VOL. XXIII. No. 3.] LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 1813. [Price 1s. 65] [66 before our eyes; we know well what we SUMMARY OF POLITICS. AMERICAN STATES.-My two last Numbers were devoted principally to the task of endeavouring to convince the Prince Regent and the public, that it was neither dangerous nor dishonourable to yield to the terms upon which we might have had, and may yet have, peace with America; and, to my great mortification, though, I must confess," DECLARATION," which will be found not much to my surprise, I now see, from below, inserted at full length, does not the contents of the last Gazette, wherein is contain any new matter: it is a summary His Royal Highness's "Declaration," that of what our ministers have before alleged all my endeavours have been of no avail, and asserted in their correspondence with and that war, long, expensive and sanguin- the American Government and its divers ary war, will now take place with an ene- agents. But, there are some few passages my, who, above all others, is capable of of it which require to be particularly noinflicting deep wounds upon this already- ticed.The question relating to the Orcrippled, or, at least, exhausted nation. ders in Council has been before so amply From the first publication of the Let-discussed, in my several Letters and artiters which passed between Lord Wellesley cles upon the subject, that I will not enand Mr. Pinckney, soon after the French cumber my present remarks with any thing had announced their intention to repeal the relating thereunto; but, will confine myself Berlin and Milan Decrees; from the very to what relates to the impressment of perday of that publication, which took place sons out of American slips on the high seas. soon after I was imprisoned in Newgate for -Upon this point the "DECLARATION" two years (with a fine to THE KING, says: "His Royal Highness can never adwhich I have since paid, of a thousandmit, that in the exercise of the undoubted pounds) for having written and published" and hitherto undisputed right of searchupon the subject of flogging certain Englishing neutral merchant vessels in time of militia-men, at the town of Ely, in Eng-war, the impressment of British seamen, land, who had been first reduced to sub-"when found therein, can be deemed any mission by German Troops; from the very" violation of a neutral flag. Neither can day of that publication I began to fear the" he admit, that the taking such seamen present sad result of the dispute which had " from on board such vessels, can be conthen assumed a new and more serious cha-"sidered by any neutral State as a hostile racter than it had ever before worn. With measure, or a justifiable cause of war. that fear in my mind, I bent all my feeble" There is no right more clearly establishpowers towards preventing such result. I "ed, than the right which a Sovereign has have failed: opinions and counsels the di- " to the allegiance of his subjects, more rect opposite of mine have prevailed; and especially in time of war. Their aflegitime will show who was right and who "ance is no optional duty, which they can wrong. Upon former occasions the real" decline, and resume at pleasure. It is a grounds of war have, but too often, been" call which they are bound to obey: it lost sight of in the multitude and confusion" began with their birth, and can only terof subsequent events; the Government has "minate with their existence.-If a simihad the address to inlist the passions of "larity of language and manners may men on its side, and the voice of reason has "make the exercise of this right more liabeen stifled.But, here, as I was from" ble to partial mistakes, and occasional the first resolved it should be, there is a "abuse, when practised towards the vessels clear, a distinct, an undisguisable ground" of the United States, the same circum C "stances make it also a right, with the ex- may judge to be British seamen,This "ercise of which, in regard to such vessels, is not even plausible, in my opinion; for, "it is more difficult to dispense.' -The what right can we have to impress, if we doctrine of allegiance, as here laid down, I have no right to stop for the purpose of imadmit, with some exceptions; but, as to pressing? I may enter another's house to the right of impressing British seamen, on search for a stolen coat, and, if I find there the high seas, out of neutral ships, I deny my hat, I may seize it as well as my coat, it to be founded on any principle or maxim, having due authority for the first; but, be laid down by any writer on public law. it observed, that to steal the hat was as criIndeed, the "DECLARATION" does not say minal as to steal the coat; and, if I had that it is it says, that the right of known, or suspected, that the hat was SEARCHING neutral vessels in time of there, I might have had my search warrant war is "undoubted and has hitherto been for the former as well as for the latter."undisputed." This is not correct; for, The law of nations calls the high seas the not only has even this right been doubted, common right of nations. A ship there is not only are there two opinions about it in a parcel of the State to which she belongs, the books on public law, but the writers on and the sovereign rights of that State travel public law are, for the most part, against with her. The sole exception is, as has the said right as we practise it, and they been before stated, that belligerents have a contend, that we have no right to seize right to search neutrals for goods of the enemy's goods on board of merchant ships enemy, and for warlike stores and troops, which are neutral. Nay, the contest has carrying for the enemy's use; because, as given rise to military resistance on the part far as neutrals are engaged in such a serof our now-ally, Russia, Denmark, and vice, they are deemed to be in the service Sweden; and, what is still more, Great of the enemy.. -In all other respects a Britain ceased, upon their threats, to exer- neutral ship carries with her, on the high cise this, even this, right of seizing enemy's seas, the rights of sovereignty appertaining goods on board of neutral ships of war. to the State to which she belongs.