357 
 
 r^-'x^^^i^M^i 
 
 .^j \^' 
 
 :iiMMym\\\: 
 
 ^j^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Si.f 
 
, LIBRARY Of CONGRESS J 
 
 I UNITED STATES OP AMEIMCA. f 
 
 
^;^. 
 
 ^4 
 
 K 
 
 Jm 
 
 ^j* 
 
 il 
 
 n 
 
k 
 
THE 
 
 CONDUCT 
 
 OF 
 
 WASHINGTON, 
 
 COMPARED WITH THAT OF 
 
 THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION, 
 
 IN A 
 
 Series of Letters and Official Documents^ 
 WITJl NOTES. 
 
 
 BY A FRIEND OF TRUTH, 
 
 AND OF HONORABLE PEACE. 
 
 BOSTON ; 
 
 yRUE & ROWE PRINTER,*. 
 
 1813. 
 
FACTS AND DOCUMENTS, ^t. 
 
 Extract of a letter from Thomas JefTerson, Esq. secretary of state, under the di. 
 recttoti o/George Washington, President of the United States, to Thomas 
 Pinckuey, minister plenipoientiary of the United States at London, dated 
 
 "DEPARTMENT OP STATE JULY 11, 1792. 
 
 "THE peculiar custom in England of Impressing Sea- 
 men on every appearance of war, will occasionally expose 
 our seamen to peculiar oppressions and vexations. It will be 
 expedient that you take proper opportunities, in the mean 
 time, of conferring with the minister on this subject, in or- 
 der to form some arrangement for the protection of our sea- 
 men on those occasions. We entirely reject the mode which 
 was the subject of a conversation between Mr. Morris and him, 
 which was, that our seamen should always carry about them 
 certificates of their citizenship : Thh is a condition 7ieuer yet 
 submitted to by any nation ; one with which seamen would 
 never have the precaution to comply : the casualties of their 
 calling would expose them to the constant destruction or loss 
 of this paper evidence, and thus the British government would 
 be armed with legal authority to impress the whole of our 
 ^ seamen. The simplest rule will be, that the vessel being A- 
 b merican, shall be evidence that the seamen on board her are 
 such. If they apprehend that our vessels might thus become 
 asylums for the fugitives of their own nation from impress 
 gangs, the number of men to be protected by a vessel may 
 be limited by her tonnage, and one or two officers only be 
 permitted to enter the vessel in order to examine the number 
 on board ; but no press gang should be allowed ever to go 
 on board an American vessel, till after it shall be found that 
 there are more than their stipulated number on board, nor till 
 after the master shall have refused to deliver the supernume- 
 raries (to be named by himself) to the press officer who has 
 come on board for that purpose ; and even then the American 
 consul shall be called in. In order to urge a settlement of 
 this point before a new occasion may arise, it may not be / 
 amiss to draw their attention to the peculiar irritation excited on 
 the last occasion, and the difficulty of avoiding cur inakirigj 
 i?}imediate reprisals on their seamen here. You will be so goo/ 
 as to communicate to me what shall pass on this subject, yA 
 it may be made an article of convention to be enteredy«it4 
 either th» re or here," 
 
Extract of a letter from Thomas Jefferson, Esq. Tohen Secretary of State, u>uier 
 the direction of George Washington, President of the United States, tt 
 Thomas Pinckney, minister plenipotentiary of the United States at London, 
 dated October 12, ii<)2. 
 
 **I enclofe you a copy of a letter from MelTrs. Blow & Melhaddo, mer- 
 tliants of Virginia, Complaining of the taking away of their failors, on the 
 coaft of Africa, by the commander of a Britifh armed vefTel. So many in- 
 ftances of this kind have happened, that it is quite necefTary that their gov- 
 ernment fhould explain themfelves on the fubjeft, and be led to difavow and 
 punifh fuch conduft. I leave to your difcretion to endeavor to obtain 
 this fatisfaftion by fuch friendly difcuffions as may be moft likely to 
 produce the defired effedt, and fecure to our commerce that proteftion 
 against British violence ivhich it has neuer experienced from 
 any other nation. No law forbids the seamen of any country to 
 engage^ in time of peace, on board a foreign vessel ; no law 
 authorises such seamen to break his contract, nor the armed ves- 
 sels of his ftation to interpose force for his rescue."^ 
 
 •Such were the sentiments of the father of his country, George Washington, when he 
 was President of the United States, concerning one of the subject* now in dispute between 
 America and Great Britaih. It seems that he even desied the right of England to impress 
 British subjects, and demanded that the men who had done it should be punished. 
 
 Extract from the Instructions gi<ven by Timothy Pickering, eSfjuire, secretary of 
 state, under the direction o/WashiNGTGN, the president of the United States^ 
 to Rufus King, esquire, dated 
 
 "department of state JUNE 8, 1796. 
 
 "Among the articles left unadjufted, one of the moft interefting nature 
 tegards the impreffing of American feamen. Mr. Pinckney vvas inftruded 
 bn this head, in June, 1792. You will there fee that the mode prefcribcd 
 by the late acH: of Congrefs, of certificating our leamen, ivas pointedly reprobated. 
 The long but fruitlefs attempts which have been made to proteft them from 
 Brilifli impreffes, prove that the fubjcft is in its nature difficult. 
 
 "The fimpleft rule, as remarked to Mr. Pinckney, would be, that the -ves- 
 sel being American, Jloculd he evidence that the feamen on board her are such- But 
 it will be an important point gained, if, bn the high seas, our flag can proteft 
 thofe, of whatever nation, who Ihall fail under it. And for this, humanity as well 
 as intereft powerfully plead. Merchant veffels carry no more hands than 
 their fafety renders neceffary. To withdraw any of them on the ocean, is to 
 expofe both lives and property to dellruftion. We have a right then to ex- 
 pert that the British government will make no difficulty in acceding to this 
 ■very interefting provifion. And the fame motives fhould operate, with near- 
 ly equal force, to procure for us the like exemption in all the Britifh colonies, 
 but cfpecially in the Weft Indies. la the latter, the confequence of an im- 
 prefs is the detention of the vefTel : By the detention, the vefTel is injured or 
 icftroyed by the worms, and the remnant of the crew expofed to the fatal 
 ^("eafes of the climate. Hence a longer detention enfues ; the voyage be- 
 toties unprofitable, if not ruinous to the merchant, and humanity deplores 
 the^ofs of many valuable lives. But there is another cogent reafon for the 
 abfohte exemption from impre/Tes in the Britifh colonies. That the practice 
 ivill bt, as it always has been, attended with monftrous abufes : .»nd the fu. 
 
pjeme power is fo remote, the evils become irremediable before redrefs cnii 
 even be fought for. To guard againft abufes on the part of American citi- 
 zens, every mafter of a veflel, on his arrival in any port of the Britirti colo- 
 nies, may be required to report his crew at the proper office. If afterwarda 
 any addition be made to ihcm by Britifi fubjeds, thefe may be taken away. 
 In the ports ot Great Britain and Ireland, the imprefs of BrifJJj fubject^ 
 found on board our veflTels mud doubtlefs be admitted. But this Ihould be 
 controlled by regulations to pi event infuUs and injuries, and to adminifter 
 prompt relief where Ameiican citizens ^which will affuredly happen) fhnll 
 be miftaken for Britifh fubjects. 
 
 Mr. Pickering, under the direction of president Washington, to Mr. King, 
 dated — "DEPARTMENT OF STATE, September 10, 1796. 
 "I enclose a letter from Francis S. Taylor, deputy collector of Ncr- 
 folk, relative to four impressed seamen. It appears to be written with 
 candor, and merits attention. If, as the captain of the Prevoyante 
 (Wemyss) says, the dignity of the British government will not permit 
 an enquiry on board their ships for American seamen, their doom is 
 fixed for the war : and thus the rights of an independent neutral na- 
 tion are to be sacrificed to British dignity ! Justice requires that such in- 
 quiries and examinations should be made, because the liberation of our 
 seamen will otherwise be impossible. For the British government then, 
 to make professions of respect to the rights of our citizens, and willing- 
 ness to release them, and yet deny the only means of ascertaining those 
 rights, is an insulting tantalism. If such orders have been given to the 
 British commanders, (and Mr. Liston's communication, in the conversa- 
 tion of which I sent you a copy in my letter of the 31st ult. countenances 
 the idea) the agency of Col. Talbot and Mr. Trumbull will be fruitless, 
 and THE SOONER WE KNOW iT THE BETTER.* But 1 would fain hope 
 other things; and if the British government have any regard to our rights, 
 any respect for our nation, and place any value on our friendship, they 
 will even facilitate to us the means of relieving our oppressed citizens. 
 The subject of our impressed seamen makes a part of your inftructions ; 
 but tne president now renews his desire that their relief hiay engage 
 your special attention. I am, sir, &c. 
 
 (Signed) TIMOTHY PICKERING. 
 
 Ritfus Kifig^ Esq. ^c: ^c. 
 
 * By this, and other parts of the correspondence, it would seem, iliat Mr. Pickerinpf, and 
 also president Washington, under wlioie special direction this letter was written, were both 
 of the opinion, that a war ought to, and probably would take place between the two coun- 
 tries, upon the subject of Impressment. 
 
 Extra& of a letter from Mr. Pickering, under the dlreBlon of preftdent H'ajJjhig. 
 
 ton, to Mr. King, dated — "department of state, October 26, J796. 
 
 ** I think it is mentioned in your instructions that the Britifh naval 
 
 officers often impress SivedeSy Daties^ and other foreigners^ from the vessels 
 
 cf the United States.: They have even sometimes impressed French- 
 
j.tEN. If thore sliould be time to aiukc out a copy of a protest lately re- 
 ceived, it sh,ill be cnclobcd, describini; the inipnss of a Dane and a Portu- 
 guese. This surely is an abuse easy to correct. They cannot pretend an 
 inability to distinguish these foreigners from their own subjects: and they 
 may witii as much reason rob American vessels of the property or mer- 
 chandize of Sweden, Danes and Portuguese, as seize and detain in their 
 service the subjects of those nations found on board American vessels. 
 The president is extremely anxious to have this business of impresses 
 placed on a reasonable footing." 
 
 Exttait nf a later from Mr P'k kering, secretary of Hate, ur.dt r the d'lreci'.on of 
 presUcnt Adams, to Silas Talbot, ei>juive. 
 
 "DEPARTMENT OF STATE AugUStl5, 1797. 
 
 "I was pleased with your success in obtaining relief for so many A- 
 merican seamen, as mentioned in yotu" several letters : but your lafi:, 
 containing tlie orders of Admiral Parker to his captains 7io longer to obey 
 the ivi its of }:«ibias corpus^ gave me much uneasiness. Yesterday I gave 
 those letters ts^ahe British minister, Mr. Liston ; and wish he may do 
 something to afford you a prospect of further success : but I fear, not- 
 withstanding he is perfectly well disposed to administer relief, that his 
 remonftrances or requefls will have too little effect. I fliall transmit 
 copies of these letcers to Mr. King, our minister in London, to lay be- 
 fore the British ministry. If any naval officers shall have committed such 
 an outrage on any American seamen as to bring them to the gangway, as 
 yon Tner>tlon, or to infiict any kind of punishment on them, especially 
 Jor seehinfT opptrt unities to irform you of thAr si' nation, for the purpose of 
 obtaining the just relief to which they are entitled, pray endeavor to 
 get proper proofs of the faft, that I may make it the subject of a spe- 
 cial representation to the British government." 
 
