^, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT.3) k A {./ ^ >^ t^ a V 1.0 I.I 11.25 ■ 50 ^^* IV u Mia ■ 2.2 1^ I Inil 2.0 m ^Uli V /] Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. USM (716) S72-4503 iV iV i ^ o ;\ '^ ,% F.<^ t ^^4^ '/. 4s ^ CIHM/ICMH Mxrofiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a dtd possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. D D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques on couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) j I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re Mure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de ' ' marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; D D D D N D D Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachet^es ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matdriel supplimontaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6x6 film6es A nouveau de faqon 6 obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X ■aire s details ques du U modifier [iger une le filmage The copy filmed here has heen reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire film* fut reproJuit grflce A la g*n6rosit4 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la netteti de l'exemplaire filmA, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. i/ iu6es Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or iliustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est ImprimAe sont film6s en commen9ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmAs en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^»> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ". le symbols V signifie "FIN". aire Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmis A des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmi A partir de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche A droite. et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mtthode. by errata ned to ent une pelure, faqon dt 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 SEVENTH EDITION. AN EXPOSITION OF TJIL CAUSES AND CHARACTER OF THE Late War with Great Britain. PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE AMEKICAN GOVERNMENT. " This docuiueut is uiiicial ; and coiaee, 1 dare say, from the pen or' IVir. Madison himself, or from that of Mr. Monroe. It has been published in all the American newspapers that I have seen ; and I perceive from advertisements, that it has been published in a pamphlet form in every part of America, to the amount, perhapi, of a million of copies." • • • « • * " The document is all ^ith; all home blows. It, therefore, should be answered. 1 hereby oiler my paper as the vehicle of an answer, if any one will send it me." — CobbelCs Political Register of Saturday, Aug. l)i. WASHlNGTOxN PRINTED LONDON: KtPRINTLD AND PUBLISHED BY W . I, CLEMENT, 192, .STRAND. 1815. T ADVERTISEMENT. 1 HL following interesting and important Exposi- tion was drawn up by the American Government, as an appeal to the people, in order to point out the necessity of such mighty and efficient prepara- tions, for the campaign of 1815, as would assure its successful termination, by the expulsion of the British from every part of the Amei'ican continent ! The proposal, by the secretary of war, for raising 100,000 men, was part of this plan of vigorous measures ; but the arrival of the advices of peace having been concluded, put a stop to these pro- ceedings, and to the publication of the appeal. Since then, however, this document has been printed in America, where it has been widely circulated, to the extent, it is supposed, of a mil- lion of copies. It is believed to be the production of Mr. Madison or Mr. Monroe ; but whoever M'as the writer, it is highly creditable to his talents as a politician, and seems to call for an answer from some able pen, on behalf of the British Government. London, ^Qth August t 1815. r .' • ri AN EXPOSITION, c^C. ; i'l \V iiATKVER may be the termination of the negociatlons at Ghent, the dispatches otthe American commissioners, which liave been commnnicated by the president of the United States to the congress, during the present ses- sion, will (listinctly unfold, to tije impartial of all nations, the obiects and the dispositions of the parties to the pre- sent war. The United States, relieved by the general pacificationi of the treaty of Paris, from the danger of actual sufler- ancc, under the evils which had compelled them to resort to arms, have avowed their readiness to resume the relations of peace and amity with Great Britain, upon the simple and single condition of preserving their territory and their sovereignty entire and unimpaired. Their desire of peace, indeed, " upon terms of recipro- city, consistent with the rights of both parties, as sove- vcign and independent nations*," has not, at any time, been influenced bv the provocations of an utiprecedcnted course of hostilities; by the incitements of a successful, campaign; or by the agitations which have seemed again 10 threaten the tranquillity of Europe. But the British government, after " a discussion with ihe government of America, for the conciliatory adjust- inent of the dillerences subsisting between the tv/o states, * «ee Mr. Monroe's letter to Lord Caslierca.^h. dilcd J;ii" ary, 11^14 B 2 with an earnest (lesirr, on their part, (as it was allefjed) to briuj; thiin to a fjivourahle issue, upon principles of a perfe<:t reciprocity, not inconsistent with the esta- blished maximg ot" public law, aucl with the maritime rights of the Briiish empire*;" and alter *' expressly distlaiunni; any intention to acquire an increase of ter- riloryt," have peremptorily demanded, as the price of peace, ccncessioub calculated merely for their own ag- grandizement, and for the humiliation of their adversary. At one time they proposed, -is their sine qua non, a stipulation, that the Indians, inhabiting the country of the United States, within the limits established by the treaty of 17S3, should be included as the allies of Great Britain (a parly to that treaty) in the projected pacifi- cation; and that definite boundaries should be settled for the Indian territory, upon a basis which would have operated to surrender to a number of Itidians, not, pro- bably, exceeding a few thousands, the rights of sove- reignty, as well as of soil, over nearly one third of the tp^ritorial dominions of the United States, inhabtted by more than one hundred thousand of its citizens*. And, more recently, (withdrawing in eiVect that proposition,) they have oflered to treat oti the basis of the »/^/ /;owt- detis; when, by the operations of the war, they had ♦ See Lord Casllereagh's letter to Mr. Monroe, dated the 4lh of Novt'n)l)er, 1813. f ^ca the Anioricnn dispatch, dated the I2th of August, 1814. *i See the Aniericati dispatches, dated the 12th and 19th of Au<;ust. 1S14; the nolc of »he l^rilish comraissioners, dated the 19th of August, 1814 ( the note of ttie American coramissioners, dated Uio Slsl of A'igust, 1814; the note of the British comraissioners, dated the 4fh oFSeptenihcr, 1814 ; the uofe of the American commissioners of tile 9th of Sept. 1814; the note of the iJritish cotniuissioners, dated the I'Jfh of Sept. 1814; the note of the American commissionerB, dated the S6ih of Sept. 1814; the note of the l>rilish coramissioners, •J:iled the 8th of Oct. 1814; and the nolc of the Anicricaa commit* . '^f )ho ?'>»!• o*"nrt, 1814, I aUe;?ed) •iples of 1)0 esta- laritime Kpressly e of ler- price of Dwn ag- Iversarv. I non, a ui'.try of i by tlie of Great i pacifi- settled ulcl have lot, pro- of sove- d of the btted by And, osition,) !(/ possi" ley had he 41 h of 914. >f Au«;ust, ; 19lh of dated tlie rrs, dated inissioners lersi dntcd nissioners, nissioiieri» a commU* ■ I obtained the military possession of an important part of the state of Massachusetts, which it was known could never be the subject of a cession, consistently with the honour ami faith of the American goveriiment*. Thus it is obvious, that Great Britain, neither reganlinof ** the princi|>les of a perfect reciprocity," nor the rule of her own practice and professions, has iu'luliijt'd pretensions, whicli could be heard only in order to be rejected. The alternative, either vindictively to protract the war, or honourably to end it, has been fairly given to her option ; but she wants the mag\ianimity to (h.jide, while iier apprehensions are awakened lor the result ot the congress at Vienna, and her hopes are flattered by schemes of conquest in America. There are periods in the transactions of every country, as well as in the life of every individual, when self-exa- mination becomes a duty of the highest moral ol>lip;ation ; when tlie sjovernment of a free people, driven from the path of peace, and baffled in every etlbrt to regain it, may resort for consolation to the conscious rectitude of its measures; and when an appeal to mankind, founded ■ upon truth and justice, cannot fail to engage those sym- pathies, by which even nations :»re led to participate m the fame and fortunes of eacii otlier. — The United States, under these impressions, are neither insensible to the advantnces nor to the duties of their peculiar situation. They have but recently, as it were, established their independence; and tiie volume o» th.ir national history 'ties rfpen, at a glance, to every eye. The policy of thei>* • government, therefore, whatever it has been in their * See the note of the British commiss oners, dated the 2l8t of Oct. 1814; tho note otlhe American cinnurssitmers, (iuiod liif jUh oi' .Oct. ISI4; and the note of the liriKsli cuiomissioiitjrsj dntv^d the 3^»t otOct. 1«14, B "-^ foreign, as well as in their domestic rchlions, it ik im- possible to conceal, ami it must hf «liHicnlt to mistake. If the asscihon, that it has been a policy to preserve peace and amity with all the; nations of the world, be doubted, the proofs are at hand. If the assertion, that it has been a policy to maintain the rights of the United Stares, but at the same time to respect the ri<,'ht8 of every other nation, be olicy to Burope, even in in fine, ourable timents ii.itions identity ted, the , under u'ks the een the ler tlie rlehility I, vvheu » ugh out 5pc anities and her wars. While tiie proclamation of neutrality was still in the view of the British minister^ an order of the 8th of June, 1793, issued from the cabinet, by virtue of which, " all vessels loaded wholly, or in part, with corn, flour, or meal, bound to any port in France, or any port occupied by the armies of Trance," were required to be carried, forcibly, into Kngland; and thecargos were either to be sold there, or security was to be given, that they should be sold only in the ports of a 1 'i^ I le impu- j ilemoii- ernmeiit, : all the ave been id to i\ye ^blished, ation of ch have lice nnd t might le expo- ealies of vn, that ot to be inde»)ce. niment ei)t has ctually )eriGds, >n and d only sociate matioii nister" ihinet, or in ort ill a nee," ; and ,v:is to s of a ^ J J i conntry in amity with his Britannic majesty*. The moral (harnci r of an avowed design to iuflict famine upon the wl»ole of the French people, was,. at that time* properly estimated throughout the civilized world ; and so glaring an infraction of neutral rights, as the British order was calculated to produce, did not escape the severities of siiplomaiic animadversion and remonstrance. But this aggression was soon followed by another of a more hostile cast. In the war of 17oG, Great Britain had endeavoured to establish the rule, that neutral nations were not entitled to enjoy the benefits of a trade with the colonies of a belligerent power, from which, in the season of peace, tlity were excluded by the parent state. The rule stands without positive support from any general authority on public law. If it be true, that some treaties contain stipulations, by which the parties ex- pressly exclude each other from the commerce of their respective colonies ; and if it be true, that the ordinances of a particular state often j>rovide for the exclusive en- joyment of its <:olonial commerce; i-Lill Great BPitain cannot be authorized to deduce the rule of the war of 1750*, by im()lication, from such treaties and such ordin- ances, while it is not true, that the ride forms a part of the law of i;ations; nor that it has been adoj)ted by any other government ; nor that even Great Britain herself has uniforndy piactis^ed upon the rule ; since its applica- tion was unknown from the war of 17o0', until the French war of 1792, including the entire period of the American war. Let it be, argunieiitatively, allowed, however, that Great Britain possessed the right, as well as the power, to revive and enforce the rule, vet, the time and the manner of exercising the power, would afford ample * See the order in council of IIk; 8tli of Jnnr, 1793, and thr remonstrance of the American goTcrnment. cause for reproach. The citizens of the United States had openly engaged in an extensive trade with the French islands in the West Indies, ignorant of the alleged exist- ence of the rule of the war of 1756', or unapprised of any intention to call it into action, when the order cf the (3th of November, 1793, was silently circulated among the British cruizers, consigning to legal adjudication *' all vessels loaden with goods, the produce of any colony of France, or carrying provisions or supplies for the use of any such colony *." A great portion ol' the commerce of the United States was thus annihilated at a blow ; the amicable dispositions of the government were again dis- regarded and contemned ; the sensibility of the nation was excited to a high degree ol" resentment, by the appa- rent treachery of the British order; and a recourse to reprisals, or to war, for indemnity and redress, seemed to be unavoidable. But the love-of justice had established the law of neutrality ; and the love of peace taught a lesson of forbearance. The American government, therefore, rising superior to the provocations and the passions of the day, instituted a special mission, to repre- sent at the court of London the injuries and the indigni- ties which it had suflered ; " to vindicate its rights witU firmness, and to cultivate peace with sincerity t." The immediate result of this mission, was a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, between the Uijited States and Great Britain, which was >iigned by the Jiegociators on the 19th of xvovember, 171)4, and liually ratified, with the consent of the senate, in the yepr ;179o : but l)olh the mission and iLs result, serve, aUo, to display the independence and the inipartiality of. the American + CM'o tile pro,sidcut."s iiu-i»{ii»i;e 4o Ihc sciiiilc, of Ijie IClli of April .)< JT^l, iionunaliiii; !Mr. Jay ;;s envoy extraordinary to bis Britaunlc irrajf'vly. ' . ■ ;; . i t all April, tannic government, in asserting its rights and performing its duties, equally unawed and unbiassed by the instruments of belligerent power, or persuasion. On the foundation of this treaty the United States, in a pure spirit of good faith and confidence, raised the hope and the expectation, that the maritime usurpations of Great Britain would cease to annoy them; that alj doubtful claims of jurisdiction would be suspended; and that even the exercise of an incontestible right would be so modified, as to present neither insult, nor outrage, nor inconvenience, to their flag, or to their commerce. But the hope and the expectation of the United States have been fatally disappointed. Some relaxation in the rigour, without any alteration in the principle, of the order in. council of the 6'th of November, 1793, was introduced by the subsequent orders of the 8th of January, 1794, and the 25th of January, 1798! but from the ratification of the treaty of 1794, until the short respite afforded by the treaty of Amiens, in 1802, the commerce of the United States continued to be the prey of British cruizers and privateers, under the adjudicating patronage of the British tribunals. Another grievance, however, assumed at this epoch, a form and magnitude, which cast a shade over the social happiness, as well as the political inde- pendence of the nation. The merchant vessels of the United States were arrested on the high seas, while ia the prosecution of distant voyages ; considerable num- bers of their crews were impressed into the naval service of Great Britain; the commercial adventures of the owners were often, consequently, defeated ; and the loss of property, the embarrassments of trade and navigation, and the scene of domestic afflictioo, became intolerable; This grievance (which constitutes an important surviving cause of the American declaration of war) was earlv, and 10 has been incessantly urged upon the attention of the British government. Even in the year 1792, they were told of " the irritation that it had excited; and of the difficulty of avoiding to make immediate reprisals on their seamen in the United States*." They were told " that so many instances of the kind had happened, that it was quite necessary that they should explain them- selves on the subject, and be led to disavow and punish such violence, which had never been experienced from any other nation f." And they were told ** of the in- convenience of such conduct, and of the impossibility of letting it go on, so that the British ministry should be made sensible of the necessity of punishing the past, and preventing the future +." But after the treaty of am»ty, commerce, and navigation, had been ratified, the nature and the extent of the grievance became still more mani- fest; and it was clearly and firmly presented to the vievr of the British government, as leading unavoidably to discord and war between the two nations. They were told " that unless they would come to some accommoda- tion which might ensure the American seamen against this oppression, measures would be taken to cause the inconvenience to be equally felt on both sides §." They were told " that the impressment of American citizens, to serve on board of British armed vessels, was not only an injury to the unfortunate individuals, but it naturally excited certain emotions in the breasts of the nation to whom they belong, and of the just and humane of every * See the letter of Mr. Jefferson, secretary of state, to Mr. Pink* ney, minister at London, dated 1 1th of June, IT92. + See the letter, from the same to the same, dated the 12th of October, llQi. ^ See the letter, frona the same to the same, dated the 6th of Nor. 1792. ^ See the letter from Mr. Pinkney, minister at londOD, to the secretary of state, dated ISth March, 1793. 