would necessarily render a continuance of the French Decrees doubly obnoxious.— But, if, on this head, doubts could have been entertained, instead of rejecting the arrangement, ought not the Repealing Act on our part to have been met with a suspension, at least, of the Orders in Council, until it could have been seen whether the Non-intercourse Law would or would not have been continued against France? Such a suspension could not have given, in any point of view, more advantage to the United States, than was given to Great Britain by the repeal, which had taken place on their part.-If this reasonable course could not have been substituted for the disavowal, why was not a fi

tion, that the arrangement would be executed by Great Britain in the event of a compliance on the part of the United States with the condition required as to France?—I am not unaware, you may be told, that the Non-intercourse law of the United States did not extend to Holland, though so intimately connected with France, and so subservient to her Decrees against neutral commerce. It would not be improper on this occasion to observe, that this objection can be the less urged by Great Britain, as she has herself never in her alledged retaliations adhered to her principles on which they were foundedThus she has, from the date of them, until very lately, directed them against the American trade even to Russia, although Russia had never adopted the French Decrees, nor otherwise violated our neutral trade with Great Britain. So, in her Order of April last, she has discriminated,

as a public law on both parties, and which both would have a common interest in seeing duly executed. On his own principle there ought to be a reciprocity, not only in the execution of the compact, but in the obligation and interest resulting from it. Besides, where there is a reciprocity in compacts between nations touching attributes of sovereignty there is always as much of sovereignty gained as is parted with, so that there be no loss nor indignity on either side.-3d. The remaining point in the dispatch, not secured by the arrangement, is that which required that whilst our prohibitory laws should be re pealed as to Great Britain, they should be left in force as to France and the powers adopting or acting under her Decrees.-nal disavowal suspended with a proposiThis is the condition which alone properly belongs to the subject; and it is to be remarked, in the first place, that the British project, of which this condition makes a part, contemplated two things in their nature incompatible; one, a repeal of the prohibitory acts as to Great Britain, without waiting for the conclusion of a regular treaty; the other a pledge, or engagement for their continuance as to the other powers. Now, from the nature of our Constitution, which, in this particular, ought to have been attended to by the British Government, it is manifest that the Executive authority could have given no such pledge, that the continuance of the Prohibitory Acts, being a subject of legislative consideration, could not have been provided for until the meeting of the Legislature, and that the condition could not, therefore, but have failed, either in the immediate renewal of commerce with Great Britain, or in the immediate engage-not only between the countries devoted to ment that it should not be renewed with France. The British Government ought to have acquiesced in, and indeed ought to have been satisfied with the attainment of the important object of an immediate repeal of our prohibitory laws; and with the consideration, that the other object, not immediately attainable, was unnecessary at the time, because the prohibition as to France was then in force, and because there was every reason to infer, not only from this fact, but from the spirit of the communications made from time to time, and from the overtures before submitted to the British Government, that, without a repeal of the French Decrees, our prohibitory laws would be continued in force against France, and especially in the case of a repeal of the British Orders, which

France by the ties of blood, and other powers, but between Holland, Westphalia, and Naples, in enforcing her prohibitory Order against the first and not the two last. Whilst, therefore, she finds it expedient to make these distinctions, she ought to presume, that we, too, may perceive equal propriety in the distinctions we have made.

-But it may be of more importance here to compare the British Order in Council of April last, with the arrangement of April, made by Mr. Erskine. It will thence be seen how little is the real difference, and how trivial it is when compared to the extensive and serious consequences of the disavowal.-Under the Order in Council of April, all the ports of Europe, except France, including the kingdoms of Italy and Holland with their dependencies,