 Ex(ruii of a ittter to Rufiis King, esquire, from the secretary of state, dated — 
 
 "TRENTON, Octobers. 1797. 
 
 'Lord Grenville's observHtians on the a6l of Congress for the relief 
 arid protec^tlon of American seamen, present difficulties which demand 
 con&iderariotT at the ensuing seliion. But your reasoning, in your let- 
 t. r to his lordship of the 30th of lafl November, is conclusive against 
 the Britis!, pretences to retain real American seamen who are married in 
 their dominions, or \^ho have voluntarily entered on board British ves- 
 sels. It behoves the honor and faith of the British government to adhere to 
 th''ir priruiple on natural allegiance ivholly, or to renounce it ivholly : and an 
 answer on this point would have become his lordship's candor. 
 
 " I CGn::,ider colonel Talbot's agency in the West Indies to be no 
 longer very importint. The rigid conduct of adniiral sir Hyde Park- 
 er, (who from the beginning has thrown obffacles in the way) leaves 
 but little room to get our seamen released. The oppofition of the of- 
 ficers in "fucral, induced col. Talbot to take out writs of habeas cor- 
 
pus at Jamaica, by which, directly, or in their consequev^cesj he obtair^- 
 ed the discharge of near fifty seamen ; hut admiral ParEer has smit 
 time pnft forbidden his officers to pay any obedience to such -writs ; and coL 
 Talbot informs me that some of our seamen have been punished for 
 
 ATTEMPTING TO SEND LETTERS TO HIM TO INFORM OF THEIR SITUA- 
 TION. Mr. Lifton has affured me that the Britifh officers have orders 
 not to impress any Americar seamen, and of course not to retain againft 
 their will any already impressed : but if they perllft in obftru»fting 
 every channel of information and proof of their citizenihip; such orders 
 are and will continue deceptive" 
 
 The Secretary of State to the Prefideut of the United S/<j/^t. — U£FARTM£NT OS 
 STATE — Febniarv, CO, ISOO. 
 The secretary has the honor to lay before the prelulent — 
 Mr. Liilon's note of the 4'th February, together with his project of a 
 treaty for the reciprocal delivery of deserters •, which appears to the sec- 
 retary utterly inadmijfihle ^ unless it ivould put an epd to impressments^ which 
 Mr. Lifton seemed to imagine, while the 7th ,' paragraph of his project 
 expressly recognizes the right of impreffing Britifh subjects, and conse- 
 quently American citizens, as at present. 
 
 (Signed) TIMOTHY PICKERING.* 
 
 * Ry this it would seem that no treaty witli England would be satisfactory to Mr. Pick- 
 ering '■^ unless it nvould put an end to impressments.'" And that in his opinion, every *' proiect 
 of a treaty" with that nation ought to be rejected — which did not e-cprcss/y stii^ulate agamst, 
 and " put an end to impressments." 
 
 Extract of a letter from Jo^n Marshall, esquire," secretary of state, to Riifus 
 
 King, minister plenipotentiary of the United Slates at London, dated — 
 "department of state — September 20, 1800. 
 
 **The impressment of our seamen is an injury ot very serious mag- 
 nitude, which deeply affedts the feelings and the honor ot the nation. 
 
 **This valuable class of men is composed of natives and foreigners 
 who engage voluntarily in our service. 
 
 "No right has been asserted to impress the natives of America. Yet 
 they are impressed, they are dragged on board British ships of war, with 
 the evidence of citizenship in their hands, and forced by violence there 
 to serve, until conclufive teftimonials of their birth can be obtained. — 
 These muft moft generally be sought for on this side the Atlantic. 
 In the mean time acknowledged violence is practised on a free citizen 
 of the United States, by compelling him to engage, and to continue in 
 foreign service. Although the lords of the Admiralty uniformly diredt 
 their discharge on the producStion of this teftimony, yet many mt^ft per- 
 ifh unrelieved, and all are detained a considerable time in lawless and 
 injurious confinement. 
 
 •*It is the duty as well as the right of a friendly nation, to require that 
 measures be taken by the British government to prevent tlje continueij 
 
 •^«w Chiaf Justice of tjie Supreme Court cf tha United Sta'es. 
 
repetition of such violence by its agents. This can only be done by 
 pur^shing and frowning on those wlio perpetrate it. The mere release 
 of the injured, after a long course of service and of suffering, is no 
 compensation for the pail, and no security for the future. It is impos- 
 sible not to believe, that the decisive interference of the government in 
 this respedl, would prevent a praftice, the continuance of nvh'ich inuji iti- 
 cvitably produce discord between two nations which ought to be the friends 
 of each other. 
 
 "Those seamen who, born In a foreign country, have been adopted 
 by this, were either the subjects of Britain or some other power. 
 
 "The right to impress those who were Britiflj subjects has been as- 
 serted, and the right to impress those of every other nation has not 
 been disclaimed. 
 
 " Neither the one practice fior the other can be jujlified. 
 
 " With the naturalization of foreigners, no other nation can inter- 
 fere further than the rights of that other are affected. The rights of 
 Britain are certainly not affected by the naturalization of other than 
 British subjects. Consequently those persons who, according to our 
 laws, are citizens, mufl: be so considered by Britain, and by every other 
 power not having a conflicting claim to the person. 
 
 " The United States therefore require positively, that their seamen, 
 who are not British subjects, whether born in America or elsewhere, 
 shall be exempt from ImpreiTments. 
 
 "The case of Britlfh subjects, whether naturalized or not, is more 
 .qiieftlonable ; but the right even to impress them is denied. The prac 
 tice of the BritiJJj governmetit itself y may certainly in a controversy y ivith 
 that government y be relied on. The privileges it claims and exercises ought to 
 be ceded to others. To deny this luould be to deny the equality of natisnsy and 
 to make it a question of power and not of right. 
 
 " If the practice of the British government may be quotedy that practice is 
 to maintain and defend in their sea serviccy all those y of any nationy who have 
 voluntarily engaged in zV, or luhoy according to their lawsy have become Britifh 
 subjects, 
 
 " Alien sean-ven, not Britifl^ subjects, engaged in our merchant ser- 
 vice, ought to be equally exempt with citizens from impreffinents ; we 
 have a right to engage them, and have a right to and an interefl in their 
 persons to the extent of the service contracted to be performed. Britain 
 ho-s no pretext of right to their persons or to their service. To tear 
 them, then, from our pofTefhon, is at the same time an insult and an in- 
 jury. It is an act of violence for which there exifts no paliative. 
 
 « "We know well that the difficulty of distinguifhing between native 
 Americans and Britllli subjects has been used, with respect to natives, 
 as an apology for the injuries complained of. It is not pretended that 
 this apology can be extended to the case of foreigners, and even with 
 respect to natives we doubt the exiflence of the difficulty alleged. We 
 know well that among that class of people who are seamen, we can 
 readily diflingulfli between a native American and a person raised to 
 manhood in Great Britain or Ireland •, and we do not perceive any reas- 
 on why the capacity of making this dlftlnction fhould- not be poffelTed 
 in the same degree by one nation as by the other. 
 
«If, therefore, no regulation cm be formed v/hich iliall effectually 
 secure all seamen on board American merchantmen, we have a right to 
 expect from the justice of the Britilh government, from its regard for 
 the frlendlhip of the United States and its own honor, that it will man- 
 ifeft the sincerity of its v/illies to repress this offence, by punifhing 
 those who commit it. 
 
 " We hope, however, that an agreement may be entered into satis- 
 factory and beneficial to both parties. The article which appears to 
 have been transmitted by my predeceflor, while it satisfies this country, 
 v/ill probably restore to the naval service of Britain a greater number of 
 seamen than will be loft by it. Should we even be miftaken in this 
 calculation, yet the difference cannot be put in competition with the mis- 
 chief which may result from the irritation juflly excited, by this prac- 
 tice, throughout the United States. The extent and the juftice of the 
 resentments it produces, may be eflimated, in Britain, by inquiring 
 what imprelTions would be made on them by similar conduct on the 
 part of this government. 
 
 "Should we impress from the merchant service of Britain, not only 
 Americans but foreigners, and even Britifh subjects, how long would 
 such a course of injury unredressed be permitted to pass unrevenged ? 
 How long would the government be content v/ith unsuccessful remon- 
 ftrance and unavailing memorials ? I believe, sir, that only the most 
 prompt correction of, compensation for, the abuse, would be admitted 
 as satisfaction in such a case. 
 
 <'If the principles of this government forbid it to retaliate by impress- 
 ments, there is yet another mode which might be resorted to. We 
 might authorize our ships of war, though not to impress, yet to recruit 
 sailors on board British merchantmen. Such are the inducements to 
 «nter into our naval service that we believe even this practice would 
 very seriously affect the navigation of Britain. How, sir, would it be 
 received by the Britilh nation ? 
 
 »' Is it not more advisable to delift from, and to take effectual meas- 
 ures to prevent, an acknowledged wrong, than by perseverance in that 
 wrong to excite ugainj} themselves the ix) ell founded resentments of America^ 
 and force oar goverunient into measures ivhich may very pojjibly terminate in 
 an open rupture." 
 
 ExtracJ of a note from Mr. king, m'inifter pleti'ipctevtiary of the United States 
 at London, to lord Gren'vllle, dated— '■■ London, Great Cumberland Place — 
 
 Ni.veiviber 30, 1796. 
 " In your lordlhip's letter of the 21 ft of September, in snswer to my 
 application for the discharge of Maxwell, an American citizen, impres- 
 sed and detained on board his majefty's fliip Sandwich, the reason as- 
 signed againft his discharge is "that he is married and settled at Bris- 
 tol j" ana I underitand that the orders of the lords commiffioners of 
 the admiralty for the discharge of American seamen usually contain a 
 proviso, that the discharge is not to operate in favor of any person who 
 has entered on board of any of his majesty's fliips, or who is married or 
 settled within any of his majesty's dominions. Without admitting, or 
 tonte^ting, on tliis occasion, the rule of English law, that a subje<ft can- 
 
10 
 
 not divest himself of his natural allegiance, I take the liberty to requeft 
 your lordship's attention to the diversity of practice, so much to the dis- 
 advantage of the American citizens, that prevails in the application of 
 this rule. 
 
 "If Great Britain requires tlie acquiescence of foreign nations in this 
 law, so far as regards the requisition of her subjecSls married and settled 
 abroad, or voluntarily engaged in foreign service, ;;• she not bound to ob- 
 serve it in like manner herself^ in respect to the suhjeBs of foreign poiversy 
 under similar circumstances ^ in her service or nvithin her domitncns ? If to 
 the demand of a foreigner in her service by the nation to which he 
 belongs, Great Britain answers, that such foreigner cannot be delivered, 
 because he has voluntarily engaged to serve his majelty, or is married 
 or is settled v.'ithin his majesty's dominions, is she not bound by her 
 own principles to admit the validity of the same answer from such for- 
 eign nation, when she requires the surrender of British subje<Sl:s found 
 in a fimilar predicament in the service or within the territory of such 
 foreign nation ? Justice, which is always impartial, furnishes the prop- 
 er answer to these questions. 
 
