ALVAW/S BOOK FVND 
 

.-i 
 VREMARKS 
 
 AND 
 
 CRITICISMS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ION. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS S 
 
 LETTER 
 
 TO TUB 
 
 HON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS 
 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PRINTED BY JOSHUA GUSHING; 
 
 No. 79, State. Street* 
 1808. 
 
A / 
 
 - 
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 As a great number of gentlemen have expressed a wish 
 to see the remarks and criticisms on the Hon. Mr. ADAMS S 
 letter republished in the pamphlet form, the following compi 
 lation is offered to the publick, taken principally from the 
 NEW- YORK EVENING POST. 
 
 It is left to literary men to decide whether the Honourable 
 Senator has not been overrated as a scholar; and to politi 
 cians, whether he has not disappointed them as a statesman. 
 
 If he has been flattered, admired and trusted beyond hit 
 merit, it has been his misfortune ; and if ail is now left tha* 
 justly belongs to him, he cannot complain. 
 
w 
 
 o 
 
 REMARKS, &e. 
 
 WE have been urged to take notice of the Letter publish 
 ed by Mr. JOHN QuiNCY ADAMS, but our attention was so 
 much occupied by the election as to put it out of our power. 
 We hope the Honourable Writer will forgive this involuntary 
 neglect. In the remarks which we deem it proper to make, 
 a due regard shall be paid to his double character, as Profes 
 sor of Rhetorick, and Senator from Massachusetts. We shall 
 endeavour to avoid saying what might offend, and should 
 there be a semblance of asperity, we humbly entreat the par 
 don of the Honourable Senator ; confidently expecting that 
 the learned Professor will excuse us for being seduced from the 
 chastity of our own principles by the influence of his example. 
 
 We shall divide what we have to say into two parts, the 
 first of which shall be confined to the Learned Professo^and 
 the second to His Honour of the Senate. It may be supposed 
 that we might have spared the first half of our labour ; but 
 we are not certain that Mr, Adams considers his manner as 
 less worthy of notice than his matter, or would recommend 
 to our imitation his conduct more strongly than his style. 
 Both will no doubt find admirers; for already, if we are well 
 informed, this specimen of reasoning and rhetorick has been 
 circulated with no common industry.* 
 
 He who thinks only of the present hour, or the present ge 
 neration, omits much of what he owes to his country. The 
 true patriot will not be unmindful of posterity. In the hum 
 ble wish, therefore, to serve those who are yet at school, we 
 shall point out defects of style in this extraordinary letter, 
 
 * It is fiaid that Mr. Adams s party, the Jeffersonians, have boen st the 
 trouble and rxpejiye of circulating 100,009 copies throughout the Vnitefl 
 
 jSf af os . 
 
[ 2 3 
 
 \vfnch, like the spots on the surface of-the sun, if they do rfo? 
 clihiijii.;i> the l i. ;ht, by LQ means increase the splendour. 
 
 Although "the number may appear great, it might have 
 been increased, had we not rejected some which we suppos 
 ed to have been errours of the press. We should be sorry to 
 impute to the learned Professor the follies or the faults of a 
 printer s devil. Still, however, it is possible that some of our 
 remarks ought to have been directed towards the work of the 
 latter. But as the defects of great men have been imitated, 
 from the wry neck of Alexander downwards, it seemed pro 
 per to note (by way of caution) those deformities which 
 might be copied. We proceed without further preiace to take 
 them up in course nearly as they stand. 
 
 Evidently the Professor s subject, grave, didactick, and ad 
 dressed to the people, required a natural, plain, perspicuous, 
 neat style, and nothing more ; neither demanding ornament, 
 nor hardly admitting it. Instead of this, however, he has 
 adopted a style of the opposite character; inverted, obscure, 
 harsh, and turgid ; glittering with far-fetched and sometimes 
 with false figure s. 
 
 It is well observed by one of our best English crjticks, "that 
 communication of thought being the chief end of language, it 
 is a rule in composition, that perspicuity ought not to be sa 
 crificed to any other beauty whatever. Nothing in language 
 ought to be more studied than to prevent all obscurity in the 
 expression ; for to have no meaning is but one degree worse 
 than to have a meaning that is not understood." Want of 
 perspicuity may proceed from a wrong choice of words, or a 
 wrong arrangement of them, or a wrong arrangement of the 
 members of which a sentence is composed. In the letter be 
 fore us we shall find an abundance of instances of a want of 
 perspicuity arising from one or other of all these causes. 
 
 One errour against perspicuity is the giving different names 
 to the same object mentioned more than once. 
 
 u If the commercial states are called to interpose on one 
 ** hand, will not the agricultural states be with equal propri- 
 " ety summoned to interpose on the other; if the east is sti- 
 " mutated against the west, and the northern and southern 
 " sections are urged into collisions with each other, by ap- 
 peals," &c. 
 
 Here no less than four different terms are employed to ex 
 press the same act : called, summoned, st i?nulated, and urg 
 ed into collision. 
 
 In like manner, a question is said to have been " discussed 
 inti decided in the Senate," to have " obtained the concur- 
 
t 3 3 
 
 rence of the other branch of the legislature," and " the ap* 
 probation of the president," and then that " from these deci 
 sions, the letter of Mr. Pickering was an appeal," &c. Near 
 the close of the pamphlet the Professor says, a To yearn for 
 the fragments of trade would be to pine for the crumbs of 
 commercial servitude." In the course of four pages, Mr. Pick 
 ering s Letter is called by more than a dozen different names, 
 It is anappeal, aproceeding, a species of appeal, an invocation, a 
 representation, a statement, an admonition, an application, an 
 instigation, a one-sided representation, a resort, an appellate 
 legislation, a proclamation, a denunciation. Ye conundrum 
 makers! whose labours dignify our almanacks, and exercise 
 the ingenuity of children and servant maids, cease, for the 
 Professor of Rhetorick of Harvard College beats you all. 
 
 In his second sentence the Professor is guilty of an inaccu 
 racy in using <f some friend of the writer," instead of " wri 
 ter s." Had he been speaking of the wife of the writer, it 
 would have been proper, merely substituting the instead of 
 some. * 
 
 " The subjects of this letter are the Embargo and the dif- 
 ** ference in controversy between our country and Great Bri= 
 tain." 
 
 We understand what is meant, by a difference between two 
 countries or two men. It is a familiar, though not an ele 
 gant term to convey the idea of a dispute. We understand 
 also what is meant by a matter in controversy, viz. some 
 thing which is disputed. But we have no precise idea of 
 what is meant by a difference or dispute in controversy. It 
 seems pretty much like a fight in battle. 
 
 (< Subjects upon which it is my misfortune (in the discharge 
 <c of my duties as a Senator of the United States) to differ from 
 <f the opinions of my colleague." 
 
 To differ from an opinion is an improper expression ; un 
 less the writer meant to inform us that he is himse If a differ 
 ent thing from an opinion. The usual mode of speech is, to 
 differ in opinion with a person, or to dissent from his opinion. 
 The phrase has another impropriety. The words which stand 
 in a parenthesis, restrain the writer s assertion (that he held 
 different opinions from his colleague on certain subjects) to 
 those occasions in which he appeared as a senator; where 
 fore it may be implied that such difference ceased as soon as 
 he left the senate chamber: in short, that it was a sort of re*; 
 gimental dress, which he put on to attend the senate, and 
 took off when he came home. 
 
 <e The writer, with the most animated tone of. energy, calls 
 *f for the interposition of the ccxmercial states," 
 
[ 4 ] 
 
 To speak with a tone, means an affected or particular 
 manner of speaking, not usual or proper. We presume the 
 learned Professor s idea would have been better conveyed, 
 had he said, The writer in the most animated tone. We 
 suppose, too, the words " animated tone " were intended to 
 convey the idea of a lively or earnest manner; but \ve can 
 not guess what is meant by the most animated tone of ener 
 gy. Has energy various tones, some of them more animated 
 th m others? 
 
 " They must have been compelled either to act upon the 
 * \ 7 iews of this representation, without hearing the counter- 
 * c statement of the other side," &c. 
 
 By views of a representation is meant (as we suppose) the 
 views of him who made the representation. But we do not 
 perceive what is meant by being compelled to act upon those 
 Tiews, unless the word upon be considered as synonimous 
 "with conformably to, or according to. Had he said to act on 
 the representation, it would have conveyed the idea with 
 more perspicuity. 
 
 " The counter statement of the other side " might pass as 
 an expression of one of Mr. Adams s newspaper eulogists, but 
 seems too palpable a pleonasm for a Professor of Rhetorick. 
 
 " The very object and formation of the national delibera- 
 ff tive assemblies, was for the compromise and conciliation of 
 ff the interests of all." 
 
 To compromise the interests of a nation is to put in danger. 
 If this was indeed the object for which our Congress was 
 formed, there can be no doubt that by laying the embargo, 
 they laboured in their vocation. But the writer (we believe) 
 meant that these assemblies were instituted to compromise the 
 differences, and conciliate the interests. Some fashionable 
 \vriters have lately used the French compromit in place of 
 the English compromise) but even if we take this last word 
 to express only the settling amicably (which is one of its 
 meanings) the phrase above cited will remain incorrect. 
 
 " Whenever the case occurs that this sense should be clear- 
 f* ly and emphatically expressed, it ought surely to be predicat- 
 t ed upon a full and impartial consideration of the whole sub- 
 * c ject, not under the stimulus of a one-sided representation." 
 
 We do not understand what is meant by a sense predicat 
 ed under a stimulus. We can guess what is meant by < pre 
 dicated upon," which we suppose was inteilded for of (in con 
 sequence of ) a full and important consideration. We guess 
 also that by " one-sided representation," was meant the re^ 
 presentation made by those who maintain one side of the 
 
[ 5 J 
 
 question. We think nevertheless that one-sided represent 
 tio ) is a lop-sided expression. 
 
 " Should the occurrence upon which an appeal is made 
 (S from the councils of the nation to those of a single state, 
 s( be one upon which the representation of the state has been 
 divided." 
 
 We readily conceive that division can t^ke place, and ap 
 peal be made, upon a question ; but how either is to happen 
 upon an occurrence, is not so clear. 
 
 In the same section it is said, 
 
 " Some notice of such intention should be given to him, 
 <( that he too might be prepared to exhibit his views of the 
 * c subjept, upon which his differences of opinion had taken 
 place," 
 
 The writer we suppose meant that he might be prepared t* 
 exhibit those views of the subject which led him to differ in 
 opinion. A and B may differ in opinion ; in which case t.here 
 will be a difference (of opinion) between A and B. But this 
 difference belongs neither to A nor to B. 
 
 " The fairness and propriety of this course of proceeding 
 f< must be so obvious, that it is difficult to conceive of the pro- 
 * priety of any other. Yet it prevents another inconve- 
 (e nience." 
 
 We stiould be glad to know what this last it refers to. 
 
 " When one of the senators from a state proclaims to his 
 * { constituents that a particular measure or system of measures 
 <( winch has received the vote and support of his colleague 
 <* are pernicious and destructive," &c. 
 
 This we confess, from a Professor of Rhetorick, is rather be- 
 .yond any thing we could have expected. Avowedly addres 
 sing a laboured composition to the people of the United States, 
 he violates one of the first rules of syntax ; he not only make? 
 the verb disagree with its nominative case, but employs one 
 verb in the singular and one in the plural, and forces them in 
 to an alliance with the same noun a measure which has receiv 
 ed are pernicious ! Nor is this the only instance in which 
 the Professor breaks Priscian s head. He says (p. 20) " It is 
 but a little more than two years, since this question was agi 
 tated both in England and America, with as much zeal, ener 
 gy and ability as ever ivas displayed," &c. And in page 23, 
 " If the voice of reason and of justice could be heard, they 
 would say." 
 
 " The advocate of a policy thus reprobated must feel him- 
 ff self summonedby every motive of self-defence to vindicate 
 ** his conduct : and if a general sense of his official duties 
 
C e ] 
 
 *<* would bind him to the industrious devotion of his whole 
 " time to the pubhck business of the session, the hours which 
 A he might be forced to employ for his own justification, 
 ** would, of course, be deducted from the discharge of his more 
 * ( regular and appropriate functions." 
 
 In the democratick newspaper copies of this letter, we find 
 <c challenged by every motive," &c. which we presume is a 
 revision and amendment of the writer s. 
 
 *t his is the first time we ever heard of motives sending chal 
 lenges or summonses ; and, of all the motives in the world, 
 that of self-defence is the last we should have suspected. Here 
 the writer violates a rule of composition, by crowding into 
 one period different and entire thoughts ; thus joining in 
 language what is separate in reality. The period should have 
 closed at " conduct." As to his " discharge of a function/* 
 we have no idea of what is meant by the " discharge of a 
 function." There are, we know, certain parts of the body 
 whose functions it is to discharge ; but the things thus discharg 
 ed arenotcalled functions. If the writer by function meant duty, 
 he was mistaken, The epithet appropriate also is misappli 
 ed. The words appropriate and proper express different 
 ideas. The former, derived from the verb to appropriate, 
 that is, to consign to some particular object or use, bears with 
 it (as a participial adjective) the meaning of the root. Thus, 
 to speak in appropriate terms is to use the words which cus 
 tom has consigned to the subject spoken of. The last objec 
 tion we have to this sentence is its redundancy ; which will 
 be abundantly evident if we express the same ideas with sim 
 plicity and precision, thus : 
 
 e And if his sense of duty would have bound him to devote 
 
 * his time to the publick business, this vindication must infringe 
 
 * upon the more regular and proper employment of his hours. 
 
 What do we miss here but about one half the words em 
 ployed by the Professor ? 
 
 In the same paragraph we find, " Nor can I forbear to re 
 mark the tendency of such antagonizing appeals to distract," 
 &c. This should be to remark on or else to notice. " Anta 
 gonizing appeals!" "That s a vile word, beautified s a vile 
 \vord." When our Professor shall attain to the authority of 
 a Johnson in literature, he may perhaps venture upon coining 
 a word to express some idea not already provided with an ex 
 pression ; but when he does, we hope he will discover a little 
 more taste and a little better ear than he has in the aforesaid 
 antagonizing. If we guess rightly his meaning, antagonist}- 
 eal would have come nearer the idea he meant to convey. 
 We object, too, to his new word closure (page 11) as it is at 
 
t 7 ) 
 
 a superfluous word, and has no support in analogy. In- 
 closure is a place inclosed ; how can closure mean the act of 
 closing ? But it is so Jeffersonian to make new words, that 
 Mr. Jefferson s new disciple could not resist the temptation to 
 ape his master. 
 
 A little farther we find " mutual asperities and rancours ;* 
 which last -word is not to be used in the plural. The para 
 graph closes by informing us that if a certain course be pursu* 
 ed, 
 
 " The great concerns of the nation would degenerate into 
 * c the puny controversies of personal altercation." 
 
 The altercation of controversies, or the controversies of al 
 tercation, are very like the debates of debate. But how are 
 the great concerns of a nation to degenerate into personal 
 controversy or altercation ? That debates on such concerns, 
 when managed by persons of a certain description, may so 
 Regenerate, is proved by experience ; but the nature of the 
 concerns themselves is not thereby changed. If the Congress 
 should spend half a year in prattling like children about war, 
 they would not thereby convert war into children s play. 
 
 " In developing my own views, &c. some very material 
 f< differences in point of fact as well as of opinion, will be 
 * found between my statements and those of the letter, which 
 * f alone can apologize for this." 
 
 Here the violent separation of the pronoun which from its 
 antecedent, leads to a wrong sense. The writer meant to say^ 
 that the differences between his statements and those of the 
 letter, only, (but not ({ alone ") constitute his apology. A still 
 more violent separation is found in page 10, where the ante 
 cedent to they ["they were announced"] is to be hunted for 5 
 and at length is actually hunted up in a preceding paragraph, 
 
 " Far more pleasing would it have been to me, could that 
 " honest and anxious pursuit of the policy best calculated to 
 <f promote the honour and welfare of our country, which, I 
 * f trust, is felt with equal ardour by us both, have resulted in 
 w the same opinions, and have given them the vigour of united - 
 ts exertion." 
 
 "Without stopping to inquire what we are to uderstand by : 
 the pursuit of a policy resulting in an opinion, we shall mere 
 ly observe that the Professor, by using the auxiliary verb 
 could have, instead of had) has conveyed a different meaning 
 from what be intended to. It should have been, " had that 
 honest and anxious pursuit," &c. 
 
 " In our republican government, where the power of the 
 & nation consists alone in the sympathies of opinion, this re- 
 
I 8 } 
 
 * ciprocal deference, this open-hearted imputation of honest 
 <c intentions, is the only adamant, at once attractive and im- 
 * ( penetrable, that can bear unshattered all the thunder of fo- 
 reign hostility." 
 
 "We have transcribed this beautiful metaphor that we might 
 have an opportunity to express the pleasure it gives us. We 
 wish another term had been substituted for imputation, which 
 is seldom used in a good sense. We impute evil, we attri 
 bute good, and ascribe both. We shall not examine how far 
 the power of a nation consists in sympathies or in opinion, 
 because our present business is to consider only the language. 
 We cannot however forbear observing that we have no pie- 
 cise notion of what is meant by the sympathies of opinion. 
 The fellow-feeling of opinion is a matter beyond our reach. 
 "Attractive adamant!" attractive amber we have heard of; 
 but we never heard before that adamant attracted. The Pro 
 fessor, however, is as great a philosopher, we infer, since his 
 intimacy with Mr. Jefferson, as we know him to be a rhetori 
 cian ; so we let that pass ; especially as the Professor, we are 
 happy to observe, must be perfectly indifferent to all attacks 
 upon him or his language ; for, after declaring as above, that 
 this " reciprocal deference," &c. " is the adamant that can 
 bear unshattered all the thunder of foreign hostility," in 
 the next sentence, he informs us that he himself possesses a 
 shield made of it ; he says, " he has extended it to every de 
 partment of the government." 
 
