rn so I r ~ 3 - 4? mmw PEACE WITHOUT DISHONOUR. WAR WITHOUT HOPE. AN ARGUMENT AGAINST WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN. RECENTLY PUBLISHED AT BOSTON. BY AN AMERICAN FARMER. LONDON : REPRINTED FOB j. BUTTERWORTH, FLEET STREET/ 1807. G. Woodfall, Printer, Paternoster-row. 357-3 . I?* . TO THE PUBLIC. IT cannot be expected, that a farmer should display the ornaments of a polished style The au- thor has aimed only at perspicuity, impartiality, and truth. A boldness and freedom characteristick of the real, ancient New England farmers, will be found strongly marked in every part of this little essay. The publick good is the , author's only object true patriotism his only stimulus and the promotion of justice, and vindication of our national good faith, his only aim. In these times of party spirit he cannot hope to escape censure. His love of truth his display of ^ our own errors his disposition to render justice to 3-j other nations will probably be attributed to the basest motives For such is too often the fashion of the (U 14 day to abuse those whom we cannot answer. OJ It would not surprise him, if he should even be called an old Tory or a British hireling ; for he has often remarked that this is a species of argu- ment which never fails of success, when all other reasoning or abuse is found ineffectual. But lie shall despise the calumnies, and smile at the attacks of all the partizans of war, a few of whom, broken in fortune and reputation, can only hope to rebuild both on the ruins of their Country. TO THE FARMERS, MERCHANTS, AND MECHANICKS OF NEW-ENGLAND. FELLOW CITIZE?s 7 S, IF at any time a citizen is justified in making- an ap- peal to your understanding, to your sober reason If a cool and dispassionate display of your danger, and your true interests be at any period a duty, it surely becomes such, when you are threatened with a calamity by which your rights, liberties, property, and livea are to be exposed to the most imminent clanger. *We are told by the public newspapers which have usually been the vehicles of the language of our administration we are also informed, that many verv influential men in and out of the administration, concur with the public papers in declaring, " that War will probably take place, and that it is inevitable, unless the government of Great Britain should ma-j ample reparation for the attack on our frigate the Chesapeake." We also know, that all descriptions of people hi Great Britain, however opposed in political opinions, concurred in one sentiment, that Great Britain never could, and never ought to yield the principle for which they believed that we contend, the right of enlisting and harbouring the deserters from their publick ships of war. It is rendered almost certain, therefore, that Great Britain, " while she will explicitly disavow the claim to search our na- tional ships ofn-ar, will nevertheless contend, that we have no right to enlist her deserters, and protect them under our publick flag, but that if we do so conduct, and refuse to deliver them on demand, * See the language of the Natnnal Intelligencer, and of the Aurora, who con- sider war as inevitable, unless Great Britain grants reparation for the attack oa the Chesajeske. Mr. Gallatin, Mr. Dearborn, and other publick offers an alledged to have declared that war is to be expected. *be will retake them by force, on a common jurisdiction, the Higk Seas." If such should be her final decision, as we have reason to fear, she cannot punish Admiral Berkeley without manifest in- justice to him. If, therefore, our administration are sincere in their determina- tion to go to war, unless reparation be made for the attack on the Chesapeake, war seems, as they privately assert, to be inevitable, unless the prudent and temperate deliberations of Congress, or the seasonable expression of public opinion, shall check this destruc- tive, and I may add, rash policy. War, at all times a publick ca- lamity, becomes peculiarly alarming and destructive to a nation, which has been for twenly-four years exclusively devoted to the arts of peace which has neglected every mean of national de- fence which has devoted none of its revenues to a wise prepara- tion for war, to which all nations are occasionally exposed. It js peculiarly alarming to a nation, governed by an administration not only destitute of military talents, but who have always avow- ed their opposition to every thing like military preparation, and who, while they have professed to rely upon the most frail of all supports, the justice of nations, and have therefore neglected every mean of preparation or defence, have most unfortunately brought us to the verge of a most awful precipice, where we have no alternative but either to plunge headlong to a certain and de- structive fate, or to retrace our steps, as they say, with ignominy and disgrace. If at a moment so eventful, and in a position so tremendous, any friendly hand should point out to us a path by which we might save both our lives and our honour, one would na- turally imagine, that it ought to excite our gratitude, rather than our hatred to merit our thanks, rather than punishment ; but other doctrines seem to prevail. The friends of the administration, wounded at the true picture of our situation, provoked that any man should unanswerably prove some errors in our own conduct which diminish the justice, and of course, the necessity of a war, have advanced an idea, novel in the history of free nations, that* "it * Extract from the National Intelligencer, in answer to Pacificus, a writer in thr Boston Centinel, against the necessity of War. This may be found in the Palla- dium, of September *9> in a piece entitled " Modern Liberty.'* 6 is treason to question the justice or expediency of a war/' even be- fore the only constituted authority authorized to decide this ques- tion, the Legislature, had convened to deliberate upon it The example of Great Britain, whose tyrannical principles have X> long been the theme of popular harangue, one would think would he conclusive on this point and that whatever may be done with impunity in that monarchial and severe government, might certainly be permitted in our free and enlightened country. It is well known that all the publick writers in England, both before and after the decision of Parliament, as to the question of war, under- take to arraign its justice, its policy, its necessity, its expedience, their own weakness, the means which they have of annoying the enemy, and to magnify the resources, power, and talents of their foes : nor can there be found, in a single instance, an attempt to Check this freedom of enquiry, either by prosecution or threats. If this example, and the explicit language of our own Constitu- tions were not sufficient authority, we might cite an illustrious man, whose opinions a large part of the tommunity would be un- willing to question. President Jefferson lays it down as an esta- blished axiom, " that the utmost liberty of the press may be safely indulged, in such a country as ours, and that errors in opinions can do no injury, where reason is left free to combat them." If this doctrine be true in ordinary cases, how much more strong its application to the important questions of war and peace ? To what terrible consequences would the tyrannical doctrine of the National Intelligencer, above quoted, lead us ? A foreign nation makes an attack which. is alledged to be cause of war : Such an attack must always involve a question of fact, and a question of law or right. If the opinion of any particular set of men, even of dig- nified officers, could be conclusive as to these two questions: If no pri- vate citizen who might be in possession of better evidence as to the facts, or better authority as to the law, could divulge these facts, and make known his principles of law, it would follow that our Constitution would be a dead letter; the Legislature would