IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 1128 14 M 12.2 v^ llllitt _ '^ m ^ 12.0 111= U III 1.6 A" o % % w"^- h» ^ %, '\ '? PhotoQBphic Scmces Corporation A ,\ s \ w \ ^■^ f» c> "«?) V 23 WE£1 MAtN STREET »'EBSTER,N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche 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 to th The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaliy unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelliculde I I Cover title missing/ D Le titre de couverture manque r~~| Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re Mure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la 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 ajout6es tors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; L'lnst'tut a microfilm^ le meilteur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modifi«;ation dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries et/ou pelliculdes I ~V Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 1'^ Pages ddcolorC^s, tachetdes ou piqu6es □ Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es V^7\ Showthrough/ I — I Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ The posf of tl filmi Orig begi the sion othe first sion or ill D Quality indgate de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible The shal TINI whi( Map dlff< entii begi righ reqi met Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possibfe image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6ti filmies d nouveau de facon d obtenir la meillaure image possibi.^i. 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 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thank» to the generosity of: L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6ro8it6 de: Archives of Ontario Library Archives of Ontario Library 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. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmaye. 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 illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s en commen^ant par le premier plat et en lerminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaire;i* originaux sont filmds en commengant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre 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 apparaftra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbols V signifie "FIN". 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 film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour 3tre rsproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 , BiBn^f /?^^ AN EXAMINATION or THE CONDUGJ^, >?■'% I) /I OP I . ■ I GREAT BRITAIN, RESPFXTING NEUTRALS, SIACE THE YEAR 1791. SECOND EDITION WITH CORRECTIONS AND AMENDMENTS. "The ardour, with which the British ministry embarked in the war ♦'against i ranee, was presently manifested by, perhaps, the most- " extraordinary proceeding, that ever appeared upon record ; and tins <' was to force the neutral powers to unite in the combination to crush " the French republic." [British annual register of 1793,} BOSTON : PRINTKB BV OLIVER AND MUNROE, NO 78, STATE-STREET. 1808. / «■ ....i.-t^ — -s.*' jeat CON AN necessary than '* a ■ of an hon feet illun: rights of sailing ui both occj than threi land nor able to si right of s our priva every pei pertinent and deter truth. I lately caj permittee ed bv t otherwise ' ain ; bee lar and v her office * The 1( ^.jBummg. ._ — ■ AN EXAMINATION (^j Y T A R^ A '^^ OF THE CONDUCT OF GREAT BRITAIN, SINXE THE YEAR 1791, 8cc. No. I. AN enlightened state of the public mind is no less necessary to the political morality of a worthy nation, than '* a well informed conscience, "^"^ is to the private virtue of an honest individual. In this view, the mild but per- fect illumination, given in a recent state paper* to the rights of our flag, in relation to persons of all descriptions sailing under it, appears to be of the highest importance both occasional and permanent. With that paper more than three years before them, neither the friends of Eng- land nor the opponents to our administration have been able to shew, tliat foreign navies can lawfully exercise a right of search, as to any but " military enemies" even in our private vessels. The public mind — thus aided by every pertinent light and perplexed by none, which is not pertinent — makes in the present crisis a conscientious and determined stand upon the noble ground of ascertained truth. It is in vain, that some regret, that the citizens lately captured on board the frigate Chesapeake, were permitted to go to" sea in her, after they had been demand- ed by the British. This, though it may have been otherwise intended, is an implied censure on Great Brit- because it presumes, that her character is so irregu am lar and violent, that it was to have been expected, that her officers would attempt to seize our men, ^t a moment * The letter of Mf. Madison to Mr. Munroe, of January, 1804lj MUI ( 4 ) of peace in one of our ships of war. The rights of this country to the vohintary services of its own ciiizens, can- not bf suspended or destroyed by foreign irregularities. — We wanted the men, and the men made their own side of the contract by a vohintary engagement in our frigate. It is necessary to observe too, that the riglit of our eiti- zens to be employed in the line of their proper occupa- tion, as mariners, cannot be suspended or destroyed by foreign irregularities. The government hud oftered agree- ble employment, and the captured seamen had accepted it of their own accord British impressment, odious and pernicious as it is, would be rend, red infinitely more so if il could deprive this country of its right to employ its own pe ople, and if it could deprive any class of o\ir peo- ple, of their right to be so employed by their native coun- try. A few such feeble and unsound suggestions, rekit- ing to a single occasion, are the whole that is opposed to the mass of truth, reason and universal public law, which composes the state paper concerning impressments. It is true, that the diplomatic letter in contemplation was •u-ritten and published long before the outrage on the Chesapooke, but its relation to that case has leudered it a subject of the severest scrutiny, by adversary minds. An anxious solicitude to promote the diffu: ion of simi- lar truths, in regard to neutral spoliations and vexations, leads to the present attempt to place the conduct of Eng- land, in other respects, in the same just light. It is true that the learning and the strength, which ensured to our rights on the subject ot impressment, an absolute demon- stration, are wanted here. But the same anxiety for truth and for justice to our seamen, our merchants and our country, which moved our minister '^f state, may operate .on a citizen, unequal to the task. At all events, he will faithfully contribute to the public cause, tlic mite he pos- sesses. It is well known to America and I'urope (for the appeal is made with confidence to the whole civilized world) that this country, in common \a ith other neutral states, has l)een extremely harrassed and injured by the conduct of Great Britain in the v\ ars, which have been occasior.cd by the Freneh revolutions. At the crisis of the apparent .JM- ( ) matiuity ol oui nc^gociations with the British government in the close of the last year, these as^ressi(>n. had i isen to the most offensive and injurious height. I he writer of Uiese pages does not pretend to any o.hcial information (for he writes not on tlie motion nor even vvith the privity of any other person) but he vemnres to adirm Irom abnn- dant and conclusive cvidnice before the public that alter tiic i>)rm, the substance, and one of the copies of the dij^cst- cd treaty had received the assent and signatures oi .Messrs. Islonroe and Pineknev, and in the iinal act ol dehvcriPg the British counterpart, deliberately signed also, a written note was presented by their negociating mini^.ters, to our ministers, purporting that though the treaty was thus lor- mally signed and exchanged, yet the British government would consider themselves as entitled to do towards the United States whatever we should sustain and permit irom the French, in consequence of their decree ot the 21st of November, and, of course, of any other such decrees*.^ No observation is intended to be made here upon this Briiish accompaniment of a treaty matured and mutually signed after the decree of the 2lst of November, was known. That extraordinary act has happily met with its proper trcatment,-^an open stand,— calm, decorous intcl- ligent and firm. So far as our country understands ard considers the subject, it is strongly with the government on this point, and that too in the case of many persons eminent in the walks of party opposition. The state of mind displayed by the British government, in thus endeavouring to draw us into a situation of assent to this dangerous and unwarrantable attempt ol theirs, and the spirit of perseverance in >vrong, they have manifested in their various orders of council of January 7tli and ot other dates in this year, have given rise to an opinion, that it would be of the greatest public utility to place betore the nation, some of Tnose anterior, succeshive and numer- ous acts of the British government, which have illegiti- mately, thrown the neutral states into situations of unpre- cedentcd haidship and injustice, and which the history ot the British operations since 1791, will prove to have brought on many of those acts of the French and Spanish governments, which rcseoible the decree of the Lmperor * Sec the pviblication, concerning tlie proposed treaty at K. York, in Sept. I •5-«««»tw«««a.«»(#i'»«»'>'¥W^ ( 6 ) of France of the 21st November. Indeed, the conduct of England since the year 1791, would, if unopposed, effect a complete revolution in that wise and equitable govern- ment of independent states, which has been happily secur- ed by the universal law of nations.— It is our duty, our in- terest, and our right, calmly and freely to examine tlie sub- ject, that wc may be prepared to determine on the conduct we ought to pursue, in the critical season before us. In order to bring the matters in contemplation, into a clear and defined shape, we decently, but explicitly submit to the whole world, the high charge, that Great Britain 'was the first beginner of thQ illegitimate measures pursued to embarrass, spoliate and destroy the neutral commerce of the U. S. since \19l— that she adopted them so early, and has pursued them so constantly, in a degree so extreme, dnd in a manner so unprecedented, that she is deprived of gve- ry pretence, in reason or under the laiu of nations, to a right of retaliation, in respect to her enemies, or as a matter, which the impartiality of neutrals ought to permit her. After explicitly taking this serious gr< und, we shall pro- ceed with the subject, and we shall first notice some con- trary suggestions, which have been lieretofore made, or appear to have been intended, by respectable persons m our own country. \\l No. II. It has been asserted, and was for a time, believed, *' that the government of France has an indisputable title to the culpable pre-eminence of having taken the lead in " the violation of neutral rights ; the first instance, on "the part of the British government" (referring to their order of the 8th of June, 1793) " being said to be nearly " a month posterior to the commencement of the evil by " France," referring to the decree of the French Conven- tion of 9th of May 1794, These are the words, in which that charge was brought in 1798, against the French gov- ernment, by the writer of a series of papers in the Gaz- ette of the United States, entitled, " The Warning," and signed " Americus." Those papers were manifestly wniten oy a person very luiuuieiy imui mvu. i^oi.v-. q the transactions of our government, and have been gener- ■JM.I . . *. \\l ( 7 ) allv so considered.* It is proposed to show that he was grLtly "^*^^^^^^"' ""^ '^^'' ^'' but sUghtly viewed the '^:lt;:^^^ro^o^^r.:^o.. that a similar way of thinking seems to have existed even m thecxecu. tive branch of that government, immediately before the r^ublicatTon of - The Warning," referred to above ; for, Fn a roffie-u.l report, it is observed, that, - It may be pro- "pTr to remark' he;e, that this decree of ^^-^^ fthat of the 9th May, 1793, mentioned m the next pic- Ceding sentence) '« directing the capture of neutr^d vessels *< laden with provisions and ^^<^f »"^?X«^^^^"^,f '^r/'^ " preceded by one month the order oi the British govern. " ment" referring to that of June 8th, 1793 It is true thS there b no dLct assertion, that cither that British act, or that French act, is the leading act of violation com- mitted by England or France upon the neutral commerce ; S^t the pafsa^e unavoidably carries the idea to the reader and has occasioned some, who have not duly examined he subject, to believe that the report exhibits a proof, that "France" in the language of Americus - has really tak- en the lead in the violation of neutral rights.' ^ Let us examine the evidences we possess, with serious- ness, decency , and that candor, which the subject demands. There is among the records of the department of state, and in the British and American collections of state papers, clear and positive evidence, that England had deliberately matured and consummated the system of violatmg the neutral commerce above six weeks before the French cle- cree of the 9th of May, 1793, and this too ui the rnost un- preoedcnted manner. Our late Minister in London, Mr. T. Pickney, communicated to Mr. Jefferson then our sec- retard of sllte, in his letter of the 5th July 1793, that lord Grenvillc had explicitly and unreservedly avowed, that the captures of neutral vessels, as directed by the British order of the 8th June, 1793, to that end, were fully under- stood by bot'. Russia and Great Britam, to be '^^^^^iJ^^ intention of the convention between them, which was signed by those two governments at London, on the 25th day ot March, 1793. From the very extraordinary nature ot that * Written by A. Hamiltors ^ Esquire- m tia»jia«^*l»a»«!«WI^I«^ ( 8 ) convention between "Russiii and Grciit Britain, from tlie distance between Petersburg; and London, and iVoni ilus aeasonof the year,it cannot be doubled, tluitrl>is important contract, which waH mutually si}rned on the ifnh of March, 179.], must have been originated in the autumn of 179-2, by the late Russian Kmpress and the British kins;. h\ the correspondence between our secretary of State and our Minislei in Loudon, wc do not perceive the least suj^t^es- tion of the influence, as an example, of die French decree of the 9di of M^y, 1793. Such a plea could not indeed possibly be made by lord Grenville, who knew and uvoxv- ed, that Great b.itain had previously bound herself by a solemn compact with Uussia, to observe the vel-y con- duct, of which the neutral powers complained. Lord Grenville, and the British minister then resident here [Mr. Ihimmond] have, in their written communications, uniformly pretended, that it was regular and right, under the law of nations. Tiic British t^overnment, no doubt, gave their prior orders to the commanders of their ships, as soon as the convention with Russia was signed, that is, in March, 179.3 ; and it is tol)e presumed, that the known detentions of neutral vessels in the British ports, so early as the autumn of 1792, and the captures of neutral ves- sels, which the French government assign as the justify- ing reasons of their act of May, 1793, were made in consequence of the negociation and completion of that convention and of those first orders. In confirmation of these suggestions, we find that the French minister, M. Chauveliii, in London, strongly remonstrated, in Novem- ber 1792, against the detention of neutral vessels in the British ports", laden with grain, as contrary to the law of nations, and to the existing treaty of 1786, nay, even as contrary to the statutes of England. So unlawful was this conduct, that the British ministry actually applied for an indemnity to parliament. These early facts, followed by the captures of neutral vessels, after the French min- ister was ordered from London, on the 24th of January, 1793, and prior to the Russian convention of March 25, 1793, with the avowed design and meaning of that con-, vention betwf-en Kngland and Russia,manifest and establish a new and pernicious system, on the part of Great Britain, \\ I ( » ) of May 17yJ. 1 1'*- rarlicat of these measures of the score aryostaa- mude pretensions to a r,^A< to adopt such t^ %trtpri^<^^-*/e;L what.5a5.nert,. Frenel". deerce ol' May. 1793, can have produced th.s eon- ''"S.rtaSly Fra.:ce"ietcd an unwarrantable part towards .„ W ?hc ortter neutrals, in her decree of May, 1793 But1v,vine an immense population to support, a..d with But having an r r ijiers to feed, almost ^rn&shri- on *c 'and side, by the hostile Neth- completely Shut . . expecting no gra.n f ^L smrmfi/hives of Switzerland, and closely from the s"»™ S " j^ ; Sweden,t Hol- watehed ^J *%'"™'torwS.l, and the Italian states, her and, >='"f'»"^;/P;"XSons rf a ruinous and distr.aing us: .«"''>«"*l^PP;7b"eZukkened by the Instances of in November, 1792, upon the endency^ol the^«^^^^^^,.^^ ^^ .j,, i,;„gi„,, iuce famine oi Uie icur ui it m x . 