165 



in my diary, although I know that a vote was taken, and that there 

 was a majority in favour of the proposal, yet it does not appear 

 that Mr. Russell voted against it ; and from an observation made 

 at the time by Mr. Gallatin, to which Mr. Russell expressed no dis- 

 sent, I should now rather conclude that he did not on that day vote 

 at all. It was not unusual when a vote was taken, as soon as a ma- 

 jority was ascertained, to omit calling for the vote of the fifth 

 member ; and Mr. Russell was not unwilling to avail himself of 

 these opportunities to avoid voting at all However that fact may 

 be, I repeat that he took no part in the discussion, and that after 

 the vote was taken, it was Mr. Gallatin's impression, which he ex- 

 pressed in Mr. Russell's presence without being contradicted by 

 him, that he was then in favour of the proposal. 



The proposition to which Mr. Russell says he objected, [he should 

 have said, against which he voted,] before the 10th of November, 

 was 710^ substantially that first offered on the 1st of December ; 

 nor was the latter offered in virtue of the vote taken before the 

 loth of November. The joint despatch of 25th December, says 

 not one word of the vote taken Iff ore the 10th of November : nor 

 had Mr. Russell's separate letter of 25th December, any refcneuce 

 to it whatever. His subsequent letters have indeed attempted to 

 confound them together, for the purpose of urging against the pro- 

 position which was made, the arguments, some of which had been 

 used by Mr. Clay, against that which was not made. But these are 

 all corrections made to suit present purposes. By comparing toge- 

 ther the article upon which the vote was taken before the 10th of 

 Kovember, (1 shall soon say when) as Mr. Russell has published 

 it in the Boston Statesman, and the proposal actually made as ap- 

 pears in the protocol of ist December, it will immediately be per- 

 ceived, that they are essentially different ; and that the latter could 

 not have been offered as the act of the Anaerjcan mission, by vir- 

 tue of the vote taken upon the former. 



The history of the vote taken before the 10th of November is 

 as follows : 



On the 29th of October, 1814^ it was agreed at a meeting of the 

 mission, that a draught of a project of a treaty should be made, to 

 be discussed by the mission, and, as might be after such discussion 

 settled by them, presented to the British plenipotentiaries. The 

 task of making this draught was assigned to Mr Gallatin and me. 

 Mr. Gallatin engaged to draw up the articles respecting the boun- 

 daries and Indians, and I undertook to prepare those respecting 

 impressment, blockade, and indemnities. 



At a meeting of the mission the next day, the draughts of the arti- 

 cles were produced ; and among those offered by Mr Gallatin was 

 the article cited by Mr. Russell in the Boston Statesman of 27th June 

 las^. As it was finally set aside, I have no copy of it ; but have no 

 reason to doubt that it was in the words cited by Mr. Russell. At 

 this Kieeting, Mr. Clay objected to it. Mr. Russell was not pre^ 

 gent, 



21 