be- come mere tools in the hands of the executive, and the nation might be involved m all the calamities ef war at the pleasure of a single 8 man. But the doctrine of the Government paper goes farther, you can not only not discuss the question of right, but you must be silent as to the resources or ability of the nation to gain the object of the war. The opinion of the Executive is conclusive on this point also The National Intelligencer tells the people of the United States, that Great Britain has done anunprovoked act, which justifies a de- claration of war on our part; this point, it says, it is treason in any body to disprove. It adds, that this war would be expedient, because " we can bring Great Britain to our feet. We can ruin her manufacturers ; we can starve her colonies ; we can take Ca- nada and Nova-Scotia : while the injury will be trifling to our- selves, as we can supply ourselves as plentifully with foreign goods by prizes we shall take, as we are now supplied by commerce ; and our produce will meet as ready a sale in war as in peace." But any attempt to disprove these propositions, especially if made with truth and ability, it declares to be the high offence of treason, inasmuch as it tends to prove the opinions of great men erroneous, and to discourage the people from undertaking a war, which those great men have resolved to wage. , Braving all the dangers to which those writers are exposed, who venture to give light to the people, on this most interesting subject, and despising the threats of prosecution for treason, I shall attempt to develope the principles, to trace the history, and to expose the facts in relatipn to our alledged cause of complaint against Eng- land; to examine our own conduct, and the allegation so often made, that the attack on our National flag, was wholly without provocation j and lastly, to consider the expediency of war, in \vhich will be involved, its objects the prospect of success or de- feat ; our resources, and means of annoyance of our proposed ene- my ; and the power, situation, and interests of the nation with whom we are about to contend; and I shall conclude with con- sidering the effects of such a war, whether it prove successful or dis- graceful upon our general politicks, interior and exterior, and upon those great and permanent interests, which Ought never to be over- looked when we are weighing minor questions, or debating upon injuries and incidents which do not affect, or compromise our welfare or existence. It will not be denied, that on the 24th day of June last, when the attack was made on the Chesapeake, the relations between Great Britain and the United States, were those of peace and amity. This is proved by the declarations of the President to Congress, and the communications of our Ministers at the Court of Great Britain, which were laid before that honourable body.* It is farther proved by the language of the British Ministers in and out of Parliament, and by the circumstance of our Ministers extraordinary having signed a Treaty of Amity, which settled all our differences, except the single one, of the right of search of merchant ships for British seamen, and on which point> it is said from good authority, Great Britain was ready and offered to yield the right of search except as it respected the narrow seas, or that portion of the sea which immediately surrounds Great Bri- tain, and where the danger of the loss of their seamen, who are their only defence, was peculiarly imminent. It cannot be doubted, therefore, that peace, so much to be de- sired by this country, would not have been interrupted, and that our profitable neutrality would have been continued, had it not been for the affair of the Chesapeake, which cannot be too much deplored. The question, therefore, is limited to the examination of the causes of that unfortunate act, and of the consequences which ought to result from it. As a great portion of the irritation which has been produced, txcited, and encouraged, has proceeded from an ignorance of the: facts which preceded and accompanied that affair, it will be use- ful, before we enter into an investigation of the Law of Nations upon this subject, to settle, as far as possible, these facts. In the summer of 1 806, a French squadron of line of battle ships and frigates having met with a gale upon our coasts, a part of them took refuge in the Chesapeake, to shelter themselves from their enemies. This rendered it necessary for Great Britain to detach a squadron to watch the motion of their enemies, and they accordingly, as they lawfully might, took their station in Hampton Roads. By the Law of Nations, and the principles of an impaf- * S? the President's Communications to Congress, on this subject. ft 10 tial neutrality, we owed to both these squadrons, equal protectiwt While we permitted the French to repair and refit their ships, re., claim their deserters, and to prepare to encounter their enemies, the hwsof hospitality equally demanded, that we should allow equal privileges and indulgence to the British squadron, and more especially that we should not countenance or encourage any measures by which their means of encountering their enemy should be, while they were under our protection, wealcened. * On the 7th day of March last, five British seamen belonging to the British sloop of war Halifax, Lord James Townshend com- mander, while employed in weighing the anchor, rose upon their officer, threatened tomurdcr him, and made off with the boat to the American shore, where they landed. Their names were, Rich- ard Hubert, sail-maker, born in Liverpool ; Henry Saurvders, yeoman of the sheets, born in Greenock ; Jenkin Ratford, born in London ; George North, captain of the main-top, born in Kinsale; and William Hill, born in Philadelphia; who entered in a British port voluntarily, viz. in Antigua. The facts of their birth and citizenship were taken from the ship's books, and were sworn to have been their ottn declarations at the time of their entry on board the ship. The nature of the evidence is conclusive,' and Us fairness is strongly marked by their not attempting to conceal the fact, that one of the fire was born in Philadelphia. The very clay after their landing, they were enlisted as part of th crew of the United States ship Chesapeake. Perhaps this wa* done ignorantly, though it is worthy of remark, that an English- man, and especially a Scotchman and Irishman, may be almost as readily discerned from an American, by those who are conversant with sailors, as a black man can be distinguished from a white one, It is certain, however, that these men could not hav* been pos- sessed of American protections. The very day after the enlist- ment,' Lord James Townshend demanded these men of Lieute- nant Sinclair, the recruiiing officer of the Chesapeake. The go- * For these fact?, s^e the affidavits of the. commander and officer* of the Halifax, printed in ~tUu Trial of Jinkin Ration], oae of the mutineers, and re> f tinted at Bostcw. 