ricans. on board of ship; they must not act; they must do no seaman's duty; or, they must, according to our own doctrine, lately exemplified at Horsemonger Lane, be TRAITORS, worthy of being hanged, ripped up, and cut in quarters.His Royal Highness's Declaration says, that allegiance to his father and his successors begins with a man's birth and ends but with his death. And, is it not the same with American citizens? Do they not owe similar allegiance to their country? Or is it about to be pretended, that none but kings can claim this sort of allegiance?—I do not think that any one, even of the writers in the Times and Courier, will have the impudence to set up this doctrine; but, this they must do before they can make out any good ground of charge against the Americans for having demanded, as a preliminary, the surrender of the impressed American seamen. well known, that the neighbouring State has invariably possessed the undisputed right of giving them protection, and of inlisting them in its service?Why, therefore, should we deem it a crime in America, whose abundance of lands and provisions, whose high price of labour, and whose happiness to the lower orders of mankind, hold out their arms to the whole world? -And here I cannot help introducing a remark upon the proposition, made by Lord Castlereagh to Mr. Russell, that the American Government should stipulate to deliver up all British seamen in the service of AmeMr. Russell is said to have expressed himself as having been shocked at this proposition, which has afforded an abundant theme of abuse of him by our hireling writers. But, I have no scruple to say, that I firmly believe, that it is a proposition that never was before made to any independent State; even to the mostCaptain Dacres, in accounting for the petty State of Germany. There was a plan, some years ago, in agitation amongst the States of Europe, for putting in force a mutual surrender of each other's subjects, whereupon the Abbé Raynal remarks, that, if it had gone into effect, each of the several States might have taken the motto of Danté over the entrance to his infernal regions: "He who enters here leaves even "hope behind." He represents it as the utmost stretch of tyranny; a point, he says, which the world ought to perish rather than reach. And, therefore, though Lord Castlereagh's proposition did not go this length; though it was confined to British seamen, we have no reason to abuse Mr. Russell for his expression. -It will be said, may be, that Mr. Russell was ordered to stipulate for the surrender, on our part, of all American seamen. Aye; but the difference is, that Mr. Russell proposed the surrender of those only who had been impressed by us; whereas we wanted to stipulate for the surrender of those British "The proposal of an armistice, and of seamen who had gone into America of "a simultaneous repeal of the restrictive their own free will. We wanted to have" measures on both sides, subsequently surrendered to us, men who were employed" made by the commanding officer of His in American merchant ships; they wanted" Majesty's naval forces on the American us to surrender men, whom we had seized" coast, were received in the same hostile in their ships and forced into our men of "spirit by the Government of the United war. But, is it possible, that any one "States. The suspension of the practice can find any thing to object to in a request, "of impressment was insisted upon in the that, as a preliminary, we should give up" correspondence which passed on that octhe Americans, whom we had impressed "casion, as a necessary preliminary to a into our service? What is the state of" cessation of hostilities. Negociation, it those men, now on board of our ships of "was stated, might take place without war? What is their state? Has the reader "suspension of the exercise of this right, reflected upon this? They must be useless" and also without any armistice being con loss of his Frigate, expressly states, that he had many Americans on board, whom he permitted to be spectators, from a reluctance to compel them to fight against their country. And, can the reader believe, that this was the only instance in which native Americans were unwillingly serving on board of British ships of war? What, then, again I ask, must be the state of those Americans? And, what are we to think of those writers, who abuse Mr. Russell for proposing to us their surrender as a step prelimi nary to any further arrangement? The Declaration complains, that America demanded the abandonment of the practice of impressment as a preliminary to her passing a law to prevent British seamen from being received on board her ships.