1 ion of the they were and of the ^prisals on were told ened, that ain them- nd punish iced from of the in- sibility of should be past, and of amity, he nature 3re mani- the vievT dably to ley were mmoda- against ause the They ntizens, Jot only aturally ition to f every r. Pink- Uthof ofKoT. to the s 11 country; and that an expectation waft indulged that orders would be given, that the Americans so circum- stanced should be immediately liberated, and that the British officers should, in future, abstain from similar vio- lences*." They were told ** that the subject was of much greater importance than had been supposed ; and that, instead of a few, and those in many instances equiv- ocal cases, the American minister at the court of London had, in nine months (part of the years 1796 and 1797) made applications for the discharge of two hundred and seventy-one seamen, who had, in most cases, exhibited such evidence, as to satisfy him that they were real Americans, forced into the British service, and persever- ing, generally, in refusing pay and bounty f." They were told " that if the British government had any regard to the rights of the United States, any respect for the nation, and placed any value on their friendship, it would facilitate the means of relieving their oppressed citi- zens +." They were told " that the British naval officers often impressed Swedes, Danes, and other foreigners, from the vessels of the United States; that they might, with as much reason, rob American vessels of the pro- perty or merchandize of Swedes, Danes, and Portuguese, as seize and detain in their service the subjects of those nations found on board of American vessels; and that the president w^as extremely anxious to have this busi- ness of impressing placed on a reasonable footing §.'' And they were told, " that the impressment of American * Sec the nole of Mr. Jay, envoy extraordinary, to Lord Gren- ville, dated the 30th of July, 1794. + Seethe letter of Mr. King, mini&ter at London, to the secretary of state, dated the ISlli of April, HST. X See the letter from Mr. Pickerin«j, secretary of state, lo Mr. King, minister at London, dated the 10th of September, J 796. ^ See the letter, from the same to the same, Uat«d th« 26tli of Oclv her, 1T96. ., v , v^ 13 gefimfn was an injury of very serious magnitude, which deeply affected the feelings and honour of the nation: that no right had been asserted to impress the natives of America ; yet, that they were impressed ; they were dragged on board British ships of war, with the evidence of citizenship in their hands, and forced by violence there to serve, until conclusive testimonials of their birth could be obtained ; that many must perish unrelieved, and all were detained a considerable time in lawless and 'njurious (.onfinement ; that the continuance of the prac- tice must inevitably produce discord between two nations, which ought to be the friends of each other; and that it was more advisable to desist from, and to take effectual measures to prevent, an acknowledged wrong, than by persev«rance in that wrong, to excite against themselves the well-founded resentment of America, and force the government into measures, which may very possibly ter- minate in an open rupture*.'* Such were the feelings and the sentiments of the American government, under every change of its ad- ministration, in relation to the British practice of im- pressment; and such the remonstraiices addressed to the justice of Great Britain. It is obvious, therefore, that this cause, independent of every other, has been uniformly deemed a just and certain cause of war; yet, the characf teristic policy of the United States still prevailed: re- monstrance was only succeeded by negociatipn ; and every assertion of American rights, was accompanied with an overture, to secure, in any practicable form, the rights of Gieat Britain f. Time, seemed, however, to * Seethe l<*tter from Mr. Marshal, secretary of stale, (now chief justice of the Uaited States,) to Mr. King, minister at London, dated the 20«h of September, 1800. + See particularly Mr. King's prop«)sttions to Lord Grenville, and lord llawkesbiiry, of the 13th April, 1197, the 15lh of March, n»9, of tt^ 52tb February, 1801, and in July, 1813. 13 render it more and morediiTicuIt to ascertainimd (be tiie standard of the British riglits, according to the succea- 8ion of the British claims. The right of entering and searching an Americait merchant ship, for the purpose of impressment, was, for n while, confined to the case of British deserters; and even so late as the moiith of February, 1800, the minister of his Britannic miyesty,. then at Philadelphia, urged the American government, *' to take into consideration, as the only means of drying up every source of complaint and irritation, upon that head, a proposal which he had made two years before, in the name of his majesty's government, for the reciprocal restitution of deserters*." But this prqjectof atreaty was, then deemed inadmissible, by the president of the United States, and the chief officers of the executive departments of the government, whom he consulted, for the same rca-f son, specifically, which, at a subsequent period, induced the president of the United States, to withhold his appro- bation from the treaty negociated by the American minis- ters at London, in the year 1806; namely, ** that. |t did not sufficiently provide against the impressment of A me-, rican seamen f;" and that it is better to have no article and to meet the consequences, than not to enumerate, merchant vessels on the high seas, among the things not to be forcibly entered in search of deserters J." But the British claim, expanding with singular elasticity, was soon found to include a right to enter American vessels •» See Mr. Liston's note to Mr. Pickeriof^, the secretary of stale, dated Ihe 4lh of February, 1800. + See the opinion of Mr. Pickering, secretary of state, enciosinff the plan of a treaty, dated the 3d of May, 1800, and the ooinion of Mr. VVolcolt, secretary of the treasury, dated the l4th of April, 1800. + See the opinion of Mr. Stoddert,Mecretary of the navy, dated the 23d of April, 1800, and the opinions of Mr. Lee, attorney general, «)ated the g6tb of February, and the 30th of April, 1800. u on the high seas, in order to search for and seize all British seamen; it next embraced the case of every British subject; and fiually, in its practical enforcement, it has been extended to every mariner, who could not prove, upon the spot, that he vt^as a citizen of the United States. While the nature of the British claim was thus ambiguous and fluctuating, the principle to which it was referred, for justification and support, appeared to be at once arbitrary and illusory. It was not recorded in any positive code of the law of nations; it was not displayed in the elementary works of the civilian; nor had it ever been exemplified in the maritime usages of any other country, in any other age. In truth, it was the offspring of the municipal law of Great Britain alone ; equally ope *ative in a time of peace, and in a time of war; and, under all circumstances, inflicting a coercive jurisdiction upon the commerce and navigation of the world. For the legitimate rights of the belligerent powers, the United States had felt and evinced a sincere and open respect. Although they had marked a diversity of doctrine among the most celebrated jurists, upon many of the litigated points of the law of war; although they had formerly espoused, with the example of the most powerful government of Europe, the principles of the armed neutrality, which were established in the year 1780, upon the basis of the memorable declaration of the Empress of all the Russias; and although the principles of that declaration have been incorporated into all their public treaties, except in the instance of the treaty of 1794: yet, the United States, still faithful to the pacific and impartial policy which they professed, did not hesitate, even at the commencement of the French revo- 15 lutionary war, to accept aud allow the exposition of the law of nations, as it was then maintained by Great Britain; and, consequently, to admit, upon a much con- tested point, that the property of her enemy, in their vessels, might be lawfully captured as prize of war*. It was, also, freely admitted, that a belligerent power had a right, with proper cautions, to enter and search American vessels, for the goods of an enemy, and for articles contrabanu of war ; that, if upon a search such goods or articles were found, or if, in the course of the tearch, persons in the military service of the enemy wore discovered, a belligerent had a right of tranship- ment and removal; that a belligerent had a right, iu doubtful cases, to carry American vessels to a conve- aient station, for further examination; and that a bel- ligerent had a right to exclude American vessels from ports and places, under the blockade of an adequate naval force.— These rights the law of nations might, reasonably, be deemed to sanction; nor has a fair exer- cise of the powers necessary for the enjoyment of thes© tights, been at any time controverted, or opposed, by the American government. But, it must be again remarked, that the claim of Great Britain was not to be satisfied by the most ample and explicit recognition of the law of war; for, the law of war treats only of the relations of fi belligerent to his enemy, while the claim of Great Britain embriced, also, the relations between a sovereign and his subjects. It was said, that every British subject was bound by a tie of allegiance to his sovereign, which no lapse of time, * See tlie correspondence of the year 1792, between Mr. Jefferson, secretary of ittate, and the ministers of Great Britain and France. See also, Mr. Jefferson's letter to the American minister at Paris, of the same year, requesting; the rocall of Mr. Genet. a no change of place, no exigency of life, could possibly weaken, or dissolve. It was said, that the British sovereign was entitled, at all periods, and on all occa- sions, to the services of his subjects. And it was said', that the British vessels of war upon the high seas, might' lawfully and forcibly enter the merchant vessels of eviiry other nation (for the theory of these pretensions is nbt' limited to the case of the United States, although that case has been, almost exclusively, affected by their pradi tical operation) for the purpose of discovering and im- pressing British subjects*. The United States pie's um it not to discuss the forms, or the priciples, of the govern- ments established in other countries. Enjoying the right and the blessing of self-government, they leave, implicitly, to every foreign nation, the choice of it» social and political institutions. But, whatever may bcf the form, or the principle, of government, it is an uni- versal axiom of public law, among sovereign and inde- pendent states, that every nation is bound so to use arid enjoy its own rights, as not to injure, or destroy, thef rights of any other nation. Say then, that the tie of allegiance cannot be severed, or relaxed, as respects the sovereign and the subject; and say, that the sovereign is, at all times, entitled to the services of the subject; still, there is nothing gained in support of the British claim, unless it can, also, be said, that the British sovereign has a right to seek and seize his subject, while actually within the dominion, or under the special protection, of another sovereign state. This will not, surely, be de- nominated a process of the law of nations, for the pur- pose of enforcing the rights of war; and if it shall be tolerated as a process of the municipal law of Great * c See llic Britiah declaration of the lOlh of JaDuarjj'lSIS. w. I Rritaio. far the purpose of en.fqr(;iug,the. right, of Ujj5 sovefeipn to the service of his subjeq^g, ibcrc is no prin- ciple of cli;3crin»ination, which can prevent .its being employed in peace, or in war, with ull the attendant abuses of force and fraud, to justify the seizure of British subjects for crimes, or for debts; and ilie seizure of British property, for any cause that shall be arbitrarily assigned. The introduction of these degrading novelties into 4,he iiiaritiin)e code of nations, it has been the ardu- ous task, of the American government, in the onset, to o^jpose; and, it rests with all other governments to decide, hpw far their honour and their interests must be eyentually implicated by a tacit acquiescence in the successive usurpations of the British flag. If the right cjaimcd by Great Britain be, indeed, common to all governments, the ocean will exhibit, in addition to its many other perils, a scene of everlasting strife and contention: but what other government has ever qlaijued or .exercised the right? If the right shall be excljasiyely established as a trophy of the naval supe- riority of Great Britain, the ocean, which has been sometimes emphatically denominated, " the highway of nations," wijl be identified, in occupancy and use, with the domir)ions of the British crown; and every other nation must enjoy the liberty of passage upon thf uay- ment of a tribute or the indulgence of a license; but what nation is prepared for this sacrifice of its honour and its interests? And if, after all, the right be now asserted (as experience too plainly indicates) for the purpose of imposing upon the United States, to accom- ;iiodate,the British maritime policy, a new ami odious liiTlitation .of the sovereignty and imlepeiidence, which were acquired by the glorious revolution of 1776, it is not for the Anievican government ,to, calculate the dura- 18 tion of a war tlint shall be wapied in resistance of the active attempts of Great Britain to accomplisli her project: for, where \» the Atnerican citizen, who would tolerate a day's submission to the vassalage of such a condition ? But the American government lias seen, with some surprize, the gloss, which the Prince Regent of Great Britain, in his declaration of the 10th of January, 1813, has condescended to bestow upon the British claim of a right to impress men, on board of the merchant vessels of other nations; and the retort which he has ventured to make upori tiie conduct of the United States relative to the controverted doctrines of expatriation. The Americati government, like every other civilized govern- ment, avows the principle, and indulges the practice, of •naturalizing foreigners. In Great Britain, and through- out the continent of Europe, the laws and regulations upon the subject, are not materially dissimilar, when compared with the laws and regulations of the United States, The ell'ect, however, of such naturalization upon the connexion which previously subsisted between the naturalized person and the government of the coun- try of his birth, has been ditFerently considered, at dif- ferent times, and in different places. Still, there are many cases, in which a diversity of opinion does not exist, and cannot arise. It is agreed, on all hands, that an act of naturalization is not a violation of the law of nations; and that, in particular, it is not in itself an ofl'ence agiiinst the government whose subject is natu- ralized. It is agreed, that an act of naturalization creates, between the parties, the reciprocal obligations of alle- giance niu\ protection. It is agreed, that while a natu- ralized citizen continues within the territory and juris* diction of his adoptive government, he cannot be pur- 19 of the isli licr would such a h some f Great y, 1813, iim of a vessels entured relative The goverii- tice, of irough- ilations , when United lization etwee a 3 coun- at dif- re are es not 5, that law of elf an natu- reates, F alie- natu- juris' 5 pur- sued, or seized, or restrained, by his former sovereign. It is agreed, that a naturalized citizen, whatever may be thought of the claims of tlie sovereign of his native coimtry, cannot lawfully be withdrawn from the obliga- tions of his contract of naturalization, by the force or the seduction of a third power. And it is agreed, that no eovcreign can lawfully interfere, to take from the service, or the employment, of another sovereign, persons wlio are not the subjects of either of the sovere'^ns engaged in the transaction. Beyond the principles of these ac- corded propositions, what have the United States done to justify the imputation of •• harbouring British sea- men, and of exercising an assumed right, to transfer the allegiance of British subjects*?" The United States have, indeed, insisted upon the right of navigating the ocean in peace and safety, protecting all that is covered by their flag, as on a place of equal and common juris- diction to all nations; save where the law of war inter- poses the exceptions of visitation, search, and capture: but, in doing this, they have done no wrong. The United States, in perfect consistency, it is Jbelieved, with the practice of all belligerent nations, not even ex- cepting Great Britain herself, have, indeed, announced a determination, since the declaration of hostilities, to afford protection, as well to the naturalized, as to the native citizen, who, giving the strongest proofs of fidelity, should be taken in arms by the enemy: and the Britisli cabinet, well know that this determination could have no influence upon those councils of their sovereign, #hich preceded and produced the war. It was not, then, to " harbour British seamen," nor '* to transfer the allegiance of British subiects-," nor to " cancel the juris- * See the British declaration of the IGlb of January, iSJS. D 2 20 diction of their legitimate sovereign;" nor to vindicate " the pretension that acts of naturalization, and certifi- cates of citizenship, were as valid out of their own terri- tory, as within it*;" that the United States have as- serted the honour and the privilege of their flag, hy the force of reason and of arms. But it was to resist a systematic scheme of maritime aggrandizement, which, prescribing to every other nation the limits of a terri- torial boundary, claimed for Great Britain the exclusive dominion of the seas; and which, spurning the settled principles of the law of Avar, condemned the ships and mariners of the United States, to suffer, upon the high seas, and virtually within the jurisdiction of their flag, the most rigorous dispensations of the British municipal code, inflicted by the coarse and licentious hand of a British press gang. The injustice of the British claim, and the cruelty of the British practice, have tested, for a series of years, the pride and the patience of the American government; but, still, every experiment was anxiously made, to avoid the last resort of nations. The claim of Great Britain, in its theory, was limited to the right of seeking and impress- ing its own subjects on board of the merchant vessels of the United States, although, in fatal experience, it has been extended (as already appears) to the seizure of the subjects of every other power sailing under a voluntary contract with the American merchant; to the seizure of the naturalized citizens of the United States, sailing also under voluntary contracts, which every foreigner, inde- pendent of any act of naturalization, is at liberty to form in every country; and even to the seizure of the native citizens of the United States, sailing on board the ships i I * See these passages in the British declaration of the 10th of Janu* ary, 1813. 