1

are opened to our commerce.-Under the | to the departure of Mr. Erskine from his arrangement of April, combined with our instructions, without shewing what those inAct of Non-intercourse, all the ports of structions were, and to allusions to an exEurope, except France and her dependen- pression in the arrangement, without givcies, including the kingdom of Italy, ing to his meaning the distinctness prewould have been opened to our com- requisite to a just reply. It appears, howmerce. The difference then is reduced ever, that he lays great stress on the promerely to Holland, and that again is re-posal enclosed in his letter of the 27th Ocduced to the difference between a direct trade to the ports of Holland, and an indirect trade to Holland, through Tonningen, Hamburgh, Bremen, and Embden.-Now, as the injuring of the enemies of Great Britain is the only avowed object of her interdicting Order against our trade, let a computation be made of the effect which this difference between the Order in Council and the arrangement could possibly have in producing such an injury. And then let the question be candidly answered, whether, laying aside all considerations of right and justice, sufficient inducement could have been found in that result for rejecting the arrangement, and for producing the consequent embarrassments, as well to Great Britain as to the United States-If it be necessary, as Mr. Jack son has stated, to set bounds to a spirit of encroachment and universal dominion, which would bind all things to its own standard, and to falsify by honourable and manly resistance, an annunciation that all Europe is submitting by degrees, effort must be feeble, indeed, which is to be found in the inconvenience accruing to the formidable foe from the operation of this Order in Council; and especially when we combine with it the strange phenomenon of substituting for the lawful trade of the United States a trade of British subjects, contrary to the laws of the adverse party, and amounting, without a special licence, in the eye of British law, to high

treason.

Thus much for the Orders in Council. What has taken place with respect to the Chesapeake will equally engage your attention. You will perceive, that throughout the early stages of the correspondence, this case was, in some respects, improperly confounded with, in others improperly separated from, that of the Orders in Council; and particularly that pains had been taken by Mr. Jackson to substitute verbal and vague observations on the disavowal of this part of the arrangement, for an explicit and formal explanation, such as was obviously due. It will be seen also, boat, when finally brought to the point, he ferred for a justification of the disavowal

tober, as at once indicating the departure of Mr. Erskine from his instructions; and as containing the conditions on the basis of which he was ready to enter on an adjustment. And from a note from the Secretary of the British Legation, it appears that he has complained of not having received an answer to his proposal, as he had before complained that no answer had been given to his verbal disclosure on this head in his interviews with me. With respect to his intimations in conversation, as they were preceded by no proper assignment of the reasons for not having executed the original adjustment: it cannot be necessary to remark, that no such notice, as he wished to obtain, could, with any sort of propriety, have been taken of them. With respect to his written project, it will suffice to remark, 1st, That besides his reluctant and indistinct explanation of the disavowal of the original adjustment, he did not present his proposal until he had made such progress in his offensive insinuation as made it proper to wait the issue of the reply about to be given to it; and that this issue had necessarily put a stop to further communications. 2dly, That although he had given us to understand that the ordinary credentials, such alone as he had delivered, could not bind his Government in such a case, his proposal had neither been preceded by nor accompanied with the exhibition of other commission or full power: Nor, indeed, has he ever given sufficient reason to suppose that he had any such full power to exhibit in relation to this particular case. It is true, that in his letter of the 23d of October, he had stated an authority eventually to conclude a convention between the two countries. Without adverting to the ambiguity of the term eventually' with the mark of emphasis attached to it, and to other uncertainties in the phraseology, it is clear that the authority referred to, whatever it may be, is derived from instructions subject to his own discretion, and not from a patent commission, such as might be properly called for. It is true also than in his letter of the 4th of November, subsequent to his proposal: he says he was possessed

it, was unjustifiable, and that a repeal of it was properly a condition precedent to a reparation for the outrage. And this requisition is repeated too, after such an acknowledgment had been uniformly asserted by this Government to be utterly. inadmissible, aud, what is particularly remarkable, at a time when the proclamation, as is well understood, was no longer in force. The occasion obviously invited a silent assumption of the existing fact, and this would have excluded the difficulty heretofore found to be insuperable.-2d. By throwing into complete oblivion the conduct of the officer answerable for the murderous transaction, with a knowledge, too, on our part, that instead of being punished, or even brought to trial, he has

