HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



255 



men taken from the Cliesapeak 

 as the simple and sufficient act of 

 reparation: to whicli, however, 

 his majesty would still be willing 

 to add, as a spontaneous act of his 

 own generosity, a provision for tiie 

 widows and orphans of the men 

 ictllcd in action. 



The second dispatch of Mr. Se- 

 cretary Canning to Mr. Erskine, 

 dated the 23rd of January 1809, 

 disclosed the principal objects of 

 the negotiation, and stated clearly 

 and distinctly, the conditions to be 

 stipulated on both sides. The 

 s-^me anxiety which led to a re- 

 consideration of the subject in ge- 

 neral, seems to have suggested to 

 the British secretary of state, the 

 alternative of making those condi- 

 tions immediate or eventual : from 

 which alternative, however, pi-o- 

 ceeded, subsequently, an unfortu- 

 nate misunderstanding ; as was, 

 indeed, undoubtedly to have been 

 expected. If time had been taken 

 to reduce the respective preten- 

 sions of the two parties to the form 

 of a treaty, or other solemn instru- 

 ment, that equivocation which 

 afterwards took place would have 

 been prevented. On these in- 

 structions was founded the engage- 

 ment entered into with the Ameri- 

 cans, by the envoy and plenipoten- 

 tiary, on the behalf ot his govern- 

 ment. But government considered 

 , Mr. Erskine's arrangement not 

 ! only as inconsistent with, but as 

 being directly in opposition to his 

 instructions. Mr. Canning, in 

 dispatches to Mr. Erskine, speci- 

 fied wherein that inconsistency 

 i and contradiction consisted : and 

 he added, that by these reasons 

 his majesty was compelled to 



disavow the arrangement he had 

 made with the Americans; that 

 no loss, however, should accrue to 

 the American merchants, or cap- 

 tains of ships, vvlio had proceed- 

 ed to England under the idea 

 that Mr. Erskine had understood 

 and accomplished the object of 

 his mission, as has been already 

 stated in our last volume.* 



Attempts were repeatedly made 

 to prove that the agreement made 

 by the envoy Erskine, was not un- 

 authorized by our government. 

 A very heavy charge against the 

 good faith of our government was 

 made in both houses of parliament, 

 which was supported by another 

 charge, viz. that ministers had pre- 

 sented, in justification of their 

 conduct, a defective accountof the 

 documents relating to it, and with- 

 held those which, if published, 

 would have justified the arrange- 

 ment. These charges, accompa- 

 nied with strong expressions of 

 indignation at such an instance of 

 duplicity, called forth repeated de- 

 nials, in the session of parliament 

 IS 10, both from Mr. Canning, 

 who was no longer in the foreign 

 office, and from Mr. Perceval, who 

 was now prime minister. They 

 maintained that Mr. Erskine had 

 not only acted without authority, 

 but in direct contradiction to his 

 instructions. Of these instructions 

 those relating to the orders in 

 council was all that was at first 

 communicated to parliament, be- 

 cause, it was said, the negotiation 

 was still pending. But, in the 

 subsequent session, when the as- 

 sertion was renewed, that the en- 

 voy would be justified in what he 

 had done by other parts of his in- 



* Hilt, Europe, p. 228. 



