Qass I— 5S( I / f ^ X SUPPj TO TH9 AMERICAN !••■ AHO mMMUnCIM BMLY ADrMRTISER. AN EXPOSITION O-'? THE •CAUSES AND CHAllACTER OP Tfi* LATE WAE WITH G. BEITAH^T. BaUimorCj April 1815. AN EXPOSITION C.IUSES ,1A'J) CHARACTER LATE WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN. THE extravagant pretensions of the British commissioners at Ghent, their assertion of a right to interfere v.ith the terri, torial dominion established at the peace of 1783 — Ihcir attempt to assert that the Indians residing; on our soil were entitlp*^ to form alliances, and to be treated as a civilized people, » laws of civil society to which the Indian tribes are stra the attempt to cut off a section of our territory, under the pre- test of a road between Canada and Nova Scotia, for which there would be no need in peace, and which would afford them an inroac upon us during war— their occupancy of a part of Massachusett; unmolested by the state authority — their known designs on Oi- lcans: all these and other facts known to the government of th?. XJ. States, left little prospect of a peace in the eaily part of tha present year; it is believed that the government was apprized in the rlose of the last year, that peace could have been accom_ plished in August 1814\ were it not for the encoura the greatest extravagance by the successful auc^gloriojstr- minatioo of the war.— •—Aurora. jiJV EXrOSITIOK, C^c. Whatever may be the termination of the ncgociations at Ghent, the dispatches of the American commissioners, which have been comniunicated by tlie President of the United States to Congress, during the present session, will distinctly unfold to the.impartial of all nations, the objects and dispositions of \ tb'» parties to the present war. - iie United States, relieved by the general pacification of the treaty of Paris, from the danger of actual sufterance, tinder the evils which had compelled the?m to resort to arnis', have a- vowed their readiness to resume the relations oi" peace and ami- 1y with Great Britain, upon the simple and single condition of preserving their territory and their sovereignty entire and un- impaired. Their desire of peace, indeed, "upon terms of reci- jrocity, consistent with the rights of botli parties, as sovereign avjd independent nations,"* has not, at any time, been influenc- ed by the provocations of an unprecedented course of hostili- tie ; by the incitements of a successful campaign ; or by the a- gi'.ations which have seemed again to threaten the tranquility of Europe. Bat theRri'isli goTernment, after " a discussion with the go- ve'nment of America, for the conciliatory adjustment of the diferences subsisting bftweefi the two slates, with an earnest deire on their part (as it was aliedged) to bring them to a favo- rable issue, upon principles of a perfect reciprocity, not incon- eis;entwith the cstr4blished maxims of public law, and with the maritime rights of the British empire ;'"f and after "expressly dio'.laiming any intention to acquire an increase nf teriitory,"!: ha^s laeremptorily demanded, as the price of peace, concessions ited merely for their own agijrandisement, and for the ation of their adversary. At one time, they proposed, as '' le qua non, a stipulation that the Indians inhabiti^ig (he vj.iu.i'.i. y. of the United States, within the limit? estF.bliihed by fie treaty of 1783, should be iiHiu in the projected pacification ; and ^hat the definite boundarieR should be settled for the Indian ter- iltcry. upon a basis which wonid have operated to snrren(iorto sri'.unber of Indians, not prohr.bly, exceeding a few tliousands, the rights of sovereignty, a? well as of soil, over neoily ore thiid of the territorial dominions of the United States, inhabit- • .ee Mr. Mwiroe'.s letter to lord Castiereagh, dated Januavv, l^U. t ^eelord Castlereag-h's l€tter to Mr. Monroe, dated tie 4lh of NoveiTiher, 4 fr-.e +i)« American dispi.tcb. dat>-d t'le IStli of August, 1814. 4 odby more than one hundred thousand of its citizens.jj And more recently, (withdrawing, in effect, that proposition) ih& have offered to treat on the basis of tlie uti possidetis ; whei, by the operations of the war, they had obtained the military possession of an important part of the state of Massachusett, which, it was known, could never be the subject of a cessioi^ consistently with the honor and faith of the American govefh ment.* Thus, it is obvious, that C4reat Britain, neither r- garding *' the principles of a perfect reciprocity," nor the ru5 of her own practice and professions, has indulged pretension, which could only he heard in order to be rejected. The alte- native, either vindicJively to protract the v^ar, or honorably o end it, has been fairly given to her option; but she wants tie ; magnanimity to decide, while her apprehensions are awakeneJ, for the result of the Congi-ess at Vienna, and her hopes n'e flattered, by the schemes of conquest in America. There are periods in the transactio:is of every country as well as in the life of every individual, when self examination becomes a duty of the highest moral obligation; when the go- vernment of a free people, driven from the path of peace, md baffled in everj' effort to regain it, may resort for consjla- tion to the conscious rectitude of its measures ; and when an appeal to mankind founded upon truth and justice, cannot fail to engage those sympathies, by which even nations are l?d to pj-rtit'-ipate in the fame and fortunes of each other. The Unit- ed States, under these impr-ossions, are neither insensible tc the advantages, nor to the duties of their peculiar situatbn. — ■ They have but recently, as it were, established their independ- ence ; and the volume of their national history lies open at a glance, to ever eye. The policy of their government, thejefore, whatever it has been, in their forcitiiins well as in their fomes- tic relations, it ib impossible to conceal ; and it must be dflicult to mistake. If the assertion, that it has been a pohc}' o pre- serve peace and aniity with all the nations of the wcrld be doubted, the proofs are at hand. If the assfrtion, thai it has been a policy to maintain the rights of the United Stales, but at the same "time to respect the riglits of every otlier nation, be doubted, the proofs will be exhibited, if the asseition. that it has been a policj' to act impartially tov.-ards the beilig. 1614 ; and the wole of the VniLiiica;? commissioi.cri;, <'f the l.jlhofOd. 1SI4. • bee tlic ii'/te of the liritjih r.ommij,ioners dated Ihe 21st of ♦'-t. 181 i , tiic n^lc (if the Ame;-icaii commi.isionera, dated llie 24ih of Oct ftl4 i ;»n'i Aac ::jIi; oi Kha lifi'lirh commijsicT.er.'', dnUd tUc 3'st of Oct. 181i. line, the asseTlion that it lias been a policy, by all lionoTabic means, to cultivate with Great Brituin those sentiments of mu- tual good will which naturally belong to nations connected by the ties of a common ancestry, an identity of language, and a similarity of manners, be doubted, the proofs will be found in that^ patient forbearance, under the pressure cf accumulating wrongs, which marks the period of almost thirty years, that e- lapsed between the peace of 1783, and the rupture of 1812. The United States had just recovered, under the auspices of theif present constitution, from the debility which their i-evolu- tionary struggle had produced, when the convulsive move- ments of France excited throughout the civilized world the mingled sensations of hope and fear — of admiration and alarm,. The interest which those movements would, in themselves, have excited, was incalculably increased, however, as soon as Great Britam became a party to the first memorable coalition against France, and assamed the character cf a belligerent power ; for, it was obvious, that the di.3tance of the scene would no longer exempt the United States from the influence and the evils of the European conflict On the one hand, their government was connected with France by treaties of alliance and com- merce ; and the services which that nation had rendered to the cause of American independence, had made such impressions upon the public mind, as no virtuous statesman could rigidly condemn, and the most rigorous statesman would have sought in vain to efface. On the other hand, Great Britain, leavirg the treaty of 1783 unexecuted, forcibly retained the American posts upon the northern frontier ; and, slighting every overture to place the diplomatic and commerciai relations of the two countries upon a fair and friendly foundation.f seemed to con- template the success of the American revolution, in a spirit of unextinguisliable animosity. Her voice had, indeed, been heard from Quebec and 3Iontreai, instigating the savages to war J — Her invisible arm was felt in the defeats of general HarmerH and general St Chii-,^ and even tlie victory of general Waynelf was achieved in t!;.'> presence of a fort which she had erected, far within thtf. tertitorial boundaries of the United States, to sti- mulate andcouutenance the barbarities of the Indian \varrioi\** Yet the American government, neither yielding to popular feeling, nor acting upon the impulse of national resentment, hastened to adopt the policy of a strict and steady neutrality— .' and solem.ilv announced that policy to thecitizensat home, and to the nations abroad, by the proclamation of the 22d of April, J 793. Whatever may have been the trials of its pride^ and of I See .>Ir, Adams's correspondence. i See the speeche.'; of lord Doi Chester. « On the waters of the Miami of the like, on tlie 21st of October, 1790. § At Fort recover}', on the 4th of Novemher, 17^1. U OntI)e Miami of h.kcs, in August 1794. ♦» See the correspondence between Mr. Randolph, the Amer'ean secretary, t>f state, and Mr. Hammoud, the British plenipotentiary, dated Mav and •)^lne, 1794. e lis fortitude ; whatever may have been the iaiputatiens upon its fidelity and its honor, it will be demon.-?t rated in the sequel, that the American government, thronghout the European contest, and amidst all the changes of the objects and the parties that have been involved in that contest, have inflexibly adhered to the principles which were tjnis, autlioritatively, established to regalate the conduct of tlje United State^?. it was reasonable to expect that a proclamation of neutrality, issued under the circumstances wjiich have been describtid, vrould command the contidcnce and respect of Great Britain, however offensive it might prove to France, as contravening es- sentially the exposition which she was anxious to bestow on the treaties of commerce and alliance. But experience has shown, that the confidence and respect of Great Britain arc jiot to be acquired by such aces of impartiality and independence. Un- der every administration of the American government, tlie ex- perimect has been made, and the experiment has been equally unsuccessful; for it was not more effectually ascertained in tha year 1&12, than at antecedent periods, that an exemption from the maritime usurpation, and the commercial monopoly of G. Britain could only be obtained upon the condition of becoming an associate in her enmities and her wars. While the ppocla- mation of neutrality was still in the viev^ of the British minister, an order of the 8th of June, 1793, issued from the cabinet, hy virtue of which, "all vessels loaded wholly or in part with corn, flour, or meal, bound to any port in France, or any port occupied by the armies of France," were required to be carried forcibly into England, and the cargoes were either to be sold there, or security was to be given that they should only be sold in the ports of a country in amity with his Britannic majesty * The moral character of an avowed design to inflict famine upon the whole of the French people, was at that time, properly es- timated throughout the civilized world ; and so glaring an in- fraction of neutral rights, as the British order was calculated to produce, did not escape the severities of diplomatic animad- version and remonstrance. But this aggression was soon fol- lowed by another of a more hostile cast. In the war of )7 36« Great Britain had endeavored to establish the rule, that neutral nations were not entitled to enjoy th« benefits of a trade with the colonies of a belligerent power, from which, in the season of peace, they wore excluded by th<: parent state. The rule stands %vithout any positive support from any general authority ■ on public law. If it be true, that some treaties contain stipula- tions, by jvhieh the parties expressly exclude each other from the commerce of their respective colonies ; and if it betroe, tliat the ordinances of a particular state often provide for the exclu- sive enjoyment of its colonial commerce ; still Great Britain cannot be aothv)riscd to deduce the rule of the war of 1750, by implication, from such treaties and such ordnances, while it is • 6ce liic Older in council of tlie 8th of June, 17^3, and the remonstrance of tlitt American gyvenimcnt. n»jt true, that the rule forms a part of the law of nations j nor that it has been adopted by any other government ; nor that e- vcn Great Britain herself has uniformly practised upon the rule ; smce its application was unknowTi from the "war of 1756, ujitil the French war of 1792, including the entire period of the Auierican war. Let it be, argumenlatively, allowed, how- ever, that Great Britain possessed the right, as well as the pow- er, to revive and enforce the rule; yet, the time and the man- ner of exercising the pq.\iipr, would alTord ample causes for re- proach. The citizens'of the United States had openly engag- ed in an extensive traij'^f with the French islarids in the ^Vest Indies, ignorant of the ailfedgcd existence of the rule of tho war of l7o6, or unapprised of any intention tocall it into action, when the order oftlie 6th 9f -November, 17V3 was silently cir- culated among the British cruisers, consigning to legal adjudi- cation " all vessels loadcn with goods, the produce of any colo- ny of France, or carrying provisions or supplies for the use of any such colony ."f A great portion of the commerce of the United States was thus annihilated at a blow; the amicable dispositions of the government were again disregarded and con- temned; the sensibility of the nation was excited to a high de- gree of resentment, by the apparent treachery of the British or- der; and a recourse to reprisals, or to war, for indemnity and redress, seemed to be unavoiJ^'ble. But the love of justice had es^- tablished the law of neutrality; and the love of peace taught a lesson of forbearance. The American government, therefore, rising superior to the provocations- and the passions of the day, instituted a special mission to represent, at the court of London, the injuries and the indignities which it had suffered ; " to vin- dicate its rights with firmness, and to cultivate peace with sin- cerity.":}: The immediate result of this mission, was a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, between the United States and Gi-eat Britain which was signed by the negociators on the T9th of November, 4794, and finally ratitied, with the consent of the Senate, in the year 1795. But both the mission and ita result, serve also to display the independence and the impartiali- ty of the x^merican government, in asserting its rights and perfoi'ming its duties, equally unawed and unbiassed by the in- stiuments of belligerent power or persuasion. pn the foundation of this treaty the United States, in a pure sprit of good faith and confidence, raised the hope and the ex- pectation, thcit the maritime usurpations of Great Britain would ctase to annoy them ; that all doubtful claims of jurisdiction v^ould be suspended ; and that even the exercise of an inron- tislible right would be so modified, as to present neither insult lor outrage, nor incovenience, to their flagor to their commerce , lut the hope and the expectation of the United* States have, ?een fatally disappointed. Some relaxation in the I'igor, with-. I f Seethe British order of the 6th of November, 1793. / 4: See the president's message to the senate, of the 15th of April 1794 iROiiunating iMr. Jay as envoy exuraordinavy tu his BriluuHic majesty. ovrt any alteratioTJ in the principle, of the order in council of the 6th November, 1793, was introduced by the subsequent or- ders of the 8th of January, 1794, and the 25th of January, 1798: but from the ratification of the treaty of 1794, until the short rcepite afforded by the treaty of Amiens, in 1802, the com- merce of the United States continued to be the prey of Biritish cruisers and privateers, under the adj^udicating patronage of the British tribunals. Another gri<;vance, however, assumed at this epoch a form and magnitude which casta shade over the social happ'ness, as well as the political independence of the nation — The merchant vessels of the United States were arrested on the high seas, while in the prosecution of distant voyages ; consi- derable numbers of their crews were impressed into the naval service of Great Britain ; the commercial adventures. of the own- ers were often, consequently, defeated; and the loss of proper- ty, the embarrassments of trade and navigation, and the scene of domestic atBiction, became intolerable. This grievance (which constitutes an important surviving cause of the Ameri- can declaration of war) was early, and has been incessantly, ur- ged upon the attention of the British government. Even in the year 1792, they were told of " the irritation that it had excited —and of thediffienlty of avoiding to make immediate reprisals on their seamen in the United States.'",! They were told " that 80 many inetances of the kind had happened, that it was quite necessary that they should explain themselves- on the subject, and be allowed to disavow and punish such violence, which had never been experienced from any other nation."