15 ( 10 ) S4>tutely mufictcnt to justify France, they afford a degree md kind of extenuation for her Jotlowing the empress ot Russia and England, which those powers cannot plead tor their prior and leading acts, and for the captures and dc- tcntior.s anterior to and daring the pre-existence of their convention. That we considered the conduce of Great Britain at the time, as under all circumstances, by much the most exceptionable, must appear certam from our sending a special envoy to London in 1794, and not send- ina- one to Paris. This observation appears the more na- tural and reasonable, because we had resident munsters, in 1793 and 1794, at both places: Mr. G. Morris m France, and Mr T. Pinckney in London. The object o. these papers is not at all to justify the spoliations commit- ted by France, nor is it wished even to extenua'ie them in the smdlest dep;ree. So far as any comparative ideas have been admitted into this investigation, it is merely because they unavoidably arise in a free discussion ot the subject. To ascertain, that any particular measure is not of a cer- tain aiU^[?ed nature, it m;iy be useful and necessary, to de- tern»ine of what nature it really is. If fears of famine, and of r concert to produce it, both which now appear to have be-n well i^rounded ; and if the influence of Lnglish and Russian examples, have led France to adopt a culpable and uniust measure towards us ; still it appears true, and it is imoortant in thi: investigation, that there really is a num- bed of most serious and premJrditated instances of the evil on the part of Greu Britain, prior to the French decree ot May, 1795.— The contracting parties, England and Kua- sia, bound themselves to use all possible means with the neutral states to prevent their accustomed and lawful corn- mi.. -^^ter, Lord Aukiand, to the Dutch governmcni (April 5, 1793) holds u,, tuu.ii.e. as ii calamity about U) afflict 1 r^ce, he knowi.-, mat U'.c Kus- 6ian conveutio:> liad been s.gned in London, eleven aa)s l)efore : and lie emm-cssol Russia, m July, 1793, inloimed il.e court ot Sweden, tluvr. inc\m^qumc,ofanarrungfmnU madcvA"', hi. Dritanmc mujei^tij, she had eivn lawless '"^ nistpuctions to the .:()iuniandei-s of her tkct, to slop an. »^conipc. all neutral slups, bound to or IVeighted for i- ranee, t^'th^^ . « u sail bi.r,k or enter sonve neuUal harbor." Now it is certam, that the fonventioi. of tiie 25th iViarch, 1793, was the only arra.. 'tment, that was t>:ecuted between Rujvsia and hngbnt', between that day and July oO. -1793 This was a commercial blockade more extreme tlian thiU ol i-n- gland by France in the Decree of Nov, 1 806. •m-j- PamjthUt ( " ) ^evcial intercourse -^ J^^ -forJc'^for ^^^^ StS^^^d'^eS L^y^- ana fa.r ad- «es to the farmer -d *!f,S»^*h,,e the expUcit h is of the utmost "nP°«^"'=^ »™* ^^,^^ •,„ execution declaration of Lord Grenv.le, that it was ^^^ and fulfilment of this ""venUon ™^ 1793, ^ere British additional orders of t^e 8th rf^^^^^ ^^^^ ^ framed and issued, .r*"; *'"e' *" p ,^ „der of the ™t allege, or even mt.mate, that the tr ^^.^^.^^ ^^^^ 9th of May was the "^au^e- "^^ ^""^.^^^^^^^ of neutral previously thereto, '=°";™''^'^„'^'^,„eed depredations on vessels with gram, and ^''d^"™""^^ ji,^ p,\^„eh declara- neutrals. in the manner set oUh in tM ^^_^^^^_ tion of war in February and '^ f^Xfcfore plainly as- tion of the 9th May, l"3--and he me >' „ded sisns the f W\X' V uti^l t the true'^and only . authority from the law 01 "' • . i{.,sji,,n pretence, causes i" and it is upon this Brmsh a^ <«-' P ^„ ^j,^ that the prov s,an a">c^e °' O' ^ '«aty P ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^j_ pan of ti,e tngUsh. »^«" 3';5" ^ ^^ th„ „cvv and iHe- ?a was induced or -^ot^Pf "'f *° ^ uissia It seems parti- gitimate system of England and «;^^'^;^^'^^t„villl also fularly worthy ot '-^Z^c"M\^Tb.<.\ done, in .e- aUeged,tnatSpa.n wo Id act asj^ng ^.^^^^ ^.^ ffardtotheneutraU— andweknowu , ^^^^_ cordingly,* in the course of the jear 1793. > fore cle/rly owe our ^Pf atj^,": .^Hnd die cnipreL of influence, and persuasions of hngUvA a _^J.^^,^ ^„. Russia, in pursuance "f t^e extraorm. y ^_^,,_^ „,,iel, tered into by them mMa.ch,l-9S^_^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ is not only calculatea, oy ^^^ . A««.v .« made by Crea,.B.-aam -* Sp™-' - ^^^ ^ ,.,„,,^, bulh,. :<"'"«<»"""'""';'"" F.„^ce l^vin in hir most cylrcne moments, bus certain y '^'", f '^ sotniish councils »e ■,, ,vhiclvde.toes »ar i:.^SM»rS:n "^ S tbe neutral couufle. ( 12 ) dreadful tendencies, to bring down upon France and aU future belligerent nations unprecedented and awful mise- ries, but to inflict upon all neutrals, however peaceful and equitable, the suspension of their ordinary and rightful navigation, the prevention of the sales of their most valua- ble commodities, the interception of their supplies of for- eign comforts and necessaries, and Ut^ dep':ndent reven- ues from exports and imports. It is also, too well calcu- lated to embroil neutrals with the adversary belligerent powers. If Portugal should be involved in the present war, England Jicting upon this principle, would attempt to suspend the accustomed and lawful commerce of the United States, with nearly all the civilized world ; and France, invited by these examples from 1792, and prompted by notions of interest and necessity, would at- tempt to suspend our rightful comnierce with all the rest. In these views, the comiention of 1793, between Russia and Great Britain, as unreservedly and clearly explained by Lord Grenville to Mr. Thomas Pinckiiey, is a matter of the most serious importance to the United States. It is the real corner stone in the illegitimj^te foundation of all the neutral sufferings. To acquiesce in the doctrines and principles, which are its avowed basis, must go far to de- stroy the merchant, the fisherman, and the mariner, and must deeply wound the manufacturer, the planter, and the farmer. Mo class of citizens — no description of property can escape the direct evil, or its immediate consequences. Upon the whole, we cannot fail to recognize the Brit- ish as t/ie real devisors and originators of this grand scheme of neutral sacrifices. The writer of this paper will only add, that it is not to aggravate this country against Great Britian, that this publication is now made, but to promote a prudent and united endeavor, by all parties in America, to terminate Brhish irregularities by a calm, decent and determined stand. F H 1 No. III. The most interesting considerations appear to invite to further temperate and candid discussions of this subject, at the present crisis. This brief investigation, was re- spectfully and unreservedly communicated, in the early Pamphlet ( 15 ) mit of nST, to the executive, nearly as it is printed, in Se two firs numbers, witl, the writer's name It .shop, XZ candour, prudence and decency towards the gov- ermnent and the public interests, were manifested. Ihe suSwrnot deemed at all proper for open d.scussio« at th.t moment. Yet it appeared very hazardous to the countrv ttat it was ao com'eeted with pohtieal meonven, ience for the inculpatien of France, in acase clearly and mncr'io Sy deman,nng the inculpation of England as he 3"lr, seemed to be made in America, "?' ?">>' J'*" olrcfutaVion, but even to the W«?' '^°«"X "^ °^ government. Now, when danger exists, and the Leg s- fauire Tre perhaps about to determine upon important ne sures, the freedom of the press is used to lay the in- v^agatronlwith decency and moderation before them, the FxccutWe eovernment and the country. It w I not be denied, that the British proclamation of the 15th of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety two, and the accompanying directions of that gov- enmCt; their custom-houses, f F--'.*'P^, 'S;^ provisions belonging to powers at peace ■»"* ^» *»« world, from proceeding to France, contrary to what might have been done by the English statutes, contrary to their Fren 1. treaty, an/eontrar; to the faith -^ law °f n— It is certain, that there was then a dreadful war for the orincipTes of liberty, the right of interior government, and [hTnuegrUy of their dominions, between France ou the one part? and Austria and P/ussia on the other. As Endand was not formally nor actually at war, she wafa neiftral also ; and, though a neutra -th numero- treaties of peace and commerce, she acted contrar j to the rgtas, as v^ell of neutrality, as of j"'tiee, amity, and peace in interruptingher sister neutrals in their lawful movements o Z por^ts of belligerent France, f^r.'lTTl ^Tt. ful Britain, at which those neutrals had touched or which the • had v«chased or laden ^^^O^'uXsh^fatu e of nations, and under the protection of the B"*'^^^'^'^^^^^ and treaties. This conduct, though sttongW complamed of by France, was repeated, until and after U. Chauvelm s list representation, on the 7th of January, 1-93. Ihe frcndW vessels of France were similarly treated by neutral mcnaiy Ycss ^^^^ F.nMand. even when a neu- r.nglanu. i nw» «v a^^> *"." — -» < 14 ) tral power herself, so early as 1792, promptly violated the riehts of neutral commerce, in open defiance of the law of nations, of various treaties with neutral states and France, and of her own statutes ! The ships and property of France (it is repeated) were treated in the same unwar- rantable manner, and her legislature resounded with loud complaints, rhe French vjere thus early, plainly, and un. questionably instructed in a lawless method of procuring the indispensible staff of life, at the expense of neutral rights. But it was pretended by American apologists, that it was a measure of general policy in the court of St. James, to truard aeainst a scarcity of grain in Great Britain. This, if true, would only prove, that Kn gland promptly violated the neutral rights, to guard, by anticipatiour merely against a possible scarcity, when she enjoyed interior order and peace.— The original high charge forcibly recurs : she certainly did tliereby set the fatal example of violating neu> tril rights. It was several months before much injured France followed her in any similar measure, though urg- ed by the necessities of an internal revolution, and by foreiiin war, and though under the actual pressure of a famine. But it is manifestly not true, that this British conduct was to guard against scarcity at home ; for, on the 15th November, grain was declared inadmissible in Liverpool, at the low duties, and England permitted for- eign grain to be freely cleared out in 1792, for all other places except the ports of France, even to supply the en- emies of that country, while she ordered her ^ustom-hou- ses to refuse its exportation to France alone. Will it be said that England excluded grain from Liverpool, her great manufacturers' provision market, and permitted it to be exported to all her own friends, and to all the enemies of France, in order to prevent a deficieacy of subsistance in Great Britain ? But the reality of the intention of dis- tressing France by these prohibitory measures, is indis- putably proved by the English refusal to permit the ex- portation of blankets, cloths and cordage, to 1 ranee, in 1792, contrary to law and treaty, which actually took place. Perhaps, however, we are expected to believe, that it was intended to feed the good people of England iiDon bale goods, iron manuiactures, j^un pmvGcr am. But whatever were the intentions of Great Ur.it- I i \ y . ) cor dage. « . I ( 15 ) ,i„ towards France in 1792, neutral rights were violated Ttheir execution without hesitation on lier part, or apol- "''v.r^^CT^Z r: France did not co.piain of the English stopwe of grain, as an infraction of neutral Sts This. Utruef would not alter the mjunous na- fe oV the t itish conduct to . us It w- "-t -tura for France, who was at war with Austria and Prussia, not o compUin as a neutral, but to remonstrate as she did, Z vSs prounds, that her treaty was openly broken, and S:aUheTal^:f Kngland were deUberately ^^o Ue ^o inpre her alone Bat she went much further : she deturea so c ,y "die 7thof January, 1703, by M. C.hauvelin.herres idcnt minister in London, to Lord GrenviHe, that UnglaM t rkn/ai.h '.ith all Europe ^ that fo/e.g" mercha.^ had b«n induced to send their cargoes of gr^n to Brit sh .v.its bv an ! nglish proclamation, dated soon a|ter tne ?^h of November, 1792, which took off the proh.biUori r.^m Ibreim erain i and yet, that their foreign grain so [nrorted waf rem ed a clearance for France alone, about oweks afterwards M. Chauvelin treated these mea, lures as highly injurious and offensive, nay, as actuaUy w/to fLcc, in which he was perfectly reguto. He cruid not with p'ropriety go further, *- .ncidem^^^^^^^ make a general representation of a breach of faith m regaro to other, lations, Seeing that they all had ministers on the snot. This just and criminating representation he did make TL mostixplicit and serious terms It W-" Y^'cs' t^e GienvUle acknowledged, on the ^'hof January. '"S, the receipt of M. Chauvelin's representation of Ae 7th, about the Uritish meas..'^ concermng gram. »*' however, gave no other reply .o its strong and solemn complaints bu, that of declaring, that the English P™«f '"S,^^^?"^ the exportation of grain, &c. were founded on pohucal motives of jealousy and uneasiness. He does not deny Ze of the bets brought forward by the trench, nor pre- tend that they were measures intended to prevent want m England.* The neutrals received no apology or compen- • Du,i.« the time of the tn.n3aclio.1s »e have just «»«■>' .""'jf I' '"' ,„e,Ke':n7eom,.e »ere leading '^"^:^ZT^l:^^^ neutral states. Their o..n >»r.ters t^f"™; ! "^ *'.'• 'X^^ ,he British of Europe and Annual Kegiatef 01 1 ( »o, rewi Js >H.t - ne-i -- ( 16 ) sation for the past—nor security, for the future. On thd contrary, the British e^overnment having thus early and thus readily adopted this conduct, so palpably and ex- tremely irregular in itself, and injurious to the powers not at war, that is, to their sister neutrals, pursued it till the French declaration of hostilities, on the 1st. of February, 1793. This was dated on the very day, previously lixcd by England, for sending away M. Chauvelin, the nunistcr of France.' No. IV. Two circumstances of great delicacy and magnitude, which took pi. ice as early as the 17th of August and the 21st. of September, 1792, must have excited the attention of the French nation and must have convinced them, that they were soon to meet a zealous and irregular enemy ni the king of England. A communication from Mr. H. Dundas, of the 17th of August, 1792, to earl Go\wr, the English minister at Paris, was delivered to the French nVinistry laid an embargo on all vessels in the British ports laden nvith corn for France^ the French envoys, consuls, and residents, at Hamburgh, Lubec, Bremen, 8cc. contracted for corn in those places, See. In a short time the king of Prussia (then the close ally of England) b,-:'g mjormcd of these contracts, sent letters of the 19th of January, 1793, to the ma- gistrates of those cities, commanding them, in the most peremtory manner, instantly to notify the French ministers to depart in two days. England is said to have previously concurred with Prussia m the Pihntz confederacy ; and certainly did form, in 1793, a treaty with Prussia m the very terms of the article of the Russian convention, on which we have seen that alt the neutral spoliations were founded. „ • • . The same English authority adds, that " early in 1,793 neutral British cruisers were stationed to intercept the Hamburgh and Baltic vessels in their voyages to Trance." And that when the French national conven- tion heard of this measure, they gave orders to stop the Hamburgh, Bremen, Lubec, and Dutch vessels. All this was before the l^ench decree of May 9th, 1793, and greatly contributed to bring it on. 1 he detention of all vessels for France, even with foreign wiieat, by England, in December, had been communicated by the French ministers in Pans to the convention, who temperately ordered a reinvestitration of the facts, before they would act upon the subject. Their embargo was postponed bv this moderation and prudence, till February, when the Prussian acts towards Hamburgh, &c. and the stationing of the English cruizei s, had taken place. Here we mav perceive are more of theearly and realbcg-ou nings of the lonq train of causes of the decree of the emperor of 1' ranee of November I'soo, which however does i.ot prevent our *r?.de to Gi-t:at Britain, and is therefore far short of tlie British precedents ot 1792 and lf93. ' «,. > Phctomount Pamphlet ' ' Bov«rnme*t, from which Vt appears, tl^t the British^?^ C orfv rroWd JhtirmmUter from France, on aecoWt of thfeveSsof the 10th, on the plea of mamt^img r^ l!u' b«t tL Uuiy plainly a»K>anoed to theFren*. :t\;^t^epe»aeg « .^^ - ^^ with that of all Enrope. The *«"f ?; '" UTJ:^ ^ fy^, th,. rise of the British nation against king (jnaries »» «»'• SX k^wn P^edent, justifyiSg their treaunent rf a kms- a" tSTcommm^catiin was »a^P^»L^i^,i„„, rf famine, and oE tween the two countries, attea: uus ocpu the ^ar Xl^ok place on tne fir.t of February. 