 " I know indeed enough of human nature to be sensible that 
 ? vigilant observation is at all times, and that suspicion ma/ 
 fc occasionally become, necessary upon th^ conduct of men in 
 * f power. * 
 
 Suspicion upon the conduct, is not English. Neither is sus 
 picion of the conduct, correct. We may suspect men of im 
 proper designs or actions, and we may suspect their conduct 
 to be the result of improper motives. The expression of "vi 
 gilant observation upon the conduct " is also incorrect. A 
 discerning man may not unfrequently make shrewd observa 
 tions on the conduct of others, but observations (in this t^e) 
 means remark. In the other case, we say observation q/, , >t 
 en. The idea which the writer intended to convey n;ay 
 be expressed thus : Vigilant observation of the conduct of 
 men in power is necessary at all times, and suspicion may 
 become so occasionally." 
 
 The writer adds, 
 
 * c But I know as well that confidence is the only cement of 
 " an elective government. Election is the very test of con- 
 
[ 9 ] 
 
 " fidence, and its periodical return is the constitutional check 
 w upon its abuse." 
 
 To what does the word its refer? The last antecedent is 
 confidence ; but the periodical return of confidence cannot be 
 a check upon the abuse of confidence. Neither can the peri 
 odical return of elections be a check on the/abuse of elections. 
 The ambiguity might have been avoided by using election in 
 the plural, and saying, " elections are the test of confidence, 
 and their periodical return is the check on its abuse." Let it 
 however be noted that " its return " and " its abuse, " instead 
 of "the return" and "the abuse of it," are not accurate. 
 The writer goes on thus : 
 
 " For the exercise of power, where man is free, confidence 
 " is indispensable." 
 
 A thing may be indispensable to the exercise, but not for 
 the exercise. He adds, 
 
 t And when it once totally fails when the men to whom 
 the people have committed the application of their force, 
 f for their benefit, are to be presumed the vilest of mankind, 
 " the very foundation of the social compact must be dissolv- 
 erf." 
 
 This expression may be excused in a gentlemen who has 
 travelled to the confines of Russia, where palaces are some 
 times (it is said) built on the ice, for the very foundation of 
 such palaces may be dissolved ; but in our country the solution 
 of a foundation is no common event. 
 
 " Towards the gentleman whose official station resulted 
 t from the confidence of the same legislature by whose ap- 
 < pointment I have the honour of holding a similar trust, I 
 tf have thought this confidence peculiarly due from me ; nor 
 (C should I now notice his letter, notwithstanding the disap- 
 <( probation it so obviously implies at the course which I have 
 " pursued in relation to the subjects of which it treats, did it 
 " not appear to me calculated to produce upon the publick 
 " mind impressions unfavourable to the rights and interests of 
 w the nation." 
 
 This sentence contains almost as many errours as could well 
 be accumulated in a single period. 
 
 Certain things may be due by one person to another, but not 
 from one person towards another. Whether confidence be 
 one of those things, is a different question. 
 
 Again : Impressions are made, not produced. To produce 
 upon is to generate or beget : but a letter does not seem to 
 be the proper instrument for acts of this sort, neither do such 
 acts usually beget impressions. The turgid and superfluous 
 
 c 
 
t 10 ] 
 
 phraseology employed merely to say that Mr. Pickering and 
 himself were chosen senators by the same legislature, is no 
 thing less than ridiculous. It is a rule,, that during a period the 
 scene ought to be continued without variation. The changing 
 from person to person, from subject to person, or from person to 
 subject, within the same period, is not allowable. In the 
 above period the scene is changed upon us no less than four 
 times ; from subject to person, from person to subject, from 
 subject to person again, and lastly from person to subject. 
 This is intolerable. Thus in the following sentence, (page 30) 
 
 " For, as submission would make us, to all substantial pur- 
 " poses, British colonies, her enemies would unquestionably 
 " treat us as such, and after degrading ourselves into volunta- 
 * f ry servitude to escape a war with her, we should incur ine- 
 f< vitable war with her enemies, and be doomed to share the 
 " destinies of her conflict with a world in arms." 
 
 In this sentence the scene is changed from subject to per 
 son, and from person to person. To avoid this blemish the 
 idea might be expressed thus : For as by submission we 
 should, to all substantial purposes, v become British colonies, 
 and unquestionably be treated by her enemies as such, we 
 should, after degrading ourselves, &c. incur inevitable war, 5 
 &c. 
 
 For my opinions (though fully persuaded that even where 
 " differing from your own they will meet with a fair and 
 " liberal judge in you) yet of the publick I ask neither favour 
 (e nor indulgence. Pretending to no very extraordinary cre- 
 tc dit from the authority of the writer, I am sensible they 
 " must fall by their own weakness, or stand by their own 
 strength." 
 
 The word yet should be omitted, as will readily be per 
 ceived if the phrase be read without the parenthesis. The 
 personification of opinions is rather too strong a figure, al 
 though opinion (in the singular number) considered as a pow 
 erful agent in national affairs, may be personified, especially 
 by a poet. It is, also, doubtful whether the writer meant to 
 ascribe unpretending modesty to his opinions, or to himself. 
 If the latter, the phrase would have been more perspicuous, 
 as well as more correct, had it stood thus : <c I am sensible 
 that they can derive no extraordinary credit from the author 
 ity of the writer, and must fall," &c. 
 
 " Tenfold as many millions of the same property would 
 <f have been at this moment in the same predicament) had 
 " they not been saved from the exposure to it by the embar- 
 * go," 
 
[ 11 J 
 
 We know what it is to be exposed to danger, but we have 
 never before heard of being exposed to a predicament. 
 
 * And we know that of these all-devouring instruments of 
 " rapine, Mr. Rose was not even informed." 
 
 An all-devouring instrument ! Truly, if you go on at this 
 rate, Mr. Professor, you will rival that ambitious poet who 
 threatened with his head to knock out all the stars. 
 
 (( If the alarm was groundless, it must very soon be dispro* 
 t ved, and the embargo might be removed with the danger." 
 
 Putting aside mistakes in the tenses, we should be glad to 
 know how an alarm is to be disproved* We believe the 
 idea of the writer would have been conveyed by saying, " If 
 the alarm was groundless, it must soon have subsided, and, the 
 apprehension of danger ceasing, the embargo might be rais 
 ed." 
 
 " I have believed, and do still believe, that our internal re- 
 t sources are competent to the establishment and maintenance 
 " of a naval force, publick and private, if not fully adequate to 
 ** the protection and defence of our commerce, at least suffi- 
 t cient to induce a retreat from those hostilities, and from a 
 fc renewal of them, by either of the warring parties." 
 
 A retreat by either of the parties does not convey what 
 we suppose to have been the writer s meaning; and second 
 ly, a retreat from hostilities is not English. It is an exam 
 ple of the Jeffersonian, or hurly-burly style, in which words 
 are rattled out like dice, as if to try whether chance can make 
 a sentence. A retreat is, the act of retiring before superiour 
 force, from one place to another, not from one act to an 
 other. But hostilities are the acts of an enemy. To say, 
 therefore, that a warring party retreats from hostilities, is to 
 say that he retires from his own actions. 
 
 " I am not sufficiently confident in the superiority of my 
 a own wisdom to appeal, by a topical application, to the con- 
 " genial feelings of any one ; not even of my own native sec- 
 " twn of the Union." 
 
 " Topical application" is a surgical term ; and means some 
 thing applied to a particular part of the body : such for in 
 stance as a corn-plaster to the toe. We believe this to be 
 the first time that a topical application to the feelings was 
 ever thought of. It is equally difficult to conceive how an 
 appeal can be made by topical application, and how such ap 
 plications can be made to the feelings : unless indeed meta 
 phorically, to the corporal feelings. A blistering-plaster to a 
 man s buttocks is a topical application, and would excite feel 
 ings, wherefore it might be called ajn application to his feel- 
 
[ 3 
 
 ings : To make an " appeal" however by siich an application 
 would be somewhat of a novelty. But further, it appears the 
 writer will not appeal to the feelings of any one, not even of 
 his own native section of the union. (S Any one" means any 
 person ; wherefore from the structure of the sentence it follows, 
 that the section is an individual man or woman. The phrase 
 too, " native section of the union," appears inelegant, at least, 
 if not improper. 
 
 " If it (the embargo) should prove ineffectual for the pur- 
 (t poses which it was meant to secure, a single day will suf- 
 rt fice to unbar the doors." 
 
 We cannot secure a purpose. We can effect a purpose, 
 and thus having obtained something, we can afterwards se 
 cure the acquisition. 
 
 " Should we, by a dereliction of our right at this momen- 
 ** tous stride of encroachment, surrender our commercial free- 
 " dom without a struggle, Britain has but a single step more 
 to take." 
 
 The first question which presents itself here is, how the de 
 reliction (the utter abandonment) of a right, can amount to 
 the positive surrender of our freedom. The next question 
 is, what the writer means by a momentous stride. Momen 
 tous is weighty, and (by metaphor) important. Thus we say 
 momentous period. But we cannot pile metaphor on meta 
 phor wherefore a momentous stride must mean a weighty 
 Stride, which is but an odd kind of stride. Admitting howe- 
 *er, that momentous may stand for longorlarge,or any thing 
 else which can properly be applied to a stride, still we cannot 
 make dereliction at or fo a stride, however large or long. 
 
 ** Yet these orders thus fatal to the liberties, for which 
 n the sages and heroes of our revolution toiled and bled thus 
 t studiously concealed until the moment when they burst up- 
 * on our heads." 
 
 Wonderful orders! Orders which, like bombs or pump 
 kins, burst on people s heads. We have heard of cruel or 
 ders, wicked orders, bloody orders, and God knows how ma 
 ny other sorts of orders, but never till this blessed day did we 
 meet with " bursting orders. / 
 
 " It is not however in a mere omission, nor yet in the his- 
 * tory of the embargo, that the inaccuracies of the statement 
 I am examining have given me the most concern ; it is in 
 " the view taken of the question between us and Britain." 
 
 The word in should have been by ; for we believe the wri 
 ter meant to say that the inaccuracies complained of gave him 
 concern by the omission, by the history, and, above all, by the 
 view. 
 
 
 
[ 13 1 
 
 <* A moment extremely critical of pending negotiation, up- 
 " on all the points thus delineated." 
 
 A moment of pending negotiation is rather a strained ex 
 pression, but let it pass. We cannot however so easily pass 
 the delineation of points. A mathematical point, having no 
 parts, cannot be marked out by lines ; and points in contro 
 versy, a metaphorical expression, will not suomit to a meta 
 phor taken from painting, and suffer themselves to be deline 
 ated. The points in a controversy may be expressed, stated, 
 advanced, but are not to be delineated. Besides, the sepa 
 ration of the noun from its possessive case is awkward and 
 harsh ; of which a similar instance occurs page 5. " The 
 whole truth can be discerned of questions," &c. This might 
 do in the writings of a humble editor of a daily newspaper, 
 but is inadmissible in that finished style to be expected from a 
 Professor of Rhetorick of Harvard College. 
 
 (( This formal abandonment of the American cause, this 
 " summons of unconditional surrender to the pretensions of 
 (< our antagonist, is in my mind highly alarming." 
 
 We do not make a summons of surrender. The summons! 
 of the besieger requires the besieged to surrender. We may 
 be said to surrender to our antagonist, when we acknowledge 
 his unfounded pretensions, but we do not surrender to the 
 pretensions. Thus the use of the wrong preposition occurs in 
 a sentence noticed in our last. " The disapprobation it so 
 obviously implies at the same course," &c. Disapprobation of 
 a course may be properly enough expressed, but not at a 
 course : " dissatisfaction at" is sometimes used. 
 
 " If the right was claimed and exercised while our vessels 
 (( were navigating under the British flag, it could not author- 
 " ize the same claim when their owners have become the 
 " citizens of a sovereign state. As a relict of colonial servi- 
 tude," &c. 
 
 We presumed at first that the word relict was relick in the 
 manuscript, and that relict was anerrour of the press ; but we 
 observe it is relict in all the newspaper, as well as pamphlet 
 copies. Now a relict is a widow. It would have been bet 
 ter to have used the term remnant. Relick is seldom found 
 in the singular, and is usually applied in a solemn and religious 
 sense, as the relicks of a saint or departed friend. There is a 
 grammatical errour also in the formation of the phrase, which 
 should be either, they cannot authorize the same claim,, now 
 that their owners have become^ or they could not authorize 
 the same claim when their owners became. 
 
 " Is it meant to be asserted that this claim and exercise 
 
[ 14 ] 
 
 t constitute a right ? If it is, 1 appeal not only to the warm 
 " feelings, but cool justice, of the American people, &c. against 
 * ( the assertion of it." 
 
 We do not appeal against an assertion, nor even against a 
 decree; we appeal from. This impropriety, however, is not 
 the greatest objection we have to the above sentence. We 
 will allow the author his warm feelings, if he pleases, for such 
 seems to have been the case with him in an eminent degree, 
 when he wrote this far-famed Letter ; but we can never al 
 low him to talk of cool justice, notwithstanding the pretty 
 verbal antithesis it makes as it stands. We say cool judg 
 ment, because judgment may be so or not; it may be precipi 
 tate or deliberate ; it admits of degrees : but justice is always 
 the same ; and we can no more say cool justice, than we can 
 cool truth or cool falsehood. 
 
 " The question is, whether he has a right to seize them 
 "forcibly on board of our vessels while under contract ofser- 
 " vice of our citizens." 
 
 To seize is to take by force ; and a thing done forcibly is a 
 thing done by force : therefore, to " seize forcibly" is to take 
 by force by force. This maybe called a strong, or rather a double- 
 fortified expression. Contract of service of our citizens, should 
 be with our citizens. A man does not contract o/, but with. 
 
 " It is taking under colour of fair pretence our own native 
 <( American citizens, which constitutes the most galling ag- 
 ( gravation of this merciless practice." 
 
 The colour of a pretence is very like the shadow of a shade. 
 There are circumstances which aggravate an accusation, but 
 we know not of any thing which can aggravate a practice. 
 
 " If the nature of the offence be considered in its true eo- 
 " lours, to a people having a just sense of personal liberty 
 " and security it is in every single instance of a malignity 
 " not inferiour to that of murder." 
 
 That is to say, an offence which, considered in its true co 
 lours, is of a malignity equal to murder to a people. A com 
 mon man would have said, an offence, which, viewed in its 
 true colours, will appear of a malignity, &c. We do not 
 consider a thing in a colour, neither does the nature of a thing 
 depend on our manner of considering or looking at it. An 
 object is what it is, but may appear differently when seen in 
 different points of view. 
 
 " There are even examples, I am told, when such officers 
 " have been put upon the yellow Mst." 
 
 When relates to time, and cannot properly refer to exam* 
 pies* 
 
I 15 ] 
 
 * The impressed native American citizens, however, upon 
 ff duly authenticated proof, are delivered up. Indeed ! How 
 * unreasonable then were complaint ! How effectual a rem- 
 S edy for the wrong !" 
 
 To express the writer s idea, the word were should be &, 
 and the word a should be the. He exclaims, ironically, are 
 they indeed delivered up ! then to be sure it is unreasonable 
 to complain ; not, it would fee, which implies the condition if 
 they are delivered. A remedy means in general any remedy ; 
 but in order to form a relation to the particular remedy be 
 fore mentioned, the phrase should end with the words is this. 
 There is also a fault in the connexion of the two exclama 
 tions. Both of them are ironical, wherefore the latter 
 amounts to a denial that the remedy is effectual. It follows, 
 nevertheless, a phrase in which the efficacy of the remedy is 
 presupposed. The writer s idea may be expressed thus: 
 " Indeed ! with a remedy so effectual, how unreasonable to 
 complain !" 
 
 te An American vessel bound to a European port has two, 
 " three or four native Americans impressed by a British man 
 * c of war." 
 
 This is a vulgarism, which we should suppose might have 
 been avoided by a professor of rhetorick. The verb to have is 
 either used as an auxiliary for the tenses of other verbs, 
 or else it expresses possession. If taken in the former sense, 
 the sentence means, an American vessel has impressed by 
 means of a British man of war, and in the latter sense it 
 means, an American vessel possesses seamen impressed by a 
 British man of war : whereas the author meant to say, Two, 
 three or four native Americans are impressed by a British 
 man of war, from an American vessel. 
 
 <c Sometimes their Lordships, in a vein of humour, &c. 
 Sometimes in a sterner tone, they say," &c. 
 
 Is a vein of humour then a stern tone 2 
 
 <f Sometimes they coolly return that there is no such man 
 " on board the ship ; and what has become of him, the ago- 
 f< nies of a wife and children, in his native land, may be left 
 * to conjecture." 
 
 The Professor s meaning may and must tf be left to con 
 jecture," for it has hitherto eluded all our attempts to disco* 
 ver it. Perhaps the Professor intended this as a fine stroke of 
 his art ; supposing, as one of our criticks observes, that a vague 
 and obscure expression is apt to be admired by some, because 
 it conveys the sense they relish the most ; by others as con 
 cise and comprehensive, because it suggests various meanings 
 tt once. 
 
The second point upcn which Mr. Pickering defends the 
 " pretensions of Great Britain," &c. 
 
 We do not defend a person upon a point, but against a 
 charge. We say (metaphorically) defend on this or that 
 ground or principle, but then we speak of the means of de 
 fence ; of the justification) not of the charge. 
 
 " The right, as on the question of impressment, so on this, it 
 " surrenders at discretion." 
 
 Here is a harsh inversion ; besides, the words so on this 
 should be left out, or else the sentence should run thus : As on 
 the question of impressment, so on this, it surrenders the right. 
 
 " Mr. Fox had too fair a inind for either, but his compre- 
 <e hensive and liberal spiritw&s discarded with the cabinet 
 <f which he had formed." 
 
 To discard is to throw a card out of the hand, and thence 
 It is used metaphorically for the dismissal of a servant or offi 
 cer. But as we do not discard but throw up the whole hand, 
 so we do not discard but dismiss the whole cabinet. Above 
 all, we do not discard a spirit. 
 
 " Her rule of the war of 1756, in itself and in its effects, 
 " was one of the deadliest poisons in which it was possible 
 (( for her to tinge the weapons of her hostility." 
 
 We do not " tinge in," but ivith y and we do not tinge with 
 poison, but with colour or flavour. We imbue with poison. 
 
 " This accumulated mass of legal learning," &c, " was also 
 " made a subject of full and deliberate discussion, in the senate 
 " of the United States." 
 