^ And they were told " of the inconvenience of such conduct, and of the impossi- bility of letting it go on, so that the British ministry should be made sensible of the necessity of punishing the past, and pre- venting the future.'"1f But after the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, had been ratified, the nature and the extent of the grievance became still more manifest ; and it was clearly and firmly presented to the view of the British government, as leading unavoidably to discord and war between the two na- tions. Tliey were told, " that unless they would come to some accommodation which might ensure the American seamen a- gainst this oppression, measuree would be taken to cause tht incouvenieiMje to be equally felt on both sides*. They were tcld '■that the impressment of American citizens, to serve on boa-d of British armed vessels, was not only an injury to the unfortu- nate individuals, but it naturally excited certain emotions in the breasts of the nation to whom they belong, and of the ju.st an! humane of every country ; and that an expectation was indulg- ed that orders would be given, that the Americans so circun.. slanccd should be immediately liberated, and that the Britisk U See J.c letter of Mr. .Jefferson, secretary of sUte, to Mr. Pinkney, mi< nisttrat Loiulon, ilalecl llih of June, 1792. ^ See llic klter from the same to llie s-imc, dated the 12th of Oct. 1792. ^Sce the letter from tlieaaim- to the same, daicd Uic 6ih Kov. 17i'2. • See Uie lelier from Mr. I'inkiiey, minister ul London, to llie secretary of ptat", dittd 13iU Maich, J79J. officers should in future abstain from similar violencea.** They were told, "that the subject -was of much greater importance than had been supposed ; and that, instead of a few. and those in many instances equivocal caseB, the American Kiinister at the court of London had, in nine months, (part of the years 1796 and 1797) made applications for the discharge of two hun- dredand seventy one seamen, wlio had, in most cases, oxh;bit- ed such evidence as to satisfy him, that they were real Ameri- cans, forced into the British service and persevering, general' ly, in refusing pay aad bounty "J They were told. " that if the British goreniment had any regard to the right& of the United ■States, any respect for the nation, and placed any value on their friendship, it would facilitate the means of relieving their op pressed citizens.''}! They were told, "that the British naval officers often impressed Swedes, Danes, and other foreigners^ from the vessels of the United States; that they might, with as much reason, rob American vessels of the property or mer- chandise of Swedes, Danes, and Portuguese, as seize and detain in their service the subjects of those nations found on board of American vessels; and that the president was extremely anx- ious to have this business of impressing placed on a reasonable footing.''^ And they were told, " that the impressment of Ame- rican seamen was an injury of very serious magjiitude, which deeply affected the feelings and honor of the nation; that no right had been asserted.to impress the natives of America j yet that they were impressed ; they were dragged on board British ships of war with the evidence of citizenship in their hands, and forced by violence there to serv^until eonelusiv* testimo- nials of their birth could be obtained ; that many must perish unrelieved, and all were detained a considerable time, in law- less and injurious confinement; that the continuance of the practice must inevitably produce discord between two nations which ought to be the friends of each other; aad that it was more advisable to desist from, and to take effectual measures to prevent, an acknowledged wrong, than by perseverance in that wrong, to excite against themselves the well founded resent- ments of America, and force the government into measure3^. which may very possibly terminate in an open ruptv.re" t Such were the feehngs and the sentimeirts of the American governmentunder every change ofits administration, in relation to the British practice of imprcssnient ; and such the nmon- Strances ad dressed to the justice of Great Britain. It is obvi- 30*h^ J uk ^ -qJ ^^ ^' ■ "^^^'^ ^"^^^ extraordinar.v, to lord Granville, date' the A t ^^V^''o'*i■"^f ^^ ■'^*^- "^'"Si minister at London, to the secretary of state, dated Lhe 13th of April, 1797. ' II See the letter uf Mr. Pickering secretary of sUite, to \fr. Kin^, minister at Londor-, duttd the 10th of September, 1796. ^^1 See the letter from the same to the same, dated the 26th of October, »».^r!'^.*^^i***^'' ^"■'"" ^^- ^^•'iisball, secietary of state, (now chief justice of k im. *^^"'> *o Wr.Jtiiiff», maiuitee at London, dnted the 2Uh Scyt.'. 10 om, therefore, that this cause, independent of everv other haa been un,fon«ly deemed a just and certain cause 7f war ye? the characteristic polic-j of the United States still prevailed ' remonstrance was only succeeded by negociation ; and every assertion of A mencan rig-l.ts was accompunied with an over^ ture to secure, in any practicable form, the rights of Great Bri- Snl . ' f" '"''''^i however, to rei^der it more and more difficult to asoertatn and hx the standard of the British riohts according to the succession of the British claim*. T^'e ri^^ht of tenng and searching an Americair merchant ship, for the pur- pose of impressment, was, for a while, confined to the case of f«nn »V '*^''' '^?'^ ^'''" ''' ^^^^ ^^ ^^'^ "^«i^th of February, 1800, the minister of his Britannic majesty, then at Philadel' phia, urged the American government, >' to"take into considera- tion, as the only means of drying up every source of complaint and irritation, upon that head, a proposal which he had made two years before, m the name of his majesty's government, for the reciprocal restitution of deserters.'ft But this piojpct of a treaty was then de^-med inadmissible, by the president of the tnited States, and the chief ofHcers of the executive depart- ments of the government, whom he consulted for the same rea- son, specifically, which, at a subsequent period, induced the president of the U. States, to withhold his approbation from the treaty negociated by the American ministers at London, in the year ]80d ; namely: " that it did not sufficiently provide a^-ain^t the impressment of American seamen ;"Hfind "that it is better to have no article, and to meet the consequences, than not t» enumerate merchant vess^ on the high seas, amnn.^ the things not to be forcibly entered in search of desertors;-] U But the British claim, expanding with singular elasticity, was soon found to include a right to enter American vessels on the high seas, in order to search for and seiae all British seamen ; it next embraced the case of every British subject; and finally, in its practical enfox-cement, it has been extended to every mariner who could not prove, upon the spot, that he was a citizen of the United States. While the nature of the British claim was thus ambiguous and fluctuating, the principle to which it was referred, for jus- titication and support, appeared to be, at once, arbitrary and ii- fUsory. It was not recorded in any positive code of the law of nations ; it was not displayed in the elementary works of the ci- ^'^'■'^" ; "«r had it ever been exemplitiod in the mariiime usages •* See particularly, Mr. Kinf,-'s propositions to lord Gix-iivillr, and lord i^:i^^■kcJ,hn^■y, of tie 13th April, 1797, the loth of March, 1799. Uie 25tli Jth. I8()l,!mcl in J.ily 1R13. .. ^^ ■'i'^'^ n^^- y^*'"^'^ »o'e to Mr, Pickering-, the secretary of slate, dated the 'ith of Feb. 1800. t ( See the opi.iioM of Mr. Pickerinqf, secretary of state, enclosing- the plan- ot a treaty, dated the 3d ;\t..y, 1900, and \\k- opinion of Mr. Wolcotl, secie- tary ot the trea-uiiv, ilatcd '.a- 14th of A-ril, 1800. Ill See tlic opinion of >;r. Stoddci-t, s xretary of the navv, dated (he 230. o. .Apnl, Um and the opiuion.s of Mr. Lec,.ation.cv general dated, the 25li». 9i J-cb. and IhtSUlli of April, 1800. 11 of any other country, in any other age. In tnith, it ttrs tfic oft- spring of the municipal kw of Great Britain alone ; equally o- perative in a time of peace, and in a time of war ; and, under all circumstances, inflicting a coercive jurisdiction, upon the commerce and navigation of the world. For the legitimate rights of the belligerent powers, the Vni- ted States had felt and evinced a sincere and open rcs-pect. Al- though they had marked a diversity of doctrineamong the most viekbratcd jurists, upon many of the litigated points of the law of war j although they had formerly espoused, with the example of the most powerful government of Europe, the principles of theai'med neutrality, which were eslablished in the year 1780, upon the basis of the memorable declaration of the emprcsb of all the Russias; and although the principles of th.at declaration have been incorporated into all their public treaties, exempt in the instance of the treaty of 1794 ; yet, the United States, still faithful to the pacific and impartial policy which they profetsed, did not hesitate, even at the commi-ncement of the French revo- lutionary war, to accept and allovr the exposition of the law of nations, as it was then maintained by Great Britain ; and, con- sequently, to admit, upon a much contested point, that the pro- perty of her enemy, in their vessels, might be lawfully captur- ed as prize of war.* It was, also, freely admitted, that a bel- ligerent power had a right with proper cautions, to enter and search American vessels, for the goods of an enemy, and for articles contraband of war ; that, if upon a search, such goods or articles were found, or if, in the course of the search, per- sons in the military service of the enemy weie discovered, a bel- ligerent had a right, in doubtful cases, to carry American ves- sels to a convenient station, for further examination ; and that a belligerent had a right to exclude American vessels from ports and places, under the blockade of an adequate naval force.-^ These rights the law of nations might, reasonably, be deemed to sanction ; nor has a fair eyercise of the powers necetsary for the enjoyment of these rights, been, at any time, controvert- ed, or opposed, by the American government. But, it miust be again remarked, that the claim of Great Bri- tain was not to be satisfied, by the most an. pie and explicit re- cognitioH of the law of war ; for, the law of war treats only of the relations of a belligerent to his enemy, while the claim of Great Britain embi'aced, also, the relations between a sovereign and his sulijccts. It was said, that eveiy British subject was bound by a tie of allegiance to his sovereign, which no lapse of time, no change of place, no exigency of life, could possibly weaken, or dissolve. It was said, that the British sovereign was entitled, at all periods, and on all occasions, to the servi- ces of his subjects. And it was said, that the Britii»!h vessels of * See the con'espontlence of the ye; r 1 792 between Mr. Jefferson, scci : la- ry of stale, und the ministers of Great Britain aid Frnnce. S( e also Mr. Jetrcrsou's letter to the American mmister at Faris, of the same year, re- " •.juestii'g the recall of yir. Genet. 12 •WW upMi the high seas, might lawfully and forcibly enter the- merchant vessels of every other nation (for the theory of these pretensions is not limited to the case of the United States, al- though that case ha? been, almost exclusively, affected by their practical operation) for the purpose of discovering and impress- ing British subjects.f The United States presume not to dis- cuss the forms, orlhe principles^ of the governments established; in other countries. Enjoying the right and the blessing of self- government, they leave, implicitly, to every foreign nation, the choice of its social and political institutions. But, vi^hatever may be the form, or the principle, of government, it is an universal axiom of public law, among sovereign and independent states, that every nation is bound so to use and enjoy its own rights, an Mot to injure, or destroy, the rights of any other nation. Say then, that the tie of allegiance cannot be severed, or relaxed, a.s • rcspects-the sovereign and the subject; and say, that the sover- eign is, at all times, entitled to the services of the subject ; titill, there is nothing gained, in support of the British claim, unless rt can, also be said, that the British sovereign has a right to seek and seize his subject, while actually within the dominion, OP under the special protection, of another sovereign state, This will not, surely, be denominated a process of the lawof na- tions, for the purpose of enforcing the rights of war ; and if it ahall be tolerated as a process of the municipal law of Great Britain, for the purpose of enforcing the right of the sovereign to the service of his subjects, there is no principle of diacrimi- jjation, which can prevent its being employed in peace, or in war, with all the attendant abuses of force and fraud, to justify the seizure of British subjects for crimes, or fur debts; and the seizure of British property, for any cause that shall be arbitra- rily assigned. The introductionof these degrading novelties in- to the maritime code of nations, it has bsen the arduous task oftfie American government, in the onset, to oppose; and it rests with all other goyernmen'^s to decide, how far their honour and their interests must be eventually implicated, by a tacit acquiesceno^, in tfie successive usurpations of the British Hag. If the right claimed by Great Britain be, indeed, common te all govermnints, the ocean will exhibit, in addition to its many other p u'ils, a scene of everlasfing strife and contoation ; but wh«t other governmimt has ever claimed or exorcised the right? if the right shall be exclu-iiv ly established as :v trop};y of the naval suneriority of Great Britain, the ocean, which has been somptimcs emphatically denominat'd, " the Ingiiway of na- tions.'' will be identified, in occupancy and use, with the do- minions of the British crown ; and overy othfr natinn must >n- joy the libiM-ty of pa'>s;tge, upon the payment of a trihute or tho indulgence of a lie nee : but what nation is prepared for this sa- crifice, of its honor and its interests ? .\nd if, after all, the rioht be now asserted (as expprience too plainly indicate.') for the purpose of impos ng upon the United States, to accomniadata t^^cc the Bi-iti^h «k-ci would to- iei-ate a day's submission, to the vassalage of such a condi- tion? But the American goverment has seen, with some surprize, the gloss, which the Prince Regent of Great Britain, in his d«- claration of the 10th of January, 1813, haa condescended to bes- tow upon the British claim of a right to impress men, on board of the merchant vessels of other nations ; and the retort, which he has ventured to make, upon the conduct of the United State?, relative to the controverted doctrines of expatriation. The A- merican government, like every other civilized government, a- vows the principle, and indulges the practice, of naturalizing foreigners. In Great Britain, and throughout the continent of Europe, the laws and i*egulations upon the subject, are not ma- terially dissimilaT, when eompared with the laws and regula- tions of the United States The effect, however, of such natu- •ralization, upon the connexion, which previously subsisted, be- tween the naturalized person, and the government of the coun- try of his birth, has been differently considered, at different times, and in different places. Still, there are many respects, in which a diversity of opinion does not exist, and cannot arise. It is agi'eed, on all hands, that an act of naturalisation is not a violation of the law of nations ; and that, in particular, it is not in itself, ioi offence against the government, whose subject is na- turalized. It is agreed, that an act of naturalization creates, betAveen the parties, the reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection. It is agreed, that while a naturalized citizen con- tinues within the territory and jurisdiction of his adoptive go- vernment, he cannot be pursued, or seized, or restrained,^ by .his former sovereign. It is agreed, that a naturah'zed citizen, whatever may be thought of the claims of the-sovereign of his native country, cannot lawfully be withdrawn from the obliga- tions of his contract of naturalisation, by the force, or these- duction of athird pov/er. And it is agreed, that no sovereign can lawfully interfere, to take from the service, or the employ- nient, of another sovereign, persons who are not the subjects of either of the eovereigiis engaged in the transaction. Beyond the principles of these accorded propositions, what have theU- nited States done to justify the imputation of "harboring Bri- tish seanion, ;md ofexerciaing anassunicd right to transfer the .illegiance of British .'■ubjects'-"* Tlie United Stales have, in- leed, insisted upon the right of navigating the ocean in peace and saf.-ty. protecting all that is covered by their flag, as on a place of equal and common jurisdiction to all nations; save where the law of war interposes the exceptions of visituli^i.; iss Uic Briiisli decUratioiVof tlic tOtli of January, 1813. u search, and capture : but, in doing this, ths} have done .no wrong. The United States, in perfect consistency, it ii believ- ed, with the practice of all belligerent nations, not even except- ing Great Britain herself, have, indeed, announced a determina- tion, since the declaration of hostilities, to afford protection, as well to {he naturalized, as to the native citizen, who, giving the strongest proofs of lidelity, should be taken in arms by the enemy ; and the British cabinet, well know tliat this determi- nation could have no influence upon those councils of their so- vereign, which preceded and produced the war. It was rot, then, to " harbor British seamen," nor to "transfer the alle- giance of British subjects ;" nor to " cancel the jurisdiction' of tbeir le,i,iti;nate sovereign ;" nor to vindicate " the pretension tliat acts of naturalization, and eeri^ificates of citizenship, were as valid out of their ow^n territory, as within it ;'''f that the U- nited States have asserted the honor and the privilege of their flag, by the force of reason and of arms. But it was to resist a systematic scheme of maritime aggrandizement, which, pre- scribing to every other nation the limits of a territorial boun- dary, claimed for Great Br. tain the exclusive dominion of the seas ; and which, spurning the settled principles of the law of war, coadoiuned the ships and mariners of the United States, to suiTor, up'in the high seas, and virtually within the jnrisdic- ti on of their flag, the most rigorous dispensations of the Bri- tish municipal code, inflicted by the coarse and licentious hand of a British press gang. The injustice of the British claim, and the cruelty of the British practice, have tested, for a series of j'ears, the pride and the patience of the American government : but, still, every expy her tonnage; that British officers should be permit- ted in British ports to enter the vessel, in order to ascertain the number of men on board ; and tha% in case of an addition to her crcw% the British subjects enhsted should be liable to im- pressment J It was offered in the solemn form of a law, that the American seamen should be registered ; that they should be provided with certificates of citizenshiplf and that the roll of the crew of cN-vry vessel should hz formally authenticated.