21 I of their own nation, in the prosecution of a lawful com- merce. The excuse for what has been unfeelingly termed *• partial mistakes and occasional abuse*," when the right of impressment was practised towards vessels of the United States, is, in the words of the Prince Regent's declaration, " a similarity of language and manners;" hut was it not known, when this excuse was otTered to the world, that the Russian, the Swede, the Dane, and the German, that the Frenchman, the Spaniard, and the Portuguese — nay, that the African and the Asiatic, be- tween whom and the people of Great Britain there exists no similarity of language, manners, or complexion, had been, equally with the American citizci and the British subject, the victims of the impress tyranny f. If, how- ever, the excuse be sincere, if the real object of the im- pressment be merely to secure to Great Britain the naval services of her own subjects, and not to man her fleets, in every practicable mode of enlistment, by right or by- wrong; and if a just and generous government, profess- ing mutual friendship and respect, may be presumed to prefer the accomplishment even of a legitimate purpose, by means the least afflicting and injurious toothers, why have the overtures of the United States, offering other means as effectual as impressment, for the purpose avov ed, to the consideration and acceptance of Great Britaiii, been for ever eluded or rejected? It has been offered, that the uiniber of men to be protected by an American ves- sel should be limited by her tonnage; that British ofli- cers should be permitted, in British port:-';, to enter the vessel, in order to ascertain the number of men on board; * Scythe British declaration of the 10th of January, 181.'}. + 5^ee the letter of Mr. Pickerins^, secretary of state, to Mr. Kinj^, minister at London, oftheSfith of October, n9(i; and the letter of Mr. Marshall, secretary of state, to Mr Kinj?, of the yoih of Septem- |)er, 1800. on and that, in case of an addition to her crew, the" British subjects enlisted should be liable to impressment*. It was oll'ered in the solemn form of a law, that the Ame- rican seamen should be registered, that they should ba provided with certificates of citizenship f, and that the roll of the crew of every vessel should be formally authenticated t. It was otfen d, that no refuge or pro- tection should be given to deserters; but that, on the contrary, they should be surrendered §. It was "again and again otfered to concur in a convention, which it was thought practicable to be formed, and which should settle the question of impressment, in a manner that would be safe for England and satisfactory to the United States 1|. It was ofiered, that each party should prohibit its citizens or subjects from clandestinely concealing or carrying away, from the territories or colonies of the other, any seamen belonging to the other party If. And, conclusively, it has been oflered and declared by law, that " after the termination of the present war, it should not be lawful to employ on board of any of the public or private vessels of the United States, any persons except citizens of the United States ; and that no foreigner should be admitted to become a citi;:en hereafter, who had not, for the continued term of five years, resided * See the letter of Mr. Jefferson, secretary of stale, to Mr. Pinkney, minister at London, dated th« lltl) of June, 1192; and the letter of Mr. Pickering, secretary of state, to Mr. King, minister at London, dated the 8th of June, 1196. + See the act of Congress, passed the 28th of May, 1196 :J: See the letter of Mr. Pickering, secreUiry of state, to Mr. King, minister at London, dated the 8th of June, 1796. ^ Seethe project of a treaty on the subject, between Mr, Pickering, secretary of state, and Mr. Liston, the l^rilish minister, at Philadel- phia, in the year 1800. II See the letter of Mr. King, minister at London, to the secretary of slate, dated the 15th of March, 1799. ? See the letter of Mr. King to thi? secretary of stale, dated in July, 1803. 23 within the United States, without being, at any time during the five years, out of the territory of the United States ♦." It is manifest then, that such provision might be made by law, and that such provision has been repeatedly and urgently proposed, as would, in all future times, exclude from the maritime service of the United States, both in public and in private vessels, every person who could possibly be claimed by Great Britain as a native subject, whether he had or had not been naturalized in Ame- rica f. Enforced by the same sanctions and securities which are employed to enforce the penal code of Great Britain, as well as the penal code of the United States, the provision would afford the strongest evidence that no British subject could be found in service on board of an American vessel; and, consequently, whatever might be the British right of impressment in the abstract, there would remain no justifiable motive, there could hardly be invented a plausible pretext to exercise it at the expe jse of the American right of lawful commerce. If, too, as it has sometimes been insinuated, there would neverthe- less be room for frauds and evasions, it is suQicient to observe, that the American government would always be ready to hear, and to redress, every just complaint; or, if redress were sought and refused, (a preliminary course that ought never to have been omitted, but which Great Britain has never pursued,) it would still be in the power of the Britieh government to resort to its own force, by acts equivalent to war, for the reparation of its wrongs. — B'lt Great Britain has, unhappily, perceived in the ac- ceptance of the overtures of the American government, * Sec the act of Congress, passed on Ibe Sd of March, 181S. + See the letter of iiifttruclioosfrom Mr. Moiifoe, secretary of state, to theplenipolentiaries for treatiug of peace with (irtiut Hrilaiii, under the mediatioa of the emperor Alexander, dated the 5th of April, 1813. 24 consequences injurious to her maritime policy, and there- fore withholds it at the expense of her justice. She perceives, perhaps, a loss of the American nursery for her seamen, while she is at peace ; a loss of the service of American crews, while she is at war ; and a loss of many of those opportunities, which have enabled her to en- rich her navy, by the spoils of the American commerce, without exposing her own commerce to the risk of reta- liation or reprisals. Thus were the United States, in a season of reputed peace, involved in the evils of a state of war; and thus was the American flag annoyed by a nation still profess- ing to cherish the sentiments of mutual friendship and respect, which had been recently vouched by the faith of a solemn treaty. But the American government even yet abstained from vindicating its rights, and from aveng- ing its wrongs, by an appeal to arms. It was not an in- sensibility to those wrongs, nor a dread of British power, nor a subserviency to British interests, that prevailed at that period in the councils of the United States; but, under all trials, the American government abstained from the appeal to arms then, as it has repeatedly since done, in its collisions with France, as well as with Great Britain, from the purest love of peace, while peace could be rendered compatible with the honour and indepen- dence of the natioii. During the period which has hitherto been more par- ticularly contemplated (from the declaration of hostili- ties betwecMi Great Britain and France in the year 1792, until the short-lived pacification of the treaty of Amien« in 1802), there were not wanting occasions to test the consistency and the impartiality of the American go- vernment, by a comparison of its conduct towards Great Britain with Us conduct towards other nations. The mnniFestations of the extreme jealousy of the French ,:|overnment, and of the intemperate zeal of its ministers near the United States, were coeval with tlie procla- mation of neutrality; but after the ratification of the treaty of London, the scene of violence, spoliation, and contumely, opened by France upon the United States, become such, as to admit, perhaps, of no parallel, except in the cotemporaneous scenes which were exhibited by the injustice of her great competitor. The American government acted, in both cases, on the same pacific po- licy, in the same spirit of patience and forbearance ; but with the same determination also to assert the honour and indej>endcnce of the nation. When, therefore, every conciliatory etlort had failed, and when two successive missions of peace had been contemptuously repulsed, the American j^ovcrimient, in the year 1798, annulled its treaties with France, and waged a maritime war against that I'iation, for the defence of its citizens and of its commerce passing on the high seas. But as soon as the hope was conceived of a satisfactory change in the dispositions of the French government, the American government hastened to send another mission to France; and a convention, signed in the year 1800, terminated the subsisting differences between the two countries. Nor were the United States able, during the same period, to avoid a collision with the government of Spain, upon many important and critical questions of boundary and commerce — of Indian warfare, and mari- time spoliation. Preserving, however, their system of moderation, in the assertion of their rights, a course of amicable discussion and explanation produced mutual sa- tisfaction ; and a treaty of friendsliip, limits, and naviga- tion, was formed in the year 1795, by which the citizens of the United States acquired a riglit, for the space of 26 thre^yeftw, to deposit their merchandises and effects in the port of New Orleans ; with a promise, either that the enjoyment of that right should be indefinitely conti- nued, or that another part of the banks of the Missis- sippi should be assigned for an equivalent establishment. But when, in the year 1802, the port of New Orleans was abruptly closed against the citizens of the United States, without an assignment of any other equivalent place of deposite, the harmony of the two countries was again most seriously endangered; until the Spanish go- vernment, yielding to the remonstrances of the United States, disavowed the act of the intendant of New Or- leans, and ordered the right of deposite to be reinstated, on the terms of the treaty of 1795. The effects produced, even by a temporary suspension of the right of deposite at New Orleans, upon the inte- rests and feelings of the nation, naturally suggested to the American government the expediency of guarding against their recurrence, by the acquisition of a permanent .property in the province of Louisiana. The minister of the U. States at Madrid was accordingly instructed to apply to the government of Spain upon tlie subject ; and, on the 4tli of May, 1803, he received an answer, stating, that " by the retrocession made to France of Louisiana, that power regained the province, with the limits it had, saving the rights acquired by other powers ; and that the United States could address themselves to the French govern- ment, to negociate the acquisition of territories which roight suit their interest*." But before this reference, official information of the same fact had been received by Mr. Pinkney from the court of Spain, in the m«nth * See the letter from Don Pedro Cevallos, the mloister of Spain, to Mr. C. Pinkney, the rainiiter of the United States, dated the 4th of May, 1808, frJm WhifcH the' passage cited islileralfy traoslaf ed. 27 is in that :onti- lissis- ment. rleans Jnited valent ;3 was sh go- [Jnited w Or- statedy )ension ,e inte- Bted to jarding manent r of the jply to the 4tU bt " by t power ing the United govcrn- which ference, eceived m^nth Spa'iD, to he 4th of ed. of March preceding; and the American gorermnent, having instituted a special mission tonegociate the pur- chase of Louisiana from France, or from Spain, which- ever should be its sovereign ; the purchase was accord- ingly accomplished for a valuable consideration (that was punctually paid) by the treaty concluded at Paris on the SOth of April, 1803. The American government has not seen, without some sensibility, that a transaction, accompanied by such cir- cumstances of general publicity, and of scrupulous good faith, has been denounced by the Prince Regent in his declaration of the 10th of January, 1813, as a proof of the " ungenerous conduct" of the United States towards Spain*. In amplification of the royal charge, the Britisii ly, 1813. Tber, and } 31 two countries, without seeking the aid of British media- tion, or adopting the animosity of British councils. But still the United States, feeling a constant interest in the opinion of enlightened and impartial nations, can- not hesitate to embrace the opportunity for representing, m the simplicity of truth, the events, by which they have been led to take possession of a part of the Floridas, notwithstanding the claim of Spain to the sovereignty of the same territory. In the acceptation and understand- ing of the United States, the cession of Louisiana, em- braced the country south of the Mississippi territory, and eastward of the river Mississippi, and extending to the river Perdido; but " their conciliatory views, and their confidence in the justice of their cause, and in the suc- cess of a candid discussion and amicable negotiation with a just and friendly power, induced them to acquiesce in the temporary continuance of that territory under the Spanish authority*." When, however, the adjustment of the boundaries of Louisiana, as well as a reasonable indemnification, on account of maritime spoliations, and the suspension of the right of deposite at New Orleans, seemed to be indefinitely postponed, on thj part of Spain, by events which the United States had not contributed to produce, and could not control; when a crisis had arrived subversive of the order of things under the Spanish authorities, contravening the views of both par- ties, and endangering the tranquillity and security of the adjoining territories, by the intrusive establishment of a government independent of Spain, as well as of the United States; and when, at a later period, there was reason to bdieve, that Great Britain herself designed * See the proclamation of the president of the Uoiled States, au- thorizing governor Claihorae to take possession of the territory, dated theSTth of October, 1810. ^1 to' orciipy tlib'V'lWi^la^, (and sh<*'1i'a,«?, iiuVfci; n'ct\«}illy (iccupi^rt' Perik(^6la,' for instil ^ |ihr|7b*i*!pain, ailti ^ven Consulting the ht^tioiir of that state, urlfH|ual as she thdn was tothef task orstippreiiihg the intruRivo estnljlishnimt, was itiip6lled, by th<*'"j)*tifA- inount prirtdplc of telf-preservation,'to resfttte it** own rights from the itupending danger. Hence th^Unitfed States, in the year 1810, proceeding Mep by stfrp,' ^ cording to the'growmg exigencies of the tihfe, took pidrs* session of the country, in which the standard ()f inde- pendence had been displayed, excepftiiig such ]yfaces rtis Wire held by a Spanish force. In the year IsU tiiey authorised their president, by lavv^ provisionally to a<**- cept of the possession of East Florida from the local "authorities, or to pre-occupy it against the attem|>t of a foreign power to seize it. In 1813, thry obtained the possession of Mobile, ilie only phiee then held by $. Spanish force in West Florida; with a view to their own immediate security,' but without varying the ques*- tions depLMiding between them "nd Sjyain, i(j reiatioti t6 that province. And' in the yar 1814; the Ainerican eommander, acting under the sanction of the law dt' nations, but unauthorised by the orilc rs of his goventi- ment, drove from Pensacola th« British' ti|>> (4 a letter from Mr. Ne pean, the secretary of the admiralty, »o Mr. Hammond, the British under secretary of state for foreign ailkirs, dated Jan, 5, 1804. o 36 *' British government were, in no instance, verified. The outrage of impressment was again indiscrimFnately per- petratfid upon the crew of every American vessel, and on every sea. The enormity of blockades, established by an order in council, without a legitimate object, and maintained by an order in council, without the applicaT tion of a competent force, was more and more de- yeloped. The rule, denominated " the rule of the war of 1756," was revived in an affected style of moderation, but in a spirit of more rigorous execution *. The lives* the liberty, the fortunes, and the happiness of the citi- zens of the United States, engaged in the pursuits of navigation and commerce, were once more subjected to the violence and cupidity of the British cruisers* And^ in brief, so grievous, so intolerable, had the afflictions of the nation become, that the people, with one mind and one voice, called loudly upon their govemnment for re, dress and protection f. The congress of the United States» participating in the feelings and resentments of the time, urged upon the executive magistrate the neces- sity of an immediate demand of reparation from Great Britain:}:; while the same patriotic spirit, , which had 01 )0sed British usurpation in 1793, and encountered French hostility in 1798, was again pledged, in every variety of form, to the maintenance of the national honour and independence, during the more arduous trial that arose in 1S05. ' ♦ See the orders in council of the 24lh of June, 180S, and the nth of Aojjust, IS()5. + See the uwmoriab of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Balti- more, Ac presented to Congress in the end of the year 1803, and the bepnniii^ uftlie year 1806. ± Sec the resolutions of the Kenate of the United Slates, of the 10th aaa L4Ut of ^Vhruni^, 11^06; and the retoluUoa of the house of repre- 9e)itali\cii u( the Uuited States. trial 37 Amidst these scenes of injustice on the one hand» and of reclamation on the other, the American govern- ment preserved its equanimity and its firmness. It beheld much in the conduct of France, and of herally» Spain, to provoke reprisals. It beheld more in the con- duct of Great Britain, that led, unavoidably (as had often been avowed) to the last resort of arms. It beheld in the temper of the nation, all that was requisite to justify ian immediate selection of Great Britain, as the object df a declaration of war. And it could not but behold iti the policy of France, the strongest motive to acquire the United Stiates as an associate in the existing conflict. Yet, these considerations did not then, more than at any former crisis, subdue the forti ude, or mislead the judg- ment, of the American Government; but in perfect consistency with its neutral, as well as its pacific system, it demanded atonement, by remonstrances with France and Spain ; and it sought the preservation of peace, by negociation with Great Britain. It has been shown, that a treaty proposed, emphati- cally, by the British minister, resident at Philadelphia/ *' as the means of drying up every source of complaint, »nd irritation, upon the head of impressment," wa» •* deemed utterly iimduiissible," by the American go- vernment, because it did not sufficiently provide for that object §. It has, also, been shown, that another treaty, proposed by the American minister, at Loudon, was laid aside, because the British government, while it was will- ing to relinquish, expressly, impressments from Ameri- can vessels on the high seas, insisted upon an exception, in reference to the narrow seas, claimed as a part of ths ^ See Mr. Liston's letter to the secretary of state, dated the 4th of February, iHOO ; and the letter of Mr. Pickerlng^, secretary of itatej td the president of the United States, dated the 20th of Feb. 1 800. h ti „:.. :i r. f ^ .1 '. 