—The hireling writers have treated this demand as something too insolent to be for a moment listened to. The "DECLARATION" does not treat it in this lofty style; but it speaks of it in pretty strong terms, as thus: any me against the injuries she has received from "cluded: but Great Britain was required "previously to agree, without any know"ledge of the adequacy of the system which could be substituted, to negociate upon the basis of accepting the legislative regulations of a foreign State, as the sole equivalent for the exercise of a right, which she has fell to be essential to the "support of her maritime power." Well, and what then? "A right" it is called again; but, if America denied it to be a right, as she has uniformly done, what" course of conduct, the real cause of the wonder was there that she made the propo- present war, the Prince Regent solemnsition? Great Britain might "feel," thoughly protests. Whilst contending against I should have chosen the word "deem," as "France, in defence not only of the libersmacking less of the boarding-school Miss's "ties of Great Britain, BÚT OF THE style; Great Britain might feel," if feel" WORLD, His Royal Highness was enshe must, that the practice complained of" titled to look for a far different result. was essential to the support of her mari-"From their common origin-from their time power; but, did it hence follow, that common interest-from their professed America, and that, impressed Americans," principles of freedom and independence, should like the practice the better for that? "the United States were the last power, We have so long called ourselves the deli-"in which Great Britain could have exverers of the world, that we, at last, have "pected to find a willing instrument, and fallen into the habit of squaring up all our abellor of French tyranny.-Disapideas to that appellation; and seem sur- "pointed in this just expectation, the prised that there should be any nation in the Prince Regent will still pursue the poworld inclined to wish for the diminution "licy which the British Government has of our power.The Americans, however, "so long, and invariably maintained, in clearly appear to see the thing in a different "repelling injustice, and in supporting light. They, in their home-spun way, call the general rights of nations; and, unus any thing but deliverers; and, it must der the favour of PROVIDENCE, rebe confessed, that, whatever may be our "lying on the justice of his cause, and the general propensity, we do not seem to have tried loyalty and firmness of the British been in haste to deliver impressed Ameri-Nation, His Royal Highness' confidently That one nation ought not "looks forward to a successful issue to the to yield a right, depending for compensation" contest, in which he has thus been comsolely upon the legislative provisions of a "pelled most reluctantly to engage.". foreign State, is very true; but, if the right The last paragraph is in the old style, and be doubtful; if it be unsupported by any will hardly fail to remind Mr. Madison of law, principle, maxim, or custom, then the the documents of this kind, issued about case is different; and then, indeed, the offer six-and-thirty years ago. However, the of a legislative provision is a proof of a sin- style is none the worse for being old; cere desire to accommodate. -If my view though one cannot but recollect the occaof the matter be right, and I verily believe sion upon which it was formerly used.it is, this is the light in which that offer I regret, however, to find, in this solemn ought to be viewed; and I most deeply document, a distinct charge against the lament that it was not thus viewed American Government of" subserviency to by the ministers. These lamenta- "the Ruler of France;" because, after a tions, however, are now useless. The very attentive perusal of all the correspondsound of war is gone forth: statement and ence between the American and French reasoning are exhausted: the sword is to Governments, I do not find any thing, decide whether England is, or is not, to which, in my opinion, justifies the charge. impress, at the discretion of her naval The truth is, that "the Ruler of France" officers, persons on board American mer-gave way in the most material point to the chant ships on the high seas.-There is one passage more in the " DECLARATION," upon which I cannot refrain from submitring a remark or two. After stating, that America has made oily feeble remonstrances can seamen. remonstrances of America; and, I have never yet read a Message of Mr. Madison, at the opening of a Session of Congress, in which he did not complain of the conduct of France. The Americans abhor an al 64 remember that it was urged with great liance with France; and, if they form such an alliance, it will have been occasioned by this war with us.This charge of subserviency to Buonaparte has a thousand times been preferred against Mr. Madison, but never, that I have seen, once proved. It is, indeed, the charge which we have been in the habit of preferring against all those powers, who have been at war with us: Spain, Holland, Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, and, though last not least, Russia, as will be seen by a reference to Mr. Canning's answer to the propositions from Tilsit." Subserviency to the Ruler of France!" We stop the American Merchantmen upon the high seas; we take out many of their own native scamen; we force them on board of our men of war; we send them away to the East Indies, the West Indies, or the Mediterranean; we expose them to all the hardships of such a life and all the dangers of battle, in a war in which they have no concern all this we do, for we do not deny it; and, when, after MANY YEARS of remonstrances, the American Government arms and sends forth its soldiers and sailors to compel us to desist, we accuse that Government of "subser"viency to the Ruler of France," who, whatever else he may have done, has not, that I have ever heard, given the Americans reason to complain of impressments from on board their ships. Many unjust acts he appears to have committed towards the Americans; but he has wisely abstained from impressments, which, as I have all along said, was the only ground upon which the people of America could have been prevailed upon to enter heartily into a war with any power: it is a popular ground the war is in the cause of the people accordingly, we find the motto to the war is: "Liberty of the seas and sea"men's rights."