صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

place in the scarcely remembered estimates which had at first been made of the proper mode of managing it. The change in Lord Wellesley's notion upon it, between our first interview and the date of his answer to my note, must have been considerable, if that answer had, as doubtless it had, his approbation. For, the account of that interview, as given in my private letter to Mr. Smith of the 4th of January, is so far from exaggerating Lord Wellesley's reception of what I said to him, that it is much below it. It is to be observed, however, that he had hardly read the correspondence, and had evidently thought very little upon it. For which reason, and because he spoke for himself only, and with less care than he would perhaps have used if he had considered that he was speaking officially, I am glad that you declined laying my private letter before the Congress. The publication of it, which must necessarily have followed, would have produced serious embarrassment.

"Do you not think that, in some respects, Lord Wellesley's answer to my note has not been exactly appreciated in America? I confess to you that this is my opinion.-That the paper is a very bad one is perfectly clear; but it is not so bad in intention as it is in reality, nor quite so bad in reality as it is commonly supposed to be.

"It is the production of an indolent man, making a great effort to reconcile things almost incongruous, and just showing his wish without executing it. Lord Wellesley wished to be extremely civil to the American government; but he was at the same time to be very stately-to manage Jackson's situationand to intimate disapprobation of the suspension of his functions. He was stately, not so much from design, as because he cannot be otherwise. In managing Jackson's situation he must have gone beyond his original intention, and certainly beyond any, of which I was aware before I received his answer. If the answer

had been promptly written, I have no belief that he would have affected to praise Jackson's "ability, zeal, and integrity," or that he would have said any thing about his Majesty not having "marked his conduct with any expression of his displeasure." He would have been content to forbear to censure him; and that I always took for granted he would do.

"For Jackson, personally, Lord Wellesley cares nothing. In his several conferences with me, he never vindicated him, and he certainly did not mean in his letter to undertake his defence. It is impossible that he should not have (1 am indeed sure that he has a mean opinion of that most clumsy and ill-conditioned minister. His idea always appeared to be that he was wrong in pressing at all the topic which gave offence; but that he acted upon good motives, and that his government could not with honour, or without injury to the diplomatic service generally, disgrace him. This is explicitly stated in my private letter of the 4th of January to Mr. Smith. There is a great difference, undoubtedly, between that idea, and the one upon which Lord Wellesley appears finally to have acted. It must be admitted, however, that the praise bestowed upon Jackson is very meagre, and that it ascribes to him no qualities in any degree inconsistent with the charge of gross indecency and intolerable petulance preferred against him in my note. He might be honest, zealous, able; and yet be indiscreet, ill-tempered, suspicious, arrogant, and ill-mannered. It is to be observed, too, this has no reference whatever to the actual case, and that, when the answer speaks of the offence imputed to Jackson by the American government, it does not say that he gave no such cause of offence, but simply relies on his repeated asseverations that he did not mean to offend.

"If the answer had been promptly written, I am persuaded that another feature which now distinguishes it would have been otherwise. It would not have contained any complaint against the course adopted by the American government in putting an end to official communication with Jackson. That Lord Wellesley thought that course objectionable from the first appears in my private letter above mentioned to Mr. Smith. But he did not urge his objections to it in such a way, at our first interview or afterwards, as to induce me to suppose that he would except to that course in his written answer. He said in the outset that he considered it a damnum to the British government; and I know that he was not disposed to acknowledge the regularity of it. There was evidently no necessity, it he did not approve the course, to say any thing about it-and in our conversations I always assumed that it was not only unnecessary but wholly inad

missible to mention it officially for any other purpose than that of approving it.

"After all, however, what he has said upon this point (idle and ill-judged as it is) is the mere statement of the opinion of the British government, that another course would have been more in rule than ours. It amounts to this, then, that we have opinion against opinion and practice; and that our practice has been acquiesced in.

