a proclamation of the President, suspending the Non-intercourse Laws, after the 10th of June, in reference to Great Britain and her dependencies.

Mr. Jefferson evinced high gratification at the prospect of this honorable termination of disputes; and when it was apparently effected, he "sincerely congratulated" the President (April 27th), declaring that from whatever motives on the part of England it originated, "he rejoiced in it as the triumph of our forbearing, yet persevering, system." He wrote to his correspondent: "It will lighten your anxieties, take from the cabal its most fertile ground of war, will give us peace during your time, and by the complete extinguishment of the public debt, open upon us the noblest application of revenue that has ever been exhibited by any nation." He regretted that Great Britain proposed to send a minister to form a commercial treaty. He said she never had made such a treaty on equal terms with any nation, "and we had no right to expect to be the first." He continued:

"It will confirm the English, too, in their practice of whipping us into a treaty. They did it in Jay's case, were near it in Monroe's, and on the failure of that, have applied the scourge with tenfold vigor, and now come on to try its effect. But it is the moment when we should prove our consistence, by recurring to the principles we dictated to Monroe, the departure from which occasioned our rejection of his treaty, and by protesting against Jay's treaty being ever quoted, or looked at, or even mentioned. That form will forever be a millstone round our necks unless we now rid ourselves of it once for all. The occasion is highly favorable, as we never can have them more in our power."

He remarked, in reference to our other great European opponent, and in reference to the extension of our own national limits southwardly:

"As to Bonaparte, I should not doubt the revocation of his edicts, were he governed by reason. But his policy is so crooked that it eludes conjecture. I fear his first object now is to dry up the sources of British prosperity by excluding her manufactures from the continent. He may fear that opening the ports of Europe to our vessels will open them to an inundation of British wares. He ought to be satisfied with having forced her to revoke the orders on which he pretended to retaliate, and to be particularly satisfied with us, by whose unyielding adherence to principle she has been forced into the revocation. He ought the more to conciliate our good will, as we can be such an obstacle to the new career opening on him in the Spanish colonies. That he would give us the Floridas to withhold intercourse with the residue of those colonies, cannot be doubted. But that is no price; because they are ours in the first moment of the first war; and until a war they are of

no particular necessity to us. But, although with difficulty, he will consent to our receiving Cuba into our Union, to prevent our aid to Mexico and the other provinces. That would be a price, and I would immediately erect a column on the southernmost limit of Cuba, and inscribe on it a ne plus ultra as to us in that direction. We should then have only to include the North in our confederacy, which would be of course in the first war, and we should have such an empire for liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation; and I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government."

Mr. Erskine's treaty did not receive the approbation of his Government, and its ratification was refused. One of the grounds of its condemnation was that it obtained no adequate security for the good faith of the United States. The latter had already practically exhibited more confidence in Great Britain -and the President was driven to acknowledge his error by revoking his proclamation of April 19th. As if more unmistakably to mark the temper of the British cabinet, Mr. Erskine was recalled, and his place filled by "Copenhagen Jackson," as he was commonly termed in the United States, from his having conducted those negotiations with Denmark which terminated in the battle of Copenhagen and the capture of the Danish navy by England. Jackson's connection with this outrage on a neutral power, was sufficient to render him suspected and odious in the United States; and, in addition to this, he was well known to be, personally, a cold, hard, illiberal tool of the party in England which was most hostile to the United States. Thus, if England had, in sending Mr. Erskine, accidentally relaxed for a moment in the policy towards us, attributed to her by Governeur Morris-the policy of "attempting to catch flies with vinegar"-she now promptly repaired the mistake.