 An "accumulated mass" is of a kin to his "reciprocal offer 
 to be searched in return," (( offensive resistance," " counter- 
 statement of the other side." The Professor is always upon 
 stilts ; always labouring to exalt his style, and swell a com 
 mon idea into an extraordinary bulk by adjuncts, expletives, 
 and pleonasms. After all, we do not understand what the 
 Professor means by saying this mass was disscussed in the 
 senate. 
 
 <f I am not one of those who deem suspicion and distrust 
 w in the highest order of political virtues." 
 
 Rank is the proper word to be used here, not deem. 
 
 " These alternations of licenced pillage, this eager compe- 
 " tition between her and her enemies for the honour of giving 
 " the last stroke to the vitals of maritime neutrality, all are 
 " justly attributable to her assumption and exercise of this sin- 
 " gle principle." 
 
 We may give a wound to the vitals, and we may give a 
 stroke or a blow to a man, not to, but ovcr> on> or in a particu- 
 
f 17 J 
 
 larpart, as the head, the arm, the eyes, &c. We do not 
 exercise a principle, we exercise a right founded on a 
 principle. 
 
 "The rule of the war of J.756 was the root from which 
 * all the rest are but suckers, still at every shoot growing 
 ranker in luxuriance." 
 
 A sucker springs from the trunk or branches, and a sprout 
 from the root. 
 
 " fhe most enormous infractions of our rights, hitherto 
 committed by France, have been more in menace than in 
 c accomplishment." 
 
 What is meant by " an infraction in menace" and " in ac 
 complishment ?" A right may be violated by menace, viz. 
 the right of security ; but a violation in or by accomplish 
 ment ! The accomplishment of what ? Is it of a promise, or a 
 project, or a threat ? The writer, we presume, means that 
 France has violated our rights more by her threats than by 
 carrying those threats into execution ; which hitherto, thank 
 God, she has not been able to effect. 
 
 "The alarm has been justly great; the anticipation tlireal- 
 t ening; but the amount of actual injury small." 
 
 The anticipation is supposed to have been made by us of 
 the mischief we should experience, and therefore it must have 
 been terrifying, not threatening. Actual injury is opposed 
 to apprehended injury, but is slipt in here to express dam 
 age. Injury has two meanings, one of which is, wrong with 
 out damage. Thus, when a scoundrel tells lies of one honest 
 man to another who does not believe him, he injures the per 
 son slandered, though he does him no damage. It is, in all 
 humble manner, submitted to the learned Professor, whether 
 the injury done to our rights by France is not as great as pos 
 sible, although the damage to our property may have been 
 far less than she wished and intended." 
 
 The grand finale of this paragraph runs thus : 
 " It is not by the light of blazing temples, and amid the 
 " groans of women and children, perishing in the ruins of the 
 (e sanctuaries of domestick habitation at Copenhagen, that we 
 ( can expect our remonstrances against this course of proceed- 
 * ing will be heard." 
 
 Bravo! now that, in our course of perfectibility, we have 
 got so far as to hear by the light, we may hope soon to see 
 by the sound, and feel by the smell. But perhaps the learn 
 ed Professor meant that we could not expect by the light and 
 amid the groans : for such is the natural interpretation of the 
 words as he has placed them. A person less studious of pr- 
 
 if) 
 
t 13 1 
 
 arn*nt would have said, We cannot expect that our rermu* 
 strances will be heard amid the groans, &c. After all, it 
 may be worth one moment s inquiry, what Copenhagen his 
 to do with the business ; which we understand to be a re 
 monstrance to the Court of St. James s, against taking our ve# 
 sels when going to or coming from the French Islands, A 
 remonstrance (by the by) which might well be omitted, see 
 ing that the evil to be remonstrated against does not exist. 
 But the groans at Copenhagen, or even the cannonade, would 
 hardly prevent people from hearing in London. 
 
 " The attack upon the Chesapeake was disavowed ; and 
 " ample reparation was withheld only because with the de- 
 ic mand/or satisfaction upon that injury the American Govern-. 
 " ment had coupled a demand for the cessation of others, alike 
 <s in kind, but of minor aggravation." 
 
 We make a demand of satisfaction for an injury, and not 
 for satisfaction upon an injury. Minor aggravation is less 
 increase of weight. So, then, there were injuries alike in 
 kind, but of less increase of weight. Be not alarmed, gentle 
 reader. The learned Professor meant only to say injuries of 
 Inferiour magnitude. But every body couid have said that * 
 men of extraordinary genius and learning must say things in 
 an extraordinary manner. Were it otherwise, how could 
 they effect the important purpose of making the vulgar gape 
 and stare ? The object of some men, upon some occasions, is 
 not to convince, but to confound ; of course, the more incom 
 prehensible, the better. 
 
 The great obstacle which has always interfered in the 
 " adjustment of our differences with Britain." 
 
 Pray how can an obstacle interfere, that is to say, inter 
 fere or meddle ? An obstacle may obstruct, or impede, or pre 
 vent, but it cannot interfere. Let us, however, see what is 
 this great obstacle. We are told, it is that she refuses " the 
 application to us of the claim which she asserts for herself." 
 To assert is to claim, and therefore to assert a claim, is to 
 claim a claim, or assert an assertion. We presume it 
 was intended to say, that she asserts or claims a right. 
 But this it seems she refuses to apply to us. And yet, 
 if we understand the gentleman, the grievances he com 
 plains of are consequences of that very application to us of 
 the rights she claims or asserts. We believe he meant 
 to say, she refuses to acknowledge in us, the right she claims? 
 for herself. 
 
 When that atrocious deed was committed, amidst the 
 * general burst of indignation iphwh rewyndzdfrom every 
 
r } 
 
 F part of this union, there were among us a small munbe.r 
 <c of persons who undertook," &t. 
 
 Here the Professor violates that rule of composition, which 
 directs us never to place a circumstance between two capital 
 members of a period, because, to do so, leaves it doubtful to 
 which of the two the circumstance belongs. The following 
 jj the onh proper arrangement; 
 
 When that atrocious deed was committed, there were 
 * among us a small number of persons, who, amidst the ge- 
 . neral burst, &c. undertook," &c. 
 
 " These ideas, &c. were persisted in, until the disavowal 
 *f of the British government took away the necessity for per* 
 severing in them." 
 
 We persist and persevere in designs. We form, maintain^ 
 inculcate, adhere to, insist on, ideas and opinions. 
 
 " A liberal and a hostile policy towards America are among 
 * the strongest marks of distinction between the political syst. 
 < c terns of the rival statesmen of that kingdom." 
 
 Here the Professor has conveyed a different meaning from 
 what he intended, by using the conjunctive and instead of 
 the disjunctive or. 
 
 " Not only are all the outrages of Britain to be forgotten,. 
 ** but the very assertion of our rights is to be branded with 
 & odium." 
 
 To brand (to mark with a hot iron) is used metaphorically 
 lor affixing disgrace or infamy, but we cannot brand with 
 odium. Hatred is so far from disgracing, that not unfrequent- 
 3y it proves the talents and virtue of those against whom it is 
 directed. The learned Professor s new friends honoured his 
 father with their hatred. 
 
 " Every phantom of jealousy and fear is evoked. The 
 " image of France, with a scourge in her hand, is impressed 
 " into the service," 
 
 We doubt whether the verb to evoke be English. The sub 
 stantive evocation (called forth) is an English word, and if 
 the verb be used, it must apply in the same sense. Of course, 
 it will here express the calling forth of what really exists not 
 a phantom, a non-existence. 
 
 Is American pillage one of those rights which she has 
 * claimed and exercised until we are foreclosed from any at- 
 < f tempt to obstruct its collection ?" 
 
 We do not collect rights nor pillage. Besides, pillage can* 
 not be a right, even though the right to pillage were admit 
 ted. American pillage means plundering by Americans, or 
 what Americans have gained by plunder; biit we do not 
 but of British pillage, 
 
[ 20 J 
 
 * g After degrading ourselves int voluntary servitude, * Sec, 
 
 A person may he degraded by or in consequence ff some 
 thing f- one or suffered. He may also be degraded from the 
 rank he previously held, to an inferiour state or condition. 
 
 <( It [the Embargo] has dashed the philter of pillage from 
 <c the lips of rapine." 
 
 It grieves us to have to find fault with this beautiful figure, 
 which has beeiMnore admired perhaps than any tbing in the 
 Professor s whole performance. But, "Jiat justitii 3 mat cce- 
 lum." 
 
 Similes, saith the critick, are not the language of a man in 
 his ordinary state of mind ; but when elevated or animated 
 by passion, he is disposed to elevate or animate all his ob 
 jects; he avoids familiar names, exalts objects b\ circumlocu 
 tion and metaphor, and gives even life and voluntary action 
 to inanimate beings. In this heat of mind, the highest poeti 
 cal flights are indulged, and the boldest similes or metaphors 
 relished. Our Professor, doubtless, experienced all this, and 
 perhaps more, when he invented the above descriptive per 
 sonification of the embargo. But there are certain rules for 
 figurative writing, which cannot be transgressed with impu 
 nity ; and the Professor should have recollected that even the 
 poets have not the privilege of altering the nature of things, and 
 bestowing attributes upon a subject to which they do not be 
 long. Now the embargo, being a mere withdrawing from 
 action, can never, by any force of imagination, be supposed 
 to possess the power of dashing or striking. To test the cor- 
 2-ectness of his figure, let us suppose the Professor to have va 
 ried the phrase a little, and to have expressed himself thus .: 
 <c The tortoise, by drawing his head within his shell, dashed 
 the love-inspiring beverage from the lips of those gnats who 
 had been regaling on his blood." There is, we fear, hardly 
 any imagination quite ductile enough to be brought to ac 
 commodate itself to this. 
 
 Here we close our remarks on those blemishes, whu ch, 
 sanctioned by such. high authority, might become the objects 
 of imitation. We are persuaded that the learned Professor, 
 if he wraild take that trouble, could point out many which 
 have escaped our notice. By so doing, he would greatly add 
 -to the obligation he has conferred on his fellow citizens. 
 
[ 21 3 
 
 The following, to the commencement of the remarks on thy 
 (< Honourable Senator," is from the New-England Palla 
 dium of April 22. 
 
 FEW men, in our country, have had so great advantages 
 in their early education as Mr. Adams, and few have been 
 more industrious in their subsequent cultivation of letters. 
 Hence it was natural that he should have the reputation of 
 an accomplished scholar, and that his style should be, by ma 
 ny, considered as a model of fine writing. In whatever per 
 tains to the belles lettres, his claims to pre-eminence have 
 not been questioned, and his authority in matters of taste and 
 criticism, has been inconsiderately admitted as conclusive. 
 In the reviews, journals, and newspapers, of our own country, 
 he has been regarded as a literary Hercules, who was to be 
 kept in good humour by flattery^, rather than provoked by 
 criticism ; and those who have spoken of his productions, 
 (which have hitherto passed in this country without examina 
 tion) have expatiated on their beauties, with a seeming con 
 sciousness that nothing else could be found. 
 
 As Mr. Adams has declared, in this letter, that it was in 
 tended for publication, it doubtless received much of the " li 
 ma? labor," and may be considered as a fair specimen of his 
 style and manner of writing. From his situation, as Profes 
 sor of Oratory, &c. at our university, no less than from the 
 political character of the letter, he probably expected it would 
 undergo a strict scrutiny, and was careful to entitle himself 
 to the praise of fine writing, though his reasoning should fail 
 of the wished-for success. 
 
 As a statesman, the excellencies or defects of Mr. Adams s 
 style are of little importance ; but as an officer of our univer 
 sity, whose duty it is to instruct others in the difficult art of 
 writing ivell, they are worthy of some examination. I in 
 tend, therefore, to make some remarks on this letter as a 
 mere literary performance, and if I should disturb the preju 
 dices of his admirers, they may take their satisfaction by 
 proving me in the wrong. 
 
 It is a common fault with very young writers to be diffuse; 
 and of course feeble. It is pardonable in them, because they 
 are young. The " Sesquipcdalia verba," and the grand, 
 swelling period, are very apt to charm their ears, and they 
 rarely fail to keep the sound up, though the srnse may fal 
 ter. It is not to be expected that they should understand 
 with much precision the force of worcls^ or should use no 
 
t 22 
 
 more than were necessary to express theft meaning ; but 
 it is to be expected, that the Professor of Oratory should be 
 able to write his own language, not only with grammatical 
 correctness, but with propriety, perspicuity and elegance. 
 
 The following are instances of what may be called the 
 .verbose, or amplified style : 
 
 * Towards the gentleman, whose official station re- 
 t( suits from the confidence of the same Legislature, by 
 <f whose appointment I have the honour of holding a simi- 
 f( lar trust," &c. 
 
 Mr. Pickering and Mr. Adams were chosejo senators by the 
 same state legislature ; this is the single grain of wheat, and 
 the rest is chaff. 
 
 Again "And if his general sense of his official duties 
 " would bind him to the industrious devotion of his whole 
 " time to the publick business of the session," &c. 
 
 Not a little skill and discrimination are required in the 
 choice of epithets, and much of the force and beauty of 
 style depend on their proper USP. In the above quotation 
 there are four adjectives, all of which might be dismissed with 
 out injury to the sentiment. It is true, that they make the 
 sentence more sonorous, though they add nothing to its 
 meaning, nor serve to mark the ideas with greater precision. 
 Stripped of its verbosity, the sentence might stand thus " If, 
 from a sense of duty, he sfeould be induced to devote his whole 
 time to the business of the sesiion," &c. 
 
 I will quote one or two more sentences of the same cha 
 racter, and leave them without remark : 
 
 " Nor can I forbear to remark [upon] the tendency of such* 
 " antagonizing* appeals to detract the councils of the state 
 (< in its own Legislature, to destroy its influence, and expose 
 it to derision in the presence of its sister states, and to pro- 
 <e duce between. the colleagues themselves mutual asperities 
 <c and rancours, until the great concerns of the nation would 
 " degenerate into the puny controversies of personal alterca- 
 " tion." 
 
 QUKRY How could the great concerns of the nation de 
 generate into puny controversies? The Professor intended 
 to say that the members, in place of being occupied with 
 great concerns, would be busied in puny controversies ; and 
 again, is not the last sentence gross tautology ? To test this, 
 we will reverse it, and it will read as well, " Into the pimy 
 altercations of personal controversy. Wlt is indeed better, 
 though bad. 
 
 * That g au ill phrase, a vile \>lif&$&+-4iitagonizir}g is a vile phrase 
 
I S3 ] 
 
 In the following sentences, verbosity is not the only fault ? 
 
 (f The answer to "War in Disguise was ascribed to a gei 
 " tlemen whose talents are universally acknowledged, and 
 " who by his official situation! had been required thoroughly 
 " to investigate every question of conflict between neutral 
 " and belligerent rights," &c. 
 
 Every question between neutral and belligerent rights is a 
 eonflfcting question ; but what is a question of conflict ? There 
 are questions of law, of fact, of right, of expediency, &c. ; but 
 what is a question of conflict, but a question whether there is 
 a conflict or not ? 
 
 (( This accumulated mass of legal learning, of commercial 
 c< information, and of national sentiment, from almost every 
 " inhabited spot upon our shores, and from one extremity of 
 " the union to the other, confirmed by the unanswered and 
 " unanswerable memorial of Mr. Monroe to the British mi* 
 " nister, and by the elaborate research and irresistible rea- 
 ** soning of the examination of the British doctrine, was also 
 " made a subject of full and deliberate discussion in the se- 
 nate of the United States." 
 
 I do not believe, though Mr. Adams asserts the fact, that 
 the senate of.the United States were employed in deliberate* 
 ly discussing this accuntulated mass of legal learning, &c. 
 which came from almost every inhabited spot on our shores^ 
 nd also from one extremity of the union to the other, con 
 Jirmed as it was, &c. &c. The senate, I grant, might have 
 been employed in discussing the subjects, the questions, whichy 
 iu various parts of the country, had produced, or called forth, 
 this mass of learning, &c. 
 
 Again " If the alarm was groundless, it must very soon 
 " be disproved, and the Embargo might be removed with, 
 " the danger. 
 
 Here is some confusion among the tenses, and still more 
 in the sentiment. The writer meant to say, that if the alarm 
 was groundless, it would very soon appear to be so, and the 
 embargo might then be removed, &c. but he has contrived to 
 assert the contrary, by saying, that if the alarm was ground 
 less it must very soon be disproved, i. e. proved to be real, ojc 
 to have good foundation, and the embargo might be remov 
 ed, &c. 
 
 Again " The most enormous infractions of our rights, hi- 
 " therto committed by her (France) have been more in me* 
 f< nace than in accomplishment." 
 
 If a spectator, in giving an account of a personal combat, 
 should say, in a letter t.o hjs friend, that the most terribVe 
 
f 24 ] 
 
 blows A gave B were more in menace than accomplishment, 
 he would write like the Professor of Oratory. 
 
 (C In the mean time Admiral Berkeley, by a court martial of 
 u his own subordinate officers, hung one of the men taken 
 (f from the Chesapeake, and called his name JenkinRatford." 
 
 Mr. Adams does not positively assert that the man was tried, 
 but merely that Admiral Berkeley Jirst hung him by a court 
 martial, and called his name Jenkin Ratford afterwards. 
 
 Again <f But whenever the case occurs that this sense, 
 * e &c. it ought surely to be predicated upon a full and im- 
 " partial consideration of the whole subject not under the 
 cc stimulus of a one-sided representation, far less upon the im- 
 <e pulse of conjectures and suspicions." 
 
 The word "predicated" is? here used improperly. Mr. 
 Adams, no doubt, is a logician ns well as a rhetorician, and 
 well knows that the predicate is that which is affirmed of 
 the subject in a proposition, ft is here used as synonimous 
 v/ith founded, which is a perversion of the true meaning of 
 the word. As to the stimulus of a one-sided representation, 
 and the impulse of conjectures, &c. they may pass for this 
 time without remark. te \Vitbout hearing the counter state* 
 tnent of the other side."* And from whence should the 
 counter statement come, if not from the other side ? 
 
 " Between this unqualified submission, and offensive re- 
 " sistance against the war,". &c. 
 
 Piesistance implies a previous aggression, and what is the 
 exact difference between offensive resistance and defensive 
 aggression ? 
 
