CHAPTER IV.

EARLY in February, when Congress refused to support Madison's war-policy, the mere shadow of which brought Perceval and Canning almost to their senses,-Canning's instructions were despatched from the Foreign Office. April 7, more than a month after the Tenth Congress had expired, amidst political conditions altogether different from those imagined by Canning, the instructions reached Washington; and Erskine found himself required to carry them into effect.

A cautious diplomatist would have declined to act upon them. Under pretext of the change which had altered the situation he would have asked for new instructions, while pointing out the mischievous nature of the old. The instructions were evidently impossible to execute; the situation was less critical than ever before, and Great Britain was master of the field.

On the other hand, the instructions offered some appearance of an advance toward friendship. They proved Canning's ignorance, but not his bad faith; and if Canning in good faith wanted a settlement,

Erskine saw every reason for gratifying him. The arrogance of Canning's demands did not necessarily exclude further concession. The great governments of Europe from time immemorial had used a tone of authority insufferable to weaker Powers, and not agreeable to one another; yet their tone did not always imply the wish to quarrel, and England herself seldom resented manners as unpleasant as her own. Used to the rough exchange of blows, and hardened by centuries of toil and fighting, England was not sensitive when her interests were at stake. Her surliness was a trick rather than a design. Her diplomatic agents expected to enjoy reasonable liberty in softening the harshness and in supplying the ignorance of their chiefs of the Foreign Office; and if such latitude was ever allowed to a diplomatist, Erskine had the best right to use it in the case of instructions the motives of which he could not comprehend.

Finally, Erskine was the son of Lord Erskine, and owed his appointment to Charles James Fox. He was half Republican by education, half American by marriage; and probably, like all British liberals, he felt in secret an entire want of confidence in Canning and a positive antipathy to the Tory commercial system.

Going at once to Secretary Robert Smith, Erskine began on the "Chesapeake" affair, and quickly disposed of it. The President abandoned the American demand for a court-martial on Admiral Berkeley,

finding that it would not be entertained.1 Erskine then wrote a letter offering the stipulated redress for the "Chesapeake" outrage, and Madison wrote a letter accepting it, which Robert Smith signed, and dated April 17.

Two points in Madison's "Chesapeake " letter attracted notice. Erskine began his official note 2 by alluding to the Non-intercourse Act of March 1, as having placed Great Britain on an equal footing with the other belligerents, and warranting acknowledgment on that account. The idea was far-fetched, and Madison's reply was ambiguous :

"As it appears at the same time, that in making this offer his Britannic Majesty derives a motive from the equality now existing in the relations of the United States with the two belligerent Powers, the President owes it to the occasion and to himself to let it be understood that this equality is a result incident to a state of things growing out of distinct considerations."

If Madison knew precisely what "distinct considerations" had led Congress and the country to that state of things to which the Non-intercourse Act was incident, he knew more than was known to Congress; but even though he owed this statement to himself, so important an official note might have expressed his ideas more exactly. "A result incident. to a state of things growing out of distinct considera

1 Erskine to Canning, April 18, 1809; Cobbett's Debates, xvii. Appendix, cxlvii.

2 Erskine to R. Smith, April 17, 1809; State Papers, iii. 295.

tions" was something unusual, and to say the least wanting in clearness, but seemed not intended to gratify Canning.

The second point challenged sharper criticism.

"With this explanation, as requisite as it is frank," Smith's note continued, "I am authorized to inform you that the President accepts the note delivered by you in the name and by the order of his Britannic Majesty, and will consider the same with the engagement therein, when fulfilled, as a satisfaction for the insult and injury of which he has complained. But I have it in express charge from the President to state that while he forbears to insist on the further punishment of the offending officer, 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 from his Britannic Majesty to his own honor."

According to Robert Smith's subsequent account, the last sentence was added by Madison in opposition to his secretary's wishes. One of Madison's peculiarities showed itself in these words, which endangered the success of all his efforts. If he wished a reconciliation, they were worse than useless; but if he wished a quarrel, he chose the right means. The President of the United States was charged with the duty of asserting in its full extent what was due to his own honor as representative of the Union; but he was not required, either by the laws of his country or by the custom of nations, to define the conduct which

1 Robert Smith's Address to the People, 1811.

in his opinion best comported with what was due from his Britannic Majesty to the honor of England. That Erskine should have consented to receive such a note was matter for wonder, knowing as he did that Kings of England had never smiled on servants who allowed their sovereign's honor to be questioned; and the public surprise was not lessened by his excuse.

"It appeared to me," he said, "that if any indecorum could justly be attributed to the expressions in the official notes of this Government, the censure due would fall upon them; and that the public opinion would condemn their bad taste or want of propriety in coldly and ungraciously giving up what they considered as a right, but which they were not in a condition to enforce."

Under the impression that no "intention whatever existed in the mind of the President of the United States to convey a disrespectful meaning toward his Majesty by these expressions," Erskine accepted them in silence, and Madison himself never understood that he had given cause of offence.

Having thus disposed of the "Chesapeake" grievance, Erskine took up the Orders in Council.2 His instructions were emphatic, and he was in effect ordered to communicate these instructions in extenso to the President, for in such cases permission was

1 Erskine to Canning, Aug. 3, 1809; Cobbett's Debates, xvii. clvi.

2 Erskine to Canning, April 30, 1809; Aug. 7, 1809. Erskine to Robert Smith, Aug. 14, 1809. Cobbett's Debates, xvii. cli.

clxx. State Papers, iii. 305.