38 . British dominion: and experience demonstrated, that, althougli the spoliations committed upon the American, commerce, might admit of reparation, by the payment of a pecuniary equivalent ; yet, consulting the honour and the feelings of the nation, it was impossible to receive satisfaction for the cruelties of impressment by any other means than by an entire discontinuance of the practice. When, therefore, the envoys extraordinary ^▼e re appointed in the year- 180(5, to negociate with the. British government, every authority was given, for the purposes of conciliation ; nay, an act of congress, pro- hibiting the importation of certain articles of British manufacture into the United States, was suspended, in proof of a friendly disposition *; but it was declared, that *' the suppression of impressment, and the defini- tion of blockades, were absolutely indispensable;" and t-hat, ** without a provision against impressments, no treaty should be concluded." The American envoys, accordingly, took care to communicate to the British commissioners, the limitations of their powers. In- fluenced, at the same time, by a sincere desire to ter- minate the differences between the two nations; know- ing the solicitude of their government, to relieve its seafaring citizens from actual sufferance; listening, with confidence, to assurances and explanations of the British commissioners, in a sense favourable to their wishes; and judging from a state of information, that gave no imme- diate cause to doubt the sufficiency of those assurances and explanations; the envoys, rather than terminate the negociation without any arrangement, were willing to rely upon the efficacy of a substitute, for a positive * See the act of conjjress, passed the I8II1 of April, 1806; and the act suspending it, passed the 19th of December, 180(j. I t 39 article in tile treaty, to be submitted to the consideratiou of their government, a: this, according to the deciara.. tion of the British commissioners, was the only arrange- ment tliey were permitted, at tliat time, to propose, or to allow. The substitute was presented in the form of a note from the British commissioners to the American envoys, and contamed a pledge, " that instructions had been given, and should be repeated and enforced, for the observance of the greatest caution in the impressing of British seamen ; that the strictest care should be taken to preserve the citizens of the United ^^tates from any molestation or injury; and that immediate and prompt redress should be afforded, upon any representation of injury sustained by them *." Inasmuch, however, as the treaty contained no pro- vision against impressment, and it was seen by the government, when the treaty was under consideration for ratification, that the pledge contained in the substitute was not complied with, but, on the contrary, that the impressments were continued, with undiminished vio- lence, in the American seas, so long after the alleged date of the instructions, which were to arrest them; that the practical inetficacy of the substitute could not be doubted by the government here, the ratification of the treaty was necessarily declined ; and it has since appear- ed, that after a change in the British ministry had taken place, it was decifred by the secretary for foreign atfairs, that no engagements were entered into, on the part of his majesty, as connected with the treaty, except such as appear upon the face of it f. * See the note of the British comnussioucrs, dated the 8th of Nov. 180G. + Sec Mr. Canning's, letter to the American envoys, dated 2Tth of October, 1807. 40 The American governitieDt, however, with uftabfttJHg loHcitudti for peace, urged «n immediate renewal of the negociationfi on the baaia of the abortive trefvty, until thia course waa peremptorily declared -by the Bhtish fovemment to be ** Wholly inadmissible*." But, independent of the silence of the propoaed trea^, upon the great topic of American complaint, and nf tho view which has been taken of tlie projected awbstitute ; the contemporaneous declaration of the British com- miisroners, delivered by the command of their sovereigii, and to which the American envoys refused to make themselves a party, or to give the slightest degree of lanGtion, was regarded by the American government, as ample cause of rejection. In reference to the French decree, which had been issued at Berlin, on the 21st of November, 1806, it was declared that if France should carry the threats of that decree into execution, and, rf •* neutral nations, contrary to all expectation, should acquiesce in such usurpations, his majesty might, pro- bably, be compelled, however reluctantly, to retaliate, in his just defence, and to adopt, in regard to the com- merce of neutral nations with his enemies, the same measures which those nations should have permitted to be enforced against their commerce with his subjects i" ** that his majesty could not enter into the stipulations of the present treaty, without an explanation from the United States df thefr intentions, or a reservation on the part of his majesty, in the ca^e above mentioned, if it should ever occur," and ** that without a formal aban- donmenti or tacit relinquishment of the unjust preten- sions of France; or without such conduct and assurances upon the pkrt of the United States, as should give secu- k * See Mr. Cauoing'a letter to tbc Aioericaa eavoys, dated 5lllk Oc- tober, I SOT. 4i hty to bis raajesty, tUut they would: -ipot submit to tlie French innovations, in tht estaWislifid ay»tem,of marrtrme? luw, his msyesiy would not considtrbiiusttlt' bound by: the pi^sent signatUFe of bis eommiasioners to ratify the* treaty, or precluded from adopting such measures asij migbt. seem necessary for counteracting the designs of the e.nemy*." .,.;-,.;,,■. ,■ ,, ■.,■:■■. ,» \.- _. ■-. -yj The reservation of a power to invalidate a solenm treaty, at the pleasure of on^ of the parties, and the' nii^uace of inflecting punishment *»pQn the. Urtit;ed-St«t«s,.f fpr the offences of anotber nation, proved, in the event, j^; prelud^ to^the sceneasjof vjolience which Great Britairt Tyas then Jfbout to display, and ^bich it woubi have? beeiVjjim proper for tibeApiericau n^gociatois to onti*-. eipatft* For, if a commentary , were wanting to ex- plain the real design of eucIi conduct, it would be found in the fact, that witbin,eight d»y& from the date of the treaty, and before it was possible for the British govern- ipent to have known .the effect of the Berlin decree ort thy Aaierican government; nay, even before the Amcri- can . goverument bad itself beard of that decree, the destructijon of American commerce was commenced by the order in council of the Vth of January, 1807, vvhicli announced, •' that no vessel should be permitted to trade from one port to another, both which potts should belong to, or be in possessioa of France, or her allies ; or should be, so far under their controul, as that British vessels might not trade freely thereat f." -During the u'liole period of this negociation, which; did not finally close until tliie ^litish government de* 3 of the PrUi!i|;)^ca|nmisMpQers,.ilatejl lbe,3lstof D^f.; See afso Ihe attft*er of 3ie.^sr!?y Monroe and Pinkney * See Hue note cember, 1806. io that note. f-Seie tlic-ordei^iSi coowtifl of dfaftinary 1, ktW, :;'*J y^- u 42 I' h « ;, clared, in the month of October, 1807, that negociatioit was no longer aiimissible, the course pursued by the British squadron, stationed more immediately on the American coast, was in the extreme, vexatious, preda- tory, and hostile. The territorial jurisdiction of the United States, extending, upon the principles of the law of nations, at least a league over the adjacent ocean, was totally disregarded and contemned. Vessels employed in the coasting trade, or in the business of the pilot and the Hsherman, were objects of incessant violence; their petty cargoes were plundered; and some of their scanty crews vv'ere often, either impressed, or wounded, or killed, by the force of British frigates. — British ships of war hovered in warlike display upon the coast; block- aded the ports of the United States, so that no vessel could enter or depart ip safety ; penetrated the bays and rivers, and even achored in the harbours, of the United States, to exercise a jurisdiction of impressment; threat- ened the towns and villages with conflagration; and wantonly discharged musketry, as well as cannon, upon the inhabitants of an open and unprotected country. The neutrality of the American territory was violated on every occasion ; and, at last, the American government was doomed to sufl'er the greatest indignity which could be ottered to a sovereign and independent nation, in the ever-memorable attack of a British 50-gun ship under the countenance of the British squadron anchored within the waters of the United States, upon the frigate Chesapeake, peaceably prosecuting a distant voyage. The British government afl'ected, from time to time, to disapprove and condemn these outrages ; but the officers who per- petrated them were generally applauded : if tried, they were acquitted; if removed from the American station, it was only to be promoted in another station; and if 43 atonement were oftered, as in the flagrant instance of the frigate Chesapeake, the atonement was so ungracious in the manner, and so tardy in. the result, as to betray the want of that conciliatory spirit which ought to have characterized it*. But the American government, soothing the exaspe- rated spirit of the people, by a proclamation which interdicted the entrance of ali British armed vessels into the harbours and waters of the United Stalest, neither commenced hostilities against Great Britain; nor sought a defensive alliance with France; nor relaxed in its Hrrn, but conciliatory efl'orts, to enforce the claims of justice, upon the honour of both nations. The rival ambition of Great Britain and France, now, however, approached the consummation, which involv- ing the destruction of all neutral rights upon an avowed principle of action, could not fail to render an actual state of war, comparatively, more safe, and more pros- perous, than the imaginary state of peace, to which neutrals were reduced. The just and impartial conduct of a neutral nation, ceased to be its shield and its safe- guard, when the conduct of the belligerent powers to- wards each other, became the only criterion of the law of war. The wrong committed by one of the belligerent povvers, was thus made the signal for the perpetration of a greater wrong by the other; and if the American government complained to both powers, their answer, * See the eviilence of these farts reported to congress in November, 1800- See the dociinienls respectins^ Captain Love, of the Driver; Captain Whitby, of the I.eander; and Captain See also the correspondence re§pecling the frigate Chesapeake, with Mr. Cannin"\ at London; with Mr. Rose, at Washinjjlon ; witli Mv. Erskine, at Washington ; and with + See theproclamaliou of IheSdof Juiy, 1807. n '2 44 ■t h ii I H': although it never rlenied the causes of complaint, inva- riably retorted an idle and oOensive inquiry into the priority of their rGspective aggressions; or each de- manded a course of resistance against its antagonist', which was calculated to prostrate the American right of self-government, and to coerce the United States, against their interest and their policy, into becoming an asso- ciate in the war. But the American government never did, and never can, admit that a belligerent power, '* in taking steps to restrain the violence of its enemy, and to retort upon them the evils of their own injustice*," is entitled to disturb and to destroy the rights of a neutral power, as recognized and established by the law of nations. It was impossible indeed that the real fea- tures of the miscalled retaliatory system should be long masked from the world ; when Great Britain, even in her acts of professed retaliation, declared, that France was unable to execute the hostile denunciations of her decrees t; and when Great Britain herself unblushingly entered into the same commerce with her enemy (through the medium of forgeries, perjuries and licenses), from which she had interdicted unoffending neutrals. The pride of naval superiority, and the cravings of com- mercial monopoly, gave, after all, the impulse and direc- tion to the councils of the British cabinet ; while the vast, although visionary, projects of France, furnished occa- sions and pretexts for accomplishing the objects of those councils. The British minister resident at Washington, in the year 1804, having distinctly recognized, in the name of his sovereign, the legitimate principles of blockade, the American government received with some surprise and B * See the orders in council of the Tth of January, 180T. t See the same, in 45 lolicitude, the auccess^ive notifu-'atiotiH of tlie 9tl) of Au- gust, 1804, tlie Sth of April, 180G, atui, more particu- larly, of the Kith of May, 180(), auiioiniciug, by the Inst notification, ** a blocliade of the coast, rivers, and ports, from the river Elbe to the port of JBrcst, both inclu* sive*." In none of the notified instances of Ulocicadt?, were the principles that had been recognized in 1804, adopted and pursued; and it will be recolleet<;d l>y all Europe, that neither at the time of the notification of tire IGlh of May 1800', nor at the time oioxc^pting the Lvlbe and Ems from the operation of that notification f, nor at any time during the continuance of the French war;- was there an adequate naval force actually applied by Great Britain! for the purpose of maintaining^ a blockade from the river Elbe to the port of Brest. It was then, in the language of the day, *' a mere paper blockade;" a mani- fest infraction of the law of nations; and an act of pecu- liar injustice to the United States, as the Only neutral power against which it would practically operate. But whatever may have been the sense of tlie American go- vernment on the occasion; and whatever might be the disposition to avoid making this the ground of an open . rupture with Great Britain, the case assumed a charac- , ter of the highest interest, when, independent of its own injurious consequences, France, in the Berlin decree of the 21st of November, 1806, recited, as a chief cause for placing the British islands in a suite of blockade, *' that Great Britain declares blockaded places before which she has not a single vessel of war; and even places which her united forces would be incapable of blockading; * See Lord Harrowby's note to Mr. Monroe, dated the 9tli of Au- gust, 1804, and Mr. Fox's notes to Mr. Monroe, dated respectively the Sthot'April, and 16th of May, 1806. + See Lord Howick's note to Mr. Monroe dated the 25th September, 1806. 40 it i t< aiicli as entire coasts, and a whole empire: an unequalled abuse of the right of blockade, tiiat had no other object than to interrupt the coniuiunications of diftVrent nations; and to extend the conunerce and industry of Ktipiand upon tiic ruin of those nations*." The American go- venmient aims not, and never has aimed, at the justihca- tion either of Great Britain or of France, in their career of crimination and recrimination: but it is of some im- portance to observe, that if the blockade of May, 180(), was an unlawful blockade, and if the rij^ht of retaliation arose with the first unlawful attack made by a belligerent power upon neutral rights, (ircat Britain has yet to answer to mankind, according to tije rule of her own acknowledgment, for all the calamities of the retaliatory warfare. France, whether right or wrong, made the British system of blockade the foundation of the Berlin decree; and France had an equal right with Great Bri- tain, to demand from the United States an opposition to every encroachment upon the privileges of the neutral character. It is enough, however, on the present occa- sion, for the American government to observe, that it possessed no power to prevent the framing of the Berlin decree, and to disclaim any approbation of its principles or acquiescence in its operations: for it neither belonged to Great Britain nor to France to prescribe to the Ame- rican government, the time, or the mode, or the degree of resistance to the indignities and the outrages with which each of those nations, in its turn, assailed the United States. But it has been shown, that after the British govern- ment possessed a knowledge of the existence of the Berlin decree, it authorized the conclusion of the treatv • .1 * See the Berlin decree of the 2l8t November, 1806. 'I 47 with tlie United Slates, which was signed at London, on the 3lst on)eci',ml)c'r, XSOii, reserving to itself a power of annulling the treaty, if France did not revoke, or if the United States, as a neutral power, did not resist, the ob- noxious measure. It lins also been shown, that before Great Britain could possibly ascertain the determination of the United States in relation to the Berlin decree, the orders in council of the 7th of January, 1807, were issued, professing tc be a retaliation against France, *• at a time when the fleets of France and her allies were themselves confined within their own ports, by the superior valour and discipline of the British navy *;" but operating, in fact, against the United States, as a neutral power, to prohibit their trade '* from one port to another, both which porl should belong to, or be in the posses- sion of, France or her allies, or should be so far under their controul, as that British vessels might not trade freely thereat !