.* acknowledged piinciple ? certainly not. — 16 Whj then is this Proclamation defcribed as founded upon uncontefted prhiciple ? and why is the command, ib juftly ofFenfive to us, and fo mifchievous as it might then have been made in execution, altogether omitted ? But it is not the taking of Britifh fubjecfls from our vefTels, it is the taking, under colour of that pretence, our own, native American citizens, which conflitutesthe mod galling aggravation of this mercilefs pradice. Yet even this, we are told is but a pretcnce-for three reafons. 1. Becaufe the number of citizens thus taken, is smalL 2. Becaufe it arifes only from the impoflibility of dif- tinguifhing Engliflimen from An~eilcans. 3. Becaufe, fuch impreifed American citizens are de- livered up, on duly authenticated proof. 1. Small and great, in point of numbers, are relative terms. To fuppofe that the native Americans form a fmall proportion of the whole number impreffed is a mif. take — The reverfe is the fad. Examine the ofEcial re- turns from the Department of State. They give the names of between four and five thoufand men imprefled ^nce the commencement of the prefent War. Of which liumber, not one fifth part were Britifh fubjefls — The number of naturalized Americans could not amount to one tenth, — I hazard little in faying that more than three fourths were native Americans. If it be faidthatfome of thefe men, though appearing on the face of the returns American Citizens, were really British fubjecls, and had fraudulently procured their prote(5lions ; I reply that this number muft be far exceeded by the cafes cf Citizens impreifed, which never reach the Department of State., The American Conful in London eftimates the number < f impreinTicnts during the War at nearly three times the amount of the names returned. If the nature of the offence be confidered in its true colours, to a people hav- ing a juft: fcnfe of perfonal liberty and fecurity, it is in ev- ery Angle inftance, of a mahgnitynot inferior to that of murder. The v ery fame adl:,, when com.mitted by the recruiting officer of one nation within the territories of another, is by the univeriiil law and ufage of nations pun- .17 ilhed with death. Suppofe the crime had in every iu- ftance, as by its confequences it has been in many, de- liberate murder. Would it anAver or filence the voice of our complaints to be told that the number was fmall? 2- The impoffibility of diftinguiihing Englilli from American feamen is not the only, nor even the moil frequent occafion of impreifment. Look again into the returns from the Department of State — you will fee that the ofEcers take our men wiih.out pretending to enquire where they were born ; fometimes nierely t0 lliew their animofity, or their contempt for our country; fometimes from the wantonnefs of power. When they manifeft the mod tender regard tor the neutral rights of America, they lament that they ^zL-ard the men. They regret tlie neceffity, but they musi have their comple* ment. Wlien we complain of thete enormities, we are anfwered that the ads of fuch officers were unautlioriz- ed ; that the commanders of Men of War, are an un- ruly fet of men, for whofe violence their own govern- ments cannot always be anfwerable, that enquiry Ihall be made — A Court Martial is fometimes mentioned — And the iilue of Whitby's Court Martial has taught us what relief is to be expeded fiom tha.t. There are evea e:\amples I am told, when fuch officers have been put upon the yellow lift.. But this is a rare exception — The ordinary ilTue when the 2.S. is disavowed, is the. promotion of the a^flor.. S. The impreffed native American Citizens, however,, upon .'^uly autherd'icaicd proof Tixe delivered up. Indeed I how unrepcfonable then were complaint ! hovv- eifedlual a remedy for the wrong ! an Am.erinan veifel, bound to a European port, has two, three or four native Am- cricans, impreifed by a Britifli Mail of Wpj-, bound to the Eafl.or Weft Indies. When the American captain arrives at his port of deftination he makes his proteft, and fends it to the neare ft American Minifter or Confti]. When he returns home, he tranfmits the duplicate cF his proteft to the Secretary of State. In procefs of lime, the names of the imprelTed men, and of the Slni? 18 into which they have been imprefTed, are received by the Agent in London. He makes his demand that the men may be delivered up — The Lords of the Admiral- ty, after a reafonable time for enquiry and advilement, return for anfv^-er, that the Ship is on a foreign ftation, ' and their Lordfhips can therefore take no further fteps in the matter — Or, that the Ihip has been taken, and that the men have been received in exchange for French prifoners — Or, that the men had no protedions (the impreffing officers often