It is curious to look back upon the list of British ministers in this country, from the organization of the government down to the war of 1812-if not somewhat later-the Hammonds, the Merrys, the Jacksons, the Fosters, etc. We except the gentlemanly Erskine from all remark, because, though he was grievously misled in some particulars by that faction in our country who always took the British ministers into their keeping, he was undoubtedly a high-souled and liberally disposed man. others were petty, petulant, third-rate diplomatists, who were not really fit to fill the secretaryships of legation in respectable missions. They came into our land to tease, to scold, to squab

The

ble about straws; to carry the narrow bitter spirit of pettifoggers into diplomatic negotiation; and most impoliticly, not to say insultingly, of all, to throw themselves body and soul into the arms of a political faction violently hostile to the Adminis tration, and representing scarcely a tithe of the American people-to take all the coloring of their views of American affairs from that faction-to adopt and send home its statements to countenance it directly and almost avowedly by their influence, and by having their governments countenance it to the greatest practicable extent in all the propositions, and even imputations (as in Canning's answer to Pinkney) engrafted into its official communications. The discourtesy, impropriety, and inexpediency of this treatment are made apparent by the misunderstandings which so often existed between the governments on comparatively insignificant points, and which, in conjunction with Mr. Canning's "paltry and irritating tone," gradually wore out the patience of the American people and produced a desire for the war of 1812 among as large a proportion of them as had originally desired the war of the Revolution.

1

The treaty with Erskine had gratified the moderate men of all parties. Even the Federal disunion leaders were compelled to affect satisfaction, or to remain silent, so wide-spread and unanimous was this feeling among the popular masses in their own party. Madison was claimed as a Federalist and invited to Federal banquets in some quarters, while in others it was exultingly insisted that the threats of New England had frightened him into a sound policy. The Federal newspapers loudly claimed that this amicable and easy solution of long-standing difficulties proved that England had always been well disposed towards us and ready to make a similar arrangement, if Mr. Jefferson had been found willing to accept it. Some went so far as to assert that "she had requested Mr. Jefferson to do the same thing," but that he had refused, it being his policy “to keep alive in the minds of our people a perpetual irritation against the Government of Great Britain."

When the news of the rejection came, the same party made a more striking display of its colonial spirit. Some of the newspapers which contained the avowals quoted in the preceding paragraph, now asserted that "Mr. Erskine surrendered every

1 See Edinburgh Review, quoted in last chapter.

thing and got nothing in return "-that he "acted contrary to his instructions "--that our Government having cajoled him into an arrangement which it was aware he was unauthorized to make, had proceeded to carry it into execution on its own part, merely to obtain a pretext for raising a clamor against the Government of Great Britain-that the whole arrangement, on our side, "so far from being a proof of a disposition to make peace and settle our differences, was the strongest evidence of a hostile temper, because Mr. Madison knew that the revulsion and disappointment occasioned by it among our own citizens would excite new clamors."

1

When the treaty was promulgated, the Boston Gazette said: "We shall not stop to inquire whether the spirited and vigorous measures of New England-their determined public declarations that they would not submit to an unnecessary and destructive war, have induced the Administration to listen to the same terms which Great Britain has always been ready to offer, and to which we have uniformly contended she was sincerely disposed." The Philadelphia United States Gazette declared "she [England] had requested Mr. Jefferson to do the same thing." The Federal Republican (of BaltimoreHanson's paper, afterwards destroyed by a mob) said: "Peace with England-The war party and French partisans are thrown into complete confusion. The perseverance of the eastern States, aided by the returning sense of a formidable body of the people of the southward, have driven Administration from its ground. Since Mr. Jefferson has retired in disgrace into private life, his successor has been compelled to abandon the ruinous policy under which the country has so long suffered. With the magnanimity and frankness characteristic of a great and enlightened nation, England made a second attempt to renew the terms of amity and peace between the two nations." "As to the revocation of the orders in council, it is merely necessary to observe, that the terms which our government has now accepted might have been obtained at any time past. They were always in our power." "It was the policy of Mr. Jefferson to keep alive in the minds of our people a perpetual irritation against the Government of Great Britain; we are happy to find that Mr. Madison has more liberal views." We have purposely scattered the three last preceding extracts from Hanson's paper over a surface of three months (they were respectively of April 21st, May 3d, and June 10th), to show that these were not the momentary expressions of the Federalists, drawn out by surprise, but their continuous ones, until they learned that England had rejected the treaty. Such quotations might be swelled to a volume.

