This restriction, however, Great Britain would not abandon, when urged thereto by Mr. Gallatin, whom Mr. Adams had empowered to treat with that nation, in relation to the trade between the United States and her colonial dependencies. He was particularly instructed by Mr. Clay to make the subject of the West India trade a matter of special negotiation. Unsuccessful efforts to effect a mutually advantageous arrangement, had been made several years previous, and Mr. Gallatin was despatched to resume them, at the request of the British minister at Washington. The former was told, immediately after presenting his credentials, that the British government would not treat concerning the West India trade, and also that she would not admit the United States to participate in it, because they had not complied with the provision of a certain act of parliament relating to it, of which act they were in utter ignorance. Its passage had never been officially announced to them, at London or at Washington. The act itself was vague, and when the British minister was questioned by Mr. Clay respecting its application, the former was unable to explain its ambiguity, or to say whether it was intended to apply to the United States or not, as there was nothing in his instructions relating to it. In connection with refusing to negotiate with Mr. Gallatin, Great Britain insulted the United States through him, by declaring that they were bound to know and take notice of the acts of parliament! We doubt whether the diplomacy of any other nation ever presented such a flagrant assertion, so arrogantly assumptive, and so palpably unjust. The result, of course, was inevitable; direct intercourse between the United States and the West India ports of Great Britain, in British or American vessels, was mutually prohibited. Mr. Clay’s official correspondence, in relation to this question, is replete with argument and sound reasoning.
The expansiveness of Mr. Clay’s love of freedom, again exhibited itself soon after entering upon the duties of his office. Although they were such as to keep him continually and exhaustingly engaged, he nevertheless found time to extend his commiseration and his aid to those nations, the recognition of whose independence, by his country, he had endeavored to procure some time previous. His situation was now such as to give him an opportunity of accomplishing this. From time to time he spread the subject before the executive, and so eloquently pleaded their cause, that a minister was despatched by our government to Greece, which resulted in the recognition of her independence by it. In this theUnited States was first, and through the influence of Mr. Clay did she make this benevolent movement. As he had anticipated, it infused new strength into the hearts of the struggling Greeks, who had begun to sink beneath the Turkish scimetar.
Mr. Clay’s official letter to Mr. Middleton, our minister at Russia, dated May tenth, 1825, is a paper of great polish and skill. Mr. Clay had witnessed, for seventeen years, the devastating wars which had raged between Spain and her South American colonies, and fervently desired to see them terminated. For this purpose, he projected and prepared the document aforesaid, independent of all suggestion or aid, from any public functionary. He had familiarized himself with the facts connected with these wars, which, in the most striking and beautiful manner, he spread out before the emperor, and urged him to use his influence in bringing about an event which he so ardently desired. This communication was so skilfully and ingeniously framed, as to direct the attention of Alexander to the struggling Greeks, and enlist his influence in their behalf, which was precisely what the writer wished, though he did not say so in so many words. Mr. Clay’s efforts were triumphantly successful. The emperor instructed his minister at the Spanish court, to use every proper exertion to terminate these sanguinary conflicts, which eventuated in the acknowledgement of South American independence, by the parent country. The emperor also took sides with the Greeks, made certain proposals, relative to them, to the grand sultan, and, on their being rejected, instantly set about making preparations to march against him. Before their completion he deceased, but his successor took them up, and struck a blow so decisive as to put an instant period to his barbarities. Thus Mr. Clay’s influence, through this instrument, set in motion means that moved both hemispheres, and accomplished results, the sum of whose benefits and blessings, never has been, and never can be, ascertained.
If we were to single out one from the multitude of official papers prepared by Mr. Clay during his secretaryship, as evincing the most ability and skill, it would be the letter of instructions to Messrs. John Sergeant and Richard C. Anderson, delegates from the United States to the congress at Panama, convened at the request of the republics of Colombia, Mexico, and Central America, whose representatives were also present. The object of this congress was not very definitely stated in the request for it, and, before appointing delegates, Mr. Clay endeavored to ascertain the nature and extent of the subjects upon which they would deliberate, and the powers with which it would be proper to clothe them. This object, though not precisely ascertained, was presumed to be honorable; indeed, the convention was believed to have been suggested by the declaration of president Monroe, that, in case of any interference of any of the allied powers, in the contest betweenSpain and her former colonies, the United States would not remain an indifferent spectator. This declaration very naturally led the republics before mentioned, towards whom the Holy Alliance maintained a hostile attitude, to seek the cultivation of those amicable relations with the United States, which would secure their aid, in case it should be desired. In Mr. Clay’s letter of instructions, the delegates were authorized to treat of peace, friendship, commerce, navigation, maritime law, neutral and belligerent rights, and other subjects of mutual interest. Subjoined, is an extract from this able document.