of a full power in due form for the express | pensive repairs, the expedition frustrated, purpose of concluding a Treaty or Conven- a number of he crew killed and wounded, tion. But it still remains uncertain, whe- several carried into captivity, and one of ther by the Treaty or Convention to which them put to death under a military senit related was not meant an eventual or tence. The three seamen, though Ameprovisional Treaty on the general relations rican citizens, and therefore on every sup between the two countries, without any position detained as wrongfully as the reference to the case of the Chesapeake. ship would have been detained, have, not Certain it is that the British government, withstanding, remained in captivity be in former like case, as will be seen by the tween two and three years; and it may adjustment of that part of the affair at be added, after it has long ceased to be Nootka Sound, which is analogous to this denied, that they are American citizens. case, did not consider any such distinct -Under these circumstances we are called full power as necessary; nor is there the upon to ransom the captives. slightest ground for supposing that Mr. 1st. By acknowledging that a precau. Erskine, although confessedly instruct- tionary proclamation, justified by events ed to adjust this very case of the Che- preceding the outrage, by the outrage itsapeake, was furnished with any autho-self, and by what immediately followed rity distinct from his credential letter. That Mr. Jackson has any such commission is the less to be supposed, as it is but barely possible, that possessing it, he should not, on some occasion, or in some form, have used a language susceptible of no possible doubt on this point. But proceeding to the proposal itself, it is to be kept in mind, that the conditions forming its basis are the very conditions for the deviating from which Mr. Erskine's adjustment was disavowed. Mr. Jackson, if not on others, is on this point explicit. "I now add (says he) that the deviation consisted in not recording in the official document signed here the abrogation of the President's proclamation of the 2d July, 1807, as well as the two reserves specified in the paper of memoranda en-been honoured by his Government with a closed in my official letter to you of the new and more important command.-3d. 27th ult."-Considering then the condi- By admitting a right on the part of Great tions in the proposal as an ultimatum, in Britain to claim a discharge from our serwhat light are we compelled to view such vice of desorters generally, and particularan attempt to repair the outrage committed ly of her natural born subjects, without on the frigate Chesapeake, and to heal the excepting such as had been naturalized in disappointment produced by a disavowal due form under the laws of the United of a previous equitable reparation?-It is States.-It has not been explained, whe impossible on such an occasion not to recal ther it was meant, as the universality of the circumstances which constituted the the term "deserter" would import, to character of the outrage to which such an include American citizens who might have ultimatum is now applied. A national ship left the British service.-But what possiproceeding on an important service, was ble consideration could have induced the watched by a superior naval force, en- British Government to expect that the joying at the time the hospitality of our United States could admit a principle that ports, was followed, and scarcely out of could deprive our naturalized citizens of our waters when she was, after an insult-the legal privileges which they hold in ing summons, attacked in a hostile manner, common with their native fellow-citizens? and the ship so injured as to require ex(To be continued.)

LONDON :-'rinted by T. C. HANSARD, Peterborough - Court, Fleet - Street; Published by R. BAGSHAW, Brydges-Street, Covent Garden :-Sold also by J. BUDD, Pall-Mall.

VOL. XVII. No. 5.] LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1810.

[Price 18.

"Farthermore, they have laid us open to all our enemies; whoever will invade, may not doubt to "subdue us: for they have taken from us the sinews of war, that is Money and Courage; all our "" money is gone, and they have exhausted the treasure of the nation; and when people are poor, their shirits are low, so that we are left without a defence; and who must we thank for bringing us into this despicable condition, but these gentlemen, who, notwithstanding this, had the face to stile themselves "the KING'S FRIENDS, and all those who opposed their practices were FACTIOUS and SEDITIOUS. They had brought it to that pass that whensoever any gentleman that had a true English spirit hap"pened to say any thing that was bold, presently away to seek the king and tell him of it; and often"times more than the truth: and thus they endeavour to beget an ill opinion in the king of his best "subjects: and their practice was the more abominable, because their words and actions gave the " occasion to force those smart expressions from the gentlemen that spoke them; for their honest hearts "were fired with true zeal to their king and country, when they beheld the impudence and falseness of "those Pensioners. * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** "Kings that dote too much upon their Favourites, do for the most part pick up MEAN MEN, people of no fortunes or estates, upon whom it is that they place their favour to so high a degree; and, there"fore, it is for their interest to advise the king to govern by an Army, for if he prevails, then they are "sure to have what heart can wish; or if he fail, yet they are but where they were: they had nothing, " and they can lose nothing.”—MR. BOOTH's Speeches, in the House of Commons, in the reign of Charles II. and in 1680. See Parliamentary History; Vol. IV. pages 1268 and 1272.

161]

I

"Walcheren."

