The subject strikes me in a new point of light. An American vessel is met at sea by a British frigate.-The crew are brought trembling before, that right reverend and worshipful magistrate, the boatswain's mate. All who cannot speak plain English are seized ;-as, being French, Germans, Danes, Ital ians, or Hottentots, they cannot be natives of the United States, and are not therefore entitled to protection from our flag. This scrutiny is soon over. Another then takes place. And of those who speak plain English, he seizes as many as he supposes, or pretends to suppose, to be British subjects!!! And yet we have men in high stations who defend this practice! Would to God that every man who is an advocate for impressment, were himself impressed and enslaved on board a British man of war, with a cat-o'-nine tails to his back, to punish his refractory spirit, in case he dared to complain!

Extract of a letter from John Marshall, Esq. secretary of state, to Rufus King, Esq. Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at London, dated Department of State, Sept. 20, 1800.

The impressment of our seamen is an injury of very serious magnitude, which deeply affects the feelings and the honor of the nation.

"This valuable class of men is composed of natives and foreigners, who engage voluntarily in our service.

"No right has been asserted to impress the natives of America. Yet they are mpressed; they are dragged on board of British ships of war, with evidence of citi senship in their hands, and forced by violence there to serve, until conclusive testimo nials of their birth can be obtained. These must most generally be sought for on this side of the Atlantic. In the mean time, ACKNOWLEDGED VIOLENCE IS PRACTISED ON A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, BY COMPELLING HIM TO ENGAGE AND CONTINUE IN FOREIGN SERVICE Although the lords of the admiralty uniformly direct their discharge on the production of this testimony; YET MANY MUST PERISH UNRELIEVED, AND ALL ARE DETAINED A CONSIDERABLE TIME, IN LAWLESS AND INJURIOUS CONFINEMENT.

"It is the duty, as well as the right, of a friendly nation, to require that measures be taken by the British government to prevent the continued repetition of such violence by its agents. This can only be done by punishing and frowning on those who perpetrate it. THE MERE RELEASE OF THE INJURED, AFTER A LONG COURSE OF SERVING AND SUFFERING, IS NO COMPENSATION FOR THE PAST, AND NO SECURITY FOR THE FUTURE. It is impossible not to believe that the decisive interference of the government in this respect, would prevent a practice, the continuance of which must inevitably produce discord between two nations, which ought to be the friends of each other.

"Those seamen who were born in a foreign country, and have been adopted by this, were either the subjects of Britain or some other power.

"The right to impress those who were British subjects has been asserted; and the right to impress those of every other nation has not been disclaimed. "Neither the one practice nor the other can be justified.

"With the naturalization of foreigners, no other nation can interfere, further than the rights of that other are affected. The rights of Britain are certainly not affected by the naturalization of other than British subjects Consequently those persons, who, according to our laws, are citizens, must be so considered by Britain, and every other power not having a conflicting claim to the person.

"THE UNITED STATES, THEREFORE REQUIRE, POSITIVELY, THAT THEIR SEAMEN WHO ARE NOT BRITISH SUBJECTS, WHETHER BORN IN AMERICA, OR ELSEWHERE, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM IMPRESSMENT.

"The case of British subjects, whether naturalized or not, is more questionable; but the right even to impress them is denied. The practice of the British government itself, may certainly, in a controversy with that government, be relied on. The privileges it claims and exercises, may certainly be ceded to others. To deny this would be to deny the equality of nations, and to make it a question of power and not of right.

"If the practice of the British government may be quoted, that practice is to maintain and defend in their sea-service all those, of any nation, who have voluntarily engaged in it, or who, according to their laws, have become British subjects.

“Alien seamen, not British subjects, engaged in our merchant service, ought to be equally exempt with citizens from impressments: we have a right to engage them, and have a right to, and interest in, their persons, to the extent of the service contracted to be performed. Britain has no pretext of right to their persons or to their service. TO TEAR THEM, THEN, FROM OUR POSSESSION, IS AT THE SAME TIME AN INSULT AND AN INJURY. IT IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE FOR WHICH THERE EXISTS NO PALLIATIVE.

"We know well that the difficulty of distinguishing between native Americans and British subjects, has been used with respect to natives, as an apology for the injuries complained of. It is not pretended that this apology can be extended to the case of foreigners; and, with respect to natives, we doubt the existence of the difficulty alledged. We know well that among that class of people called seamen, we can readily distinguish between a native American, and a person raised to manhood in Great Britain or Ireland; and we do not perceive any reason why the capacity of making this distinction should not be possessed in the same degree by one nation as by the other.

