Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

TO MRS. MADISON.

WASHINGTON, August (?), 1809.1 MY DEAREST,-We reached the end of our journey yesterday at one o'clock, without interruption of any sort on the road. Mr. Coles had been here some time, and one, if not two, of the expected despatch vessels of England had just arrived, and Mr. Gelston, after a short passage from France, entered Washington about the moment I did. You may guess, therefore, the volumes of papers before us. I am but just dipping into them, and have seen no one as yet, except Mrs. Smith for a few minutes last evening. What number of days I may be detained here it is impossible to say. The period, you may be sure, will be shortened as much as possible. Everything around and within reminds me that you are absent, and makes me anxious to quit this solitude. I hope in my next to be able to say when I may have this gratification, perhaps also to say something of the intelligence just brought us. I send the paper of this morning, which has something on the subject, and I hope the communications of Gelston will be found more favorable than is stated. Those from England can scarcely be favorable when such men hold the reins. Mr. and Mrs. Erskine are here. His successor had not sailed on the 20th of June.

God bless you, and be assured of my constant affection.

1 From Memoirs and Letters of Dolly Madison (1886), p. 67. The letter is there dated August 17, which is obviously an error. The correct date must be August 7th.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

MAD. MSS.

MONTPELLIER, Aug. 16, 1809.

DEAR SIR,-I got home from my trip to Washington on Saturday last, having remained there three days only. You will have seen in the Procl" issued the result of our consultation on the effect of what has passed on our commercial relation with G. B. The enforcement of the non-intercourse act agst her will probably be criticized by some friends, and generally assailed by our adversaries, on the ground that the power given to the Ex., being special, was exhausted by the first exercise of it; and that the power having put out of force the laws to which it related, could, under no possible construction, restore their operation. In opposition to this reasoning, it was considered that the act of the last session continuing the non-intercourse no otherwise excepted G. B. than by a proviso that it should not affect any trade which had been or might be permitted, in conformity with the section of the original act authorising a proclamation in favor of the nation revoking its Edicts; and that the proclamation in favor of G. B. was not conformable to that section.

While there he issued his proclamation of Aug. 9, withdrawing the proclamation of April 19:

"Whereas it is now officially made known to me that the said orders in council have not been withdrawn agreeably to the communication and declaration aforesaid,

"I do hereby proclaim the same, and, consequently, that the trade renewable on the event of the said orders, being withdrawn, is to be considered as under the operation of the several acts by which such trade was suspended."

It was not so in substance, because the indispensable pre-requisite, a repeal of the Orders in Council, did not take place. It was not so even in form; the law requiring a past and not a future fact to be proclaimed, and the proclamation, on its face, pointing to a future, not to a past fact. This difficulty was felt at the time of issuing the first proclamation; but it yielded to the impossibility of otherwise obtaining, without great delay, the coveted trade with G. B, and an example that might be followed by France; to the idea that the mode in which the repeal, though future, of the orders and of the law, was coupled by the proclamation, might, on the occurrence of the former, give a constructive validity to the latter; and to the opportunity afforded by an intervening session of Cong for curing any defect in the proceeding. In one respect, it would have been clearly proper for Congress to have interposed its authority, as was frequently intimated to members; that is, to provide for the contingency, not so much of a disavowal by G. B, which was never suspected, as of her not receiving the act of her Minister till after the 10th of June. Congress, however, never could be brought to attend to the subject, although it was pressed by several members, I believe, certainly by Gardenier,1 on the general ground, that the Procl", however acceptable, was not in a form, nor under the circumstances, contemplated by law. In some of the instructions given by Mr. Gallatin's circular, a liberty has been

1 Berent Gardenier, of New York, a federalist of the extreme type.

taken having no plea but manifest necessity, and as such will be before Congress.

Erskine is in a ticklish situation with his Govt. I suspect he will not be able to defend himself against the charge of exceeding his instructions, notwithstanding the appeal he makes to sundry others not published. But he will make out a strong case agst Canning, and be able to avail himself much of the absurdity and evident inadmissibility of the articles disregarded by him. He can plead, also, that the difference between his arrangemt and the spontaneous orders of Ap' 26 is too slight to justify the disavowal of him. This difference seems, indeed, to limit its importance to the case of Holland, and to consist in the direct trade admitted by the arrangement, and an indirect one through the adjoining ports required by the orders. To give importance to this distinction, the Ministry must avow, what, if they were not shameless, they never wd avow, that their object is not to retaliate injury to an enemy; but to prevent the legitimate trade of the U. S. from interfering with the London smugglers of sugar and coffee.

We are looking out for M and Mrs Gallatin every day. Untill they arrive, and we learn also the periods of your being at and absent from Home, we do not venture to fix a time for our proposed visit to Monticello.

Accept my most affectionate respects.

Capt: Coles has been with us since Sunday. I refer to him for the state of our foreign affairs, with

which he is especially acquainted, to say more than I cou'd well put on paper.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

MAD. MSS.

MONTPELLIER, Septr 11, 1809.

DEAR SIR, I send herewith a few papers which have come to my hands, along with those addressed to myself.

Jackson, according to a note sent from Annapolis, to M Smith, was to be in Washington on Friday evening last. The letters from Mr Pinkney, brought by him, were dated June 23, and merely rehearsed a conversation with Canning; from which it would seem that C readily admitted that his second condition (Colonial trade) had no connection with the subject, and that it was not to be expected the U. States would accede to the 3d, (G. B. to execute our laws.) Why,

1 Only an extract of Pinkney's chief letter was sent to Congress. It may be seen in Am. State Papers, For. Affs., III., 303, and Annals of Cong., 11th Cong., 2d Sess., Part 2, p. 2074, and is indicated in the complete letter which follows by an asterisk at the beginning and end of the extract. The closing sentence of Secretary Smith's letter of April 17th (written by Madison) to Erskine, to which Canning took exception, was as follows:

"But I have it in express charge from the President to state that, while he forbears to insist on a further punishment of the offending officer [Berkeley], he is not the less sensible of the justice and utility of such an example, nor the less persuaded that it would best comport with what is due His Britannic Majesty to his own honor."

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

"I had an Interview yesterday with Mr. Canning, of which I will trouble you with a very brief account.

[ocr errors]

As the orders in Council of the 24th of May did not extend to the

« ForrigeFortsett »