 Figurative language. " In our republican government, 
 C where the power of the nation consists alone in the sympa- 
 fe thies of opinion, this reciprocal deference, this open-hearted 
 " imputation of honest intentions, is the only adamant at once 
 t attractive and impenetrable, that can bear, unshattered, all 
 " the thunder of foreign hostility." This sentence, spoken 
 at a college exhibition, would be followed by loud and reitera 
 ted applause. It is a most imposing sentence, and becomes 
 the mouth well ; but it has, nevertheless, a trifling defect., 
 Rhetorical writers inform us, that metaphors, comparisons, - 
 &c. are founded on some resemblance, expressed or implied : 
 but where is the resemblance between reciprocal deference, or 
 even open-hearted imputations of honest intentions, and ada 
 mant attractive as well as impenetrable ? 
 
 * This rerchids us of the advertisement of a London Cobler " Moved- 
 r>rer opposite to folhcr side of the tvay" 
 
 Query y ^Vhich side of the way did the Cobler live ? 
 
( 25 3 
 
 ** It (the Embargo) has dashed the philter of pillage from 
 f the lips of Rapine."* If, after an attentive consideration of 
 this rhetorical flourish, the reader can make iiothing of it, let 
 him apply to the Professor of Oratory for information., 
 
 Bad Grammar. " It is but little more than two years 
 since this question was agitated both in England and 
 " America, with as much zeal, energy and ability, as ever 
 " was [were] displayed," &c. " If the voice of reason and 
 " of justice could be heard by France and Spain, they would 
 say" Who would say ? France and Spain ? They form 
 the last antecedent ; but that makes nonsense. Is it voice ? 
 That is in the singular, and cannot be the antecedent to they. 
 Is voice to be understood before the word justice ? So be it. 
 ff Because with the demand for satisfaction upon that injury" 
 <r and omission sacrifices no national right." From the pe 
 rusal of several preceding paragraphs, it seems at least proba 
 ble, that Mr. Adams intended to say, that Mr. Pickering s 
 omission ta notice the British orders of council, sacrifices, &c 
 " And on such a sudden unnoticed interdiction, of pouncing 
 " upon all neutral commerce," &c. Travelling back a few 
 sentences it appears, that it is the right which the British 
 claim of pouncing, &c. " Yet although thus unauthentira- 
 " ted, and even although thus in some sort denied, the proba- 
 <f bility of the circumstances under which they were anoun* 
 f( ced," &c. N. B. The antecedent to they is in the prece 
 ding paragraph. 
 
 Mistakes of the Printer. " Every phantom of fear and 
 " jealousy is evoked" for invoked. The imaginary terrours 
 of Napoleon or which is the same thing. Napoleon s imagi 
 nary terrors for our dread of Napoleon s power, &c. " We 
 (< examined it chiefly as affecting the principles as between a 
 " belligerent and a neutral power" one as too many. 
 
 I will now quote a few sentences for the consideration of 
 scholars, and leave them without remark. 
 
 " Sometimes they cooly return, that there is no such man 
 ** on board the ship : and what has become of him, the ago- 
 " nies^ of a wife and children in his native land, may be left 
 " to conjecture." " The wisdom of the Embargo is a ques- 
 *< tion of great but transient magnitude, and omission^ sactf* 
 ! fices no national right." " Subjects upon which it is my 
 
 * BAYES " Now mark that allegory I is not that good ! " 
 Yes that grasping a storm with your eye, is admirable ! 
 
 t Mark that delightful personification ! BELLA CR.USCA. 
 
 $ Another ! by all that s beautiful ANNA MATILDA, 
 
 F, 
 
[ 26 ] 
 
 " misfortune, in the discharge of my duties as a Senator of* 
 t the United States> to differ from the opinions of my col- 
 league." " The place where the question upon the first of 
 * them; in common with others of great national concern^ 
 " was, bet-ween him and me, in our official capacities, a proper 
 subject of discussion, was the Senate of the Union." " It 
 is not by the light of blazing temples, and amid the groans 
 " ofwomen and children perishing in the ruins of the sanctua- 
 " ries of domestick habitation at Copenhagen, that we can ex- 
 ** pect our re monstrances -agahrst this course of proceeding 
 will be heard." 
 
 Speaking of his attempt to controul the embargo, Mr. 
 Adams observes, that "he is not sufficiently confident in the 
 <e superiority of his own wisdom to appeal by a topical appli- 
 ft cation* to the congenial feelings of any not even of hifi 
 " own native section of the Union." Ohe ! jam satis est. 
 
 I might pursue this subject much further, but from the pre 
 ceding specimens of Mr. Adams s style, there is little hazard 
 in saying generally, that it is verbose and obscure. His sen 
 tences are often ungrammatical, and their structure inartifi 
 cial and confused. They are frequently loaded with circum 
 stances, unskilfully introduced, and enfeebled with tautolo- 
 gous expressions. In his choice of words, he lacks that deli 
 cate discrimination, so necessary to express the different 
 shades of thought, and multiplies epithets with no other ap 
 parent view, than merely to round his periods. 
 
 On the whole, this pamphlet, as the production of a States 
 man, will do no credit to Mr. Adams. 
 
 It is called a letter <f on the present state of our national 
 affairs, with remarks," &c. 
 
 The first eight pages are occupied with his objections to 
 the propriety of writing at all to the Legislature, and the mo 
 tives which impelled him to the same task. The remaining 
 twenty-three are filled with remarks on Mr Pickering s let 
 ter. In reading the letter of Mr. Adams, we very soon lose 
 sight of the " present state of our national affairs," and find 
 ourselves in company with a gentleman who hardly suppres 
 ses his ill-humour sufficiently to make the customary profes 
 sions of candour and respect for his colleague. It is impossi 
 ble not to perceive that he writes with the keen feelings of 
 an adversary, eager in the pursuit, and little scrupulous about 
 the means, he uses to discredit his opponent. We therefore 
 
 * Topical application! that s very well I owe you one. 
 
 OLLAFOD. 
 
[ 27 1 
 
 find that tt the present state of our national affairs * has ie/ 
 generated, in Mr. Adams s hands, into the puny controversies 
 of personal altercation. 
 
 We have now done with the Learned Professor, and 
 come to the Honourable Senator. 
 
 WE cannot refrain from suggesting to the Honourable 
 Senator the impropriety of those harsh terms which he has 
 applied to a foreign nation. It is of some importance *o the 
 character of our country, and perhaps to her interest, that 
 those who are charged with the conduct of our affairs (in re 
 lation to other powers) should not violate established princi 
 ples of decorum. Men who have a proper sense of personal 
 dignity will avoid indecency for their own sakes. Other 
 men ought to avoid it from a sense of duty. We entreat the 
 Honourable Senator to reflect on what he feels at the perusal 
 of any thing which has been said or written injurious to the 
 interest or character of his own country. If he should be ta 
 ken for the mouth-piece of his friends (whom we heartily 
 congratulate on their acquisition) may it not be concluded 
 that the rulers of America are hostile to England ? He has 
 cited what happened at Copenhagen. The reason assigned 
 by the British Ministers, for bombarding that city, was a con 
 viction that Denmark would soon be numbered among their 
 foes, which made it their duty to deprive her of the means of 
 annoyance. Ifasimilarconviction should be produced respecting 
 America, and a similar result should follow, it would be but a 
 poor consolation to the victims of hostility, that it had been 
 provoked by the style of the Honourable John Q,. Adams. A 
 publication of that sort, without a name, would be a thing of 
 little consequence, because it is easy for the servants of a 
 great monarch to despise anonymous slander : but we should 
 be sorry that contempt were extended to Senators of the 
 United States. And yet, we put it to the Honourable Sena 
 tor, if (changing the circumstances) he would not feel himself 
 in a dilemma between contempt and indignation? Let him 
 then consider that British Ministers have also the feelings of 
 men. He would not be the object of their contempt. Does 
 he desire that their power should be exercised against his 
 country ? If not, why did he, pending a negotiation, (a time 
 which he deems so critical) heap up every brand of wrath, to 
 make hot the fire of resentment ? We premise that the Ho 
 nourable Senator appears, from his own shewing, to be deep 
 in the confidence of our Administration. He tells us that 
 Jew of the facts he shall relate rest on information peculiar 
 
r ^s ] 
 
 to himself; and again be tells us, "The French Emperor had 
 " not declared that he would have no neutrals. He had not 
 " required that our ports should be shut against British Com- 
 * merce." Thus the Honourable Senator has pledged himself 
 Stoutly to two negations. Did he do this rashly and unadvi* 
 sedly ? If he did, the pledge is not worth a rush. Did he re 
 ceive information from the President, or Secretary of State ? 
 If not received from (or through) the foreign department, the 
 information is futile. If so received, two conclusions result : 
 first, his confidence in the government, by pledging his cha 
 racter on their assurance ; secondly, their confidence in him, 
 shewn by the communication of what was withheld from 
 others ; not merely from Federalists, but from old and approv 
 ed Democrats, who spoke and voted against the measures 
 proposed, on the ground of those French declarations which 
 Mr. Adams denies. From these two conclusions it results 
 further, that the opinions he has promulgated, and the feel? 
 ings he has expressed, are in very truth the opinions and feel 
 ings of the American Cabinet. But that his doctrines, as 
 well as his sentiments, are adverse to England, and favoura 
 ble to France, no man can doubt who reads his publication. 
 Hence England may fairly infer that the American councils 
 are hostile to her, and partial to her enemy. We submit to 
 the Honourable Senator s consideration, however, one little 
 circumstance : Is he sure that in this business he has not 
 been duped ? If it should turn out that the French Emperor 
 has made substantially the declarations so positively denied, 
 will he say that his new friends took advantage of his eager 
 ness to bask in the sunshine of their smiles, and gave him as 
 surances, which, like the language of Macbeth s Witches, 
 though true to the ear, were false to the sense ? Will he ac 
 knowledge that, besotted by his own vanity, he committed 
 himself fully on a half confidence ? This would give* him a 
 life-rent of ridicule. Will he, to avoid the imputation of be 
 ing gulled, declare that, knowing the truth, he contradicted 
 the words only and not the substance, of threats ascribed to 
 France ? If he does, he puts a brand to his forehead which 
 no balm of pity can efface. Thus, then, he stands between 
 the world and Jefferson. The candour of the former is pro 
 verbial : the truth and honour of the latter we shall say 
 nothing about ; but we desire it may be remembered that 
 the Honourable John Q,. Adams (a Senator from the State of 
 Massachusetts) has made the declaration above cited. And 
 now we proceed to consider his arguments. 
 
 The first in order, as well as in place, is the respect due 
 by the people to the Decisions made, after due deliberation. 
 
t 20 3 
 
 by their representatives in Congress. The Embargo, he tells 
 us " was discussed in the Senate of the United States, and, 
 " as far as the constitutional authority of that body extended, 
 c * there it was decided." But we are informed, on authority 
 which cannot be disputed, that the bill laying an embargo 
 was read a first, a second, and a third time, and passed in 
 the Senate in four hours ; and that a little time was repeated 
 ly requested, to consider and obtain information, but it was 
 denied. We ask, then, what Mr. Adams meant by telling 
 his fellow citizens the Embargo was discussed in the Senate, 
 and is entitled to their respect and obedience, because it had 
 obtained a like concurrence of the other branch, and the ap 
 probation of the President ? Let any man, acquainted with 
 the forms of publick business, estimate the time required for 
 the several readings of the bill, the votes taken on each read 
 ing, and that necessarily consumed in asking repeatedly for a 
 little delay, and then see how much will be left for discus 
 sion. The President recommends a measure (which we be 
 lieve to be unconstitutional) fraught with danger, and injuri 
 ous to a great proportion of the people. The Senate hurry it 
 through all the forms established to prevent the evils of pre 
 cipitate resolutions, in the short space of four hours; the 
 House of Representatives concur, in the same rash and rapid 
 manner ; after which the President (his edict being thus en- 
 registered) gives to his obsequious servants the nod of appro 
 bation. And this semblance, this shadow of a law ; this un 
 constitutional decree ; this contraband ware of legislation, 
 smuggled through the publick offices .without opening the 
 package of a single sentence, without examining a thread in 
 the texture ; this foreign, prohibited commodity, so produced, 
 so introduced, and so displayed, is recommended to freemen 
 as commanding their respect. How dare you, Mr. Adams, 
 declare, in the very teeth of truth, that the bill was discussed 
 in the Senate ? Under what pretext will you attempt to de 
 fend your veracity ? We speak not of candour : it is an arti-> 
 cle so entirely useless to your new friends, that it might have 
 been prudent to get rid of it, if any had fallen to your lot : 
 but, sir, how will you reconcile your assertion with the fact ? 
 Will you pretend that the plump vote of a majority, marshal 
 led and disciplined to the motions of their fugleman, is a dis 
 cussion ? When the dearest interests of a country are stran 
 gled by the mutes of a Grand Signior, how dare you call the 
 murderous deed a discussion? 
 
 The Honourable Senator tells us much of the open-hearted- 
 ness he has always preserved, the chanty with which he has 
 
[ 30 ] 
 
 interpreted the conduct of others, his frank and unsuspecting 
 confidence. We are thankful for the information ; which 
 was by no means unnecessary. The world (unjustly no 
 doubt) had characterized him as jealous, suspicious, irrita 
 ble ; one of those < who are never at heart s ease when they 
 behold a greater than themselves." But he must know 
 best what passes in his own bosom, and therefore we shall 
 siot listen to the slanders of an envious world. Let him, 
 however, be careful that he do not invalidate his declara 
 tions, and furnish evidence against himself. 
 
 The Honourable Senator has exhausted his powers to shew 
 the importance of three points which his colleague had sta 
 ted, as the only ground of the Embargo ; and yet, speaking 
 of the orders of the British Council of November last, 
 he says : 
 
 " To my mind, in comparison with those orders, the three 
 (( causes to which Mr. Pickering limits our grounds for a rup- 
 * c ture with England might indeed be justly denominated pre- 
 <c tences. In comparison with them, former aggressions 
 ff sink into insignificance. To argue upon the subjects of our 
 ** disputes with Britain, or upon the motives for the Embar- 
 fc go, and keep them out of sight, is laying your finger upon 
 " the units before a series of noughts, and then arithmetically 
 " proving that they all amount to nothing." 
 
 Thus he not only gives direct assurance, but calls in the 
 aid of a violent metaphor to shew, that in his opinion, every 
 other cause of quarrel with England was insignificant, was 
 nothing, in comparison with those orders. 
 
 When therefore the Honourable Senator takes up the 
 question of impressment, and scolds and moans and groans 
 through nine long paragraphs and four short onee, it is fair to 
 reply, Very fairly spoken, to be sure, but you yourself consi 
 der the thing as insignificant. And when again, through ten 
 paragraphs more, he plays the termagant with the British for 
 their rule of 1756 ; one of their adherents might reply, Lord, 
 Sir ! Why all this talk about nothing ? And when again, 
 through ten other paragraphs, he amuses himself and his 
 friends by stirring up the embers of strife to the tune of Ad 
 miral Berkeley, some wag might hint that it is beneath Sena 
 torial dignity to act a part in the comedy of Much ado about 
 nothing. 
 
 In plain and sober truth, if these points were so trivial, 
 why so much labour to shew their importance ? If important, 
 why declare them to be insignificant ; mere cyphers ? As 
 times go, it might be austere to ask for consistency of con 
 
duct | but really, Mr. Senator, it is not unreasonable to a$k 
 for consistency of language, at least for the space of one let 
 ter. We presume not to expect that a second letter shall 
 consist with the first. As to aberrations of that sort, we ac 
 cept beforehand the honest apology of Tempora mutantur r 
 et nos mutamur in illis. To which we are always disposed > 
 very civilly, to reply And much good may it do you. But 
 indeed and indeed sir, being yankees, and having at heart 
 the honour of New-England, we wish you had stuck to your 
 text in what you composed and delivered for one day s edifi 
 cation. You will pardon us however, if in deference to your 
 declaration, just cited, we should take too slight a notice of 
 these aggressions, which sink into insignificance. We shall 
 not overlook what you say of them, lest you should suppose 
 we are wanting in respect. 
 
 First, then, on the claim of Britain to take her seamen 
 from our merchant ships, you say that her prescriptive right 
 cannot apply to us (who are but lately become an indepen 
 dent nation) if this right existed only against us while colo 
 nies ; for that in such case, 
 
 t As a relict of colonial servitude, it is not entitled to our 
 a submission." 
 
 You have too much understanding to believe it was your 
 colleague s intention* that America should submit to a claim, 
 involving the acknowledgment of her dependence, as a colo 
 ny, on Great Britain. Yes, sir, you have too much under 
 standing. You know better. If we take no further notice 
 of what you say, it is because we do not wish, by contrast 
 ing your convictions with your insinuations, to place you in a 
 position alike awkward and uneasy. But you say further, 
 
 " If it be meant that the right has been claimed and exer- 
 *< cised for ages, over the merchant vessels of other nations, 
 " I apprehend it is a mistake. The case never occurred 
 ** with sufficient frequency to constitute a practice, much less 
 " a right. If it had been either, it would have been noticed 
 * by some of the writers on the law of nations. The truth 
 * c is, the question arose out of American independence, from 
 " the severance of one nation into two. It never was made 
 * a question between any other two nations. There is there* 
 * c fore no right of prescription." 
 
