364

minations, which was withdrawn by the mover on a pledge by the ministers that the orders would be repealed.

As a palliation for delay, it has been stated by the friends of England that the assassination of Mr. Percival, the British premier, on the 11th of May, distracted the attention of the ministry, and prevented the redemption of the pledge. But The parliathis palliation will not bear a moment's reflection. mentary examination was predicated on the injury the British trade suffered-and had not the slightest regard to any other And as I have stated, the revocation of the consideration. orders in council was not attempted till that examination was finished. Nearly five weeks [thirty-three days] had elapsed from the notification of the French repeal, and forty-three days And no man can pretend from the death of Mr. Percival. that one or two weeks would not have been abundantly sufficient.

To prove the charge I have adduced against the British ministry of gross impolicy, as well as injustice, in their treatment of this country, which led to the wasting war so injurious to both nations, I submit to the reader part of a speech delivered in the British house of commons by Mr. Whitbread on the 13th of February, 1812, about four months previous to the declaration of hostilities, respecting the diplomatic intercourse between the two countries.

"Of Mr. Pinkney he need say little he was a man of sound sense and judgment, of an able and acute mind, and of the highest reputation. He was a man who had conducted himself during his residence in this country, in a manner most bonorable to himself, and likely to benefit both nations. At all times, taking the most impartial view of the different interests concerned, his conduct, though firm, had been most conciliatory. Without losing sight of the claims of his country, with which he was intrusted, he had at all times approached the ministers with Firm to his purwhom he was in treaty, with respect, attention, and deference pose, and able to elucidate the subjects under discussion, he had never failed in Time, punctuality, or mode of procedure, in his mission. He wild he could say as much for those with whom Mr. Pinkney had intercourse. But it was not so: and it was impossible to say that that gentleman had been treated with the prop er and punctilious ceremony he merited by the marquis Wellesley. At the pe riod when this correspondence commenced, a great soreness prevailed in Ameri ca, on account of the rupture with Mr. Jackson. The feelings of that country were in a state of extreme irritation; and this topic was the subject of Mr Pinkney's first letter to the noble marquis. One would have thought at such a time that a minister would have felt that no want of decorum or attention on his part, should be superadded to augment the unpleasant feelings already too prevalent; but it so happened, that to this very letter of Mr. Pinkney, of the 2d January, on the subject of another minister's being appointed in the room of Mr. Jackson no answer was returned until the 14th of March. Upwards of two months of precious time were wasted, during which Mr. Pinkney, aware that some time might be necessary, waited with the most patient respect and decorum.

"On the 15th of February, the American minister again wrote to the British secretary, on the subject of our blockade, one of the most important in discussal, and in all its bearings, between the two countries. To this no answer was returned till March 2. Again, on the 30th of April, Mr. Pinkney addressed a letter to lord Wellesley relative to the Berlin and Milan decrees, which were considered as the chief source of all existing differences, and therefore merited the most earnest and immediate attention; but to this letter no answer was ever returned.

"On the 3d of May following, another letter was sent to our foreign secretary, complaining of the forging of ships' papers, carried on in London, by which British ships and property were mide to appear as American. This traffic was alledged to be openly and notoriously carried on: and it was not possible to conceive one more infamous to the nation where practised, or injurious to the country against which it was directed. Yet this charge of infamy against Britain, this injustice and injury to America, was passed over in uller silence, and no answer whatever to the letter was returned.

"On the 23d of June, Mr Pinkney again wrote, referring to his letter of the 30th April, on the subject of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and requesting an answer; but no answer was returned. On the 7th of July he wrote again relative to the appointment of a minister in the room of Mr. Jackson, (his first subject on the 2d January) and even at this distance of time received no official answer, but merely a verbal assurance or private note, that a minister would immediately be sent out. On the 8th of August, Mr. Pinkney once more wrote, referring to his letters of the 23d June and 30th April; but could obtain no answer. "On the 21st August, he again by letter pressed the subject of blockade; but could obtain no answer. On the 25th of the same month, he again wrote to state the revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees; and to this communication our minister at length condescended to send a reply. The next part of the correspondence was another letter from Mr. Pinkney, relative to a misapprehension of Sir James Saumarez, on the nature of the blockade at Elsineur, and on the impressing of certain seamen from an American ship. To the former subject an answer was returned; but of the latter no notice was taken. He had indeed been much surprised at the whole course of this correspondence; but at this particular period his astonishment was greater than ever. That a subject so keenly felt by America, as the impressing of her citizens, should be entirely passed over in silence, was beyond all former neglect and inattention.

