The first authority is highly exalted and respectable. It is no less than the emperor Alexander. This monarch, in the very commendable offer of his mediation, declares, that

"His majesty takes pleasure in doing justice to the wisdom of the United States; and is convinced that it has done all that it could, to avoid this rup

ture.

The next anthority is Governor Plumer, of New-Hampshire, who in a short speech to the legislature of that state, Nov. 18, 1812, states that Great Britain

"Has for a series of years by her conduct evinced a deadly hostility to our national rights, to our commerce, peace and prosperity. She has wantonly impressed thousands of our unoffending seamen; immured them within the walls of her floating castles; held them in servitude for an unlimited period, often for life; and compelled them to fight, not only with nations with whom we were at peace, but to turn their arms against their own country. She has violated the rights and peace of our coasts; wantonly shed the blood of our citizens in our harbours; and instead of punishing has rewarded her guilty officers. Under pretended blockades, unaccompanied by the presence of an adequate force, she has unjustly deprived us of a market for the products of our industry; and, by her orders in council has, to a great extent, swept our commerce from the ocean: thus assuming a right to regulate our foreign trade in war, and laying a foundation to prescribe law for us in time of peace. She has permitted her subjects publicly to forge and vend our ships' papers, to carry on a commerce with that very enemy from whose ports she interdicted our trade. Whilst her accredited minister, under the mask of friendship, was treating with our government, her spies were endeavoring to alienate our citizens, subvert our government, and dismember the union of the states."

The senate of Massachusetts, June 26, 1812, agreed upon an address to the people of that state, of which I subjoin two paragraphs

"We will not enter into a detail of the injuries inflicted on us, nor of the fimsy pretexts by which Great Britain has endeavoured to justify her outrages. It is sufficient to say, that she no longer pretends to disguise her ambitious designs, under pretence of retaliation on her enemy. She asserts her right to unbounded dominion, only because she assumes unbounded power She annexes conditions to the repeal of her orders in council, which she knows we have no right to require of her enemy-which she knows are impossible-thus adding insult to injury-thus adding mockery to her long train of perpetrated injuries With the boldness of the highwayman, she has, at last, stripped the mask from violence, and vindicates her aggressions on the only plea of tyrants, that of whim and convenience.

"It was not sufficient that we were remote from European politics, and courted peace under every sacrifice; acquiesced in minor injuries; remonstrated against those of a deeper die; forbore until forbearance became pusillanimity; and finally retired from the scene of controversy, with the delusive hope that a spirit of modcration might succeed that of violence and rapine. We were hunted on the ocean. Our property was seized upon by the convulsive grasp of our now open and acknowledged enemy, and our citizens forced into a cruel and ignomininis vassalage. And when we retired, we were pursued to the threshold of our territory-outra ges of an enormous cast, perpetrated in our bays and harbours; the tomahawk of the savage uplifted against the parent, the wife, the infant, on our frontiers; and

spies and incendiaries sent into the bosom of our country, to plot the dismemberment of our union, and involve us in all the horrors of a civil war.

"The constituted authorities of the United States in congress assembled, submitting the justice of their cause to the God of battles, have at length declared war against this implacable foe; a war for the liberty of our citizens; a war for our national sovereignty and independence; a war for our republican form of government against the machinations of despotism."

On the 26th of December, 1311, the legislature of Ohio, published a resolution and address on the subject of our foreign relations, in which they pledged themselves to a full support of the government, in the event of a declaration of war. pledge they have nobly redeemed. I submit one parapraph of the address.

This

"The conduct of Great Britain towards this country is a gross departure from the known and established laws of nations. Our rights, as well those derived through the immemor al usages of nations, as those secured by compact, have been outraged without acknowledgment-even without remorse. Solemn stipulations by treaty and implied engagements, have given place to views of an overreaching, selush, and depraved policy Life, liberty and property, have been the sport of measure, urjust, cruel, and without a parallel. The flag of freedom and of impartial neutrality has been wantonly insulted. Tears of the widons and orphons of murdered Americans have flowed in vain. Our countrymen have been torn from the embrace of liberty and plenty The cords of conjugal, filial, fraternal, and parental affection, have been broken. Almost every sea and ocean buoys upon its surface the victims of capture an impressment. Vain is every effort and sacrifice for an honourable state of safety and tranquillity. Mission has followed mission-remonstrance has succeeded remonstrance-forbearance has stepped on the heels of forbearance, till the mind revolts at the thought of a prolonged endurance. Will the freemen of a still favored soil unresistingly groau under the pressure of such ignominy and insult "

The senate of Maryland, on the 22d of Dec. 1812, passed a set of resolutions, approving of the war, from which I subjoin☛* an extract.