 To this we reply, that the silence of writers on publick law 
 (admitting that they were silent) would only prove that ihe 
 practice was, as in fact it was, a consequence of the clear ac 
 knowledged principle, that every nation has a right to the 
 military service of her own people, You, sir, well know. 
 
r 32 ] 
 
 that the pretended right of expatriation is of novel date, and 
 of no authority. If the case you mention did not frequently 
 occur, it was because the seamen of belligerent powers were 
 seldom in the employ ot other states. You know [and if not 
 you may easily learn) that it has been the ancient practice of 
 England, when a war broke out, to call for the return of all 
 seamen and seafaring people, by a Proclamation. And you 
 know (or may easily learn) that France, like England, has in 
 sisted on this very right, and maintained it by her practice ; 
 and that she has (during this very war) taken her seamen 
 from our ships. You know that a -contract between two par 
 ties cannot impair the validity of a prior contract by either, 
 with a third person, nor absolve them from their duties. And 
 when you speak of seamen on board of our merchant vessels 
 as being ivithin our jurisdiction upon the high seas, you know 
 that you advance a position which, if maintained to the extent, 
 must involve every neutral nation in war. If enemies goods 
 are taken within the jurisdiction of a neutral power, it is an act 
 of hostility. If a neutral merchant ship (on the high sea)is within 
 the neutral jurisdiction, so as to render impressment unlawful, 
 she is equally within the same jurisdiction to every other pur 
 pose ; consequently all the cases of capture of enemies goods 
 on board a neutral ship, the legality of which has been ad 
 mitted from the earliest times, must (according to your doc 
 trine) be hostile aggressions. We will not follow you through 
 the turnings and doubling of which the subject is susceptible. 
 We all now know 7 , and from the relation in which you stood 
 to the executive department, you could not have been igno 
 rant (unless indeed they fooled you with half confidence) that 
 Great-Britain offered so to restrain the practice of impressment 
 as to re medy the grievances of which we complain, and that 
 Messrs. Munroe and Pinckney signed a treaty in the firm and 
 honest belief, that having obtained such a promise, they had 
 substantially provided for that object of their instructions. 
 They supposed it was the wish of the American govern 
 ment to protect American sailors, and never suspected a de 
 sign to embroil the two countries (against their will) by ex 
 acting from the British ministers a formal abandonment of 
 what their nation, and every other nation, has hitherto con 
 sidered as an unquestionable right. A thing which no British 
 Minister dare to do ; and which we, as a Maritime Power, 
 ought not to ask. Our negociators were, it seems, mistaken, 
 and the Honourable Mr. John Q,. Adams now tells us, 
 (speaking no doubt the language of his Excellency Thomas 
 Jefferson) 
 
i 33 ] 
 
 u I- would subscribe to any compromise of this contest COR- 
 u sistent with the rights of sovereignty, the duties of hu- 
 " manity t and principles of reciprocity : but to the right of 
 " forcing even her own subjects out of our merchant vessels on 
 " the high seas, I can never consent." 
 
 That is to say, I will settle the matter any way you please, 
 provided it be in the single way I please. This is the plain 
 meaning, when stript of sounding words which amount to 
 nothing. The article (be it what it may) if reciprocal, must 
 consist with the principles of reciprocity and the rights of so 
 vereignty ; because it must acknowledge the same rights in 
 each sovereign. As for the duties of humanity, they are the 
 usual stuffing of a jacobin sausage, in which there is so much 
 seasoning that poor humanity gets sadly peppered. If the 
 duties of humanity are to be invoked, let them be exerted 
 in making such honest provisions as may prevent abuse and 
 consequent suffering. 
 
 In respect to the British principle of 1756, so called^ we 
 hold it to be unfounded ; and the less worthy of attention, as 
 m practice it has long been relinquished, except a small rem-. 
 ttant, to which our administration seem willing to submit. 
 We shall take no special notice of those " holiday and lady 
 terms" in which the Honourable Senator likens the con 
 duct of Great Britain to the crimes of poisoning and assassina 
 tion ; or rather declares it to be a greater crime than either. 
 We insist on neutral right to the full extent, but we claim no 
 right to do wrong. We claim no right to assist one enemy 
 against the other. If our fellow citizens, by giving such as- 
 sistance> take a part in the war, and in consequence thereof 
 lose their effects, we cannot think them entitled to call on 
 the nation for redress. Besides, the principle of 1756 was 
 not (as the Honourable Senator seems to suppose) justified by 
 Great Britain, solely on the ground that neutrals engaged in 
 trade between France and her colonies were to be consider 
 ed as being in that respect naturalized by Fiance. Although 
 it was maintained as a principle that neutrals could not trade 
 in time of war beyond what they had been accustomed to ia 
 time of peace, yet it was declared on the part of the British 
 King in answer to the remonstrance of HoHand, whose ships 
 had been confiscated for carrying on a commerce to which 
 they were in fact entitled by treaty between her and En 
 gland, that it was necessary to his Majesty s success in the 
 war ; and therefore (being an act of necessity) was justified 
 by the law of self-preservation ; a law paramount to the sti 
 pulation of treaties. It is not for us to split fiairs respecting 
 
 P 
 
[ 34 ] 
 
 such awful conclusions. On the one hand, it cannot be de 
 nied that self-preservation is the first law of nature ; and, on 
 the otht- r, it must be admitted that, as any thing may be jus 
 tified on the plea of necessity, so that plea ought not lightly 
 to be made or admitted. 
 
 But the Honourable Senator has deduced, as a natural con 
 sequence from the principle which we all condemn, the decree 
 which Napoleon made at Berlin ; and the still severer decree 
 which he made at Milan. HP tells us, indeed, he is not the 
 apologist of France ; and he did right in saying so, because 
 otherwise we could have viewed him in no other light ; but 
 we are willing to believe him on his word : and the rather as 
 he tells us that " if the voice of reason and justice could be 
 " heard by France, they would tell her she has done wrong." 
 If she has done wrong, if her conduct is condemned by rea 
 son and justice, it cannot be considered as a fair and natural 
 consequence from the conduct of Britain. 
 
 At the time when Napoleon issued the Berlin decree, by 
 which he declared the British dominions in a state of block 
 ade, and, by necessary inference, that all vessels trading to or 
 from them, should be lawful prize; we were in the practice of 
 trading freely to the French Islands, and of trading as freely 
 to France. The only impediment laid in our way, by En 
 gland, was, that we should not go directly from those Islands 
 to Europe. This direct trade between the mother country 
 and her colonies, inhibited during peace by the general poli 
 cy of Europe, and only permitted in war to cover the proper 
 ty from pursuit of a foe, and to man (with the seamen pre 
 viously employed to transport it) the national fleets ; this di 
 rect trade England considered as the trade of her enemy. A 
 question arose, whether, by touching in our way at an Ameri 
 can port, the nature of a voyage between the colonies and 
 the mother country was materially changed, and of one, be 
 came two distinct voyages ; or whether it must be considered 
 as one continued, unbroken voyage, only lengthened by a 
 few leagues. On this subject a piddling, mercantile spirit 
 seems to have shewn itself in the British Court of Appeals, 
 and to have mingled itself in the decision of a national ques 
 tion : a sentence was pronounced, which, to say the least, 
 was inconsiderate : a sentence which, however, did not ma 
 terially affect our trade, but which affected our indepen 
 dence : a sentence nevertheless, which it would seem has 
 not offended our ruler? ; seeing that they have not seriously 
 objected to an article in the treaty by which the principle of 
 it was acknowledged, Thus, then, while we enjoyed a 
 
{ 35 ] 
 
 trade with all the world, unlimited but by a circumstance o!f 
 slight restriction ; a trade which gave to France greater ad 
 vantages than she ever before derived from neutral naviga 
 tion ; at that moment, she issued the decree of Berlin, and in 
 terdicted, under pain of confiscation, the larger half of our 
 commerce. She interdicted that part which alone is essen 
 tial to the People. It is notorious that the greater part of 
 our traffick with the East and West Indies, and of the 
 consequent traffick with Europe, tends to enrich our Mer 
 chants, but is in no other respect of importance. But the 
 trade with England provides a market for our most valuable 
 productions, and affords a supply of what we most want. 
 A greater violation of our rights, therefore, could not have 
 been made. And had the power been equal to the will, it 
 would have occasioned a greater plunder of our property than 
 ever was experienced. This act of lawless power, giddy 
 with success, and drunk with prosperity, being announced in 
 England at the moment our Commissioners there had conclu 
 ded a treaty, the British monarch declared, in a spirit of ho 
 nourable candour and integrity, that if it should be executed, 
 and we should tamely submit, (neither of which things was 
 supposed to be possible) he reserved to himself the right of re 
 taliation. 
 
 After the lapse of many months, and no marks of opposition 
 on our part, he has exercised that right. The measure of re 
 taliation will be presently considered. And will any man 
 pretend to justify, or even to excuse, the French Emperor s 
 Berlin decree, on the grounds on which it was avowedly 
 made ? 
 
 It shall not be denied that he might treat us as we suffered 
 ourselves to be treated by his enemy. If the act of the one 
 was founded in right, so of course must be that of the other. 
 If wrong, our submission to the wrong was taking part so 
 far with his enemy, as to give him the righi of exacting 
 from us an equal submission. But to contend that we, by 
 not sacrificing all our ships, our seamen, and our goods, to 
 vindicate a claim to the carrying trade between enemy colo 
 nies and the mother country, (a claim never yet acknowledg 
 ed by the great commercial powers) thereby gave the French 
 Emperor a right to violate the established principles of the 
 law of nations, and deprive us not only of commercial privi 
 leges, but of our sovereignty and independence, in an asser 
 tion so pregnant with absurdity, so shocking to the common 
 sense of mankind, that it would be ao insult to our readers if 
 we should say one syllable in refutation. And yet this is 
 what the Honourable Senator insists on, if not w the plainest 
 
I 36 j 
 
 and most direct terms, by the most necessary and unavoida 
 ble inference. We leave it with him and bis friends. They 
 will need all their eloquence and all their art to answer at 
 the bar of a people impoverished, roused, insulted ; of a people 
 \vhomust be driven almost to madness when they shaSl dis 
 cover the vast sacrifice which has been made of their proper 
 ty, their honour, and their independence. 
 
 The Honourable Senator introduces his remarks on the af 
 fair of the Chesapeake, by reiterating the declaration that he 
 Is not suspicious, and says, ht? would believe the British minis 
 ters when they profess a desire to make reparation, if their 
 professions were not contradicted by facts. Here we have a 
 charge of insincerity and falsehood, made by an honourable 
 gentleman, who proclaims, in the same breath, his* frankness 
 and candour. He appeals to facts. Has he then told the 
 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ? This, as a 
 man of honour, he was bound to do 
 
 He states as facts, 1st, that Mr. Rose was not informed of 
 the Orders of Council of November. 2dly, That reparation 
 was not made in England only because our President had 
 coupled with his demand of satisfaction on that subject a 
 similar demand on other subjects. 3dly, That reparation 
 %vas onry offered in general term?, but without any specifick 
 proposals. 4thly, That Mr. Rose, upon his arrival, coupled 
 \vith the question of reparation a question foreign to it, viz. 
 the president s proclamation. 6thly, That they did not give 
 np their opinion till the British government disavowed the 
 act. 7thly, That admiral Berkeley approved of that opinion. 
 Sthly, That it was said Mr. Canning supported the same 
 opinion ia council, but was overruled. lOthly, That Berke 
 ley was applauded in the ministerial newspapers. Hthly, 
 That many in England call loudly for war with America. 
 12thly, That a nobleman declared in the House of Lords, 
 that the right of searching ships of war should be maintained 
 against America, but disclaimed as to other nations. ISthly, 
 That Admiral Berkeley, by a court martial, of his own subor 
 dinate officers, hung one of the men taken from the Chesa- 
 peake. 14thly, That the Admiral called this man Jenkin 
 Ratford, though he was taken from the Chesapeake by the 
 name of Wilson. 15thly, That although it has been said 
 this man was proved to be Ratford, and confessed himself to 
 be Ratford, yet it has also been said that Ratford is now living 
 in Pennsylvania. lOthly, That after the disavowal rnade of 
 the Admiral s conduct by his own government, no confidence 
 can be, due to a court martial held to sanction his proceed 
 
[ 37 ] 
 
 ings. 17thly, That although the three other men were ta 
 ken from the Chesapeake by the sole authority of the British 
 searching Lieutenant, there was not the shadow of a pre 
 tence that they were British subjects, yet they were senten 
 ced to suffer death. ISthly, That Admiral Berkeley, when 
 he left Halifax, received a complimentary address from the 
 colonial assembly ; and told them, in his answer, that he had 
 no official information of his recall. 19thly, That after 
 wards, on leaving Bermuda, he was highly complimented by 
 that colonial assembly, with a manifest reference to the affair 
 ,pf the Chesapeake. 
 
 Having stated and commented on these his facts, the Ho 
 nourable Senator concludes thus : 
 
 " Under all these circumstances, without applying any of 
 <rc the maxims of a suspicious policy to the British profes- 
 " sions f I may still be permitted to believe that their ministry 
 " never seriously intended to make us honourable reparation 
 " at all." 
 
 How very fearful is the Honourable Senator that he should 
 be deemed suspicious! How very anxious to defend himself 
 against the charge, when no such charge is made ! Ah ! MJT. 
 Senator, this same thing called conscience is very trouble 
 some. It will stare folks in the face; ay, and put them out 
 of countenance too. But did ever any man see such facts 
 stated to support such an inference ? Here are nineteen alle 
 gations, of which the last fifteen, if true, are either foreign to 
 the question, or tend to establish the reverse of what they 
 were adduced to prove. Let us cast an eye at them. 
 
 The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth allegations of the Ho 
 nourable Senator shew that some of our own citizens, and 
 many British subjects, considered the conduct of Berkeley as 
 justified by the previous provocation; and that, wonderful to- 
 tell! Berkeley was such an odd fellow as to approve of opin 
 ions favourable to his own conduct: Th erefore, says this 
 Honourable Man, the British Cabinet was insincere. His 
 ninth allegation is, that Mr. Canning held the same heterodox 
 opinion, but was overruled by the other Ministers : And there 
 fore, says this Honourable Man, the Cabinet which overruled 
 him was insincere. His tenth and eleventh allegations are, 
 that ministerial prints advanced the same abominable opinion, 
 and many British subjects called for war with America : There 
 fore, says this Honourable Man, the Administration, which, 
 resisting the clamour and the call for war, held out the 
 .olive branch of reparation to preserve peace, was insincere. 
 Thus when Washington, the great and the good, stemming 
 
f ss ] 
 
 the -torrent of popular delusion, proclaimed the neutrality of 
 America, *nd maintained it in spite of a jacobin faction ; 
 when the honest man who succeeded him, walking in the 
 same honourable path, exposed himself to every shaft of ma 
 lice which the same faction could shoot ; these patriots, these 
 true Americans, were called insincere. 
 
 But the ministerial prints defended Berkeley. And is this 
 the unerring standard by which to decide ? Will our rulers 
 consent to be judged by the same standard ? Look at the 
 prints which support them ; see the constant, the earnest ef 
 forts to plunge America into a war with England. Then see 
 their constant, their earnest protestations of amity, of neutra 
 lity, of the love of justice, and of peace. Does this Honoura 
 ble Man, now that he is let into the secret, judging the con 
 duct of others by that of his friends, impute to the councils of 
 England that duplicity which marks our own ! 
 
 His 12th allegation is, that a member of the British Senate 
 (a friend to the administration) proposed to maintain, respect 
 ing us, a claim which should be abandoned as to other na 
 tion s : And therefore this Honourable Man concludes the ad- 
 ministration which frankly disavowed that claim respecting 
 us, to have been insincere. The disavowal was first made 
 specially to the diplomatick representative of our nation ; then 
 publickly by proclamation to all the civilized societies of man. 
 But a lord it seems has disapproved of that disavowal so far 
 as it regards us : Such at least is the Honourable Senator s in 
 terpretation of a speech in which others can find no such idea. 
 But had it been expressed distinctly, will the solitary senti 
 ment of an individual in opposition to a publick official act of 
 the greatest notoriety, prove the falsity of that act ? A man 
 promises to pay a debt, and as evidence of the promise gives 
 a bond, after which one of his friends declares, that in his 
 opinion nothing was due, that his friend had been cheated, 
 and ought not to have given the bond. On the ground of 
 this declaration, a gentleman (boasting of his candour) insists 
 that the obligor never meant to pay. 
 
 His 13th 14th and 15th allegations are, that Admiral 
 Berkeley, by the agency of a court martial of his oivn subor 
 dinate officers, hung a man by the name of Ratford, who 
 had been taken by the name of Wilson, and that, notwith 
 standing the pretended, proof and confession of the man him 
 self, that his name was Ratford, it is said that Ratford is 
 now living in Pennsylvania : Therefore, says this Honourable 
 Man> the British government, which disavowed the conduct 
 of Berkeley, was insincere. We forbear to notice the hei~ 
 
[ 89 3 
 
 ous charge against an admiral for appointing a court mar- 
 tial of officers under his command ; because, in justice to the 
 Honourable Senator, we must acknowledge it is a practice 
 which never existed until af*er the existence of armies and 
 fleets, and therefore, according to his logick respecting the 
 rule of 56, " there is no right of prescription," and it cannot 
 apply to us. As little shall we notice the charge of perjury 
 and murder made against the court martial, if not in direct 
 terms, by the strongest implication. It was, we presume, in 
 serted as an irrefragable proof of the gentleman s unsuspect 
 ing candour, and of that open-heartiness which imputes no 
 base motive. Hi& 16th allegation is, that, 
 
 " After the character which the disavowal of Admiral 
 w Berkeley s own government has given to his conduct, no 
 " confidence can be claimed by or due to the proceedings of 
 " a court martial of his associates held to sanction his pro- 
 " ceedings." 
 
 And, therefore, says this Honourable Man, that govern 
 ment which made the disavowal was insincere. Such rea 
 soning as this might become a pettifogger in a county court. 
 There the stupid might wonder, and the base applaud. But 
 /rom an American Senator ! Oh, poor America, how art thou 
 fallen J To prove the insincerity of a master in disavowing 
 the act of his servant, and promising reparation, another act 
 of that servant is quoted : But this last act being on the face 
 of it regular and legal, to impeach its validity, for the purpose 
 of attaching the charge of insincerity to the master himself, 
 his very disavowal of the first act is quoted as proof that 
 the servant is not to be relied on. 
 
