Mr. Russell ascribes to his colleagues opinions which they neve? 

 entertained, argu rents which they never advanced, and doctrines 

 which they not only would disclaim with indignation, but diametri- 

 cally opposite to those which they did maintain. He imputes to 

 them the opinion that the Independence of the United States was 

 derived only from the treaty of peace of 1783, and that all the 

 right? stipulated by it, in favour of the people of the United States, 

 were mere grants from the crown of England. This was the 

 British doctrine, whi h Mr. Russell well knew his colleagues re- 

 je-"ted with disdain, but which he himself countenances by main- 

 taining the British side of the argument, that the fishing liberty, 

 stip-.ilated in the treaty of 1783, was abrogated ipso facto by the 

 war of 1812. 



He imputes to them, as an inconsistency with iheir other imput- 

 ed opinion, that they rested their claim to the fishing privilege, 

 upon prescription ; and this notwithstanding all the light of learn- 

 ing with which he had irradiated them, from the lucid sources of 

 ^'jus vurcefaciil fails ;" af '•' ultra memoriam hominis ;^'' of '' nullum 

 tempus occurrii rcgi ;''■ and of the imprescriptible character of fish- 

 eries. Of all this not one word was said at Ghent. The majori- 

 ty never asserted the right of the fishing privilege, as resting upon 

 the right of prescription ; nor had they ever the benefit of Mr. 

 Russell's learned labours to prove that it was not applicable to the 

 subject, 



3. Of his own conduct and sentiments, in opposition to those of 

 the majority of his colleagues. 



The parallel passages from the original and duplicate of his let- 

 ter remove all necessity for further proof of this. But that is not 

 all. Throughout the letter, Mr. Russell holds himself forth as 

 having been the intrepid and inflexible asserter and supporter of 

 the rights of the West, against the majority of his colleagues ; as 

 having, by a painful struggle, obtained a conquest over his early 

 prejudices and local partialities, and enlarged his intellectual facul- 

 ties and patriotism, to become the champion and vindicator of the 

 interests of the West. Of all this, nothing was made known to his 

 colleagues of the majority at Ghent. The article to which his 

 letter conjures up such formidable objections was drawn up and 

 proposed lo the mission by a distinguished citizen of the western 

 country. It was opposed by another citizen from the same section 

 of the Union. Of the five members of the mission Mr. Russell 

 was the person who took the least part in the discussion. He nei- 

 ther ohjected that it was contrary to our instructions, nor depre- 

 ciated the value of the fisheries ; nor painted the dangers of British 

 smugglers and emissaries, or the horrors of Indian warfare, as im- 

 pending over the unoffending inhabitants of the western country 

 from the measure. He gave, it may be, a silent vote against pro- 

 posing the article ; and, when it was determined by the majority 

 to propose it, concurred in proposing it ; was present at the con- 

 terences with the British plenipotentiaries when it was proposed 