 "Admitting, then, that the voluntary contract of an American citi- 
 zen to serve on board a British ship, or the marriage or settlement of 
 such a citizen within his majefty's dominions, is the foundation of a right 
 in his m;ijefty's government to refuse the requifition of the United 
 States of America, that such citizen should be discliarged from his ma- 
 jefty's service, do we not thereby establish a principle that at once condemns 
 and puts an end to the practice of his majesty s naval oncers in entering A- 
 merican ships, in search of and for the purpose of impreffing Britilh 
 seamen, fince all seamen found on board such ships are there of choice 
 and by voluntary contract to serve in the American employ ? 
 
 "But if neither of these circumstances can be considered as juftly giv- 
 ing aright to his majesty's government to refufe the discharge of Amer- 
 can citizens, does it notrefuk that the ufual provifo connected with the 
 orders for the difcharge of fuch citizens, and which is afligned as a rea- 
 fon againft the difcharge of John Maxwell, is without any juft founda- 
 tion, and confequently opei'ates to the diladvantagc and injury of tha 
 American citizens. 
 
 Extract of a letter from Rafus King, esqvirr, to the secretary of stale, dated — 
 "LONDON, April 13, )79-' 
 
 *'It was before my arrival that lord Grenville had exprelTed fo Mr. 
 Pinckney a difiatisfaction with the practice of granting protections to 
 American seamen by our consuls. 
 
 "Before I received your opinion on this fubjecl, lord Grenville had 
 written me a letter, in which this branch of the confular power is de- 
 nied, and notice given to us that the practice muil be difcontinued. A 
 copy of this letter, and of mine tranlir.itting it to our feveral conluls, I 
 had the honor to fend you with my letter of the 10th of December. — 
 Previous to the communication of this relblution of the Britifli gov- 
 ernment, it had been notified to Mr. Pinckney, that all applications for 
 the difcharge of American feamen imprefTed into the BiitKli fervice, 
 must in future come through the American minifter, inftead of coming 
 
11 
 
 from the American confuls, as had been cuftomary. One confequence 
 of this regulation has been, that the fubjedl in all its details has come 
 under my obfervatlon, and its importance, I confefs, is much greater 
 than I had supposed it. Injiead of a few y and those in many infiemces equiv- 
 ocal casesy I have, ft nee the month of July pafl * made applicaiio7i for the 
 discharge from the Britif) men of luar of 21\ seamen, ivho^ fating ir.em- 
 selves to he Americans, have claimed my interference : Of this Jiumber 86 
 have been ordered by the admiralty to be discharged ; 37 tnore have been de- 
 tained as British subjects, or as American volunteers, or for nv ant of proof 
 that they are /Americans ; and to my applications for the discharge of the re- 
 maining 148, i have received no anstver ,- the ships on board oj ivhich these 
 seamen ivere detained^ having in fnany infances, sailed before an examination 
 luas made in consequence of my applications. ■]' 
 
 <<It is certain that fome of thole who have applied to me are not A- 
 mcrlcan citizens, but the exceptions are, in my opinion, few, and the 
 evidence, exclufive of certificates, has been fuch as, in moft cafes, to 
 fatisfy me, that the applicants were real Americans, who have been 
 forced into the Britifh fervice, and who, with Angular conftancy, have 
 generally perfevered in refuhng pay and bounty, though in fome in- 
 kances they have been in fervice more than two years. As the appli- 
 cations for my aid feemed to increafe, after the fulpeniion of the con- 
 fular power to grant protections (owing to the expofed fituation of our 
 feamen in confequence of the denial of this power,) I judged it advifa- 
 b!e, though I faw little profpecl of any permanent agreement, to attempt 
 to obtain the confent of this government, that, under certain regula- 
 tion'?, our confuls (hould again be authorifed to grant certificates of 
 citizenfhip to our feamen. My letter to lord Grenviile and his anfwer 
 you have enclosed. 
 
 <'I likewife fend you tli£ copy of another letter, to which I have re- 
 ceived no anfwer, that 1 wrote to lord GrenvUle in order to expole the 
 inconfiftency with the laws and principles of Britl^h allegiance of a rule 
 by which acknowledged Americans are detained in the Britifti fervice." 
 
 *A period of about eight months only. 
 
 tBy the report of the secretary of state, to conjure? s dated Jan. 15, 1812, and other docu- 
 meiifs and evidence then before congre«s ; it appeared that at that time there were SIX 
 THOUSAND TWO HUNDRKD AND FIFTY SEVEN impressed Americans in thg 
 service of Kngland. 
 
 E.Mract of a htttr from Rufus Kmg, Esq. viin'ister plenipotentiary of the Uni- 
 ted States, to the Secretaiy of State, dated 
 
 "LONDON, MARCH 15, I7O9- 
 
 "I then mentioned our difiatisfaftlon with the continuation of the 
 practice of taking out of our fhlps, met on the main ocean. Inch of their 
 crews as did not poffefs certificates of American citizenfliip ; denying, 
 as I had often done in former conferences upon the fame i'ubje<Sl:, any 
 right on the part of Great Britain upon nvhich the praFiice could be founded ; 
 and suggefing that curfoips of ivar, by perrniffioti of otir government, might 
 •with equal right pursue the satne praclice towards their merchantmen. 
 
 <'Th,it not only feamen who fpoke the Englilli language, and who 
 were evidently EngliOa or American fubje^ts, but alfo all Danijh, Siuc- 
 
12 , 
 
 d'tflj, and other foreign seamen^ nvho cctihl not receive American prcteclions^ 
 tvere indiscriminately taken from their voluntary service in our neutral etn- 
 ploy and forced into the war in the naval service of Great Britain. 
 
 " That on this fubjsdl we liad again and again oftered to concur in a 
 convention, which we thought pradticable to be formed, and which 
 Ihould fettle thefe queftions in a manner that would be fafe for En- 
 gland, and fatisfa(Slory to us. 
 
 *'That to decline fuch convention, and to perllft in a praftice which 
 we were perfuaded could not be vindicated, el'peciaily to the extent to 
 which it was carried, feemed lefs equitable and moderate than we tho't 
 we had a right to expe£l. 
 
 " Lord Grenville stated tw preciw principle upon luhith he supposed this' 
 praBice could be jujlified, and the converfation upon this point, like many 
 others upon the fame fubjed^t, ended without a profpcft of fatisfadlion. 
 The French and Spaniards^ and every other nation, might pursue the same 
 conduct us rightfully as Great Britain dees. With refpecl to foreign fea- 
 men in our employ^ this government has, if I recolleci, yielded the 
 point, though their officers continue the practice. We are afllired that 
 all Americans Ihall be dil'charged on application for that purpofe, and 
 that orders to this efieft have been given to their naval commanders j 
 but this is far fhort of fatisfadlion — indeed, /o acquiesce in ity is to give up- 
 the right,'' 
 
 ilEMASK. 
 From these Letters, it appears, that the extent of the inju- 
 ry of IMPRESSMENT was "much greater" to America, than Mr. 
 King, or the American People generally, " had supposed it ;" 
 that the practice of Englafid militates with her own princi- 
 ples^ in demanding men iiaturalized by other nations, nhile 
 she refuses to give up those naturalized by herself — That al- 
 though the cabinet of Great Britain can assign no '■''princi- 
 ple'" to justify her claim of impressments from on board our 
 ships, yet they are determined to continue the practice in its 
 Avhole extent and with all its aggravations, and our minister 
 despairs of obtaini?ig any satisfaction-^ that all furtiier nego- 
 ciation upon the subject would be futile; and that America 
 must forever submit to this novel and unprincipled claim, 
 this intolerable injur}^, insult and degradation, or make the 
 last and glorious appeal in defence of its honor and indepen- 
 dence, and of the equality of nations. 
 
 This claim of Great Britain was first iti-vented by her, to be 
 applied to this country after its emancipation and acknowl- 
 edged independence ; and undoubtedly arose from, a desire, 
 on her part, of saving something from the pieces of the wreck 
 of her empire, which then seemed crumbling to its base. Slie 
 gave us our Independence upon the land; while, contrary to 
 her express ackno'voledgment^ she continued to compel and se- 
 
13 
 
 cure our services upon /lie ocean. Washington saw the ten- 
 dency of this chiiin to national degradation, and remonstrated 
 against it ; in his opinion we were then too feeble to wage 
 another war. Adams saw it, and remonstrated. Jfjffersox 
 likewise saw it, and remonstrated. In the mean time the na- 
 tion revived from the distresses and privations of the Revo- 
 lutionary war ; it encreased in numbers and oppulence, and 
 became powerful ; circumstances in Europe changed, and 
 the policy of our government changed with them ; strong 
 prospects of success revived tiie hopes of America; and it 
 remained for President MADISON to take that step, in our 
 national policy, which all his predecessors saw inust finally 
 be taken., and ardently longed for the time, when by reason 
 of the increasing strength of our nation and a change of cir- 
 cumstances, it could be taken with a reasonable expectation 
 of an honorable peace. What the fathers of cur country, 
 Washington, Adams, JeiTersoi , and their copatriots have 
 prophesied as essential to the complete emancipation of Ame- 
 rica, our present Congress have had the policy and courage 
 to declare, a war with Great Britain. And, by this measure 
 they have only met the' war on one side, which England has 
 been so long unjustly waging against this country. 
 
 Practical Operation of Impressments, 
 
 j^s exhiinled In the ojjinal returns of the ^Imcricon Co>'fnl m Londcn. 
 An Abltract lo th» Return or Lift ot American (eamen and citizens wlio have 
 been impressed and licld on board h-s Briiann c N'lajestV's ships of war, iiotn 
 ist July to 30th September, iSio inclusively 
 Discharged and ordered to be dil"- ,^ ~^ ^ fProteCLion? from Confuls 
 charged 70 > S'.S • ^'^'^ ^''■'^■- Confuls 14 
 
 "Having no documents r32 |^ •-§ j5 | Notarial affidavits made in 
 
 Being Natives of the United s\5 S' j the United States & 
 
 Kinjrdom 28 ^ "^ .| j Do. do. England S 
 
 Do. We!> Indies 1 ^■^^i \ Colleaors PVcteaions 2" 
 
 Do. Africa 1 ^ ^ | 
 
 Do Importers 2 ^ "S 5 
 
 Having fraudulent protections 'S ) '^-^ 
 Being ignorant cf the U. S. 4 ^ i:^ 
 
 Not anfwering tbedefcription ^ Cannot afcertain the nam.es of the 
 
 <{ given m their protections 13 1 (liips on board of which men are 
 
 Having voluntarily entered 14 ^ lerving 155 
 
 Stated to be ma:ricd in the U. S Not on board the fliips as Rated 9 
 
 Kingdom 3 ( Dcferted 7 
 
 Haviiig been taken in ptiva- ^ Drowned 2 
 
 teers of the enemy 6 '^ Died 2 
 
 No reafon affignid 2 S Killed I 
 
 Being a deferttr I ^ Invalided '> 
 
 Being a native of Prnffia 1 S On board (hipp on foreign ftations 59 
 
 i^Not bcirg Ameri'-ins 2 ^ Applications unanfsvercd 1 
 
 WILLIAM LYI\UN. Total 525 
 
 ? 
 ■^ 
 
 Admiralty ProteC-tions - 1 
 Indentures 1 
 
 Documents from the De- 
 partment of State 10 
 
 o< 
 
14 
 
 Clerk'' s Office, Iloufe of RepresentaUves of the United Slates. 
 I certify, that the foregoing is a true copy oi the abflraft G. contained in 
 the meffage from the Prefident of the United States, tranfmitting a report 
 from the Secretary of Stale, on the fubjefts of imprefTments, of the 15th Jan- 
 1812, the original whereof is now on hie in my office. 
 