"If therefore no regulation can be formed which shall effectually secure all seamen on board American merchantmen, we have a right to expect from the justice of the British government, from its regard for the friendship of the United States, and its own honor, that it will manifest the sincerity of its wishes to redress this offence, by punishing those who commit it.

"We hope, however, that an agreement may be entered into, satisfactory and beneficial to both parties. The article which appears to have been transmitted by my predecessor, while it satisfies this country, will probably restore to the naval service of Great Britain a greater number of seamen than will be lost by it. Should we even be mistaken in this calculation, yet the difference cannot be put in competition with the mischief which may result from the irritation justly excited by this practice, throughout the United States. The extent and justice of the resentment it produces, may be estimated in Britain by enquiring what impressions would be made on them by similar conduct on the part of this government.

Should we impress from the merchant service of Britain not only Americans, but foreigners, and even British subjects, how long would such a course of injury unredressed be permitted to pass unrevenged? How long would the government be content with unsuccessful remonstrance? I believe, sir, that only the most prompt correction of, or compensation for, the abuse, would be admitted as satisfaction in such a case.

"If the principles of this government forbid it to retaliate by impressments, there is yet another mode which might be resorted to. We might authorise our ships of war, though not to impress, yet to recruit sailors on board British merchantmen. Such are the inducements to enter into our naval service, that we believe even this practice would very seriously affect the navigation of Britain.-How, sir, would it be received by the British nation?

"Is it not more advisable to desist from and to take effectual measures to prevent an acknowledged wrong, than by perseverance in that wrong to excite against

themselves the well-founded resentment of America, and force our government into measures which may very possibly terminate in open rupture ?"

Extract of a letter from Rufus King, Esq. to the secretary of state, daled London, February 23, 1801.

The progress which had been made in our negociation with this government, was such as must have brought it to a speedy conclusion, had not a change taken place in the department of foreign affairs; that the result would in the main have been satisfactory, is more than I am authorised to say, although I flattered myself with the hope that it would be so. Lord Hawksbury assures me that he will give to the several subjects, which have been pretty fully discussed, an early and impartial consideration: and I am in hope that lord St. Vincent will likewise be inclined to attend to our reiterated remonstrances against the impressment of our seamen, and the vexations of our trade."

CHAPTER XXXIV.

Mr. Liston's projet of a Convention respecting Deserters. Objected to by Mr. Pickering, Mr. Stoddard, Mr. Wolcott, and Mr. M'Henry. Rejected.

In the year 1800, Mr. Liston, the British minister, submitted to Mr. Adams, president of the United States, a projet of a treaty for the mutual delivery of deserters, of which I annex the seventh and ninth articles, being those which alone bear on this subject.

7. "It is, however, understood, that this stipulation is not to extend to authorise either of the parties to demand the delivery of any sailors, subjects, or citizens, belonging to the other party, who have been employed on board the vessels of either of the respective nations, and who have, in time of war or threatened hostility, voluntarily entered into the service of their own sovereign or nation, or have been compelled to enter therein, according to the laws and practice prevailing in the two countries respectively.

9. "It is, however, understood, that no stipulation in this additional article shall be construed to empower the civil or military officers of either of the contracting parties forcibly to enter into the public ships af war; or into the forts, garrisons or posts of the other party; or to use violence to the persons of the land or sea officers of the respective nations, with a view to compel the delivery of such persons as may have deserted from the naval or military service of either party as aforesaid."

This projet was submitted to the heads of departments, and to the Attorney General, for their opinions, which I subjoin. From Timothy Pickering, Esq. secretary of state, to President Adams. February 20, 1800.

"The secretary has the honor to lay before the president Mr. Liston's note of the 4th February, together with his projet of a treaty for the reciprocal delivery of deserters; which appears to the secretary utterly inadmissible, UNLESS IT WOULD PUT AN END TO IMPRESSMENTS-which Mr. Liston seemed to imagine while the seventh paragraph of his projet expressly recognizes the right of impressing British subjects, and consequently American itizens as at present.

B. Stoddard, Esq. secretary of the navy, to the President.

February 26, 1800.

"The secretary of the navy is clearly of opinion, that it is better to have on article, and meet all consequences, than not to enumerate merchant vessels on the high seas, among the things not to be forcibly entered in search of deserters."

Oliver Wolcott, Esq. secretary of the treasury, to the President.

April 14, 1800. "The projet of a treaty proposed by the minister of his Britannic majesty, for the reciprocal delivery of deserters from the land and naval service, does not sufficiently provide against the impressment of American seamen; and is therefore deemed inadmissible."