11 rernment of the United States had, as Captain Barren asserts, ot- dered the recruiting officers not to enlist British deserters. These deserters were not at this time onboard the ship, but at the rendez- vous. It naturally occurs to ask, why did not Lieutenant Sin- clair, in obedience to the orders of the government, immediately discharge these men * If he had enlisted them ignorantly* the spirit, nay, the letter of his orders, obliged him to discharge them as soon as he knew from the highest authority, their commanding officer, that they were deserters from his ship. Many honest well meaning men have contended, that the word f a publick officer ought to be respected. This is an excellent general principle, and the observance of it would tend very much to preserve the peace of nations : but we should not forget that this rule has a double application. It ope- rates as much in favour of the officers of other nations as of our own. When, therefore, Lord James Townshend pledged his word to Lieutenant Sinclair, that the men whom he had enlisted, con- trary to the orders of our government, were his sailors, and that the British government had ^.property in their services, it was as much the duty of Lieutenant Sinclair to give full faith to the word of Captain Townshend, as it was the duty of Captain Humphreys to give credit to the declaration of Captain Barron : it was still stronger ; Lieutenant Sinclair did not, could not know that the declaration of Lord Townshend was untrue ; but Captain Hum- phreys did know that the declaration of Gommodore Barron was unfounded, and he turned out to be right in the fact. Lieutenant Sinclair made an evasive answer to the application of Captain Townshend, and did not deliver or discharge the men. An application was then made to Captain Decatur, who referred him back to Sinclair. The British Consul applied to the Mayor of Norfolk for these men, but without effect and lastly, the British Minister applied to our government, who replied, that they had on a former occasion stated their reasons for not complying with their request, and that moreover the men were Americans. These men, who, with the exception of Hill, were all natite British seamen, and had no claims from residence or other causes >n our protection, were all continued on board the Chesapeake, 12 while at Washington, under the eye of our government. No measures appear to have been taken to ascertain their claims to our protection. No evidence down to this day has ever been pub* lished in relation to either of these men. We must conclude, therefore, that they are, as the British have proved under oath, all native British seamen, except William Hill. It cannot be pre tended that the government are in possession of evidence in respect to them which it does not think it important to publish, because we know that they have been at great pains to collect and publish the evidence with respect to three other seamen, whose case has no connection with the cause of the attack on the Chesapeake. These seamen were among the crew of the Chesapeake at the, period of the said four several, solemn demands, and continued on board till the ship sailed down the river, when four of them deserted. The fifth, Jenkin Ratford, remained on board till after the last de- mand made by Captain Humphreys, and to which demand Cap- tain Barron replied, that " he knew of no such men as Captain Humphreys described." After the action, Ralford was found hid in the coal hole of the Chesapeake, and has since been tried, found guilty of mutiny and executed. He confessed himself to be 3 native of London, that he had entered his Britannick Majesty's service voluntarily ; that he was persuaded to e,nter on board the Chesapeake, in order to protect himself from the search of his offi- cers, and that on his entering, he was asked if he had not a second name ; that he thereupon entered by the name of Wilson. As soon as these repeated demands and refusals were known to the commander in chief, Admiral Berkeley, finding, as he alledges, that the seamen of the British fleet were deserting every day, he issued the order referred to in the note below,* in substance direct? ing the officers of his Majesty's ships under his command, to re- quire permission of the Captain of the Chesapeake to search that ship, on the high seas, for the deserters referred to in said order, and to proceed and search for the same, a.t the same time offering a like and reciprocal permission to the American officers. Captain, Humphreys, of the Leopard, was entrusted with the execution of this order, and the manner in which he executed it, is too wel ' * gee Admiral Berkeley's or demanded and taken. George North, of Kirisale, i demanded, but escaped from tltt; Chess - William Hill, of Philadelphia, J do. do. fpeakc- [See the continuation of this note in tkf mut * 16 In fact no evidence has yet been, and no evidence ever can be adduced to prove that the seamen demanded, and whose protection by us was the sole cause of attack, were Americans; because they were and have been proved by the highest evidence to be native British stamen. But since the case of the men taken from the Melampus, has fceen blended with that of the others, let us see how the facts turn out as to them. Instead of supporting the proclamation, as to the fact of their* having been ascei-tained to be native citizens, it turns out, that Capt. Barren had simply taken the story of the culprits : It turns out further, that one of them was born at Bonaire, in Spanish Ameri- ca, and was not even a citizen of the United States ; that the two others were black men, born slaves in Maryland, and strictly therefore, not native citizens, though natives. That they all told Capt. Barren a falsehood, in stating that they had been impressed on board the Melampus, because they referred to their former master, Capt Crafts, who states, that he suspected and charged them with theft in England, that tlwy therefore absconded, and in order to protect themselves, entered on board the Melampus voluntarily. Capt. Crafts, pleased, probably, with getting rid of such rascals, never demanded them either of the Captain of the Melampus, or of the British Government, after they were en- listed, and they remained on board that frigate till they again de- serted from tier in our country. Some honest men doubt, whether the British officers had a right to enlist these men; and if they had, whether they could re- claim them from us, after desertion. Protesting that it lias no connexion with the affair of the Chesa- peake, they not being the men demanded, I would observe, that it i* not competent for our Government to deny the right of our citi- zens to enter into foreign service, in a foreign jurisdiction, because' 1st. The present administration and all the party now in power ia Seamen deserted from the Melampus, John Strachan, of Maryland, "i not demanded, but taken. \Vil!iaui Ware, of Maryland, > do. do. Dank 1 Martin, of Bonaire, ) do. d. 17 tlie United States, opposed the plan of the Washington administra- tion to prohibit such conduct, and they contended that a citizen in time of peace, might expatriate himself at pleasure. The famous example of Commodore Barney must be in everyone's recollection. 2dly. The Act of Congress prohibiting our citizens from enter- ing into foreign service within our own territory, is a strong, and al- most irresistible implication that they may do it in other countries. 3dly. The late answer of our Government to the British Mi- nister, that we cannot slop to enquire of what country a man is a abject, when he offers himself to enlist as a soldier or sailor, is a perfect answer to us upon that subject. And our practice from the commencement of our Government to this day, of inviting, and naturalizing the citizens of all countries, even of nations at war, ought to make us perfectly silent on this topick. 