 In iv'itnefs ivhere;/, I have licreunto set my hand and affixed the feal of my 
 office, the I'ith November, in the year of our Lord one thoufand 
 f seal) eight hunJred and twelve, and of the Independence of the United 
 States the thirty-feventh, 
 
 P. MAGP.UDER, c. n. r. u. s. 
 
 It will be observed that this number of 325 Mariners were 
 all impressed from on board of American vessels during the 
 short period of tmrek months. And if the operation of the 
 British practice of Impressment be so desfrucfive upon our 
 fellow-citizens, in tlie short space of three nionths., what would 
 it be in the course of years,during the whole continuance of a 
 war, and upon our posterity forever ? Let the honest and 
 indignant feelings of our happy Yeomanry, who love Justice 
 between nations as well as individuals, determine. 
 
 Extract of the Proclamation of the President restoring; conn?lerci^l in>erroiirpe 
 with Great Britain, rt^f/Zd-ax'/V^^' our statute of Non'mtercnurse in J'-nrcc as to 
 France, agreeably tf> the arraf)genieMt made witli Mr. Erskine, the minister 
 Plenipotentiary of Great Britain. 
 
 By the President of the United States of^ Jmerica. 
 A PROCLAMATION. — Whercas the honour.ible David Montague Erf- 
 kine, his Britannic majefly's envoy extraordinary and minifter plenipo- 
 tentiary ,-has, by the order and in the name of his fovereign, declared to 
 this government, that the Britifli orders in coimcil of J.muary and 
 November 1807, will have been withdrawn as relpecls the United 
 States, on the tenth day of June next. Now, therefore, I James Mad. 
 isoN, prefident of the United States, do hereby proclaim, that the orders 
 in council aforefaid will have been withdrawn on the fiid tenth day 
 of June next •, after which day the trade of the United States with 
 Great Britain, as fufpended by the aft of Congrefs above mentioned, 
 and an aft laving an embargo on all ihips and vef.l-ls in the ports and 
 harbours oftlie United States, and the feveral acts iupplementary there- 
 to, may be renewed. 
 
 Given under my hand and feal of the United States, at Wafliington, 
 the nineteenth day of April, In the year of our Lord, one 
 ;., s. thoufand eight hundred and nine, and of the Independence of 
 the United'^States, the thirty-third. 
 
 JAMES MADISON. 
 
 By fha Freftdctit—Rr. Smith, Sfcreiary of State. 
 
 The arrangement made with Mr. Erfelne, and this proclamation of 
 the Prefident, ilTued conformably to that arrangement, Ihow clearly 
 t>he din^ofirion of the Amo-ic^n Cibmet to conclude a treaty with Great 
 
15 
 
 Britain, whenever it can be done confiftently with the Interefts, safet'^^ 
 and kjHor of America ; & even to go to war nvith France, \f fuch a mea'f- 
 ure ihould be necell^iry, to obtain indemnity for French fpoliations upon 
 our commerce, and to fecure our maritime rights. And which arrange- 
 ment, had it been ratified and carried into effecl in good faith and hon- 
 efi:yby Great Britain, would without doubt, have eventuated in a final 
 and latisfadcory fettlement, with England, of all our differences, and in 
 a vigorous war with the French Empire. This defire, in the American 
 executive, of a fettlement and peace with England, fo fatisfadiorilv ex- 
 empUfied by t!ie readiness with which this an-angen^ent was entered in- 
 to on our part, is incontrovertible proof, and nmll: fatisfy every candid 
 mind, of the impartiality of the American Cabinet toward the bellige- 
 rents ; and of the groun>llers nature and abfurdity of the accufations of 
 French alliance, French partiality ^ secret understanding luith Napoleon, pre^ 
 judice agninjl England, and the whole firing of invectives which have 
 been fo llhberaliy beftowed upon our Government by unprincipled hire- 
 lings throughout the Union. Anti .vliy was not this arrangement carried 
 into efiect in good faith ? Ask the Brilijlj Cabinet ; for George the 
 'kl alone can anfwer the queftion. He put an end to the arrangement, 
 and he alone is the caufe, why America is not now at peace with Eng- 
 land and at war with the French Emperor. The American Cabinet 
 has never been accufed of infidelity or a dellre of breaking over this ar- 
 rangement, fo folemnly and amicably concluded. 
 
 Extract from Mr. Kent's speed} in the last Congress, on the Army Bill. 
 
 What have been the proportions heretofore made by our govern- 
 ment to Great Britain upon this fubject .'' I find;, by a recurrence to 
 the correfpondence of MelTrs. Munroe and Pinckney with that govern- 
 ment in 1S06, that we made the following propofitions. Here Mr. K. 
 read the following popofals from the public documents of 1807-8. We 
 offered — 
 
 Iff. To afford no refuge or protection to Britifh fearnen. 
 
 2d. To deliver them up if they took refuge among us. 
 
 3d. To make laws for reiforing them. 
 
 4th. To aid in fearching for, feizing and reftoring them. 
 
 5th. To keep them in our prifons when requelled. 
 
 6th. To prohibit our citizens from carrying them off. 
 
 7th. To prohibit their employment. 
 
 8th. To make penal laws for punifhing their employers. 
 
 9th. To make it our duty to reftore them. 
 
 10th. To extend the foregoing proviilons not only to deferters, but 
 to all fea-faring people. 
 
 Thefe propofitions went completely to fecure to Great Britain the 
 fervices of all her iea-faring fubjecfls, except fuch as were naturalized 
 under our laws, v^'hich amounted to but few indeed j thirteen hundred 
 Britifli feamen only having been naturalized fince the commencement 
 of cur government, and in all probability an equal number of our fea- 
 men have been naturalized by Great Britain during the fame period. — 
 
Yet to my alloniflimcnt liavc I heard It ftated during this debate, tliat 
 our government had made no lerious propofitions to fecme to Great 
 Britain the lervices of her k-amen. 
 
 But equitable as thele propolitions were, they were rejected. Not- 
 with (landing, fir, our government, anxious in their purfuit after peace, 
 have gone ftill further ', they have, through our late Charge des Atfaires 
 in London (Mr. Ruilell) propofed to Great Britain to exc'ude from our 
 naval Tervice (as well public as private) all her feamen, including thole 
 which may hereafter be naturalized, and notwithilanding the liberality 
 and juftice of this propolal, it, like all others, has been made without 
 producing the delired eiFecl : And what more, fir, could have been ask- 
 ed of ui, required, or granted, thau is contained in thefe offers ? No- 
 thing more j unlefs, indeed, they had asked for our independence, and, 
 yielding to the requiiltion, we had granted it. When an American vef- 
 fel is at fea, it is amenable to no laws but thofe of its ov.'n country and 
 the laws of nations ; and where in either of thole will the advocates for 
 imprelfment fiMd their julliiication ? Sir, had not the practice of im- 
 preiTment been treated as a cafual, a trivial circumliance, during this de- 
 bate, I fhould iiot have prefumed to trouble the Houfe with my deful- 
 tory remarks, and my principle object in addrefiing the Houfe was to 
 ask tiieir attention to a document which appears to have been overlook- 
 ed, and whicli, if neceflary, will place the abomination of that praftice 
 in colours too ftrong to be miftaken. 
 
 Here Mr. K. read the follov/ing extra£l of a letter from the Secreta- 
 ry of State to Mr. Monroe, dated January 4:, 1804 — 
 
 "The whole number of applications made by imprelfed feamen to our 
 Coiiiul ill London between the inonth of June '97 and September ISOl, were 
 two choufand and fifty nine. Of this number an hundred and two feamen 
 only were deiained as Britilli fubjedls ; which is lefs than one-twentieth of the 
 whole number iniprelfed. Eleven hundred and forty-two were difcharged, 
 or ordered to be fo, and ei;^ht hundred and five were detained for further 
 proof with tiie .Oirongcll: prtlumption that the greater part, if not the whole 
 were Americans, or otht^r aliens v;hofe proof of citizenQiip had been loll or 
 deftrojcd." . 
 
 It is then evident from this document, that for every Britifla feaman 
 obtained by this violent proceeding, a number of Americ •■ns or other 
 aliens with whom Great Britani has no right to nieddlc, not lefs than 
 twenty for one, have been the vi^^Hms to it. Sir, have we become fo 
 ioft to the real independence and fovercignty of the country, that we 
 are prepared to yield to this degrading, debaling and humlliatmg badge 
 of vaffalage. 
 
 The Romans of old had a practice of making the governors of thofe 
 countries they conquered pais annually beneath their yoke as a mark 
 of iubmiffion, but we, doomed to humiliation far greater, are made t© 
 pafs daily, nay hourly, beneath one much more galling. 
 
 REJECTED TREATY. 
 By fome it is fiiid that all our evils, if we have evils to complain of, 
 flow from the iingle circumilance of t-he rejection of the Treaty smug- 
 gled into this country in the year 180G, by the Britiili Miniflry. A 
 
17 
 
 mere examination of that Treaty will fatlsfy every American of the ru- 
 inous confequences that would have refulted to this Country from its 
 ratification j and that the Prelldent adled as duty to his country requi- 
 required, in rejedling it. Let us only look at the circumfliances under 
 which that treaty was formed, the fentiments of our Minifters in En- 
 gland, then expreffed to the Britifh Commiflioners, concerning it; 
 and above all the highly objedlionable, and indeed inadmiffible, note 
 of the Britifla cabinet which accompanied it to America and which was 
 to be deemed a part of the treaty if ratified by the two governments. 
 
 Extracts of a letter from the Secretary of State to Meffrs. Monroe and Pink- 
 NEY, our Minifters at London, dated May 20, 1807. 
 
 The pvefident continues to regard this fubjeft in the light in which it has 
 been prefled on the juftice and friendfhip of Great Britain. He cannot re- 
 concile it with his duty to our fea-faring citizens, or with the fenfibility or 
 Ibverelguty of the nation, to recognize even conftrudtively, a principle that 
 would expole on tlie high feas, their hbeity, their lives, every thing in a 
 word, that is dearcft to the human heart, to the capricious or interefted len- 
 tences which may be pronounced againft their allegiance, by officers of a 
 foreign government, whom neither the law of nations, nor even the laws of 
 that government, will allow to decide on the ovvncrfhip or charafter of the 
 minuteft article of property found in a like fituation. 
 
 IV itho7(t a provision against impyessmeuts, fubftantially fuch as is contemplated 
 in your original inftruftions, no treaty is to be concluded. 
 