 Let it, for argument sake, be admitted that the disavowal 
 of the British government attached such infamy to the cha 
 racter of Admiral Berkeley, that every subsequent part of his 
 conduct must of necessity have been infamous, will it follow 
 that the disavowal was insincere a mere show a pretext 
 a thing of no. substance and of no effect ? If so, what be 
 comes of the objection that the appointment and proceeding? 
 of the court martial were vitiated by the disavowal ; a disa 
 vowal amounting to nothing ? But if the disavowal had the 
 effects deduced from it, how can it be such a sham such a 
 protext such a nullity ? The argument is equally wonder 
 ful in every psrt. It stands thus ; If England was sincere in 
 her disavowal of Berkeley, po confidence can be due to the 
 decisions of a court afterwards appointed by him : if no such 
 confidence be due, the man called Ratford was unjustly con 
 demned and executed ; and if the man called Ratford was 
 
t 40 ] 
 
 unjustly condemned and executed, England was not sincere 
 in her disavowal : Therefore, if England was sincere, shef 
 was insincere. Not a single member of this argument but 
 tohat is as fallacious as the conclusion is contradictory. To 
 disavow the conduct of a military man, on some special occa 
 sion or specifick act,neither proves nor implies that he is void 
 of honesty, honour or truth ; as little ground is there to insinu 
 ate that officers commanded by a bad man must of necessity 
 be villains; the willing instruments to commit, at his bidding, 
 crimes the most infamous and abominable, It is not proved, 
 and it cannot be presumed, that officers, whose well-earned 
 fame is the theme of general and just applause ; officers, 
 whose manly spirit is acknowledged by their foes ; that such 
 officers would commit in cold blood a judicial murder ; that 
 they would stain their honour in this world, and hazard their 
 salvation in the next, merely to furnish an excuse for the 
 misconduct of their superiour. In a word, it does not follow, 
 tven though the sentence of that court martial should be un 
 just, and the confession of his own guilt by the man executed 
 should be false, that the British government was insincere* 
 Nay, it does not appear on any other ground than suspicion, 
 a ground the gentleman so repeatedly disclaims, that the BrU 
 tish Government knew any thing about the court martial. 
 
 His seventeenth allegation is, that three other men, taken 
 from the Chesapeake, though there was not the shadow 
 of a pretence that they were British subjects, were sen 
 tenced to suffer death. And therefore, says this Honourable 
 inan, the British Cabinet was insincere. Unfortunately for 
 his honour, this allegation, which would not, if true, support 
 the inference drawn from it, happens to be false. He com 
 plains of a clamour for war with America, which he finds in 
 English newspapers, and he complains of a speech (which he 
 thinks injurious to America) said to have been made in the 
 house of lords ; for which he has no better authority than an 
 English newspaper. What then will he answer when it shall 
 be retorted, not en the evidence of a newspaper, but under 
 the sanction of his own signature, that a member of the A- 
 merican Senate, enjoying the confidence and writing under 
 the eye of. the American administration, has, with a view to 
 exasperate his fellow citizens and drive them into a ruinous 
 war with England, asserted publickly a falsehood ? 
 
 Again, this honourable man, in this very letter, containing 
 this direct unqualified assertion of a fact which never happen 
 ed, undertakes to declare that the French Emperor has not 
 done certain things. But how can he expect credit for his 
 
t 41 1 
 
 negative assurances; when so careless of his redit as to poSte 
 tive facts? His i8th and 19th allegations are, that Berkeley 
 was complimented by the address of two colonial assemblies, 
 and told one of them (so late as December) that he had no 
 official notice of his recall : Therefore, says this honourable 
 man, the British Cabinet was insincere. And so, if by a 
 speedy recall they had put it out of their power to make that 
 step a part of the satisfaction to our government, it might 
 equally have been concluded, that they were insinceie ; and 
 with equal propriety. He cannot, it seems, for the very soul 
 of him, help believing that every thing is done, in every part 
 of the world, exactly after the fashion of our federal city* 
 There he sees legislative bodies who go neither forward nor 
 backward, neither to the right hand nor to the left, until they 
 receive the President s orders. With that mode of procedure 
 he is practically conversant, and therefore supposes that colo 
 nial assemblies, in Halifax and Bermuda, wait for royal orders 
 before they express an opinion. He is mistaken. The repre 
 sentatives of British subjects are too proud to imitate our ex 
 ample. They are in the habit of thinking and acting for 
 themselves. Poor creatures ! they have not yet learnt, in the 
 new school of liberty, to surrender into another man s custo 
 dy their understanding, their confidence, and their will. But 
 if they had, can it be imagined that British ministers (engaged 
 in the deep game of duplicity) would be so silly as to shew 
 their cards to a host of colonial representatives ? Yet all this 
 accumulation of supposition on supposition, and suspicion on 
 suspicion, is laboriously heaped up by the candid, open-heart 
 ed, sincere Mr. John Q,. Adams, to prove the British ministers 
 were insincere when they made a prompt, spontaneous offer 
 of reparation for the misconduct of Admiral Berkeley. 
 
 Let us now examine the few allegations of the Honourable 
 Senator s which have a bearing on the subject. They amount 
 to this; that reparation was not made in England ; that though 
 offered generally, no specifick terms were proposed ; that the 
 special minister sent out was not informed of certain orders 
 relating to another subject ; and that he coupled foreign mat 
 ter with the question of reparation. We have already seen 
 how near the Honourable Senator has kept to the truth so far as 
 he went ; we shall now see whether he has told the whole 
 truth. 
 
 The attack on the Chesapeake was made on the 3d of June. 
 The President s Proclamation, consequent upon it, was dated 
 the second of July. Intelligence of the insult reached London 
 and was communicated- by the British Secretary of State to 
 
[ 42 ] 
 
 the American Minister on the twenty-fifth ; in which comniu* 
 nication Mr. Canning expresses sefltiments of the deepest re- 
 gret> and adds the assurance that, if the British officers shall 
 prove to be culpable, the most prompt and effectual repara 
 tion shall be afforded to the Government of the United States.. 
 On the 29th of July, Mr. Monroe, premising that he had no 
 instruction from his Government, complains of the outrage in 
 a tone of anger and resentment. He mentions some aggra 
 vating circumstances, and says he might state other examples 
 of indignity, if it were not improper to mingla them with 
 that more serious cause of complaint. He concludes by de 
 manding an immediate and frank disavowal of the principle 
 on which the attack was made, together with the assurance 
 that the officer shall suffer merited punishment. This letter, 
 though rather hasty and harsh, considering Mr. Monroe s di 
 plomatic character, was excusable in a soldier. It was con 
 sistently with the feelings of a soldier and a gentleman, that 
 he declared his opinion of the impropriety of blending this af 
 fair of honour with any other consideration. On the 3d of 
 August, five days after the data of Mr. Monroe s letter, Mr. 
 Canning replied, by observing that, as the affair was confess 
 edly brought forward without inftructions, or a knowledge of 
 facts, it might be sufficient to repeat the general assurances 
 of a disposition to make reparation : that as this had been 
 already given, he had reason to be surprised at the tone of 
 Mr. Monroe s representation ; notwithstanding which, the 
 king s desire to shew his justice and moderation would not 
 permit him to hesitate in giving the assurance that he neither 
 did, nor had at any time, maintained the pretension of a 
 right to search ships of war in the national service of any 
 state for deserters ; wherefore, if the statement made by Mr. 
 Monroe should prove to be accurate, his majesty had no dif 
 ficulty in disavowing the act, and would have no difficulty 
 in- manifesting his displeasure at the conduct of his officers. 
 Finally^ he agreed with Mr. Monroe in opinion, as to the im 
 propriety of involving other matter in a question of sufficient 
 importance to claim a serious consideration. Thus then, in 
 the space of forty days from the time when the attack was 
 made on our coast, it was disavowed in London : The princi 
 ple was disclaimed, and reparation promised. All that re 
 mained was to establish the facts. 
 
 Thus stood the affair when the President s Proclamation 
 
 arrived. In Mr. Canning s note of the 8th of August, the 
 
 Proclamation is mentioned to Mr. Monroe as just received in 
 
 a newspaper, which he sends to Mr, Monroe, and asks if the 
 
{ 43 } 
 
 proclamation be authentic!*. Mr. Monroe replies, on the 20th, 
 that he is yet without instructions, but that he shall, he ex 
 pects, when he receives them, be able to furnish a full and 
 just view of all circumstances. On the 50th of August Mr. 
 Monroe received his instructions, in a letter from Mr. Madi 
 son of the 6th of July, inclosing, among other things, the Pre 
 sident s Proclamation. And now he was apprised that he had 
 taken a wrong measure of those whom he served. They did 
 not feel, as he did, that honour suffers no exteriour circumstan 
 ces to be mingled with an afront : that matters of business 
 or advantage, questions of profit or loss, cannot enter into the 
 consideration of a gentleman where his honour is at stake. 
 He was, no doubt, surprised to discover that in advancing the 
 sentiments of a soldier he had committed himself as a minis 
 ter. But he was distinctly instructed that " an entire aboli- 
 f< tion of impressments from vessels under the flag of the U- 
 " nited States must make an indispensable part of the satis- 
 faction." 
 
 Here then we find a question of publick law, which had 
 been agitated eighteen years, tied fast to the question of sa 
 tisfaction for a recent insult. Mr. Monroe is enjoined not to 
 accept of any reparation, unless Great-Britain shall surren 
 der what she considers as her unquestionable right. 
 
 Seeing that with some it may be matter of astonishment 
 that the extreme impropriety of this conduct did not suggest 
 itself to the members of our administration, it may be well to 
 give a little insight into their notions, their temper, their ge 
 nius, and their conduct. 
 
 In the first place, then, they set a high value on the thra- 
 sonick art, commonly called bullying; for they conclude, with 
 characteristick sagacity, that since, when France threatens 
 they obey ; when they . threaten, England will obey. Thus 
 the scheme of their policy consists in obeying France a,nd bul 
 lying England. So much for their notions. Their temper isi 
 to befortiter in modo, et suaviter in re ; to speak big words, 
 and do little things. By big words they please the hawlers, 
 a numerous race ; and by little things they tickle little minds ; 
 gaining credit with those who very justly consider littleness a& 
 a proof of cunning, and very unjustly imagine cunning to be 
 a mark of wisdom. Their genius is of sufficient force to de 
 vise a daily excuse for the daily blunder ; but as it cannot 
 comprehend, so it does not consider, the national interest. 
 They are, in regard to that, what may be called microcos- 
 mick statesmen : people who scrutinize a part, without seeing 
 the whole. They have an excellent kaack of discovering 
 
[ 44 ] 
 
 what suits the interests of their party ; what offices musf be 
 given ; what appearances must be assumed ; and what opi 
 nions jnust be insinuated : considering their country as it is 
 of value to their party, and their party, as it is of value to 
 themselves. Their conduct is bottomed on the necessity of 
 popularity to the execution of their projects. The question 
 with them is, not whether a measure will serve or injure ; but 
 whether it will offend or please the people. In short, they 
 seem to have adopted as a normal maxim, nullum numen abest 
 si sit popularitas. With popular support every thing is prac 
 ticable, Thus, in the fond conceit that England might be 
 bullied into submission, the great point of their policy was to 
 screw up America to a proper pitch of wrath. The affair of 
 the Chesapeake seemed a lucky incident for the purpose, and 
 was seized on greedily. The people, fully informed of one 
 half the facts, and kept in ignorance of the other, was enra 
 ged almost to phrenzy ; wherefore they supposed the mo 
 ment was arrived for frightening England, by the threat of 
 invading Canada, and of joining a world in arms, to crush 
 th* world s last hope. This was the propitious moment; 
 "while she was fighting to defend her existence and our own ; 
 this was the moment to seize her by the throat, and compel 
 her to surrender one of her dearest rights. How generous ! 
 how magnarfimous ! how wise ! Presuming that, in her cri 
 tical condition, she could easily be bullied into submission, 
 they anticipated the glory of that bloodless triumph, and the 
 congratulation of their friends on the success of their vigour-^ 
 ous measures. 
 
 But in devising this notable scheme, they never reflected 
 on the chance of meeting with men who prefer honour to 
 life. They might have read or heard of such men, but pro 
 bably they felt no disposition to believe in their existence. Mr. 
 Monroe, proud in the spirit of his country, called, as a soldier, 
 for reparation to her honour ! He insisted that other questions 
 should rest till this point was settled ; and the British govern 
 ment, though offended at the manner, did justice to the mo 
 tive, and j tined in the issue. But now Mr. Monroe finds him 
 self obliged to ask and insist on a different matter, which the 
 British ministers peremptorily refuse. Mr. Monroe s letter, 
 and Mr. Canning s answer, both well written, are before the 
 publick. We will not, therefore, repeat their contents. We 
 believe the most prejudiced reader will admit the reason of 
 the case to be on Mr. Canning s side, and will see, that if re- 
 pa r.ition was not made in London, the cause of delay arose .at 
 "Washington, 
 
f 45 j 
 
 In the course of the negotiation, Mr. Monroe declared 
 what were the specifick things expected by us as redress and 
 reparation. The most important, the disavoival of the right> 
 had been already made. As to any thing further, Mr. Can 
 ning observed, that the President s Proclamation, inhibiting 
 our ports to his majesty s ships on account of an insult from 
 an individual, which the President himself considered and 
 stated as unauthorized, was an act of hostility done in the 
 very moment when reparation was asked as a duty of friend 
 ship. Mr. Canning further observed, that although the cir 
 cumstances which preceded the attack could not justify Ad 
 miral Berkeley in assuming to himself the right of war and 
 peace, on a question between him and his sovereign, yet those 
 circumstances must be allowed their due influence on the 
 measure of reparation, as between the two nations. And it 
 must be owned, that our President virtually acknowledged 
 the truth of this observation, when he so strongly insisted, in 
 the outset, that the men taken were citizens of the United 
 States. 
 
 One thing asked by Mr. Monroe, as an act of reparation, 
 was, that a special minister should be sent out to apologize. 
 And as soon as it was ascertained that he was tied up by his 
 instructions, not to treat on the subject of the Chesapeake 
 singly and distinctly, Mr. Canning announced the intention of 
 thus sending out a special minister for that express and single 
 purpose. Here then the second point was conceded : so that 
 only two questions remained ; Shall the men taken be restor 
 ed, and what punishment shall be inflicted on the Admiral ? 
 
 As to the last, it is evident that the British government can 
 do no more than recall or dismiss him, unless by the inter 
 vention of a court martial ; and therefore it is to be presum 
 ed that this question may be easily settled. We will not 
 anticipate the other. What has been said is sufficient to 
 shew the futility of the Honourable Senator s suspicion, in so 
 far as it rested on a supposed defect on the side of England, 
 in not proposing specifick terms. It was ours to propose the 
 terms we did propose them, and she acceded to the greater 
 and more important part. But here it seems proper to state 
 the conduct which sound policy, not to mention a sense of pro 
 priety, would have dictated to our administration. Unques 
 tionably, they ought to have recalled their proclamation, as 
 soon as they knew the King s disavowal of the vio 
 lence, and of the right. They ought to have assigned that 
 disavowal as their reason for the recall. They would there 
 by have gained the credit of establishing the rigut, ana the 
 
t 48 ] 
 
 greater credit due to a just and impartial conduct. The act 
 being disavowed, reparation for the wrong was a natural and 
 necessary consequence. Whatever irregularities foreign offi 
 cers may have committed, or may hereafter commit, the al 
 ternative must ever be, to seek redress by negotiation or by, 
 arms. After the resort to arms, we must negotiate, not for 
 reparation, but for peace. A nation which respects itself an- 
 not accede, under the application of threat or force, to terms 
 which it would grant on the friendly demand of justice. The 
 Proclamation was, beyond all doubt, a hostile act ; for the 
 withholding from a belligerent a favour granted to his adver 
 sary, is taking side with one against the other : the party 
 from whom the favour is withheld has a right to resent the 
 partiality. The measure of his resentment, indeed, will de 
 pend on circumstancr.s ; but having acquired the rights of 
 war, he may well decline the duties of peace. 
 
 Admitting for a moment, with the Honourable Senator, 
 that England was insincere in the offer of reparation ; was it 
 \vise to give her a -just cause for refusal ? Was it wise to leave 
 a plausible pretext ? 
 
 On the 16th of October, the king of England, by proclama 
 tion, in the common form of those used for calling home his 
 seafaring subjects, made a forma) abandonment of the claim 
 to search foreign ship* of war for British Seamen ; and as 
 formal an assertion of nis right to take them from merchant 
 ships. Thus the bullying scheme ended, as such schemes gen 
 erally do, in shame. Our administration, after taking their 
 ground, that the right to impress seamen from merchant ships 
 should be abandoned (as pa~t of the reparation from Great 
 Britain for the misconduct of Admiral Berkeley) no sooner saw 
 their opponents take the adverse ground, than they made a 
 prompt retreat, and agreed to negotiate on the single subject 
 of the insult. 
 
 As Mr. Rose sailed before the llth of November, there is 
 no wonder that he came out ignorant of Orders issued on 
 that day. But even had they been of anteriour date, it was 
 not likely that they should be referred to in his instructions ; 
 because he was sent out to treat on- a distinct subject, and 
 because the English Minister, resident at Washington, was the 
 proper channel through which to communicate the Orders ; 
 an i through which they were in fact communicated. So 
 much for that ground of suspicion. 
 
 There remains one more ground, viz. that Mr. Rose would 
 do nothing in the way of reparation, till the Proclamation 
 was withdrawn. That the British Government had a per,* 
 
feet right to insist on the retraction of that Proclamation, \ve 
 have no doubt : we have already assigned the principles of 
 this right. But, on the whole, we incline to think that the 
 British Ministers gave more importance to the Proclamation 
 than it deserved. Had they sought cause of quarrel, they 
 could have found enough and to spare, without that instru 
 ment. We think, therefore, they would better have consult 
 ed the king s dignity, by taking no notice of our hostile acts, 
 and going on simply to make a suitable reparation for the 
 wrong done by their officer : indeed, to have exceeded rather 
 than fallen short of the measure. This conduct, towards a 
 nation so defenceless as we are, would have exhibited a calm 
 sense of dignity and justice, highly reputable to a great pow 
 er. But, the reparation once made, England had a right tain- 
 sist on reparation for the wrongs she had received. We 
 venture to say that whenever this shall be done in the man 
 ner which the occasion requires, there will be an end to the* 
 quibbling and subtiity of Gallick attachment. The two na 
 tions will come to a fair and honest understanding, and the 
 sense of common interest will be a bond of union between 
 them to defend what is yet left of liberty in the world. 
 