4thly. If a man has a right to enlist in a foreign country, and tloes so enlist, signs the articles of war, receives the bounty and wages, he becomes to all intents and purposes a subject of his newly adopted country, and all our claims over him, and his to our protection absolutely cease. To illustrate this case, let u suppose that Capt. Barney had delivered up the frigate which he commanded, to the British in the Chesapeake, and had landed, and the French Government had demanded the delivery of him for the purpose of punishment, and had threatened us with war, in case of refusal, is there any doubt that we should have delivered him up ? And should we not be justly deemed accomplices of hi* crime, if we should refuse ? Now the case of these two black men, is precisely the same with that of Capt. Barney. Mr. Jefferson calls them citizens of the United Si*tes ; if so, their right of expatriation is as great as that of Captain Barney, or of Mr. Jefferson ; and when once legally entered into foreign service, if they desert, they are as much re- claimable as either of the others would be. I have briefly considered the case of these men belonging to the Melampus, because some people have, or pretend to have, scruples on this subject; but I repeat, that the case of these men forms no part of the real question. D IS It will constitute no part of the discussion between the tw countries; it does not affect the merit or demerit of Admiral Berkeley : He ordered his officers to take Richard Hubert, Jen- kin Ratford, and George North, these were all native Englishmen. His officers could find but one of those men, but they found three others, whom they had no orders to take, but who were deserters. If they were mistaken in these three last men, (which they were not} and had no right to take them, it does not render the order for taking the real Englishmen, and the actual execution of it by seizing one of them less correct. My brother farmers, will under- tand this better, if I put a case just like it. A Sheriffhas a war- rant to search a neighbour's barn for two stolen horses, suspected to be concealed there : He enters, and finds one of the stolen horses, and he also takes a cow, which he thinks was stolen from another neighbour. Suppose it should turn out that he should be wrong as to the cow ; does it render the warrant for the horse illegal, when he really found one of the stolen horses concealed there ? Thus, then 1 have considered, and stated all the facts as yet ascertained, as to the cause of this attack ; and it appears, that/our native British seamen and deserters, who deserted in our territory, were contrary to orders enlisted and entered in our ship Chesa- peake; that they were demanded of the inferior officers, and lastly of the Government, and were not delivered ; that a forcible at- tack was made to recover these men ; and though three of them had escaped, one was actually found concealed on board of our ship ; and that twenty British sailors were found to have been en- tered on board of her. 1 shall now proceed to examine the principles of the Law of Nations on this subject, and whether we were in good faith, oblig- ed to deliver up these deserters ? The first question which presents itself on this point is, how far the subjects of a nation in time of war, have a right to expatriate themselves, or to enlist in foreign service, even in ordinary cases, where they' have not entered into special engagements with their Sovereign ? On this point all the writers on the Law of Nations most of whom are on the side of freedom, and the privileges o the citizen, agree, that subjects not in publick employ, c*.mot expa- 19 triate themselves while their nation is at war. Burlamaqui, Vattel, Grotlus, and PufFendorf, all hold the same opinions, but as it would exceed the limits of this essay to quote the opinion of all of them at large, I shall confine myself to those of Grotius, a Dutch writer, whose excellent treatise on the rights of War and Peace, has been considered a standard work upon this subject. In the XXI Vth section of his Vth chapter, he lays it down as a general principle, that the subjects of any nation may change ibe r country at pleasure, to which general rule, he makes the fol- lowing exceptions : " And yet herein also, we are to submit to natural equity, that it should not be lawful when the public was damnified by it. For as Proculus observes, always not that whick is profitable to some one of the society is usually to be observed, but what is expedient for the whole. " But it is expedient for the whole, that in case any great debt be contracted, no citizen should forsake the city, until he have first paid his proportion of it. Also, if upon confidence of the number of their citizens, they have begun a war, but especially if they are in danger to be besieged, no citizen ought to forsake it, till he have first provided a person as able as himself to defend the Common- wealth." In this point all the writers on the Law of Nations are agreed, and if they had been silent, the dictates of common sense arid na- tural equity, and the first principles of the social compact, would have decided the question. In the case of Great Britain, all the reasoning of Grotius, ap- plies to the contest in which she is now engaged. It will not be denied that she has undertaken this war " in con- fidence of the number, and ability of her subjects ;" nor will it be questioned, " that slie is not only in danger, but is actually threa- tened with being besieged" by the most formidable power which the world has ever seen. We cannot, therefore, resist the conclu- sion of Grotius, that no private citizen of Great Britain has a right to forsake his country, without providing a person equally able to defend the Commonwealth. If this doctrine is true with respect to private citizens, who arc only bound by a tacit and implied contract, how much stronger i* 20 the principle when applied to persons in publick employ, bound by an ei-press agreement, obliged by their having received 4foe publick money tor their services, and on whose fidelity the ex- istence of the nation more immediately depends ? , All civilized nations have united in considering desertion from publick service, one of the most heinous offences. In America, France, and Great Britain, it has been often pu- nished with death. If it be therefore the highest crime, and one of the greatest inju- ries which a subject can do to his country to desert its service, can it be necessary to prove that it is unlawful for a friendly nation to receive, encourage, enlist, and defend by force such deserters ? In support of the monstrous opinion, that it is not unlawful, some people have remarked, that by the modern usages of na- tions, criminals who have committed offences less than murder and forgery, are by the courtesy of such nations, not demanded when they escape out of their own country into a foreign one. But let me ask, why are murderers and forgers excepted from the general rule ? Is it not alledged to be, because justice re. quires that such heinous criminals should not escape punishment? Because the peace of the nation, whose laws have been violated, requires that an example should be made of such great oftt-nders ? And suppose that it should be more important to a nation to require the delivery of her military deserters, than of the criminal* abovementioned, would she not have a right to require them ? On the question of the Colonial trade and of the impressment of seamen from our merchant ships, our Secretary of State founds his chief argument upon the silence of the writers of the Laws of Nations on those subjects. And cannot the argument be retorted, with equal force on this point? Not a dictum can be produced from any writer to prove that neutral or friendly nations have a right to protect the deserters from the service of belligerents: And yet all these writers discuss the question how far nations can har- bour the criminals who escape from other nations ; and if any such right as theone for which some Americans contend, Tsasci.no ive to exist, is it possible that some one of these numerous writers ?vould not have mentioned it ? 