As a substitute for Mr. Liston's first article, Mr. Pickering proposed the following:

"It is, however understood that nothing in these stipulations shall be construed to empower the civil, military or naval officers of either of the contracting parties, forcibly to enter into the territory, forts, posts, OR VESSELS OF THE OTHER PARTY -or to use violence to the persons of the commanders or the officers of the forts, posts, or vessels of the other party, with a view to compel the delivery of such persons as shall desert as aforesaid."

This article was intended fully to secure, from impressment, even in our private as well as public vessels, not merely our own citizens, but also the subjects of Great Britain; in a word, to put an end entirely to the practice of impressment on board our vessels.

Mr. Wolcott, secretary of the treasury, proposed a substitute for the article objected to, still more clearly and explicitly annihilating the pretensions of England to impress seamen of any description on board our vessels.

"It is. however understood, that nothing in the foregoing stipulations shall be construed to empower the civil or any other officers, of either party, forcibly to enter the forts, posts, or any other place within or under the jurisdiction of the other party; nor to empower the naval commanders or other officers of either party forcibly to ENTER ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE VESSELS OF THE OTHER PARTY, on the high seas, with a view to compel the delivery of any person whatever on the contrary, it is expressly declared to be the understanding of the contracting parties, that the mutual restitutions of persons claimed as deserters, shall only be made by the free and voluntary consent of the military officers employed in the land service, or the commanders of the public or private ships or vessels of the two parties, or in pursuance of the decisions of the courts, judges or other competent civil officers of the two nations, in all cases arising within their respective ju risdictions."

O. WOLCOTT.

James M'Henry, Secretary at War, to the President.

"The secretary thinks the projet of Mr. Liston may be substantially accepted, Except the 7th article, which seems to provide that the United States shall not demand the delivery of any sailors, although their citizens, if they have been employed in British vessels, and who have, in time of war or threatened hostilities, voluntarily entered into the British service, or have been compelled to enter therein, according to the law and practice prevailing in Great Britain. This ar

ticle is very inaccurately expressed; for it says, "employed or entered into the service of their own sovereign or nation, or have been compelled to enter therein," &c. If this article means, what it is apprehended it does, it is wholly inadmissible. It establishes a principle reprobated by this country. The counter prejet of the secretary of state, in substance meets the secretary's approbation; but it is submitted, whether the adoption of part of the draft by the secretary of the treasury, will not improve it.

All which is respectfully submitted,

War department, April 18, 1800.

JAMES M'HENRY.

"The attorney general having read and considered the letter of the secretary of state, and the projet of an article drawn by the secretary of the treasury, on the subject of deserters, which are proposed to be sent to the British minister here, expresses his entire approbation of the same." CHARLES LEE

April 30, 1800.

CHAPTER XXXV.

Horrors of Impressment, as submitted to Congress by Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State.

To afford a specimen of the treatment of some of the impress ́ed American seamen, whose cases it has become fashionable to treat with indifference, I submit extracts from authentic documents on the subject. It will incontrovertibly appear, that the horrors of this odious and execrable business of impressment have been quintupled by the odious and execrable manner in which it has been conducted.

Extract from the deposition of Eliphalet Ladd, second mate on board the Thomas and Sarah, of Philadelphia, and a native of Exeter, New-Hampshire, annexed to a report to congress of Timothy Pickering, Esq. secre tary of state.

Kingston, June 19, 1799.

"Eliphalet Ladd maketh oath, that on Wednesday, the 12th inst. he came on shore with two seamen belonging to said ship, named John Edes and Israel Randol, in order to land a boat load of staves; that a press-gang came up and laid hold of John Edes-that one of the press-gang named Moody, WITH A BROAD SWORD CUT THIS DEPONENT ON THE FOREHEAD, AND MADE A WOUND OF THREE INCHES!!! They then took deponent, together with Edes, and conducted them in different boats on board the Brunswick man of war; that the boat on board of which Edes was, made the ship some little time before the deponent was in: and on the deponent's nearing the ship, he heard the cries of a man flogging!!! and on going up the side of the Brunswick, he perceived Edes, who was crying; and addressing himself to the first lieutenant, a Mr. Harris, saying, here is a man who can attest to what I have told you. The lieutenant then laying hold of deponent by the arm, said, GO ALONG ON THE QUARTER DECK, YOU DAMNED RASCAL YOU!!! which deponent accordingly did; that all the impressed men were then examined, and afterwards ordered by the lieutenant into the waist;