 And now we come, at last, to that great cause of hostility 
 against England, which the Honourable Senator considers of 
 such vast magnitude as to merge, swallow up and annihilate 
 every other : the orders of the British Council of Novem 
 ber last. These justify, it seems, the Embargo and every 
 thing else ; even war. Under those orders, he says, millions 
 of American property are detained in British hands, or confis 
 cated. This, Mr. Senator, is a mistake in point of fact : a 
 mistake to which it seems you are somewhat liable. There 
 has been no confiscation. 
 
 The Honourable Senator acknowleges that these orders 
 were not communicated with the President s message recom 
 mending an Embargo. But what of that ? They had been 
 announced in paragraphs from English newspapers, which ap 
 peared in the National Intelligencer, the very day the Em 
 bargo message was sent. Truly an excellent ground in 
 legislative proceeding. The President recommends a mea* 
 sure of no trifling import; a measure which destroys half the 
 annual revenue of the country, and to support it he transmits 
 ceitaindocuments which the Honourable Senator acknowledges 
 to be insufficient. He tells us expressly that the great, the 
 important information was derived from the National Intelli 
 gencer from a newspaper ! The Honourable Senator then 
 had no better ground for hurrying through the Senate, in 
 hours, a bill big with the most alarming consequences. 
 
r 48 ] 
 
 ne had no other ground for an act of the most questionable 
 policy, than a ministerial newspaper. Nay, he takes care to 
 tell his constituents, lest perchance they might doubt the ex 
 tent of his credulity, that the information he derived from 
 this newspaper was not only without official authority; but 
 that it was in contradiction to what had before been re 
 ceived. " Assurances (he says) had been given that there 
 was reason to believe no such orders were contemplated."- 
 " Suspicion was lulled by declarations equivalent nearly to a 
 positive- denial." And yet, under these circumstances, the 
 Sage and Honourable Senator not only considered Smith (the 
 President s printer) a sufficient authority for his own vote, but 
 was surprised that his colleague should not be of the same 
 opinion. What a fine pass is our country come to ! Our se 
 nators legislate not only on the dictation of the President, but 
 even on that of his printer. Let us hear hini further : 
 
 " But although so feebly authenticated, and in some sort de- 
 " nied, yet the probability of the circumstances under which 
 s they were announced, and the sweeping tendency of their 
 " effects, formed to my understanding a powerful motive, and 
 w (together with the papers sent by the President, and his ex- 
 " press recommendation) a decisive one for assenting to the 
 Embargo." 
 
 It follows, therefore, that when any measure of a foreign 
 nation which may affect our interest shall be announced in 
 the National Intelligencer, under probable circumstances, the- 
 Senate of the United States ought to act with a promptitude, 
 which, overleaping all rules, shall not permit one half-day s 
 deliberation. He who hesitates must be condemned: he 
 must be condemned too, if he does not acknowledge this 
 newspaper authority to be authentick nay, he may be charg 
 ed with duplicity ; with a design to deceive his constituents ; 
 betray their rights, and subject them to the sway of a foreign 
 power, if he should omit to announce facts resting on such au 
 thority, among the reasons which operated, not on his own 
 mind, but on the minds of those, who refusing to assign their 
 motives, confine themselves to a plump voting in a course 
 of dumb legislation. 
 
 But it may perhaps be supposed that if Congress had wait 
 ed for official information, some great evil would have hap 
 pened. Directly the reverse : it would have appeared that 
 these tremendous orders, with all their sweeping tendency i 
 were not to affect ships which should sail previous to a certain 
 day. This British Council, with all the imputed tyranny, was 
 too honest to imitate the example, in retaliating the violence 
 
C 49 ] 
 
 of France. England did not issue those bursting ordert, 
 which, tumbling about the Professor s ears, disturbed the Se- 
 nator y judgment. She gave full time for information to all 
 who might be affected. And we think ourselves correct in 
 stating, that few (if any) vessels were prevented from sailing 
 by the Embargo, whose owners would not have been appris 
 ed of the ordrrs, or excepted from their effects. Let us add 
 in this place another little circumstance, for the Honourable 
 Senator s candid consideration. 
 
 <f These orders (says he) together with the subsequent re- 
 < taliating decrees of France and Spain, have furnished the 
 t( only reasons upon which I have acquiesced it its (the Em- 
 " bargo s) continuance to this day." " So far was it from be- 
 " ing dictated by France, that it was calculated to withdraw^ 
 tc and has ivithdraivn from within her reach, all the means 
 " of compulsion which her subsequent decrees would have 
 ** put in her possession." 
 
 To our poor comprehension it stands demonstrated, that 
 these, BRITISH ORDERS had this same tendency to withhold 
 from the grasp of France those means of compulsion. We 
 do not say to withdraiv, because we are not yet, like the 
 learned Professor, so angry with England as to write bad 
 English ; and do not see how a thing is to be drawn out 
 which is not already in. We take the liberty to repeat, that 
 the British orders have prevented our property from going to 
 France, whereas, we now know, the emperor would have 
 sequestered it, to remain a pledge in his hands, for our obedi 
 ence to his will ; and in case we should not (according to his 
 orders) declare war against his enemy, to be confiscated to 
 his use. So that, without locking up the doors of our grana 
 ries, till our harvests should rot, bj way of punishing mer 
 chants for operations which bring comfort to our citizens, and 
 cash to the publick coffers, had things been left to their natural 
 course, these detestable British orders would have protected 
 our goods, not only from the spoil of French piracy, under 
 the decree of Berlin (then in a train of execution to the ex* 
 tent of French power) but also from the gripe of French po 
 licy, which, violating the faith of treaties, and the principled 
 of justice, would have used the property of our merchants as 
 a lever to upheave and overthrow our peace and prosperity. 
 All this would have appeared as it now appears, had the Con 
 gress patiently waited, and calmly considered, and wisely 
 weighed information then in regular course of progress to 
 wards them ; had they allowed time, a little time, for eonsi- 
 tferatiog. 
 
 H 
 
[ 50 ] 
 
 Before we quit this chapter, we cannot feelp remarking oa 
 the spirit of prophecy with which the elect of our land seem 
 so plenteously to be endowed. No threats had yet arrived 
 from the great Napoleon. None had been made. At least, 
 so says Mr. Adams. And yet the Embargo was calculated 
 to defeat the object of his subsequent decrees. 
 
 But, says the honourable and prudent Senator, there was 
 no danger in laying the Embargo ; it might be removed " if 
 the alarm was groundless." And again he says, "it was a 
 measure altogether of defence and of experiment ; a restric 
 tion always under our own controul." And he really seems 
 surprised that his colleague could not agree to this experi 
 ment, always under controul : that he would not try projects 
 with the national prosperity: that he would not indulge the 
 president s humour by shutting up the avenues of national 
 wealth: that he should be such a niggard of confidence, 
 when, if the scheme should not answer, " a single day would 
 Suffice to unbar the doors." And thus this sage counsellor 
 and faithful representative not only thinks it proper to act 
 himself, but is astonished that his colleague should decline act 
 ing also, according to the president s will, on the authority of 
 a newspaper ; and that too on so trifling a question as one 
 which had for its object only the navigation, commerce and 
 agriculture of the United States. 
 
 It is indeed strange that such a rash young man as Picker 
 ing would not try projects with these trifling concerns, when 
 it was so easy, if the project failed, to unbar the doors. But 
 would unbarring the doors bring back the seamen and artifi 
 cers who had gone into foreign service ? Would it fit out 
 ships which had mouldered away ? Would it restore capi 
 tal which had been lost ? Would it replace the produce of 
 American industry, which had rotted in the fisherman s or far 
 mer s hands? 
 
 Again : Did this experimental politician, before he gave his 
 vote to tie up the hands of labour and subject honest families 
 to ruin, did he ascertain the practicability of getting other 
 such politicians to vote with him, when he should grow sick 
 of the president s project ? Might not his colleague (even if 
 disposed to indulge his fancy, aud let him amuse himself with 
 such toys as the agriculture and commerce of an empire) 
 might not his colleague have entertained <some little doubt 
 whether other folks would agree to give over the game, when 
 it began to grind the face and pinch the belly of his constitu 
 ents ? And even if it were admitted that a majority of each 
 house, had they continued a little longer in session, would 
 have agreed to take off the Embargo, is it certain that the 
 
( si ] 
 
 president would abandon his project ? If not, how does & 
 appear that |he measure was so completely in the power of 
 the Honourable Senator Adams ? Had he, indeed, been con 
 tent with laying an Embargo for a limited time, he might, 
 on a question for the renewal, have exercised his judgment 
 and used his power.* Two thirds of each House would not, 
 then, have been require^ to unbar the doors. In that case, 
 if a temporary Embargo had been laid, and the necessity or 
 propriety of continuing it should have become evident, a bare 
 majority would have been competent to prolong the terrru 
 Now the law having laid a permanent Embargo, if it be con 
 stitutional (which we deny) it is in the power of the President, 
 with a minority in either house of Congress (provided it ex 
 ceed one third) to keep these doors shut, barred and bolted 
 for the threatened term of three years, and as much longer 
 as he and his minority please. Is it possible that a considera 
 tion of this sort, which absolutely intrudes itself on the notice 
 of a cursory observer, could have escaped the penetration of 
 the Honourable Mr. John Q,. Adams ? Surely it could not. 
 And here our readers are requested to take notice, that if the 
 French emperor had given orders to prohibit commerce with 
 England, during his pleasure, a temporary Embargo coulct 
 not have been considered either as a formal or substantial 
 obedience. Not so a perpetual Embargo. This, having all 
 the merit of submission to the imperial mandate, may serve 
 as a proper ground on which to supplicate imperial mercy. 
 Amended and fortified as it at length is, with land Embar 
 go Supplements, it cuts off all commercial intercourse with 
 the British dominions. 
 
 And now, since this measure is confessedly aimed at Eng 
 land let us examine its effects. And here we have fresh 
 cause to admire the wisdom of our councils. Lost, as we 
 all were, in wonder, at that sublime policy which would aid 
 the candidate for universal empire by weakening the opposi 
 tion and removing (as far as lies in our power) every obstacle 
 to the accomplishment of his wish ; astonished at the profound 
 sagacity of those honest patriots, who, to support the honour 
 and independence of our country, not only pay to France the 
 tribute of their applause, and (in the just measure and truo 
 spirit of republican ceconomy) the tribute still more precious^ 
 of their coin, but even exert themselves to break the only 
 mound that now restrains a torrent which has laid waste the 
 fields and laid low the kingdoms and the states of Europe g 
 a torrent, by which, but for that mound, we should be over 
 whelmed ; our laws, our liberti**, our property, our religion, 
 our wealth, and our Y**y name, swept away and swallowed 
 
[ 82 ] 
 
 up in the ocean of oblivion. Amazed at such a profundity of 
 views, such a height and depth of awful combination, in the 
 mind of that political pope, whose infallibility is the first if not 
 the only article of faith with those friends of the Honourable 
 Senator who were his father s foes; it seemed impossible to 
 wind up our mental powers to a greater sublimity of reveren 
 tial awe. But how feeble is the conception of that frail crea 
 ture man ! At sight of the Embargo, at the appearance of 
 an instrument so well contrived to pull down the pride of 
 Britain, and lay her councils prostrate at our feet, we were 
 astounded. Its first effect is, that we, her only commercial 
 rival, retiring from the ocean, leave in her hands the com 
 merce of the world, its second effect is, to recruit her navy 
 with at least ten thousand seamen which were in our ser 
 vice. Its third effect is (by starvation) to bring under her 
 sway the islands which yet belong to her enemy. Its fourth 
 eflfect is, to send our ship-carpenters, rope-makers, sail-makers, 
 and all who are concerned in the building and fitting of ships, 
 to her trading cities in our neighbourhood. Its fifth effect 
 is, to, force our fishermen to exercise their art under her flag, 
 and for her benefit. Its sixth effect is, to give a spring to 
 the culture of her colonies, so as to secure, in a short time, 
 the means of feeding her islands with articles formerly suppli 
 ed by the industry of our farmers ; and thereby to emanci 
 pate those islands from their dependence on us. Finally, its 
 seventh effect is, to induce many of our citizens to abandon 
 farms which they bought on credit, but cannot now pay for, 
 and settle in Canada and Nova-Scotia. These seven conse 
 quences of the Embargo, these seven vials of wrath poured 
 out on our own heads, these seven deadly sins of American 
 policy, cannot but endear the measure to England. If, there 
 fore, those who preside over her councils have any thing in 
 them of gratitude or generosity, they will give thanks and 
 rewards to the father and frien s of this hopeful project. To 
 the kindness and bounty of Britain we recommend them ; and 
 should she in her goodness take them to herself, we shall es 
 teem it a signal favour. God knows we have had enough of 
 them and of their projects. 
 
 We have promised to consider the measure of retaliation, 
 in the Orders of the British Council so loudly complained of. 
 The Hon. Senator has attempted to justify the Berlin Decree 
 of the twenty-first of November 1806, as a retaliation of the 
 rule adopted in British Admiralty Courts in the war of 1756.* 
 
 ? The great importance of tpis subject seems to demand the intrpdwr 
 
[ 53 j 
 
 This may be called visiting the sins of the fathers on the 
 heads of their children. The principle of that rule we shall 
 not examine because we consider it as being at variance witfe 
 established maxims ; and because Great Britain has not main 
 tained it in her general practice. She has resorted to it occa 
 sionally to justify acts inconsistent with rights claimed by 
 neutral nations ; but (as we have already mentioned) at the 
 time of ihe Berlin Decree, the only exceptions to an undefin 
 ed liberty of commerce were, 1st, the case of contraband, a- 
 bout which there is no dispute : 2nd, the case of actual block 
 ade by a force sufficient to render access to the port blocka 
 ded difficult and dangerous ; on which also there is no dis 
 pute, except as to the circumstances of notice, amount of 
 force and the like, being mere questions of fact, which do not 
 affect the principle : and 3d, the case of a direct commerce 
 between the colonies of a belligerent and their mother coun 
 try. This restriction has been submitted to in practice gene 
 rally, and in principle by the present American administration 
 particularly. Mr. Madison in his letter to Messrs. Monroe 
 and Pinckney, of the 7th May, 1806, says : 
 
 / 
 
 tion here of the following Extract from 
 
 Falln s ORDONNANCES of Louis XIV. 1?04, 23d July. 
 Article VI page 248 252. 
 
 Vessels appertaining to the subjects of neutral comntrics, which have de 
 parted from the ports of an enemy of his Majesty, and shall have there 
 loaded in whole or in part^ to go to ports of any other Prince than their own, 
 whether allies of his Majesty, neutral or enemies, may be arrested and 
 brought into the realm, and shall be declared good prize, with their car 
 goes, even though they are loaded for account of subjects of his Majesty,, 
 neutrals, or allies. 
 
 Article J.V. sartie Ordonnance. 
 
 It is forbidden to stop vessels belonging to neutrals coming from the 
 ports of an ally, or neutrals going to au enemy s port, PRO VIDEO there are 
 not in said vessels any contraband articles, or ARTICLES of the GROWTH 
 or fabjick of his Majesty s enemies, in WHICH case, the merchandise 
 shall be good prize, and the vessels released. 
 Article VII. 
 
 Thus enemies 1 goods subject the ship which carries them, to confisca 
 tion, and all the rest of the cargo, whether these belong to friends, allies or 
 neutrals ; because it is to favour in one manner or another the commerce of 
 the enemy , and facilitates the transport of his provisions and merchandise. 
 
 It goes on to remark, that even if the neutral did wo* know the fact, the 
 property is nevertheless good prize, his own as well as the enemy s . 
 
 It is true, says Valin, this jurisprudence (or injustice) is peculiar to France 
 and Spain, and that in other countries they only seize enemies goods,and pay 
 freight to the neutral 
 
 Article XT. page 264 et suivantes. 
 
 We have reflected a little too late, perhaps, in France, on the carrying on 
 our trade in time of war in the ships of neutrals, as if we were in profound 
 peace, and it is only in this war that we have thought seriously of making 
 regulations under which neutrals may carry on commerce with our enemies. 
 
 The first object is to consider the proof of neutrality. For of what avail 
 would be neutrality, if neutrals could presume to use ships which in truth 
 bclgrig to enemies? 
 
{ 54 ] 
 
 * The abuses which have been committed by Great Bri- 
 a tain, under the pretext that a neutral trade from enemy s 
 ** colonies through neutral ports was a direct trade, render it 
 ** indispensable to guard against such a pretext, by some ex* 
 " press declaration on that point The most that can be con- 
 " ceded on the part of the United States is, that the landing 
 < the goods, the securing the duties, and the change of the 
 " ship, or preferably, the landing of the goods alone, or with 
 " the securing the duties, shall be requisite to destroy the iden-* 
 " tity of the voyage, and the directness of the trade." 
 
 Although we cannot agree, that the United States ought to 
 give up the principle, that property going from our ports, in 
 our own ships, shall be free from capture, whatever may have 
 been the antecedent circumstances, yet in candour we feel 
 ourselves bound to acknowledge that the ground on which 
 our rulers proceeded is, in some respects, solid. 
 
 The law of nations consists in general of the principles of 
 reason and justice, applied to the subject on which any ques 
 tion may arise. But there is, moreover, a conventional law 
 of nations, being the purport of certain general agreements 
 among particular nations. Thus from the general principle, 
 that the victor, having over the conquered an unlimited pow 
 er of life and death, might if he pleased, reduce his prisoners 
 to slavery, Christians have made a great exception. The pow- 
 
 To regulate this point, several things have been settled. By the follow 
 ing decree, 21st Oct. 1744, the king having had represented to him the 
 decree of 23d July, 1704, concerning prizes, and the navigation of neutrals 
 and allies pending the war, his majesty would have admitted the same te 
 be wise and suitable, and that it would be for the^good of his realm, that 
 they should all be renewed in the present war ; but, as they do not agree 
 with some treaties which his majesty has made with certain powers, 
 which he is determined to regard with scrupulous fidelity : Therefore 
 decreed : 
 
 1. Ships going from a neutral port, and loaded with their own articles, of 
 their growth, may go even to enemies ports. 
 
 2. Ships going even from an enemy s port loaded with any produce not 
 belonging to enemies, may return to their own ports. 
 
 3. Any vessel bound from one neutral port to another neutral port may 
 go freely, if she is not laden with goods the growth or manufacture of the 
 enemy, in Avhich latter case the goods shall be good prize, and the vessel 
 released. 
 
