6'4 



Mr. Russell to the Secretary of State. 



(PKIVAJE.) 



Paris, 11th February, 181J, 



Sir : In conformity with the intimation contained in my letter of 

 the (1) 25th of December, 1 (2) now have the honour to state to you the 

 reasons which induced me to differ from a mrajority of my col- 

 leagues on the expediency of offering an article confirming the 

 British right to the navigation of the Mississippi, and the right of the 

 American people to take and cure tish in certain places within the 

 British jurisdiction. 



The (3) proposition of such an article appeared to be inconsistent 

 with our reasoning to prove its absolute inutility. According to 

 this reasoning, no new stipulation was any more necessary, on the 

 subject of such an article, than anew stipulation for the recognition 

 of the sovereignty and independence of the United States. 



The article proposed appeared also to be inconsistent with our 

 instructions, as (4) interpreted by us, which forbid us to suffer (5j ouv 

 right to the fisheries to be brought into discussion ; for, it could not be 

 believed that we were left free to (6) stipulate on a subject which 

 we were restrained froni (7) discussing, and that an (8) argument, 

 and not an (9) agreement, was to be avoided. If our construction 

 wns indeed correct, it might not, perhaps, be ditlicult to show that 

 we have not, in fact, completely refrained from the interdicted dis- 

 cussion. 



At any rate, the proposal of the article in question was objection- 

 able, inasmuch as it was incompatible with the principles asserted 

 by a majority of the mission, and with the construction which 

 (10) this majority had adopted on that part of our instructions which 

 related to the, fisheries. If the majority were correct in these 

 principles, and in this construction, it became us to act accordingly ; 

 if they were (11) not correet, still it was unnecessary to add inconsist- 

 ency to error. 



I freely confess, however, that I did not accord with the majori- 

 ty, either in their view of the treaty of 1783, whence they derived 

 their principles, or of our instructions ; and that my great objection 

 to proposing the article did not arise f^rom an anxiety to reconcile 

 our conduct with our reasoning and declarations. 