Now per contra. On receiving news of the rejection, the Federal Republican at once declared: "Mr. Erskine surrendered everything and got nothing in return.' For our part we have had but one opinion from the commencement of this mysterious affair-and we have made bold to express it. It is that Mr. Erskine acted contrary to his instructions -and Secretary Smith knew what these instructions were." "That adjustment, so far from being a proof of a disposition to make peace and settle our differences, is the strongest evidence of a hostile temper, because Mr. Madison knew that the revulsion and disappointment occasioned by it among our citizens, would excite new clamors" etc. (December 9th). "Our Administration, if they understood their business, must have been aware that they were negotiating with an unauthorized individual" (December 11th). "It is proved, beyond a doubt, that the Government might, with just as much propriety, have cajoled with General Smith, or any other individual, concluded a covention, proceeded to carry it into execution on their part, and then raised a clamor against the Government of Great Britain and accused them of perfidy and breach of faith for not recognizing and fulfilling the stipulations" (December 28th). The Boston Palladium said: "By letters from well-informed men in England, we are assured that the conduct of Mr. Erskine is condemned by all parties in that country; that the temper of the public is far beyond that of the ministry. A very general opinion prevails there, that it will be very difficult to keep any terms with this country; that we are governed by men devoted to the interests of France, who are determined to insist on terms from England which never can be obtained." The "well-informed" English correspondents of the Boston Federalists did not probably read both sides. Bell's Weekly (London) Messenger said: "The disavowal of Mr. Erskine's act is of a piece with the general conduct of England towards America. Whenever circumstances have in any way admitted it, our tone towards America has always been insulting, and our conduct everything but

But the rejection was very differently received by the mass of the American people. It was not generally believed that Mr. Erskine had exceeded his instructions; but most persons in reality cared nothing for that nice question, feeling that the treaty was a fair one for England and no more than a fair one for the United States, and that its rejection, with the accompanying circumstances, evinced a disposition on the part of the former power so unjust and contemptuous towards us, that we could not further expect or honorably seek redress by negotiation.

The popular feeling in respect to the new English minister and his offers to our Government, is represented in the following hitherto unpublished letter :

DEAR SIR:

TO HON. JOHN W. EPPES, WASHINGTON.

MONTICELLO, Dec. 8, '09.

I should sooner have informed you of Francis's safe arrival here, but that the trip you meditated to North Carolina rendered it entirely uncertain where a letter would find you. Nor had I any expectation you could have been at the first meeting of Congress, till I saw your name in the papers brought by our last post. Disappointed in sending this by the return of the post, I avail myself of General Clarke's journey to Washington for its conveyance. Francis has enjoyed constant and perfect health, and is as happy as the day is long. He has had little success as yet with either his traps, or bow and arrows. He is now engaged in a literary contest with his cousin, Virginia, both having begun to write together. As soon as he gets to z (being now only at h), he promises you a letter.

You will expect no political news here. You are at the source from whence it is to flow. I find here but one general sentiment of indignation against Mr. Jackson, both as to the matter and manner of his offers. I am not disappointed as to his matter, but as to his manner I am. I expected he would be oily, wily and able. I find him rude, malignant, and muddy-headed. As to the question what is to be done, I do not puzzle myself with it. Satisfied that that will be done which is wisest and best, I am predetermined to concur in it, well knowing that if we all pull together, we shall be safe, in whatever direction we move. Knowing the drudgery of letter-writing which oppresses the members, I shall ask nothing from you but to inform us at times of your health, and be assured of my constant affection and respect. TH. JEFFERSON.

Mr. Jefferson, as we have seen, had been very deeply grati

friendly. In our prosperity we have bullied America, and when things are not well with us, we have vented our strife in injurious language and unworthy conduct towards her. Whilst there were any hopes in Spain, America could get nothing direct from us. But disappointment brought us to our senses, and the negotiation was. renewed. The coalition war on the continent has since broke out, and we begin to repent our condescension. In this manner has the American negotiation been on and off during some years-our demands rising with our hopes and prosperity, and our moderation coexistent with our disappointment."