"All the world knew that this point was the one on which the greatest difficul. ty existed in negociating an amicable adjustment between the two countries, and that our conduct towards American seamen stood more in the way of conciliation than any other matter whatever. Surely then such an opportunity ought not to have been neglected; surely it was the duty of the British minister to show, by his speedy attention to the subject, that he was as anxious to evince the spirit of conciliation as to profess it; and that, knowing how fatal to the interest of this country a rupture with America would be, he would have eagerly embraced the opening presenting itself, to demonstrate our amicable intentions, and remove one of the sorest grievances complained of. But, no! reluctantly and coldly was the answer on this subject wrung forth-not from the noble secretary, not by letter from him, but practically by the discharge of these seamen, by Sir William Scott, in the court of admiralty, thereby acknowledging and declaring the right and justice of the claim urged on the part of America. This was the corciliation of the noble secretary, that he permitted the sentence of a court of justice to give a practical answer to a foreign minister, whom he would not take the trouble of putting pen to paper to satisfy on so interesting a point.

"On the 21st of September, Mr Pinkney found it necessary again to address the British government, and referring to his letters of the 30th April, 23d June, and 8th August, on the subject of the Berlin and Milan decrees, he urged an immediate answer, as his government had long been in expectation of a communica tion on that head. Again, ou the 8th and 10th December, he wrote: and with Hh

These letters concluded his correspondence, being unable to obtain any satisfacto ry information; and soon after he demanded his audience of leave of the Prince Regent."

The wretched system pursued by the British ministry towards this country produced consequences they did not foresee. It promoted our manufactures more completely in five or six years than they would have been in thirty-and it produced a war which has given us a navy, and a glorious naval character in the eyes of the world.

CHAPTER LXI.

England said to be struggling for her existence. This no palli. ation of her outrages on neutral nations. Attack on Copenhagen.

AMONG the various errors lately prevalent, and pregnant with baneful consequences, a very important one was, that the European war on the part of England was a war for her existence and this has been alledged not merely as a palliation, but as a justification of her outrages upon our citizens and upon our commerce. In fact, the long succession of outrages she perpetrated, were covered over with this mantle of oblivion, for the purpose of defaming the administration that resisted them.

I have already touched on this subject incidentally. It requires further elucidation. And at the hazard of repetition, I resume it.

The most important aggressions of England on the commerce of this country, may be referred to four epochs.—

1. The lawless and predatory captures in 1793, during the administration of gen. Washington.

2. The application in 1805, of the rule of 1756, without any previous notice or warning, and, to aggravate the enormity, against her own exposition of the law of nations, and against the decisions of her courts of admiralty; whereby the seas were piratically swept of the American vessels and com

merce.

3. The paper blockade by Charles J. Fox's administration, of the coast from the Elbe to Brest, an extent of 800 miles. 4. The orders in council.

Of these in due course.

I. Lord. Castlereagh himself, or the marquis of Wellesley, would not dare to assert that the depredations in 1793 could be charged to jeopardy of her existence. They were wanton, unprovoked, lawless, and predatory to the last degree. General Washington presided over the destinies of this country. He had resolved on and observed a fair and impartial neutrality.The manner, and time, and circumstances, were as monstrous as the measure itself.