"Whenever the pursuit of a pacific policy is rendered utterly inconsistent with the national interest, prosperity and happiness, by the unprovoked injuries and lawless outrages of a foreign power; whenever those rights are assailed, without the full and perfect enjoyment of which a nation can no longer claim the charter and attributes of sovereignty and independence; whenever the right of a free people to navigate the common highway of nations, for the purpose of transporting and vending the surplus products of their soil and industry at a foreign market, is attempted to be controlled and subjected to such arbitrary rules and regulations as the jealousy or injustice of a foreign power may think proper to prescribe; whenever their citizens in the exercise of their ordinary occupations and laboring to obtain the means of subsistence for themselves and their families, are torn by the ruthless hand of violence from their country, their connexions, and their homes; whenever the tender ties of parent and child, of husband and wife, are wholly disregarded by the inexorable cruelty of the unfeeling oppressor, who usurping the high prerogative of heaven, and anticipating the dread office of death, converts those sacred relations unto a premature orphanage and widowhood--not that orphanage and widowhood which "spring from the grave" unless the floating dungeons into which they are cast, and compelled to fight the battles of their oppressors, may be compared to the anful and gloomy mansions of the tomb; whenever injuries and oppressions, such as these, are inflicted by a foreign power,

upon the persons and properties of our citizens, and an appeal to the justice of such power to obtain redress proves wholly useless and unavailing; in such cases it is the duty of those to whom the sacred trust of protecting the rights of the citizen and honour of the nation, is confided, to take such measures as the exigency of the case may require, to protect the one, and vindicate the other: Therefore

"Resolved that the war waged by the United States against Great Britain, is just, necessary and politic; ought to be supported by the united strength and resources of the nation, until the grand object is obtained for which it was declared.”

CHAPTER XLV.

Consideration of the Orders in Council continued. Strong and unequivocal reprobation of them by James Lloyd and James Bayard, Esqrs. and Governor Griswold. Extract of a letter from Harrison Gray Otis, Esq.

I MIGHT have dismissed this part of my subject with the last chapter. But as it is of vital importance-as Great Britain and the United States are at issue on it in the face of an anxious and enquiring world, whose judgment we await on the subject-I judge it advisable to enter into it more fully.

It is also une

The only defence ever attempted of these outrageous proceedings is on the principle of "retaliation." This is completely invalidated by Mr. Baring, page 126. quivocally abandoned by the most prominent and influential leaders of the federal party.

James Lloyd, Esq. senator of the United States for the state of Massachusetts, a most decided federalist, a steady, undeviat ing, and zealous opposer of the administration and of all its measures, has pronounced sentence of condemnation, in the most unequivocal terms, upon the pretence of retaliation, in a speech delivered in senate on the 28th of February, 1812.

"And how is it possible, that a third and neutral party can make itself a fair object of retaliation, for measures which it did not counsel-which it did not approve which militate strongly with its interests-which it is and ever has been anxiously desirous to remove-which it has resisted by every means in its power, that it thought expedient to use, and of these n.eans the government of the neutral country ought to be the sole judge-which it has endeavoured to get rid of even at great sacrifices!-how is it possible that a neutral country, thus conducting, can make itself a fair object of retaliation for measures which it did not originate-which it could not prevent, and cannot contro-Thus, sir, to my view, the ORDERS IN 'COUNCIL ARE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIABLE, LET THEM BE BOTTOMED EITHER ON THE PRINCIPLE OF RETALIATION, OR OF SELF-PRESERVATION."

From Mr. Lloyd's authority on this topic I presume there will be no appeal. There cannot be. His decision is final.But I am not confined to Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Bayard, a gentleman of equal standing, a quondam senator of the United States from the state of Delaware, one of our late commissioners at Ghent, also a decided federalist, pronounced the same sentence on them-in a speech delivered in the senate of the United States, October 31, 1811

"They were adopted as a measure of retaliation, though they never deserved that character. He had always considered the Berlin and Milan decrees

used as a mere pretext. Those decrees were vain and empty denunciations in relation to England The plain design of the British government was to deprive France of the benefits of external commerce, UNLESS THE PROFITS OF IT WERE TO BE DIVIDED WITH HERSELF. This was fully proved by the licence trade. Britain carries on the very trade she denies to neutrals, and having engrossed the whole to herself, she excludes neutrals from a participation.