1793 . The Batish vioH>,«i ».u«l rishl,, ue. » defend tl,e»selv», W » I )■;-, ( 18 ) lliat the cabinet of St. James had endeavored to obstrtict th^ different purchases of corn, and other supplies made by the French citizens, oi by the agents of the French ««e(iublic ; that the same court laid an cnibarcro upon di- v^rs^essels, mcluding neutrals^ and boats laden with corn ■for' France ; while, contrary to tlie French treaty of 1786, th«'l-u-p/-»n ihf hefiiiiujifr of tlie war. and the date qi the.Russiau cojivention. The i Pamphlet ( 19 ) detentions and obstructions of the French cdmpfvcrfce ot grain by Kngland, from the l5th of November, 1792, till the war in February, were as similar in their nature, dcrf.» sign, and tendency, as possible, which we have 'already*-, shown; fjartimldrly, as to a rcal^Jtep, mid illegitimate injury to neutral rights and commerce. They were a suit* able prelude to the Russian convention, and to the orders t of June, and November, 1793, andi May, 1795. The words of the Russian and British convlsntion, upon which the violations of neutral rights are grounded, are that the- British and Russians '» engage to unite all their efforts to prevent other powers, not implicated 'iu this war [i..e. neu- trals] from giving, directly or indirectly, any protection whatever, in consequence of their neutrality, to the com- merce of the French, upon the seas, or in the ports of. France." The commerce -of provisions is notoriously the greatest and most necessary branch of the commerce of the world. The French, in peace and in the war with England, and the neutrals, had been grossly attacked ia that branch of commerce, from November, 1792,. to the date of the Russian convention. The English treaty- maker, himself, lord Grenville, had avowed, that the interruption of the French and neutral intercourse in provisions, was included in, and was a business of the convention. There could be no room for doubts ulnrnt;- the injury to neutral trade, which was in effect rtu o'^jm^c- tively sanctioned, and intended to be extended and.ppni tinued by that /f7?^/ and rm/>r6Y guide^* that neutrality, in a manner more suitable to thcx circumstances of the lim^, anq tp the views of the powers, allied against France. ♦ Thes? are very far short of what the United States could furnish. ( 22 ) f Here we sec nn inferior British minister, prepared no iloulH by previous secret instructions, so early as May, 1 793, vvitli a grand Britisli and Spanish fleet of 32 ships of the line, assuming to forbid lejt^itimate neutral supplies for I ranee to be made by an independent neutral commercial prince, at a court distant about 1500 miles from England. And to whom does the English minister address himself? To the Russian ambassador there, who was some thousands of miles from his Empress, and who gave him instantly a concurring reply. Can it be doubted, then, that these ministers were acting on the ground of the Russian and British convention of March, 1793, or more probably of a prior understanding and orders ? Were they not prevent- ing a neutral power from giving protection to the all-im- portant French commerce for supplies, by reason of its neutrality ? These are spmc of the numerous and irrcstiblc eviden- ces of this grand British and Russian scheme of neutral in- juries.—- We see it in the captures, and detentions of neu- tral vessels, which were made before the French decree of the 9th of May, 1793, (of some of which that decree complains) in actual execution of the Russian convention, ivhic)i lord Grenvillc confessed to be a part vi Cm. same plan^ though attempts were and still are mr i" hrre io de- ny, what the British maker of the convention asserts he himself did ! Furtheyividence is to be found in the great nuiiiber of treaties, which England made and procured in Jl7,9ii, v'sth various powers, in the tinlaivful terms or near- ly j'sViv'tfcrmf of that Russian convention, which wasde- cian»f t ■ be iiiiBlled, in regard to that object, by orders for swjh captures and detensions as we complain of, and as the Bril^^h additional orders, of the 8th of June, l79Sit and 5tli pf May, 1 79$, occawoned, to be extensively re- peate(i upon us. A still further proof is to be found in the noticed conduct of Great i^ritain, in the Spring, Sum- "mer and Fall of 1793, to the republic of Genoa., and to the grand duke of Tuscany, ti^ laUer of whom was given to understand by the British minister, as we have seen, that the mere suppjies he furnished France, were cause of of- fence to England.andiier allies, and by his being ultimate- ly forded by the English to abandon his neutrality. (Sec Mr. T. Pinckney's letter of 1793.) • . : Pamphlet mn4w ( 25 } It ought to be candklly and well remembered, that France made her decree, so that it was to cease whenever neutral provisions should be exempted from seizure by her enemies ; and she did not pretend to confiscate, as prize, as England now does, the neutral property. Great Britain could have tcrniinated the French irrcguluritiesi whenever she would have become regular herself. But when France and the neutrals required her to desist from future aggressions, she rashly proceeded to increase and multiply every description of neutral injut-ies, and to act more and more contrary to the usages among civilized belligerents. . ., No. V. Fair and serious appeals to the love of justice and peace will receive, it is believed, due attention in America, wherever they circulate. If enlightened public opinion should contribute to influence, without passion or disor* der, honest errors, evil designs or dangerous prejudices, it must be deemed an inestimable result of the wisdom and virtue of the people. It has been shewn that Great Britain really began, in the autumn of 1792, the system of encroachment upon the rights of neutral nations, and that she maintained and pursued that system through the months of November and December, 1792, and througli the months of Jatiuary, February, March and April, and until the decree of the French convention of tiie 9th of May, 1793. We know, that it was further confirmed as to European France, by her orders of June, 1793, and ill regard to all the colonies of France, in November, 1793. We ought to be sensible, that this British plan brought upon us numerous Spanish captures and spoliations, by means of a treaty to that end, made by Spain cind England early in 17 95. We ought particularly to cdnsider these positive evidences before us, that Great Britain was the real and principal cause of bringing on us the late injuri- ous conduct of republican France. For, when a great belligerent power, like England, applies zealously and un- remittingly to aii the otner enemies of France, and to all neutrals, to concur in or countenance such an unprece* ii •lii i ( 24 ) dented Kteine of destouctive, unauthorized, and unjust «rfa«.. it is impossible to prevent the nsmg ofthe most powS and irregular passion* in a county U^ Fr»nee, SS oaelike England, «.«! those w!v> .n any w.se,<;o«n. Mmwed this fatal English and Russian measure. The to^lnd honest prudence, whleh was observed on he „Si^occa,ion by the worthy and intelUgent director of the c^ncils of Denmark (the late count Bernstorff wellmer- Saro^r attention, a^ will be seen in the fo»owmg ex- 3e':s":fTe%TrL?: n^'a^owedly appertamed The mustrious and virtuous Dane declared, he could not even W^^ the subject, as a faithful neutral , andthen, repellTng this monstrois inroad upon neutral nghts, by ieaso^by justice, by humanity and even by the torraer conduit of Great Britain herself, he thus expressed h.m. "^'^he point in question" said cmint Bernstorff, " is only .' with ve^ect to private speculations of the sale of «ncon- ..Traband^articles of produce and gram, *e d^'posal of .' which is not less important to the seller, than it is to the .. buycr,and to tte freight of the vessels of a natio.i, whose .. cWef support is depending on the "dvanV;ge^ they '^^^^^^ " fiom tlicir navigation and corn trade. If it be permitted " to "mbh blocked up port, and frtiBed »owns,J.dong. .. ing to an enemy, it does not appear to bejusuce m the " same decree, to extend similar misery to others, -»ho ^re "TZc^f; ami e^en in France, there are provmccs that " could ntver ha^c drser^ed such an increase of misery front " the hands of Jiimland* or its allies. ■ "ZJ^ of con., as a common consequence ol the " want of a supply of provisions, is not so exuaordmary .. rchcums3 L FrLce, as could only have been pro- " duced by the late events. France has, ■»' -j" f '^^^ ^"" '< obliged todraw provisions from other nations. Ah.ca, " Italy, and America supply that country with more pro- .' v^simis Uxan the Baltic. Their necessity, m applying to »' other nations tor provisions, is so far from bemg new, _ . ,.-;•.. ..,.,..„tion in favor of the Hanovcriam aKlHnsl "lie UlocUaJes *>!' llicir Utvcrs. \ \ J Pamphlet Binder \ ( 25 ) '^ that in the year 1709, when there was a real famine in "France, England never thought of making use of such *' arguments as she does at present. ^ *' On the contrary ; soon after Frederic IV.* was en- " gac-ed in a war with Sweden, which kingdom, as well '' as' France, is dependent on other nations for the supply ''of provisions, he used the same arguments to prevent " the supply of provisions to an enemy, in order by those «' means to subdue him, and endeavored to apply a case " to a whole country, which is cj^ly applicable or justifia- *' ble with respect to blockaded towns or forts. *' He was obliged to renounce that project, on account " of the weighty representations made on that subject, by " other courts of Europe, and particularly by that of Great »' Britain, who declared it a neiv principle, and rejected *' it as unjust. . . , » , ^ j Thus then we see, that the prmciples of the system and plan of inHicting upon France the miseries of famme,^;f neutral detent:nns and spoliations, was firmly resisted by Denmark, and ti.at they were formerly rejected by Lng^ land herself as a manifest and unjust innovation upon the universal law of nations, in relation to neutrals and belli- eerents. This is a matter of no small or momentary importance to the United States, for it permanently affects our sur- plus s-rain, rice, flour, beef, pork, fish, and vegetables--as also our carrying trade. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind the principles respectively avowed uy the trench and British nations, and the time and manner of their be- in^'- unfolded by their conduct and public acts. Jl^ngland asserts that she may take neutral provisions for a whole people going to their unblockaded places m neutral ships. France and all the neutrals deny this ; and England her- self and other powers formerly declared it " unjust," and new : that is to say, an iniquitous innovation on the law of nations. England perseveres and persuades many other powers into the scheme. The neutrals omitting or failing to obtain redress, France is burdened with im- mense expense to procure bread, and subjected to th» most palpable dangers of convulsion and iaiTiine. 1 nus • The king of Denmark in the time of Queen Anne, of Lngli)#icl. ; ! ( 26 ) circumstanced, France promulgates an act of May 0, 1793, declaring, that she will from necessity /o//oiu the example openly set by England, and take neutral provisions going to her enemies, paying for them, however, at the price in the place of destination— hwt that she will continue to do. so only till her enemies shall abandon their pretended right to take neutral provisions going to unblockaded ports. Let prudence and conscience decide the matter, and pass a sound judgment in this interesting case. The best writers on moral science do not deny to the famish- ed man the right to take/oo(/, which does not belong to him, if he avows and executes an intention to pay the owner. I \ i I i i L . - I No. VI. As the constitution and laws of England did not admit that government to avail itself of the execution of the British and Russian convention of March 1793, without acts of Parliament indemnifying the ministry of the day for each order for the seizure of neutrals against the law of nations, and as the orders of the 8th of June 1793, were thus illegitimate ; and further as the frequent passing of acts of indemnity would excite the attention of neutral governments, and of Englishmen, a measure of a singular and unprecedented cast was covertly adopted on the 17th of XuuQ 1793, which was calculated, by an. insinuation or im- plication, to indemnify for the British orders of that month, and for all those which England might chuse to make during that war.* The executive and judiciary depart- ments of Great Britain had laid down, in the most formal,, solemn and open manner, before the whole world, in the case with Prussia, of the Silesia loan, that the universal law of nations and existing treaties were the true and only rules to govern the British courts of admiralty, and that the crown never interfered to give rules or directions to these courts, yet an act of Parliament was passed, as a necessary accompaniment to the illegitimate convention with Russia, which act contained the following words : * This section and the addition by the British alone to the proposed treaty of December 1 806 are nearly, connected. In truth, they are mon- strous things, formerly unknown.. \ I ) Pamphlet jBimtAt. ' f i 1 } ( 27 ) Section 35. " Provided that nothing in this act contain- ed shall be construed to restrain his majesty, his heirs or successors from gkmg such further rules and directions from time to time, t9 his respective courts of admiralty and vice admiralty for the adjudication and condemnation of prizes, as by his majesty, his heirs and successors, with the advice of his or their privy council, shall be thought necessary and proper. " * , . . The convention of Britain with Russia and this section t)f their law of 1793, which far exceed, in principle, the French decree of the 21st of November, 1806, laid the whole commerce of all neutrals, as a devoted sacrifice on the altar of unlawful power. These two acts of England struck at the vitals of the independence of our country, for a nation whose whole floating property can be seized and condemned upon the ground of foreign conventions, and foreign orders, which she cannot modify or restrain, is, in solemn truth, not independent. That country alone maintains its station among the powers of the earth, whose territories, whose flag, whose property and whose people are completely respected, according to the univer- sal law of nations and to her own treaties voluntarily made. This, England rightfully demanded of all the world. Let all the world demand this of England. It peculiarly behoves the American merchants to convince themselves of the necessity of standing on this impregna- ble ground. From it alone can vital and permanent safe- ty to their interesting pursuits be derived. If our gov- ernment must yield any part of the law of nations, we can have no security for the remainder. Commerce must be- come precarious, and domestic consumption in the form of home manufactures must employ our people and our funds ; for our commerce will perish with the subversion of the only rule for the government of the republic of in- dependent states— the universal or prescriptive and writ- ten law of nations. This august code is the federal con- stitution of the civilized world. It may not be violated with impunity by any power. Its violation may not be allowed by any power, without baseness and ruin. • See the famous case of the Silesia loan at large, and tlic abstract iicrcin. ru|fC3 j^j 3j> wvu. i.iv. »•. li ( 28 ) But let us return to our historical review— It has been maintained in these papers, that it was erroneous and un- iust to ascribe to France, the origination of the neutral sufferings— a matter of great importance with respect to the claims of retaliation set up by England. An entne view of that division of the subject was given in our nrst numbers, commencing in 1792, and bringing the inquiry down to the date of the British orders of the 8th of June, 1793. 1 A distinguished act, continuing and extending those violations, \ook place secretly in the British privy council on the 6th of November, 1793.-* It went the length o authorisint; the seizure of all American and other neutra vessels, and even of the allies of England, having on board the produce of the French colonies, or provisions, dry goods, and other supplies for the use of any French co.o- ny The French dominions in the East Indies, and the West Indies were equallv and fully included. Thus the whole French empire, which chequered the terraqueous globe, was preposterously treated like a litt.e blockaded port— for their European dominions remained under the operation of the unrescinded order of the 8th June. 1 he Americans and other neutrals were subjected to incalcu- lable injuries and innumerable violations. This, too, con- trary to all decency and precedent, was done in a secret man- ner • for information of its existence was suppressed, even at the British admirality, till late in December; and it was not till the 25th of December following its date that our minister at London (Mr. Thomas Pinckney) obtained a copy of it, as will be seen by his official letter to the sec (* COPY) George R. Additional instructions— 6th November, 1793, to all ships of war and privateers, &c. '* That they shall stop and detain all ships laden with goods, the produce of any colony belonging to France, or carrying provisions or other supplies for the use of such colonies, a^id shall bring the same, with their cargoes, to. legal adjudication in our courts of admiralty. " By his maicsty's cominana, , ,^,^.^.. (Signed) - HENRY DUNDAS,'* Pamphlet n ( 29 ) T -ry of state, in the president's message to Congress of the 4lh v.i April, 1794. Here was a most serious act of continucuxe of the violations of neutral rights in pursuance of the Biissian convention, grounded upon a mere intention to attack, in December, some French colony.— It was ac- companied by various circumstances to render it ir- regular, offeubive, and injurious. It was clandestine, be- ing ktpL from the view of all the neutral ministers in London, for seven weeks after its date, and even rcserv- ed amor.jj: ^hc secret papers of the British lords of the ad- miraltv.'ln the mean time, passages of four and five weeks' carried it to the West-Indics -.