Observations on the preceding Plan.

THE first article relates to impressments from American vessels on the high seas. The commanders of British armed vessels have, as is well known, been long in this practice. They have indeed not only continued it, under the sanction of their superiors, on the high seas, but have, with impunity, extended it to our own coasts, to neutral ports, and to neutral territory, and, in some instances, to our own harbours. The article does not comprehend these latter cases; because it would not be very honourable in Great Britain to stipulate against the practice of such enormities, nor in the United States to recur to stipulations as a security against it; and because it may be presumed that such particular enormities will not be repeated or unpunished, after a general stop shall have been put to impressments.

The article, in its first form, renounces the claim to take from the vessels of the neutral party, on the high seas, any person whatever, not in the military service of an enemy; an exception which we admit to come within the law of nations, on the subject of contraband of war.

With this exception, we consider a neutral flag on the high seas as a safe guard to those sailing under it.

[The body of this letter, here omitted, is printed in vol. v. p. 309 to 320, after which follows the residue:]

Considering, nevertheless, the possible adherence of the British government to this last objection, and the extreme importance to our sca-faring citizens and commerce of a stipulation suppressing a practice flagrant in its nature, and still more so in the abuses inseparable from it, you are left at liberty to concur, if necessary, in the modification as it stands in the second column. You will observe that this guards, in all cases, the crews of our vessels from being meddled with; and, in referring for an exception

to the immunity on board our vessels to the law of nations, yields no principle maintained by the United States, inasmuch as the reference will be satisfied by the acknowledged exception of enemies in military service. Should persons therefore, other than such, be taken under pretext of the law of nations, the United States will be free to contest the proceeding, and there is less difficulty in leaving the stipulation on this footing, as the case may never happen, and will be pretty sure to happen but rarely. You will observe also, that, in the passage from one port to another of the respective countries, the vessels of the neutral parties are to protect all persons without exception. Independently of the general principle asserted by the United States, this respect is due to the peculiar character of the coasting trade, and the utter improbability that it will at any time be a vehicle to persons of any obnoxious description.

ON ARTICLE 11.

The reasonableness of this article is manifest. Citizens or subjects of one country residing in another, though bound by their temporary allegiance to many common duties, can never be rightfully forced into military service, particularly external service, nor be restrained from leav ing their residence when they please. The law of nations. protects them against both, and the violation of this law by the avowed impressment of American citizens residing in Great Britain may be pressed with the greater force on the British government, as it is in direct inconsistency with her impressment of her own subjects bound by much stronger ties to the United States, as above explained, as well as with the spirit of her commercial laws and policy, by which foreigners are invited to a residence. The liberation of the persons comprehended by this article, therefore, cannot be justly or honourably refused, and the provision for their recompense and their return home is equally due to the service rendered by, and the wrong done to them.

ON ARTICLE III.

This regulation is conformable to the law of nations, and to the tenour of all treaties, which define the bellige

rent claim of visiting and searching neutral vessels. No treaty can be cited, in which the practice of compelling the neutral vessel to send its boat, its officers, its people or its papers, to the belligerent vessel, is authorized. British treaties, as well as those to which she is not a party, in every instance where a regulation of the claim is undertaken, coincide with the article here proposed. The article is in fact almost a transcript of the article of the treaty of 1786 between Great Britain and France.

The regulation is founded in the best reasons. 1st. It is sufficient for the neutral that he acquiesces in the interruption of his voyage, and the trouble of the examination, imposed by the belligerent commander. To require a positive and active co-operation on his part in behalf of the latter, is more than can be justified on any principle. 2d. The belligerent party can always send more conveniently to the neutral vessel, than this can send to the belligerent vessel, having neither such fit boats for the purpose, especially in a rough sea, nor being so abundantly manned. 3d. This last consideration is enforced by the numerous and cruel abuses committed in the practice of requiring the neutral vessel to send to the belligerent. As an example, you will find in the documents now transmitted a case where neither the smallness and leakiness of the boat, nor the boisterous state of the weather, nor the pathetick remonstrances of the neutral commander, had any effect on the imperious injunctions of the belligerent, and where the task was performed at the manifest peril of the boat, the papers, and the lives of the people. The limitation of the number to be sent on board the neutral vessel is a reasonable and usual precaution against the danger of insults and pillage.

ON ARTICLE IV.

This enumeration of contraband articles is copied from the treaty of 1781 between Great Britain and Russia. It is sufficiently limited, and that treaty is an authority more likely than any other to be respected by the British government. The sequel of the article, which protects the productions of a hostile colony converted into neutral property, is taken from the same model, with the addition

This

of the terms, "in any case or on any pretext." addition is meant to embrace more explicitly our right to trade freely with the colonies at war with Great Britain, and between them and all parts of the world, in colonial productions, being at the time not enemy's, but neutral property; a trade equally legitimate in itself with that between neutral countries directly, and in their respective vessels, and such colonies, which her regulations do

not contest.

In support of this right, in opposition to the British doctrine, that a trade not allowed by a nation in time of peace cannot be opened to neutrals in time of war, it may be urged, that all nations are in the practice of varying more or less, in time of war, their commercial laws, from the state of these laws in time of peace; a practice agreeable to reason, as well as favourable to neutral nations; that the change may be made in time of war, on considerations not incident to a state of war, but on such as are known to have the same effect in time of peace; that Great Britain herself is in the regular practice of changing her navigation and commercial laws, in times of war, particularly in relation to a neutral intercourse with her colonies; that at this time she admits a trade between neutral countries and the colonies of her enemies, when carried on directly between them, or between the former and herself, interrupting only a direct trade between such colonies and their parent state, and between them and countries in Europe, other than those to which the neutral trade may respectively belong; that as she does not contest the right of neutrals to trade with hostile colonies, within these limitations the trade can be, and actually is carried on indirectly between such colonies and all countries, even those to which the colonies belong: and, consequently, that the effect of her doctrine and her practice is not to deprive her enemy of their colonial trade, but merely to lessen the value of it in proportion to the charges incident to the circuitous course into which it is forced, an advantage to her, which, if just in itself, would not be sufficient to balance the impolitick vexations accruing to neutral and friendly nations.

These views of the subject have entered into my conversations with Mr. Merry. He expresses, notwithstanding, a belief that Great Britain will turn an unfavourable