"I am among the last men in the senate who would justify or defend the orders in counciTHEY VIOLATE THE PLAINEST RIGHTS OF THE NATION. The ground of retaliation was never more than a pretext, and their plain object is to deprive France of neutral trade. It never was contended, nor does Britain now contend, that she would be justified by the laws or usages of nations to interdict our commerce with her enemy. She COVERS HER INJUSTICE WITH THE CLOAK OF RETALIATION, and insists that she has a right to retort upon her enemy the evils of his own policy.—This is a doctrine to which I am not disposed to agree-IT IS DESTRUCTIVE TO NEUTRALS. It makes them the prey of the belligerents.

"IT IS A DOCTRINE WHICH WE MUST RESIST."

In addition to the authority of Messrs. Lloyd and Bayard, I beg leave to adduce that the late governor of Connecticut, Roger Griswold, Esq. which, though not quite so unequivocal, is sufficiently strong to satisfy every candid reader.

On the 10th of October, 1811, eight months previous to the declaration of war, Governor Griswold, in an address to the Legislature, drew a strong portrait of the injustice of the belligerents towards us, and of the necessity of abandoning the pacific policy which our government had pursued, and adopting vigorous and decisive measures to enforce respect for our rights.

"It has been our misfortune to pursue a policy, which has rendered us contemptible in the eyes of foreign nations; and we are treated as a people, who are ready to submit to every indignity, which interest or caprice imposes upon us. It cannot, however be too late to retrieve the national honor; and we ought to expect that our public councils will find that a manly, impartial, and decided course of measures has now become indispensable-such a course as shall satisfy foreign nations, that whilst we desire peace, we have THE MEANS AND THE SPIRIT TO REPEL AGGRESSIONS The interests of the

United States undoubtedly require a secure and honorable peace. But the only guarantee which ought or can with safety be relied on for this objeet, is a sufficient organized force, and SPIRIT TO USE IT WITH EFFECT, when no other honourable means of redress can be resorted to. The extensive resources, Y

aided by the geographical situation of our country, have furnished every necessary means for defending our territory and our commerce; and WE ARE FALSE TO OURSELVES, WHEN EITHER [i. e. our territory or our commerce,] IS INVADED WITH IMPUNITY."

No dispassionate reader can deny that Governor Griswold in this speech makes very strong and unequivocal declaration of the necessity of vigorous, and decisive, that is to say, warlike measures. It is impossible otherwise to interpret the impressive style in which he invokes the "spirit to use the organised force with effect”—and the declaration that “we are false to ourselves when we allow our commerce or our territory to be invaded with impunity."

On the 12th of May, 1812, only five weeks before the declaration of war, the Legislature of Connecticut met again. Governor Griswold addressed them once more on the same subject. He explicitly declared, that

"the last six months do not appear to have produced any change in the hostile aggressions of foreign nations on the commerce of the United States."

And after referring to, and justly reprobating the burning of our vessels by the French, he emphatically adds,

"Such, however, has been the character of both, that NO CIRCUMSTANCE CAN JUSTIFY A PREFERENCE TO EITHER."

I beg the reader will give these documents a due degree of consideration. It appears that Governor Griswold, on the 10th of October, 1811, unequivocally pronounced an opinion, that the aggressions of Great Britain and France were of such a nature as to warrant resistance by war. He denounced the pacific policy we had pursued as rendering us "contemptible in the eyes of foreign nations," who in consequence regarded " us as a people ready to submit to every indignity which interest or caprice might impose upon us." He called upon the government to change its system, and to convince foreign nations, that " we have the means and the spirit to resent foreign aggressions."-And finally declares " we are false to ourselves when we suffer our commerce or our territory to be invaded with impunity.” Seven months afterwards, he reviews these declarations, and states that "no circumstance could justify a preference to either" France or England, both had so grossly outraged our rights.— And yet, reader, what must be your astonishment to be told, that this same Governor Griswold, immediately after war was declared, which his speech appears to have urged, arrayed himself among and was a leader of the "friends of peace," who de nounced the war as wicked, and unjust and unholy!!!