- -Now, But, this right; this right of SEARCH- it is well known, that no nation has a right ING neutral ships; what has it to do with to enter the territory of another to exercise the impressment of persons on board of such any authority whatever, much less that of ships? That is what the Americans object seizing persons and carrying them away by to, and are at war against. They are not force; and, indeed, is it not fresh in every at war against our right of search, even in one's memory, what complaints were made our own interpretation of that right. What against the French for entering the territory they object to is, the stopping of their ves- of the Elector of Baden, and seizing the sels on the high seas, and taking people Duke of Enghein?-If we have a right out of them by force; a practice which, I to enter American ships on the high seas, repeat it, is sanctioned by no principle or and take out of them, by force of arms, maxim of any writer on public law, nor British seamen, what should hinder us by any usage heretofore known in the world. from having the same right as to any of the -The "DECLARATION" does not assert, sea-ports of America? Nay, why should as Lord Castlereagh did, in his letter to we not go and seize our numerous manuMr. Russell, that this practice is sanctioned facturers, who have been (contrary to our by any former usage; but, it declares the laws) carried to America, and who are right from the right of search. It says, filling America with cloths and cutlery? that, in exercising "the right of search," Their alleging, that they went thither to that is to say, the right to search for arti- avoid the effect of prosecutions for libel, or cles contraband of war, and for enemy's for some other of our state crimes, would goods, we have a right to impress British be no bar to our claim upon them; and, seamen, if we find them. So that, this is in short, they could never be safe to the last the new shape of the defence of the prac-moment of their lives.It is said, that tice: we do not now assert that we have a right to stop American vessels upon the high seas for the purpose of impressing our seamen; but, having stopped them for the purpose of exercising our old "right of sediunte fave a right to avail oure opportunity to take out persons cers, at their discretion, the seamen on board of American ships are deserters. Be it so. We may be sorry that they do desert; but it is no crime in the Americans that our sailors go into America. Is it not well known, that numerous deserters from the Austrian and Prussian armies have, at all times, deserted into the neighbouring States; and is it not equally on board of ship; they must not act; they must do no seaman's duty; or, they must, according to our own doctrine, lately exemplified at Horsemonger Lane, be TRAITORS, worthy of being hanged, ripped up, and cut in quarters. His Royal Highness's Declaration says, that allegiance to his father and his successors begins with a man's birth and ends but with his death. And, is it not the same with American citizens? Do they not owe similar allegiance to their country? Or is it about to be pretended, that none but kings can claim this sort of allegiance?—I do not think that any one, even of the writers in the Times and Courier, will have the impudence to set up this doctrine; but, this they must do before they can make out any good ground of charge against the Americans for having demanded, as a preliminary, the surrender of the impressed American seamen. well known, that the neighbouring State has invariably possessed the undisputed right of giving them protection, and of inlisting them in its service? Why, therefore, should we deem it a crime in America, whose abundance of lands and provisions, whose high price of labour, and whose happiness to the lower orders of mankind, hold out their arms to the whole world? And here I cannot help introducing a remark upon the proposition, made by Lord Castlereagh to Mr. Russell, that the American Government should stipulate to deliver up all British seamen in the service of Americans. Mr. Russell is said to have expressed himself as having been shocked at this proposition, which has afforded an abundant theme of abuse of him by our hireling writers. But, I have no scruple to say, that I firmly believe, that it is a proposition that never was before made to any independent State; even to the most petty State of Germany. There was a plan, some years ago, in agitation amongst the States of Europe, for putting in force a mutual surrender of each other's subjects, whereupon the Abbé Raynal remarks, that, if it had gone into effect, each of the several States