•" It remains, however, to be stated, that it was not until the 12th of March, 1807, that the British minister, then residing at Washington, commu- nicated to the American govermnent, in the name of his sovereign, the orders in council of January, 1807, with an intimation, that stronger measures would be pursued, unless the United States should resist the operations of the Berlin decree ^^ At the moment, the British government was reminded, " that within the period of those great events, which continued to agitate Europe, instances had occurred, in which the commerce of neutral nations, more especially of the United States, had expe- rienced the severest distresses from its own orders and measures, manifestly unauthorized by the law of na« * Seethe order in council of the *tli of January, 1S07. + Seethe siime, X See Mr. Erskiiie's letter to the secretary of slate, dated tlie 12lh of Marcli, 1807. .t u t ■♦''' 4S tions;" assurances were given, " that no culpable acquiescence on the part of the United States would render thenn accessory to the proceedings of one belli- gerent nation, through their rights of neutrality, against the commerce of its adversary ;" and the right of Great Britain to issue such orders, unless as orders of block- ade, to be enforced according to the iuw of nations, wai utterly denied *." This candid and explicit avowal of the sentiments of the American government upon an occasion so novel and im^vM^ant in the history of nations, did not, however, make its just impression upon the British cabinet; for, without assigning uay new provocation on the part of France, and complaining, merely, that neutral powers had not been induced to interpose with effect to obtain a revocation of the Berlin decree, (which, however. Great Britain herself hr.d affirmed to be a decree nominal and inoperative,) the orders in council of the 11th of November, 1807, were issued, declaring, ** that ail the pv. ts and places of France and her allies, or of any other country at war with his majesty, and all other ports or pl;u;es in Europe, from which, although not at war with his majesty, tlie British Hag was excluded, and all ports or places in the colonies belonging to his majesty's enemies, should, from thenceforth, be subject to the same restrictions, in point of trade and navigation, as if the same were actually blockaded by his majesty's naval forces, in the most strict and rigorous manner;" that " all trade in articles which were the produce or manufacture of the said countries or colonies, should he deemed and considered to be unlawful;" but that neutraJ * *^co tlu' spcrolarv o''s!afe's letter to Mr. En-kiiie, dated Ihe 20lU of Miiicli,lS07. . ' i If 49 vessels sliould still be permitted to trade Wltli France from certain free poits, or through ports and places of the British dominions *. To accept the lawful enjoy-» ineht of a right, as the grant of a superior; to prosecute a lawful commerce, under the forms of favour and induU ingly employed every instrument, except the instruments of war. It acted precisely towards France, as it acted towards Great' Britain, on similar occasions; but France remained, for a time, as insensible to the claims of justice and honour as Great Britain, each imitating the other in extrava- gance of pretension, and in obstinacy of purpose. When the American government received intelligence that the orders of the 11th of November, 1S07, had been under the consideration of the British cabinet, and were actually prepared for promulgation, it was anticipated that France, in a zealous prosecution of the retaliatory warfare, would soon produce an act of at least equal injustice and hostility. The crisis existed, therefore, at which the United States were compciltd to decide cither to withdraw their seafaring citizens and their commercial wealth from the ocean, or to leave the interests of the mariner and the merchant exposed to certain destruction; or to engage in open and active war. lor the protection and defence of those interests. The principles and the habits of the American government, were still disposed to neutrality and peace. In weighing the nature and the amount of the aggressions, which had been perpetrated, or which were threatened, if there were any preponde- ranee to determine the balance against one of the belli- gerent powers rather than the other, as the object of a declaration of war; it was a-ainst Great Britain, at least upon the vital interest of in]pressmen(, and the obvious superiority of her naval ni'.ans of annoyance. '1^.,^ French decrees were, indeed, as obnoxious in tiuir formation and design as the British orders; but the government of France claimed and exercised no right of mipressment ; nnd the maritime spoliations of France were coiupara- tively restricted, not only by her own w^x^kness'on the II 2 m I •'■-■ if; 4-- 52 ocean, but by the constant and pervading vigilance of the fleets of her enemy. The difticulty of selection ; the in- discretion of encountering, at once, both of the offending powers; and, above all, the hope of an early return of justice, under the dispensations of the ancient public lav7, prevailed in the councils of the American govern- ment ; and it was resolved to attempt the preservation of its neutrality and its peace; of its citizens, and its re- sources, by a voluntary suspension of the commerce and navigation of the United States. It is true, that for the minor outrages committed, under the pretext of the rule of war of 17o6\ the citizens of every denomination had demanded from their government, in the year 1805, pro- tection and redress; it is true, that for the unparalleled enormities of the year 1807, the citizens of every deno- mination again demanded from their government protec- tion and redress: but it is also a truth, conclusively established by every manifestation of the sense of the American people, as well as of their government, that any honourable means of protection and redress were preferred to the last resort of arms. The American go- •vernment might honourably retire, for a time, from a scene of conflict and collision ; but it could no longer, ■with honour, permit its flag to be insulted, its citizens to be enslaved, and its property to be plundered on the highway of nations. Under these impressions, the restrictive system of the United States was introduced. In December, 1807, an embargo was imposed upon all American vessels and merchandize*, on principles similar to those which origi- nated and regulated the embargo law, authorised to be laid by the president of the United States in the year * See the act of Congress, passed the 22d of December, 1807. 53 in- pro- to be year 1794; but soon afterwards, in the genuine spirit of the policy that prescribed the measure, it was declared by law, " tliat in the event of such peace, or suspension of hostilities, between the belligerent powers of luirope, or such changes in their measures afTecting neutral com- merce, as might render that of the United States safe, in the jud'inient of the president of the United States, he was authorized to suspend the embargo in whole or in part*." The pressure of the embargo was thought, however, so severe upon every part of the community, that the American government, notwithstanding the neutral character of the measure, determined upon some relaxation; and accordingly, the embargo being raised, as to all other nations, a system of non-intercourse and non-importation was substituted in March, 1809, as to Great Britain and France, which prohibited all voyages to the Britivsh or French dominions, and all trade in arti- cles of British or French product or manufacturef. But still adhering to the neutral and pacific policy of the government, it was declared " that the president of the United States should be authorized, in case either France or Great Britain should so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they should cease to violate the neutral com- merce of the United States, to declare the same by pro- clamation ; after which the trade of the United States might be renewed with the nation so doing +." These appeals to the justice and the interests of the bellige- rent powers proving ineffectual, and the necessities of the country increasing, it was finally resolved, by the American government, to take the hazards of a war; to revoke its restrictive system, and to exclude British and * See the act of Conjjross, passed the 22(1 of April, 1808. + See the act of Conj^rcss, passed the 1st of March, 1809. :J: See the 1 1th section of the last cited act of Congress. >4 \»i !l;» II n i ■: III t ■ "I 54 French anued vessels from the harbours and waters of the Uniteiies(i();;(lence bclween llic secrefary of slate and the American ministers al London and Paris. + See the documents laid before congress from time to lime l»y the president, and printed. ) 55 as a ach of iatory ations them ,nd tlic f»y the remonstrances against the original transgressions, with- out regard to the question of their priority, it emhraced witli eagerness every hope of reconciling the ir.lerests of the rival powers, with a pf-rforniance of the tluty whicli they owetl to the in utriil c haracter of the United States : and when the British minister, residing at Washington, in the year 1809, aQirmed, in terms as plain and as posi- tive as language could f^npjdy, " tljat he was authorized to declare, that his Britiinnic majesty's orders in council of January and Xoven.hcM-, ISO?, will have been witli- drawn, as respects the United States, on the 10th day of June, 1809," the president of the United States hast- ened, with ap|)roved liberality, to accept the declaration as conclusive evidence, that the promised fact would exist at the stipulated period ; and, by an immediate proclamation, he announced, " that, after the 10th day of June next, the trade of the United States with Great Britain, as suspended by the non-intercourse law, and by the .acts of congress laying and enforcing an embargo, might be renewed*." The American government neither asked nor received, from the British minister, an exem- plification of his powers; an inspection of his instruc- tions; nor the solemnity of an order in council: but executed the compact, on the part of the United States, in all the sincerity of its own intentions; and in all tije confidence which the olTicial act of the representative of his Britannic majesty was calculated to inspire. — The act, and the authority for the act, were, however, d's- avowed by Great Britain ; and an attempt was made by the successor of Mr. Erskine, through the aid of insinua- tions, which were indignantly repelled, to justify the * Sec the cdirespontlenco between Mr. Erskiiie. the British minister, and the secretary of state, on the nib, 18th, and I9tb of April, 1809, and ttie presidciif's proclamation of the last dale. m 56 1 1^' \t I'.i It ,1, I \ w * I- British rejection of the treaty of 1S09, by referring to the Aniericiin rejection of the treaty of 1800' ; forg* tful of the essential points, of diflerence, that the British go- vernment, on the former occasion, had been explicitly apprized by the American negociiilors of their defect of power; and that the execution of the projected treaty had not, on either side, been commenced*. After this abortive attempt to nbtnin a just and honour- able revocatioii of the British orders iu council, the Uaite'l States were again mvitcil to iuduli'e the hope of safety and tranquillity, when the minister of France announced to the American minister at Paris, that ir^ consideration of the act of the 1st of May, 1809, by which the .'ongrcss oi the United States ** engaged to oppose itself to that one of the belligerent powers which should refuse to acknowledge the rights of neutrals, !ie was authorized to declare, that the decrees cT Berlin and Milan were revoked, and that after the 1st of November, iSlO, they would cease to have ellect; it being under- stood, that in consequence cf that declaration the Kng* lish should revoke their orders in council, and renounce the new principles of blockade which they had wished to establish; or that the United States, conformably to the act o( congress, should cause t'^eir rights to be respected by the English f." This declaration, delivered by the official organ of tlic govcrnuh Mt of Franco and i-^ the presence, as H were, of the Frpnch sovereign, was of the highest authority, according to all the ruK;s of diplo- matic intercourse; and cert; inly far surpassed onyclaira of credence which was possessed by the British minister * See the rorro-j.oiul'.nr'i be -ecn the secretary of stale and Mr. Jackson, the Hritisli minisler. + J?ee the Djtkc ti^ Cadorrs leltsr to Mr. Arraslrong, dated ihe 5lli of Au'iust, IS: !0. ■ ■ ."* '^:^ 57 residifjg at Washington, when the nrrangement of the year 180{^ was accepted and executed by the American government. The president of the United States, there- fore, owed to the consistency of his own character, and to the dictates of a sincere impartiality, a prompt acceptance of the French overture : and accordingly, the authoritjitive promise, that tiie fact should exist a', the stipulated pe- riod, being again admitted as conclusive evidence of its existence, a proclamation was issued on the 2d of Novem- ber, ISIO, announcing *' that the edicts of France had been so revoked, that they ceased on the 1st day of the same month to violate the neutral commerce of the United States; and that all the restrictions impoised by the act of congress, should then cease and be discontinued in relation to France and her dependencies*." That France from this epoch refrained from all aggressions on the high seas, or even in her own ports, upon the persons and the property of the citizens of the United States, never was asserted; but, on the contrary, her violence and her spoliations have been unceasing causes of complaint. These subsequent injuries, constituting a part of the ex- isting reclamations of the United States, were always, however, disavowed by the French government, whilst the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees has, on every occasion, been affirmed; insomuch that Great Britain herself was at last compelled to yield to the evidence of the fact. On the expiration of three months from the date of the president's proclamation, the non-intercourse and non- importation law was, of course, to be revived agninst Great Britain, unless, during that period, her orders in council should be revoked. The subject was, therefore, il t S<« lb* pteiident'g proclamation of the «d of Not. 1 »!0. I m 'f^'-j: a^n I' ' ,.»■■ ■^ • ki\ I' I 08 most anxiously and most steadily pressed upon the justice and the magnanimity of the HiitisU <^overnment; and even when the hope ot'suncess expired, by the lapse of the prriod prescribed in one act of congress, the United States opened the door of reconciliation by another act, which, in the year 1811, again provided, that in case, at any time, ** Great Britain shouhl so revoke or modify her edicts as that thev shall cease to violate the neutral com- merce of the United States, the president of the United States shoulfl 'eclare the fact by proclamation, and that the re8tri<;tions previously imposed shouid, from the date ofsucli proclamation, cease and be discontinued *." But, unhappily, every appeal to the justice and magnanimity of Great Britain was now, as heretofore, fruitless and forlorn. She had at this epoch impressed from tiie crews of American merchant vessels, peaceably navigating the high seas, not less than six thousand mariners, who claimed to be citizens of the United States, and who were denied all opportunity to verify their claims. She had seized and confiscated the commercial property of American citizens to an incalculable amount. Slie had united in the enormities of France, to declare ^ great proportion of the terraqueous globe in a state of blockade, chasing the American merchant flag effectually from the ocean. She had contemptuously disregarded the neu- trality of the American territory, and the jurisdiction of the American laws, within the waters and harbours of the United States. She was enjoying the emoluments of a gurrej)titious trade, stained with every species of fraud and corruption, which gave to the belligerent powers the advantages of peace, while the neutral powers were involved in the evils of war. She had, in short, usurped ,. '.f ■A * See the act of congress, parsed the 2(1 of March, 181 1. 59 nnd exrrciscii on the water, ji tyranny similar to that which her j^reat antagonist had usurped and exercised upon tlje land. And, amidst all these proofs of anihilion and avarice, she demanded that the victims of her usur- pations and her violence, should revere her as the sole defender of the rights and liherties of mankind. When, therefore, Great Britain, in manifest violation of iier solemn promises, refused to follow the example of Franco, by the repeal of her orders in council, the American government was compelled to contemplate a resort to arms, as the only remaining course to he pur- sued, for its honour, its independence, and its safety. vVhatever depended upon the United States themselves, the United States had performed for the preservation of peace, in resistance of the French decrees, as well as of the British orders. What had been required from France, in its relation to the neutral character of the United States, France had performed, by the revocation of its Berlin and Milan decrees. But what depended upon Great Britain, for the purposes of justice, in the repeal of her orders in council, vvas withheld ; and new evasions were sought, when the old were exhausted. It was, at one time, alleged, that satisfactory proof was not aiibrded that France had repealed her decrees against the commerce of the United States ; as if such proof alone were wanting to ensure the performance of the British promise*. At another time it was insisted, that the repeal of the French decrees, in their operation against the United States, in order to authorise a demand for the performance of the British promise, must be total, ap})lying equally to their internal and their ex- S' * Sec Ihc correspondence between Mr I'lnkncy and the Brilish government. I 2 ,r 60 I •'''■! I, ^ c*^ ■ %' li I ft* ■ ternal effects; as if the United States had either the right, or the power, to impose upon I' ranee the law of her domestic institutions*. And it was finally nisisted, in a despatch from Lord Castlereagh to the British minister residing at Washington, in the year 181^, which was ollicially communicated to the American govern- njeiit, *• that the decrees of Berlin and Milan must not be repealed singly and specially in relation to the United States, but must be repealed also as to all other neutral nations; and that in no less extent of u repeal of the French decrees, had the British government ever pledged itself to repeal the orders in council f; as if it were inci.'nbent on the United States not only to assert her own rights, but to become the coadjutor of the Britisli government in a gratuitous assertion of the rights of all other nations. The congress of the United States could pause no longer. Under a deep and afflicting sense of the national wrongs, and the national resentments— while they ** postponed definitive measures with respect to France, in the expectation that the result of unclosed discussions between the American minister at Paris and the French government, would speedily enable them to decide with greater advantage on the course dre to the rights, the interests, and the honour of the country .*," — they pro- nounced a deliberate and solemn declaration of war, between Great Britain and the United States, on the ISth of June, 1819. * See the letters of Mr. Er«kine. + See the correspoudence between tlie secretary of slate and Mr. Foster, the British minister, in June, 1812. i See I he president's message of the 1st of June, 1812 ; and the re- port of the committee of foreign relations, to whom tlie message was pcferred. 