 4. So if a neutral ship depart from a port of his Majesty or his allies, 
 and is laden with goods the growth or manufacture o.f his enemies, the 
 goods shaH be lawful prize. 
 
 Article 6 declares, that, to remove all doubt, all neutral vessels going 
 from an enemy s port, and which shall there have loaded in whole or in part, 
 and destined to any other country than the one to which such neutral be- 
 loags, whether an ally of his majesty, neutral or enemy, may be seized, 
 "brought in and declared good prize, with their cargoes, though loaded on. 
 the account of allies or of neutrals. 
 
 The foregoing extracts are either literal translations, or passages con 
 densed for the Sake of brevity, preserving strictly the idea of the aufcher. 
 
t 55 ] 
 
 er is restrained to the period of resistance. From the moment 
 of submission, it becomes a duty to spare, and finally to re 
 store to their country, the captives made in war. To men 
 tion all the conventional articles, in publick law, would require 
 a volume : they are of various kinds, some of which extend 
 the rights of hostility ; or, in other words, abridge the rights 
 of neutrality : for the rights of war between the belligerents 
 themselves (as laid down by the most respected writers) can^ 
 not be extended ; seeing that they go to the complete exter 
 mination of the conquered. This was no uncommon practice 
 among the nations of antiquity. The general (and we may 
 indeed say the universal) practice of nations which have colo 
 nies, to confine the commerce of those colonies to the parent 
 state, formed by itself, and in its effects, a part of that conven 
 tional law. A flippant sophist may pretend that the United 
 States cannot be bound by this convention, to which they ne 
 ver assented ; but the answer of Europe is simple and conclu 
 sive : Those who claim to be members of a society, and en 
 joy the benefit of its laws, must submit to those laws to all 
 those laws ; since otherwise each member might prescribe his 
 own convenience as a rule to every other. Besides, we have 
 in some sort assented to this very compact. In our treaties 
 with the nations of Europe, we agree to reciprocal principles 
 and regulations respecting all our ports and their European 
 ports ; excepting from the general principle , and making spe 
 cial provisien for their colonies : nay, agreeing to particular 
 stipulations for the privileges allowed to us in the colonial 
 trade. From this conventional law it has resulted, that bel 
 ligerents have assumed (and perhaps justly) the right to insist 
 that property carried to and fro between the mother country 
 and its colonies is the property of an enemy, To the offer of 
 evidence when claimed as neutral, they reply that such evi 
 dence is unworthy of notice ; because it must consist either 
 ef the official papers issued by the enemy, which in the state 
 ef war, and framed so as to cover goods from hostile pursuit, 
 prove nothing ; or of the deposition of witnesses, some of 
 which may easily be deceived into a belief of what is not 
 true, and the others, who (from the necessity of the case) are 
 admitted to a knowledge of the transaction, are interested in 
 concealing the truth, and have engaged in or been employed 
 to carry on the trade, because they are not scrupulous about 
 oaths. That such direct trade may, if permitted, be prosecu 
 ted on account of the enemy, no man will have the hardihood 
 to deny : and perhaps it is for the general interests of man 
 kind that a traffick which involves the breach of oaths should b*? 
 
( so 1 
 
 inhibited. Certain it is, that France, in the sense of her 
 inferiority, and in the consciousness that she would not justify 
 or could not prevail on other nations to assert the claim that 
 during war neutrals should be allowed to carry on her trade 
 with her colonies, took a different course. She has laboured 
 unremittingly to establish (by general agreement) the princi 
 ple that free ships shall make free goods. A convention to 
 which the nation most powerful at sea will never consent ; 
 and which, if made^S would be broken by France whenever it 
 should suit her views. Of this we have complete evidence* 
 Nay, we assert, and defy contradiction, that (within the last 
 twenty years) France has constantly violated every principle 
 of publick law, and every treaty which stood in her way. If 
 the Honourable Senator entertains a different opinion, let him 
 cite the single instance wherein she has respected, either her 
 publick faith pledged by treaty, or the principles of reason and 
 justice, when it suited her interest to set them at nought. 
 
 We say then, in justification of our rulers (or at least in 
 palliation, if we are right in our opinion that they have con 
 ceded an important right of sovereignty) that they may have 
 agreed with Great Britain as to the direct trade between co 
 lonies and the mother country ; and may, from a sense of 
 justice, as well as to avoid a conflict of claims where there is 
 no common judge, have assented to the principle that merely 
 to enter a port of the United States, in going from Martinique 
 to France, does not break the continuity of the voyage : that, 
 to every essential or important purpose, it is a direct voy 
 age from Martinique to France, as much as a voyage to the 
 Cape of Good Hope or Isle of France and thence to Canton 
 is a direct voyage to China. It is evident that, unless in this 
 single instance, we had agreed to no infraction of our rights 
 by Great Britain ; and that it was in this instance a matter of 
 question whether she had gone beyond the true line. But 
 admitting that she had, the wrong done was little, if at all, h> 
 jurious to France. 
 
 We pray it may be constantly kept in mind, that the right 
 of France to limit our commerce, in a manner not justified 
 by publick law, could arise only from our submission to en 
 croachments on our rights by her enemy, in a manner injuri 
 ous to her. As to the fanciful doctrine of the Honourable Se 
 nator, that the rule of 1756, by extending the theatre of hos 
 tility, violated the rights of war as between the belligerents, it 
 may be a good theme for boys to debate about by way of 
 sharpening their wits, but it is unworthy the notice of men. 
 ^ is, besides, a matter which neutrals have nothing to do with, 
 
[ 57 j 
 
 unless called on to join hi a crusade against Great Britain (utt 
 der the banners of that pious Christian and kind creature Na 
 poleon) to restore the rights of humanity to their " temple in 
 the heart of kings." What is it to us whether the rule of 
 1756 was a crime greater than if Charles Fox had hired an" 
 assassin to stab the French Emperor ? The Honourable Se 
 nator says it is. Let it then, in complaisance to him, be so 
 set down. Bjit if Fox, or his successor in office, had hired a 
 hundred assassins to cut off the whole Corsican race, would 
 any of them have been justified, by that atrocity, in plunder 
 ing us ? How in the name of sense can we be answerable 
 for the vices of Charles Fox, or assume merit for his virtues ? 
 
 There are men who will say that neutrals have a right to 
 insist on the principle of free ships free goods : and that the 
 relinquishment of our rights to cover French goods against 
 the pursuit of her enemy, will justify her in a measure of re 
 taliation. To this it may be proper to reply : 
 
 First, that the pretended right has no existence, and that 
 France has acknowledged this by making (with us) a special stip 
 ulation to that effect : Secondly, that this pretended right can 
 exist only as an extension of the protection given to the pro 
 perty of an enemy in a neutral country. But France has 
 made it the invariable practice to seize goods of her enemy, 
 even in neutral countries ; which (whatever may be her ver 
 bal claims or pretences) amounts to an actual abandon 
 ment of the alledged principle, as to ships, while it is a vi 
 olation of the acknowledged principle as to territory : from 
 which alone the assumption of the principle as to ships .can 
 be derived. Thirdly, France has violated, with respect to us, 
 this very stipulation in her own treaty, and justified the vio 
 lation on the ground, that it was injurious to her interest that- 
 British property should be secured on board of our ships, while 
 French property was insecure, and therefore she would not 
 observe the stipulations of her treaty, which were unreasona- 
 blt and burthensome. 
 
 But we will suppose, for argument s sake,! that the princi 
 ple free ships free goods is a principle of publick law, altho* 
 the very contrary is the truth. It would follow, that if we 
 permitted one of the belligerents to violate it, in regard to us^ 
 the other belligerent would have the same right. That our 
 submission to the wrong done by one, would give to the oth 
 er a right to commit the same act. This we acknowledge to 
 be a rule of right reason, derived from the duty of neutrals to 
 deal equally between the belligerents, not withholding from 
 oe what is granted to the other, uor imposiag restraints on 
 
 t 
 
{ 58 ] 
 
 one, not imposed on the other, unless in execution of an ante 
 cedent treaty. But should either of the belligerents go far 
 ther in retaliation than the original wrong, it would he a vio 
 lation of our rights as complete as the primary violation by 
 his adversary, and would (if submitted to by us) give that ad 
 versary a perfect right to commit the same acts. It is pro 
 per to note, as we go along, that, in the present condition of 
 mankind, the word neutral) in the orders and decrees of the 
 powers at war, can mean only American ; we being now the 
 only neutrals left ; if indeed we can be called neutral, when 
 France seizes and confiscates our goods, takes and destroys 
 our ships, and insists that we shall " declare war against her 
 
 enemy, or " 
 
 From what has been said it will appear that the Berlin De 
 cree was not founded on any act of Great Britain submitted 
 to by us, and that if we had permitted a violation of our 
 rights, in a manner injurious to France, she could not thereby 
 acquire a right to exceed he measure of what we had so 
 submitted to. But the Berlin Decree not only exceeded eve 
 ry thing which Britain had ever done or pretended to do, but 
 whatever had been previously attempted, as far as our infor 
 mation extends, by any nation in modern times. When this 
 Decree reached London, the American ministers were told 
 frankly and distinctly, 
 
 4 That in case the United States submitted to a violation of 
 their neutral rights by France, in the manner contemplated 
 by that Decree, it would be impossible for Great Britain" to 
 < respect them. 
 
 This Decree was issued at Berlin on the twenty-first day 
 of November, 1806, and yet the Honourable Senator com 
 plains that the British Orders, consequent on our submission 
 to France, and which were not issued till November, 1807; 
 were sudden, unexpected, and that they burst all at once, &c. 
 It is true some correspondence took place between the Ame 
 rican Minister at Paris and the French Ministers, which in 
 duced the former to believe the Decree was not to take ef 
 fect against us. The President declared this to be the case, 
 and it was supposed by credulous people that all was safe. 
 Discreet men, however, placed little confidence in half way 
 comments of Ministers, at variance with the imperial text. 
 After the lapse of near twelve months, viz. on the 24th of 
 September, the American Minister learnt that " constructions 
 injurious to the United States, were about to be given to it," 
 and applied to the Minister of Foreign Relations tor informa 
 tion. To this the Minister replied, on the 7th i October, 
 thus: 
 
[ 59 ] 
 
 t g IR You did me the honour, on the 24th of September, 
 to request me to send you some explanations as to the exe- 
 cution of the Decree of Blockade of the British Islands 
 
 * against vessels of the United States. The provisions of all 
 
 * the regulations and treaties, relative to a state of blockade, 
 
 * have appeared applicable to the existing circumstances ; 
 and it results from the explanations which have been ad- 
 
 * dressed to me by the Imperial Advocate General of the 
 
 * Council of Prizes, that his majesty has considered every 
 
 * neutral vessel going from English ports with cargoes of 
 English merchandise or of English origin as lawfully seiz- 
 
 * able by French armed vessels." 
 
 Without stopping to inquire whether General Armstrong 
 was duped by insidious or deceived by false assertions, it is 
 evident that the decree was levelled against us. Indeed, it 
 could hit nobody else ; for as Mr. Champagny tells the Gene 
 ral, in the same letter, " the principal powers of Europe (far 
 from protesting against its provisions) have adopted them." 
 By the by, this reasoning, addressed to us, was equally deli 
 cate and conclusive. It is (in other words) the states which 
 ive have subdued have d-me as we bid them ; you ought to 
 imitate their example. The right of Great-Britain to retal 
 iate this Berlin Decree, if not resisted by us, was unquestion 
 able. To have been a quiet spectator, with a thousand ships 
 of war at her command, and permitted neutrals to trade with 
 her enemy when that enemy had prohibited them from trad 
 ing with her, under pain of confiscation, would have been 
 an extreme of folly. It cannot be pretended that she was pre 
 cipitate in retaliating. It wanted but ten days of a year from 
 the time the Berlin Decree was issued, to the date of her Or 
 ders. Was her retaliation severe ? Did it entrench more on 
 our rights than the French Decree ? Certainly not. Far from 
 prohibiting our trade with French ports, generally, all except 
 those of Europe were left open to us. Far from making im 
 mediate prize of vessels bound to the blockaded ports, full 
 time was allowed for information. Far from interdicting the 
 commerce with Europe, absolutely, it was allowed under cer 
 tain conditions. Of these conditions we shall not say much, 
 although much has been said by the Honourable Senator. He 
 has taken occasion to indulge in declamations on British li 
 cense, British taxation and the like, declaring that if we sub 
 mit to the execution of those orders, we become Colonies of 
 England : but not reflecting that a like submission to the se 
 verer French Decree must, according to his own doctrine, 
 baye already reduced us to the state of French Provinces, If 
 
[ eo j 
 
 England had the right to inhibit the trade absolutely, she had 
 a right to permit it conditionally. If she had not, it is our 
 business to resist by such means as may be in our power. In 
 this case we are reduced to the option of declaring war a- 
 gainst the first or the second aggressor, or of submitting to 
 both : for we hold that the dignified retirement so much talk 
 ed of is an actual submission to both. France declares, and 
 is joined by her tributary powers, that if we trade with Eng 
 land we shall be made prize of ; and England declares the 
 same thing if we trade with France and her tributary pow 
 ers, comprising in effect the Continent of Europe. We lay 
 an Embargo on all our ships, and therefore, in obedience to 
 France, we decline trading with England ; and, in obedience 
 to England, we decline trading with the Continent of Europe. 
 So much for the dignity of our retiring system. 
 
 Having got so near the end of those alternations of hostili 
 ty, which the Honourable Senator considers as sprouts from 
 fbe root of the rule of 1756, it may not be amiss to give a 
 glance at the last twigs. 
 
 The Milan Decree of the 17th December last, in retalia 
 tion of the British Orders of the 1 1th of November preceding, 
 recites (as a heinous offence) that neutral vessels were not 
 only subjected to search, but to be compulsorily detained in 
 England, and even to hav* a lax laid on them. It is wor 
 thy of remark that the French Emperor could not discover, 
 in these Orders, all that confiscation which has furnished a 
 doleful paragraph to our Honourable Senator. The reason of 
 \vhich we take to be, that little as the great Napoleon cares 
 about the opinions men form of his heart, he is not quite so 
 indifferent to what they may think of his understanding. 
 Another thing worthy of remark is, that the French Empe 
 ror seems wholly to have forgotten how, by his Berlin De 
 cree, neutrals trading with England were made liable to con 
 fiscation ; and condemns in terms of high resentment the im 
 position of a tax by England on the trade of neutrals with 
 hi;n and his allies. In this course he has been followed, with 
 perfect exactness, by the Honourable Senator. His majesty 
 then, in the plenitude of his power, confiscates American ves 
 sels, that shall have submitted to be searched by a British 
 man of war, on their voyage to his ports, or those of his al 
 lies. This mild and equitable disposition is made of our 
 prop-jay l>y his imperial majesty, lest the English should avail 
 th -Tiselves of our tolerance "to establish the infamous princi 
 ple that the flag of a nation does not cover goods." 8ut 
 tiiej-4 fa* iii.j^sty, in his great goodness, declares that this 
 
t 61 3 
 
 Decree tf shall cease to have any effect with respect to all 
 nations who shall have the firmness to compel the English 
 Government to respect their flag." That is to say, he will 
 continue to make prize of all American property he can lay 
 his hands on, unless we go to war with England. But, says 
 the Honourable Senator, the French Emperor has not declar 
 ed there should be no neutrals. 
 
 One would think the language of this Milan Decree suffi 
 ciently clear and distinct ; whether General Armstrong thought 
 it could be explained away, we know not. His correspon 
 dence has been withheld. But we have Mr. Champagny s 
 letter, of January, which mentions different notes received 
 from the general and laid before his majesty. In his answer 
 it is said : 
 
 No recourse against the power of England is any longer 
 
 * to be found in the ordinary means of repression. In cider 
 
 * to annoy her it is become necessary to turn against her the 
 
 * arms which she makes use of herself. The United States, 
 
 * more than any power, have to cemplain of the aggressions of 
 
 * England. In the situation in which England has placed the 
 
 * continent, especially since her Decree of the llth Novem- 
 
 * ber, his Majesty has no doubt of a declaration of war against 
 her by the United States. In that persuasion his Majesty, 
 
 * ready to consider the United States as associated with the 
 
 * cause of all the powers who have to defend themselves a- 
 
 * gainst England, has not taken any definitive measure respect- 
 
 * ing the American vessels w 7 hjch have been brought into his 
 ports. He has ordered that they should remain sequestered, 
 
 * until a decision may be had thereon according to the disposi- 
 
 * tion which shall have been expressed by the government of 
 
 * the United States. 9 
 
 " Still however," says Adams, " his Imperial Majesty has 
 not declared there shall be no neutrals." He has not required 
 that we should shut our ports against the English No : He 
 only considers us at war with his enemy, and is ready to con 
 sider us as associated with all the powers whc have shut their 
 ports against the English, and in the mean time,imf il we declare 
 war for ourselves, he will take all American property which 
 comes within his reach ; and if we do not declare war a- 
 gainst England, he wil) confiscate it that s all. So far is 
 he from declaring there shall be no neutrals, that he will on* 
 ly make war upon us if we do not make war upon England 
 that s all. Il we choose to call ourselves neutral, he has no 
 sort of objection, but he will consider and treat us as enemies 
 that s all. 
 
[ 62 ] 
 
 And now, fellow citizens, having gone through Vvith our 
 comments OH this letter of Mr. John Q,. Adams, which we 
 consider in the light of a manifesto by our administration, it 
 might be expected that we should endeavour to pour into your 
 bosoms all that indignation which swells our own. But we 
 forbear. If there be still any true born American who can ad 
 here to the rotten cause which Mr. Adams has espoused, we 
 leave him in the hands of Mr. Adams and his associates. And 
 if the strong sentiment which binds us to our country would 
 permit us to see without extreme concern, much less to wish, 
 thrit evil should befal her, we might wish that men so blind 
 should continue subject to that misnule, u-ider which the wealth 
 of America h,.s been wasted, her dignity prostrated, her re 
 putation lost, her prosperity dried up, her liberties invaded, 
 and her independence sacrificed. 
 
Return to desk from which 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 SJun SOFRF 
 
 
 
 REC D UD 
 
YB 37410 
 
 5<9G. 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY A t