 From this cominunication, and from the letter of MefTrs. Monroe and 
 Pinkney, publifhed by order of Congrefs, with the documents (contain- 
 ing the treaty which was r^'jedled and the correfpondence relating to it,) 
 it would appear, that pofitive inftru£lions had been given to our minif- 
 ters, not to conclude a treaty, unlefs a provifion fhould be made againft 
 impreflrnents. And yet in their letter dated 3d Jan. 1807, upon the 
 fubje6l of the treaty fent out to America, they fay — ^^We are sorry to add 
 that this treaty contains no provisions against the i}7ipressment of our seamen.^* 
 
 The Britifh commidioners refufed to infert a provifion againft im- 
 prelTments in the treaty \ but in a note figned by Lords Holland and 
 Auckland, directed to our minifters and dated Nov. 8, 1806, they give 
 the American minifters the nioft positive assurancts that a provifion againft- 
 imprefTments fhall be made, such as will come within the puriiew of their 
 original instruBions . Public Documents p. 117. 
 
 Upon the fubjefl of thefe afllirances of the Britifh commiflioners 
 MeflTrs. Monroe and Pinkney fay, "The time at which this note was 
 prefi^nted to us, and the circumftances under which it was prefented, 
 being when the negociatlon was abfolutely at a ftand on this very quef- 
 tion, and we had infornied the Britifh commiflioners, that %i)e could do 
 nothing if it was not provided for, give to this ACT a peculiar degree ef so- 
 lemnity and obligation. It was lent to us as a public paper, and intended 
 that we ihould fo confider it, and with the knowledge and approbation 
 of the cabinet. It ought, therefore to be held as obligatory on the gov- 
 ernment, in its juft import, as if the fubftance had been ftipulated in a 
 treaty." And in that view of it, the Americ?in Minifters figned the trea- 
 ty. And in a letter dated December 27, i S06, they exprcflfed a conS- 
 3 
 
18 
 
 tlence, that the arrangement would meet the approbation of their gov., 
 srnment. But, to the aftonifhment of every real American, the Amer- 
 ican minifters have to announce to their government, and to the v/orld, 
 the bad faith of the Britip cabinet in REFUSING THE ABOVE REASONA- 
 BLE ARRANGEMENT. In their letter dated April 22, 1807, they fay, 
 «*We had many conferences with the Britifh commiffioners, previous to 
 the late change, upon the fubject of impreffments, in which tht-y inva- 
 riably declared to us, that the practice of their government would be 
 flrifStly conformable to the fpirit of the article, which they had fettled 
 with us ; and ivhkh was after%vards REJECTED BT THE CABINET, 
 They dated that the prejudice of the navy, and of the country generally, 
 was fo ftrong in favour of their pretensions that the miniilry could not 
 encounter it in a direft form, and that, in truth, the fupport of Parlia- 
 tnent could not have been relied on, in fuch a caseJ* 
 
 Who, after this candid developement of facffcs, can fay, that Great 
 Britain has always been ready honorably to fettle the important difpute 
 which relates to the imprelTment of American Seamen ? Who can now 
 wonder, that the treaty was rejected, when the faith of the Britilh cabi- 
 net was fo fhamefuily violated ? Where is the man, in whofe bofom beats 
 an American heart, who can believe that the American government 
 would ratify the treaty, when Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinkney are both 
 led to doubt. In their letter, laft quoted, they fay, "We iiated, how- 
 ever, (to Mr. Canning in converfation) that we had great reason to be- 
 lieve that the treaty luould not be ratified in its prefent 'form, for caufes 
 which were well known to his majefty's lite government. We ther^ 
 communicated to him fully all the circumftances on which that remark 
 was founded ; particularly the nature of our itiftruclions, relative to im- 
 preiTments ; the knowledge which the Britiili commiffioners had of 
 them ; the entire fufpenfion of the negociaticn at a certain period, on 
 the failure with the Cabinet, of a proje(ft of an article for the regulation 
 of that point. And finally, the condition on which we did proceed in 
 the bufmefs, that is, that our government nuoiild not be bound to ratify thi 
 treaty, if it Ihould not be fatisfied with the fubititute for fuch an article 
 offered in that note." 
 
 The Britifli Commiffioners having been thus expressly notified, that 
 our minifters had not acted conformably to their inftruclions, in fign- 
 ing a treaty, without a ftipulation againil the impreffinent of our lea- 
 men, and alfo an exprefs refervation having been made at the time oi- 
 fuch fignature, " that the American government would not be bound 
 to ratify the treaty if it fliould not be fatisfied with thelubftltute"ofFered 
 in the note; the Britifh Cabinet have therefore, no reafon to complain, 
 on their part, of the rejeiflion of the treaty by our government. And 
 this very note propoled by the Britiffi Commiffioners, as a lubftitute for 
 an article in the treaty, upon the I'ubject of iiYiprelTaients, having been 
 difa vowed and rejected by the iv.iniflr\^ of Great Britain, left this moll 
 important fubjedl: of impreffinent wholly without ftipulation. And if 
 the treaty had been ratified by our government, under fuch circumfi:an- 
 ces, our mariners would have been altogether abandoned to the mercy 
 of England, and her pretended right to imprefs mr)!, from on board our 
 
iliips at Tea, thereby, achuonvledged. And fuch acknowledgment %vas 
 undoubtedly the great object of the Britifti Cabinet, during the whole 
 train of X.\\\sJ}range and equivocal negociation. And it is due to the great 
 forefight, diicernment, and patriotiim of the American Cabinet, that this 
 treaty has been rejected, and that our fellow citizens have not been 
 abandoned. 
 
 Another caufe, however, and if pofllble a more important one, for the 
 reje«n:ion of this treaty, yet remains to be confidered. An objection to 
 the treaty altogether iusurmountahle. Juft before the treaty was fent out 
 to America for ratification, Lords Holland and Auckland communicated 
 to our minifters a written note, of which the following is an extradl. 
 
 London^ December 31, i8c6. 
 
 The underfigned Henry Richaid VaffliU Lord Holland, and William 
 Lord Auckland, pleripocentiaries of his Britannic raajefty, have the honor to 
 inform James Monroe and William Pinkney, commiffioners extraordinary and 
 plei;ipotenti:iries of the United States of America, that they are now ready 
 to proceed to the fignature of the treaty of aoiity, commerce and navigation, 
 on the articles of which they have mutually agreed. 
 
 But at the fame time, they have it in command from his majefty, to call 
 the attention of the commiffioners of the United States, to fome extraordi» 
 nary proceedings which have lately taken place on the continent of Europe, 
 and to comnjunicate to them officially the sentiments of his majefty's govern- 
 ment thereupcn. 
 
 The'proceedings allu^^ed to are certain declarations and orders of the 
 French government iffued at Berlin on the 21ft of November last. 
 
 If however the enemy ihould carry thefe threats nto execution, and if 
 neutral nations, contrary to all expedtation, fhould acquiefce in fuch ufur- 
 pations, his majefty might probably be compelled, however reiuftantly, to 
 retaliate in his juft defence, anti /o od'pt, in regard to tht commerce of neulrcl 
 tiafiotn Huith Jus enemifs, the sawe tnea.ures which (hoie nations shall ha'"e pervdlted to 
 be enfi.rced ago'imt their ccmmerce tvith hh subjects. The commifiioners of the 
 United States will therefore feel, that at a moment when his m 'jefty and all 
 iieutral nations are threatened with fuch an extenfion of the belligerent pre- 
 tcnfions of his enemies, he cannot enter into the ftipulations of the prefent 
 treaty, without an explanation from the United States, of their intentions, or 
 Ji reservation on t e p rt of his majesty in the case abai'ementioned, if it should ever 
 occur. 
 
 The underfigned confidcring that the diftance of the American govern- 
 xnent renders an immediate explanation on this fubject impoffible, and ani- 
 mated by a defire of forwarding the beneficial work in which they are engag- 
 ed, are authorized by his majefty to conclude the treaty without delay. 
 They proceed to the fignature under the fud perfuafion that before the treaty 
 fhall be returned from America with the ratification of the United States, the 
 enemy will either have formally abandoned or tacitly relinquifhed his unjuft 
 pretentions, or that the government of the United States, by its conduft or 
 aifurances, will have given fecurity to his majefty that it will not fubmit to 
 fuch innovations in the eftablillied fyftem of m.iritime law : and the under- 
 figned have prefenied this note from an anxious v.iih that it fhould be clear- 
 ly underftood on both fidei^, that nvithout such an abandomnent on the part of 
 the enemy, or such assurances, or siich conduct on the part if the United Slates, 
 
 his 7najesfy will not consider himself bound by the present sig- 
 
20 
 
 nature of his commissio7iers to ratify the treaty^ or precluded 
 from adopting such measures as may seem necessary for coun- 
 teracting the designs of his enemy. 
 
 rSiened) VASSAL HOLLAND, 
 
 ' '''^«^^/ AUCKLAND. 
 
 To James Monroe, &c. &c. &c. 
 IVilliam Plnkney, &c, &c. &c. 
 In what view our minifters at London confidered this note, will ap- 
 pear by their letter to our government. 
 
 Extra8 of a letter from Meffr^. Monroe and Pinlney^ dated Jafu 3, 1807. 
 
 We replied in very explicit terms to the British commissioners that tue consid- 
 ered their proposition altogether inadmissible on our fart, and not likely to ac- 
 compJishf i/'U^e could agree to it, the object njohich they contemplated by it : tha\: 
 SHch a proposition to our government, under the circumstances atlendinfj it, would 
 amount, in substance, to an offer to it of the alternatinje befvoeen the Treaty, and 
 a ixiar luiih France, since if our gonjernment refused to gi've the satisfaction 
 ivhich they desired, the treaty ivould he lost : and if such satisfaction was given 
 and the treaty conchided, and France should persist to execute her decree, ac- 
 cordmg to the construction given of it here, war seemed to be inevitable. 
 
 In transmitting to you this paper, it is our duty to observe that 'ate do nit con- 
 sider ourseliies a party to it, or as hat'ing given it in anv the slightest degree 
 our sanction. 
 
 Had the proposition contained in this formal note of the 
 British Commissioners been sanctioned by our government, 
 as it would have been by a ratification of the treaty, the A- 
 merican Cabinet would thereby have expressly recognized the 
 pretended right, claimed by Great Britain, of retaliating 
 THROUGH NEUTRALS the wrongs of the belligerents. Which is 
 the very preposterous doctrine lately advanced by England, 
 that a neutral ivho is compelled to suffer a wr&jig from one 
 of the belligerents^ thereby gi-ves a right to the other belligerent 
 to inflict upon the same neutral a similar or ati equal wrong. A 
 monstrous doctrine^ which no neutral will ever recognize or sub- 
 mit to, who has any sense of Justice ; any regard to her own 
 honor; or any power to defend her rights. The recognition of 
 such a principle, would be, to place neutrals, on all occasions,at 
 the mere}'' of other nations, without the right of complaining ; 
 and to make them, as it were. Foot-balls, to be beaten and buf- 
 feted on both sidesj and kicked to and fro, for the sport of the 
 belligerents. 
 