21 In fact the acknowledged usage of all civilized neutral in restoring such deserters from the armies or ships of nations at war, the absolute necessity of such an usage to the existence of nations, perfectly account for this silence. A fact which took place the last year, in our own country, proves that the French officers view it in this light. Admiral Willaumez met with an American brig at sea ; he found in her four deserters, who had escaped from the Valeureuse frigate. Not content with taking 1 them out, he writes a letter* in a most indignant strain, to his Mi* nister at our Court, anddesires him to demand satisfaction for thii misconduct ; not for the misconduct of one of our public officer), in enlisting his men and refusing to deliver them when demanded, but for the misconduct of a private citizen, in daring to employ men, who had been once in the service of his Imperial Majesty. This case, though an extravagant one, and partaking of the charac- ter tn French domination, is strong evidence of the general under- standing of military men, that " deserters from publick service cannot be harboured." Such seems to have been the impression of our own Government, "To Gen. TURREAU, French Ambassador at Washington. " MY LORD, " You have learnt hy'the arrival of some of my scattered ships in America, the unfortunate event by which they were separated from me." [Here Adii- .ral Willaumez gives the detail of the tempest] That at this date the Fou- droyant was nearly new masted, and proceeds to enforce to General Turreau fc how necessary it was that the ships which had put into the American ports in distress, should hasten to join him at the Havanna, where hi* squadron if col- lected and united to the Spanish force at that place, would in effect oppose a. strong squadron, and double to that of the English ; who at Jamaica, have only two line of battle ships. Admiral Willaumez further says, that he pur- posed going to Vera Cruz, agreeably to the project of the government of thr Spanish colony of Havanna, to bring some millions of dollars, which he statt* will be more apropos, is the French Emperor had a right to the payment of one million of dollars of which the scarcity was very great at the island of Cuba. Admiral Willaumez then continues, " I have just apprehended four seamen, deserters from the Valenreuse frigate, which I found on board an American brig, where they had engagc-d at seventeen dollars per month. Now, . sir, if you can succeed in making the American government pay down a com- pensation for this misconduct, in seducing thus our seamen, you will punish it by making it smart in that point in which it feels most, viz. its avarice \n money, and with so much the more justice, those people (meaning the Ameri- can merchants) have for three years past been continually injuring our marine by seducing our best seamen from us. (Signed) Le C. Ad. P. WILLAUMEZ. On board th Foudroyant, Havanna, 2,5th October, 1806. 1 ' 22 and its orders on this subject are conclusive as against ourselves. It directed its officers not to enlist deserters from the British skips ; if this order had been issued and executed in good faith, we should have been fully acquitted, even if deserters had been unintentional- ly entered, and found on board, and the whole weight of unpro- voked hostility, with which Great Britain has been charged, would have rested upon her officers: But unhappily for us, after admit- ting the Law .of Nations to be as we have stated, by issuing the abovementioned order, our subsequent conduct evinces either a want of sincerity in issuing that order, or a subsequent change in the policy which dictated it. If it had been made with good faith, why was not a regular formal enquiry made upon Mr. Erskine't demand ? Why were not the British officers invited to point out the men, and exhibit the evidence of their claim to them f Was not the demand of a public Minister sufficiently solemn, and did it not require some notice and respect ? Could it be imagined that our officers could know the deserters by intuition ? or was it pre- sujntd that they knew them to be on board, in direct breach of the ojrders aforesaid, not to enlist them ? Will it be contended, that they were ignorant who they were, and that they relied upon the culprits coming forth of their own accord, out of a crew of 400 men, and saying, " Ecce homines, we deserve a halter ?" It is apparent to every fair and candid man, that if the order was issued in good faith, when the British officers gave notice that five of their seamen were enlisted, there was but one plain, upright course to ask the British officers to point out the men. But would you deliver up men upon the mere declaration of British officers ? ! ! Do not be alarmed, I would not; but / would institute an official enquiry, in which the British officers a. prosecutors, should be permitted to exhibit their proofs of their claim to the men charged; and the alledged deserters should have had ample time, and the aid of Government to substantiate their claims to our protection. This was the course of nature, of truth, of good faith, of national justice. It was the way to avoid misunderstanding, to save the lives of our citizens, which have been destroyed in consequence of the neglect of this course, to avoid War, with which we are threatened. There is nothing in this procedure derogatory to our national honour. It was reserving the jurisdiction and trial of the question to ourselves. It would have given perfect satisfaction to all parties and would have heightened the confidence of all nations in our good faith. It was peculiarly proper in this case, because the alledged deser- tion had taken place in our- own territory, while the ships of a friendly power were under our protection. We were therefore bound to know, or at least to enquire into the facts, and to render justice. A respect to our territorial rights, alone prevented the British from retaking their criminals by fresh pursuit. A respect to ourselves, and to the obligations of an impartial neutrality, re- quired that we should render them that justice which their respect for us prevented them from doing for themselves. But why was not this natural and fair course of procedure adopted ? The history of the case gives the answer. Upon such an investigation and enquiry, the deserters from the Halifax would have all turned out to be native British subjects ; of course there could have been no apology for not restoring them. On the other hand, to restore to those enemies of the human race, as I hav heard some persons call them (hostes humani generis) the very meant by which they were to annoy the fleet of our illustrious friend, the Emperor of the West, and this in the very face of his august re- presentative, would have been to hazard the displeasure of our firmest, fastest friend. In other words, deep rooted, and cultivated antipathy to Great-Britain, and an habitual dread, as well as sincere partiality to France, forbad the adoption of any measures, which, by conciliating the former, would tend to render the latter more jealous of us. But some honest, and zftw able and respectable men, who go along with us in our opinions to this point, who agree, that the practice of enlisting British deserters is extremely wrong, and a violation of neutrality, and even in ihe opinion, that our own con- duct in this affair might justify hostilities from the government of Great- Britain, still contend that Berkeley had no such right, that it belonged only to his government to vjagc war. To this opinion two answers may be given, both of which are perfectly satisfactory: 1st, That although this doctrine maybe generally true, and it certainly very much conduces to the peace of nations to maintain it, yet it is an affair altogether between the subaltern officer and his government. Surely no man will be so mad as to contend, that Admiral Berkeley's having done this act with- out the authority of his government, is a greater cause of complaint, a greater insult, or a more justifiable ground of hostility, than if the British government had ordered it If, therefore, that govern- ment, after reviewing all the conduct of that officer, and the cir- cumstances of provocation, shall approve the steps he took, it will stand precisely on the same footing, as if Mr. Erskine had reported oar refusal to deliver the deserters to his government, and that government had issued an order to re-seize the men by force. 