—and our unsus- pecting uiurincry, our vessels, cargoes, and money, were odiously (Strapped in the fatal snare. Thus did they se- cure the possession of our sailors, our vessels, and our metcantile capital. Even in the case of a blockade, the law of nations and the treaties of England with the pow- ers then owninf^ the majority of neutral shipping,* re- quired ^ prochmation, and notice of the blockade, and a knowledge of it by the neutrals, to justity the seizure. Beasoii and conscience require the same. But Great Briti^ir. treading under foot those obligations of the law ol nations and of her own treaties, and all decency and justice to us, clandestinely made and transmitted to her naval commanders the orders of the 6th of November, when no blockacl e existed . By those orders , a neutral American or Dane, bound with French sugar, coifee, Sec. from the U. States, a ntutral country, to Denmark a neutral coun- try, nay even to Spain or the Austrian Netherlands, then countries of the powers combined with England in the war against France, were rendered seizable, though the cargo was neutral property also, but grevv in a French colony ! By the same order a cargo of American produce and other goods, which could by the arrete of August, 1784, be carried to the French colonies in peace, was to be treated in like manner ! Is it possible, that any secret order can be mere extravagantly, more irregularly injuri. ous to an enemy, and more violative of neutral rights, than the British system of orders of June the 8th, and Vovem- ber 6th, 1793, as they stood in force, throiigh the months ' The Danes and Stwede/ ;i ( 30 ) of Nbvcmber and December ? It was April, 1794, befor* we knew, that the November order either existed or was eountermanded. When we did obtain the knowledge of its being countermanded, the mischief wa« all done. It was accompanied too with the very unsatisfactory and of- fensive information, that it was not recinded from any convrction in or admission by England, that it was wrong ; nor did they profess that they would not repeat it. On the contrary, they explicitly avowed that it was counter- manded, because it had served the occasional end for which it was issued. They added too a reason contrary to the just rights and dignity of our government and na- tion. They said, that it was intended to produce an effect \ipon the interior circumstances and affairs of our country and government ! Professing to consider it censurable to interfere with the interior concerns of a foreign country, the British secretary of state did so interfere in the same breath. He committed a dangerous derogation from our right of interior government, and gave to our minister, Mr. Pinkney, (as an apology !) the assurance, that he had no right to do it. He affected to treat the complainers in America against their orders of council y as the enemies of Great Britain and of our own government ! Mr. Genet having been caused by the French to expiate his offence by the loss of all his honors and emoluments, France stood on clear ground. Lord Grenville must be con- sidered, therefore as the predecessor, in 1793, of all the unrepaired irregularties of foreign diplomatic characters, in their transactions with our government. His conduct has never received any censure, or notice, so far as we are informed, except those manifestations of it, given in Mr. Pinckney's letter of the 9th of January, 1794, where- in he states, that " of course he said nothing, (in reply to Lord Grenville) of our internal affairs, nor, of those of France," they being our foreign allies. The next British orders of the 8th of January, 1794, authorised the seizure of all vessels, bound from the French West India colonics to Europe ; also of all French West India produce from those islands bound to the ports of neutrals, or even to those of the allies of England. Yet the British afterwards led us into a treaty for carrying i pamphlet ( 31 ) not only their West India but their East India produce ta our ports during the war. — Thus the very means used ta aid all their own colonies, have been made the cause of seizure against all the neutrals, when serving a part of the colonies of France. Neiitrals too, who had secured by treaty the right to protect the goods of an enemy in their neutral ships were deprived of this stipulated right, in or- der to injure France. But the section of the law of 1793 concerning orders of council protected the ministers These were new repetitions of violations of neutral com- merce, which manifested to France the British determina- tion to continue, upon every call of interest or instigation of hostility, ingeniously and without precedent hardily ta apply the system and principle, they had commenced and reiterated in 1792, and 1793. They never permitted the irritability of the French to be abated, nor the wounds of neutral rights to be cured. If the French became inflamed at the sight of theu- own wrongs, and at the vast expences, injuries, and dangers, which they produced, Britain surely was the cause. i No. VIL It has been unfortunate for neutral commerce, that the merchants could not know, in time to avoid confiscations,. -' the detached sections of foreign laws, executive orders,. &c. &c. by which their property was unwarrantably con- demned. It is of consequence that they should now see and understand these great sources of danger and injury. Nothing can protect our merchants, but our maintaining mviolate the law of nations. We have contended, that our property was often captured and condemned without any real and sound lawful authority, and, of course, against existing law, which every where establishes the safety of property. It is proposed now to offer to the American merchants a decided opinion on this subject, which a very great majority of them will receive as the most respecta- ble and indisputable. It comes from Mr. King, who as. a mai. of natural abilities, as a lawyer, an experienced di-' plomatist, and perfectly informed by the English ministers - ^_^, ... »^^^„t n;„^utiutiuii5, m ail ineir pretensions, writes thus m the 40th page of his pamphlet in " Reply ta^ u ■1 ; MiS u ! I ( 52 ) aoar in Disguise,'' published by Riley and co. of NeW- York, and S. F. Bradford, of Philadelphia, in F*-bruary, 1 866. He expressly states as follows, in regard to British captures. " The prize courts therefore spoke to neutrals (by their decrees) this clear and distinct language. We acknow- ledge, that by the laiv of nations you are entitled to the prohibited commerce, and should not hesitate to restore your captured property, but ive are bound by the text of the king's instructions. Where they do not apply, we shall restore, as we did during the American war; and as soon and as far as the instructions may be ivithdruivn, so soon and so far, we will conform our decrees to the law of nations.'* Again in page 41, Mr. King writes more concisely, though indeed not more explicitly thus. *' It has, in the strong and pointed terms of Sir William Scott," (the pre- sent judge of the High Court of Admiralty of Great Bri- tain,) *' been adjudged, that the text of the king's instruc- tions is the true rule of a prize court." The conduct of the British naval commanders, upon the foundation of the order of council of January, 1794, and on the plea of blockading islands, was very dreadful to America. It is certain that blockading a. fort, a castle, a town, or a port, is a preccdented and common measure. But the blockading a whole groupe or chain of islafids, at one time, and the blockade of an entire great island, like St. Domingo, is a new stretch of English naval refinement. The island of St. Domingo is considerably longer than the kingdom of England, and it is therefore a preposterous af- fectation of blockade, to put all the ports of it under an in- hibitory proclamation, because one port or two are pro- perly and really blockaded. A ruinous list of captures, however, took place under these orders and proclamations of blockade, by the English, during the year 1794, and examples as wild, as loose, and as injurious as possible to the French and to the neutrals, were set by the Bermudi- ans, Halifaxmen, Providenccmen, and British frigates to the French cruisers. . . T„ *i — ^^^..^ ^C tUnt trpov eV»«^ trpntv v\ras hcsitatinJlly made by Mr. Jay, between the U. States and Great Bri- tain. It was thought only better than war by persons ' ' » I t rampniet WtWWw SO i , ( 33 ) here of both parties. By this treaty the British, by mu- tual contract^ gave to the Americans, and we accepted several new rights, to trade in the ivar, with the English colonies in the East and West Indies which rights were of the same nature, as certain other rights to trade, in the war, which the French had allowed by their own separate acts to the Americans. Those rights to trade, granted by*' tlie French, were constantly made the avowed grou?td to confiscate neutral American ships and cargoes by the Brit- ish orders of council and courts of admiralty, because the neutral Americans, as it was alleged^ thereby undertook to aid the French colonial agriculture. Yet great complaints have been made, that the French have condemned Ame- rican vessels for giving the same aid to islands taken from themselves by the British, though we had guaranteed those islands by the treaty of 1778, then in force. Here the French have acted much more favorably to the neutrals than the English ; for their courts do not hold the general English principle, viz. to condemn vessels from the East and West India British colonies, because the privilege of trading with those colonies was given to us in the war, and was not previously allowed by law, in peace. Thus the English afford an example extremely injurious to the neutrals, which the French have refrained from following, Tliis is an important and undeniable truth. It is an essential point of difference in the conduct of France and Great Britain, that France has hitherto admit-, ted the doctrine, that her citizens may change their alle- giance and become American sailors, merchants, and ship- holders. The opposite doctrine is held by England — and many a fine ship has been endangered or expensively de- tained by the impressment of native Englishmen, married in America, and become, legally, citizens of the U. States, Numerous captures have taken place, because the cargoes were the property of Englishmen, thus become Americans, who had bought goods in places belonging to the enemies of England. The English courts occasionally deny the American citizenship, of such former English suljjects, and condemn their property, because they are persons claimed as British subjects, and have done business in countries belonging to their enemies. To a couiUrv like ours, inces- ^ E ( 34 ) santly fcceivinpj foi*eign merchants and capital, this is itnj immense disaclvantaj^e, arising from the conduct of Eng- hind alone, and not follo\\'ed by France. England may be fairly considered, as having forced America into an entirely new act, for a neutnil power, in making the provision article of Mr. Jay's treaty ; an article expensive, dangerous, and even capable of being rendered fatal to France. It may be justly asserted, that this provi- sion article is without precedent in the annals of the civi^ lized world. No neutral nation ever before made such a contract \\ ith a power at war. It is said to be advantageous to us and to France, and }'et England adopted the measure of her 0A\ n accord, before the treaty, and. insisted upon it in m^.king tlie ticaty ! It cannot be doubted, that England did consitlcr the provision article, as, on the whole, ^er)' injurious to France and very advantageous to herself, or she Mould not liave been so tenacious on llic subject. When the treaty was signed in London, on the I9lh of November, 1794, the orders of the British council, which had injured and disgraced the neutrals, and brought on avowed cfefcnshe retaUatinns from France, ^vcre neither re- voked nor considered as superseded. In this state of things, the treaty and Mr. Jay arrived in America. The President received the treaty early in March, 1795. No objection to it being promulgated, and the senate being called to re- ceive it for ratification, there was every reason generally to ]^resume, that it was so far agreeable to the President, that he would offer it,, without objection, to that body : as ii> deed he afterwards did. Such being the appearance of things in the beginning of March, it may be fairly presum- ed, that the British government relied in May (two months after the call of the senate) with firm confidence, that the treaty would be ratified before any thing, England might then do, eould be known hi America. In this state of things the new orders of the British King in council of May 1795, for carrying hi our provision vei>- sels, were issued. To judge of the shock to France, let us remember how the bare rumour paralized the late Presi- dent Washington. He made an immediate and solemn stand, and caused it to be made known to the British resi- dent minister, that he luould not return the treaty ivhilc. ■ those vrders were continued in force. The British minister Pamphlet » ( 35 ) liere, suggested the advice of revoking them for a time, merely to give a factitious moment of their non-existence, for the ratification of the treaty ! He explicitly proposed, hov.cver, that they should then be renewed ! How danfyerous to the neutrals were such examples of British conduct, set before the government of France ! The English minister, acting thus, is publicly known to have solicited the execu- tive of this coimtry, for the favour of being made the bearer of the treaty to England. Instead of continuing to be in- formed, that the provision orders must be revoked before the treaty would be signed ; the President's signature was subscribed to the instrument, and the benefit and honor of carrying it to England conferred upon the British ininister^ agreeably to his request. It is wiUi infinite pain, that such facts arc noticed. But they are really necessary to show the deportment of England, and her title to injure us now by repeating her own original liansactions under the name of Retaliations. The British orders of May, 1795, may be deemed faith- less to us, and peculiarly offensive and injurious to France, who would as naturally consider them as explanatory of the British sense of the treaty, as our own President is known to have done. It is years since the publication of that fact was made in America ; witl\ what degree of good intention or prudence will not be discussed. The captures under these orders were so many, that at the end of twenty -two months, about one hundred and twenty cases \\'ere carried into the British high court of admiralty appeals. These were chiefly our European adventures, wherein the cargoes and vessels are large and valuable. Not a dollar of these is saved by Mr. Jay's treaty which does not aftect them. It only retrospectcd, and left England to spoliate at will in all future times. No. VIII. Great Britain was not contented to make and execute her own ani -neutral orders of council and to give o])cn indemni- ty for those breaches of public law, in the manner we have seen, but she used her utmost endeavours in the year 1793, to lead other powers into the adoption of those unprecedented and illegitimate provisions in her own convention with Bus- '1 iii ( 36 ) aia, M'hich wc have already noticed. Prussia, Austria, and Spain were (Iriuvii by Knglaiid into siuiilar engagements, nrKl America, Genoa, and Tuscany immediately witntssed the seperate or joint eftorls of Great Britain and her lawless associates to coerce Uicm into uii injurious and de^iadipji; submission to this English project oj deprhing the opposite belligerent of all the benefits of neutral commerce. Lei it (k wcii remembered, that this act was commenced, matured and published in London^ wwdcr the offieiui signatures of the British and Russian ministers on the 25th ofMarchj 1793, There^ then and thtts was the unlawlul Ibundation actually laid for all the subsequent violatious ol' neutral rights, by th's great anti-neutral eonibination. -t us suppose for a moment, tlwt, upon tlic receipt of that Anglo- Kussian treaty at Paris, in the close of March, 1793, whereby the Ficnch were attempted to be deprived, by mere dint of naval power, of all rt^^jhtful and legitimate intercourse with neutrals, the government of France had in- stantly avowed the right, the duty and the necessity of retali- ating the measure, in form and substance, and had immedi- ately passed legislative and executive acts, directing the to- tal prevention of neutraUntcrcourse with England and her tlominions. No sober and honest American will doubt, question, or deny, that such a law and decree of France in 1793, would have been justly chargeable to Great Britain, and that it would have been a clear, simple, and mere retaliation on the part of the French. It requires but little efib/t of a sound mind and an honest heart then, to place to the account ofthe government of Great Britain, the various infractions of our neutral rights by the governments of France and her al- lies, which liaA'c oecured since the dates of diose numerous and stupendous violations of those rights in the years 171% and 1793, which have been fwithfuliy reprcbenttd ni the for- mer numbers of these pajjers. " Thelaiu of nations y"*^ till England ihus began, was the great charter of American peace — that peace the God of na- ture gave, and we estimate, as a most blessed fruit of his di- vine will. We had but to be just, and public happiness was ours! — but alas, the scene is changed. The foundations of the law of nations have sustained from the hands of England, in her tf^r/y treaties with Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Spain, a rude and deliberate stroke, intended to destroy it — aijd with that law to destroy our peace. fsmpniai by ( ST ) If we trace the conduct of Great Britain further, similar evidences Uiicken armind us. l^t us proceed in the painful, but necessary duty. — In tlie progress of tlie war of 1793, Spain and all her allies, including I'^ngland, were unable to protect her from the vigorous attacks, wfiich this unprece- dented engagement with England in that year brought upon her. Slic was forced to abandon her English connection and to save herself from ruin by engaging on the side of France. No sooner had this new war of palpable Spanish necessity taken place, than the Englisli admiral, Nelson, published a proclamation, dated oiF Cadiz, declaring to the neutrals, that on that account, *' it was found right that Spain should no longer have any trade ! !" The history of the civilized world never before recorded an instance of a mere blockading ad- miral at a port, attempting to proclaim to all nations that a whole kingdom was no longer to have any trade, to the to- tiil consequent and illegitimate destruction of neutral rights. Will any man wonder, that powerful belligerent monarchs should, in retaliation, do half what a secondary English ad- miral has thus done many years before ? I'his strange and extravagant act of admiral Nelson's is a part of that monstrous and crude mass of British violations of neutral rights, which are to be found in the orders of their king in council, in the proclamations of tlieir generals and admirals, and even in tlie acts of parliament,* under the two heads of Blockades — ani — regulations of neutral trad^. These acts of the British government are, in a great many very important instances, and lor much the greater part, en- tirely unsupported by law or reason, in direct violation of the law of nations, and indisputably injurious to neutral rights. As they apply to one important subject, they are most accu- rately, faithfully and ably characterized in the following con- cise summary of the English conduct, in the pamphlet of ( 1806,) written by Mr. Madison ; a work which every neu- tral statesman and merchant, and ever}' honest belligerent, should carefully read and well consider. ** The system of Great Britain, (says this invaluable pam- *' phlet) may therefore now be considered, as announced *' to all the worl^i, without disguise, and by the most solemn " acts of her government. Her navy having destroyed ^1 r », (. as ) - the trade of her enemies, as weU between the mother coiin- ' try and their colonies, as between the former and neutral countries^ and her courts, by putting an end to re-exporta- ^^ t.ons from neutral countries, reducing the importatien iii- ^ to these to the mere amount of their own consumption the immense surplus of productions accumulating in the ' American jwssessions of her enemies can find no outlet *• but through the free ix)rts" (of the British WestJndies ) ' provided lor it, nor any other market than the British mai^- ket, and those to which she finds it her interest to distri- bute It : with a view to which she not only allows her ene- mies to trade with lier possessions, but allows her subjects to trade with her enemies. And thus, in defiance as well ' of her treason laws, and of her laws of trade, as of the rights of -neutrality, under the law of nations, we find her 111 the just and emphatic language of the President, tak- ■ mg to herself, by an inconsistency, at Mhich reason re- volts, a commerce with her own enemy, Avhich she denies ^'^' to a neutral, on the ^mnd of its aiding an enemy in the w ar. Could it have been credited of Great-Britain or of anv other respectable government, that it would have passed aws to promote and facilitate trade by her own subjects between the British dominions, and the dominions and ports oi l^raiice, after entering into four solemn treaties with the great i^uropean states to prevent the neutrals from trading With those very French ports and dominions, under the pen iilty ol a degrading, wicked nnd >;j/ confiscation ? Can it be expected by Great-Britain, that the nt utral world will ever submit to the substitution of so monstrous a system of ' mmopolistng inconsistency and oppression for the eternal justice ot the laws of nations. The hostile influence of the government of Great-Britain upon neutral trade, Has been manifested in another form particularly unjust, injurious and offensive. From the ear- lest time the British courts of admiralty have burdened both acquitted and condemned vessels and cargoes with costs and charges, fatal to ordinary adventures ;* and every siiao^i oi inconsistent opinion, from acquittal to condemna- tion in cases turning on the same principle, has marked the Tht 5-°°.° ^'^ "'."^ charges have been imposed on an acowV/er/ vessol The object must be to pamper their navy officers, and ZZ"t:^% ^r..-,^ii, u;ia at ilie sitme time to cramp neutral trade. ' ' ' ' » ) 'airipiiivi ( 39 ) decrees of the judges themselves. The more high and proud are the claims of the British judiciary department to honour and confidence, in its dispensations of justice at home, the deeper is the stain of such facts, in their i.<;lmin- istration of law to neutral suitors. Such as we have stated in these papers was the conduct of the British government towards her belligerent adver- sary and the neutral states in the first months of the war of '93. So did she teach that adversary, by her o\vn illegi- timate example, to impede, to harass, to despoil, to mulct, to diminish, and to destroy the commerce of neutrals — so did she induce and teach Spain, Russia, Prussia and Austria. So did she coerce the United States, Genoa and Tuscany ; and so did slie attempt Denmark and Sweden. So did she still continue to act towards us in the month of November, 180G, when the government of France adopted its act of avowed, actual and mere retaliation. For this act of France, erroneously supposed at the first to be a total prohibition of neutral trade with the British kingdoms, Eng- land sets up, against the universal law of nations, and a new formed treaty with the United States, a monstrous pre- tension to a right to retaliate ; profiting of her oivn wrong, ag-ainst the maxims of our common law, and the absolute rules of reason and justice. The great original parent-ag- gressor and seducer of Europe, in the moment of a mere retaliation, inferior fiir to her acts of provocation, and drawn by years of n^valconduct on herself, preposterously claims from that retaliation a right to repeat her innumerable male- factions against the most useful and necessary oi' her ncutrd friends ! The law of nations she had long and often torn, in public, to miserable tatters, and our new treaty was not to bind her, because she had goaded France into her own nevi system of co?nmercial blockade. On us, the written letter of the treaty articles and the old fashioned rules of the la\v of nations A\'ere to continue absolut.-ly obligatory. The treaty Avith England, though suspended' or aniiihilatcd there by a convenient rider of licr dictation, was to be and con- tinue ^' the supreme law of the land,'''' in the United States. Thus did PLngland prove, that slie had repeated her injuries till our apparent insensibility caused her to believe mc Iwd no feeling; and that she had deceived us, by the color of law in her council orders, and of regularity in her pretended blockades,, till we had no sense. Tlie lu>pcs oi' the twa. ( *o ) countries are brought now into a narrow ground, capable of fair and thorough explanation. We are two nations. Both independent. — The universal prescriptive law of nations must govern both, as to men and things. No dispensation can be claimed by either party, as of right. We can yield no solid provision of the law of nations, with safety or innocence. The times require of us an enlightened, a sincere, and an undaunted neutrality. No. IX. It may be well for the United States calmly and closely to inquire and consider what would have been the state of things bctw ecn them and Great Britain, if the treaty of De- cember 1800, had been perfectly satisfactory in all its arti- cles, and if it had been mutually ratified, without the at- tempted British rider. From the state of things in tlie month of December 1 806, immediately before its date, and from the course and con- dition of things since and at present, we could not have expected, that it would have made any diiference in the con- duct of Great Britain, beyond the strict dictates of its com- ponent articles and provisions. In all those important, numerous and diversified cases and circumstances, which the treaty did not contemplate and which no treaty can em- brace or effectually provide for, in all those cases resting merely upon the universal law of nations, we should remain subject to the usual English operations, founded on grounds like her stipulations of 1793 with Russia, covered by her act of the 17th June 1793 and its continuance in 1803, and exemplified in her orders of council from June 1793 to January 1807, M'ith the fluctuating principles of her admi- ralty judges, and the habitual extortions of the other officers of those tribunals. If an effectual remedy for the incessant aberrations of Britain from public law, could not be secur- ed, a treaty, which would have left us open to the usual discretionary repetition of them, in virtue of the despotic pretension of the English crown, to make rules for the gov- ernment of their courts in the condemnation of our proj)er- ty, Avould liaVe subjected us to the most serious evils. We should have been bound even in our own courts, by the law of nations and the ratified treatv, while an order of the King and Council would direct British captures and ensure British condemnations of our ships and cargoes. The re- > rampniei BiiHltr pabic of . Both nations msatioii yield no locence. and an 1 closely state of ^ofDe- its arti- t the at- irl806, nd con- lOt have the con- its com- portant, , which can em- i resting L remain grounds [ by her 03 ; and 1793 to r admi- ' officers iicessant e secur- ic usual despotic the gov- projKjr- ils. We , by tlie r of the I ensure The re- ( 41 ) petition" of the orders of June 1793, at the first moment in IV 95, that it was supposed Mr. Jay's treaty was ratified, and the attempt in Decem|Der last to release themselves from the obligations of the new formed treaty in the very act of exchanging it, too plainly instruct us what could and what would be done. Unpleasing indeed is it to believe, that the j',eneral order of things in any foreign country, is such as to forbid the hope — as to bar the possibility of a satisfactory- arrangement with her. Yet such, it is sincerely believed, will be found to be ih^ factitious state of things, which the several administrations and legislatures of Great Britain have created there, since the year 1791. This serious idea is not suggested as an attack upon her, but as an important re- ^crciion upon those historical truths, which have been sub- mitted in these papers. What then is to be done. It is easier for humble indi- viduals, and even for able and responsible public men to see immense evils than to devise a cure. Yet the present case seems to call for one. The simple, though vast evil of our situation is, that //^^ laws^ which gcoerned the repub" lie of independent states before 1792 ha'oe been^ since that pe- riod^ in an uninterrupted course of infraction and suspen- sion by the nation with whom our differences depend. To bring things back to that sound and I'ight state, which our mutual honor and interests require and admit, — the resto- ration of the uaiversal law of nations to its proper sanctity, is all that is necessary. All without this will be nugatory for us and will issue in sure disappointment and new vex- ations, embarrassments and injuries. It is vain to hope for either peace or honor, or profit, while any foreign go- vernment undertakes to legislate for the neutral states by a sole unauthorised executive order. The commercial spirit of England has been pampered with an inordinate quantity of the richest food. " The single company of merchants of E7iglandy*^ for example, " trading beyond the Cape of Good //(?j^t%" have expelled all the nations of the civiliaed woridfromthcPeninsulaof India, and have laid at the feet of its own stupendous trading monopoly eighty millions of ihto eii slaved natives! England has annihilated the commerce of its European enemies in every sea, and turned its streams all upon itself. It has for several years fixed its < 42 ) eyes upon the trade of America, the merited reward of the pohtical morahty of our civil institutions and of our love of peace. We have lately seen or now examined the sys- tem, which England has devised to subject our persons, our ships and our cargoes to seizure and confiscation The insufferable outrage on the frigate Chesapeake is but a single item in the list of British injuries. We desire not to inflame, but we should deprecate half cures for an- cient, inveterate and multiplied sores. Let not either England or America deceive herself with the hope of a real or permanent harmony, without the adoption of a re- medy, which will reach the whole disease. If England shall not return to the ground of friendship and justice, under the law of nations, what is to be done ? It may be wise, calmly and thoroughly to consider the nature of our present intercourse and to discontinue all such parts of it as may produce good effects on her, with- out injuring ourselves. We may find it wise to prohibit the entry of all their ships, both public and private -of all their rum— of all their East India cottons and silks— of all their woollen manufactures— their leathern goods^— their gram liquors— their silks and linens— their line glass— and such other goods as careful reflection may suggest. We may forbid their subjects to trade— perhaps to remain here— and in such manner evince our just dissatisfaction at their deportment to^vards us. We iiear, upon every occasion of such suggestions, de- clarations that England will make war for such treatment. She shuts us out of every port she chooses, refuses all our manufactures, and much of our produce, presses our sea- men, mulcts our lawful trade in her courts, violates our flag, and incessantly commits a long list of other wrongs, and if we adopt measures to show our just displeasure or to compensate the damage, she threatens war ! She injures —much— deeply— variously,— and will make war if you take measures of remedy r If England or any other coun- try will so make war, we ought undauntedly to meet the conflict. But her government ought to take good care. Unjust and unprofitable wars bring public discontent. All tlie neutral states— all the impartial world must be against s^isgland on this oecabion, and with America. Her wlioic ( 43 ) f injury to us will be some plunder and suspension of ou^ trade. Weshallsoonfeedonhers in ourturn. Wesballtak from her, with certainty, much of her present manufactur- ing system. We shall do much better tliin in the revolu- tionary war. Our country will be more comfortable and prosperous than any other, and we cannot help the loss of that honest and beloved peace, which England will once more, have taken from us. Our operations against the dependencies of England will, if we are not Hiistaken, greatly surprise her, in more than one quarter, and on more than one occasion. In case of a war, fhus brought on against law, justice and reason by Gf^at Britain, she will fall under the deepest and most settled odiujaa in this country. Ancient prejudices will be renewed. Former wounds will be again opened. New hatreds will arise. Never will true reconcileinent grow again, in the lives of the present generation. The name of Great Britain has gene forth with much sensation to many nations. Peals of indignant resentment have reverberated from the coasts of the Altantic to the side of the Danish Sound. These have been again driven to the shores of the Marmora, and the coasts of Egypt. Violent discontents against England have spread in many direc- tions, and if she forces this reluctant country into such a war, the world will be convinced, that the subversion of her commerce, the source of her perverted navy, is ne- cessary to the peace of the earch. No. X. Among the earliest, the most unlawful and the mos* oifensive violations of American neutrality by the British navy, was their practice of forcing our citizens into their belligerent marine service. It merits a place therefore, and not a small one, among the numerous supports of the high charge we have made. It will be remembered, that ' Mr. Jay labored, and that he labored in vain, so early as the year 1794, to place this matter upon satisfactory ground. Great Britain, combined with other powers, as she pro- ^cssea m ner maniicsiu ui -x^fuvutfci, ii-^» ^•^- »v ..— -- — iiarchy in fi-ance, compelled every impressed American to ( 44 } , i ?^*,2Sainst the vital principles ." our constitutions dur- , ing the existence of the Fre , .ublic. Washington, i Zf T^" ?796. avowed tot. .rid, that he was atLh- { ed to the princ^les and struggles of the French revolu- tion, because they were similar to our own. These im- pressnient? subjected us to the hatred, the contempt, the retaliations of the French. They once meditated the ex- ecution ot men, whom we should so suffer to be used against their country. ^ The safety, the respectability and the political morality ot the U. States require of us an intelligent and faithful adherence to the law of nations in our foreign relations. 