Speaking of the regulation respecting private property, which ought to exist on the ocean in time of war, he said: ‘although, in the arrangement of things, security against oppression should be the greatest where it is most likely to be often practiced, it is nevertheless remarkable, that the progress of enlightened civilization has been much more advanced on the land than on the ocean. And, accordingly, personal rights, and especially those of property, have both a safety and protection on the former, which they do not enjoy on the latter element. Scarcely any circumstance would now tend more to exalt the character of America, than that of uniting its endeavors to bring up the arrears of civilization as applied to the ocean, to the same forward point which it has attained on the land, and, thus rendering men and their property secure against all human injustice and violence, leave them exposed only to the action of those storms and disasters, sufficiently perilous, which are comprehended in the dispensations of providence. It is under the influence of these and similar considerations, that you will bring forward, at the contemplated congress, the proposition to abolish war against private property and non-combatants on the ocean. Private property of an enemy is protected, when on land, from seizure and confiscation. Those who do not bear arms there, are not disturbed in their vocations. Why should not the same humane exemption be extended to the sea?’
Respecting religious toleration, he remarks, ‘you will avail yourselves of all suitable occasions to press upon the minister of the other American states, the propriety of a free toleration of religion, within their respective limits. In the United States, we experience no inconvenience from the absence of any religious establishment, and the universal toleration which happily prevails. We believe that none would be felt by other nations who should allow equal religious freedom. It would be deemed rash to assert, that civil liberty and an established church cannot exist together in the same state; but it may be safely affirmed, that history affords no example of their union, where the religion of the state has not only been established, but exclusive. If any of the American powers think proper to introduce into their systems an established religion, although we should regret such a determination, we wouldhave no right to make a formal complaint, unless it should be exclusive. As the citizens of any of the American nations have a right, when here, without hindrance, to worship the Deity according to the dictates of their own consciences, our citizens ought to be allowed the same privilege, when, prompted by business or inclination, they visit any of the American states. You are accordingly authorized to propose a joint declaration, to be subscribed by the ministers of all or any of the powers represented, that, within their limits, there shall be free toleration of religious worship. The declaration on this subject in which you are authorized to unite, as well as that directed against European colonization within the territorial limits of any of the American nations herein before mentioned, does no more than announce, in respect to the United States, the existing state of their institutions and laws.’
These instructions reflect the highest honor on Mr. Clay, and when, in March, 1829, their publication was called for, in connection with other documents relating to the Panama mission, it was rancorously opposed by his enemies, who foresaw clearly that it would increase his popularity and add to his celebrity, as well as refute their assertion, that the object of the administration, in sending delegates to the Panama congress, was to carry into effect objects utterly at variance with the interests and true policy of the United States.
Mr. Clay’s method of preparing state papers, was, to make himself perfectly master of the subjects to be considered, by perusing all the papers on file relating to them, and afterwards draw up the documents in a form that seemed to him correct, and then submit them to the inspection of the president, who, it is understood, seldom found it necessary to suggest the slightest alteration.
During his term of service, Mr. Clay was under the painful necessity of reproving a foreign minister. Our chargé d’affaires at the court of Brazil, had, by his intimidating manner, rendered himself very unpopular, and brought our affairs into great embarrassment at Rio de Janeiro. He frequently indulged in harsh and disrespectful language toward officers of the Brazilian government. Mr. Clay conveyed to him the rebuke of the United States, for these misdemeanors, which, though severe, was couched in language calculated to give the least possible pain.
The confidence of Mr. Adams was liberally and voluntarily given to Mr. Clay, nor could it have been better bestowed. With all the acts of the latter, he expressed himself entirely satisfied—except his affair of honor with Mr. Randolph. Of this he disapproved, most heartily and unequivocally; and Mr. Clay himself greatly regretted it. Many evidences are on record of Mr. Adams’s regard for Mr. Clay, both of a public and private character. The following is an interesting one.