour." without considering that he had it in view This impertinent lecture on the principles afterwards to evade them. Messrs. Smith of honor, addressed by Mr. Madison to His and Gallatin, with apparent frankness and Britannic Majesty, was so deeply resented great freedom, spoke to Mr. Erskine of the by the British Cabinet, that the negotiation favourable views and intentions of their relative to the Chesapeake was immediately government; Mr. Madison with greater cau- broken off in consequence, and Mr. Erskine tion; but all with an air and manner of sin- was severely censured for transmitting & cere friendship, of the genuineness of which note, containing language so discourteous Mr. Erskine appears to have been fully con- and unbecoming. Offensive as this breach vinced; in which Mr. Canning, on the other of propriety was, the British Cabinet, it hand, at that time British Secretary for must be confessed, carried their resentment Foreign Affairs, seems to have put little or of it too far, when they made it a reason for no faith at all. Mr. Canning, we feel con- withholding reparation for an acknowledged vinced, was not very far wrong in his low wrong. estimate of the alleged friendliness of Mr. In regard to the Orders in Council, which Madison's administration generally; but in were the subject of Mr. Canning's other disthis particular instance we could have wished patch, the correspondence between Mr. Ersthat the secretary's sagacious scepticism had kine and Mr. Smith ended in an assurance yielded to the confidence so generously re- given by the former, that "His Majesty's posed by the young envoy in the protesta-Orders in Council of January and November tions he received. In consequence of Mr. 1807, will have been withdrawn, as respected Erskine's representations of what he believed the United States, on the 10th June next. to be an improved temper and tone of feeling "To which Mr. Smith rejoined, that the in the United States, Mr. Canning-though non-intercourse act would be withdrawn, in he stated that he could see no symptoms of the satisfactory change suggested by Mr. Erskine sent him new instructions, in two separate dispatches of the same date, (Jan. 23); one relating to the affair of the Chesapeake, the other to the Orders in Council. virtue of the powers conferred on the President by the act establishing it, from and after the 10th of June;" and a proclamation, to that effect, from him appeared the same day. Rejoicing in the The utmost satisfacIn the former of these two dispatches, tion was felt in the ample reparation for the attack on the United States by the Federal party, and by Chesapeake was offered, in a promise that the moderate men at this favourable change. the men taken from that vessel should be On the 24th of April, five days after the issurestored; whilst it was added, His Majesty ing of the President's proclamation declaring would be willing, "as an act of spontaneous the resumption of commercial intercourse generosity," to make a provision for the with Great Britain, the auspicious event was widows and orphans of the men who had celebrated in New York by salutes of guns, been killed in the action. The proffe red ringing of church-bells, splendid illuminareparation was accepted; but the official tions, and other demonstrations of public note, intimating the President's acceptance rejoicing. The sentiments of the Federal of it, closed with the rude and most un- Press appeared in articles preceded by headings such as these:-"Triumph of merely on the single condition of the withFederal policy-No embargo-No French party-A return of peace, prosperity, and commerce." Mr. Erskine's arrangement disavowed by the British Government. drawal of the Non-intercourse Act as regarded Great Britain. But the British Envoy, though ready to put a liberal interpretation on his instructions, was not so venIn proportion to this turous as might at first sight appear. Mr. enthusiastic joy were the Madison-so uneasy was he under his polidepression in some quarters, and the indig- tical dilemma, and so anxious to extricate nation in others, when, on the 20th July, himself from it even with humiliation-had, three weeks after the adjournment of Con- in words, conceded substantially all the degress, information reached the United States mands of the British Government; to make that Mr. Canning had declared in the House those concessions definitive was beyond his of Commons, that the arrangement made by power, as it was indispensable to refer them Mr. Erskine was wholly unauthorised by his to Congress, which was not at that time in instructions, and that the government could session. His perplexities lead us to the connot ratify it. A very grave charge against viction that he would have kept his word, the good faith of the government was ad- and done his best to obtain from Congress its vanced by the opposition in both Houses of sanction of his verbally expressed underParliament; and, in order to rebut this, the standing with Mr. Erskine. That gentleman instructions were eventually printed and laid trusted to Mr. Madison's good faith: Mr. open to public inspection. The correctness Canning, we suspect, did not. "The refuof Mr. Canning's statement was then appa- sal of the English Ministry to ratify Mr. rent, viz.: that Mr. Erskine had acted not Erskine's arrangement," writes Mr. Alison, only inconsistently with, but in contradiction "although justified in point of right by to his orders; and the opposition were Napoleon's violence, and Mr. Erskine's desilenced. A comparison of the correspon- viation from his instructions, may now well dence between Mr. Erskine and the American be characterized as one of the most unfortugovernment with Mr. Canning's despatch to nate resolutions, in point of expediency, ever the former, does indeed exhibit the alleged adopted by the British Government; for it contradiction in a very strong light; for, at once led to the renewal of the Non-interwhilst in the correspondence no mention is course Act of the United States; put an enmade of any condition besides the withdrawal tire stop for the next two years to all comof the Non-intercourse Act, Mr. Canning merce with that country; reduced the exin his despatch specifics three conditions on ports of Great Britain fully a third during which the recall of the Orders was to be con- the most critical and important year of the