1 he prudence of this country and the candor of Great Brit- am should concur in asserting and admitting the truth and the importance of this position. The belligerents have respectively a right to keep the neutrals in the course ot this universal public law: and the neutrals have an equal right to keep the belligerents in the same course. We have no right, as neutrals, to permit, or to cause, our citizens to enter the belligerent armies or navies. The be ligerents have no right to force those citizens into their battalions or their ships of war. In doing so chev would grossly violate and endanger our neutrality. They would render us at once odious and contemptible. An unfound- ?^/c "\,?^ ^^^ ®"^^'^ parliament cost us our peace in 1775. We say unfounded, because it was against the constitutional law of that day, and has been deliberately and explicitly abandoned in the case of Ireland, by the re- peal of the British statute respecting that kingdom, called the declaratory act," which asserted the right of the English parliament to bind Ireland, in all cases whatsoever. Ihe sanr»e illegitimate principle, and a similar declaratory act produced the war of the American revolution and ail 3ts immense expenses. It is well known, that, in the course of that war, vast expenditures were made by this country and that besides all she could pay, she labored long under a debt of seventy millions pf dollars. We re- peat It.- An unfounded claim of Great Britain cost Ame- rica the war of 1775 and the immense losses and expen- -,„.. ... ,,,^ .V r viuuuii. i nis is not mentioned to produce irritation, but tg. nourish a virtuous and salutary spirit of Pamphlet ( *5 ) union at home, and to excite considerations of justice, and an honourable prudence in Great Britain. — She again pre- fers an unfounded claim upon this country. -^She does not declare by law, but she intelligibly declares by prac- tice, that she has a right to enter the ships of America for the purpose of impressing seamen. We say after our go- vernment, with a confidence, calm and sincere, that no nation has such a right against our ships. We ask with- out heat, the British public officers and subjects here, or their government and counsellors in Europe, to point out a single clause or section of the law of nations, which countenances, or even contemplates such a right. We affirm that no treaty, no British writer on the law of na- tions, ever sanctioned this unfounded claim. We assert, that '* the right of search," under the law of nations, is extended by no treaty, no author, beyond goods contra- band of war, goods of belligerents and military enemies. We calmly challenge the ablest and the most learned Eng* lishman, here or in Europe, to shew that any treaty or any writer on the la'v of nations of any country, has ever men- tioned a right oi a belligerent to enter a neutral ship t* search, I. For enemies, not military : II. For the subjects of the searching power : III. For passengers of any nation: IV. For seamen of any nation in the service of the neu- tral power, or of its merchants. The law of nations authorises not the entry of neutral ships for such purposes. The law of nations must gov- ern. It is inadmissible for one power to say they will not ever give up practices, for which they can shew no law. It is justly offensive. It is deeply immoral. It is even a cause of war. It is destructive of the neutrality of nations. It is public despotism. It is to trample on the law of na^ tions and tread the rights of neutrals under foot. It is aa injury to adversary belligerents. It is a breach of neu- trality in nations at peace to suffer it from one party. It produces disgusts, resentments, violence and war. It is in vain to plead, that Americans and Ensrlishmen appear alike and speak the same language, because the in» disputable principle of law is, that no belligerent has a :i\ ( 4G ) right to enter a neutral ship to search for persons, who arc not really military enemies. Let not violent assertions and determinations be resorted to. Let not the alleged necessities of belligerents be pleaded to the exclusron of the greater necessities of neutrals. It is far more neces- sary for the United States, not to give just cause of war to the continent of Europe, than it is for Great Britain to press unlawfully passengers and seamen to man ten or fif- teen sail of sloops of wir and frigates. It will not be fair to say that these papers are partial to France, or against England. We contend only for the laws of neutrality and of sacred peace. — We mourn over the wounds of mangled humanity Our faithful govern- ment exerts its parental can; to save us from those evils.-^ It IS for this, among many otlier causes, dear to our hearts. We approve its conduct with all our minds—with all our souls. Let not our fellow men of iuigland any longer persevere in error. They have not a shadow of public law for impressment in our ships. It is not the interest *)f England to render it necessary for America to become a belligerent for unlawful injuries. Our government has tshewii temperate, and just dispositions towards Great Britain. Its members are bound by the inviolable res- traints of written constitutions, to do right and to avoid doing wrong — We have no power or influence here to as- sure the passage of acts of indemnity, as in other coun- tries : The laws reign here over the heads of our public agents. I^'iat Lex—ruat coelum is the constitutional mot- to of the chief American functionary. He may yield himself to no considerations unknown to the laws. He cannot, nor is he, wc confidently and affectionately trust, in anywise disposed to surrender the liberties, the comforts, the neutrality of our faithful and intrepid mar- iners to the illegitimate claims of foreign nations. He well knows, that our oppressions, in this form, since the year 1 792, have proceeded fix)m G. Britain. No other na- tions have done to us this pernicious and humiliating wrong ; this illegitimate, this vast injury. Great Britain does this insulting wrone* to no other nation:. She never enters Danish or Swedish, or German^ or Russian ship* ! { ^7 ) to impress her subjects in them ; though she well know* many of those subjects are on board of those vessels and they arc easily distinguishable there. The pretence of difficulty to distinguish Americans from Britons sinks to nought before this single fact, for England docs not «buse the right of search by attempting to impress in other neutral vessels. These insults and injuries are all for us a- lone. This remark is not intended to aggravate. If there be in it ought of aggravation, it consists in its weighty truth. The object of these papers is to contribute to place af- fairs bctw cen Great Britain and America on the only just, firm and satisfactory ground on which they can ever be rested — the ground of indisputable public Law, It is the law of nations only, which prevents a foreign ship of war from impressing sailors and passengers out of unarmed vessels, in the bays and rivers of neutral countries. ' It is the same law of nations, which protects the neutral vessel from being boarded /or impressment on the high seas. An- nul or violate that law on the ocean, and you may witness its violation in our narrow seas, our bays, our rivers, and our ports. Certain and known law is as necessary to the peace and harmony of nations, as of civil societies. Great Britain prides herself in her courts of Common Law. If those courts or her admiralty tribunals would not give remedy to the owners and master of a violated neutral ship, lost by impressment of its seamen, that cause of former honest pride must lamentably and scandalously fail. There is no instruction of the crown — ever: no or- der of the king and council— those arbitrary substitutes for legitimate rules — to warrant ** the detention" of passen- gers and seamen and carrying them in for legal adjudica- tion or impressment, American citizens, fathers of fam- ilies, are torn from their peaceful and lawful occupations in contempt of the luw of nations, because they may be Englishmen ! ! — Reason is reversed. — An Engli'ih sailor might well remain free from impressment, because an English navy officer could not distinguish him iiom au American. But it is preposterous to say they may law- fully take an American, because they cannot distinguish him from an Englishman. >Tis to subject our indepen- dent nation to a British general warrant. Can the Ame- rican officers enter English ships and impress their seamen I I ) i'l ,1 fu li ( 48 ) because they loek like Americans^ It is believed, that tlie English sea captains, mates, and sailors would, in such a cuse, do those things, which were proposed in the recent bill of a late Senator of Maryland. The government, peo- ple, merchants, and seamen of England would be trans- ported with resentment were the navy officers of the U. States to impress the crews of English merchantmen on tiie coast of Great Britain. This business has reached a stage, as it regards the rights of the btlligerents and the rights and duties of neu- tral America, which requires the calm advancement and firm maintenance of the whole truth. It is of no conse- quence to this argument, that our laws do not warrant the impressment of seamen, for if they are exempted /lerCy by ** common law" principles, they are equally exempted by them in England, and we had hopes that this consid- eration would have secured us justice on the subject of our mariners, v/hen the whig names of Fox and Grey were found among the negociators. But it iii not the least of the mortifications of cue day, that the whigs of England have been, at least, the involuntary framcrs of a treaty, which leaves the seamen of this single neutral state ex- posed to the despotic operation of British impressment. If there be ?nv thing righteous in law or sacred in justice ; if there be an y meaning, any sincerity, in the allusion to a community of language, blood, morals, and religion, we may still hope that an arbitrary power over the bodies of unarmed men, committing themselves to the protection of our neutral flag, will be quickly and completely abandoned by Great Britain. As yet however, the actual aggression of British impressment remains among the earliest, the most dangerous, the most offensive, and the most inju- rious evidences of the high charge we have ventured to make. No. XI. An accusation, so strong and so solemn, as that we have openly made against the British government, should be accompanied by the most explicit allegations, the fair- est truths, and the soundest arguments on our part. These considerations may serve to excuse our attempt tQ i ! Pamphlet ) ( *9 ) iidd to the discussions on the subject of impressment ccr- t:«m observations, which mig;ht not be convenient between mmistvra of state, though unc.':ceptionablc and useful from a free press. In doing thiii, perspicuity will often retiuire a repetition of the official arguments. We present to our readers with confidence, the position of our government, thai the law of nations does not au- thoriz«^ a belligerent power to enter a neutral ship on the high s'-as, for the purpose of searching for, or taking out any persons but military en'^mies. Such an act cannot be justified by the proper or local laws or constitutions of a particular belligerent country, because foreign munici- pal laws do not affect neutral ships, and persons out of the proper jurisdiction of the power at war. Nor can it be admitted that any concurrence of municipal laws, would render a principle valid in public Law. * These opinions are unreservedly displayed, because they are believed to be correct, after examination and re- flection, and because they can be counter argued, if wrong. But if England had a right to impress her own subjects at sea, she ought to abstain from it on board of American ships, before she can asceitain them. ** The difficulty to distinguish'' Americans from Britons is an ingenuous turn of expression. 'J'he correct language is that, in every case, wherein the British cannot ascertain their subjects, from their similarity to our citizens, there exits an f/wM/xrr- aWft-imoi-i4- Irnoiii/ \-\r\\\] iittfrlv nvprsp ■we. are to en^rajre in L vr T ^2 IIXSIV !SV r*»« O -d' this war, and therefore such an opinion in the nation, and in our publick councils, would be very unfavorable to her. ! ( 52 ) We speak plainly on all •iir subjects. It is the language required in this critical time, from a reasonable and correct neutrality, and from a legitimate amity towards all the bel- ligerents. We hope, hqvvever, that we speak with the ne- cessary good temper, even under irritating circumstances. There are circumstances connected with this subject, which ought to engage the consideration of Great Britain, if she wishes to ihaintain her standing in the United States, During the session of Congress in which the non-importa- tion law wac passed, a member of the senate from Mary? land, introduced a bill, to declare the legality of American resistance to British impressment, by all the force and arms •f the impressed persons. In t;he next following session of the legislature of Maryland, he was elected their gov- ernor. This is an impressive fact, as shewing the feelings and judgment of the wealthy and populous middle state of Maryland, concerning a strenuous opposition to the long continued, repeated, and unremedied aggressions of Great Britain against our flag, our property and our mariners. There is no hostility in presenting such facts to the pru- dence of Great Britain, in her legislative chambers, her executive councils, her courts of appeal, her prize tribu- nals, and the public h^Us of her manufacturers and mer- chants. The impressment of our seamen was the partic- ular object of the Maryland senator. We wish it to be perceived, that there is no prospect that the United States will any longer endure the violation of their flag by impress- ment. England would resist by force, according to the form of our bill^ and in every way, our impressments of her trading ships crews. We may, therefore, resist her impressments in every corresponding manner. — She may with justice and good conscience resort to the laws of peace. — We have already done it in our non-importation act. — Our citizens must be protected from unlawful ar- restations, and from conversions of their neutral hands to the purposes of an illegitimate .warfare against nations with whom we are at peace. No. XII, In a former number of these papers we mentioned a section of a modern act of the British parliament, relative llVtVIIIUUIIl Pamphlet BlndftiL ( 53 ) to thp dictation of rules and regulations for Ae prize courts which adjudge neutrals, by the British ki^in council. This unjust and unprecedented law is entitled an act for the encouragement of the British seamen and manning the navy ! For these purposes^ it countenances the idea, that the king of Great Britain may direct the con- science and judgment of the courts of admiralty, in condemning our ships and cargoes, against a treaty or the law of nations ! It appears to have been a part of the new system, whereof the treaty with Russia, of March, 1793, and the June and November orders of that govern- ment of the same year, made a part. The section to which we refer, is in vol. 39, p. 276, of the British statutes, and l-unstlius: — «' Section ^5, Pro'oidcd alwaysy and be it enacted, that nothing in this act shall be construed to restrain his ma- jesty, his heirs and successors, from giving such further rules »nd directions from time to time, to his respective courts of admiralty and vice admiralty, for the adjudica- tion and condemnation of prizes, as by his majesty, his heirs and successors, with the advice of his or their privy council, shall be thought necessary or proper." In considering the above recited section of the British actof Parliament of June tile 17th, 1793, the important reflection forcibly arises, that no such provision of a- stat- ute ever occurred before that year, A second and very important reflection occurs, that the rules and directions to the courts^ which the King and coun- cil of Great Britain might think proper and necessary, ^ight be, (as they sometimes are) beyond or contraiy tq the universal law of nations, , A third and very important reflection occurs, that those rules and directions to the courts^ might be contrary to ex- isting treaties between Great Britain and other powers, This was the case with respect to the Danes and Swedes, in the instance of her orders of November 6, 1793, for the treaties of those nations w^th England made enemies goods safe in their ships. It is now intended to be shewn, that the constitution of Great Britain, as ie was laid down by such eminent jurists as the late lord chief justice Mansfield, did not allow th^' ( 54 ) courts of admiralty or vice admiralty, to consider the rule* anddirections^ofthe king and council as of governing force. No case can be more correctly adduced than that of the Silesia loatiy between England and Prussia, to establish the doctrine, that by the constitution of Great Britain, the law of nations and existing treaties formed the exclusive ieeitimate basis of the adjudications of their courts of ad- miralty and vice admiralty, and appeals. On that occa- sion the great law characters employed by his iiritannic majesty, were sir George Lee, judge of the British pre- rogative court, sir Dudley Ryder, the attorney. general of Great Britain, Mr. W. Murray, (afterwards lord chief justice Mansfield) then the royal solicitor-general, and Dr. G. Paul, the royal advocate general in the courts of civil law. These great characters, in the civil and common law, attached to the crown by offices of great honor and profit held at its pleasure, will be found to have decidedly rejected all authority, but that o^ positive treaties between Great Britain and Prussia, whose subjects* property was in question, and the universal or customary law of nations. Their language goes to the exclusion of the doctrine of the section of the act of parliament, above recited. Mr. Murray (afterwards lord C. J. Mansfield) and his •able and learned associates proceed to state, that they are reat Britain— Such a power therefore, could not be inferrea from, recognized, saved, or confirmed, by the 35th section of the act of 33d of Geo. the Sd, chapter 66. Nor do the words of that section grant such a right or prerogative to the crown. It is therefore correct to assert, that all condemnations ot neutral American ships and cargoes, made and confirmed by the British courts of vice-admiralty and appeals against the law of nations, or beyond or without that law, upon the orders of the king of England are unjust, illegitimate, mat- ters 01 ngnxiui coinpiaiuL uii uk; j^-ait. ui fciiwiiVMU^i vv'». — .