 Since the Declaration of War, to evince their flncere delire of an lion- 
 orable peace with England, and in order if poflible to obtain fo impor- 
 tant an obje6l, our government have at feveral different times, made 
 propofitions for an armiftlce, on reasonable and fair terms, through the 
 medium of their agents. One of which will appear by the following, 
 
 ExtraB of a letter from Mr. Riiffell to Lord Caflereagh, dated 
 
 London, 2tth Auguft, 1812. 
 My Lord — If is only neceffary, I truR, fo call the attcniion of your Lordship 
 to a review of the conduit of the government of the Uiutert States, to prove in- 
 
21 
 
 controvertibly ite iinceafing anxiety to maintain the relations of peace and friend- 
 fliip with Great Britain. Its patience in I'uffering the many wrongs whicli it has 
 received, and its perfeverance in endeavoring by amicable means to obtain re, 
 dreffr, are known to the world. Defpairing, at length, of receiving this redrefs 
 from the juftice of the Bntifh government, to which it had fo often applied in vain, 
 and feeling that a further forbearance would be a virtual fiirrender of interettsand 
 rights cfTential to the profperity and independence of the nation confided fo its 
 proteclion, it has been compelled to difcharge its high duty by an appeal to arms. 
 While, however, it regards this courfe as the only one which remained for it f© 
 purfue, with a hope of preferving any portion of that kind of character which 
 conflitutes the vital firength of every nation ; yet, it is Itill willing to give anotli- 
 er proof of the fpirit which has uniformly diftinguifhed its proceedings, ()y /eek- 
 jng to arreil, on terms confiftent with juftice and honor, the calamities of wnr, — 
 Itlias, therefore, authorifed me (o ftipiilate with his Britannic Majefty's govern, 
 ment an armiftice, to commence at or before the expiration of fixty days after the 
 (ignature of the inftrument providing for it, on condition that the orciers in coun- 
 cil be repealed, and no illegal blockades be fubftituted to them, and that orders 
 be immediately given to difcontinue the imprelFment of perfons from American 
 veflTtls, and taVeftore the citizen of the United States already imprelTed ; it being 
 moreover well underftood, that the Britilh government will affent to enter into 
 definitive ariangemenfs, as toon as may be, on tho(e and every other difference, 
 by a treaty to be concluded either at London or Wathirgton, as, on an impartial 
 confideration of exifling ciicumlfances (hall be dremed moft expedient. 
 
 As an inducement to Great Britain to difcontinue the practice of impr«(rment 
 from American veffels, I am authorifed to give affiirance that a law fliall be 
 paired (to be reciprocal) to prohibit the employment of Britifli feamen in the 
 public or commercial lervicc of the United States. 
 
 It is fincerely believed, that fuch an arrangement would prove more efficacioui 
 in fecuring to Great Britain her teamen, than tlK practice of imprelFment, fo de. 
 rogatory to the fovereign attributes cf the United States, and to incompatible 
 with the pcrfonal rights of their citizens. [ liiis prcpofition was rejected by the 
 Britifh Cabinet,] 
 
 REPORT 
 
 Cf the Committee of Foreign Relations, 
 
 In the House of Representatives of the United State Sy Jan. 29 y 1813. 
 
 EXTRACTS. 
 
 The U. States having engaged in the war for the fole purpofe of 
 vindicating their rights and honor, that motive alone fhould animate 
 them to its clofe. It becomes a free and virtuous people to give an ufe- 
 ful example to the world. It is the duty of a repreientative govern- 
 ment to render a faithful account of its conduct to its conftituents. 
 A juft fenfibility to great and unprovoked wrongs and indignities will 
 jullify an appeal to arms ; an honorable reparation fhould reftore the 
 bleflings ot peace ; every ftcp which they take, fhould be guided by a 
 facred regard to principle. 
 
 Your committee has feen with much fatisfaction that at the moment 
 of the declaration of war, the attention of the Executive was engag- 
 ed in an effort to bring it to a fpeedy and honorable termination. As 
 early as the tvventy-fixth of June laft, the Charge des Affairs of tlie U. 
 States at London was inllructed to propofe to the Britifh government an 
 armiftice, to take an iminediate effect, on conditions whicli it it believed 
 the impartial world will confider fafe, honorable and advantageous to G. 
 Britain. They were few in number and limited to pofitive wrongs dai- 
 ly practifed. That the orders in council fhould be repealed, and that 
 
22 
 
 our flag fliould protect our feamen, were the only indifpenfable condi- 
 tions infilled on. Other wrongs, however great, were poftponed for 
 amicable r.egociatlon. As an mducement to the Britifh government to 
 forbear thefc wrongs, it was propofed to repeal the non- importation law, 
 and to prohibit the employment of Britiih leam.en,in the public and pri- 
 vate vellels of the U. States -, particular care was taken that thefe pro- 
 portions fliould be made m a form as conciliatory, as they were amica- 
 ble in fubifance. 
 
 Your committee cannot avoid exprelhng its aftonifluuent at the man- 
 ner in \vliich they were received. It was not fuflicient to reject the 
 propofed armiftice ; terms <// peculiar reproach and injult were adopted to 
 tnahe the rcjcEllon offtnji-ue. 
 
 It happened, that almofr on th<i fi;me day in which the U. States, af- 
 ter having been worn out with accumulated wrongs, had reforted to the 
 lafl and only remaining honorable alternative in fupport of their rights, 
 t'le Britifli governmerit had repealed, conditionally, its orders in 
 council. That meafure v/as unexpected, bcaufe every application for 
 it had failed, although repeated to the very moment it was decided on. 
 Conditional as tlie repeal was, it was adm.itted t® have removed a great 
 obllacle to accomm.odation. 
 
 The other only remained : the practice of impreflhient. It was pro- 
 pofed to the Britiih government to open an amicable negociation to pro- 
 vide a fubftitutc to it, v/hich fliould be confidered an ample equivalent. 
 The subilitute propofed M'as defined, and of a diameter iocomprchenfivCj 
 ns to have removed, as wjS fU'efumed, every poiFible objection to an ac- 
 commodation. The pvopofition before made to exclude Britifh feamen 
 from our fervice ivas enhvgedyfo us to comprehend all native BritiJJj fub- 
 jeEls not already naturalized or entitled to naturalization under the laivi of tlye 
 U. S. J this ivas like-wife rejttted. 
 
 Your committee have fought with anxiety feme proof of a difpofition 
 hi the Britifh government, to accommodate on any fair condition the im- 
 portant differen'^e between the two nations, relative to imprefiinent, but 
 they have fought in vain ; none is to bo found either in the communi- 
 cations of tlie Britiih miniiter to the American Charge des Ailairs at 
 London, or in thofe of the commander of tlie Britilti naval forces at 
 Halifax made by order of his government to the Department of State. 
 They have feen with regret, that although Lord CaRlereaeh protLffed a 
 willingnefs in his govcvr.ment to receive and difcufs amicaoly any pro- 
 pofition having in view either to check abufe in the practice oi imprefl- 
 Tnent or to pvovide a fubilitute to it, he not only declined tntering into a 
 negociation for the purpofe^ but difcountcnanccd the expectation that ar,y fubfti- 
 tute could be prop'jfed, whit h his government would accept. It merits notice 
 a;fo, though it ce;iled to be a caufe of furprke, that in the communica- 
 tion of Admiral Warren to the Department of State, the fubjcct of im- 
 prefThient was not evtn alluded to. 
 
 Had the Executive confented to an armiflice on the repeal of the 
 ©rders in council, without a faiisfactory provifion againfb imprellinent, 
 or a clear and diiiinct undcrfiamling with the Britifh govennnent to that 
 clTect, in fome mode entitled to confidence, your committee would not 
 have helitated to difapprove it. 
 
 The imprelTment of our feamen being eSefervedly confidered a princi- 
 p.il caufe of the war, the war ought to be profecutcd until that caufe be 
 
rctnoved. To appeal to arms in defence of a right and to lay thern 
 down without fecuring it, or a fatisfactory evidence of a good difpoiTtion 
 in tlie oppofite party to fecure it, would be confidfred in no othtr Hght^ 
 than a r-jHn'iuilhment of it. To artempt to negociatc afterwards, for 
 the fecurity of fuch right, in the expectation that any of the arguments, 
 which have been urg^d before the declaration of war and been rejected, 
 M'culd have more weight, after that experiment had been made in vain, 
 would be an act of iol'y which would not fail to expofe us to the fcorn 
 and deridon of the Britidi nation and of the w orld. 
 
 On a full view therefore of the conduct of the Executive in its tranf- 
 actions with the Britilh government fince the declaration of war, the 
 committee confider it their duty to expreis tlieir aitirr appr-obaiicn of it. 
 "2 hey percek'e in it a tirm refolutio7i to fupport the rights and honor of their 
 country^ ivith a fincere and coinmendabLj difpfi ion to promote peace.^ on fuch 
 fu/l and honorable conditions as the U. S. may ivilh fafety accept. 
 " It remains therefore for the U. States to take their final attitude with 
 G Britain, and to maintain it with confifkency, and with uniiiakcn hrni- 
 nefs and conftancy. 
 
 The British government has infilled that every American citizen 
 fliould carry with him the evidence of his citizenihip, and all thofe nc t 
 poffelTed of it might be impreffcd. This criterion, if not otherwile ob- 
 jectionable, would be fo, as the document might be loll, dellro^^ed or 
 taken from the party to whom it was granted, nor might it in all cafes 
 be entitled to relpect, as it might be counterfeited, transferred or grant- 
 ed to impi-oper perfons. But this rule is liable to other and much Itrong- 
 er objections. On what principle does the Britilh government claim of 
 the U. States fo great andfnamefida degradation ? Ought the free citizens 
 of an indtpendent power to carry ivith ti.em on the main ocean ^ and in their 
 own veJTels, the evidence of their freedom ? A7ul are all to be conftdered Briti/Jj 
 fubjeEls and liable to impnjfintnt ivho do 7iot bear iviih them that badge ? Is 
 it not moie confident with every idea both of public as v/ell as of piivate 
 right, that the party fetting up a claim to any intereft, whether it be to 
 perfons or property, lliouiil prove his right ? What would be the con- 
 duct of G. Britain under fimilar circumftances ? Would fhe permit the 
 public (hips of any orher power, difregarding the rights of their flag, to 
 enter on board her merchant veiTels, take from them fuch part of their 
 crews, as the boarding ofllcers thought fit, often her own fubjects, ex- 
 pofing by means thereof their vefTels to deitruction ? Would fhe fufFcr 
 fuch an ufurpation to derive any fanction from her patient forbearance ? 
 
 W'th the Britilh claim to imprefs Britifh feamen, the U. States have 
 no right to interfere, provided it be in Britifh veflels or any other than 
 thofe of the U. States ^I hat American citizens fhculd be exempt from its 
 operation^ is all that they demand. Experience has fliewn that this cannot 
 be fecured oiherwife, than by the veflel in which they fail. Take from 
 the American citizens this barrier^ ivhich ought to be heldjarredy and there is 
 nothing to protect them a?ainft the rapacious grafp of the Bri'.ifh navy. This 
 t'len is the extent of the demand of the U. States, a demand fo jull in 
 itfclf, fo confident and infeparable from their rights, as an independent 
 ration, that it has been a caufe of aftonilhnient, that it fiiould ever 
 have been called in queftion. The foundation of the Britifii claim is, 
 that Britilh f^arnen find emolriyment in the fervice of the IT, States -, 
 this is reprefented as an evil aifcctlng elitritiaily the great interells of 
 
24 
 
 the Britifh nation. This compliment would have more weight if fanc- 
 tioned by the Britifh example. It is known on the contrary, that it is 
 in direct repugnance to it. G. Britain does not fcrupie to receive into 
 her fervice all who enter into it voluntarily. If fhe confined herfelf 
 •within that limit, the prefent controverfy would not exift. Heretofore 
 she fiibjects of even the moft defpotic powers have been left at liberty 
 to purfue their own happinefs, by honefl induftry, wherever their incli- 
 nation led them. 
 