* It was offered that no refuge or protection shouhl be given to de- serters ; but, that, on the contrary, they should be surrendered.! It was " again and again offered to concur in a convention, which it was thought practicable to be formed and which should settle the question of impressment, in a manner that would be safe for England, and sfttisfactory to the United States4 It was offered, that each party should prohibit its citizens or subjects, from clandestinely concealing or cai'rying away, from the ter* ritories or colonies of the other, any seamen belonging to the o- ther party. |i!l And, conclusively, it has been offered and declared by law, tliat " after thetermination of the presentwar, it should not be lawful to employ on board of any of the public or private K See the letter of Mr, Pickering', .00. * See the letter of Mr. Kinsr, minister at London to the secretary of state, dated the 15th of Marcli, 1799. liJ S«e theletter of Mr. King-, to the secretary of state,- d^ted in Jidy, 1863. 16 ,v«8seh cf the United States, any persons except citizens of the United States ;and that no foreigner should be admitted to be- come a citizen hereafter, who liad not for the continued term of five years, resided within the United States, without being. &t any time; during the five years, out of the territory of the United States."} It is Hianifest then, that such prorision might be made by law ; and that such provision has been repeatedly and urgently proposed ; as would, in all future times, exclude from the mari- time service cf the United States, both in public and in private vessels, every person, who could, possibly, be claimed by Great Britain, as a native subject, whether he had, or had not, been naturalized in America^ Enforced by the same sanctions and securities, which are employed to enforce the penal code of Great Britain, as well as the penal code of the United States, the provision would afford the strongest evidence, that n» Bri- tish subject could be found in service onboard of an American vessel ; and, consequently, whatever might be the British right of impressment, in the abstract, there would remain no justifia- ble motive, there could hardly be invented a plausible pretext, to exercise it, at the expense of the American right of lawful commerce. If, too, as it has sometimes been insinuated, there would, nevertheless, be room for frauds and evasions, it iseuffi- cicnt to observe, that the American government would, always be ready to hear, and to redress, every just complaint : or, if re- dress were sought and refused, ^a preliminary course, that ought never to have been omitted, but which Great Britain has never pursued,) it would still be in the power of the British go- vernment to resort tc its own force, by acts equivalent to war, for the reparation of its wrongs. — But Great Britain has, un- happily, perceived in the acceptance of the overtures of the A- merican government, consequences injurious to her maritime policy ; and, therefore, withholds it at the expense of her jus- tice. She perceives, perhaps, a loss of the American nursery for her seamen, while she is at peace; a loss of the service of American crews, while she is at war ; and a loss of many of those opportunities, which have enabled her to enrich her navy, by the spoils of the American commerce, without exposing her own commerce to the risk cf retaliation or reprisals. Thus, were the United States, in a season of reputed peace, involved in the evils of a state of war; and thus, was the Ame- rican flag annoyed by a nation still professing to cherish the sentiments of mutual friendship and respect, M'hich had been re- cently vouched, by the faith of a solemn treaty. But the A- merican government even yet abstained from vindicating its rights, aa;l from avenging its wrongs, by an appeal to arms It %Viis not an insensibility to those wrongs, nor a dread of British power, nor a sOTbservieney to British interests, that prevailed at ^ See tlie act of congress, passed on the 3il of iMaich. 18! 3. <[ 9^e tlie letter of instiirctions fi-om Mr. Monroo, .-^fcretarv pf state, to the plcnipotcntiai'Ies for treating of peace with G. Bi'.tain, under the mC" diation of the empcroi" Alexander, dated the I5th of Ap) il, 18! 3. 17 that'p*rio^,in the councils of the United States: but under all trials, the American government abstained from the appeal to arms then, as it has repeatedly since done, in its ccllisiuns with France, as well as with Great Britain, from the purest love of peace, while peace could be rendered compalible with the bon* or and independence of the nation. During the period winch has hitherto been more particular- ly contemplated (from the declaration of hostihties between G. Britain and Fiance in the year 1792, untitthe bhort-lived paci- fication of the treaty of Amiens in 1802) there were not wan- ting occasions, to test the consistency and the impartiality of the Amei'ican government, by a comparison of its conduct to« wards G. Britain with its conduct towards other nations. The manifestations of the extreme jealousy of the French govern- ment, and oi the intemperate zeal of its ministers near the U. States, were co-eval with the proclamation of neutrality ; but after the ratification of the treaty of London, the scene of vio- lence, spoliation, and contumely, opened by France, upon the U. States, became such, as to admit, perhaps, of no parallel^ except in the cotemporaneous scenes which were exhibited by the injustice of her great competitor The A merican govern- ment acted, in both cases, on the saire pacific policy ; in the same spirit of patience and forbearance ; but with the same determination also, to assert the honor and independence of the nation. When, therefore, every conciliatory effort had failed, and when two successive missions -of peace had been contemptuously repulsed, the American government, in the year 1798, annulled its treaties with France, and waged a ma- ritime war against that nation, for the defence of its citizens, and of its commerce, passing on the high seas. — But as soon aai» the hope was conceived, of a satisfactory change in the disposi- tions of the French government, the American government has- tened to send another mission to France ; and a convention, signed in the year 1800,' terminated the subsisting diiferences between the two countries. Nor were the United States, able, during the same period, to avoid a collision with the government of Spain, up-on many im- jKortant and critical questions of boundary and commerce ; of Indian warfare, and maritime spoliation. PreiserviDg, l.Qwev- er, their system of moderation, in the assertion of their rights, » course of amicable discussion and explanation, produced mu- tual satisfaction ; and a treaty of friendship, limits, aad navi- gation wag formed in the year 1795, by which the citizens of the United States acquired, a right, for the space of three years to deposit their merchandises and effects in the port of ISew- Orleans; with a promise, either that thi enjoyment of that ri^ht ehould be indefinitely continued, or that another part of the banks of the Mississippi should be assigned for an equivalent •stablishment. But, when in the year 1802^the port of New- Orleans was abruptly closed against the citizens of the United Stutes, without an assignment of any other ec^uivalent place of 18 deposit, the harmony of the two countries was again mostse- riously endangered ; until the Spanish government, yielding la- the reinonstiances of the United States, disavowed the act of the intendant of New Orleans, aiid ordered the right of deposite to be reinstated, on the terms of the treaty of 1795. The elTects produced, even by a temporary suspension of the right ofdesposit at JSew Orleans, upon the interests and fee- lings of the nation, naturally suggested to the American gO" vei'nment, the expediency of guarding against their recurrence, by the acquisition of a permanent property in the province of Louisiana. The minister of the United States, at lMadrid» was, accordingly, instructed to apply to the government of Spain upon the subject ; and, on the -ith of May, 1803, he re- ceived an answer, stating that " by the retrocession made to France, of Ijouisiana, that power regained the province, with the limits it had saving the rights acquired by other powers ; and that the United States could address themselves to the French government, to negociate the acquisition of territories which might suit their interest.* But before this reference, official infomiation of the same fact had been received by Mr. Pinkney from the court of Spain, in the month of March pre- ceding ; and the Americi n government, having instituted a special mission to negociate the purchase of Louisiana from France, or from Spain, whichever should be its sovereign, the purchase was, accordingly, accomplished for a valuable consi- deration (that was punctually paid) by the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of April, "^1803. The American government has not seen, without some sen- sibility, that a transaction, accompanied by such circumstance* of general publicity, and of scrupulous good faith, has been de- nounced by the prince regent, in his declaration of the 10th of January, 1813, as a proof of the " ungenerous conduct" of tJie U. States towards Spain.f In amplitication of the royai charge, the British negociators at Ghent, have presumed to impute the acquisition of Louisiana, by the U. States, to a spi« iit of aggrandisement, not necessary to their own security ; and to maintain " that the purchase was made against the known conditions, on which it had been ceded by Spain to France ;"Jthat " in the face of the protestation of the ministep of his catholic majesty at Washington, the president of the U. States ratified the treaty of purchabe ;='tl and that '"there was good reason to believe, that many circumstances attending the transaction were industriously concealed."^. The American go- vernment cannot condescend to retort aspersions so unjust, ia language so opprobrious; and peremptorily rejects the preten- • See t!if- Iftt'er from Dlr. Alonroe, ami .Mr. Fobter, the Britiili ■ninibter, ir, llie niontlisof .July, September, and Xovtmbcr, 181]. j See »!ie letter of Mr. Kui^-, to the arcrtr'ary of sUile, dattd C: I'''.h of ]yi;>, 1803. 25; wlthoutthe jurisd'ction of either party, be demanded or t^k'on* out of any ship or vessel, belonging to the citizens or bubject* Oi' one of the parties, by the public or private armed shipsj or men of war, belonging to or in the service of the ot'ner party ; and that strict orders ehould be given for the due observance of the engage ment;'t- This convention, wliich explicitly relinquished impressments from American vea- Bele, on the high seas, and to which the British ministers had, at first, agreed, lord St. Vincent was desirous afterwards to mo- dify, " stating, that on further reliection, he was of opinion, that the narrow seas should be expressly excepted, they hav- ing been, as his lordship remarked, imniernorially considered- to be within the dominion of Great Britain." The American jninister, however, "having supposed, from the tenor of his- conversations with lord St. Vincent, that the doctrine of viare clau&um would not be revived against the United States on this occasion; but that England would be content with the limiied jurisdiction or dominion over the seas adjacent to her territo- ries, which is assigned by the law of nations to other states, was disappointed, on receiving lord St. Vincent's communiea- ^on and chose rather to abandon the negociation than to ac- quiesce in the doctrine it proposed to establish/'H But it was still some satisfaction to receive a formal declaration from th& British government, communicated by its minister at Wash- ington, after the recommencement of the war in Europe, which promised in effect, to reinstate the practice of naval blockades upon the principles of the law of nations ; so that no blockade should be considered as existing, " unless in respect of particu- lar norts, which might be actually invested, and then that the vessels bound to such ports should not be captured, unless they. had previously been warned not to enter them "*~ AlKhe precautions of the American government were, never- theless, ineffectual, and the assurances of the British government- were, in no instance, verified. The outrage of impressment waS' again indiscriminately perpetrated upon the crew of every A' laerican vessel, and on every sea. The enorm'ty of blockades- established by an order in council, without a legitimate object,, and maintained by an order in council, without the application*. of a camp?tent force, was, more and more developed. The' rule, denominated " the rule of the war of 1750" was revived in an affected style of modei*ation, bat in a spirit of more ri- gorous execution! The lives, the liberty, the fortunes and the happines of the citizens of the United State?, engaged 5:1 the pursuits of navigation and commerce, were once more sub- ? .See the letter of Mr. King", to the secretary of state, dated. July 1803. ^ Ste the letter of Mr. King, to the secretary of state, dii'ed .July, 18<'>3, * See t!ie letter of .Mr. Merry, to the secretiiry of statt, dated tlie 12th of April, ISUi, :i'K.l thp enclosed copy or a leuer from Mr. Ncpean, ihe s<-cre>- tary of the adairalty, to .Mr ILmimoiid, tlic British under s*cret.i!j- of state for forcig-n ati".ih's, dated Jan. 5, 1804. t See the or Jcr.? in council of tlie '2 idi Tune, IsOJ, and the 17th of Au^. 1805. 24' jected t6 the violence and cupidity of the Brithh cruizers. An5" in biiet, 80 grievous, so intoleriible, had tlie affliction of the nation become, that the peopl*^, with one mind, and one voicc^ called loudly upon t leir government, for redress and protec- tion -.X the congress of the United Stat-.'s, participating in the feelings and regentnrents of the time, urged upon the execu- tive mig'strate, tlie necessity of an immediatevdemand of repa- ration from Gr^'at Britain ;|| while the same patriotic spirit Vi'hich opposed British usurpation in 17^3, and encountered French hostility in 1798, was again pledged in every variety of form, to the maintainance of the national honor and indepen- dence daring the more arduous trial that arose in 1805. Amidst these scenes of injustice on the one hand, and of re- clamation on the other, the American government preserved its equanimity and its firmness. It beheld much in the con- duct of France and of her ally Spain to provoke reprisals. It be- held more in the conduct of Great Britain, that led, unavoida- bly (as^had often been avowed) to the last resort of arms. It beheld in the temper of the nation, all that was requisite to Justify an immediate selection of Great Britain, as the object ®t' a de ilaration of war. And it could not but behold in the policy of France, the strongest motive to acquire the United States, as an associate in tiie existing conflict. Yet these con- siderations did not then, more than at any former crisis, sub- due the fortitude, or mislead the judgment of the American government ; but in perfect consistency with its neutral, as well as its pacitic system, it demanded attonement, by remon- strances witli France and Spain ; and it sought the preserva-- tion of peace, by negociation with Great Britain. It has been shown, that a treaty proposed, emphatically, by the British minister resident at Philadelphia, '' ae the means of drying up every source of complaint and irration, upon the head of impresment,'' was deemed uUerly inadmissible," by the A- merican government, because it didnot sufficiently provide for" that object.^ It has, also, been shov/n, that another treaty, pro- posed by the .American minister at L.ondon, was laid aside be- cause the British government, wiiile it was willing to relin- quish, expressly, impressments from American vessels, on the hi-'h seas, insisted upon an exception, in reference to the nar- row seas claimed as part of the British dominion; and experi- ence demonstrated, that, although the spoliations committed upon the Am^^rican commerce, might admit of reparation^ by the payment of a pecuniary equivalent: yet, consulting th& t .See the memorials of Bos'on Ncw-Ynrk, !»hi1adelphiaj Baltimore, Stc -pT^scn'. a to congress in the end of .he 3 ear 18^)5, and the beginning of the year 1808. II .S.o the resolutioiis of the spnate of ihf TTnited Stales, of the lOih and I4J1 of Febviiaiy, 1806; and the resoluii^kn of the bouse of representulives O" lie United Sta'es. % -ee Mr. I. s on's l^tt.-r t > the secre'r.ry of state, da(ef Mr. Pirke.ii-.fC, si'cretury of st:ae,to the Presi- dent of the United Stales, dUcd the2-JUiof February, 1800. t5 feonor and the feelings of the nation, it wm impoawble to receive »atisfaction for the cruelties of imprcsament, by any other means, tham by an entire disaontinuance of the practice. \V hen therefore the cnvoya extraordinary were appointed in the year 1806, tonegociate with the British government, every authority was given, for the purposes of conciliation 4 nay, an act of con- gress, prohibiting the importation of certain articles of British manufacture into tlie United States, was suspended, in proof of a friendly disposition ;! but it was declared, that " the sup- pression of impressment, and the definition of blockades, wefe absolutely indispensable ;" and that, "without a provision a- gainst impressments, no treaty should be concluded.'