-. H ( 58 ) and which authorize us " to demand that justice be yet done us, in those British courts, according to the law of nations, [" for all captures prior to Mr. Jay's treaty and since its expi- ration ; and according to the law of nations and that treaty, for all captures during its being and continuing in force. Never was there a fairer, souuder or stronger ground to re- quire, tliat a commission be established to ascertain our damages and injuries, with costs, chi^rgesand interest, in all cases wherein detentions, captures and condemnations have occurred, solely in consequence of diose British executive orders. We have suffered deeply indeed from this act, from British anti-neutral treaties, and orders of that crown ; but all the injurious consequences in the wars of 1793 and 1803, and in future luars cannot be estimated. We have before remarked, that our original nation of the 3d of Julv, 1776, having been divided in due form, we are full ten?.tits in common with our late British compatriots in all the ground of the constitution and general laws of our for- mer empire, 'luliich we choose to occupy — and we may add, that ai the epocha of our separation, no such section existed. It cannot therefore in law, right, or conscience be used to affect us, but the settled doctrines of Mansfield and his asso- ciates may be specially pleaded in our iavor. There can be no doubt, that a foreign coiu-se of practice, under such orders, agiixnst the law of nations, is a sufficient cause of war, whenever such practice occurs without redress. Nor can it be denied, that this unprecedented section, and that of the British act of 1803, in the same words, would give a broad foundation for similar executive orders of other fo- reign governments, ii' they passed without our protest. ^f \ No. XIII. -^ The notorious perversions and misapplications of the prin- ciples and rules of blockade are among tlie most pernicious fruits of the British irregularities of 1792 and 1793. The forcible prevention of neutrals from the lawful carrying ot supplies to France from peaceful aud neutral England, Ham- burg, Sec. and .the British conventions witli Russia,^ Spam, Austria and Prussia, after the war had began, with the con- ,i„A4. >>K^«~..-^j t« fiann'x T'licpanv niifl Amerlca. the at- tempts of England upon tlie Danes and Swedes, and the i 1 ( ^ ) monstrous practice of neutral impressments, held forth to the British naval commanders the greatest encouragement of the practice of insult and injury against laiv. The new and unwarrantable section of the act of parliament of the 17th of June, 1793, openly sanctioning executive interference in judicial trials and decisions, and in the capture and confis- cation of neutral property, under those forms of law, placed tlie illegitimate acts of admirals and ministers under the broad cover of an universal indemnity, if even a secret order of an irresponsible chief magistrate could only be obtained. What evil practice did not such a state of things teach France ? What vexation and injury did not such a condition of things'hold out to the neutral states? The unauthorized regulation of all neutral trade, under the name, pretence, and forms of " Blockade,*' in cases wherein the rights of Block- aders and the duties of neutrals did not occur or exist, was a shorter step, on the part of Great Britain, /row the ground of lawless violence on which she stood when executing her 4 ) convention with Russia, than was her monstrous step to that ground, from the situation of a correct co-neutral be- fore her French war, or from the situation of an honest and orderly belligerent after the commencement of her quarrel with France. The neutrals were to be harassed, mulcted, spoliated and impressed till they would consent to become parties in the war on the English side. * The whole French people were to be deliberately starved, till they ^^ oiild con- sent to the abandonment of their colonies, the partition of their home dominions, and the abolition of their civil con- stitution. To accomplish these things, the king of Great Britain, in the manner we have seen, usurped the legislation oftlie ocean, and substituted orders of himseU in council tor the universal prescriptive law of nations and for his own obligatory treaties. To produce the surrender of the French colonies, they were deprived of all trade by the order of council of November 1793, contrary to the rights of bellig- erent Tuscany, Prussia and Russia and of neutral America, Denmark and Sweden. At that stage of British irregularity, the new perversions of the name of Blockades were not thought of, nor were the forms adopted. A short but un^ parailed order, directing the seizure as \^e\\ of belligerent al- lies as of neutrals, if going to or coming from or cany mg the produce of a French colony, was secretly adopted. The . i jj ' jiLi -loi ' WP M -r ■tm ( 60 ) British commanders followed up this act, by proclamations of Blockade respecting places and islands, which they did not either invest or attack. But it answered the purposes in the halls of tfieir admiralty, for the courts had the orders of the British king and council as " rules'' for the condcra. nation of the neutrals, and they found the name of blockade in the law of nations and in the proclamations of the naval commanders. The fact of no blockade would not be admit- ted against the letter of an Admiral's proclamation, in favor of a defenceless neutral. In a short process of time another consequent step in this injurious w ork was openly taken, Admiral Sir Horatio NeU son (afterwards Lord Nelson) i.ndertook to announce to the Neutral consuls residing m Cadiz, that on account of her war with England, '* it was found right that Spain should no longer have any tradcj*' and that Cadiz would conse- quently be treated as a blockaded port, and all the neutrals were to suffer accordingly, if they should attempt the trade. Here were the forms and name of a blockade illegitimately announced upon the ground of annihilating the Spanish com- merce and with it the lawful trade of neutrals. Admiral Nelson could have been regularly impeached for illegiti- mately using the name and forms and rules of Blockade for a purpose not at all military, and avowedly to annihilate merely the trade of a belligerent at the expense of neutral rights. It may be said that England would have laughed at the application ; but this would only prove tliatshe would laugh at high crimes and misdemeanors against neutral rights under the universallaw of nations. Here again France and Spain must have seen, that England would promptly violate neutral rights, whenever it should seem to be her interest, without the least appearance or pretence of necessity. The occlasions of the Elbe and the Weser, under the name, form and regimen of ** blockade,'^ are measures of - the same unlawful character. In these cases, the unhappy people of the electorate of Hanover, \vhom the British Gov- ernment could not protect, and whom they did not attempt to relieve, were deprived of the opportunity to export their produce and manufactures and to import their necessary supplies. Their electoral prince (and political father) trans- contents) destined to reward the valour, to compensate the excessive fatigues, and to make good the heavy expense in- curred by the British soldiers, who with unshaken finni-.ess and matchless perseverance atchieved the conquest"* and they expressly hold forth the idea that this measure is in lieu of a '* general conJissation'\ Such proclamations, in \ht first West India campaign and before France had adopt- ed similar measures, are unhappy additions to the volume of real British examples to the French commanders by sea and land. There are not wanting many respectable British authori- ties to prove the unwarrantable and systematic interferences of the British government, in the first year of the war, with the rights of neutrals and the independence of their councils. In the historical division of the new annual Register of Great Britain, the able and candid authors of that respectable work, do not hesitate to admit before their own nation and govern, mcnt, the neutral states and the belligerent powers, that " th6 ardor with which tlie British ministry (of A. D. 1792-3) em- barked in the war against France, was presently manifested by, perhaps, the most extraordinary proceeding, that ever ap- ]r»eared upon record, and this was, to force the neutral ponuers to unite in the combination to crush the French republic.** We do not mention the recent instances of British dicta- tion to the neutral states. We are well aware, that in those instances, we should be met by the suggestion of a :i alleged necessity, of which they claim to be the sole judges, and by pleas in respect to self preservation, which did not exist till the termination of the rrench directories, and do not even now apply to our sincere, distant and useful neutrality. Our object has been to verify, with calmness, decency and per- fect truth; the charge against Great Britain of original ag' gression against neutrals^ and to shew the consequent injus- tice of her claim of retaliation. For this reason, we have generally adduced facts, either of dates anterior to the French and English war of the 1st of Feb. 1793, or to the French decree of the 9th May, 1793, and English proceed- ings, which have grown out of the early diplomatic, legisla- tive, naval iuid military proceedings of Great Britain. It is not however, to put the British government in the wrong, as to the times i3ast, that this examination is now made. It Extract from proclamation. ,,, r'noiomouni Pamphiti ,,, ( 63 ) is amicably to persuade and induce her io be right in future j or in case of our country lailing of success in so fair and necessary an object, to contribute, by a collection ot truths, to illuminate the paths of right, of duty and of interest, which be open before us. It has been too often the misfortune of British politicians to desire the benefits of incompatible cir- cumstances and situations. Not long alter our treaty of 1783, it appeared that Englai^id, then at peace, wished to manufac- turey to fishy to trade and to carry for all the world; yet, employing, as she did, two thirds ol her adults, with many of their families, in those pursuits, her political ceconomists complained, that this wooded and agricultural country, sup- plied them and their colonies with the provisions and lum- ber, of which they stood in need. They wished to farm for the world too, and to cut wood where they had not people. Now that England is at war, she wishes to have all the be- nefits of a nation at peace. As she cannot at the moment, hold competition with neutrals in cheap navigation and trade, she endeavours unfairly and unlawfully to maintain the forms and rules of military blockades, to monopolize the com- merce of the world. She commits aggressions on neutrals, for a series of years and claims tlic right of retaliation, which belongs to her adversaries. She denies the lawfulness of supplying and buying from her enemies, and in the face of the world, enacts statutes to enable her own subjects to do those things. She seizes, by the sword, on all India and deprives the civilized world of the commerce with seventy or eighty millions of its Asiatic inliabitants, and she com- plains loudly when her enemies afterwards, deprive her, by the same sword also, of commerce with a smaller num- ber of the people of Europe. It is believed to be necessary to her future beneficial intercourse with this countrj^ that she claim nothing of us, inconsistent witii public law — that she do towards us nothing contrary to it — and that she be zeal- ous to facilitate the foreign sales of our produce, or contented to see us manufacture and consume it at home. The Brit- ish nation is not either strong enough, numerous enough, or so situated and cucumstanced, as to do the whole business of aU mankind No. XIV. On a dispassionate consideration of the preceding historic- al facts,1u their palpable connection with the Anglo- Russiaj* li :i i 1 1 1 1 ;iti ( 64 ) ionvcntion of 1793, wc trust, that the high charge •/ orlg^ inal aseression on neutral commerce vtiU appear to l)c luily establ^hcd a^nii^st the British government. If the contni- uance, increase, and multiplication of those ;»gHTession« a^ not admitted by Great Bntam and her triends, a brit reci- tal will Ixi buflicient to shew them to an imiwrtial world. Actual impressments of Britons and other aliens, and ot our own citizens, under our flag, have never ceased, hng- hmd has persevered to execute her own ioubtful munieipa^ hvw on board ofour ships on the high se&s, m violation of the law of nations, of our neutral rights, of written mutual eon- tracts, and of the safety of our property and crews, ^he has been uttcrlv regardless of our neutral duties and dangcis .11 this respeci ; and to finish the subject, she at the same mo- ment takes our own contracted American citizens, on tne hich seas, out of our own vessels, making them prisoners, though neutrals, while she claims of us alleged, but unascer- tained British deserters, in belligerent form. The British government continues to encourage ana to maintain their publia and private ships of war and courts, out of neutral property, by suffering the exaction of the most extravagant and unfounded bills of costs and ctiarges, as well in cases of cleared, as of condemned vessels and car- goes— to the great vexation, obstruction and injury of our neutral trade. ,. . . , . The new overstrained and contradictory opinions and de- cisions of their admiralty tribunals, and their frequent con- traventions of the law of nations in consequence of their hold- inc as " the rule of their courts, the text of the British king's instructions," continue illegithnately to mjure and destroy our property and trade ; while British merchants, seamen and vessels arc often licenced by the crown or b^- lawto ffive those supplies to their enemies, and aids to tneir enemy's agriculture, for which they detain our citizens and condemn our property. , ^ • . ^-.i; The operatm of genuine blockade, (a mere and strict mili- ary measure) continues to be substituted by ever varying and arbitrary commercial interdictions ; measures levelled attlic neutrals, preposterously and unlawfully called by the name of blockades, acconipaiaea oyan iiimiuiaiaiVviia»» v of ship and cargo, by the seduction and compulsion ot many of our harrassed seamen to enter their ships of war, ana dv ( 05 ) the subjection of the rest to insult, injury and final im- pressment. The practice of issuing orders of council, working sus- pensions and abrogations of tiic law of nations, in the Brit- l^h prize courts, and inducing; like abuses and retaliations by the enemies of Britain, has been continued through fourteen years. In the year 1800, the section of the Brit- ish statue of the 17th of June, 1793, indemnifying their ministers and navy officers for all infractions of neutral rights, for which they can exhibit an order of the king in council, was deliberately re-enacted. To confiscate the property of a proud subject of the British king, requires a joint act of her three estates in parliament. To confiscate the property of a degraded neutral, requires only an order of the Britisii crown ! ! ! To such a pass has the ^British government at length arrived on this subject, that prepos- terously demanding of us a right " to profit of their own wrong," they extravagantly avowed in December last, that they were to be considered, as holding in their own discretion the future issuing of these orders of council, to meet their enemies avowed retaliation of them : and this too, so as arbitrarily to suspend their own engagements only, in a treaty intended to correct their executive usur- pation of the legislation of the seas. The long contin- tion, the repetitions and extensions of the British violations of our ncUtral flag, persons, pro- pcrty and rights, and the excesses which have marked them since she attained her present naval superiority, with the false positions, fatal to the trade and peace of the world, that her naval superiority and commercial monopoly are necessary to be maintained and must be used to her own illegitimate advantage, ought to be considered with calm- ness, wisdom and firmness by the United States. The injuries inflicted and the influence exercised in the last sixteen years upon the neutral states form a topic of the most interesting consideration at this crisis. It is our duty to examine into their origin and causes, without warmth. We have recently seen a decree called a block- ade from the emperour of France m.ore extensive thar- an*'" single act of a belligerent power, since the commence- ment of the French Revolution. It is however, to be carefully observed, that, the idea of being considered as accomplices in that plan of monopoly, which the Empc- lit ;l I i ( 6G ) ror charges on England, is strictly confined to the neu- trals of the continent of Europe. — This strong and explic- it French denunciation is couched in tcrms> which can- not, by the most forced construction, be deemed to in- clude the United States. It will be remembered also, that the apparently extreme idea, that " to be neuter^^ in tiiese modern wars,, is in f.ict to be " an accomplice," was first luihappily proclaimed by the government of Great Britain. We have already seen that in the year 1793, the l>riiish minister at Genoa declared, in form and in writ- ing, to that government, in terms of absolute generality, th^i^t to be neutral, in the pending contest of England with France, was to be " an accuiuplicc''^ of the latvcr. This unibrUinatc and excessive precedent, set by Great Britain to France, Mas couched in language, which included every neutral country, and, of course, actually and fully com- prehended us.' It is a matter therefore of no small im- j)ortance in an accurate and candid estimate, that in the French Decree, of 1806, actually retaliating that of Eng- land of 1793 in regard to "• neutral accomplices oj bellige- rents,''^ France has been as correct towards us, as Great Britain was incorrect in her unwarrantable precedent. Another important point of comparison, as to the treat- ment we now receive from the two countries, merits our temperate, candid and serious consideration.