having taken them from the men) — Or, that the men wqiq probably Britifh fubjeds — Or, that they have entered, and taken the Bounty ; (to which the officers know how to reduce them) — Or, that they have been married, or fettled in England. In all thefe cafes,without further ceremony, their difcharge is refufed. Sometimes, their Lordihips, in a vein of humour, inform the agent that the man has been dif- charged as unserviceable. Sometimes, in a fterner tone, they fay he was an impostor. Or perhaps by way of confolation to his relatives and friends, they report that he has fallen in Battle, againft nations in Amity with his Country. Sometimes they cooly return that there is no fuch man on board the Jliip ; and what has becom^e of him, the agonies of a wife and children in his native land, may be left to conjedure. When all thefe and many other fuch apologies for refufal fail, the native American citizen is difcharged — and v^rhen by the charitable aid of his government he has found his way home, he comes to be informed, that all is as it fliould lie — that the number of his fellow fufferers is fmall — that it was impoifible to dilHnguiih him from an Eng- lifhman — and that h(i v/as delivered up, on duly authcn' tic ated proof. Enough, of this difgufting fubje<5l — I cannot flop to calculate how many of tliefe wretched vi<5lims are na- tives of MafTachafetts, and how many natives of Vir- ginia — I cannot flop to folve that knotty queftion of national jurifpradence, v.'hether fbme of them might not poffibly be flaves, and therefore not Citizens of the 19 United States — I cannot (lay to account for the won- der, why, poor, and ignorant and friendlefs as moft of them are, the voice of their complaints is fo feldom heard in the great navigating dates. I admit that we have endured this cruel indignity, through all the ad- miniftrations of the General Government. I acknowl- edge that Britain claims the right of feizing her fub- je^s in our merchant veflels, and that even if we could acknowledge it, the line of difcriminaticn would be dif- ficult to draw. We are not in a condition to maintain this right by War, and as the Britilli Governm.ent have been more than once on the point of giving it vip of their own accord, I would flill hope for tlie day when returning juftice Ihall induce them, to abandon it, with- out compulfion. Her fubjecls we do not want. The degree of protection which we are bound to extend to them, cannot equal the claim of our own citizens. I would fubfcribe to any compromife of this conteft, con- fident with the rights of fovereignty, the duties of hu- manity, and the principles of reciprocity ; but to the right of forcing even her own fubje<5ls out of our mer- chant vefTels on the high feas, I never can aiTent. The fecond point upon which Mr. Pickering defends the pretenfions of Great-Britain, is her denial to neu- tral nations ot the right of profecuting with her ene- mies and their colonies, any commerce from wliicli they are excluded in time of peace. Kis ftatement of this cafe adopts the Britifh dodrine, as found. The right, as on the queftion of impreffment, fo on this, it iui ren- ders at difcretion — and it is equally defedive in point of faft. In the firft place, the claim of Great-Britain is not to " a right of impofnig on this neutral commerceyoTr/i? limits and rejlraints'^ — but of interdiding it altogether, !at her pleafuie, of interdicting it without a moment's notice to neutrals, after folemn decifions of her courts of admiralty, and formal acknowledgm.ents of her min- iiters, that it is a lawful trade — And on fuch a fudden, ^mnotified interdidion, of pouncipg upon all neutral «9 commerce lla^^gatlng upon the faith of her decifions and acknowledgments, and of gorgmg with confifca- tlon the greedinefs of her cruizcrs — This is the right claimed by Britain — This is the power fhe has excrciied — ^What Mr. Pickering calls '* limits and refrraints," Ihe calls relaxations of her right. It is but little more than two years, fmce this qucf- tion was agitated both in England and America, with as much zeal, energy and ability, as was ever difplayed upon any queftion of national law. The Britifh fide was fupported by Sir William Scott, Mr. Ward, and the author of War in Difguife. But even in Britain their do(5trine was refuted to demonftration by the Edinburg reviewers. In America, the rights of our country were maintained by numerous writers, profoundly fkilled in the fcience of national and maritime Law. The j4n- f'Lver to War in Difguife was afcribed to a gentleman whofe talents are univerfally acknowledgcd,and wlio by his official fituations h^d been required thoroughly to inveftigate every queliion of conflid: between nej.itral and belligerent rights which has occurred in the hiftory of