 The Britifli government refufes to its fcamen that privilege. Let not 
 this, then, be a ground of controverfy with that nation. Let it be dif- 
 tinctly underftood, that in cafe of an arrangement Ihould be made be- 
 tween the two nations, whereby each fliould exclude from its fervice the 
 citizens and fubjects of the other, on the principles and conditions above 
 dated, that this houfe will be prepared, fo far as depends on it, to give 
 it effect, and for that purpofe to enact laws, with fuch regulations and 
 penalties as will be adequate. With this pledge, it is not perceived on 
 what ground the Britifli government can perfili in its claim. If Britifh 
 feamen ai*e excluded from the fervice of the U. States as may be effec- 
 tually done, the foundation of the claim muft ceafe. When it is known 
 that not one Britifh feaman could be found on board American veifels, 
 it would be abfurd to urge that fact as a motive for fuch impreflment. 
 
 In declaring a willingnefs to give effect to the propofed arrangement, 
 your committee conlider it equally the duty of the houfe to declare, in 
 terms the moft decifive, that fhould the Britifli government ftill decline 
 it, and perfevere in the practice of impreffment from American veffels, 
 the U. States will never acquiefe in that practice, but will refift it un- 
 ceafingly with all their force. It is not neceffary to inquire what the 
 courfe would have been with refpect to impreffment, in cafe the orders 
 in council had been repealed before the declaration of war — or how long 
 the practice of impreffment would have been borne, in the hope that 
 that repeal would be followed by a fatisfactory arrangement with ref- 
 pect to impreffment. 
 
 War having been declared, and the cafe of impreffment being neceffa- 
 rily included as one of the moft important caufcs, it is evident that it 
 muft be provided for in the pacification. The onujjion of it in a treaty of 
 peace y ivould not leave it on its former ground ; it ivould in e^tB be an ahfo- 
 lute relinquifhtnent, a^i idea at ivhich the feelings of every American nnijl 
 revolt. The feamen of the U. S. have a claim on their country for proteEliony 
 and they mujl be protected. If a fingle fhip is taken at fea, and the property 
 of an American citizen arrefted from him unjuftly, it loulcs the indig- 
 nation of the country. How much more deeply then ought we to be 
 excited, when we beliold fo many of this gallant and highly meritorious 
 clafs of our fellow citizens fnatched from their families and country, and 
 carried into a cruel and afHlcting bondage. It is an evil which ought not, 
 which cannot be longer tolerat^'d. Without dwelling on the futferings 
 of the victims, or on\he wide f. ene of diftrefs which it fpreads among 
 their relatives through the country, the practice is in itfclf in the higli- 
 est degree degrading to the U. States :;s a nation. It is incompatible with 
 their fovereignty — it is fuhveriive of the main pillars of their indepen- 
 dence. The forbearance of the U. States under it has been miftaken for 
 pufiUanimity. 
 
 TheBritilh pretenflon \vas nurturing- faft into a right. Iladrefiftanc^ 
 
been longer delayed, it might have become one. Every admifttratlon 
 remonftrated againft it, in a tone which befpoke the growing indignation 
 of the country. Their remonftrances produced no effect. It was wor- 
 thy the illuflrious leader of our armies, when called by the voice of his 
 country to the head of the government, to paufe, rather than recommend 
 to his fellow-citizens a new war, before they had recovered from the 
 calamities of the late one. It was worthy his immediate fucceflbrs to 
 follow his example. In peace our free fyftem of government would gain 
 fbrength, and our happy union become confolidated. But at the laft 
 felTion, the period had arrived when forbearance could be no longer juf- 
 tified. It was the duty of Congrefs to take up this fubject in connexion 
 with the other great wrongs of which they complained, and to feek re- 
 drefs in the only mode which became the reprefentatives of a free peo- 
 ple. — They have done fo by appealing to arms, and that appeal will be 
 Supported by their conllituents. 
 
 Your committee are aware that an interefting crifis has arrived in the 
 U. States, but they have no painful apprehenfion of its confequences. 
 The courfe before them is direct. It is pointed out equally by a regard 
 to the honor, the rights and interefts of the nation. If we purfue it with 
 firmnefs and vigor, relying on the aid of heaven, ourfuccefs is inevitable. 
 Our refources are abundant ; the people are brave and virtuous, and 
 their fpirit unbroken. The gallantry of our infant navy befpeaks our 
 growing greatnefs on that element, and that of our troops when led to 
 action infpiresfuU confidence of what maybe expected from them when 
 their organization is complete. Our union is always moft ftrong when 
 menaced by foreign dangers. The people of America are never fo 
 much one family as when their liberties are invaded. 
 
 A BILL for the regulating of seamen on board the public ves- 
 sels, and in the merchant service of the United States. 
 
 EXTRACTS OF THE MOST IMPORTANT SFCTlONS. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represcntat'i'ves of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled. That from and after the termination, 
 by treaty of peace, of the war in which the United States arc now engaged with 
 Great Britain, it shall not be lawful to employ as seamen, or otherwise on board 
 of any public vessel of the United States, or of any vessel owned by citizens of 
 the United States, or sailing under their flag, any person or persons, except nat- 
 ural born citizens of the United States, or citizens ot the United States at the 
 time of such treaty being made and concluded, or persons who being resident 
 wiihin the United States, at the time of such treaty, and having previously de- 
 clared, agreeable to exifting Uws, their intention to become citizens of the U. 
 States, shall be admitted as such within five years thereafter, in the manner pre- 
 scribed by law. 
 
 Be it further enacted. That from and after the time at aforesaid, when this act 
 shall take eftett, the consuls or commercial agents of any nation at peace with the 
 Unite 1 States, shall be admitted (under such regulations as may be prescribed by 
 the Prcsideut of the United States) to ftaic their objections to the proper com- 
 mander or collecter as aforesaid, against the employment of any seaman or sea- 
 taring man on board of any public or private vessel of the United States, on ac- 
 count of his being a native subject or citizen of such nation, and not embraced 
 vvirhin the description of persons who may thus be lawfully employed, according 
 to the provisions of this act ; and the said consuls or commercial agents sh«ll aU 
 so be admitted under the said regulations, to be present at the time when the 
 proofs of ihe nativity or citizenship of the persons, againft whom such objections 
 
 4 . 
 
2'a 
 
 trray havf been made, sliall be investigated by siicli commander cr coiiector. 
 And be it further enactedy That if any comnjander uf a public vessel of ihe 
 United States, shall employ, or permit to be employed, or sliall admit or receive^ 
 or permit to be admitted, or received on board his vessel, any person whose em- 
 ployment or admission is prohibited by (he provisions of ihis act, he shall, on 
 conviction thereof, forfeit and pay the sum of one thousand dollars for each- 
 person thus unlawfully employed, or admitted on board such vessel. 
 
 And be it further enacted. That the provisions of this act, shall have no effect 
 or operation with respect to the employmeni as seamen, of the subjects or, citizens 
 of any foreign nation, which shall not have forbidden on boaid her public and 
 private vessels the employment as seamen or othei wise of native citizens ot the 
 United States ; or who shall permit the comn.anders of her public vessels to im- 
 press or take away from on board any vessel sailing under the flag of the United 
 States, any seaman or any other person, not beiryg a soldier or otherwise in the 
 employment of an enemy of such nation. 
 
 REMARK. 
 It is a little remarkable that this Bill, w^hose only obje6: and tendency is 
 a reftoration of peace w^ith England, Ihould have been prepared by the Re- 
 puhlican Committee of Foreign Relations ; and that in the Houfs of Repre- 
 fentatives, it was fupported and pafTed by a large majority of Republican 
 members. And, when the bill was confidered in the Senate a federal mQm\i&r* 
 moved a poftponment to the next Congrefs, which is well known to mean, 
 in other words, a total rejedion of it ; and, upon that quellion, flran5>-e as it 
 may appear, every member of the Federal party 'voted against the bill. And ia 
 not this demoiiflration, that at leaft many of the Federalifls, contrary to 
 their profeffions, are not the friends of peace ; and that the republicans are 
 defirous of an accommodation with England, fo foon as it can be made, 
 without a facrifice of the vital interefts and honor of the American Repub- 
 lic. The bill, however, pafTed in the Senate, notwithil:and;ng Federal op- 
 pofition. *Mr. Lloyd from Maifachufetts. 
 
 Extracts from Mr. Clay's Speech, i?i the last Congress, on the 
 
 new Army Bill. 
 
 The war was declared becaufe Great Britian arrogated to herfelf the 
 pretention of regulating our foreign trade, under the deluUve name of 
 retaliatory orders in council — a pretention by which flie undertook to 
 proclaim to American enterprize, <' Thus far flialt thou go, and no far- 
 ther," — orders which flie refufed to revoke after the alledged caufe of 
 their enadtment had ceafed ; becaufe llie perfifted in the prac^tice of 
 impreffing American feamen ; becaufe ilie had inftigated the Indians to 
 commit hoftilities againft us ; and becaufe flie refufed indemnity for her 
 paft injuries upon our commerce. I throw out of the ([ueftion other 
 wrongs. The war in fact was announced, on our part, to meet the war 
 which {he was waging, on her part. So undeniable were the caufes of 
 the war — fo pov/erful did they addrefs themfelves to the feelings of the 
 whole American people, that when the bill wns pending before this 
 Houfe, gentlemen in the oppofition, although provoked to debate, 
 would not, or could not, utter one fyllable againft it. It is true they 
 wrapped themfelves up in fullen filence, pretending that they did not 
 «hoofe to debate fuch a cpeftion in fecret feffion. Wliilft fpeaking or. 
 
27 
 
 die proceedings on that occalion, I beg to be permitted to advert to an- 
 other fa£l that transpired — an important fa£l, material for the nation to 
 know, and which I have often regretted had not been fpread upon our 
 journals. My honorable colleague (Mr. M'Kee) moved, in committee 
 of the whole, to comprehend France in the war; and when the que{- 
 tion was taken upon the propofition, there appeared but ten votes in fup- 
 port of it, of whom sevsn belonged to thisjide of the House, and three only te 
 the othd-r* 
 
 I am far from acknowledging, that had the orders in council been 
 refcinded, as they have been, before the war was declared, the decla- 
 ration would have been prevented. In a body fo numerous as this, 
 from which the declaration emanated, it is impoffible to fay with any 
 degree of certainty, what would have been the effe£l of fuch a repeal. 
 Each member muft anfwer for himfelf. I have no hefitation then in 
 faying, that I have always coniidered the imprcffment of American fea- 
 men as much the moil ferious aggreflion. But, fir, how have thofe or- 
 ders at laft been repealed ? Great Britain, it is true, has intimated a 
 willisignefs to fufpend their practical operation, but fhe ftill arrogates to 
 herfelf the right to revive them upon certain contingencies, of which 
 fhe conlVitutes herfelf the fole judge. She waves the temporary ufe of 
 the rod, but Ihe lufpends it in terrorem over our heads. Suppofing it 
 was conceded to gentlemen, that fuch a repeal of the orders in council 
 as took place on the 23d of June lafl, exceptionable as it is, being known 
 before the war, would have prevented the war, does it follow that it 
 ought to induce us to lay down our arms, without the redrei's of any 
 other injury ? Does it follov,', in all cafes that that v/hich would have 
 prevented the war, in the Hril: inflance, fhould terminate the war ? By 
 no means. It requires a great ftruggle for a nation,prone to peace as this 
 is, to bur ft through its habits and encounter the difhcukies of war. — 
 Such a nation ought but feldom to go to war. When it does, it fliould 
 be for clear and ellential rights alone, and it fliould firmly relblve to 
 extort, at all hazards, their recognition. 
 