tingent. "First-the repealing as to Great war; and, in its ultimate results, contributed Britain, but the keeping in force as to France, to produce that unhappy irritation between and all countries adopting her decrees, so the two countries, which has never yet, notlong as those decrees were continued, all ex- withstanding the strong bonds of natural inisting American non-importation and non-terest by which they are connected, been intercourse acts, and acts excluding foreign allayed." On the 9th August, in conseships of war. Second-the renunciation by the United States, during the present war, of any pretensions to carry on any trade with the colonies of belligerents, not allowed in time of peace; and, third-the allowing British ships of war to enforce by capture the American non-intercourse with France and her allies." With terms so express and Mr. Erskine was repositive as these before him, it seems amazing called, and succeeded by that Mr. Erskine should have ventured to Mr. Francis James Jackson, who arrived at conclude even a conditional agreement" as Washington in the month of October. He he described that into which he entered, had done his country service at Copenhagen, 66 quence of the non-fulfilment of the Erskine arrangement, the President issued a proclamation withdrawing the proclamation previously issued; thereby leaving in full effect the Non-intercourse Act both against Great Britain and France. Mission and Recall of in the negotiation which preceded the seizure faction prevailing in the United States in of the Danish fleet, a circumstance not likely consequence of the disallowance of the Ersto recommend him to the government of the kine arrangement gave him pleasure; and, United States. From the moment of his more particularly, the act against Great landing to his departure in about a month's Britain with which the session of Congress time, he was subject to galling insults in had terminated was altogether to his taste. different degrees, from the President, the, The Duke of Cadore-his minister-was acpopulace, and the press. His recall, at last, cordingly instructed to make to the Ameriwas requested by the United States govern- can minister, Mr. Armstrong, the following ment, and, of course, granted by the British declaration, which was communicated in a Cabinet, though without any mark of disap-note dated 5th August:-" At present Conprobation on the part of his sovereign. Decree of Rambouillet: May 18th, 1810. The forbearance of the United States with France was tried to the uttermost, and stood the shock, in the Decree of Rambouillet-the climax of French rapacity-issued on the 18th May, 1810. By this all vessels sailing under the flag of the United States, or owned wholly or in part by any American citizen, which, since the 20th May, 1809, had entered, or which should thereafter enter, any of the ports of France or her colonies, or countries occupied by French armies should be seized. This act was carried into immediate execution; the number of sequestered ships amounted to one hundred and sixty, the value of which was calculated at one million of francs. Yet even this devastating sweep excited no war-spirit in the United States; there was, to be sure, sharp and vehement remonstrance about it; but the spoliation was never resented as the grievances laid to the charge of Great Britain were resented; and the French Emperor never atoned, nor even evinced the slightest disposition to atone, for it. Pretended Revocation of the French Decrees: 1st November, 1810. The Emperor of France, growing impatient under his ineffectual attempt to drive the United States into war with Great Britain, thought proper at last to affect a conciliatory policy towards the North American republic, and to try what fair and plausible professions could accomplish. Without any intention, as his subsequent proceedings shewed, of keeping his hands off their vessels, the confiscation of which had all along furnished so convenient a tribute to his impoverished exchequer, Buonaparte determined, at least, to change his tone. The disappointment and dissatis gress retraces its steps. The act of the 1st March, 1809 (the Non-intercourse act as regards France) is revoked: the ports of America are open to French trade; and France is no longer shut to America. Congress, in short, engages to declare against the belligerent which shall refuse to recognise the rights of neutrals. In this new state of things, I am authorised to declare to you that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked; and that from the 1st November they shall cease to be executed, it being well understood, that in consequence of this declaration, the English shall revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade, which they have attempted to establish, or that the United States shall cause the right to be respected by the British. The President of the United States with eager delight laid hold of this conditional revocation; dependent though it was on a condition which Buonaparte knew very well, and Mr. Madison might have known, too, was on the part of Great Britain wholly inadmissable. On the very next day after that on which it was conditionally promised they should be revoked, Madison issued a proclamation asserting that "the said edicts have been revoked;" and that "the enemy ceased on the first day of that month to violate the neutral commerce of the United States." But the President's gratification was unwarranted, and his proclamation premature. There had been-as we shall see hereafter-no revocation. Intelligence of this prospective revocation of the French decress was communicated at once to Mr. Pinckney, the United States Minister at London, who, without delay proceeded on the 25th August following to make a formal call on the British Government to repeal their Orders in Council. Lord Wel lesley, very naturally, replied that it would this:-"Granting that Britain had 160 vesbe necessary to wait to see whether the sels to blockade thirty ports and harbours French decrees would be actually repealed. of ours; she did not invest those ports and Subsequently, when a temporary intermission harbours by land as well as by sea; and, of French violence, together with the release of some detained American vessels, afforded color for the government of the United States asserting, and probably at the time hoping, that the French decrees had