might have taken the motto of Danle over the entrance to his infernal regions: "He who enters here leaves even hope behind." He represents it as the utmost stretch of tyranny; a point, he says, which the world ought to perish rather than reach. And, therefore, though Lord Castlereagh's proposition did not go this length; though it was confined to British seamen, we have no reason to abuse Mr. Russell for his expression. It will be said, may be, that Mr. Russell was ordered to stipulate for the surrender, on our part, of all American seamen. Aye; but the difference is, that Mr. Russell proposed the surrender of those only who had been impressed by us; whereas we wanted to "The proposal of an armistice, and of stipulate for the surrender of those British. seamen who had gone into America of "a simultaneous repeal of the restrictive their own free will. We wanted to have" measures on both sides, subsequently surrendered to us, men who were employed" made by the commanding officer of His in American merchant ships; they wanted" Majesty's naval forces on the American "coast, were received in the same hostile us to surrender men, whom we had seized in their ships and forced into our men of spirit by the Government of the United war. But, is it possible, that any one "States. The suspension of the practice find any thing to object to in a request, "of impressment was insisted upon in the that, as a preliminary, we should give up" correspondence which passed on that octhe Americans, whom we had impressed "casion, as a necessary preliminary to a into our service? What is the state of "cessation of hostilities. Negociation, it those men, now on board of our ships of" was stated, might take place without any war? What is their state? Has the reader "suspension of the exercise of this right, "and also without any armistice being conreflected upon this? They must be useless can Captain Dacres, in accounting for the loss of his Frigate, expressly states, that he had many Americans on board, whom he permitted to be spectators, from a reluctance to compel them to fight against their country. Aud, can the reader believe, that this was the only instance in which native Americans were unwillingly serving on board of British ships of war? What, then, again I ask, must be the state of those Americans? And, what are we to think of those writers, who abuse Mr. Russell for proposing to us their surrender as a step preliminary to any further arrangement?The Declaration complains, that America demanded the abandonment of the practice of impressment as a preliminary to her passing a law to prevent British seamen from being received on board her ships.-The hireling writers have treated this demand as something too insolent to be for a moment listened to. The "DECLARATION" does not treat it in this lofty style; but it speaks of it in pretty strong terms, as thus: 66 C 2 66 "pected to find a willing instrument, and "abellor of French tyranny.- -Disap"pointed in this just expectation, the "Prince Regent will still pursue the po"licy which the British Government has so long, and invariably maintained, in repelling injustice, and in supporting the general rights of nations; and, un"der the favour of PROVIDENCE, re"lying on the justice of his cause, and the tried loyalty and firmness of the British ( "cluded: but Great Britain was required against the injuries she has received from "previously to agree, without any know- France, the "DECLARATION," this " me"ledge of the adequacy of the system which "morable document," as the Courier could be substituted, to negociate upon calls it, concludes thus:-"This disposithe basis of accepting the legislative regu- tion of the Government of the United lalions of a foreign State, as the sole" States-this complete subserviency to the equivalent for the exercise of a right," Ruler of France--this hostile temper "which she has felt to be essential to the "towards Great Britain-are evident in "support of her maritime power." "almost every page of the official corresWell, and what then? "A right" it is" pondence of the American with the called again; but, if America denied it to "French Government. -Against this be a right, as she has uniformly done, what" course of conduct, the real cause of the ! wonder was there that she made the propo- "present war, the Prince Regent solemnsition? Great Britain might "feel," though "ly protests. Whilst contending against I should have chosen the word "deem," as "France, in defence not only of the libersmacking less of the boarding-school Miss's "ties of Great Britain, BUT OF THE style; Great Britain might feel," if feel" WORLD, His Royal Highness was enshe must, that the practice complained of "titled to look for a far different result. was essential to the support of her mari- "From their common origin-from their time power; but, did it hence follow, that "common interest-from their professed America, and that impressed Americans," principles of freedom and independence, should like the practice the better for that?" the United States were the last power, We have so long called ourselves the deli-" in which Great Britain could have exverers of the world, that we, at last, have fallen into the habit of squaring up all our ideas to that appellation; and seem surprised that there should be any nation in the world inclined to wish for the diminution of our power.The Americans, however," clearly appear to see the thing in a different light. They, in their home-spun way, call us any thing but deliverers; and, it must be confessed, that, whatever may be our general propensity, we do not seem to have been in haste to deliver impressed Ameri-"Nation, His Royal Highness confidently can seamen. -That one nation ought not to yield a right, depending for compensation" solely upon the legislative provisions of a foreign State, is very true; but, if the right be doubtful; if it be unsupported by any law, principle, maxim, or custom, then the case is different; and then, indeed, the offer of a legislative provision is à proof of a sincere desire to accommodate.