* The A- merican envoys, accordingly, took care to communicate to the British commissioners, the limitations of tbeir powers. Influ- enced, at the same time, by «. smcere desire to terminate the differences between the two nations ; knowing the solicitude of their government, to relieve its seafaiing citizens fi-om actual sufferance ; hstening, with confidence, to assurances and expla- nations of the British commissioners in a sense favorable ta their wishes; and judging from a state of information, thM; gave no immediate cause to doubt the sufficiency of those as- surances and explanations^, the envoys, rather than terminate the negociation without any arrangement, wet-e willing to rely upon the efficacy of a substitute, for a positive article in tlie treaty, to be submitted to the consideration of their government, as this, according to the declation of the British commissioners, was the only arrangement, they were pei-mitted, at that time, to propose, or t<» allow. The substitute was presented in Ihe form of a note from the British commissioners to the Ameri- can envoys, and contained a pledge, '- that instructions had beeti given, and should be repeated and enforced, for the observance of the greatest caution in the impressing of British seamen; that the strictest care should be taken to preserve the citizens of the United States from any molestation or injury ; and that immediate and prompt redress should be afforded, upon any representation of injury sustained by them."* Inasmuch, however as the treaty contained no provision a» gainst impressment, and it was seen by the government, whet the treaty was under consideration for ratification, that the pledge contained in the substitute was not complied with, but, on the contrary, that the impressments were continued, with undiminished violence, in the American seas, so long after the a.neged date of the instructions, which were to arrest them ; that the practical inefficacy of the substitute could'not be doubt- ed by the government here, the ratification of the treaty was Bccessarily declined; and it has since appeared, that after a change in the British ministry had taken place, it was declar- ed by the secretiiry for foreign affairs, that no engagements were fl See the act of congress, passed the I8th of April, 1806 ; and the act suspending it, passed the 19th of Deceiriber, 18C6. * Se« the rxite of ^c Bjriti«h c«imnisBi«nejrs, d*tei the 8th of Nov. 1806, C 2d entered into, on th« part of his majesty, as connected with the treaty, except such as appear upon the face of it.» The American government, however, with unabating solici- tade for peace, urged an ifnmediate renewal of the negociationff on the basis of the abortive treaty, until this course was pe- remptorily declared, by the British government, to be "wholly 7nadniis§ible."t But, iiidependent of the silence of the proposed treaty, upon the great topic of American complaint, and of the view which has been taken of the projected substitute ; the coDtempora- ncoas declaration of the British commissioners, delivered by the command of their sovereign, and to which the American envoys refused to make themselves a party, or to give the slightest degree of sanction, was regarded by the American go- vernment, as ample cause of rejection. In reference to the French decree, which had. been issed at Berlin, on the 21st of November, 1806, it was declared that if France should carry the throats of th^it decree into execution, and, if "neutral na- tions, contrary to all expectation, should acquiesce in such usur- pations, his majesty might probably be compelled, however re- luctantly, to retaliate, in his just defence, and to adopt, in re- regard to the commerce of neutral nations with his enemies, the same measures, which those nations should have permitted to be enforced, against their commerce with his subjects :" " that his majefty could not enter into the stipulations of the present treaty, v?ithout an explanation frem the United States of their intentions, or a reservation en the part of his majesty, in the case above mentioned, if it should even occur," and " that with- out a formal abandonment, or tacit relinquishment of the un- just pretensions of France, or without sueh conduct and assur- ances upon the part of the U. States, as should give security to his majesty that they would not submit to the French inno- vations, in the established system of maritime law, his majes- ty would not consider himself bound by the present signature of his commissioners to ratify the treaty, or precluded from adopt- in» such measures as might seem neccssai'y for countei-acting ,the designs of the enemy ."f The reservation of a power to invalidate a solemn treatj', at the pleasure of one of tlie parties, and the menace of inflicting punishment upon the United States for the offences of another nation, proved, in the event, a prelude to the scenes of violence which Great Britain was then about to display, and which it wuuH have been improper for the Ameiican negociators to an- ticipate. For, if a commentary were wanting to explain the real , deoign of sach conduct, it would be found in the fact, that with- in oiyjhtdays from the date of the treaty, and before it was pos- aible'for the British government to have known the effect of • Sec Mr. Canninff's letter to tlie American envoys, dated 27ih October, 1807. f See the same letter, , » Sec the note of the British commissioners, dated tJieSl.t of December 1806, See *lso Uie answer of Messrs. Monroe and Pinknsy to the saiae. 2:7 the Berlin decree on tlie American government ; nay, even be- 'fore the American government had itself heard of that decree, the desti'uction of American commerce was commenced by the order in council of the 7th January, 1807, whicU aunouiiced, *that no vessel should be permitted to trade from one port to another, both which ports should belong to, or be in possession of France, or her allies; or should be so far under their control, as that British vessels might not trade freely thereat."^ During tha whole period of this negociation which did not finally close until the British Government declared, in the month of October, 1807, that negociation was no longer admis- gible, the course pursued by the British squadron, stationed more immediately on the American coast, was in the extreme, vexatious, predatory and hostile. The territorial jurisdiction of the United States, extending, upon the principles of the law of nations, at least a league over the adjacent ocean, was total- ly disregarded and contemned. Vessels employed in the coast- ing trade, or in the business of the pilot and Usherman, were objects of incessant violence ; their petty cargoes were plunder- ad ; and eome of their scanty crews were often either impress- ed, or wounded, or killed, by the force of British frigates. Brit- ish ships of war hovered, in warlike display, upon the coast ; blockaded the ports of the United States, so that no vessel could enter or depart in safety ; penetrated the bays and rivers »nd even anchored in the harbors of the -United States, to exer- cise a jurisdiction of impressnient ; threatened the towns and villages with conflagration, and wantonly discharged musket- ry, as well as cannon, upon the inhabitants of an open and ua^ protected country. The neutrality of the American territory waa violated on every occasion ; and, at last, the American go* vernment was doomed to suffer the greatest indignity which could be offered to a soverign and independent nation, in the *ver memorable attack of a British 5\) gun ship, under the countenarsce of the British squadron, anchored within the wa- iters of the United States, upon the frigate Chesapeake, peacea' bly prosecuting a distant voynge. The British government af- fected from time to time to difrapprove and condemn these out" rages; but the officer.s who perpetrated them were generally applauded ; if tried, they were acquitted ; if remeved from thf- American station, it was only to be promoted in another sta^ tion ; and if attonement were offered, as in the flagrant in- stance of the frigate Chesapeake, the atonement was so ungra- cious in the manner, and so tardy in the result, as to beti-ay the want of that conciliatory spirit which ought to have char^ acterizedit.* § See the ordei- in council of January 7, i 807. * See the evidence of these fr>cts reporttd'lo contjress in November 180ci. See the c^ocuments respecting capt. Love, of the'Urlverjc.iptian \\ hitby, of the Ijccuider, and capt&in See also the correspondence respeclinp tlie frigate'Cbcsapeake, with Mr. Canning at London ; with Mr. Hose at Washington ; with Mi*. Erskint^at 'Washington i ar4 witij . . ,. . ' «8 Bat the Atn*riei,Ti government, goothing the exMper&te4 •pirit of the people, by a proclamation, which interdicted the ■entrance of all British armed vessels, into the harbours ani water of the United States,f neither oommenced hostilities a- gainst Great Britain ; nor sought a defensive alliance with France ; nor relaxed in its firm but conciliatory efforts to en- force the claims of justice upon the honor of both nations. The rival ambition of Great Britain and France, now, hoTf- ever, approached the consummation, which, involving the de- ■truction of all neutral rights, upon an avowed principle of ac> tion, could not fail to render an actual state of war, compara-> lively, more safe, and more prosperous, than the imaginary state of peace, to which neutrals were reduced. The just and impartial conduct of a neutral nation, ceased to be its shield and its safeguard, when the conduct of the belligerent powers towards each other, became the only criterion of the law of war. The wrong committed by one of the belligerent powers, was thus made the signal for the perpetration of a greater wrong by the other; and if the American government com- plained to both powers, their answer, although it never denied the causes of complaint, invariably retorted an idle and offen- ftive inquiry, into the priority of their respective aggressions; or each demanded a course of resistance against its antagonist, which was calculated to prostrate the American right of self-go- vernment, and coerce the United States, against their interest and their policy into becoming an associate in the war. But the American government never did, and never can, admit, that a belligerent power, " in taking steps to i-estrain the violence of its enemy, and to retort upon them the evils of their own in- Justice,":f is entitled to disturb and destroy, the rights of a neu- tral power, as recogni'zed and established, by the law of na- tions. It was impossible indeed, that the real features of the miscalled retalliatory system should be long masked from the world ; when Great Britain, even in her acts of professed re- taliiatioi^ de 'lared that France was unable to execute the hos- tile denunciations of her decrees ;ll and when Great Britain herself, unblushingly, entered into the same commerce with her enemy (through the medium of forgeries, |>erjurlcs and licen- ces) from which she had interdicted unoffending neutrals. — The pride of naval superiority ; and the cravings of commer- oial n>onapoly ; gave after all, the impulse and direction to the councils of the British cabinet; while the vast although vision- ary, projects of France, furnished occasions and pretests, for accomplishing the objects of those councils. The British minister, resident at Washington, in the year wot, having distinctly recognized, in the name of his sover- eign, the legitimate principles of blockade, the American go- vernment received) with some surprise and solieilude, the euo- f Set' the proeliunation of the 2nd of July, 180jr. ^ vSec tt»« onlcr.i in council of the /th of January, ISOJ^C 1 3c« tht orderii la cwaciief ti^ 7th of Januar^i 1907> 29 ccusive tiotlficatiotis of the 9th of August, ISM, the 8th of A- pril, 1806, and move pavlicularly, of the loth of May, 1806, an- fiouncing, by the last notification, "a blockade, of the coast, ri- vers, and porti», from the river Elbe to the port of Brest, both inclusive."^ In none of the notified instances of blockade, were the principles, that had been recognized in lh04, adopted and pursued, and it will be recollected by all Europe, that neither at the time of the notitication, of the loth of May, 1806, ; nor at the time of excepting the Elbe and Ems, from the opera- tion of that notification ;1[ nor at any time, during the contin- uance of the French war, was there an adequate naval force. actually applied by Great Britain, for the purpose of maintain- ing a blockade from the river Elbe, to the port of Brest. It was then m the language of the day, " a mere paper blockade" a manifest infraction of the law of nations ; and an act of pecu- liar injustice, to the United States, as the only neutral power,- {igainst which it would practically operate. But whatever may have been the sense of the American government on the occa- sion; and whatever might be the disposition, to avoid making this the ground of an open rupture with Great Britain, thd case assumed a character of the highest interest, when, inde- pendent of its own injurious consequences, France in the Ber- lin decree of the 21st of November, 1806, recited, as a chief cause for placing the British islands in a state of blockade, *' that Great Britain declares block-ucu, placre brfove which ahe has nota single vessel of war; and even places which Ler tlnited fo''ces would be incapable of blockading ; such as entire coasts, and a whole empire: an unequalled abuse of the right of blockade, that had no other object, than to interrupt the ccmniu- nications of different nations; and to extend the commerce and industry of England, upon the ruin of those nations."* The American governiftent aims not, and never has aimed, at the justification, either of Great Britain, or ef France, in their ca- reer of crimination and recrimination : but it is of some iropoT- tance to observe, that if the blockade of May, 1806, was an unlavpful blockade, and if the right of retaliation arose with the first unlawful attack, made by a belligerent power upon neutral rights, Great Britain has yet to answer to mankind, according to the rule of her own acknowledgment, for all the calamities of the retaliatory warfare. France, whether right or wrong, made the British system of blockade, the foundation of the Berlin dacree ; and France had an equal right with Great Britain, to demand from the United States, an opposition to e- very encroachment upon the privileges of the neutral charac- ter. It is enough, however, on the present occasion, for the A- merican government, to observe, that it possessed no power to prevent the framing of the Berlin decree, and to disclaim any § See Lord Harrowb) 's note to Mr. Mum oe, dated the 9th of A»igust, 1&04, and Mr, Fox's notes to Mr. Munroe, dated respectively the 8th of A- j^ril, and tiie 16th of IVIay, 1806. ,^ % SeeLtiid Howick's note to Mr. Mnnroe, dated the 25th of Sept. 1806. . * S«« tlie Berlin decree of the 21st of November, 1806, 30 approbation of its principles, or acquiescence in its opcrationsr for, it neither belonged to Great Britain, nor to France, to pre- scribe to the American government, the time, or the mode, or the degree, of resistance, to tlie indignities, and the outra- ges, with which each of those nations, in its turn, assailed the United States. liut it has been sTiown, that after the British government f06ses«ed a knowledge of the existence of the Berlin decree, it authorized th« conclusion of the treaty witli the United States, whicli was signrd at liOndon. on the .'Jlst of December, 1806, reserving to itself a power of annulling the treaty, if F'rance did not revoke, or if the United States, as a neutral power, did not resist, the obnoxious measure. It has, also, been shown, that before Great Britain could possibly ascertain, the deter- mination of the United States, in relation to the Berlin decree, the orders in council of the 7th of January, 1807, were issued, professing to be a retaliation against France, " at a time when the fleets of France and her allies were themselves confined within their own ports, by the superior valor and disci])line of tlie British navy."f but operating, in fact, against the United ' Stales, as a neutral power, to prohibit their trade *' from one jfort to aiicrthor, both which ports should belong to, or be in the possession of, France or her allies, or should be so far un- der their control, as that British vessels might not trade freely thereat. "f It remains, however, to be stated, that it was not until the 12th of March, 1807, that th» Brititih minister, thea residing at Washington, communicated to the American gov- ernment, in the- name of his sovereign, the orders in council of January, 1807, with an intimation, that stronger measures •would be pursued, unless the United States should resist the o- per^tions of the Berlin decree.:]: At the moment the British go- vernment was reminded, " that within the period of those great events, which continued to agitate Europe, instances had occur- Tcd, in which the commerce of neutral nations, more especially of the United States, had experienced the severest distresses from its own orders and measures, manifestly unauthorized by the law of nations," assurances were given, " that no culpable acqui- oflccnce en the part of the United States would render them ac- oessarv to the proceedings of one belligerent nation, through their rightsof neutrality, against the commerce of its adversa- ry ;" and the nght of Great Britain to issue such orders, unless as orders of blockade, to be enforced according to the law of na- tions, was utterly denied. || This candid and explicit avowal of the sentiments of the A- merican government, upon an occasion so novel and important in the history of nations, did not, however, make its just im- f See the order in council of the 7ih January 1807. < See Mr F.ibkinc's letter to tlie Sccittary of «talc, dated the 12th of Llaroh, 1^07. , ,,.