modern War. Mr. Gore and Mr. Pinckney, our two commiilioners at London, under Mr. Jay's treaty, the former, in a train of cool and conclufive aigument, ad- die/Ted to Mr. Madifon — the latter in a memorial of fplendid eloquence from the Merchants of Baltimore^ fupported the fame caufe ; memorials,drawn by lawyers of diftingulfned eminence, by Merchants of the highetl charader, and by ftatefmeli of long experience in our national councils, came from Salem, from Bofton, from New-Haven, from New- York, and from Philadelphia, together with lemonftrances to the fame eifed frona Newbury port, Newport, Norfolk and Charlcfton. This accumulated mafs of legal learning, cf ccmmercial in- formation, and of national fentiment, from almoil eve- ry inhabited fpot upon our fhores, and from one ex- tremity of the union to tl:e other, confirmed by the unanfwered and unanfv/erable niernoriul of Mr.Munroe to the Britifh Minifter, and by the elaborate refciirch and irreliilible reafonriig of the es:amtnnlio;i of tlie Brit* iih doftrine, was alfo made a fubjeft of full and delibe- rate difcuilion in the Senate of the United States. A committee of feven members of that body, after three weeks of arduous inveftigation, reported three Refolu- tions, the firfl of whicli was in thefe words, " Refolved,. that the capture and condemnation, under the orders of the Britifh government, and adjudications of their courts of admiralty, of American ve/fels and their car- goes, on the pretext of their being employed in a trade with the enemies of Great-Britain, prohibited in time of peace, is an unprovoked aggreffion upon the prop* erty of the citizens of thefe United States, a violation of their neutral rights, and an encrQachmait uj^oti their national independence.' * On the 13th of February, 1806, tlie queilion upon, the adoption of this refolulion was taken in the Senate. The yeas and nays were required ; but not a foHtarjr nay was heard in anfwer. It was adopted by the unan- imous voice of all the Senators prefent. They were twenty-eight in number, and among them Hands re- corded tlie name of Mr. Pickering. Let us remem.ber that this was a queftion mofl: pecu- liarly and im.medJately oi commercial, and not agriculiw ral interefl ; that it arofe from a call, loud, energetic: and unanimous, from all the merchants of the United States \.:pon Congrefs,. for the national interpofition ; that many of the mem^orials invoked all the energy of tlie I^egiflature, and pledged the lives and properties cf the memorraliils in fbppoit of any meafuies Vv'hicli. Congrefs m'ght deem neceffary to vindicate thofe rights. Negcciation was particularly reccm.mended, from Eofton and elfewhere — negociation was adopted •—negcciation has failed — and now Mr. Pickering tells us that Great-Britain has claimed and maintained her r'l^ht I He argues that her claim is juft — and is not fparing of cenfure upon thofe who flill ccnfidcr it a ferU ous qaufe of complaint. 22 But there was one point of view in which the Britifli dodrine on this queftion was then only confidered inci- dentally in the United States — becaufe it was not deem- ed material for the difcuffion of our rights. We exam- ined it chiefly as affedling the principles as between a belligerent and a neutral power. But in fad it was an infringement of the rights of War, as well as of the rights of Peace. It was an unjuiliiiable enlargement of the fphere of hoftile operations. The enemies of Great-Britain had by the univerfal Law, of Nations, a right to the benefits of neutral commerce within their dominions (fubjetft to the exceptions of a8iial blockade and contraband) as well as neutral nations had a right to trade with them. The exclufion from that commerce by this new principle of warfare, which Britain, in defi- ance of all immemorial national ufages, undertook by her fmgle authority to eftablifh, but too naturally led her enemies to refort to new and extraordinary princi- ples, by which in their turn they might retaliate this in- jury upon her. The pretence upon which Britain in the firfl inftance had attempted to color her injuftice, was a miferable faion — It was an argument againft fadl. Her reafoning v^'as, that a neutral vefTel by mere admifliOH in time of war, into ports from which it would have been excluded in time of peace, became thereby deprived of its national character, and ipfo fado was transformed into enemy's property. Such was the bafis upon which arofe the far fam.ed rule of the war of 1756 — Such v/as the foundation upon which Britain claimed and maintained this fuppofed right of adding that new inftrument ot defolation to the hor- rors of war — It was diftrefling to her enemy-^Yes \ Had fhe adopted the practice of dealing in poiicn-^ Had Mr. Fox accepted the fervices of the man who