2dly, It is a great mistake to say, that a subaltern officer can in. no case whatever, of his own authority, make reprisals or commit an act of hostility. It is true that military men are considered in a great measure as machines, in the hands of their superiors; they are bound to obey orders, and can exercise their discretion so far only as is necessary to the execution of those orders. But if in the course of such duty, an unexpected incident takes place, which goes to defeat the object of their orders, that same military strict- ness requires that they should remove such obstacle if practicable. An officer is sent, as was the commander of the British fleet in Hampton roads, to watch and prevent the escape of an enemy he lands the guns of one of his ships to careen her. A neutral ship of 'var, directly before his eyes, lands and puts the guns on board, aad proceeds to sea will any man be so unreasonable as to con- tend, that the British officer cannot pursue such ship, demand hit guns, and on refusal, compel by force the surrender of them ? Shall he submit to see the object of his expedition defeated, and report to his government that he conceived it to be more proper thai? the , gun* should be diplomatically demanded ? But, say some other objectors, true, in extreme cases, the law of self-preservation will justify an inferior officer in making forcible, reprisals, but was the case of Admiral Berkeley such an one ? My, answer is, that very officer so entrusted, must judge for himself. Hft 25 takes his honour and life in one hand, and his sword in the other. If his government justifies him, he escapes if she condemns, he falls. But that Admiral Berkeley had reason to apprehend a total de- struction of the British squadron on our coasts, the following facts seem to establish : 1st, It is alledged that desertion had become so frequent that the British squadron had lost nearly an hundred men, between March and June, and great rewards had been offered at Halifax, by the Province, for the apprehension of these deserters. 2dly, Although Captain Barren gave such wretched protection to the deluded men who entered on board his ship, still the example was so contagious, that immediately after, three men deserted, landed near Hampton, and were secreted by our inhabitants. Nineteen British seamen rose upon a British cutter, and brought her into the Delaware, where they landed, were protected, and have not been delivered up; on the contrary, our newspapers congratulated "these much injured and high spirited men" on their success. Six men ran away with a boat of the Columbine, at New York and six more landed at New-York, from the Jason, and are all concealed in our country : and lastly, sixty-five sailors rose upon their officers, in the Jason, with the intent of escaping to our friendly shores and they would have succeeded, had it not been for the timely and spirited interference of their officers. This frigate has since ar- rived at Halifax, with fifty of her crew in irons, so that her cruise against her lawful enemy was defeated. Can any one deny, after these examples, that the case was so extreme as to justify an officer in resorting to force, after every other means had failed ? But it must not be forgotten that the true, and indeed only real question between the two nations is, whether the facts which preceded the attack on the Chesapeake, amounted to such a provo- cation, that if reported to the government of Great Britain, that government would have been authorized to make reprisals, or even to declare war against us ? Let any man consult the writers on the Law of Nations, or his own feelings of moral propriety, and decide. This is certain, that as a belligerent nation, we should be the last to submit to a principle, which in its operation would completely defeat the best concerted military enterprises. And wf should think that our moderation had been sufficiently 26 manifested, if, after three several inferior* demands, our publick ministers had made a formal demand of another sovereign, and been refuted redress. But admit, if it be possible, that all the reasoning we have cited is wrong, and that we have good cause of war against Great Britain, does it follow, that war is necessarily to be undertaken ? Are there tto cases in which war, though justifiable, may be avoided, without dishonour ? Let us listen to Grotius on that point: " It is better sometimes to remit our own right, than to engage in a doubtful war for it," " especially if undertaken to exact punishment" which is precisely the case in this instance. We have no principle, no in- terest, no motive for war, but to exact punishment in a doubtful case. Again says Grotius, " No prudent man will adventure in such an enterprise, where good success shall bring little profit, but where the least miscarriage may prove fatal." " Grant that our grievances are unjust, and unworthy to be borne, yet it will not follow, that we ought, by striving against them, to make our condition worse." Apply it to our present case. If -we succeed in the war, we gain the right to cover a few British deserters, whom we do not want, and which, as Grotius says, will bring little profit; but we hazard our lives, our liberties, our go- vernment we do not hazard our property ; that, together with our neutral advantages, will inevitably go to enrich our enemy. But some people say, we do not go to war for British deserters those we do not want we are better without them we go to war to make Great Britain give up the right of search of our ships of war. This is one of those ERRORS which certain artful men have pur- posely interwoven with the case of the Chesapeake, with which it has no connexion. Great Britain does not claim this right she will renounce it by treaty she at this moment absolutely disclaims it* The case of the Chesapeake was not grounded upon it; it was a reprisal for a wrong done by us; for a wrong for which remedy had been refused ; and it is, by the Law of Nations, the only remedy short of war. * It is not improbable that Admiral Berkeley will be recalled tp ascertain satisfactorily whether the affair of the Chesapeake is truly a justifiable act of reprisal, or the assumption of a geueral right to search publick ships, which latter they discl^jpa. It was no more founded on the right of search, than if one of our ships on the high seas, in time of peace, should forcibly seize a boat belonging to a British ship, with a lieutenant and crew on board, and should hold them in duress after demand ; and there- upon the British captain should attack and disable our ship, and retake his men ; both these acts are equally reprisals for previous injuries, and are both founded on the laws of nature and nations. I ask, once more, is war always to be undertaken when it is jus- tifiable ? I answer, our own practice proves the contrary. France cap- tured our ships in violation of the treaty of 1188 she afterwards set up the abominable doctrine of the role d'equipage, and con- demned millions upon it she afterwards decreed, that all neutral yessels, having one dollar's value of British manufactures on board, should, together with their cargoes, be lawful prize ; and several more mill ions fell under this pretext. Ail these acts were violations of the law of nations all of them were cause of war yet we did not go to war we made a treaty, and instead of her making either acknowledgment or satisfaction for either of these injuries, we explicitly renounced all claim to them. Spain shut the port of New Orleans, contrary to treaty she did it with marked insolence she has since marched armed men into our territory, seized our citizens, and lately has taken possession of *ome of our national military stores still we have not made war upon Spain, though war would have been justifiable, and though, both with regard to France and Spain, we had given no cause of offence, as we have done in this case to Great Britain. If it be asked, how it happens that the men who were in favour of war with France and Spain, are opposed to one with Great Britain I answer, 1 st, That the injuries of France and Spain were unprovoked, and therefore atrocious : 2d, That those of Great Britain have been provoked, even by the acknowledgment of our government, who ordered its officers not to enlist deserters, which or- ders were openly disobeyed, and therefore the cause of war i doubtful : but lastly, Such was the local and political situation of France and Spain, that they could not injure us, while they were at war with Great Britain. An impassable gtilph lies between us but \v arc vulnerable at every pore by Great Britain. By her immense and gigantick naval force, she comes in contact with us in every sea. To destroy our commerce, would be mere sport to her marine ; and although the Editor of the National Intelligencer, and his patrons, may think the ruin of 250,000 merchants a matter of such perfect inclifterence, that he will not suffer it to mar a fine calculation, yet the people of New England feel differently. They know that they are necessarily a commercial people ; they have not one million slaves to labour for their support ; they live by the sweat of their own irou'? ; their sons, their kinsmen, their friends, are engaged in commerce ; and we farmers of the northern states, are not so fool- ish as to believe that you can destroy commerce without inflicting a deep wound upon the interests of agriculture. We are now naturally led to consider the expediency of war, in relation to our means of annoyance, resources, prof/able losses, and general effects. In estimating these various branches of this extensive question of expediency, I shall not enter much into the details, but shall state them with all possible brevity, consistent with perspicuity. Our means of annoyance and resources as stated by the advo- cates of war, are of two species, direct and indirect, military and commercial. Of our military resources one would think that but little need be said. The jealousy of military force always sufficiently strong, has been strengthened by our philosophick administration ; the necessity of conforming to the false opinions and prejudices by which they acquired power, has obliged them to destroy even the little military and naval force, which their predecessors had built up. The Pre- sident has taught the people to believe, that the experience of all nations and of all ages, was of no avail : that all his predecessors in power, from Saul to Bonaparte, have been mistaken in believing in the necessity of force in order to maintain respect ; that the sense- of justice is tho reason to doubt, that it-would hold out again, t tho whole French nrmy, at least as long as Dantzi.-k. \Ve on the other hand, are destitute of engineers, or military skill sufficient tor such an operation. But we shall be told, that we shall have French oJftceis, Frenab-skill, French artillery. And u tl they will be of Buenos Ayres, where provisions are cheaper than in any part of the world, is there not danger, that a war with u* may turn their attention to other channels of supply, and thu* destroy, perhaps for ever this branch of our commerce ? It will be seen then, that the hope of coercing Great Britain by commercial warfare, is as delusive and desperate, as by anus; and after a long, but bloodless war, in which we should be called upon to suffer rather than act, we should probably be obliged to abandon the claims for which the war was undertaken, unless Great Britain, from causes totally out of our control, should be obliged to yield to the resistless power of France. Let us now take a brief view of the effects of a British war, up- on ourselves. Those, who deluded by the language of the war newspapers, and especially Mr. Jefferson's, believe, that we are to enter into a war in which Great Britain will be the only sufferer; and that we shall continue to prosper as before, will be woefully deceived. Not a man who has any thing to lose, not a labourer, who depends on the sweat of his brow, but will feel, and rue the effects of such a war : they will be almost equally felt, and per- ceived in the compting-houses of the merchants ; the parlours of the rich ; and the cottage of the poor. The farmer will surrender his cattle to the tax gatherer ; the mechanick will be obliged to hang up his rusty tools; and the children of our industrious fishermen, will demand their bread in vain. This is not the picture of a fourth of July orator it is sober reality. The National Intelligencer with the sang froid of * true philosopher, consigns to beggary 250,000 merchants. He Q Q *7 38 admits " that commerce will be destroyed by a war, and in its fall will crush its immediate dependents ;" but he insults the un- derstandings of us New England farmers, by insinuating that all the other classes of society will escape its effects. Who are to em- ploy and give bread to the 300,000 mechanicks in our seaport towns, after the merchants are beggared ? Who are to pay the banks when all the property of their debtors is annihilated by war ? When the banks stop their dividends, and lose part of their capitals, what, will become of the widows and orphans who have deposited their little modicum in these public institutions? When the small country banks fail, who will indemnify the far^ mers who hold their bills ? What will become of the country traders, and the farmers, who owe them, when the creditors of the beggared merchants call upon them for immediate payment ? It is admitted, by the advocates of war, that commerce will be wholly annihilated ; with that falls our revenue : the collection of direct taxes will be found so slow, and so unpopular, and the calls on government will be so much more pressing than those of the publick creditors, that the interest of the national debt will be suspended. The party in power, have always been opposed to this class of public creditors, and though they have as yet paid punctually, and have not violated the contract, it is only because they have had ample means, and it was a convenient engine of power; it was a strong hold over their political enemies. But create more pressing exigencies, and thousands of honest creditors will be left to starve. This is what they formerly proposed it would gratify many secret wishes. If a war, then, will annihilate commerce, as the National Intel- ligencer admits, will rain 250,000 merchants, beggar all the ma- chanicks immediately dependant on the merchants, injure some, and produce the failure of many of the banking institutions if it will destroy our revenue, and oblige the government to suspend the payment of the interest ofthe national debt if, moreover, as a ne- cessary consequence, it will cripple, if not bankrupt our insurance companies, can the farmers hope to escape the general devastation ? /.~e there none alive who recollect the effects of our revolution- 39 ary war ? Can agriculture flourish, when there are no buyers ? When all the other orders of society are ruined, the taxes must .fall upon the land-holders and we have shewn, that the revenue from impost failing, the farmers will be called upon to defray the whole expenses of the war, which will annually amount to about' sixteen times the sum of our present State tax. Can any agricultural profits meet these exigencies ? When our children are called off from the labours of the plough, to those* of war, can we support our families, and pay the extraordinary demands of government ? Let those who view these as light and tolerable evils, be clamorous for war; but for my part, I prefer to renounce the right of protecting and enlisting the subjects of fo* reign nations, when our own population furnishes men sufficient for our commerce and our tiavy, to embarking in a doubtful con- test, ruinous in its effects, and uncertain as to its issue. I have said that the war, which we are called upon to wage, would be a war without hope. I have endeavoured to shew that we can placeno reasonable reliance on our own resources in an offensive and extraneous war against Great Britain : but I shall be told, that we may calculate upon the aid of France, Spain, Holland, and Russia. Indeed, we have been already told, that such an alliance vould secure us success.