61 But it' is in the face of ail the facts whicli have been displayed in the present narrative, that the prime regent, by his declaration of January, 1S13, describes the United State* as the apfgressor in the wnr. If the act of d»rlar- ing war constitutes, in all cases, the act of orlgii»al ap;- gression, the United States must submit to the severity of the reproach; but if the act of declaring war rnny be more truly considered as tlie result of loni^ suffering' and necessary self defence, the American «![overnment will Btawd acquitted in the sight of Heaven, and of the world. Have the United States, then, en^^laved the subjects, con- fiscated ti.e property, prostrated the commerce, insulted the flag, or violated the territorial sovcreijjnty of Great Britain? Mo: but in all these respects the United States had suffered, lor a long period of years previously to the declaration of war, the coniuniely and outrage of the British government. It has been said too, as an aggra- vation of the imputed aggression, that the United States chose a period for their declaration of war, when Great Britain was struggling for her own existence against a power which threatened to overthrow the independence of all Europe; but it might be more tridy said, that the United States, not acting upon choice, but upon compul- sion, delayed the declaration of war until the persecu- tions of Great Britain had rendered further delay- destructive and disgraceful. Great Britain had converted the commercial scenes of American opulence and pros- perity into scenes of comparative poverty and distress; she had brought the existence of the United States, as an independent nation, into question; and surely it must have been indifferent to the United States whether they ceased to exist as an independent nation by her conduct, while she professed friendship, or by her conduct when 62 H'4 Ml-* I JS I' Blie avowed enmity and revenge. Nor is it true that tlie existence of Great Britain was in danger at the epoch of the declaration of war. The American government uni- formly entertained an opposite opinion ; and, at all times, saw more to apprehend for the United States from her maritime power, than from the territorial power of her enemy. The event has jnsrified the opinion and th*^. apprehension. But what the United States asked, as essential to their welfare, and even as beneficial to the allies of Great Britain, in the European war, Great Britain, it is manifest, might have granted, without impairing the resources of her own strength, or the splendour of her own sovereignty; for her orders in council have been since revoked ; not, it is true, as the performau'jj of her protnise, to follow in this respect the example of France, since she finally rested the obligation of that proiiMse upon a repeal of the Frei'ch decrees as to all nations; and the repeal was only as to the United States: nor as an act of national justice towards the United States ; but simply as an act of domestic policy, ibr the special advantage of her own people. The British government has also described the war as a war of aggrandizement and conquest on the part of the United States; but where is the foundation for the charge? While the American government employed every means to dissuade the Indians, even those who lived within the territory, and were supplied by the bounty of the United States, from taking any part in the war*, the proofs were irresistible, that the enemy lit !■■ * See the proceedings of the councils held with the Indians durinj^ the expediiion un^ler Brig. Gen. Hull; and Ihe talk delivered by the presiHentof Uio United Stales to the Six Nations, at Washington, oa tljoSlh of April, 1813. 3-\- ! 63 pursued a very different course*; and that every pre- caution would be necessary to prevent tlie effects of an offensive alliance between the British troops and the savages throughout the northern frontier of the United States. The military occupation of Upper Canada was, therefore, deemed indispensable to the safety of that frontier, in the earliest movements of the war, indepen- dent of all views of extending the territorial boundary of the United States. But, when war was declared, in re- sentment for injuries which had been suffered upon the Atlantic, what principle of public law — what modifica- tion of civilized warfare, imposed upon the United States the duty of abstaining from the invasion of the Canadas ? It was there alone, that the United States coidd place themselves upon an equal footing- of military force with Great Britain ; and it was there that they niight reason- ably encourage the hope of being able, in the prosecu- tion of a lawful retaliation, " to restrain the violence of the enerny, and to retort upon him the evils of his own injustice." The proclamations issued by the American commanders, on entering Upper Canada, have, however, been adduced by th-e British negociators at Ghent, as the proofs of a spirit of ambition and aggrandizement on the part of their government. In truth, the proclamations were not only unauthorised and disapproved, but were in- fractions of the positive instructions which had been given for the conduct of the war in Canada. When the general commandiui;- the north-western army of the United States received, on the 'i4th of June, 181'J, his first authority to commence offensive operations, he was especially told, that " !>e must not coiisicU.'r hiuislf au- * Seethe documents laid before Congress, on the I,3lh of June, I8I2. S' I jI! ^m t pjjtt li.:i.|' 4.J:f; 'ii •») .V I' fir' If*"; 64 thorised to pledge the government to the inhabitants of Caimna, further than assurances of protection in tiieir pereons, property, and rights." And on the ensu'ng ist of August, it was emphatically declared to him, *' that it had become necessary that he sliould not lose si^ht of the instructions of the 24th of June, as any pledge be- yond that was incompatible with the views of the govern- ment*." Such v.'as the nature of the charge of Ameri- can ambition and aggrandizement, and such the evidence to support it. The prince regent has, however, endeavoured to add to these unfounded accusations, a stigma, at which the pride of the American government revolts. Listening to the fabrications of British emissaries; gathering scan- dals from the abuses of a free press ; and misled, perhaps, by the asperities of a party spirit, common to all free governments; he afl'ects to trace the origin of the war to ** a marked partiality in palliating and assisting the ag- gressive tyranny of France ;" and *' to the prevalence of such councils as associated the United States in policy with the government of that nation f-" 'The conduct of the American government is now open to every scrutiny ; and its vindication is inseparable from a knowledge of the facts. All the world must be sensible, indeed, that neither in the general policy of the late ruler of France, Tior in his particular treatment of the United States, could there exist any political or rational foundation for the sympathies and associations, overt or clandestine, which hive been rr.^ely and unfairly suggested. It is equally obvious, that nothing short of the aggressive tyranny exercised by Great Britain towards the United * See the letter from the secretary of the war dcpariraent, to Brig^- Gen. Hull, dated the 24lh of June and the 1st of August, 1812. + See the British declaration of the 10th of January, 181S. 65 States, could have counteracted and controlled those tendencies to peace and amity, which derived their im^ pulse from natural and social causes, combining the affections and interests of the two nations. The Ameri- can government, faithful to that principle of public law, \7hich acknowledges the authority of all governments established de facto, and conforming its practice, iii this respect, to the example of Europe, has never contested the validity of the governments successively established in France; nor refrained from that intercourse with either of them, which the just interests of the United States required. But the British cabinet is challenged to produce, from the recesses of its secret or of its public archives, a single instance of unworthy concession, or of political alliance and combination, throughout the intercourse of the United States wi.h the revolutionary rulers of France. Was it the influence of French coun- cils that induced the American government to resist the pretensions of France in 1793, and to encounter her hostilities in 1798? that led to the ratification of the British treaty in 1705? to the British negociation in 1805, and to the convention with the British minister in 1809? that dictated the impartial overtures which were made to Great Britain as well as to France, during the whole period of the restrictive system? that produced the determination to avoid making any treaty, even a treaty of commerce, with France, until the outrage of the Rambouillet decree was repaired*? that sanctioned the repeated and urgent elForis of the American govern- nient to put an end to the war, almost as soon as it was declared? or that, linally, pronjpted the explicit com- raunicatioD which, iu pursuance of instructions, was * Vide the instructloBs from the secref ary of sir ie lo the AtiJericaa raioister at Paris, dated the 29th May, 1813. K i 66 ♦'•"• ';,' ».. id f';. ir-; m. * I r J: I.. J'^- made by the American minister at St. Petersburgh to the Court of Russia, stating, ** that the priiKipal sub- jects of discussion, which had long been subsisting between the United vStates and France, remained un- settled ; that there was no immediate prospect that there would be a satisi'actory settlement of them; but that whatever the event in that respect might be, it was not the intention of the government of the United States to enter into any more intiniJite connexions with France; that the government of the United States did not antici- pate any event whatever that could produce that effect; and that the American minister was the more happy to find himself authorized by his government to avow this intention, as different representations of their views had been widely circulated, as well in Europe as in America*." But while every act of the American government thus falsities the charge of a subserviency to the policy of France, it may be justly remarked, that of all the govern- ments maintaining a; necessary relation and- intercourse with that nation, from the commencement to the recent termination of the revolutionary establishEnents, it has happened, that the government of the United States has least exhibited marks of condescension and concession to the successive nilers. It is for Great Britain more particularly, as an accuser, to examine and explain the consistency of the reproaches which she has uttered against the United States with the course of her own con- duct; with her repeated negociations during the republi- can, as well as during the imperial sway of France; with her solicitude to make and to propose treaties ; with ber interchange of commercial benefits, so irreconcileable tea * Vide Mr. Monroe's letter to Mr. Adams, dated the ist of July, 1812; and Mr. Adams' letter to Mr. Monroe, dated the lUh of De- cember, 1818. 67 state of war; with the ahiiost triumjiharu ciury ol" a French ambassador into her capital, aiuidst ttic acclaina- tious of the populace; and with the prosecution, insti- tuted by the orders of the King oi' (Jreat Britain himself^ in the highest court of criminal jurisdiction in his king- dom, to punish tlje printer of a gazette for publishing a libel on the conduct and character of the late ruler of France! Whatever may he the source of these symp- toms — however tliey may indicate a subservient policy- such symptoms have never occurred in the United States, throughout the imperial government of France. The conduct of the United States, from the moment of declaring the war, will serve, as well as their previous conduct, to rescue them from the unjust reproaches of Great Britain. When war was declared, the orders in council had been maintained with inexorable liostilitv, until a thousand American vessels with their cargoes had been seized and confiscated under their operation ; the British minister at Washington had with peculiar solemnity announced that the orders would not be re- pealed, but upon conditions which the American govern- ment had not the right nor the power to fulfil; and the European war, which had raged with little intermission for twenty years, threatened an indefinite continuance. Under these circumstances, a repeal of the orders and a cessation of the injuries which they produced, were events beyond all rational anticipation. It appears, how- ever, that the orders, under the influence of a parlia- mentary inquiry into their effects upon tiie trade and manufactures of Great Britain, were provisionally re- pealed on the 2:3d of June, 1812— -a few days subsequent to the American declaration of war. If this repeal had been made known to th'e United States before their resort to arms, the repeal would have arrested it; and K 2 \m 68 U'i>n sifi- ■I ' { that cause of war being removed, the other essential cause, the practice of impressment, would have been the subject of renewed negociation, under the auspicious influence of a partial, yet important act of reconciliation. But the declaration of war having announced the prac- tice of impressment as a principal cause, peace could only be the result of an express abandonment of the practice: of a suspension of the practice, for the pur- poses of negociation; or of a cessation of actual suffer- ance, in consequence of a pacification in Europe, which would deprive Great Britain of every motive for con- tinuing the practice. Hence, when early intimations were given from Hali- fax and from Canada, of a disposition on the part of the local authorities to enter into an armistice, the power of those authorities was so doubtful, the object,s ot the armistice were so limited, and the immediate advantages of the measure were so entirely on the side of the enemy, that the American government could not, consistently with its duty, embrace the propositions*. But some hope of an amicable adjustment was inspired, when a communication was received from Admiral Warren, in September, 1812, stating that he was commanded by his government to propose, on the one hand, *' that the government of the United States should instantly recall their letiers of marque and reprisal against British ships, together witii all orders and instructions for any acts of hostility whatever i-gainst the territories of his majesty, or the persons or property of his subjects;" and to promise, on the other hand, if the American govern- * Vide the letters from the department of state io Mr. Hiissell, dated the OihaiidlOlti August, ISliJ, and Mr. Grahanrs mcmoianduin of a conversation with Mr. Baker, the British secretary of legation, en- closed in ihe last letter. Vide, also, Mr. Monroe's ietler to Mr. Rus- sell, datedthe21st August, 1812. fi.fi ifti' 69 ment acquiesced in the preceding proposition, that in- structions should be issued to the British squadrons to discontinue hostilities against the United States and their citizens. — This overture, however, was subject to a further qualification, " that should the Americai» go- vernment accede to the proposal for terminating hosti- lities, the British admiral was authorized to arrange with the American government, as to the revocation of the laws which interdict the commerce and ships of war of Great Britain from the harbours and waters of the United States; but that in default of such revocation within the reasonable period to be agreed upon, the orders in council would be revived*." The American government at once expressed a disposition to embrace the general proposition for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to negociation ; declared that no peace could be durable unless the essential object of inipressment was adjusted; and offered, as the basis of the adjustment, to prohibit the employment of British subjects in the naval or commercial service of the United States; but adhering to its determination of obtaining a relief from actual sufferance, the suspension of the practice of impress- ment, pending the proposed armistice, was deemed a necessary consequence ; for *' it could not be presumed while the parties were engaged in a negociation to adjust amicably this important difference, that the United States would admit the right or acquiesce in the practice of the opposite party ; or that Great Britain would be unwilling to restrain her cruiaers from a prac- tice which would have the strongest effect to defeat the negociation f." So just, so reasonable, so indispensable * Vide the lelltT of .Admiral Warren to the secretary of state, dated at Halifax the20tli of September, 1812. t Vide tfie letter of Mr. Monroe to Admiral Warren, dated the 27lh of October 1813. m Aft :-i 'ft kvj' '■li '■'•■» ir" fife I « !' 70 a preliminary, without which tlifi citizens of tlie United Stat^, navtgatiug ihe high£eas, would not be placed by tiie armistice ou an equal looting v/ith the subjects of Great Britain, Admiral Warren wa^ not authorized to accept ; and th/ eti'ort at an amicable adjustment through that channel was neceasariiy abortive. But 1' v* bf ■ le. he ove'-ture of the British admiral w.smacu? .3 ti V daj's, inde^id, alter the declaration of war,) i[ ^ r< \^ i^ucq with vhlch the United States had resort«^d to arms, vvr., manifested by the steps taken to arrest the progress of hostilities, and to hasten a resto- ration of peace. On the 26th of Jane, 1812, the Ame- rican charge d'alfaires at London was instructed to make the proposal of an armistice to tlie British government which niight lead to an adjustment, of ail ditferences, on the single condition, in the event of the orders in council being repealed, that instructions should be issued, sus- pending the practice of impressment during the armis- tice. This proposal was soon followed by another, admitting, instead of positive instructions, an informal undeijitauding between tlie two governments on the subject*. But both of these proposals were unhappily rejected f. And when a tiiird, which seemed to leave no p''^a for hesitation, as it required no other preliminary than that the American minister at London, should find in the British government a sincere disposition to ac- commodate the diO'erence relative to impressment on fair conditions, was evad-ed, it was obvious that neither a desire of peace, nor a spirit of conciliation, influenced the councils of Great Britain. P^'- * See the lellers from the secretary of stale to Mr. lUissell, dated the 26tti of Jane and 2Tth of July, 1812. + Sec the correspondence bctweeu Mr. Russell and Lord Castie- reagh.dalp^ August aud September, 1812; aud Mr. Kusscll's leltei'* to the secretary of stale, dated Sept. 1812. iif I w 71 Under these circnmstanceg, the American government li?.fl n'> choice but to invigorate the war; nnd yet it has nevpr lost sight of the object of nil just wars — a just peace. The emperr , of Russia having otfered his medi- ation to accomplish that object, it was instantly and conli'iUy accepted by the American government*; but it was peremptorily rejected by the British government. The emperor, in his benevolence, repeated liis invitation; the British government again rejected it. At last, how- ever. Great Britain, sensible of the reproa"); fo vvhich such conduct would expose her tlirougl, ut -lurope, oflTered to the American government adir l n ciation for peace, and the offer was promptly »:; c.ed; with perfect confidence that the British govn.ri iit would be equally prompt in givinsr elTect to i' ow ■• proposar. But such was not the design or lli^ course of that government. The American envoys were immediately appointed, and arrived at Gottenburgh, the destined scene of negociation, on the llth of April, 1S14, as