ber of years in proportion to his age; that the master of the American vessel, upon affidavit, supported by two sureties residing in England, that an American born subject had been taken from his crew, should have a right to obtain his surrender, for the purpose of bringing an action against the English captain in a court of common law, where he might obtain exemplary damages. Suppose, further, that every American merchant vessel were declared seizable, of which above a certain proportion of the crew should be British subjects who had left their country within a certain period of their lives, and that the cruizers visiting had the option, in all cases, either of seizing the men, or of suing the master and two English sureties in an English court of common law, for penalty upon a bond entered into once every year, and always kept among the ship's papers, obliging him not to sail with any British seamen, as above described; it appears that sufficient checks would be imposed both upon the English cruizers and the American traders. The owners of the ships would find sureties among their mercantile correspondents in England, and would be forced to use some circumspection in hiring their crews. They would probably be satisfied with the power of applying for redress to an English court of common law, greatly as they are inclined to distrust our prize tribunals; and indeed, were the present fears of the abuse of the right of search realized, a single verdict obtained against a captain in the navy for impressing an American, would have the full effect of checking the evil. Some such meth. od as we have sketched, of loading both parties with a considerable risk in the conduct of the business-of making each act at his peril, might be arranged without much difficulty, and check the desertion of our seamen, while it secured the American traders from vexatious detention.'

We presume however, that no terms as favourable as the above plan implies, will be obtained, as even under the administration of Mr. Fox, the two projects which follow were both rejected by the British government.


In order to prevent the vessels of either party from becoming a sanctuary at sea for deserters from the vessels of the other party, it is expressly stipulated by the high contracting parties, that they will respectively enact laws, whereby it shall be made penal for the commanders or masters of the vessels of either of the parties, who may happen to be in the ports of some third power, or in the ports of one of the parties with the vessels of the other party, to receive on board and carry to sea [knowing them to be such] the sailors belonging to, and deserting from such vessels. It is further agreed, whenever the vessels having on board the sailors who may have so deserted in a neutral port,

shall arrive at any port of the party to which they belong, that such party shall cause such deserters to be delivered up, on proper application supported by lawful evidence, to the agent or consul of the other party, who may be duly authorised by his government to act in such



Whereas when the one nation is at war, and the other at peace, it is not lawful for the belligerent to impress or carry off from on board the neutral, seafaring persons, who are the native subjects of the neutral, or others who are not the subjects of the belligerent; and whereas from the similarity of the language, and appearance, it may be difficult to distinguish the subjects of the two states, the high contracting parties agree, that for the greater security of the subjects of the neutral, they will enact such laws respectively, as shall subject to heavy penalties the commanders of the belligerent ships, who shall impress or carry off the native subjects of the neutral, or others not being the subjects of the belligerent, from on board the neutral vessel, on any pretence whatsoever. And they further agree to enact laws respectively, making it highly penal in the subjects of the neutral, to grant any certificates of the birth and country of sea faring persons, without due evidence and proof of the same.

There is but little doubt that some plan will be agreed upon which shall render completely secure the persons of Americans in American ships, and render a British deserter liable to be seized by his government; that the British will not relinquish their right of searching merchant vessels for their own seamen, but that if any excesses result from the practice, the officer offending will be made to repent his temerity.

On the subject of the colonial trade, our rights are more unquestionable; and the misconduct of the British has been more apparent. Their conduct has occasionally been flagrantly unjust, and in our opinion, the principles on which it has been founded, have always been unsound. The following remarks are a fair compendium of the general arguments which govern a decision upon this important topick.

'Both parties are agreed in their general definition of the rights and duties of neutrals: But this is merely a new source of perplexity, since they differ very widely in the meaning they assign to the terms of this admitted definition. In point of right, it is agreed, the neutral should suffer no prejudice from the war, but should be protected in the enjoyment of every privilege which he possessed in his intercourse with either of the belligerents in time of peace, except only when the exercise

of such privilege would interfere with the specifick measures of hostility actually and immediately pursued by the other belligerent. In point of duty, the neutral should refrain from taking any share in the war, and from giving aid or assistance to either party, for offence or defence. So far all parties are agreed; but there is matter enough for contention remaining.

'The author of War in Disguise contends, that, by these definitions, neutrals are excluded from the colonial trade of a belligerent; they are only to retain in war what they enjoyed in peace; but as they were entirely excluded from this trade in peace, they can have no claim to any share of it in war upon the footing of mere neutrality. Their rights are sufficiently respected, if they are left during the war in as good a condition as before it began; and they have no cause to complain if a belligerent follows out his own hostile interest, by restraining them from usurping what he has disabled the enemy from retaining. In point of fact, it is added, that this usurpation of a new trade tends directly to aid and as. st one of the parties in the war, and to defeat and obstruct the lawful hostilities of the other: it is therefore a clear violation of the duties of neutrality.