been virtually repealed, though no authentic document beyond the Duke of Cadore's note had appeared to that effect; Mr. Pinckney laboured strenuously and repeatedly to prove to the British Cabinet that those decrees had actually been repealed, and reiterated his demands, that the Orders in Council should be annulled. Lord Wellesley replied that, "admitting the Duke of Cadore's letter to be correctly interpreted by Pinckney, as announcing a repeal of the French decrees to commence absolutely on the first of November, but conditional as to its continuance, or the recall, within a reasonable time, of the British Orders, he should not hesitate to concede such a recall, had that been the only thing required. But there was another condition mentioned in that letter wholly inadmissable the renouncing what were called "the new British principles of blockade." What France required was the relinquishment by England of "her new principles of blockade;" an expression which unquestionably implied much more than a mere declaration by the British Cabinet that, as a matter of fact, the blockade of 1806 had, as an actual blockade, ceased to exist. We do not see how the British Government could have disputed that point, seeing it was a thing obvious to the eyes of any man, that Lord Keith's ships no longer watched the coast between Brest and the Elbe; Lord Wellesley, we consider, admitted as much, when he told Mr. Pinckney that the blockade of 1806 was included in the more extensive Orders in Council; that is, he admitted, we take it, that the line of coast originally confined by actual blockade was no longer in that predicament; but, in common with the rest of France, affected by the retaliation of Buonaparte's own paper blockades. But this admission, expressed or implied, was not what France wanted. Her view of the case was therefore, in our estimation, it was no actual *This was the force actually watching the French coast in 1806. This revocation, then, which was so paraded Council, hurt both you and ourselves, infiin public documents of Mr. Madison's Admin-nitely more than they annoy or injure France, istration, and triumphantly Quoted both in and this we judge to be a sufficient reason those documents and in Congress, as creat- for rescinding the Orders. This we are ing an irresistible claim on Great Britain ready to do, without compromising our for the repeal of her Orders, was nothing right, which is sanctioned by all national more than a revocation contingent on im- law and precedent, to close where we can possible conditions, and was, therefore, no the ports of France with our fleets, which revocation at all. It was simply a piece of are quite adequate to the maintenance of any French intrigue, seen through without diffi- actual blockade we have as yet attempted. culty by the British Cabinet, as a transparent This relief we are ready to afford you, withfraud, and failing, therefore, to draw Great out for one moment debarring ourselves from Britain into the snare; but ultimately suc- turning against our enemy, as God shall cessful in the other quarter; that is, in give us ability, that maritime superiority, aggravating the discontent felt by the United whose crowning honours and strength were States towards Great Britain, and contribut- bought with the blood of Aboukir and ing to bring on hostilities between those Trafalgar." This, we conceive, would have two countries. Still, it might be asked, been good and safe policy on the part of "Did this French stratagem preclude Great Great Britain. It would have conciliated Britain from making a relaxation of her the United States, and miserably disapOrders in favour of the United States, sup- pointed France, without involving, so far as posing that good policy dictated such a step?" we can see, any concession detrimental to Pledged to such a concession she certainly our maritime superiority, or discreditable to was not, for her pledge as we have seen the nation at large. The persistence of the was based on nothing short of an absolute British Cabinet in their original policy at and unconditional repeal on the part of this period, and subsequently, when the France, which was never made. But was Erskine arrangement was disallowed, may she not at liberty to make the concession of her own accord? We think she was. We cannot see that she was in the slightest degree bound by any interpretation which France might put upon; by any extravagant conditions which her furious adversary, in bankruptcies were announced; whilst the her own distempered imagination and in- elements of the riots which in 1812 broke flated pretensions, might gratuitously attach out in the manufacturing districts were to such a concession. She was, it appears visibly fermenting. We do not mean to to us, altogether in a position to take, and attribute the whole of this commercial disto maintain her own view of her own policy, tress to the Orders in Council and the retaand to say to the United States:-" It will liatory acts of Congress; but we are aware be mutually advantageous that we should that a great deal of it arose from that source; discontinue the restraints which French whilst it may be acknowledged that the chief violence at the first compelled us to put on cause of such a depression was Buonaparte's your commerce; and we do so: we strike Continental system,-the confiscation of off the trammels we imposed; you, of British merchandise with which it comcourse, abrogating your retaliatory enact- menced, and the subsequent exclusion of ments. It is true, the violence of France that merchandise from all the Continental continues; for, as she has relaxed her De- ports under his control. The re-establishcrees with an understanding utterly ridi- ment of satisfactory relations with the United culous,-on conditions surpassingly inequit- States would certainly have been, under able and absurd,-which can never be these circumstances, a measure of relief; fulfilled, she has, in point of fact, not and it was simply as a measure of relief to relaxed those Decrees at all. But your suffering and complaining multitudes that Non-Intercourse Act, and our Orders in the Orders in Council were, in the end, be pronounced, we think, unfortunate, and seems, indeed, unaccountable, when we consider how loudly the increasing commercial distress in the British Isles cried out for relief. During the year 1810, two thousand |