9 



undertaken, after the conclusion of the treaty, to do that for the 



enemy which they had not done for themselves ; but the glaring 



fallacy of his letter was, that it represented that which had been 



urged on our part in discussion with them, as if it had been a sub« 



ject of debate among ourselves. It undertook to prove, that the 



principles which we had asserted, and the arguments we had urged 



to the British commissioners, in support of our fishing liberties, 



contested by them, were entirely without foundation ; that we had 



no right to the fishing liberties, and no right even to advance a claim 



to them ; and that these had been among his reasons for refusing 



his consent to the proposal of a stipulation for securing them. The 

 duplicate, 



^' Tain ficti, pravique tenax, quam nuncla veri," 



blended with these misrepresentations, the objections which Mr, 

 Clay had made, not only against the proposal which was offered, 

 but against an article which never had been offered, and alleged as 

 capping the climax of all Mr. Russell's reasons against the propo- 

 sals, that it was in express violation of instructions which had been 

 cancelled before the proposal was made. 



Heterogeneous tjnd incongruous as were thBse materials, they 

 had obviously been mixed up with the design of exciting the re- 

 sentment and indignation of the Western and Southern sections of 

 the Union against-^e offer made to the British plenipotentiaries, 

 and against those by whom it had been proposed. When the ori= 

 ginal letter from Paris was found, a comparison of it with the du- 

 plicate disclosed this design in still broader light. All the new pa- 

 ragraphs had a direct tendency either to aggravate the criminality 

 and injustice of the majority, or to make special claims for the 

 writer to Western favour and gratitude, or to deprecate by flattering 

 compliments the resentments of the Eastern fishing interest. To 

 any person unacquainted with the real transactions at the negotia- 

 tion of Ghent, the composition was mingled with so much address 

 and plausibility, that it was eminently calculated to produce its ef- 

 fect. It was difficult to suppose that the Ghent documents, and this 

 letter in particular, bad been called forth from thejr slumbers of 

 seven years for any other purpose. 



There were circumstances of a peculiar nature, imposing upon 

 me the obligation of meeting this accusation at once, and in the 

 most explicit manner. The documents called for by the House h. 



1^ 