"As to that part of the answer which speaks of a chargé d'affaires, it must now be repented of here, especially by Lord Wellesley, if it was really intended as a threat of future inequality in the diplomatic establishments of the two countries, or even to wear that appearance. Lord Wellesley's letter to me of the 22d ult. abandons that threat, and makes it consequently much worse than nothing. His explanations to me on that head (not official) have lately been, that, when he wrote his answer, he thought there was some person in America to whom Jackson could have immediately delivered his charge, and that if he had not been under that impression, he should not probably have spoken in his answer of a chargé d'affaires, and should have sent out a minister plenipotentiary in the first instance. I know not what stress ought to be laid upon those private and ex post facto suggestions; but I am entirely convinced that there was no thought of continuing a chargé d'affaires at Washington for more than a short time. Neither their pride, nor their interests, nor the scantiness of their present diplomatic patronage would permit it. That Lord Wellesley has long been looking out in his dilatory way for a suitable character (a man of rank) to send as Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States, I have the best reason to be assured. That the appointment has not yet taken place, is no proof at all that it has not been intended. Those who think they understand Lord W. best represent him as disinclined to business-and it is certain that I have found him upon every occasion given to procrastination beyond all example. The business of the Chesapeake is a striking instance. Nothing could be fairer than his various conversations on that case. He settles it with me verbally over and over again. He promises his written overture in a few days—and I hear no more

of the matter. There may be cunning in all this, but it is not such cunning as I should expect from Lord Wellesley.

"In the affair of the blockades, it is evident that the delay arises from the cabinet, alarmed at every thing which touches the subject of blockades, and that abominable scheme of monopoly, called the Orders in Council. Yet it is an unquestionable fact that they have suffered, and are suffering severely under the iniquitous restrictions which they and France have imposed upon the world.

"I mean to wait a little longer for Lord Wellesley's reply to my note of the 30th of April. If it is not soon received, I hope I shall not be thought indiscreet if I present a strong remonstrance upon it, and if I take occasion in it to advert to the affair of the Chesapeake, and to expose what has occurred in that affair between Lord Wellesley and me.

"I have a letter from General Armstrong of the 24th of last month. He expects no change in the measures of the French government with regard to the United States. I cannot, however, refrain from hoping that we shall have no war with that government. We have a sufficient cause for war against both France and England-an equal cause against both in point of justice, even if we take into the account the recent violences of the former. But looking to expediency, which should never be lost sight of, I am not aware of any considerations that should induce us in actual circumstances to embark in a war with France. I have so often troubled you on this topic, that I will not venture to stir it again."


"LONDON, Oct. 30th, 1810.

"I have heard nothing further of the appointment of a Plenipotentiary to the United States. Nothing further of the case of the Chesapeake. Lord Wellesley is a surprizing man."


"WASHINGTON, Oct. 30, 1810. "DEAR SIR,-Your letter of August 13th was duly received. Its observations on the letter and conduct of Lord Wellesley are an interesting comment on both. The light in which the letter was seen by many in this country was doubtless such as gave to its features an exaggerated deformity. But it was the natural effect of its contrast to the general expectation founded on the tenour of your private letter to Mr. Smith, and on the circumstances which in the case of Jackson seemed to preclude the least delay in repairing the insults committed by him. It is true also that the letter, when viewed in its most favourable light, is an unworthy attempt to spare a false pride on one side at the expense of just feelings on the other, and is in every respect infinitely below the elevation of character assumed by the British government, and even of that ascribed to Lord Wellesley. It betrays the consciousness of a debt with a wish to discharge it in false coin. Had the letter been of an earlier date, and accompanied by the prompt appointment of a successor to Jackson, its aspect would have been much softened. But every thing was rendered as offensive as possible by evasions and delays, which admit no explanation without supposing a double game, by which they were to cheat us into a reliance upon fair promises, whilst they were playing into the hands of their partizans here, who were turning the delays into a triumph over their own governThis consideration had its weight on the decision last communicated, with respect to your continuance at London, or return to the United States.


"The sole question on which your return depends, therefore, is whether the conduct of the government where you are, may not render your longer stay incompatible with the honour of the United States. The last letter of the Secretary of State has so placed the subject for your determination, in which the fullest confidence is felt. Waiving other depending subjects, not of recent date, a review of the course pursued in relation to Jackson

« السابقةمتابعة »