"We confess that we cannot agree with any part of this interpretation The general principle is, that a neutral shall suffer no prejudice from the war, but shall remain in point of right, on the same footing as if peace had never been violated. Now, it was the right of a neutral, in time of peace, to trade with every country in the world, from the sovereign or proprietors of which he had received permission, and to be free from all challenge or interruption from any other party. That right and that freedom, however, is utterly destroyed in time of war, if a belligerent may interfere with his trade to any quarter of the world over which it has no dominion, and with the sovereigns of which it is admitted that the rights of the neutral were to remain as free and as ample as ever. It was his undoubted right, in time of peace, to treat with every other nation for leave to trade with its colonies; and if this right is lost by the war, it is in vain to say that he has not suffered prejudice by that occurrence. It is plain, indeed, that the advocates for the exclusion are sensible of the impossibility of maintaining it on the mere want of right in the neutral, when they proceed to contend, that the trade which they wish to restrain is in substance an interference in the war, and a breach of the duties of neutrality. If this be the case, it ought no doubt to be interdicted upon that footing; but it ought to be clearly understood at the same time, that this is the ground on which it is objected to; and that all that is wanting for its justification, is to show that it does not assist the one belligerent, nor distress the other, in such a way as is inconsistent with the ftrict duties of neutrality.

Now, upon this head, we are inclined to hold, that the assistance or obstruction to which this description applies, must bear a direct refer

[ocr errors]

ence to the hostile efforts of the two belligerents, and that the neutral character will not be violated merely by carrying on a trade with one of them, in such a way as to give him a share of its commercial advantages, while the other is obstructed in nothing but its general desire to impoverish the traders of the enemy. To relieve a place which is aded, is a direct interference with a specifick act of hostility, and tends to defeat a scheme of annoyance, which is then in the course of execution. It is therefore interdicted by the law of nations, as an evident transgression of the duties of neutrality. To carry arms or warlike stores, in like manner, to a nation whose means of attack or defence must depend in a great measure on the possession of such articles, has a direct and immediate effect to alter the fortune of the war, and is nearly as palpable an interference in it, as to give or lend to one party a supply of soldiers or sailors. All traffick with a belligerent, in such articles, has accordingly been prohibited; and the right of seizing contraband of war, been recognized from time immemorial. But it has, for as long, been thought lawful for a neutral to trade freely with a belligerent in every other article, and to buy and sell with him upon terms of mutual profit and advantage; nor has it ever been pretended that this trade was illegal, merely because it was a source of emolument to the belligerent as well as to the neutral, and in this way interfered eventually with his enemy's lawful endeavours to bring him to a submission, by cutting off all his resources and means of revenue In this point of view, however, it is evident that there is no room for distinguishing between the colonial trade of a belligerent and any other trade which may be carried on between him and a neutral. The belligerent has a profit by both, and is thus enabled to carry on the war with undiminished resources, while the enemy's views of impoverishment are obstructed by means of the neutral. It can make no difference to either party, whether the neutral buys wine in the ports of the mother country, or rum in those of her colonies. The assistance which he gives to one belligerent, and the consequent obstruction he occasions to the views of the other, are the same in both cases; and if the one trade be undoubtedly lawful, it will not be easy to shew that the other is not.'




IT is amusing to hear our Jacobins prating about the heartfelt satisfaction' of a LINCOLN' in dignified retirement. What act of Lieutenant Governour Lincoln's whole political career entitles him to the approbation of independent citizens?" Is this heart-felt satisfaction to be the result of His Honour's reflec

tions on the patriotism, the wisdom, and the virtue, which have characterised his six-month's administration? We know of nothing on which his Honour can reflect with more pleasure than the circumstance of his retiring before he had lost the confidence of his own party. He ought to bless the federalists for permitting him to go into his dignified retirement so early: for had Ke continued in office another year, his folly and ignorance would have made him the scorn of the party who elected him, and the pity of his opponents.


We wish his honour may enjoy all the satisfaction he is entitled to in cultivating his farm, planting turnpike roads with poplars, or any other employment more congenial to his feelings We expect shortly, to hear him, after the example of Jefferson, asking the jacobins of Worcester, whose ox, or whose ass have I stolen?' and talking of heart felt satisfaction, and the pleasure of a good conscience. He undoubtedly flatters himself that his political vices and his wilful violation of the constitution will be forgotten. Deluded man! He is not beyond the reach of satire. For when to truth allied, the wound she gives Sinks deep, and to remotest ages lives. When in the tomb thy pamper'd flesh shall rot, And e'en by friends, thy memory be forgot; Still shalt thou live, recorded for thy crimes, Live in her page, and stink to after times.


18 An Address from the Berean Society of Universalists in Boston, to the Congregation of the first Church in Weymouth, in answer to a Sermon Delivered in said Church, March 18, 1808, by their pastor, Rev. Jacob Norton, A. M. entitled, The will of God, respecting the Salvation of all men, illustrated.' Boston, Munroe, Francis & Parker.


19 Report of the Committee appointed by the General Assembly of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence plantations, at the February Session, 1809, to enquire into the situation of the Farmer's Exchange. Bank in Gloucester, with the documents accompanying the same. Published by order of the General Assembly.

20 The Pleasures of Reason, or the Hundred Thoughts of a sensible young Lady; to which are added Moral Miscellanies, by R. Gillet. Boston, Lincoln & Edmands and T. Welis.

« ElőzőTovább »