* Without entering into the impolicy of thus embarking in the wide field of European politicks, let us ad- mit that we do so embark, and that the utmost success crowns our efforts let us suppose our enemy, Great Britain, prostrate at the feet of the allied powers would our situation be ameliorated ? Should we be considered as principals, or, like the other allies, as humble vassals in the train of the victor ; Rome too had her altyes, but was their situatipn less dependant than those of the vanquished ? * We already perceive, by the subjoined account of the celebration of tlj late French victories in Georgia, that some of our citizens have already con- nected our destinies with those of France. This article is copied from the Palla- dium, of Oct. a." Savannah, Sept. ia. On Saturday, the i ath instant, a nu- merous company of republicans assembled at the Filature, tp celebrate tne vic- tories of the French nation over the allies of England events leading to the peace and prosperity of these U. States the Hon. Edward Telfair, President, William Stephens, and Peter H. Morel, Esqrs. Vice Presidents." Are we neutral ? Arc Russia and Prussia gur friends? Is It usual to tejoice ova tht destruction of one's friends I 40 Grant all that is assumed, that Britain is the tyrant of the ocean- will the man who subjugated the brave and inoflendirig Swiss, who annihilated (he republiek of Italy, to place a diadem on his own brow, who compelled the stubborn Dutchman, our friend and ally,* to receive a master, after 100 years of unexampled resistance to- oppression who has left not one shred of liberty or independence, through the vast, populous, and powerful regions, over which his victorious arms have extended, be delicately or scrupulously re- gardful of the maritime rights of nations ? Having conquered the continent of Europe, he exclaimed, " all I want are commerce, colonies and ships." Can any virtuous and Ligh-minded freeman of our country believe, that in procuring the gratification of these wants, he will be more scrupulous or ten- der of the rights of other nations, than he has been in attaining the vast and immeasurable power which he now possesses ? It may perhaps be thought by some, that I have been too free in my censures of the present administration, that I have intimated that they have rather courted, than sought to avoid, the present state of misunderstanding between us and Great Britain. I con- fess that if such should be the inference, it would not be an unfair one. I have always been apprehensive, that the marked partiali- ty or dread of France, and the deep-rooted hostility to Great Britain, which they have invariably discovered, would lead to unpleasant consequences. It is well known, to all men who have noticed the course of our political history, that the persons now administering the government of the United States, have avowed, both betbre and since they came into power, a settled opposition to Great Britain. * Holland has been one of our fastest, firmest friends she took an enrly and ao honest part in favour of our liberties. Her aid was not, as the French directory fay theirs was, the "fruit of a base speculation." The Dutch love freedom seventy years war for the attainment of it, had endeared it to them. Who would have- imagined thai our preltnt administration would have been the first to insult a nation, to whom we were hound by so many ties of gratitude, by congratulating their vipstart tyrant on his accession to the throne ? Who would have thought that our republican President would have been so eager to addreis his " dearly be- loved brother of Holland ?" What would have been laid of Washington, if hi* bad thus pvit the seal to tyranny, especially when hiving no minister at that Court, there ould be no necessity of saying any thing on the subject ? Sed tem- pora muUntur et nos mutamur aim illis ! 41 It is of no moment to consider the private motives .which have led to this undue prejudice. It is sufficient to say that the fact exists, and is avowed, and justified in Mr. Jefferson's paper, the National Intelligencer. They even declare that we ought to go back to the events of the revolutionary war, to sharpen our resentments agairtet Great Britain. Whether these prejudices had any share in inducing the Presi-' dent to send back the treaty, made by his own ministers extraordi- nary, I shall not undertake to decide ; but I take the liberty to make on this topick three remarks. 1st, That it is a thing unexampled in the history of nations, to send back a treaty made .by authorized agents, unless they were either corrupt, exceeded their authority, or compromised the most essential interests of the State, in either of which cases the minis- ters ought to be recalled. 2d, That it is unreasonable to expect in a publick treaty with another nation, that every article should be in our own favour something must necessarily be given upon both sides, or a state of hostility never could cease. The only question ought to be, whe- ther it was as good, as under all the circumstances of the case, we had a right to expect ? It is believed that this treaty, on the whole, was such an one as the United States ought to have accepted. 3d, That there was no foundation for the report, that there was annexed to the treaty a condition which the United States ought not to have acceded to. It may perhaps occur to some of our readers, convinced as they will be of the impolicy of entering into a war with Great Britain, and of the total incompetency of our means to carry on such a war, to ask, Is it good policy to expose the weakness of our coun- try to the world ? Does it not betray a want of patriotism, to pub- lish our opinion of our own misconduct, and lo endeavour to prove that we are unable to cope with a nation with whom we may pos- sibly be embroiled ? This is a species of popular error, too com- .monwith many descriptions of persons in our country.. With my justification on this topick, I shall close this address to my fellow-citizens. G 42 in all free governments, public opinion roust eventually direct the mot important measures of the administration. When once expressed by the legal * constituted authorities, it is binding upon all the citizens, though it is still competent for them to use the press in * We say, that when expressed by the constituted authorities, this publick opi- nion ought to be treated with the highest respect ; and one would have supposed, that in a country like ours, which boasts of its light and information, a- con- trary opinion could not prevail : but the National Intelligencer, in its serioul reasoning, considers the expression of the publick opinion, by the populace in about twelve mercantile towns as binding on all the citizens. In reply to some reasonings, endeavouring to shew that war would not be justifiable, that paper remarks, that it is unnecessary to enter into the discussion of the justice of a war, " the people have decided that question they haye quilled jt, unless ampla repara- tion be made." The Chronicle holds the same language . Npw we undertake to say, that the numbers and the violence displayed on this occasion, were less than those which appeared in opposition to the BritishTreaty every one of the 1 same great cities was in opposition to that instrument but, happily for our country, Washington did not mistake the clamours of a multitude ifi a great city, which feaceahl,- men think it more prudent to go with than, to op- pose, in the firft paroxysms of its rage, for the -will of the people. Covernor Sullivan and Sheriff Allen tried at that time the effect of opposition, and they had very convincing proofs of the wisdom, good sense, and reasonableness of an infuriated populace, It is ridiculous to call th.e proceedings at the State House, in Boston, the sense