II. On the subject of the second, I shall merely refer the reader to the mercantile memorials of 1805-6,* written and signed by men who have since as ably defended and justified the conduet of England, as at that period they unqualifiedly reprobated and denounced it. This change in their opinions and conduct does not change the nature of the facts. The proceedings of the British ministry at that period, must be condemned by every honourable Englishman. They were unwor thy of, and disgraceful to, a mighty and respectable nation.

III. Charles James Fox's blockade was a gross violation of the laws of nations.-It was in direct hostility with previous declarations made by that statesman himself-as well as with the honorable and indeed the only legal deânition of a blockade, given to our government by Mr. Merry, the British minister here, in these words:

66

"Admiralty Office, January 5, 1801..

SIR, Having communicated to the lords of the admiralty, lord Hawkesbury's letters of the 23d inst. enclosing the copy of a dispatch which his lordship had received from Mr. Thornton, his majesty's charge d'affairs in America, on the subject of the blockade of the islands of Martinique and Guadaloupe, together with the report of the advocate general thereupon. I have their lordships' commands to acquaint you, for his lordship's information, that they have sent orders to cominodore Hood, not to consider any blockade as existing, UNLESS IN RESPECT TO PARTICULAR PORTS WHICH MAY BE ACTUALLY INVESTED; and then not to capture vessels bound to such ports, unless they shall previously have been warned not to enter them; and that they have also sent the necessary directious on the subject to the judges of the vice-admiralty courts in the West Indies and America.

I am, &c.

George Hammond, Esq."

EVAN NEPEAN.

Here is the only fair, and honest, and honourable explanation of the law of nations on this subject, laid down by England herself. This letter stands on eternal record-and seals the irrevocable condemnation of that vile predatory system, whereby, according to George Cabot, James Lloyd, and other Boston memorialists, she was during the course of the French war,

*See chapters xiv, xv, xvi, and xvii.

"PREYING UPON THE UNPROTECTED PROPER TY OF A FRIENDLY POWER." If Lord Castlereagh, the marquis of Wellesley, lord Cathcart, George Canning, Mr. Rose, or Mr. War-in-Disguise, should find this accusation somewhat indigestible, let them hurl the gauntlet at Mr. Lloyd and his friends.

IV. The orders in council close the catalogue. They will form an eternal blot on the escutcheon of the administration by which they were enacted, and so long supported. For their impolicy I refer the reader to chapter LV. It was at least equal to their flagrant injustice.

From the 1st of March, 1809, they lost whatever plea or palliation night bave previously existed for them. The non-intercourse act, passed on that day, enabled Great Britain, at any hour she pleased, to open our ports to her trade and navigation --to shut them against the vessels and trade of France-and in effect to have ultimately produced war between that nation and the United States.

The refusal of this offer was a clear, convincing, and unanswerable proof, that her sole object was monopoly ; and that, in the language of Mr. Bayard, retaliation was merely "a pretence." Her depredations were continued without intermis sion. I ask any honest Englishman-any candid federalist, now that the reign of delusion has terminated, were these depredations, to pass over their immorality and injustice, such measures, as, on mere principles of policy, "a nation struggling for her existence" ought to have adopted? Was it just, or proper, or prudent, for " a nation struggling for her existence," to violate the rights, and to plunder the property of an unof fending neutral, and risk a war with that neutral? Surely not.

In a word, I ask Timothy Pickering, Rufus King, George Cabot, or governor Strong, whether the conduct of Great Eritain on the ocean were not as unjust, as arbitrary, and as lawless, as that of Bonaparte on terra firma? Whether the clandestine orders of 1793, and those of 1895, were not as perfidious, as faithless, and as utterly indefensible, as any act of the French emperor? And finally, to sum up the whole, whether there is in the history of mankind any act much more atrocious than the attack upon Copenhagen, the capital of an innocent and respectable neutral, for the purpose of seizing her fieet? Wheth er this act and the perfidious conduct of Bonaparte towards

+ Let it be observed that the predatory system of 1805, denounced by the Bos ton memorialists, as "preying npon the unprotected property of a friendly power," was incomporably less unjust and more defensible than the subsequent out; rages perpetrated on American commerce,