- -If my view of the matter be right, and I verily believe it is, this is the light in which that offer ought to be viewed; and I most deeply lament that it was not thus viewed by the ministers. - These lamentations, however, are now useless. The sound of war is gone forth: statement and reasoning are exhausted: the sword is to decide whether England is, or is not, to impress, at the discretion of her naval officers, persons on board American merchant ships on the high seas.There is one passage more in the "DECLARATION,' upon which I cannot refrain from submitting a remark or two. After stating, that America has made only feeble remonstrances looks forward to a successful issue to the contest, in which he has thus been compelled most reluctantly to engage." The last paragraph is in the old style, and will hardly fail to remind Mr. Madison of the documents of this kind, issued about six-and-thirty years ago. However, the style is none the worse for being old; though one cannot but recollect the occasion upon which it was formerly used.I regret, however, to find, in this solemn document, a distinct charge against the American Government of "subserviency to "the Ruler of France;" because, after a very attentive perusal of all the correspondence between the American and French Governments, I do not find any thing, which, in my opinion, justifies the charge. The truth is, that "the Ruler of France" gave way in the most material point to the remonstrances of America; and, I have never yet read a Message of Mr. Madison, at the opening of a Session of Congress, in which he did not complain of the conduct of France. The Americans abhor an al remember that it was urged with great force in favour of American submission to be taxed by an English parliament; but, as the result showed, with as little effect as it possibly can be upon this occasion. -There is one thing in this "calling liance with France; and, if they form such an alliance, it will have been occasioned by this war with us.This charge of subserviency to Buonaparte has a thousand times been preferred against Mr. Madison, but never, that I have seen, once proved. It is, indeed, the charge which" cousin," as the saying is, that I do not we have been in the habit of preferring against all those powers, who have been at war with us Spain, Holland, Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, and, though last not least, Russia, as will be seen by a reference to Mr. Canning's answer to the propositions from Tilsit.- "Subserviency "to the Ruler of France!" We stop the American Merchantmen upon the high seas; we take out many of their own native seamen; we force them on board of our men of war; we send them away to the East Indies, the West Indies, or the Mediterranean; we expose them to all the hardships of such a life and all the dangers of battle, in a war in which they have no concern all this we do, for we do not deny it; and, when, after MANY YEARS of remonstrances, the American Government arms and sends forth its soldiers and sailors to compel us to desist, we accuse that Government of "subserviency to the Ruler of France," who, whatever else he may have done, has not, that I have ever heard, given the Americans reason to complain of impressments from on board their ships. Many unjust acts he appears to have committed towards the Americans; but he has wisely abstained from impressments, which, as I have all along said, was the only ground upon which the people of America could have been prevailed upon to enter heartily into a war with any power: it is a popular ground the war is in the cause of the people accordingly, we find the motto to the war is: 66 Liberty of the seas and sea"men's rights."-I, therefore, regret exceedingly, that the "DECLARATION" styles America" a willing instrument and "abettor of French tyranny." It is a heavy charge; it is one that will stick close to the memory of those who support the war; it will tend to inflame, rather than allay, the angry passions; and, of course, it will tend to kill all hopes of a speedy reconciliation.As to what the "DECLARATION" is pleased to say about the 66 much like. The calling cousin always -I dare say that his Lordship could make it out clearly enough. I do not pretend to question the fact or his ability; but, it would be at once instructive and entertaining to hear how he would do it. "From their professed principles of free-. 66 common origin" of the two nations, dom," From these the "DECLARAif of any weight, it might be urged, I sup-"TION" says, that His Royal Highness. pose, with full as much propriety by the expected the United States would have Americans against our impressments, as it been the last power to become a willing is now urged against their resistance. instrument of French tyranny. Very true: |