offered to rid him of the French Emperor by affaf-, fmatiou, and had the attempt fucceeded, it would have been lefs diilreffing to France than this rule of the war of 1756 ; and nor. more unjuftifiable. Mr. Yo^ had too fair a mind for cither, but his com- 28 jn-ehenfive and liberal fpirit waa difcarded, vrith thtf Cabinet which he had formed. It has been the fttuggle of reafon and humanity^ and above all of Chriftianity, for two thouland years, to mitigate the rigors of that fcourge of human kind^ War. It is now the ftriiggle of Britain to aggra- vate them. Her lule of the war of 1756, in itfelf and its efFe<5ls, was one of the deadliePc poifons, in which it was poffible for her to tinge the weapons of her hoflility* In itfelf and its effefls, I fay — For the French de- crees of Berlin and of Milan — the Spanilh and Dutch decrees of the fame or the like tenor — and her own orders of January and November — ihefe alternations of licenfed pillage, this eager competition between liei and her enemies for the honor of giving the laft ftroke to the vitals of maritime neutrality, all aie juftly attributable to her aflumj)tion and exerciie of this fmgie principle. The rule of the War of 1756 was the root, from which all the reft are but fuckers, IHII at every Ihoot growing ranker in luxuriance. In the laft decrees of France and Spain, lier own ingenious fidion is adopted ; and under th(?m, every neutral veiTel that fubmits to Englilh fearch, has been carried into an Englilh port, or paid a tax to the Eng* flifh government, is declared denationalized^ that is, to ave loft her national cliara(5ler, and to have beccm.e Engliih property. This is cruel in execution, abfurd in argument. To refute it were folly, for to tlie underftanding of a child it refutes itfelf. But it is the renfoning of Britifli Jurifts. It is the fimple applica« tion to the circumftances and pov/ers of France, of the rule of the war of 1756. I am not the apclogiPc of France and Spain ; I h.ave no national partialities ; no national attachments but to my own country. I ihall never undertake to jufti-« fy 01 to palliate the infults or injuries of any foreign power to that country which is dearer to me tlian liie. If the voice of Reafon and of Juftice could be heard ■S4 by France -and Spain, tliey would fay — you have don» Wrong to make the injuftice cf your enemy: tov.'^ard's neutrals the meafure of your own. If ftie chaitifes with whips do not you chaftife with Scorpions. — Whether France would liften to this language, I know not. The moft enormous infractions of our rights hitlierto com* tnitted by her, have been more in menace than in accomplilhment. The alarm has been juftly great : "the anticipation threatening ; but the amount of a<5tu- al injury fmall. But to Britain, what can we fay ? If we attempt to raife our voices, her Miniflerhas decla- red to Mr. Pinckney that fhe will not hear. The on>. ly rcafon Ihe affigns for her recent orders of Council is, that France proceeds on the fame principles. It is not by the light of blazing temples, and amid the groans of women and children periihing in the ruins of the fanifluaries of domeftic habitation at Copenhagen, tliat we can expert our remonftrances againft this courfe of proceeding will be heard. Let us come to the third and laft of the caufes of complaint, which are reprefented as fo frivolous and fo unfounded^" the unfortunate affair of the Chefa- peake.'- .The orders of Admiral Eerkely, under which this outrage was committed4i have been difavowed by his government. General profelTions of a willingnefs to make reparation for it have been lavifhed in profu- fion ; and we are now inilrudled to take thefe profef- fions ior endeavors ; to believe them fincere,becaufe his Brtiannic Majefty fent us a fpecial envoy ; and to cafl the odium of defeatnig thefe endeavors, upon our own government. I have already told you, that I am not one of thofe who deem ful'picion and diftriiil:, in the higheft order o£ political virtues. Bafelefs fufpicion is, in my cftimation, H vice, as pernicious in the management of public af- fairs, as it is fatal to the happlnels of domeftic life. — When, therefore, the Britifli Minifters have declared their difpofition to make ample reparation for an inju- ry of a moft atrocious character, committed by an offi- •^5 ?<>r of high rank, and, as they fay, utterly without au- thority, i fhouid moft readily believe them, were their profeffions not pofitively contradided by fads of more powerful eloquence than words. Have fuch facts occurred ? I will not again allude to the circumftances of Mr. Rofe^s departure upon his million at fuch a precife point of time, that his Com- million and the orders of Council of 11th November, might have been figned with the fame penful of ink. The fubje