„„,.- II Sec the secretary of state's letter to Mr. Erskine, dated the ZOth eJ March, ISOJk 31 CTCsaion npon the British cahinct ; for, without assigning any new provocation on the part of France, and complaining, mere^ ly, that neutral powers had not been induced to interpose, with efl'Vct, to obtain a revocation of the Berlin decree, (which, howe- ver, Great Britain herself had affirmed to be a decree nominal and inoperative) the orders in council of the lith of November 1807, were issued, declai-ing, "that all the ports and places of France and lier ullies, or of aiiy oilier country at war with hi» majesty, and all other ports or places in Europe, from which, al- though not at war with higinajesty, the British flag was exclud- ed, and all ports or places in the colonies belonging to his majesty's enemies, should, from thenceforth, be subject to the same restrictions, in point of trad^ and navigation, as if the same were actually blockaded by his majesty's naval forces, in the most strict and rigorous manner:" that "all trade in arti- cles which were the produce or manufacture ol' the said coun- tries or colonies, should be deemed and considered to be unlaw- ful ;" but that neutral vessels should still be permitted to trade with Fi-ance from certain free ports, or through ports and pla- ces of the British dominions ^ To accept the lawful enjoyment ©f a right as the grant of a superior ; to prosecute a lawful commerce, under the forms of favor and indulgence ; and to pay a tribute to Great Britain for the privilege of a lawful tran- sit on the ocean; w€re concessions which Great Britain was disposed, insidiously, to exact, by an appeal to the cupidity c^ individuals, but which the United States could never \it:ld, con- sistently with the independence and sovereignty of the nation. The orders in council were, therefore, altered, in this respect. tt a subsequent period ;ir but the general interdict of neutral commerce, applying more especially to American commerce, tras obstinately maintained against all the force of reason, of remonstrance, and of protestation, employed by the American government, when the subject was presented to its considera- tion by the British minister residing at Washington. The fact assumed as the basis of the orders in council was unequivocally disowned ; and it was demonstrated, that so far from its being true " that the United States had acquiesced in the illegal o- peration of the. Berlin decree, it was not even true that at the date of the British orders of the Uth of November, 1807, a single application of that decree to the oommerce of the Unit- ed States, on the high seas, could have been known to the jElri- tish government;'' while the British government had been offi- cially informed by the American minister at liondou, " that explanations, uncontradicted by any overt act, had been givei* to the American minister at Paris, which justified a reliance that the French decree would not be put in force against the United States."* § See the orders in council of the TIth of November, 1807. jf See Mr. Canning's letter lo Mr.Pinknfv, 23d of February, 1808. • See Mr. Erskine's letter to the secretary of .state, dated 22nd of Febru- ary, 1808; and the answer of the secretary of stale, dated 25lhof Marchj S2; The British orders of the 11th of November, 1S07, s/er^ j^ickly followed by the French decree of Milan, dated the 17th of December, 1807, *• which was said to be resorted to', only in just retaliation of the barbarous system adopted by England," and in which the denationalizing tendency of the orders, is made the foundation of a diclaration in the decree, •* that every ship to whatever nation it might belong, that should have submitted to be searched by an English ship, or to a voy- age to England, or should have paid any tax whatsoever to the English government, was thereby, and for that alone, declared to be denationalized, to have forfeited the protection of its sova- Teign, and to have become English property, subject to cap- ture as good and lawful prize: that the British Islands were placed in a state of blockade, both by sea and land — and every «hip, of whatever nation, or whatever the nature of its cargo might be, that sails from ports of England, or those of the En- glish colonies, and of the countries occupied by English troops, and proceeding to England, or to the English colonies, or to countries occupied by English troops, should be good and law- ful prize : but that the provisions of the decree should be abro- gated and null, in fact, as soon as the English should abide a» gain by the principles of the law of nations, which are, also, the principles of justice and honor."-f- In opposition, however, to the Milan decree, as well as to the Berlin decree, the American government strenuously and unceasingly employed every in- strument, except the instruments of war. It acted precisely to- ^aras rrane*! as it actea wwarns it-cr? Mriiai^i, ?H s'jn^ar oc casions ; but France remained, for a time, as insensible to ifeiS claims of justice and honor as Great Britain, each imitating the ether in extravagance of pretension and in obstinacy of purpose. VVhen the American government received intelligence that the orders of the 1 1th of November, 1807, had been under the considerrtion of the British cabinet, and were actually prepar- ed for promulgation, it was anticipated that France, in a zealour prosecution of the retaliatory warfare, would soon produce an act of, at least, equal injustice and hostility. The crisis existed, therefore, at which the United States were compelled to decide either to withdraw their seafaring citizens, and their commer- cial wealth from the ocean, or to leave the interest of the marin- er and the merchant exposed to certain destruction ; or to en- gage in open and active war, for the protection and defence of those interens. The principles and the habits of the American government were still disposed to neutrality and peace. In wei'^hin" the nature and the amount of the aggressions which had' been perpetrated, or which were threatened, if there were any preponderance to determine the balance, against one of the belligerent powers, rather than the other, as the object of a declaration of war; it was against fricat Britain, at least, upon the vital interest of impressment ; and the obviouB auperi- t See UieMilwi decree of the 17U> of December, 18Q7. SB <&r!ty of her n*val means of annoyance. The Prencli 6*ftfewed with the nation so doing.* The*e appeals to the justice and the inlfrests of the belligerent powers proving ineffectual j ■ and the necessities of the countJ'y increasing, it was finally re- solved, by the Anierican government, to talte the hazards of a war ; to revoke its restrictive system ; and to exclude Britieh and French armed vessels from the harbours and waters of the United States ; but, again, emphatically to announce, that in case either Great Britain or France, should, before the third of March, 1811. so revoke, or modify, her edicts, as that they should cease to violate the neutval ccmmeree of the U- nited States ; and if the other nation should not, within three months thereafter, so revoke, or modify her edicts in likeman- ffler," the provi»ons of the non intercourse and nonimportation law should, at the expiration of three months be revived against, the nation refusing or neglecting, to revoke, or modify its e- dict f In the course which the American government had hithert© pursued, relative to the belligerent orders and decrees, the can>- did foreign©?, as well as the patriotic citizen, may perceive an extreme solicitude, for the preservation of peace ; but in the pub- Bic:ty and impartiality, of the overture, that was thus spread before the bi'lligerent powers, it is impossible, that any i'ldica- tioJi. should be found, of foreign influence or control. The o- verture was urged upon both nations for acceptance, at the sama time, and in the same raannfr; nor was an intimation withheld from either of them, that "it might be regarded by the bellige- rent first accepting it, as a promise to itself, and a warning to its enemy/'l Each of the nations, from the commencement of the retafiatory system, acknovvledged, that its measures were vi- olations of piiblic law ; and each pledged itself to retract them, whenever the otbf r should set the example.il Although the A- merican government, therefore, persi.sted in its remonstrances a^ gain«tthe original tran.<;grcssion8, without regard to the queetioa of their priority, it embraced, with eagerness, every hope of re- conciling tho interests of the rival powers with a performance of the duty which they owed to the neutral character of the United States:' and wh.en the Britieh minister, residing at Washington, *• .Sec ilip act of Conp-ess pasBed the first day of March, 1809. • See tlx! 11th soctjon of the l.ist cited act of congress. •^ Sec the act of c fntention&; and-in all the contidence, whichthe official act of tha. represantative of his Britannic naajesty^ wascalculated to inspire. . The act. and the anthoi*ity for the act, were, however. di«avow- ©d by Gi'eat Britain; and an attempt was made, by the succes- sor of Mr. Erskine, through the aid of insinuations, which were ■ indignantly repulsed^ to justify the British rejection of the trea-» ty of 1809, by referring to the American rejection of the treaty of 1806; forgetful of the e6s.ential points of difl'ereiice, that the British government, on the former occasion, had been explicit- • ty apprized by the Amrrican aegotiators of their defect of pow-i fv; and that the execution of the projected treaty had not, on- oither side, be«n commenced If After this abortive attempt to obtain a just and honorable re-"^- vocation of the British orders in council, the United States wero; again invited to indulge the hope of safety and tranquility, when . the minister of France announcd to the American minister at ' Pari.s, that in consideration of the act of the 1st of May, 1809,-- by which the congress cf the United States *' engaged to oppose - itself to that one of the belligerent powers which should' refusa' to acknowledge the rights of neutrals, he was authorized to de-- clare that the decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked, and : thatafterthe 1st of November, 1810, they would cease to have- effect; it being understood, that in consequence of that declara* tion, the English should revoke their orders in council, and re-, nounce the new principles of blockade, which they had wished to estabhsh ; or that the United States, conformably to the act . of congress, should cause their rights to be respected by the En- glish "ff This declaration delivered by the official organ of the government of France, and in the presence, as it were, of the § Sue ilie coiTCspondence between Mr. Erskine, the British minister, and t.hr secretary of state on the irfh, 18th, and 19th of April, 18o9, and the Presidenl's proclamation ot'the last date. ^ See the correspondence between the secretary of state, and Mr. Jack. «on, the Hritish minister. n See the duke de Cadore's letter to Mi". Armstrong dated the 5th of Ail- Jfust^ 1810. I'rerfcili Boverfti^n, was of the highest authority, according to a^ the rules of diplomatic intorcourae ; and, certdnly, far surpassed any claim of credence, which was possessed by the British mi- ftjster, residing at Washington, when the arrangement o{ tlie year 1809, was accepted and executed by the Anierican aovem- taent. The president of the United States, tlierefore, owed to the consistency of his own character, and to the dictates of a eincere Impartiality, a prompt acceptance of the French over- ture: and, accordingly, the authoritative promise, that the fact should exist at the stipulated period, being again admitted as con- clusive evidence of its existence, a proclamation was issued on the 2d of November, 1810, announcing '-that the edicts of France had been so revoked, as that they ceased, on the Ist day of the same month, to Violate the neutral commerce of the U States : and that all the restriction? imposed by the act of con- fress, should then cease and be discontinued, in relation to 'ranee and her deper!dencie8."ft That Finance, from this e- poch, refrained from all aggressions on the high seas, or even in oev own poi'ts, upon the persons and the property of the citizens of the U. States, never was asserted ; but, on the^ •ontrary, h«t violence and her spoliations have been unceasing causes of complaint. These subsequent injuries, constituting a yart of the existing reclamations of the United States, were, al- ways, however, disavowed by the French government ; whilst the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees has, on every occa- sion, been agjrmed,^ insomuch that Greai Britain h6i*seb" Wft>» M last, eompellecl to yield to the evidence of the fact. On the expiration of three months from the date of the presi- dent's proclamation, the non intercourse and non importation Iftw was, of course, to be revived against Great Britain, unless, during that period, her orders in council should be revoked. — The subject was, therefore, most anxiously and most steadily pressed upon the justice and the magnanimity of the British go- vernment; and even when the hope of success expired, by the kipse of the period prescribed in one act of congress, the United States opened the door of recenciliation by another act, which, in the year 1811, again provided, that incase, at any time, " G. Britain should so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States ; the president of the United should declare the fact by proclamation ; and that the i*€8trietions, previously imposed, should, from the date of such proclamation, cease and be discontinued.''* But, unhappily, every appeal to the justice and magnanimity of Great Britain was now^ as heretofore, fruitless and forlorn. She had, at this epoch, impressed from the crews of American merchant vessels, peaceably navigating the high seas, not less than six thousand mariners, who claimed to be citizens of the United States, and who were denied all opportunity to verify their claims. She had seized and confiscated the commercial properj ff See the President's proclamition of the 2n(\ of November, 1810. * Sec tlie act of coiigrc&s, passed Mm 2iid of March, ISll. -37 •f Atnerlcto cithcns fd an hicikulable amount. She had uttit» ^ed in the enormities of France, to declare a great proportion oi the terraqueous globe in a etate of blockade ; chasing the Ame- rican merchant liag eifectually from the ocean. She had con- temptuoualy disregarded the neutrality of the American territo^ ry, and the juriBdiction of the American laws, within the wa» ters and harbors of the United States. She was enjoying the emolivments of a surreptitious trade, stained with every apeciea of fraud and corruption, which gave to the belligerent powers, the advantages of peace, while the neutral powers were involv- ed itt the evils of war. She had, in short, usurped and exercis- ed on the water, a tyranny similar to that, which her great an- tagonist had usurped and exercised upon the land. And, amidst &\] these proofs of ambition, and avai-ice, she demanded that the victims of her usurpations and her violence, should revere her «0 the sole defender of the rights and liberties of mankind. Wheja, therefore, Great Britain, in manifest violation of her solemn promises, refused to follow the example of trai ce, by the repeal of her orders in counuil, the American government was compelled to contemplate a resort to arms, as the only re- maining course to be pursued, for its honor, it* independence, and its safety. Whatever depended upon the United States themselves, the United States had performed for the preser- vation of peace, in resistance of the French decrees, as well as of the British orders. What had been required from France in its relation to the neutral character of the United States, France had performed, by the revocation of its Berlin and Mi- lan decrees. But who* depended upon Great Britain for the purposes of justice, in the repeal of her ovders in council, was withheld ; and new evasions were sought, when the old were ex- hausted. It was, at one time, alleged, that satisfactory proof was not afforded, that France had repealed her decrees against the commerce of the United States ; as if such proof alone wet© wanting, to ensure the performance of the British promise f— At another time, it was insisted, that the repeal of the French decrees, in their operation against the United States in order iff authorise a demand for the performance of the British promise, must be total, applying equally to their internal, and their ex- ternal eifecta; as if the United States had either the right «r the power to impose upon France the law of her domestic institn- tions.^: And it was. finally, insisted, in a despatch from kn-d Cas- tlereagh to the British m nister, residing at Washington, in the year 1812, which was officially communicated to the American government, " that the decrees of Berlin a»d Milan must not be 'repealed singly and specially, in relation to the United States ; but must be repealed, also, as to all other neutral nations ; and that in no l'>ss extent of a repeal of the French decrees, had the British govei*nmfnt ever pledged itself to repeal the orders in •f See the correspondence between Mr. finkJKy and tb« Bntisb govtre- ■ftent. I Ske tbc lctt«n «{ Mr. £r»kin«. 'v38 council :**il as if it were incumbent on the United States, not only to assert lierown rights, but to become the coadjutor of the B. itish government, in a gratuitous assertion of the rights of all other nations. The Congress of the United States could pause no longer.