123 



evidently means to insinuate if not to assert that, in consequence oi 

 the basis, thus -authorized, the American mission discussed the 

 proposition, relating to the navigation of the Mississippi and the 

 iishing privilege, on the 28th and 29th of November, and, as a re 

 sult of that discussion, offered it on the first of December to the 

 British ministers. 



This statement is incorrect. The ?ense of the mission was not 

 distinctly taken on the 28th and 29th of November, in relation to 

 this proposition, nor did any majority, at that time, agree to offer it. 



The following is the real history of the transaction : 



On the 24th of October, we addressed a note to the British mi 

 nisters and repeated a request already made to them, that they 

 would communicate all the other specific propositions, (the preli 

 minary article proposed by the British government having already 

 been accepted by us) offering a simultaneous exchange of projects 

 by both parties. The British ministers, by their note of the 31st 

 of that month, declined complying with this request, saying that 

 they had already by their note of the 21st of that month, communi 

 cated to us all the points upon which they were instructed to insist. 

 After the receipt of this note, we met together every day, I be 

 lieve, in order, tirst, to decide if we should present, on our part, a 

 complete project to the British ministers without insisting on a si 

 multaneous one, on theirs, and then, after having decided to do so, 

 to prepare and digest this project, until the 10th of November, 

 when it was presented. During this period the proposition in 

 qaestion, after having been repeatedly and thoroughly discussed, 

 was carried, as a part of the project, in the affirmative, by a bare 

 majority, Mr. Clay and myself having uniformly opposed it. 



After the majority had thus decided on making the proposition 

 just mentioned an article of the contemplated project, the dissatis 

 faction of the minority at this decision, especially of Mr. Clay, who 

 declared that he would sign no treaty of which such an article 

 should make a part, induced the majority, particularly the gentle 

 man who is now no more, to relax in their adherence to it, and to 

 consent to present our project without such an article. Instead of 

 such an article in the project, or, as Mr. Adams himself avows, as 

 a substitute for it, the paragraph, justly ascribed by him to Mr. 

 Clay, was inserted in the note of the 10th of November. 



That this .proposition had been decided on, before the 10th of 

 November, is not only to be inferred from the avowal of Mr. 

 Adams, just mentioned, that a substitute for it had been inserted in 

 cur note of that day, but is expressly proved by the following ex 

 tracts of two letters which 1 addressed, at the time, to the Ameri 

 can minister at Paris. 



The tirst is dated at Ghent, the 4th of November, 1814, and 

 says, 



&quot; If we adhere to the understanding which we now have, we 

 shall make the status &amp;lt;////( bellwn a sine qua non. The questioa 



16 