— It is use- less and injurious to admit passion. — Tliough France has issued her decree of blockade of the 2 1st of November, we iiud that the only connnunications we have from their government, and from our minister at diat court, hold out to us positive assurances that our convention (freely and fairly made by France and l^y us) is to govern, and not the subsequent Decree of last November, made by France- alone, and Ikt cruisers in the Atlantic have acted accord- ingly. But England, having formed a treaty with us on the 31st of Dcv ember, holds out to us in a rider made by herself alone, and in the speeches of her minister in Pailiamcjit and in her January order of council, that neith- er, the treaty as made, nor the law of nations is to govern. This conduct is the more remarkable, because they knew of the French decree before the treaty was framed.* It is a most unfortunate and indeed an unreasonable * Since Uie first and secoi'd publicnlions of this cy.aniinutinn, Uic con- clu..t oi Kni'Ij.nd towurds Dciauuikj-Nt. huvc Icdl. iv.ncc inio more injunes. ( 67 ) thing, that Great Britain should claim to consider, that retal'tatio?i for the spoliation and illegitimate treatment of neutrals, is to be made iwiv by her. 8he claims against usy a right to ** retaliate^' the uses, which France had pro- posed to make of neutrals, although England has been ma- king those uses of all the neutrals in every year since 1792! It would not be incumbent on us to interfere in this dis- cussion, but that England claims a right to use the French act to justify repetitions of the vast and numerous injuries she has done us, from year to yi ir, in and since 1792. — Great Britain really knov)sfuU well that she has committed the train of injuries : and the government and people of A- merica know it as well. — Let her honestly and prudently examine her proclamation and executive orders in 1 792, the remonstrances of M. Chaiivelin under the direction of M. Talleyrand, in that year, and the act of Parliament to indemnify her ministers. Let her read once more her own great leading anti-neutral treaty of March 1793, with Rus- sia, and the similar treaties into which other powers were forced and induced by her : Let her candidly remember too, her orders of June, and her secret orders of November 1793, and the conferences and correspondence of Mr. T, Pinckney and Lord Grenville on those painful subjects ; with the calm, comprehensive and unanswerable represen- tation of the whole, in the papers of Mr. Jefferson, then our secretary of state, laid bciore Con^-icss by President IVashingt&n in 1794 : Let Great Britain impartially exam- ine her orders of council of January 1794, May 1795, Jan- uary 1798, and at other times, with the illegitimate proc- lamation of Admiral Nelson off Cadiz in 1797, and similar acts of her other admirals, announcing t!ie determined an- . nihilation of anation^s whole trade, under the preposterous affectation of legitimate blockades. As all these were pri- or to the French decree of November 1806, a?id were the real and indisputable causes of that decree, to talk to us of our duty to oppose that decree, is to remind us, in the tnost forcible manner, of the duty we are under to opposo and to procure the abrogation of the British precedents, which have truly brought it on the world. Let Great Britain hasten to enable the neutral world to take just and effectual measures for the abrogation of the late French decree, by worthily and wisely treading back tlic unlawful steps, with which she lias unliappily advanced ( 68 ) I ' ill' ir 111 during more thr i fifteen years, in her cTiversified and ruin- ous violations of neutral rights. It is in vain for her or for us to deceive ourselves. Nothing hut a return to jus- tice under the laiv of nations, can preserve harmony, serve her real interests, or secure inviolable those of the United States. We have proved too clearly, by our lon^^ and pa- tient sufferance of vast, numerous, and repeated injuries, that we have not been hasty to seek, or hazard discord. — Things are at last arrived at the most serious lengths. — 'Tis unvv^ise to hope that matters can happily remain as they are, or run longer on as they have done since 1792. Weighty — solemn — awful circumstances, at home and abroad, have taken place, deeply affecting them and us. New events of equal magnitude seem likely to arise. The times are portentous. If Great Britain is not determined to add to the evils, which press or menace her, the just loss of our good- will and an inevitable privation of much orall of our custom and trade, she will not persevere in Dio- lating the legitimate protection, ivhich our Jlag should gi'oe to all persons^ but military enemies^ and which it should completely afford to neutral property, in every branch of lawful commerce. The United States will solemnly, sin- cerely and truly deprecate a recurrence to the system of counter measures, whereof our government has been forced to display the principles. But the government and people of Great Britain cannot fail to collect from the history of the two last sessions of our national Legislature ; from the temperate and frank declarations of our chief magistrate, and from the conferences of our respective ministers here and in Europe, that America is really, justly and deeply concerned for her rights and interests, and for her neutral character and her neutral obligations. It is time for us to end the real war upon our citizens, our property and our flag, which Great Britain has long waged. 'J'he practice has been deeply injurious to the neutrals : The example, if continued, may become ruinous. No. XV. The dispositions of Great Britain towards the United States of America, after the peace of 1783 and before the wars produced by the French revolutions, were not mark- ed by symptoms of kindness or respect. They did not send a minister hither tiU the year 1791, though we sent Pamphlet ( 69 ) one to London, and though we joined in territory and had very extensive connections. Their most distinguished commercial writer, a member of the Irish lords and Brit- ish commons,* countenanced the idea, that it was not the interest of the maritime powers of Europe to relieve us from the depredations of the piraticle states of Barbary. For his zealous, the erroneous, anti-American work, he has been long since rewarded by a British peerage and an office of profit. It has been publicly stated in a pamphlet written by a confidential member of our administration, f that the British government meditated the dismember- ment of our country at the Ohio. In 1786, they agreed with France, that free ships should make free goods. But in 1791, the report of their privy council particularly ad- vised, that such an agreement should not be made with us : and they have conducted their treaties in the most decided and rigid conformity with that partial recommendation. Other circumstances of a more offensive nature might be stated, but it is not wished to prevent a dispassionate con- sideration of existing circumstances. Our object in these notices is to shew to Great Britain herself, that early causes of just dissatisfaction have really occurred on her part. After their war with France had taken place. Great Bri- tain distinguished us, beyond other neutrals, by many em- phatic expressioni of an adversary character, by ii series of interpositions in our affairs, by attempts to commit our neutrality with the other belligerents, and by establishing principles, which bore upon our interests more than upon those of any other neutral. She established a press in the hands of one of her own subjects, in the bosom of our na- tional government, to depreciate the principles of our in- stitutions and to oppose the rights of our neutrality ; and her public editor seduced the printer of our goveniment gazette to the views and principles of Great Britain. f For ihese services the typographical agent of England receiv- ed public honors on the floor of their legislature from the mouths of their ministry. The great Premier of England declared in his place in the house of commons, that " the inventors of the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people * Lord Slieffield in liis commerce of the United States. t 'I'lie lale A. Hamillon, F,sq. in his pamphlet on the treaty of 1794. I -f-v Ivuvijv/t i-fy«:j \V tualiTj JiBtJ. lO nt J.iai2i;ii.uii, i:.3l£. III UClCiiCC pf President Adjims. Itll II ( 70 ) were the enemies of their kind." In pursuance of the as- sertion in their report of council of 1791, that they had formed a party m our senate, they carried into execution their hopes of corruption, as was proved in the cose of an expelled member of that body. The same British minister, who was their agent in this corrupt attempt to commit our neutrality, communicated to their American provinces, that he had drawn us into an arrangement on the subject of St. Domingo, which might be strongly hoped to im- plicate us in a war with France. British' impressments of native neutral sailors, on board of neutral ships, were con- fined to the citizens and flag of the United States. — Tiie impressment of Britons and other aliens, sailing as seamen and passengers in neutral vessels, was committed only on board of our ships — To our neutral minister alone did a British secretary of state presume to insinuate* that the lionest and reasonable complainers against the British or- ders of council [such as we have seen they are] were the intemperate enemies of America and lingland. —On our immense legalized traffic in wood, grain, vegetables, mo- lasses, taffia, &c. &.C. with the French colonies, did the prohibitions of the British order of council of November 1793, impose ruin — a traffic established by the French in peace according to munidpal and public law- -and des- troyed by the British in war against all law. — Upon the Americans, only, has been imposed that refinement in the business of neutral spoliations, by which two several and distinct voyages to and from the United States, have been pretended to be made one, in judicial form, in order to work the confiscation of our ships and cargoes, and to de- stroy our commerce.- -In our case alone has the British inconsistency occurred of taking the benefit of our new war trade to support their colonial agriculture, while the like trade in support of their enemies colonial agriculture is adjudged to be cause of ruinous condemnations of our vessels and cargoes. We refrain cheerfully from a fur- Ihcr exemplification of the peculiar injuries to this neutral country — this useful country, which has been the most abundant source of the materials of British manufactures and of British necessaries, ind the greatest purchaser o her redundant commodities. The rescinding of the dangerous articles in the Russian, • Loi-d GreiiviUe to Mr. T. Pinckiiey. m Pamphlet Binder im ( 71 ) Prussian and Spanish treaties of 1793, or the candid aban- donment of the principle, if the British nation should find herself at war vv ith those three powers ; the repeal of the 35th section of the act of the 17th June 1793, or of the similar section of 1803, and a frank declaration against the principle of them ; an abandonment of the pretension to make rules and regulations for the trial and condemnation of neutral property ; the relinquishment of the practice ar»d pretension of impressment in our vessels ; satisfactory de- clarations upon the subject of blockades, and a general re- storation of its proper sanctity to the law of nations, would revive good humor between the two countries, and ©pen before each the bright prospect of mutual happiness. We expect and desire nothing beyond the duties, which jus- tice requires of Great Britain. Some have alleged, that self preservation forbids her present compliance. This is a recent pretence, and cannot be considered as just or true, or admissible. No light or imaginary obligations impel our government to preserve to us, their constituents, our personal rights by sea and land, the rights of our flag, our rights of property, the duties and rights of neutrality, and the many blessmgs of the law of nations. The impres- sive facts in the preceding pages will perfectly convince even candid Englishmen, that Great Britain, has not claims >-.Don our gi-atitude, sufficient to induce us to become •* knights errant" against the combined powers of the Euro- pean continent. No : we are ready to walk with England in the paths of justice, amity, and mutual benefit. But, if she continues to deviate, we may righteously cultivate our separate interests. — We may continue her legalized exclusion from a portion of our trade — We may extend the principle further. We may include persons, and pri- vate ships as well as manufactures and public ships, in our reluctant prohibitions. — We may select more objects of exclusion than we have yet chosen ; or we may occupy the whole field of painful interdiction. — Unjustly wounded in our external commerce, we may recur with wisdom and energy to the invulnerable and immense object of home manufactures. Obstructed in the foreign sales of our ag- ricultural productions by English orders of council and pretended blockades, we may create for these productions at home a great, cenaia and steady market, bv higlitr du- ties, encreasing exclusions of British manufactures. It is-. '''^fr.. ( ^2 ) a sp«n4 maxim in oiir political' leconotiBy, that 'so far ai 'wc ccmnot tracU abroad, ws skaH certainly manufacture at home* Great Britain may cherish opposite opinins, but a very Uttle time of separatiiaa^jiagrticularly in war, would convince her of a fatal error. Those among us, who are not disposed to promote manufactures, will perceive the necessity for tbeir aid to support our agriculture^ which is plainly created Uy the naval irregularities of Gleat Britain, and by her endeavoucs to monopolize external commerce. In the \y ; finning of the recent wars, she madq a combination to accomplish naval dictation ; but having quai^elled with Spain, and we may add perhaps with Rus- sia, she now aims at the monarchy of the Ocean. As she lessens industry jind activity at sea on the part of the neu- trals, slie will increase both on shor*. Every maritime enemy of England is made to her a somxe of profit, for she captures, without law, neutrals trading with them, and af- fects to legalize |he trade of her own subjects with the same enemies. Neuirals are forbidden to trade between the,p<>its of adversary Belligerents, while by a strange per- version of law and riglit, those adversary belligerents, trade with each otlier. (Sir neutral ships are adjudged, in Rri^ tish courts, not to make free goods, while the belligerent tihips of Englsnd Ciirry as free goods, the riches of Mexica and the wealdi of Peru for their Spanish enemies. The peace-loving nations are to be deprived of the trade of one belligerent by all the means in the power of England,* who is thus to monopolize the commerce of lier adversa- ries, at the expense of the rights of all friendly ne'Jrals, Thus war is made her trade : and her trade is war. I'he spoils of neutrals fill her ware houses, while she incarcer- ates their bodies in her i^mting castles. She • - :.-s their persons and property as the rich fruit of bloodies-:! victo- ries over her unarmed friends. Permitted, in pe;.'U., by an unthinking ivor/d, to lay on their commerce with h^r do- minions every possible restriction, so as to incre- sc her private ships and seamen, she has made for herself out of those means, that naval superiority, which has so much injured the neutral states, in the wars produced by the French revolutions.^ The painful recollection of past in- juries — the solemn imminence of incalculable dangers — £iiiu isic OT-.Tiui piwOj;ci;i o* u rJiinOUS SUOSillUtlvi'! v" fO-Ojer for right, re^june a stand. JURISCOL A . *See litT tmitios with" Russia, 5;c. March, 1793.