-— Under a deep and aflSicting sense of the national wrongs, ani ■ the national resentments — wiiiie they " postponed definitive measures with respect to France, in the expectation that the result of unclosed discussions between the American minister at Paris and the French government, would speedily enable -them to decide, with greater advantage, on the course due to the rights, the interests, and the honor of our country ;"* they pronounced a deliberate and solemn declaration of war, between ■Great Britain and the United States, on the 18th of June, 1812, But, it is in the face of all the facts which have been dis- played in the present narrative, that the Prince Regent, by his •declaration of January, 1813, describes the United States as the aggressor in the war. If the act of declaring war constitutes, in all cases, the act of original aggression, the United States must submit to the severity of the reproach; but if the act of declaring war may be more truly considered as the result of long saffering, and necessary self defence, the American govern- ment will stand acquitted, in the sight of Heaven, and of the world. Have the United States, then, enslaved the subjects^, confiscated the property, prostrated the commerce, insulted ths flag, or violated the territorial sovreignty of Great Britain— Jfo; but, in all these respects, the United States had sutYered, for a long per-iod of years previously to the declaration of war, the contumely and outrage of the British government.— It has been said, too. as an aggravation of the imputed ag- gression, that the U. States chose a period for their declaration of war, • when Great Britain was stixiggiing for her own ex istencc, against a power which threatened to overthrow the in- dependence of all Europe; but it might be more truly said* that the United States, not acting upon choice, but upon com= .pulsion, delayed the declaration of war, until the persecutions of Great Britain had rendered farther delay destructiveand disgraceful. Great Britain had converted the commerciaJ scenes of American opulence and prosperity, into scenes of com- parative poverty and distress ; she had brought the existence of the United States, as an independent nation, into question ; end surely, it must have been indiifercnt to the United States^ whether they ceased to exist as an independent nation, by her conduct, while she professed friendbhip, or by her conduct whea ■she avowed enmity and revenge. Nor is it true, that the ex- istence of Great Britain was in danger, at the epoch of the declaration of war. The American government uniformly en- tertained an opposite opinion ; and, at all times, saw more to !| Sf." the c jrrespondence between the secretary of state and Mr. Foster, t]\e Finlish mlnisttrin .Fuiie, 1812. • S.;c titc prcsident'ti me.ss ge of the 1st of Juuf, 181 ■" ; and the report cf the committee of foi-cign rclati^^ns, to whom the mesaa^e >vas rtfene«2> ' 39 Apprehend for the United States, from her maTftime power, 'than from the territorial power of her enemy. The event h«B justified the opinion and the apprehension. But what the Unit- eri States asked, as essential to their welfare, and even as ban- eficial to the allies of Great Britain, in the European war, G, Britain, it ie manifeet, tnight have granted, without impairing " the resources of her own strength, or the splend ^r of her own sovereignty ; for her orders in council have been since revoked ; "Bot, it is true, as the performance of her promise, to follow, in this respect, the example of France, since she finally rested tho ' obligation of that promise upon a r^-peal of the French decrees, as to all nations ; and the repeal was only as to the United States ; nor as an act of natioi.-.i justice towards the United States ; but simply, as an act of doBiestic policy, for the special advantage of her own people. The British government bae, also, described the war as ft war of aggrandisement and conquest, on the part of the Unit- ed States ; but where is the foundation for the charge? While Che American government employed every means to dissuade the Indians, «ven those who lived within the territory, and were supplied by the bounty of the .United States, from taking any part in the war,f the proofs were irresistible, that the enemy pursued a very different course 4 and that every precaution would be necessary, to prevent the etfects of an offensive aili= ance between the British troops and the savages throughout the northern frontier of the U. States. Ttje military occupation of Upper Canada was, therefore, deemed indispensable to tlj« safety of that frontier, in the earliest movements of tlie war, in- dependent of all views of extending the territorial boundary of the United States But, when war was declared, in resentment for injuries which had been suffered upon the Atlantic, what principle of public law, what modification of civilized warfare, imposed upon the U. States the duty of abstaining from thein- -vasian of the Canad&s ? It was there alone, that the United Sts tc^s could place themselves upon an equal footing of militt- tary force with Great Britain ; and it was there that they might reasonably encourage the hope of being able, in the pro* secution of a lawful retaliation, "torcatrain the violence of tho enemy, and to retort upon him the evils of his own injuf.tice.'* The proclamations issued by the American commanders, on en- tering Upper Canada, have, however, been adduced by the Brx- -tish np.gociatorS at Ghent, as the proofs cf a spirit of ambition and aggrandisement, on the part of theit- government In truth, the proclamations were not only Tinauthoiiscii and disapproved, but were infractions of the positive instructions which had been given, for the conduct of the war in Canada. When the gene- ral commanding tlie north we&tern army of the United States received, on the 24.thof June, 1812, his first authority to com- . t See tiie proceedin.srs of the councils held with the Iiidiiuis, during the expedition under Brig'udier fienend Hull, and ihe talk delivered by the President of the U. States, to the six nations, at WashiiiEftou on the dth of April, I«l.}. . ' t-Seethe documents laid before congress, or the 13 .h of June, 181*. 49 06nc« offensive operationa, he was especially totd, that " he. muat Qot consider himself authorised to pledge the government to the inhabitants of Canada, further than assurances of pro- teotioa m their persons, property and rights." And on the ensu- ing Ist of August, it was emphatically declared to him, " that it had become necessary, that he should not lose sight of the in- structions of the 24th of June, as any pledge beyond that wa« iuco npatible with the views of the government."* Such wa» the nature of the charge of American ambition and aggran- ened, that the goverji- ment of the U'lited States, has least exhibited m^^ks of conde- scension and co-Ticession to the successive rulers. If^s lorGieat Britain, more pur.icularly, as an accuser, to examine and explain the consi.'itencv of the reproaches, which she has uttWed against the United States, with the course of her own conduct ; with her repeated iiegociations, during the republican, as well as dur- ing the impirinl. sway of France ; with her solicitude to njake an>- jcct, which might otherwise have been indispensible precau- tions. Hitherto the American government has shewn the juetice of its cause; its respect for the rights of other nations; and its inherent love of peace. But the scenes- of war will also exiiibit a striking contrast, between the conuuct of the United States, and the conduct of Great Britain. The same ineiduoiis policy wliich taught the prince regent to describe the Ameri- can governmenit as the aggressor in tlie war, has inducea the British government (clouding the daylight, truth, of the trans- action) to call the attrocities of the British fleets and armies, a retaliation upon the example of the American troops in Cana^ da. The United States tender a solemn appeal tc the civilized world, against the fabrication of such a chaige ; and they vouch, in support of their appeal, the known morals, habits a!>d pursuits of their people ; the character of tlicir civil and politi- cal institutions ; and the whole career of their navy jind ths-ir army, as humane, as it is brave. Upon what pretext did iLe British admiral, on the 18th of August, Ibl-i, announce his de- termination, " to des'.roy and lay waste such towns and districts upon the coast as might be found assailable?'* It was the pjretext of a request from the governor general of the Canadas, for aid to carry into effect measui-es of retaliation; while in fact, the barbarous nature of the war had been deliberately st-t- led and prescribed by the British cabinet. What couid havs been the foundation of such a request? The outrages and i. reg- ularities which too often occur during a state of national hostil- ities, in violution of the laws of civilized warfare, are always to be lamented, disavowed and repaired, Uy a just and honourable gov*rnm€nt; but if disavowal be made, and if reparation b. of- fered, there is no foundation for retaliatory violence. '• What- ever unauthorised irregularity niay have been committed b3- a- ay of the troops of the United States, the American govein- ment has been ready, upon pi'inciples of sacred and eternal ot- Sigaticn, to disavow, and as far as it might bepractcable, to re- pair.';! In every known instance (and they arefcw) the olTen- ders have been subjected to the regular investigation of a n)il- itary tribunal ; and an officer, commanding a party of stragler?, ■•.vho were guilty of unworthy esce^^cs, was inimedi?tely dis- missed v/ithout the form of a trial, for not preventing those cx- <-es.ses. The destruction of the village of Newark, adjacent to Fort Gecrge. on the 10th of Decem.ber, 18;3, was long subse- quent to the pillage and conflagration committed on the shoies * Si e ndinii-al Ccchrane's letter to Mr. Monroe, dated the 18lh of August . 18U ; and .Mr. Moiiroe'a ;ins\vtr of the Gtli Septcnibei', 1814. f See the letter from tlie secrc'.-irv cf vur to briffadkr gf'rcral >f'Lure, rlated 4tb of October, 1813. 46 of the Chesapeake, throughout the eummpr of the gRind year and miglit faiilv have been alleged as a retaliation for those' outrages ; but, in fact, it was justified by the American com- mander, who ordered it, on the ground, that it became necessa- ry to the military operations at that place ;t while the Ameri- can government, as soon as it heard of the act, on the 6th of January, i.814, ins^tructed the general commanding the north- era arrny, •' to divivow the conduct of the officer who commit- ted it, and to transmit to governor Prevost, a copy of the order, under colour of w':ich that officer had acted."|l This disavow al was accordingly communicated ; and on the ICHh of Februri' ry, 1814-. Gov. Prevost answered, "that it had been with great sat'sfaction. ho liad received the assurance, that the perpeti-ation of the burning the tov^n of Newark, was both unauthorised by the Amc!rican governnieHt, and abhorrent to every American feeling; that rf any oiiti'ages had ensued the wanton and unjtistT- f^sblo destruction of Newark, passing the bounds of just retali- ation, they were to be attributed, to the influence of irritated passions, on the part of the unfortunate sufferers by that wer.t which, in a state of active warfare, it has not been possible alto- gether to restrain ; and that it was as little congenial to the- dispof^ition of his majesty's government, as it was to that of the government of ihe United States, deliberately l; dated tfie 2^1,1) of .Timiiarv, 181 1, and the «nsw^r of Sir George I'revost, on the IQlli (u February, lfj;4- 47 compel him agiin id resort to it."* Nay, with hJB an.iwer le the Amorieaa generil, already mentioned, ho trari-inilted " a copy of that proclainalion, as expressive nf the determination, as to his future line of conduct;" and added, "that he was hap- py to learn, that tlicre was no probiiity, that any measures on the part of the American government would oblige him to de- part from it."t Where then shall we search for the foundation of the call upon the British admiral, to aid t'le governor of Canada in m'iasures of retaliation ? Great Britain forgot the principles of retaliation, when her orders in council were issu- ed ag;aint>t the unoffending neutral, in resentment of outrages committed by hi;r enemy ; and surely, she had again forgotterv the same principle, when, slie tiir atened an unceasing violation of the laws of civilized wai'f.ire, in retalition for injuries which never existed, or which the American government had explicit- ly disavowed, or wliich had been already avenged by her own arms, in a manner and a degree, cruel and unparalieied. The American government after all, has not hesitated to declare, that "for the reparation of injuries, of whatever nature they may be, not sanctioned by the law of nation.*-, which the miiita- ry or naval force of either power might have committed aga nst the other, it would alv/ays be ready to enter into reciprocal ar- rangements ; presuming that the British govcinment would neither expect, nor proiiose, any which were not reciprocal. ':|: It is now, however, proper to examine the character of the warfare, which Great Britain has waged against the United States. In Europe, it has already been marked with astonish ment and indignation, as a warfare of the tomahawk, the scalp- ing knife and the torch ; as a warfare, incompatible with tlie usages of civilized nations; as a warfare, tiiat, discliiming ail moral influence, inflict.? an outrage upon social order, and gives a shock to the very elements of htiraanity. All beiiigeren^ na- tions can form alliances with the savage, the African and the bloodhound; but what civilized nation has selected these auxil- iaries, in its hostilities ? It does not require the fleets and ar- mies of Gi'eat Britain to lay waste an open country ; to buin Unfortiiied towns, or unprotected villages ; nor to plunder the merchant, the farmer and tiie planter of his stores — these ex- ploits may easily be achieved by a single cruizer. or a petty privateer; but when have such exploiis been performed en the coasts of the continent of Europe, or of the British Islands, by the naval and military force of any belligerent power; or when have they been tolerated by anv honourable govrrnment, as the- predatory enteipnse of armed individuals ? Nor, is the destruc- tion of the public edifices, which adorn the metropolis of a • Se,^ Sir George Prevo.st'^ proclamation^ rluted rJ Qviebec, on tlie 12tli of Jan'iaiy, 114 t f^'»a» furnished with a cry^jher " i'or carrying on the secret corres- rondcnce"il The virtoe and palriotisiii of the citizi'.ns uf the United Slatej were superior to the arts and cor; uption eit.plny- ed in this secret end cor-fidentiStl'inissicn, if it cverw, s (l ch»a- ed to any cf tliem ; and the m^Sdion itself term nafrd ug aoon 83 the arrantiCtiKnt -with M.-. F-iskine w8f announced. (— But, in the afft of recaning the secret emissary, he was inform- ed "that the whole of hie" le(t<;rs wei*e trair-crihiiig to bf' sent home, where they could not fail of doing him p,reat credit, and it was hoped they might evcjitunlly contribute to his per- manent advantage/'**" To endeavor to realise that hope, the emissary p:'oceeded to 1 ondon ; all the circi)n)st8nfe6 of his mission were "madekrown to the British minister ; his services v.'ere approved and aclindwledged ; a^d he via s scut to Canada for a reward ; with a'receJiimcndatury letter from Pord jLiver- ipool to sir George Prevost, "stating his lordship's opinion of •^he ability -and judgment which Mr. Henry had manifested on the occasions mentioned in hio memorial, (his secret and confi- dential missions) and of the benetit the puhlic service might derive Ti-tfm his acHv? employment, in any public situation iii which Sir George Prevost might ttiink proper to place him,"ff The world Will judge tipon these facts, and the rejection of a •pariiameTJtary call for the production ^f the papers relating to them, what credit is due to the print e regent's assertion, " that Mr. Henry's mission was undertaken without the authority ot even knowledge of his majesty's government." The first mis- sion was cevtafnly ^tiown to the British government, at the time it occurred ; for the 'Kecretary of t?ie governor general ex- pressly states, "that the information and -political observations heretofore received frcm Mv. He«ry, were transmitt&d by his excellency to the secretary of ^tate, who had exprcseed his par- ticular apptobation of thetn ;"* the second mission was approv- -ed when it was known; afid it remains for the British govern- ment to explain, tipcn any established principles of moraHty and justice the essential difference between ordering the ©f- tensive acts to be done ; atid reaping the ffuit f those acta!, without eitherexptessly or tacitly condemning them. As'ain : These hostile rJtempts upon the peace and union of the U. S. precedihgihe declaration of war, have teen follow- ■ ed by similar tnachiTiStions. subsequent to that event. The go- vernor general of the Canada? has endeavored, occasionally, in his proclamations and gcTieral orders, to dirsuade the rjilitia / of the tT. S. from the performance of the duty which they owed II - ec the lett*t of $>?*■ Jamf s Craiq-, to Mr. Wenrv, c1at?tl Feb. 6, 1 809. % Sf^ethe.er.rne letter, and Mr.Kvij^nrl'sktter of the 26tli of.laiuiary, 18d9 ■V. •* |«« :Mr. Yivluiid's lett.?T, datfd tht- 26tb of June, 1809. _' tt *^^ ^^^^ letter fiom lord Liverpool to sir Ctorge Pi-evost, dated ibe ■ t6ih of ^e^-Jteirber. 18)1. . "3^6 !'. ir. Rylaiid's letter of the 26^b of January, 1809. . n to tlieir injured country ; and the efforts at liiiebecan^ Halifax to kindle the flame of civil war, have been a^ incessant as they have been insidious and abortive. Nay, the governor of the island •f Barbadoes, totally forgetful" of the boasted a.rticle of the Bri- tish magna charta, in favor of foreign merchants found within the British dominiona, upon the breaking out ©f hoetilitiep, re- solved that every American merchant within hisjuriBdiction «t the declaration of war, should, at once, be treated as a prison- er of war; because every citizen of the United States was en- rolled m the militia; because the militia of the U. States wer« required to serve their country beyon-d the linits of the state to winch they particularly belonged ; and because the militia of" aU the states which had acceded to thismea^iire were, in the view of sir George Beckwith, acting as a French conscription. '"f Again: Nor was this courije of. conduct coiifined to the colo- nial authorities. On the 2t)th of Octt-ber, 1812, the British go- vernment issued an order in cooncil authorising the g.overnors of the British West India islands to grant licenses to American Vessels, for the importation and exportation of certain articles enumerated i» the ordfr ; but, in the instructions which accom- panied the acter; and having for its object to dissolve the ties of allegi- ance, and the sentinjentsof loyalty, in the adversary nation ; arid to seduce and separate its compojient parte, the one from tJie other.