 The war of the revolution is an example of a war began for one ob- 
 jeft and profecuted for another. It was waged, in its commencement, 
 again ft the right after ted by the parent country to tax the colonies. 
 Then no one tiiouglit of abfolute independence. The idea of inde-* 
 pendence was repelled. — But the Britiih government would have relin- 
 quilhed the principle of taxation. The founders of our liberties faw, 
 however, that there was no f'ecurity fhort of independence, and they 
 achieved our independence. When nations are engaged in war, thofe 
 rights in controverfy, which are not acknowleged by the treaty of peace, 
 are abandoned. And who is prepared to fay that American feamcR 
 ihall be furrendered, the victims to the Britiih principle of imprefTment } 
 And, iir, what is -this principle ? She contends that fhe has a right to 
 the fervices of her own fubjeifts ; that, in the exercife of this right, Ihe 
 may iuvfuUy i(riprefs them, even although fhe finds them in our veiTels, 
 .'.spun the high leas, without her jurifdiclion. Now, 1 deny that ^.heha 
 
 * Seue-n 'tc^^ubllcan^; kiid three Fedcra'iffs. 
 
28 
 
 any fight without her jurisdiction^ to come on hoard our vessels upon the high 
 seas ) for any other purpose but in pursuit of enemies^ or their goods, or goods 
 contraband of war. But fhe further contends, that her fubjedls cannot 
 renounce their allegiance to her and contract a levv obligation to other 
 fovereigns. I do not mean to go into the general queftion of the right 
 of expatriation^ If, as is contended, all nations deny it, all nations at 
 the fame time admit and praftice the right of naturalization. G. Britain 
 herfelf does. G. Britain, in the very cafe of foreign feamen, impofes, 
 perhaps, fewer reftraints upon naturalization than any other nation. 
 Then, if fubjefts cannot break their original allegiance, they may, ac- 
 cording to univerfal ufage, contracl a new allegiance. What is the 
 effeft of this double obligation .•* Undoubtedly that the fovereign hav- 
 ing the poflellzon of the fubjecH: would have the right to the fervices of 
 the fubject. If he return within the jurifdidlion of his primitive fov- 
 ereign, he may refume his right to his fervices, of which the fubjedt by 
 his own a£l, could not diveft himfelf. But this primitive fovereign can 
 have no right to go in queft of him, out of his own jurifdi^lion, into the 
 jurisdiction of another fovereign or upon the high feas, where there exifts 
 either no jurifdi6lion, or it belongs to the nation owning the Ihip 
 navigating them. But, fir, this difcuffion is altogether ufelefs. It 
 is not to the Britifh principle, objectionable as it is, that we are alone 
 to look- — it is to her practice — no matter what guife fhe puts on. — 
 It is in vain to aflert the inviolability of the obligation of allegiance. — 
 It is in vain to fet up the plea of neceffity, and to alledge that fhe 
 cannot exift without the imprefTment of HER feamen. The naked 
 truth is, fhe comes, by her prefs-gangs, on board of our vefllls, feizes 
 OUR native feamen, as well as naturalized, and drags them into 
 her fwvice. It is the cafe, then, of the afTertion of an erroneous prin- 
 ciple — and a practice not conformable to the principle — a principle 
 which, if it were theoretically right muft be for ever practically wrong. 
 We are told, by gentlemen in the oppofition, that government has not 
 done all that was incumbent on it to do, to avoid juft caufe of com- 
 plaint on the part of Great Britain — that, in particular, the certificates 
 of protection, authoriled by the aCt of 1796, are fraudulently ufed. — 
 Sir, government has done too much in granting thofe paper protections. 
 I can never think of them without being fhocked. They refemble the 
 pafles which the mafter grants to his negro flave, "Let the bearer, 
 Mungo, pafs and repafs, without molefl:ation." What do they imply ? 
 That Great Britain has a right to take all who are not provided with 
 them. From their very nature they muft be liable to abufe on both 
 fides. If Great Britain defires a mark by which flie can know her own 
 fubjeCts, let her give them an ear mark. The colors that float from 
 the maft head fliould be the credentials of our feamen. There is no 
 fafety to us, and the gentlemen have fhewn it, but in the rule that all 
 xvho sail under the flag (not being enemies) are proteCted by the flag. 
 It is impoflible that this country Ihould ever abandon the gallant tars, 
 who have won for us fuch fplendid trophies. 
 
 t See Note at the end of the pamphlet for authorities on the right of Expatria- 
 tion. 
 
29 
 
 REMARK. 
 The pretended claim of Great Britain to Impress men on 
 board of our ships at sea, is so totally groundless in princi- 
 ple, that it excites the ridicule even of her own subjects. As 
 evidence of this, the following is extracted from the late wri- 
 tings of a distinguished politician of that country : — 
 
 <« We have heard (says he) much talking about these mar- 
 " itime rights of Great Britain ; but 1 have never yet heard 
 " one man clearly state what he means by them. The A- 
 ^' merican Government say, that we have 710 right to stop 
 " their vessels at sea, and take people out of them ; and I 
 " say that this is a right that Great Britain 7ie'ver before con- 
 *' tended for ; and I defy any man to shew that any neittral 
 *' nation in the ivorld euer submitted to such a practice, or 
 *' that such a practice was ever attempted." 
 
 If the subjects of Britain be her slaves, let her treat them 
 as such. In the language of our Speaker in Congress, "if 
 she desire a mark, by which she can know them, let her 
 give them an ear mark. The colors that float from the mast 
 head should be the credentials oi our seamen." 
 
 The practice of enslaving our citizens by impressment, and 
 of requiring written protections about their persons, are 
 marks of riational degradation, to which America ought not, 
 and can not, longer submit. She has once caused her Inde- 
 pendence to be acknowledged, and she is now impatient to 
 be free in reality, and to assume her equal rank among the 
 nations of the earth. And we trust in God ! there is a re- 
 deeming spirit in the people, which, having once triumphed 
 over England, will not stop short at the acquisition of half 
 their Independence. This badge of vassalage must be thrown 
 off; this stain upon our national honor must be wiped away; 
 and the time will come, and is fast approaching, when the A- 
 merican name will be respected throughout the world; when 
 our mariners shall sail the ocean without any other pro- 
 tection than the flag that flies over them ; and when the ex- 
 clamation "/ am an American citizen" shall ensure, in all parts 
 of the globe, freedom and safety to every member of this ex- 
 tensive and growing republic. 
 
30 
 
 NOTE — to page 28. 
 
 The following are fome among the numerous authorities, proving 
 the natural and unalietiable right of Expatriation : 
 
 An opinion upon the fubject of naturalization has been formally and 
 Judicially pronounced in the Supreme Judicial Court of the U. States, 
 in the cafe of Talbot vs. Janibn, as fellows — 
 
 Judge Irfdell. — " Perhaps it is not necessary that it (right 
 of expatriation) should be expressly decided on this occasion, 
 but I will freely express my -sentiments on that subject. That 
 a 77ian ought not to be a slave, tiiat he should not be confined 
 against his will to a particular spot, because he happened to 
 draw his first breath upon it ; that he should not be compelled 
 to continue in a society, to which he is accidentally attached, 
 Avhen he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he 
 must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in an- 
 other, are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and 
 they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to re- 
 eognizey 
 
 It appears from hiftory, that the Right of Expatriation was clearly 
 acknowledged and eflablilhed among the mod antient nations. 
 
 The law of the Republic of Athens, extracted from Potter's Gn 
 An. b. 1, ch. 2G. 
 
 <'It is permitted to every Athenian, after having become 
 acquainted v/ith the laws and customs of the Republic, if he 
 dislike them, to retire with his family and goods." 
 
 Law of Rome, extracted from the writings of Cicero, the Orator '. 
 
 '■'-Glorious and divine rights which we have received from 
 our ancestors and which is coeval with the Roman name, 
 Ihat no one of us can be a citizen of more than one common- 
 wealth, (since different states must of necessity have differ- 
 ent laws) that none should be compelled to change his country 
 against his will ; and none against his will to remain in it. — 
 This is the firmest foundation of our liberty, that every one is 
 
 FR£E to retain OR DJVEST HIMSELF OF THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP ] 
 
 Extract from the Justinian Code — Dig. Lib. 49. tit. 15. 
 
 '■''Every one is free to decide for himself to what country he 
 'will belong." 
 
 Thefe three authorities are fufficiently conclufive, as to the laws and 
 practices of the anticnts — And with the antients agree all the modero 
 writers of any err.inence upon the law of nature and nations. 
 
 Extract from Puffendorf b. 3. ch. 9. fee. 3. 
 
 "•It is impossible that the same subject should be capable of 
 
two obligafions of the same nature." It has been justly con-' 
 eluded, therefore, that "Naturalization necessarily annuU his 
 first allegiance:^ 
 
 Extracts from Vattel,h. l,ch 19. 
 
 "A nation or sovereign, who represents it, may grant to a 
 stranger the ({uulify of a citizen, by admitting him into the 
 body of the political society. This is called naturalization.'" 
 
 "Every man is born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at 
 years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient 
 for him to join in the society for which he was destined by 
 his birth. If he finds that it will be of no advantage to him 
 to remain in it, he is at liberty to leave it, making a return for 
 what is done in his favor, and preserving as much as his new 
 engagements will allow him the sentiments of love and grat- 
 itude he owes it. 
 
 '■'•If the sovereign attempts to stop those^ who hive the right 
 of emigration, he does them an injury, and they may laivfidly 
 implore the protection of the power, who would receiue them. 
 
 "It appears from several iiistorical facts, particularly in the 
 iiistory of Switzerland and the neighboring countries, that 
 jthe law of nations established there by custom for some ages 
 jpast, does not permit a state to receive the subjects of anoth- 
 er into the number of its citizens. This vicious custom had 
 '.NO other foundation than thk slavery to which the people 
 WERE THEN RKDUCKD. A pritice, a Lord, considered his subjects 
 in the rank of his property and riches, lie calculated their 7ium- 
 ber as he did his flocks ; and to the disgrace of human nature 
 this strange abuse is not yet every where destroyed^' 
 
 From Grotius, lib. 1. ch. 3. fee. 4 1. 
 
 "It is no violation of amity, to receive subjects individual- 
 ly, who are desirous of emigrating from one country to ano- 
 ther. This, as v/e have formerly shewn, is not only a natu- 
 ral but a salutary liberty." 
 
 According to Bynkershook — In every country that is no* 
 a prison, the right of expatriation is recognized and allowed. 
 
'f^m 
 
 l^£ 
 
 
 ft"i:t^- 
 
 y- 
 
 S 
 
 ^- V 
 
 / 
 
 
 'w,o'^ 
 
 
 
m^ 
 
 '"Bifeiiifj 
 
 
 
 mmf 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 896 644 2