-I, therefore, regret exceedingly, that the "DECLARATION" styles America" a willing instrument and "abettor of French tyranny." It is a heavy charge; it is one that will stick close to the memory of those who support -I dare say that his Lordship could the war; it will tend to inflamñe, rather make it out clearly enough. I do not than allay, the angry passious; and, of pretend to question the fact or his ability; course, it will tend to kill all hopes of a but, it would be at once instructive and enterspeedy reconciliation.As to what the taining to hear how he would do it. "DECLARATION" is pleased to say about" From their professed principles of freethe "common origin" of the two nations, "dom." From these the "DECLARAif of any weight, it might be urged, I sup-"TION" says, that His Royal Highness pose, with full as much propriety by the expected the United States would have Americans against our impressments, as it been the last power to become a willing is now urged against their resistance. I instrument of French tyranny. Very true: of French tyranny: but, that did not hinder him from expecting them to be the enemy of impressing men from on board their ships; and, it should have been shown how this disposition proved them to be a willing instrument of French tyranny," English liberly."Besides, leaving or of any tyranny at all.It is use less to revile; it is useless to fly off to other matter. We impress men on board of American ships upon the high seas; we take out (no matter whether by mistake or otherwise) American seamen as well as English; we force them to fight on board our ships; we punish them if they disobey. And, when they, after years of complaints and remonstrances, take up arms in the way of resistance, we tell them that they show themselves the willing instruments and abettors of French tyranny.I wish sincerely that this passage had been omitted. There are other parts of the "DECLARATION" that I do not like; but this part appears to me likely to excite a great deal of ill-will; of lasting, of rooted, ill-will.I do not like the word "professed," as applied to the American principles of freedom. The meaning of that word, as here applied, cannot be equivocal, and assuredly would have been better left out, especially as we never see, in any of the American documents, any expressions of the kind applied to us and to our Government.- -But, to také another view of the matter, why should His Royal Highness expect the Americans to be disinclined towards France, because they profess principles of freedom? Why should he, on this account, expect that they would lean to our side in the -Does the Declaration mean to say, that the Government of France is more tyrannical than was that monarchy, for the restoration of which a league was made in Europe in the years 1792 and 1793? From its tone, the Declaration may be construed to mean, that our Government is more free than that of France, and that, therefore, we might have expected the Americans, who profess principles of freedom, to be on our side in a contest against "French 86 lyranny.". Hem! Mum!- -Well, well! We will say nothing about the matter; but, it must be clear to every one, that the Americans may have their own opinion upon the subject; and, they may express it too, until we can get at them with an Ex-Officio. They may have their own opinion upon the matter; and their opinion may possibly differ from ours. They are, to be sure, at a great distance; but, they are a reading and an observing and a calculating people; and, I'll engage, that there is not a farmer in the back States who is not able to give a pretty good account of the blessings of this quite out of the question; supposing that the Americans should think us freemen and the French slaves, why should that circumstance prevent them from leaning to the side of France? What examples of the effect of such morality amongst nations have the Regent's ministers to produce? How often have we seen close alliances between free and despotic states against states either free or despotic? How often have we been on the side of despots against free States? England was once in offensive alliance with France against Holland; Holland and France against England; and, it ought never to be forgotten, that England, not many years ago, favoured the invasion of Holland and the subjugation of the States General by a Prussian army. Have we not formed alliances with Prussia, Austria, Russia, Spain, Naples, and all the petty princes of Germany against the Republic of France? Nay, have we refused, in that war, the co-operation of Turkey and Algiers? And, as for the old Papa of Rome," the Whore of Babylon," as our teachers call him, his alliance has been accounted holy by us, and his person an object of our peculiar care and protection. war? Why, then, are we to expect, that America is to refrain from consulting her interests, if they be favoured by a leaning towards France? Why is she to be shut out from the liberty of forming connexions with a despotism, supposing a despotism now to exist in France?The truth is, that, in this respect, as in private life, it is interest alone that guides and that must guide; and, in my mind, it is not more reasonable to expect America to lean on our side on account of the nature of the Government of our enemy, than it would be to expect a Presbyterian to sell his sugar to a Churchman, because the only man that bade him a higher price was a Catholic.