-it 2. Great Britain has violated the laws of humanity and hon* or, by sef king alliances in the prosecution of the war, with sa- vages, pirates, and slaves. The British agency, in exciting the Indians at all times to comm t hosliliticri upon the frontier of the United States, is too notorious to admit of a direct and general denial It has some- times ho\^ever, been said, that such conduct was unauthorised bv the British government: and the prince regent, seizing the single in^'.ance of an intimation alh-tlged tube given ontliepart + Scii tii^ remarVable state ]rApev i-^sucd by governor Beckwilli, al Bar- batVips, on the mil of No\embi.r, 1«1>!. ,.,„ ,,., r * Rcr Hie piocluiriHtion of Hk^ govfin(.ror Pcrmuda, dated the '*»" .o» Jrmnan. IH14; and tlie instruclions ll-om the BriUsJi i>ccn;U.j,j ol ioit;»g» Aftiurs.' dated Nov. 9, 1812. , , . ^^^, „.,. i; See tl-.e iness.tjie dviu the president to congrets, dsitnl Uic:34Ui "t *c^ niary, 1^1.?. 51 ■ of Sir James Craig, governor of tho Oanatias, tjiat an attach ■was meditated by the Indians, has aftirmed, tliat ''the charga of exoicing the Indians to offenuive mea«;ure6 against the Unit- ed States was void of foundation ; that before the war began, a policy the nnost opi)o?ite had been uniformly purem d ; avd that proof of Ihis was tendered by Mr. Foster to the Ameiiean govern- itien!:."^ But is it not known in Europe as well as in Anjeriea, that t!ie Liritish Nor^h '.vest Company mainlaina constant inter- ccurse of trade ar>d council willithe Indians ; tliat their interests are often in Jirect collitjion with the interests of the inhabitants of the United States, and that by means of the inimical disposi- tions and th ■ active agencies of the company (seen, understoodj and tacitly aauctioned by the local au.tljoriti* s of Canada) all the evils of an Indian war may be shedupun tJie U. Stales, without the authority of a formal order^ emanating in.meuialely from the British government? Hence, the Americiin gDvernmcut, in an-^wer to tlie eva&ive protcbtations of the iJiitish minister residing at Washington, frankly commiinicuted the evidence tf Br.tibh agen^'y, which had been received at difi'erent period* iince the year 1807; and obscrvefl, "that whatever may have l>een thedigpositionof the British government, the conouct of its subordinate agents had tended to excite the hostihtj' of ths ladiin tribes towards the United States; and tliat in estimaiirg the comparative evidence on the suhject, it was impossible not to re "oliect tTie communication lately made retpecting tl.e con- duct of sir James Craig in another important transaction (the .•mployment of MV.. Henry as an accredited agent, to alienate and detach the citizens of a particular section of the Union from their government) which, it appeared, was approved by tiord Liverpcof 'ir The proof how-ver, that the British agents and military ofti- eer.s were guilty of the charge thus exhibited, become conclu- sive, when subsequent to the communication which was mado to the British minister, the defeat and flight of general Proctor's army, or. the of )>laced in the pos-session of the A« merican commander, the correspondence and papers of the Bri- tish oflicers Selected from the documents wliicli were obtain* ed upon that occa-ion, the contents of a few letters will serve to characterise .the whole of the mass. In these letters, wiit. ten by Mr. MKee ti>e British agent, to colonel F^nslmd, the commander of the British troops, snpersciibed "on his ^iajes- tv^s service," and dated during the months of July and August, 1791. the period of general Wayne's successful expedition a- gajnst t!ie Indians, it appear* that the scalpa taken by the In- dians were sent to the Bi-itish establishment at the rapids of the 4 See the prince regent's declaration of the 10th of January, 1813 See also Mr Foster's letters to Mr. Monroe, anted the 2 ith I3ecen.b-r, ]^^i^ ^'•■'{^^■^ '^^' ^^^ ^^^ ol\hv:e.lB]2 ,■ .-indMr. Monroe's answer, dat-d tb. 9ihot .J.,au::ry, 1812, and the iOtl, <,f June, 18!2, and the documents wnich accompany tht cone.«[>nnfleiiCf=-. U Sce-M*. Monroe's letier to Mr. Foster, itred the lOOi of June, 1812, 52 Miami;* that th'e hostile operations of the Indians were con- certed with the British agents and otficers ;t that when certain tribes of Indians "■ having completed the belts they tarried with scalp* and prisoners, and be^ng without provisions, resolved on going home^ it was lamented that liis niajesty's posts would d« live no security from the late great influx of li^dians into that part of the country, should they persist in their resolution of returning so soon',"$ thett " the British agents were immedi- ately to hold a CO Vinci 1 at the GUze, in order to try if they could prevail on tho I^ake Indians to remain ; bnt that without provijiions and ammunition being sent to that place it was con- ceived to ba exti'ein*»ly difficult to keep them together ;"y and thut "colonel England was^ making great exertions to supply the Indians with jirovisions ''fl But the language of the correS" pondence becomes at kngth so plain and direct, that it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion of a governmental agency on the part of Great Brilain, in advifring, aiding, and conducting the Indian war, while she professed friendship and peace to- wards the U. State*. '■'■ Scouts are sent (says Mr. MKee to co- lonel Enf^land,) to view the situation of the American army; and we now muster one thousand Indians. All the Lake iu- , dians, from Sugat)a downwards, should not lose one moment in I joining their brethren, as &very accession of strength is an ad- ^ dition to their spirits/""^ And again; "I have been employed several days in endeavoring to fix the Indians, who have been driven from their villages and cornlields, between the fort and the ba3-. Swan Creek is generally agreed upon, and will be a very convenient place for tiie delivery of provisions, &c."**— W liethcr, under the varioua proofs^ of the British agency, in ex- citing Indian hostilities against the United States, in a time of i peace, presented in the coUi'se of the present narrative, the prince reg'int'sdrcla ration, that "before tiie war began, a poii- ry the most opposite had been uniformly pursued," by the Bri- tish government.ft is to be aseribed to a want of information, or a want of ;-and*)r, the American goveruuicnt is not disposed, more particularly, to investigate. But, independent of these causes of just complaint, arishif^ in a time of peace, il will be foimd, that when the war was de- clared, the alliance of the British government with the Indians, j was avowed, upon prijiciples, the most novel, producing consc- | quences the most dreadful.— The savages were brought into the | war, upon the ordinary footing of allies, without regard to the • See the letter o< Mr. M'lvc to (;ol EiiRlainl, dated the 2nd July, l/'J*- •j- Sec the letter from the same to the same, dated the 51k of July, .I7a4. H See tlie same lottir. § Sec the same letier. II Set the ^^ameleiiei-. f Sec the icttcrfrom Mr. M'Kee to Col. England, dated tiie loth ot Au g»is , 1794. •• Sec the letter from the same to the same, dated the 30th ot August, 1704. \\ See tlie prince regent't declaration of the- 10th of January, 1813 53 inhuman character of their warfare ; which neither spares 'age loor sex ; and which is more desperate towards the captive, at the sifake; than even towards the combatant, in the nelu. It soemed to be a stipulation of the compact between the adies, that the British might imitate, but should not control the fero- city of the savages. — Wuile the liiitisn troops beliold, without compunction, the tomahawk and the scalping knife, brandished against prisoners, old men and children, and even againt preg- nant women, and while they exultingly accept the bloody scalps of the slaughtered Americans -jXt the Indian exploits in battle, are recounted and applauded by the British general orders. Rank, and station are assigned to them, in the military movements of the British army ; and the unhallowi-d league was- ratiiied, with appropriate embleni&^ b}' intertwining an American scalp, with the decorations of the-mace, which the ci »>niancler of iha northern army of the United States found in the icgisiativo chamber oi York, the capital of Upper Canada. In the single scene, that succet:ded the battle of Fi-enchtown, . near the r.ver Raisin, where the American troops were defeated hy the allies, under the command of gen. Proctor, there will be found conC"^ titrated upen indisputable proof, an illustration of the honors of the warfare, which G. Britain has pursued, and still pursues; in co-operiaton with the savages of the south, as well as with the savages of the north. The American army capitulat- ed, on the 22d Jan. 1813 ; yet, aften- the faith of the British com- mander had been pledged, in the terms of the capitulation ; and while the Briti&li oliicei s and soldiers, silently and exnltirgiy con- templated the scene, some of the Amei'ican prisoners of war were tomahawked, some were- ehot and some w-ere burnt. Many of the unarmed inhabitants of the Michigan territory were mas- gftcred ; their property was plundered, and their horses were d.'strcyed.ijii The dead bodi's of the mangled Americans, were exposed, unburied, to be devoured by dogs and swine:" because, as the Biitish officers declared, the Indians would not permit the interment ;"§(. and sotne of the Americans, who survived the carnage, had been extricated from danger, only hy being p'lrchiised at a price, a& a part of the booty belonging to the Ii>» dians- But, to complete this dreav^ful view ©f human depravi- ty, and human wretchedness, it is only necess«i'y to add, that an American physician, who wns despatched with a flag of truce, to ascertain the situation of his wounded brethren, and two persons, his companions, were intercepted by the Indians, , + .Sc • Lne lelter from the .\nierican general. Jhirrison to tlie British ge*i . Froctor. . S.e A letter from the British MSjor Milir, Inflian agent, to Col. Proctor dated i!ic 2(5 Ji of fee|Uember, \^\2, and a letter li'om Col. St, Gtortje toCol. Pi'OGtor, diited the '^^h of October, 1812, fouiKl among Col. Proctor's pa- pers. ||1[ See I'Ve rr-nortof the committee of tlie liouse ofRo.prescntativf s, on the Slst of July, 1812 ; and the d( positions and docum^m.'j accompanying- it. 4§.^ ee the 'jfficuJ report of Mr. Hakor, die :iijent fjr • tlie prisoners^ . to Btig. .Gen. Wiiiuhefcter, vUtedlhe i6s.h of f ^bruiiry, 1813. D 3 54 in their KuTrane niipston; the privilege of the flag was disre- garded by the British officers ; the physician, aftvr being m'ouii- ded, and one of his companions, were made prisoners ; and tha third person of the paity was killt-dlill But the savage, who liad never known the restraints of civil- ized life, and tlic pirate who had broken the bonds of society, Were alike tlje objects of British eonciliatibn and alliance, fur the purposes of an unpuralelled warfare. A horde of pirates and outlaws had formed a confederacy and establishment on the island of Barratana, near the mouth of the river Mississippi. Will Europe believe, that the commander of the British forces^ addressed the leader of the confederacy, from the neutral terri- tory of Pensacola, "calling upon him, with his brave followers, to enter into the service of ureat Britain, in which he should have the rank of captain ; promising that lands should be given to them all, in proportion to their respective ranks, on a peace takiflg place ; assuring them, that their property should be guar- anteed and their persons protected; and asking, m return, that they would cease all hostilities against Spain, or the allies of G Britain, and place their ships and vessels, under the British commanding officer on the station, until the commander in chiefs pleasure should be known, with a guarantee of their fair value at all events ?'* There wanted only to exemplify the debas nient of such an act, the occurrence, that the pirate should spurn the proffered alliance, and accordingly, Lalitte'o answer was indignantly given, by a delivery of the letter, con- taining the British proposition, to the American governor of Lou- 3e>)na. There we'e other sources, however, of support, which Great Britaiii was prompted by her vengeance to employ, in opposi- tion to the plainest dictates of her own colonial policy. The e- vents, which have extirpated, or dispersed, the white popula- tion of 8t. Domingo, arc in t!ie recollection of all men. Although British humanity might not shrink, from the infliction of simi- lar calamities upon the soutliern states of America, the danger of that course, either as an incitement to a revolt of the slaves in the British islands, or as acause of retaliation, on the part of the United States ought to have admonished her against its adop ion. Yet, in a formal proclamation issued by the com- jn.uider in chief of his Britannic majesty's squadrons, upon the Aincrican stttion, the .slaves of the American planters werein- fitedto join the Bririah .standard, i'> a covert phraseology, that afF>r('e'i but a slight veil for the real dei^ign. Thus, admiral Coehrane, recitina, "tliatit h^d been ropresented to him, tliat Wany persons now resident in the V/iiited States, had f»xpicspe.l a desire to withdraw therefrom, v/ith a view of entering inlf> ^![ T<\ Mldition to this desciiptlon of saviero warf;ire, under British auspi- «c.s ; si: M )■ -ly's foiee ituh." Ft riil;v., ' ■ XJonsicur L»fittc,or Uic crnj' ih' majesty''8 service^ or of being received as free icHlers it»t^ 8c>nie oi" tii« majostys colonies," proclaimed, tliat • ail those who might be disposed to emigrate frum the United States, vtonld, with their familiea, be recerveu on board his nmjeely's shipb or vessels of war, or at the military posts that miglit be ebtablish- ed upon, or near, tlie coast of the United States, wiien they would have tlieir ciiuice of either entering into his niajesly'a sea w land forces, or of being sent as free settlers to the Biitish possessions in JNorth America, or the West Indies, wiiere they would meet all due encouragement "f But even the negroes seem, in contempt, oi* disgust, to have i-esist- ed the solicitation ; no rebellion, or massacre, ensued ; ami the allegation, often repeated, that in relation to those who were seduced, or forced, from the service of their masters, instanceo have occurred of some being afterwards transported to the Bii- tieh West India {sl^x's, and there sold into slavery, for the be- nefit of the captors, remains withor.t contradiction. So coni- plicated an act of injustice, would demand the reprobation oi mankind. And let the British government, which professes a just abhorrence of the African slave trade; which endeavors to impose, in that refe*pect, restraints upon the domestic policy of France, Spain, and Portugal ; ant-wer, if it can, the solemn oharge against their faith, and their humanity. 3. Great Britain has violated the laws of civilized warfare, by plundering private property ; by outraging female honof* ; by burning unprotected cities, towns, villages, and houses ; and by laying waste whole districts of an unresisting country. The menace and the practice of the British naval and militar py force, " to destroy and lay waste such towns and districts^ Hpoii the American coast, as might be found assailable," have been excused upon the pretext of retaliation, for the wanton des^ fcructioTi committed by the American army in Upper Canada ;"'^ but the fallacy of the pretext has already been es^posed. It wilt be recollected, however, that the act of burning Newark wag m8tantaneou.5ly disavowed by the American government ; that it occurred in December 1813 — and that sir George Prevost himself acknowledged, on the lOtli of February, 18It, that the arieasire of retaliation for all the previously imputed miscon- duct of the American troops, was then full and e^'mpiete.H Be- tnveen the month of February, ISl'i, when that acknowledge-^ ment was made, and the month of August, '[SM, v>^hen the Bri- tish admirars denunciation was i^sued, whaf are theotitrsgca upon the part of the Ameriean troops in Canada, to jit;ti- fy a call for retaliation ? No: it was the system, not the in i- <3ent, of the war ; and intelligence of the syst<^m had been re- ceived at Washington, from the American agents in Kurope, with reference to the operations of admiral Warren, upon the shores of the Chesapeake, long before Admiral Cochrane had ■j- -^ec ailiniral Cochrane'^ procliiinatioii, dated Bermud:i, tiie 2iiil of A- pril, 1S14. t See admiral Cochrane's letter to Mr. Mour )c, I'ated .Aufj^nst 1H, 1314. II .See sir George Prevost's ieUer lo gen. VVittiii.»©.i, dated the lO^dS Februiry,1814. 56 attweeded to the command of the British fleet on the Amerieaa atation. As an appropriate introduction to the kind of war, which Great Britain intended to wage against the inhabitatits of ihc United Estates, transactions occurred in JEngland, under the a- vowed uii'Cctioii of the government itself that could notfai! to wound the moral sense of evepv candid and generous spectator. Ail theoilicers and mariners of the American Eit-rchant ships, who, having los; their vessels in other places, had gone to Eng- land on the way to Anu'rica ; or who"had been employed irl B'Mtish merchant ships, but were desirous of returning nonie j or who hud been delanied, in consequence of condemnation of their vessels under the Biitish ordf is in council ; or who had arrived in England, through any of the other casuahies of the seafaring li'e ; were condemned to be treated as prisoners of war; nay, some of thnn were actnaily impressed, while solicit- ang their pasports ; ait.iough not om of their number had been in any way, engaged in ho^tiliti eg against G- B. ; and although the Americangovei-nnient had affordi^'d every facility to the de- parture of the same class, aa well aa c^ every class of British sub- jects from the IT. S. for a rcasonabUe period after the declaration of war.