soon as the season admitted. The British government, though regularly informed that no time would be lost on the part of the United States, suspended tiie appointment of its envoys until the actual arrivrl of the American envoys should be formally comnumicated. This preten- sion, however novel and inauspicious, was not permitted to obstruct the path to peace. Tlie British government next proposed to transfer the negociation from Gotten'- burgh to Ghent. This chan"^e alb^o, notwithstanding the necessary delay, was allowed. The American envoys arriving at Ghent on the 24th of Jnue, remained in a mortifying state of suspense and expectation for the arrival of the British envoys, until the 0th of August. ■ ' ' i ' * Vide the correspondence between Mr. Monroe and Mr. Daschko^. ia Marcb,1813. I i 1 I s. •it I! '•■ir* f '^'t' h, I ■I ; Ik 72 And from the period oiopeuiug tlie negociations la the! d.ite of the last despatch of the Slst ol October, it ha« been seen that the whole of the diplomatic skill of the British government has consisted in consuming time, without approaching any conclusion. The pacification of Pari'- .i.id suddenly and unexpectedly placed at the dis*" >sal of the British government a great naval and .lilitary force ; the pride and passions of the nation were artfully excited against the United States; and a war of desperate and barbarous character was planned at the very moment that the American government, finding its maritime citizens relieved, by the course of events, from actual sufl'erance under the practice of inipressment, had authorized its envoys to waive those stipulations upon the subject, which might otherwise have been indispen- sable precautions. Hitherto the American government has shewn the just'ce of its cause, its respect for the rights of other nations, and its inherent love of peace. But the scenes ot war will also exhibit a striking contrast between the conduct of the United States and the conduct of Great Britain. The same insidious policy Which taught the prince regent to describe the American government as the aggressor in the war, has induced the British govern- ment (clouding the daylight truth of the transaction) to call the atrocities of the British fleets and armies a reta- liation upon the example of the American troops in Canada. The United States tender a solemn appeal to the civilized world against the fabrication of such a charge; and they vouch, in support of their appeal, the known morals, habits, and pursuits of their people — the character of their civil and political institutions, and the whole career of their navy and their army, as humane as it is bravo Upon what pretext did the British admiral, 73 on the 18th of August, 1814, aniioupce his determina- t'.on '* to destroy and lay waste such towns and dibtricts upon the coast as might be found assailable* r" It was the pretextot" a request IVom the governor-gent ral of the Canadas for aid to carry into etlect measures of retaliation, while, in fact, the barbarous nature of the war had been deliberately settled and prescribed by the British cabinet. What could have been the foundation ol" such a request? The outrages and the irregularities which too often occur during a state of national hostilities, in violation of the laws of civilized warfare, are always to be lamented, disavowed, and repaired, by a just and honourable go- vernment; but if disavowal be made, and if reparation be offered, there is no foundation for retaliatory violence. " Whatever unauthorizetl irregularity may have been committed by any of the troops of the United States, the American government has been ready, upon princi- ples of sacred and eternal obligation, to disavow, and as lar as it might be practicable, to repair f." In every known instance (and they are few) the olfenders have been subjected to the regular investigation of a military tribunal; and an officer commanding a party of stragglers vvho were guilty of unworthy excesses, was immediately dismissed, without the form of a trial, for not preventing those excesses. The destruction of the village of Newark, adjacent to Fort George, on the 10th of Decem- ber, 1813, was long subsequent to the pillage and con- flagration conmiitted on the shores of the Chesapeake, throughout the summer of the same year; und might fairly have been alleged as a retaliation for those out- : i1 * Vide Admiral Cochrane's letter to Mr. Monroe, daftd the ISth of August, 1814 ; and Mr. Mcnrnc's answer of the 6!h Sept. IS!l. + Vide the letter trom ttie secretary at war lo Brijjadicr Goneral M'Lure, dated (he 4th of October, 1813. t; V I * I I'' f NX 74 rages; but, in fact, it, was jiislitic*! by the American commiMvlcr who onlerod it, on tlie j^rouiid that it became necessary to tlio military operations at that place*; while the American government, as soon as it heard ot" the act, on the Oth of January, 1814, instrncted tlie general commandinfj the \iorthern army, " to disavow the conduct of the officer who committed it, and to transmit to f^overnor Prcvost a copy of the order under colour of which that officer had acted f." This disavowal was accordingly communicated; and on the 10th of February, 1814, governor Prevost answered, •* that it had been with j^reat satisfaction he had received the assurance, that the perpetration of the burning of the town of Newark, was both unauthorized by the American governmeni, and abhorrent to every American feeling; that if any outrages had ensued the wanton an«td tlie Niagara for this purpose; tliry surprized and seized I'ort Niagara, and put its garrison to the sword ; they burnt the villages of Lewiston, Man- chester, 'I'uscarora, Duflalo, and Bliick lloek ; slaughter- ing and abusing the unai'nic:d inhabiiantit, until, in sliort, they had laid waste the whole of the Niagara frontier, levelling every house and every hut, and dispersing, beyond the nieans of shelter, in the extremity of the winter, the male and the female, the old and the young. Sir George Prevost hinjself appears to have been sated with the ruin and havock vvhieh had been thus inflicted. In his proclamation of the I'^th of January, 1814, he emphatically declared, that for the burning of Nevvark, *• the o[)portunity of punishment had occurred, and a full measure of retaliation had taken place ;" and " that, it was not his intention to pursue further a system of warfare so revolting to his own feelings, and so little congenial to the British character, unless the future measures of the enemy should con»pel him again to resort to it*." Nay, with his answer to the Anierican general, already metitioned, he transmitted " a copy of that proclamation, as expressive of the determination as to his future line of conduct;" and added, *' that he was happy to learn, that there was no probability that any m' 'sures on the part of the American government would obli. him to dep;irt from it f." Where, then, shall we search for the i'onndation of the call upon the British admiral, to aid the governor of Canada in measM.vru:irv. I ''I I i 76 r:'.^' Wi V 1 1. ^ k. r. Uh ictaliatioii? Great, Brilaiii forgot the princip^le ofrcfaii- atioii when Iier orders in council were issued against the unofi'tnding neutrai, in resentment of outrages t;onmiitlPd by her cneuiy ; and surely siie had again forgotten the same ])rinciple, uhen ehe threatened an unceasing violation of the laws of civilized warfare, in retaliation for injuries which never existed, or which the American govern- ment had explicitly disavowed, or which had been already avenged by her own arms, in a manner and a degree cruel and unparalleled. I'he American govern- ment, after all, has not hesitated to declare, that " for the reparation of injuries, of whatever nature they maybe, not sanctioned by the law of nations, which the military or naval force of either power might have committed against the other, it would aUvays be ready to enter into reciprocal arrangements; presuming tlmt the British government would neither expect nor propose any which were not reciprocal *." It is now, however, proper to examine the character oi the warfare which Great Britain has waged against the United States. In Europe it has already been remarked, with astonishment and indignation, as a warfare of the tomahawk, the scalping knife, and the torch; as a war- fare incompa'ible v;ith the usages of civilized nations , as a wai'fa-.e that, ilisclaiming all moral influence, inflicts an outrage upon social order, and gives a shock to the very elements of humanity. All belligerent nations can form a'iiances with tlie savage, .he ;\iVican, and the blood-houiul : hut what civili/ed nation has >elected these auxiliaries in its JKjstilities ? ft does no!, require the fleets and annif^s of GIreat Britain !o lay waste nn open country ; to burn unfortilied towns, or ujiprotectcd fi' • Scf Mr, IVloiiroi''ii Jcltcr to Ailiuiral CiHiluanr, rhmit hostilities upon the frontier of the United States, is top notorious to admit of a direct and general denial. It has some- times, however, been said, that such conduct was unauthorized by the British government; and the prince regent, seizing the single instance of an intimation, alkdged to I given on the part of Sir James Craig, governor of the Canadas, hat an attack was meditated by the Indians, has affirmed, that ■ the charge of exciting the Indians to offensive measures agaii r. the United States, was void of foundation; that, before th* \ar began, a policy the most opposite had been uniformly p cd ; and that proof of this was tendered by Mr. Foster to t iincrican go- vernmentj." But is it not known in Europe as wnW ;is ia America, that the British Northwest Compan naintaiu a con- • See the proclamaf in of the Governor of Bern i dateil the 14lli cf Jnnunry, IS 14', and the iiistructions from the British r icietary for fortigii affairs, dated NovcuiLcr 9, 131?.. " f See the message from the president to cona:res«, dated tlie 24th of February, 1813. 'I See tl»e prince regent's declaration of the lotli ^f.lannary, itflS. See also Mr. Foster's letters to Mr. Monroe, dated tlie jsth of Decem- ber, tsn, and the 7th and sth of June, isiQ ; aiiJ Monroe's answer, dated the 9th of Jaunary, 1813, and the I0!.b of Juue^ .W2; snd.lhe docu- ments which aceorapaiiied the correspondence. M '1 l:< u If' ml 'rii' ill 15 ' J I .11.-, I h> h v;^i 82 stant intprcourso of trade and council with the Indians; that their interests are often in direct collision with the interests of the inhaliitants of tlie United States, and that by means of ihe inimical dispositions, and the active agencies of the companj", (seen, understood, and tacitly sanctioned hy t!v-> local authorities of Canada) a!i the evils of an Indian war may be shed Ufjon the United States, without the anth jrity of a formal order ema- natini; immediately from tlie Hritish [government ? Hence the American government, in answer to the vasive protestations of the Britisli minister, residing at Washington, frankly commu- nicated !h(? evidence of British agency, which had been received at difTerent periods since the year 1807 ; and observed, " that whatever nay Iiave beri the disposition of the British govern- ment, the onduct of its subordinate a.:,f\\ oi" Aiiti'ust. 1791. 84 ft \f^^ ft^if,* li « • I ■ I • 'I Creek is generally agreed upon, and will bt a very convenient place for the delivery of provisions*, &(•. Whether, under the various proofs of the British agency, in exciting Indian hostili- tiiis against the United States in a time of peace, presented in the course of the present narrative, the prince regent's declara- tion, that *' before the war began, a policy the most: opposite had been uniformly pursned," by the British government f, is to be ascribed lo a want of information or a want of candour, the American government is not d,j|)osed more particularly to investigate. But independent of these causes of just complaint, arising in a time of peace, it will be found that when the war was de- clared, the alliance of the British government with the In- dians was avowed upon principles the most novel, producing conseqnences the most dreadful. The savages were brought into the war upon the ordinary footing of allies, without regard to the inhuman character of their warfare, which neither spares age nor sex; and which is more desperate towards the captive at the stake than even towards the combatant in the field. It seemed to be n stipulation of the compact between the allies, t'fvt the British might imitate but e,hould not control the fe- rocity of the savages. — While the British troops behold without compunction the tomahawk and the sculping knife brandished against prisoners, old men, and children, and even against pregnant women, and while they exultingly accept the bloody scalps of the slaughtered Americans :{:, the Indian exploits in battle are recounted and a|)plauded by the British general orders. Hank and station are assigned to them in the military move- ments of the British army ; and the unhallowed league was ratified with appropriate emblems, by intertwining an Ameri- * Sec tlie iettcr IVora the same to the same, ilatcd the 30th of August, T/94. f See the prince regent's tleclaiation of the lOth of .lamiaiy, 13i:;. J See tiie U'iler from the American Gen. Harrison to the British Gen, Proof or. Sec a letter aoni the liritish Majov Mair, Indian agent, to Col. Proctor, nated 2Gth Sept. i81i>, a:ul a letter from Co). St. George to Col. Proctor, ilatcd 2fJth Occ, jsjI:;, foinid among Col. Proe'or's papers, . ■'■ ^ ,- 85 enienf ler tl»e jostili- jtcd in t'lara- posite f t, is idoiir, arly to can scalp with the decorations of the mace, which the com- mander of th northcrti army of the United States found in the lej^Mslative chamber of York, the capital of Uppe,- Canada. In the siiii;le scene that succeeded the battle of Frenchtown, near the river tiaisin, where the American troops were defeated by the aihes under the command of General Proctor, there will be found concentrated, upon indisputable proof, an illus- tration of the horrors of the warfare which Great Britain has pursued, and still pursues, in co-operation with the savages of the south as well as with the savages of the north. The Ame- rican army cajjitulated on the 2?,d January 1813, yet, after the faith of the British commander liad been pledged in the terms of the capitulativ '1, and while the British officers and soldiers silently and exultingly contemplated the scene, some of the American prisoners of war were tomahawked, some were shot and some were burnt. Many of the unarmed inhabitants of the Michigan territory were massacred, their property was plun- dered, and their houses were destroyed*. The dead bodies of the mangled Americans were exposed unburied, to be devoured by dogs and swine, " because, as the British officers declared, the Indians would not permit the interment f;" and so of the Americans who survived the carnage, had been extricated from danger only by being purchased at a price, as a part of the booty belonging to the Indians. But, to complete this dreadful view of human depravity and human wretchedness, it is only necessary to acVl, that an American physician, who was despatched with a flag of truce to ascertain t''e situation of his wounded brethren, and two persons his companions, were in- tercepted by the Indians in their humane mission ; the privi- lege of the flag was disregarded by the British officers; the physician, after being wounded, and one of his companions, i< i:i * Seo tlic report of the committee of the houBc of representatives, oo the 3lst July, ISIC, and the depositions and documents accompanying it. -I- See the ofticial report ct Mr. Baker, tlie agent for the prisoners, to Brig. Gen. \Vii>chestcr, dated the 26th February, 18J3. ':,l II t 86 m ' ill \ f i . 1 1 i I f '. Of'/. ^^ m f If i(tiU ) were made piisonei!), and the third person of ihti party wusj killed *. Ijut the savage who had never known the restraints of civilized life, and the pirate wh . "d broken tlie bonds of society, were alike the objects of liritish conciliation and alliance, for the puri)Oses of an unparalleled warfare. A horde of pirates and outlaws had formed a confederacy and establishment on the island of Barrataria, near the nioulh of the river Mississippi. Will Euro'ie believe that the commander of the Uritish forces addressed the leader of the confederacy, from the neutral territory of Pensacola, " calling upon him, with his brave fol- lowers, to enter into the service of Creat Jlritain, in which he should have the rank of captain, promising that lands should be given to them all, in [)roportion to their respective ranks, on a peace taking place, assuring them that their pro[)erty should be guaranteed and their persons protected ; and asking in 'Pturn that they would cease all hostilities against Spain, or the allies of Great Britain, and place their ships and vessels under the British commanding officer on the station, until the com- mander in chief's pleasure should be known, with a guarantee of their fair value at all eventsf ?" There wanted only to ex- emplify the debasement of sueli an act, the occurrence, that the pirate should spurn the proltrred alliance; and accordingly Lafitt's answer was indignantly given by a delivery of the letter, containing the British proposition, to the American governor of Louisiana. There were other sources, however, of support wjiich Great Britain was prompted by her vengeance to employ, in oppo- sition to the plainest dictates of her own colonial policy. The events which have extirpated or dispersed the white population of St. Domingo^ are in the recollection of all men. Although * In adiiitioii to this description of saviifijt' wari'ar* under Biitinli auspices, see the facts contained in the correspondence between Gen. Harrison and Gen. Drumniond. i See the letter a(l(hcssed by Edward Nichols, licnt. col. commandinsf his Rritannit majesty's force iu the Floridas, to Monsieur Laiitt, or the commandant at Barrataria, dated the 31st of AnjusI, IS}-!, 87 111 fintisli liumaiiity mi^lit not hhrink from the infliction of similai ciilamities upon the south«.'rn states of America, the (hm^t-r of that course, either as an incitement to a revolt of the shives in tlie British islands, or as a cause of retaliation on the part of tiie United States, ou;»ht to have admonished her against its adoption. Ver, in a formal proelamation issued hy the com- mander in ciiief of his Britannic majesty's scjuadrons upon the American station, the slaves of the American planters were invited to join the British standard, in a covert phraseology, that afforded but a slight veil for the real design. Thus, Ad- miral Cochrane, reciting, '* that it had been represented to him that many persons now resident in tin; United States had ex- pressed a desire to withdraw therefrom, with a view of entering into his mojestys service^ or of being received as free settlers into some of his majesty's colonies," proclaimed, that "all thobe who might be disj)osed to emigrate from the United States, would, with their families, be received on board his majesty's ships or vessels of war, or at the military posts that might be established upon or near the coast of the United States, when they would have their choice of either entering into his majesty's sea or land forces, or of being sent a^ free settlers to the British possessions in North America or the West Indies, where they would meet all due encouragement *." But even the negroes seem, in contempt or disgust, to have resisted the solicitation; no rebellion or massacre ensued ; and the alle- gation often repeated, that in relation to those who were se- duced or forced from the service of their masters, instances have occurr^id of some !)eing afterwards transported to the British VV^est India islands, and there sold into slavery for the benefit of the captors, remains without contradiction. So compli- cated an act of injustice would demand the re[)robation of man- kind. And let the British government, which professes a just abhorrence of the African slsve trade, which endeavours to impose in that respect restraints upon th« do estic poliiCy of if * Se£ AJrniriil Codnauc proclamation, «hteti at Bermuda, the 2(1 of ^pril, 1814. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) . '/ /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 145B0 (716) 872-4303 88 »it., *i ' :*■ France, Spain, and Portugal, answer, if it cnn, the solemn charge against their faith and their humanity. 3. Great Britain has violated the laws of (civilized warfare by plundering private property, hy outraging ftinale honour, by burning unprotected cities, towns, villages, and houses, and by laying waste whole districts of an unresisting country. The menace and the practice of the British naval and mili- tary force, ** to destroy and lay waste such towns and districts upon the American coatit as might be found assailable," have been excused upon the pretext of retaliation, for the wanton destruction committed by the American army in Upper Ca- nada*," but the fallacy of the pretext has already been ex- posed. It will be recollected, however, that the act of burning Newark was instantaneously disavowed by the American go- vernment ; that it occurred in December 1813 — and that Sir George Prevost himself acknowledged, on the 10th of February 1814, that the measure of retaliation for all the previously i mpu ted nii8,coQduct of the American troops was then full and completef. Between the month of February, 1814, when that acknowledge- ment was made, and the month of August, 1814, when the British admiral's denunciation was issued, what are the out- rages upon the part of the American troops in Canada, to jus- tify a call for retaliation? No: it was the system, not the incident of the war ; and intelligence of the system had been received at Washington from the American agents in Europe, with reference to the operations of Admiral Warren upon the shores of the Chesapeake, long before Admiral Cochrane had succeeded to the command of the British fleet on the American station. As an appropriate introduction to the kind of war which Great Britain intended to wage against the inhabitants of the United Stiites, transactions occurred in England, under the avovved direction of the goverament itself, tliat could not fail to * Src Aihiiiral Cochruut's letter to Mr. Monroe, dHtcd August IS, IB] 4. t See Sir George Prevost'i. letter to General Willcinaon, dated the lOtU fif Fclirtiary, !>^14. 89 wound the moral sense of every candid and generous spectator. sense All the officers and mariners of the American merchant 8hi[)S, who, liaving lost their vessels in other places, had gone to Eng- Innd on the way to America; or who had bcc-n employed iti British merchant ships, but were desirous of returning home; or who had been detained, in consequence of the condemna- tion of their vessels under the British orders in council ; or who had arrived in England, througlj any of the other casualties of the seafaring life — were condenuied to be treated as prisoners of war; nay, some of them were actually impressed, while solicit- ing their passports, although not one of their number had been in at)y way engaged in hostilities against Great Britain; and although the American government had afibrded every facility to the departure of the same class, as well as of every other class of British subjects from the United States, for a reasonable period after the declaration of war*. But this act of injustice, for which even the pretext of retaliation has not been advanced, was accompanied by another of still greater cruelty and op- pression. The American seamen, who had been enlisted or impressed into the naval service (d" Great Britain, were long retained, and many of them are yet retained on board of British ships of vsar, where they are compelled to combat against their country and their friends: and even when the British govern- ment tardily and reluctantly recognized the citizenshi[> of im- pressed Americans, to a number exceeding one thousand at a single naval station, and dismissed them fiom its service on the water — it was only to immure them as prisoners of war on the shore. These unfortunate persons, who had passed into the power of the British government, by a violation of their own rights and inclinations, as well as of the rights of their cou'i- try, and who could only be regarded as the sfjoils of unlawful violence, were nevertheless treated as the fruits of lawful war. Such was the indemnification which Great Britain offered for ♦ Ste Mr. Bcasley's oorrespondencp with the Bsitisli government in Oc- tober, November, and December, 1912. Ste also the act of Congress, passed the 6tb of July, I9i;i. N' .! Sv I' i j^'i 90 tlie wrongs that she liad iiiflictticl, and suth the rewaid winch she bestowed for services that she had received *. Nor has the spirit of British warfare been confined to viola- tions of the usages of civilized nations, in relation to the United States. The system of blockade, by orders in council, has been revived; and the American coast, from Maine to Louisiana, has been declared, by the proclamation of a British admiral, to be in a state of blockade, which cVery day's observation proves to be practically incH'ectual, and which, indeed, the whole of the British navy would be unable to enforce and main- tain f. Neither the orders in council, acknowledged to be ge- nerally unlawfid, and declared to be merely retaliatory upon France; nor the Berlin and Milan decrees, which placed the British islands in a state of blockade, without the force of a single squadron to maintain it; were, in principle, more inju- rious to the rights of nad always Ijeen re- spected," hastily replied, " that as the Americans wanted war, they should now feel its effects, and that the town should be laid in ashes." They broke the windows of the church ; they purloined the houses of the furniture; tliey stripped women and children of their clothes ; and when an unfortunate female com- plained that she could not leave her house witii her little ' hild- ren, she was unfeelingly told *'tliather house should be burnt with herself and children in itf." (>n the 6th of May, 1813, Fredericktown and Georgetown, situated on Sassafras river, in the state of Maryland, were pil- laged and burnt, and the adjacer-t country was laid waste, by a force under the comnrand of admiral Cockburn, and the offi- cers were the most active on the occasion *. On the 2-2d of June, 1813, the British forces made an attack upon Craney Island, with a view to obtain possession of Nor- folk, which the commanding officers had promised, in case of success, to give up to the plunder of the troops §. The British were repulsed; but enraged by defeat and disappointment, their course was directed to Hampton, which they entered on the of June. The scene that ensued exceeds all power of description; and a detail of facts would be ofTcnsive to the feel- ings of decorum, as well as of humanity. " A defenceless and , unresisting town was given v\\) to indiscriminate pillage ; though U' * See Jacob Gibson's deposition. f Sec the deposition of William T. Killpntrirk, James Wood, Rosanna IVIooic, and R. iVIansfield. ;J Sec the depositith of •Inly, isi,3; to the secretary of war, dated the 2d of July, 1813; and to Captain Myers, of the last date. See also the letter froni Major Crntjlififld to Governor Barbour, dated the 20th of June, 1813; the letter:: fiom Captain Cooper to Lieutenant- governor Mallory, dat .1 in July, ISlJ; the report of Messrs. GriHin and Lively to IMajor Crntchfield, dated the 4th of July, 181J; and Colo- \n\ Parker's publiealion in the Enquirer. t Stc Ailmiral Warren's letter to General Taylor, dated the 29lh of June, 1813 ; Sir Sidney Beckwifh's letter to General Taylor, dated the same day; (lud the report of Captain Myers to General Taylor, of July 2, 1813. ' 1 ft^ 91 Hrmed ♦." The result of this en(|uiry was communicated to the British general ; rtpiirutioii was dfemumlpcl; but it was soon perceived, thut whatever might personally be the Itberal dis- potiitions of that officer, no adequate reparation could he tuade, as the conduct of his troops was direited and sunctioned by his government f. During the period of these transactions, the villa;;e of I^ewis- town, near the capes of the Doliiwarf, inhabited chiefly by tishermen and pilots, and the village of Slonini^ton, sealed upon the s>hore8ofConnecti( ut, were unsuccessfully bombarded. Armed parlies, led by officers of rank, landed diuly from the British spuadron, making; predatory iin ursions into the open country; ifling and burning the houses and cottages of peaceable and retired families ; pillaging the produce of the planter and the farmer; (their tobacco, their grain, and their cattle;) commit- ting violence on ihepersonsof the unprotected inhabitants; seiz- ing upon slaves, wherever they could be found, us booty of war ; mid breaking open the coffins of the dead, in search of plunder, or committing robbery on the altars of a church at Chaptico, St. Inagoes, and Tappahannock, with a sacrilegious rage. But the consummation of British outrage yet remains to he stated, from the awful and imperishable memorials of the capi- tal at Washington. It has been already observed, thnt the mas- sacre of the American prisoners at the river Raisin, occurred in January, 1813; that throughout the same year the desolating warfare of Great Britain, with<»ut once alleging a retaliatory excuse, made the shores of the Chesapeake, and of its tributary rivers, a general scene of ruin and distress; and that in the month of February, 1814, SirG. Provost himselFacknowledged, that the measures of TL-taliation, for the unauthorized burning o;f Newark, in December, 1813, and for all the excesses which had been imputed to the American army, was, at that time, full and complete. The United States, indeed, regarding what ■ J * Sec the report of the procccdinos of the board of officers, appointed by thft fjoiieval order, of the 1st «»f July, 1813. t See n;enei-al Taylor's letter to Sir Sidney Beckwitl), dated the 5th of July, IS 13 ; and the auswr.r of the following day. 95 what ;)tce mag* rificent monur.ients ot the progress of the arts, which America had borpowed from hi^r parent Europe, with all the testiniouiala of taste and literature which they contained, were, on the me- morable ni|[;ht of the 24th of Aut^ust, <:onsigned to the flamet, While British officers of hi;;h rank and conunund, united with their troops in riotous carousal, by the light of the buroing pile. But the charac'er of the incendiary liiid so entirely super- seded the character of the soldier, on this unparalleled expedi- tion, that a great p(»rtion of the munitions of war, which had not been consumed when the navy yard was ordered to be destroyed upon the approach of the British troops, were left untouched; an . an extensive foundery of cannon adjoining the city of Wush- ih£;ton, was left uninjured; when, in the nit^ht of the 25th of August, the army suddenly docantped, and returning with evi- dent marks of precipitation and alarm, to their ships, left the in- terment of their dead, and the care of their wounded, to the enemy, whom they had thus injured and insulted, in violatiou of the laws of civilized war. ' The counterpart of the scene exhibited by the British army» was next exhibited by the British navy. Soon after the mid- night flight of General Ross from Washington, a squadron of British ships of wiw ascended the Potomac, and reached the town of Alexandria on the 27th of August, 1814. The magis- trates presuming that the general destruction of the town was intended, asked on what term^ it might be saved. The na- val commander declared, *• that the oidy conditions in his power to offer," were suLh as not only veciuiyed a surrender of alt naval V 'in 97 and ordnance stores, (public und private,) but of ail the sbip< pitig; and of all the incrohandtze in the city, a* well as such us had been retnored since the 19th of Au<^uat. The condi- tions, therefore, amounted to the entire plunder of Alexandria, an unfortified and unresisting town, in order to Kiive the build- ings from destruction. The capitulation wub made; and the enemy bore away the fruits of his predatory enterprisu in triumph. But even whde this narrative is passing from the press, a new retaliatory pretext has been formed, to cover tiie disgrace of the scene, which was transacted at W ashingtc.i. In the uddiesh of the governor in chief to the provincial parliament of Canada, on the24th of January, 1815, it is asserted, in ambiguous lau- guage, ** that, as a just retribution, the proud capital at Wu&h- ington has experienced a similar fate to that iuBicted V)y an American force on the seat of gucernment in Upper Canada." The town of York, in Upper Canada, was taken by the Ameri- can army under the command of General Dearborn, on the '37th of April, 1813^; and it was evacuated on the succeeding 1st of May ; although it was again visited for a day by au Ame- rican squadron, under the command of Commodore Chauncey, on the 4th of August f. At the time of the capture, the enemy on his retreat set Hreto his magazine, and the injury produced by the explosion was great and extensive; but neither then, nor on the visit of Commodore Chauncey, was any edilice, which had been erected for civil uses, destroyed by the authority of the military or the naval commander ; and the destruction of such edifices by any part of their force, would have been a direct violation of the positive orders which they had issued. On both occasions, indeed, the public stores of the enemy were autho- rised to be seized, and his public storehouses to be burnt; but it is known that private persons, houses, and property, were left uninjured. If, therefore, Sir George Frevoat deems such acts * See the letters fiom General Dearborn to the secretary of war, dated the 27tli and 2Hth of Aprit, 1313. t See the letter from Commodore Clinuiicey to tlie secretary of ilc aavy, dated the 4th of August, 181^. o iiiHicted on " the seat of i^overnincMU in lj|jper (>aivi(lu," hhi»»- lar to the actH wliicli iv<'re |KM*|M'tiiiteroinptitude and liberality. lint a tale told tliu;j out of dale, for a fipecial purpose, can- not command the contidencc of the intellif^ent and the candid ■ auditor; for, even if the fact of conHaf^ration be true, suspicion must attend the cause for ho loiiij^ <'once«lment, with motives so .stroni^ for an immediate disclosure. — When Sir (Joori^e Pre- vost, in February, 1814, acknowUt^ed, that the measure of re- taliation was full and complete for all the preccdin*^ miscon- f ;;cuiity, tlien, d.vclU upon the fact alleged by Sir oiiits that <'ti^ht to have bun stated vviieii the ( hai';^e was made. Surely it i* ^uou^h, on the pail a\owal, or reparation. The >i- leneo of the military and eivd onieers of the provincial <;ov'^ri»- nient of i'aiiada, indie. iti's, loo, a sense of shame, o;- a (ouvi<'- tiun of the injn>tire of the prcHenl reproach. — It in known that there could have lieen uo other public edilice for civil uses de- stroyed in I'pper Canada, than the house of the provincial le- t;isUture, a building'; of so little eo^t and ornament, a» hardly to merit consideration; ami certainly affordiiin neither parallel nor apoln;ry ior the contla^ration of the splendid structures whicli (uUirned flie metropolis olthe United States.— If, however, that bouse w'M? iinlit-d destroyid, may it not have been an accidental coiisefjMeiue id" the confusion in which the explosion of the ma- jjazine involved the town? (Jr, perhaps, it was hastily perpe- trated l)V some of the enrai^ed troops in the moment of anguish for the loss o! a beloved coinmander, and their companions, who (lad bten killed by tlmt ex|)losion, kindled as it was by a dcr O 2 l^Mfi ' "''111 I* ', ' loo feated enemy, for the 8an|5ninary and unavailing purpose : Or, in fine, some sufFerint^ individual, i{;rnemberin«^ the slauj^hter of his brethren at the river RniHin, and exasperated by the speclu- cle of a human scalp, suspended in the legislative chamber, over the seat of the speaker, may, in the paroxysm of his venj^eance, bave applied, unauthorized and unseen, the torch of vengeance and destruction. Many other flagrant instances of British violence, pillage, and conflagration, in defiance of the laws of civilized hostilities, might be added to the catalogue which has been exhibitetilities which the Uritish go- vernment has pursued, llaviug accomplished these purfjosep, (lie American government recurs, with j)leasure, to a contempla- tion of its early and continued efforts, for the restoration of peace. Notwithstanding the pressure of the recent wrongs, and t!ie unfriendly and illiberal disposition which Great Britain has at all times manifested towards them, the United Slates have iiever indulged sentiments incompatible with the reciprocity of goodwill, and an intercourse of mutual benefit and advantage. They can never repine at seeing the British nation great, prosper- ous, and iiappy ; sate in Us maritime rights, and povveriul in its means of maintaining them ; but, at the same time, they can never cease to desire that the councils of Great Britain should be guided by justice and a respect for the « (jual rights «il other nations. — Her maritime power may extend Jo all the leuitimate objects of her sovereignty iind her (ommerce, without (.'iidanger- ing the independence and peace of every other government. A ¥• 1-1 101 hiilaiiceof power, in this leupwt, is as iiccesH;iry on the ocean a^ on th(j hii '. ; and the control timt it j^ivcjs to the nations of the world, over the actions oC each other, is as sahi(ar\ in it« opera- tion to the infhvidnal i!;overnnient wljioh I't'tls if, as to all the govc-rnmonts, hy which, on the jnst [)rinci|)lesol'inutnal sn[)port and defence, it rnav he exercised. On fair, and eipial, and lionouraljle terms, therefore, peace is at tlu; choice of (ireat liritain ; but if she still ileterniine upon war, the United States re[)Osin£^ upon the justness of their catise; upon the [latriotism of their citi;^ens; upon the distinifuishcd valour of then- land and naval I'ortes ; and, above all, upon the dispensations of a benefi- cent [^rovidence, are ready to maintain tlie contest, for the pre- servation of the national indf.-pendence, with liie same enerj^y and fortitude, which were dis[)layed in acquiring; it. VVASHtNr.TON. Februari/ 10, 1815. l'riiitt.(J t)y VV. i. C'LKMi NT, 19..') Stran/I.