131 



jonfy only, and not the whole of the mission, decided to make that 

 proposal. The words of the despatch, in reference to that pro 

 posal, are, &quot; to place both points beyond all future controversy, a 

 majority of us determined to offer an article confirming both rights.&quot; 

 Mr. Adams signed that despatch, anil thus, at that time, attested a 

 fact which he now positively denies. 



The protocol was a mere record of the facts which had occurred 

 p.t the conference, and in no way furnished proof that a proposition, 

 there made had or had not been previously decided on una 

 nimously by the mission making it. The protocol of the 1st of 

 December stated that the proposal in question had been offered bj 

 the American mission, and the note of the 14th of that month sim 

 ply recognised that fact. Neither that protocol or that note inti 

 mated that this proposal had been unanimously offered by the 

 American mission. The majority who were competent before the 

 JOth of November, to determine on making that proposal, were 

 equally competent to make it on the 1st of December, and to say, 

 on the 14th of that month, that they had made it, and that &quot; to it 

 they had no objection, and had offered to accede.&quot; The minority, 

 in net expressing their dissent at that conference, or by not refus 

 ing to sign that note, cannot be fairly adjudged to have inconsist 

 ently given their assent. They had opposed that proposal when 

 and where only their opposition could have had a beneficial effect, 

 and produced no evil. To have disturbed a conference with the 

 British ministers by protesting against an act of the majority, or to 

 have refused to sign a note from an objection to that act, could 

 have produced evil only. It would have discovered to the adverse 

 party dissention in our councils, and thence might have had a disas 

 trous effect on the whole negotiation. In relation to the proposal 

 itself, such a discovery to that party of our opposition to a particu 

 lar proposal, was calculated to enhance the value of that proposal, 

 in their estimation, and to induce them to accept it ; thus consum 

 mating the very evil which we deprecated. The act of the majo 

 rity was, in respect to the other party, the act of the whole ; and 

 Mr. Adams himself acknowledges that &quot; it would have been equally 

 valid without my concurrence or signature as with it.&quot; In his 

 opinion, therefore, it would have been useless, and in mine, for the 

 reasons just stated, it would have been highly mischievous, to have 

 notoriously refused my acquiescence in the will of the majority. 

 For what is called assent, concurrence, and joining in the offer, was 

 merely an acquiescence in that will. For such an acquiescence I 

 have long since accounted to my conscience, and now cheerfully 

 account to my country. By the principles of our institutions the 

 minority, though free to disapprove the acts of the majority, are 

 bound to submit to them. If Mr. Adams dues not agree with me 

 in this view of the rights and duties of a minority, ho will only 

 present another intanr.p in whiH* w* difir from each other ID 

 pinion. 