* But this act of injustice, for which even the pretest of retaliation has not been adiancfd, was accompanied by another of still greater cruelty and oppression The A jnerican seamen who had been enlisted, or impressed, into tiie naval service of Great Britain, were long setamed, and many of them are yet retained, on board of British ships of war. where they are com- pelled to combat against their country and ihcii* friends: and even when the British government tardily and reluctantly re- cognized the citizenship of impressed Americans, to the num- ber exceeding. lCi<») at a single naval stati(>n. and dismissed tht-m fromits service on the water ; it was only to immure them a3 pris;»nt rs of war on shore. — The*e unfortunate peisons, who had passed into the po\7er of the British government, by a vio- lation of theiv own rights and inclinations, as well as of th« rii;lits of their country, and who could only ber^garded as- the any tite proclamatioa of a British ad- miral, to be in a- st.tte of blockade, which every day's ohs-rva- tion proves" to be, piactically, inetfectaal, and which, indet d, * Sec- .Ml- Ileu.sley's coi-respondencr wiUi die Brilibh govcrBment, in Oc toK-r, Nfovcmbcr, a>id December, 1K12. Set, also, tlie act ot C-nipi-e.-.s, pass'jd the 6th of July, 1H12. t Sec the Ictwr from Mr. Deasley to Mr. M'Leay, dated tlic KJ'U of Mtuplii* ^•91 5T tiie wliole of the British navy would be enabled to enfijrae ana' maintain^ Neither the orders in council, aoknowkdgL'd to be geneiaHj unlawful, and declared to be merely retahatory upon France ; nor the iierliu and Milan deci-rjcH, which jilaced the Bri- tish Islands in a state of blockade, Without the to.ce of a single squadron to maintain it , were, in principle, mere irii.iious '.o the rights ut nt-atral coromeice, than the existing bloekade of the Unilcd Sratos. The revival, therefore, uf the e^ stem, witliout the retaUialo.-ypietext, rnustderaoni?trate to the world- adiitrti-niination, on the part of Great Jbvitain, to aoquiie a com- mercial monopoly, by every demonstration of her naval piAvvT, Tlie trade of the" United States with Russia, and with other northern powers, by whose goyennnieuts no ediets, violatir g. neutral ri-iits, had been issv>eu, was cut oiY by the operation o£. the Brititli orders in council-of the year lb07, as efiectoally r.S' their trade with Prance and her allies, aUhough the vetaliatury principle was totally inapplicable to the ease. And the block- ade o'i Ih ' vear 1814, h an attempt tootstroy tlie trade of those cations, and, indeed, of all b^ie other ni.tion-. of Europe, with the United States ; while Great Britain, herself, with the same policy and ardo? that mai'ked her illicit trade with Fraiu-e, ^vheii France was her enemy, encourages a elanaestine traltic between her subjects and the American citizens, wherever her possessions came in contact with the terntory of the U. States. But approaching nearer to the scenes of plunder ana violence of cruelty and contiagration, which the British warfare exhic-te on the coast of the United States, it must be agam airked, wl;a* acts of the American government, of its ships of war, or of its armiesj had occurred, or were even alleg* d, as a pretext for the perpetration of this series of outrages ? It wiU not be asserted, that they were sanctioned by the usages of modevu war; because the sense of all Europe would revolt at the asstr- tion. It will Bot be said, that they v,-ere the unauthorised excepeeB of the British troops ; because scarcely an act of plunder and violence, of cruelty and conflagration, has been committed, ex- cept in the immediate presence, under the positive order?, and with the personal agency cf- British officers. It must not be a- gain insinuated, that they were provo-ked by the Ameriem ex- amp'e; because it has been demonbirated, that all such in^^inu- ations are without colcxjr and v>-ithout proof And, after all, the dreadful and disgraceful progress of the British arms, will be traced as the effect of that animosity, arising out of i ccol- iections connected with the American revolution, which has al- ready been noticed ; or, as the effect of that jealousy, which the commercial enterprise, and native resources, of the United States, aie calculated to excite in the councils of 'a nation, aim- ing at universal dominion upoa the ocean. In the month of April, 1813, the inhabitants of Toplar Jj-land, m the bay of Chesapeake, were pillaged ; and the cattle and other i See the successive blockades announced by the British govenwnc.T:!, and the successive naval coniniandei-s-on the AmericAa station. 5t live stock of the farmers, beyond what the enemy couid'-fttw move, were wantonly killed * In the same, month 'of April, tlis ^7}ia^f, the store aiul the #shei\v 3.1 Frenootuwu lainlirig, were dewtroyrd, atidtbe private stores, and 5 tore houses, in the viiiig© of Fieachtown, were burnt.f In the san^e month of April, the enemy landed repeatedly oii Sharp's island, and made a general sweep of the atock, affect- ing, liovvevcr, to p..y for a part of it.^ On the 3d of May, 1813, the town of Havredegrace was pil- laged and burnt hy a force under the command of admiral Coule- burn. The British officors being admonished, " triat with civr- lized nations at war, private property had always been respect- ed,'' hastily replied, '-that as th'3- Amtricaris wanted war, tiiey should now feel it.s elYeiits ; and that the town slioald be laid in- ashes" They broke the windows of die church ; they porloined' the houses of their furniture ; they stripped women and chil- dren of their cloathes .•, and when in unfortunate female com* pinined that she could not h-Avc her house with her little c!;ii- dren, she was unfeelingly told, " that her house should be burut with herself a 'd children in it;'|l On the 6th of i^iay, 1SI3, Fvadeilcktown and Georgetown; s"tuHted on Sas-safias rlvel* in the state oi' IviarV'tind, were pil- laged and burnt, and the adjacent count:y was iaid waste, by a force under the command of admiral Cot.K,bui'n ; and the olScfei-a were the most active on the occasion i} Oa the 2:i:d uf June, 1813, the Br:tish fuvees made an attack upon Craney Ihhmd, with a vi.^w to o jtaui po^se^sion of Nor- folk, which the commanding othcers.h?-! p. omised, in case of. BUecefS, Logive up to the p^n.ndr'r oi th^r troops. II Tlie British. wei«e repu.bcd ; but enraged by def at und disappointment, their course was directed to Hampton, w'iicli tliey ontn-ed on t' e of June. The hccno that endued, exceeds all tower of d<;s. rip- tion ; and a detail of facts won-l be otTensiv to the fcelingi- of decorum, as well as of humnni;y. "A dt;fence^^ss and unre- aisting town was given up to indiscriininale ;)iilyg" ; though ci- viliaeci war tolerates this only as to fortified places cn-ried bv as- sault, and alter 6U»)imons. Itidividuals m:Ue a-j on otiier occasions, to tlie unworthy and unavailing pretext of a justifiable retaliation It was said by ihe British General, '' that the exci'SS'^s at Hampton, were occai>ion- ed by an oecai-rence, at the recent attempt at Craney island, ^hen the British troops ina ba 'ge, sunk by the American gnns^ cluvig to the v\-reck of the boat- bvit several Amerieaiie waded er6eived, !hat whatever might personally be the liberal dispo- sitions of that officer, no adcKjaate reparation could be made, as Ahe conduct of hig troops was directed aad sauctioued by hia go« Ti'.rnment.l!!! l&uring the period of these transactions, the village of Lew^*- town, nesw- the capes of the Delav.-are, inhabitv-'d ciiiefly by ii^b- ermen and pilots, and the village of Stonington, seated upoa jthe shores of Connecticut, were uasuccej-sfully bombarded. — Armed parties, led by olTicers of rank, landed daily from th^ British squadron, making predatory incursions into the op#i» country; rilling and burning the iwiuscs and cottages of peaces^- i>lc and retired families; pillaging the produce of the planter and the farmer; (their tobacco, their grain, and their cattle J) committing violence on the persons of the unprotected inhabi- tants ; seizing upon slaves., wherever they could be found, at -booty of war; and breaking open tho coffins of the dead, ia ** See the teltrers from Gen, Tuylcir ts admiml Wwren, dated the 29tk 'Of June, 181 J ; to gen. sir Sidney McckwjtJi, daied the 4tli and 5lh of July, 1813 ; to the secretary ot war, dated the 2d of July, 1813 ; and to captaia Meyers, of the la-st date. See, also, the lettei' from Major Crutchfield to Governor Rurhour, dated ■the 20tU of J:iTie, 1813 ; the betters from Capt. Cooper to liatenant pfovernor Mcillnry, dattd in July, 1813; the report of Messrs (Jrlffiti and Lively to major Crutchfieid, dated the 4di of July, 1813 i and col. P;irkci-'s publica- tjo;'j in tlieEiKjuirerc •j-f See adn-.iral W'.'.rren's l<>tter to E^eneral Taylor, d^d the 29thof June^ 1813 ; sir tfidii'-y Heckwitli's letter to gtnx-ral Taylor, dited the same day ; and the report of Captain Meyers to pcfieral Taylor of .July 2, 131.1. +i; See the report of 'he proceeding's of ilie board ofofiicers, appointed by tlie general I uder, of tlve Istof Jnlv, 1813. "li'l'See sfehei-.s! Tavlor's letter to S'.r Sidney Beckwith, dated the 5Ui pf .tjily . 1 8 I3,i and the answer of the following day. uaarc^ of plunder, or committirig: robbeTy on t1ac s,Ttars cf 4 ♦church at Chaplico, St. luagoes, and Tappufaannock, with a ea- ■cnligioiis rage. Buttle consummp.tion of Brilish outrage, yet remains to be stated, fpom the awful and iinp.iishable meinoviala of the capi- 'tal at Washington II has beenaleady observed, that the mas- sacre of the American prisoners, at the nver Raisin, occurred in January, 1813; that thpoughcut the same year, the dei^olat- dng warfare o*^ G, Britain, without once a ledginp; a retaliatory -excuse, made the shoies of the Chesapeake, and of its tributa- ry rivers, a general scene of ruin and distress ; and that in the loonth of Febntary, 1814>, sir George Prevost himself, acknow- ledged, that the measures of vetatiatioi), for the unauthorized iurning of Newark, "in December, 18 i3, and for allth* exces* tcs which had been imputed to the American army, was at that tin>e full and comnletc. The United Stales, indeed, regarding ■'What was da« t« the^r o^vn character rather than what was due to the coaduct of their enemy, had forborne to authoftixea just retribution ; and even disdained to place the destruction of New- ark (o retaliatory account for the general pillage and eonfligrati on which had been previously perp>etrated. It wa« not without as- toTiishment, "therefore, that after more than a year of patient ^suffering, they heard it announced in Aug'ist, lbl4, that th6 towns and districts upon their coast, were to be destroyed an3 iaid waste, ia revenge for unspecified and unknorvvn acts of de- struction, which were charged against the American troeps in XJppcr Canada. The letter of admii'al Cochrane wers dated on the 18th, but it was not received until tTie 31st of August, 1814o In the intermediate time, the enemy debarked a body of about Ave or &ix thousand troops at Benediot^.on the Patuxcnt, and by a sudden and steady march through Bladensburg, appronched the city of Washington. Thi« city has been selected for the .«eat of the American goverj^ment ; but the number of its house* does not exceed ■90&, spread ever an extensive site ; the whole number of its inhabitant* floes not exceed 6000; an-i the adjaceBt country is thinly populated. Although the nece»- gary precautions Tiad been ordered, to assemble the militia, for the defence cfthe city, a varfety of causes combined to render the defence unsuccessful; and the enemy took possession of WishiTigtou on the evening of the S'l-th of August, 1614. The commanders of the British force held at that time admiral Coc}]^ Tarie's desolating order, although it was then unknown to the go- vernment and the pcopl*- af the United States ; but con-sc'ious of the danzer of «o distant a separation fi'om the British fleet, and dfsirous^ by every plausible artifice, to deter the citizens from ilying to arnss against the invaders, th-ey disavowed all design of injuring private persons and property, and eave assurances of protcctinn, whcrerer there was submifsion General Ross and admiral t'ockburn then proceeded in p«rrton to direct and super- intend the business of conflagration; in a place which had yield- ed to thoir nnn-i, which was unfortifi«'d, and by which no hos- tility was threatened. Th«y BCt fire to the capitol, wiUua whose 61 walls were contained the halls of the congress of the United States the hall of their highest tribunal for the administration of iustic**- *^° ouoUivoo of the legislatiirp. «nf wax-, dated the 26t'- ami 27lh ■>. April, 1313. . , t J -e tl»« letter hom commodore Cliauncry to the secretary of the navy, dated Oic 4lh of Auijust, 1813. es ahores of the Chesapeake, were not all the retalliatory pretexts for the barbarous warfare known to those commanders ? And yet, " the fate inflicted by an American force on the seat of go- vernment in Upper Canada," was never suggested in justification or excuse? and finally, when the expedition was formed in Au- gust, 1814, forthe destruction of the public edifices at Washington, was not the " similar fate which had been inflicted by an Amer- can force on the seat of Government in Upper Canada," known to admiral Cochrane, as well as to Sir George Prevost, who called upon the admiral (it is alleged) to carry into effect mea- sures of retaliation, against the inhabitants of the United States? And yet, both the call, and the compliance, are founded (not ■ nnon the destruction of the public edifices at York, but) upon 'antoB destruction committed by the American army in Up« Canada, upon the inhabitants of the province, for whom a- reparation was demanded 1 obscurity, then, dwells upon the fact alledged by Sir G. ost, which has not been dissipated by enquiry. Whether any public edifice was improperly destroyed at York, or at what period the injury was done, if done at all, and by what hand it was inflicted, are points that ought to have been stated when the charge was made ; surely it is enough on the part of the American government to repeat, that the fact alleged was never before brought to its knowlege, for investiga- tion, disavowal or reparation. The silence of the military and civil officers of the provincial government of Canada, indicates^ too a sense of shame, or a conviction of the injustice of the pre- sent reproach. It is knowh,that there could have been no oth- er public edifice for civil uses destroyed in Upper Canada, thf^i the house of the provincial legislature, a building of so little cost and ornament, as hardly to merit consideration ; and cer- tainly affording neither parallel nor apology, for the conflagra- tion of the splendid structures, which adorned the metropolis of the United States. If, however, that house was indeed destroy- may it not have been an accidental consequence of the con- )u, in which the explosion of the magazine involved the 1? Or, perhaps it was hastily perpetrated by some of mraged troops in the moment of anguish, for the loss of a v'ed co-nmander, and their companions, who had been kil- ^^u uy that explosion, kindled as it was by a defeated enemy, for the sanguiaary and unavailing purpose : Or, in fine, some suf- fering individual, remembering the slau;jhter of his brethren at the river Raisin, and exasperated by the spectacle of a hu- man scalp, suspended in the legislative chamber, over the seat of the speakei-, may, in the paroxysm of his vengeance, have applied, unaathorised and unseen, the torch of vengeance and destruction. Many other flagrant instances of Br-tish violence, pillage and conflagration, in defiance of the laws of civilized hostilities, might beaided to the catalogue, whii-h has been exhibited ; but the enuujeration would be superfluous, and it is time to close »o §4 ipaintul an exposition of the causes and character of'4;he war.<«« The exposition had become necessary to repel and refute thj charges of w.v. Prince Regent, when by his declaration of' Jan-, uary, 1813, he unjustly states the United Stites to be the ao-gres- sors in the war ; and insultingly ascribes the conduct ot" the A- merican government to the influence of French councils. It was also necessary to vindicate the course of the United States in ihe prosecution of the war ; and to eyposs to the view <>fthe worla, the barbarous system of hostilities, which the British go- vernment has pursued. Having accomplished these purposes, the Americap government recurs with pleasure to a coutempla- tion of its early and continued efforts, for the restoration of peace. Notwichstanding the pressure of recent wrongs, and the unfriendly and illiberal disposition, which Great Britain.has, at all times, manifested cowards tiiem, the United States have never indulged sentiments incortpatible with the recip:ocity of good will, and an intercourse of mutual benefit and advantage. They can never fepme, at seeing the British nation great, pros- perous and happy ; safe in its maritime rights ; and powerful in its means of maintaining them ; but at the same time, they can never cease to desire, that the councils of Great Britain should be guided by justice, and a respect for the equal rights of other nations. Her maritime power may extend to all" the legiti- mate objects of her sovereignty, and her commerce, without endangering the independence and peace of every other govern- ment. A ballance of power in this respect, is as necessary on the ocean as on the land ; and the contx'oul timt it gives to the nations of the woi4d, over the actions of each other, is as .'valuta, ry in its operation to the individual government, whieli f