--Here I should stop; but, an article, upon the same subject, in the Morning Chronicle of the 13th instant, calls for observation.Upon the falsehoods and impudence of the Times and the Courier, that is to say, the principal prints on the side of the Wellesley party and that of the Ministers, I have remarked often enough. I was anxious to hear what the Whigs had to say, and here we have it. Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Brougham had "because summary, and because it is subpledged themselves to support the war, "ject to no revisal-to no adjudicationif America was not satisfied with the repeal" and because the individual seized has no of the Orders in Council; and here we 66 means of redress. By this sort of reahave the grounds of that support. On" soning there is a tacit admission on the this account the article is interesting, and," part of America, that it is not to the act of course, worthy of an attentive perusal." itself which they object so much as แ 66 " "Notwithstanding the tedious length" to the manner of the act; and accord"of the papers on both sides, the question" ingly we see various suggestions made by "between the Court of London and the "Americans, for entering into an amicable "Government of the United States is sim-" discussion on the means of getting over "ply the right of impressment of seamen on "the outrageous way in which the right is "board trading ships-and this is in truth" exercised, and of giving security to both "the sole cause of the war.-If we were to "nations against the abuse in question. "examine the value of this cause to the" On the other side, Lord Castlereagh de"two parties, it cannot be denied but that "clares the readiness of the British Go"to the Americans it is exceedingly slight, "vernment to receive and discuss any pro"and to the British highly material. The position on this subject coming from the "Americans cannot regard it as an insult, "American Government; though he would "because it is a right which has been at all" not enter into a negociation, a prelimi"times asserted and acquiesced in by Sove-" nary to which should be the concession reign States respectively. Then viewed" of this right, and so far we think he was as an injury what is it? That they shall" clearly right.- But is it not monstrous go to war to prevent British subjects who "that two people of common origin, and of "have forfeited their allegiance, abandon- "almost inseparable interests, should re"ed their country, and left their families "main at war on a point upon which there probably starving, from being impressed" is so little difference between them? on board their merchant vessels-that is "Surely without any sacrifice of etiquette "to say; they claim the right to afford an" on either side, the expedients might be "asylum and employ the refuse of the Bri-"canvassed, by which this mighty cause of "tish navy-men without principle, for it "war might be removed. Let each party "is only the profligate that are likely to be- " promulgate their thoughts on the subject, come the objects of their protection. In" and if there be an honest disposition to "this view, then, the point is of little " peace, it must folow.The argument consequence to the Americans, but it is" on both sides is short, and may be put interesting to the British to assert the" in a few words. The agreement ought power inherent in every State to reclaim" to be so drawn as to make it most dan"its subjects; and the time may come gerous to the Captain of an American "when the principle would be equally im-ship to employ a British seaman on board; portant to America herself.-But, say " and, on the other side, to make it equally "the American Ministers, it is not so "dangerous for a British Captain to seize “much the right itself, as the violent and" and carry off an American seaman, under "insulting mode of exercising it that we "pretext of his being a British subject. complain of; for we have upon reflection" Or, in other words, it ought to be made 66 agreed in the principle of international" their interest to abstain from those two "law, that free bottoms do not make free" causes of national offence. Various modes. 66 goods, and therefore we have no objec- "have been suggested for this purpose."tion to the search of our merchant ships" The most effectual undoubtedly would "for contraband of war; but in that case, "be to ordain by a treaty, that the sub"whenever warlike stores, &c. are found "jects of each power, if found on board " on board an American vessel, she is de- "the merchants' vessels of the other, "tained and carried into a port, for adju-" should be considered in the nature of con“dication by a competent Court. Whe- "traband of war, inasmuch as their nather the adjudication be always impartial "tural Sovereign was thereby deprived of " or not is another affair, but in this re- "their service in war, and that that spect nations are on an equal footing, and" should be a cause to detain the vessel for "these Admiralty Courts, well or ill-con- "adjudication. By this the American "ducted, are recognized by all maritime" Captain or his owners would most seri"nations. But with respect to the im-"ously suffer by having British seamen on pressment of seamen, the act is violent" board; and, on the other hand, the Bri 66 66 |