*

* * * * * *

[162

SUMMARY OF POLITICS. The speech, by which this motion was prefaced was, it appears, PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.greatly applauded: but, not beyond its Opening of the Session: II. Lord Porches- deserts; for there has seldom appeared, in ter's Motion for Inquiry: III. Lord Coch-a news-paper report, a speech so eloquent

rane's Motion about Lord Gambier's Court- as this, and, at the same time, so replete Martial: IV. Mr. Manning's Complaint with clear and forcible statement, correct against the News-papers.—I. The Open- reasoning, and good sentiment. There ing of the Session was noticed in my last, wanted, indeed, nothing at all to be said at page 104, and the King's Speech was upon the subject; for, who could say, that inserted at page 113. For the sake of inquiry ought not to take place? Aye; having a more clear view of what has but there might be many, who, under prepassed, or, at least, of what had passed tence of not pre-judging, would endeavour to up to Monday night, the 29th of January, get rid of inquiry altogether.-The motion I will here just restate, that, upon the ques-of LORD PORCHESTER was seconded by the tion of the Amendment, which was moved Hon. MR. QUIN. The task of opposing this on the first day of the Session, the minis-motion was, it seems, allotted to a MR. CROters had, in the House of Lords, 144 votes KER, a briefless lawyer from Ireland, who, against 92; and that, in the House of as the reader may recollect, cut a conspiCommons, they had 263 against 167. cuous figure during the Ducal InvestigaThe Amendment, as will be seen by a re-tion, and who is now SECRETARY TO THE ference to it, contained a censure upon the ADMIRALTY, with a salary of 4,000l. a year. conduct of the ministers, and also a decla- This Mr. Croker opposed the motion of ration, that inquiry was necessary. How Lord Porchester by another motion for the any man, at all informed of what had previous question, which, as the reader very taken place in Spain and in Walcheren, well knows, amounts to just the same thing could, for one single moment, hesitate as as a direct negative to the proposition, to to whether the conduct of the ministers which it is opposed. This Mr. Croker merited censure, is, to me, utterly incom-does not appear to me to have given any prehensible. Yet, many there were who reason, worth a moment's attention, for would not, as they said, censure without this motion of his; but, he concluded inquiry!II. Well, they were soon put with a pretty broad hint about the king, to the test upon this point; for, on Friday, which it is quite proper to bear in mind, the 26th, came LORD PORCHESTER with a especially considering the quarter whence it motion for "the House going into a com- came. I He asked the House, the news"mittee to take into consideration the papers tell us, "Whether it was dealing "policy and conduct of the Expedition to fairly and respectfully by his Majesty to

F

66

be ready for delivery by Tuesday next, "he would ask, why should they now appoint a Committee to inquire, destitute "as they were of all information, when "his majesty, 'in his speech, had so soon "promised them information, which, he "trusted, would be satisfactory. What was the object of Inquiry? Why, of course, to get information; and this in"formation they were certainly promised. "There was, of course, no necessity for "the motion, if that, indeed, was its ob"ject, but they wanted to get the vote first. "The only object of the vote could be to "get information; and was it not then

66

"vote for inquiry, when he had assured them, that satisfactory documents should "be laid before them." The House does seem to have kicked a little at this. This, from Mr. Croker, does seem to have been going a little too far even for the House; and the thing was, by MR. BRAGGE, resented pretty sharply. He gave it as his opinion, that, notwithstanding the lively spirit of Mr. Croker, the ministers had evinced no great sagacity in putting him forward as a spokesman, upon this occasion; and he deprecated in strong terms the use which this Mr. Croker had made of the king's name.—— -But, come, let us not be to severe upon this Mr. Croker's superfluous, when his majesty's governdoctrine; for, I think, we must allow, that, "ment had advised his majesty to proffer for many years past, a pretty free use has "that information, on which only an Inbeen made of the king's name, both in the "quiry could be founded?-It might be House and out of it. We must all re- "that this information should not be member, that, no longer ago than last win- "deemed sufficient; but why not wait to ter, Mr. Canning not only made a simi- "see? Where could be the mighty dif lar use of the king's name, in the case of "ference between Saturday and Monday? the Duke of York, but that he pushed for- "This, however, would be quite inconward the age and the infirmities of the king" sistent; it would be too deliberative for to boot; and this, too, without exciting "the hon. gentlemen opposite. Oh, no, any great degree of indignation in the say they, we will wait for no informaHouse.- -The truth is, I dare say, that "tion; it is unnecessary to us: we will this Mr. Croker had a desire to evince his enquire first, and get information afterfriendship for his dearly beloved sovereign."wards. One hon. gentleman, however, And, really, when one considers the mat- "feared when the papers did arrive they ter rightly, it would be hard to prevent "would not be fouud satisfactory; if so, him from shewing this ardent attachment" why then papers more so might be of his. He is young, too, in all probabi- "moved for, but how could the question lity, and we know, that, at that time of "be affected by waiting to see; what life, the feelings of affection, as well as all "could the loss of a day or few hours other feelings, are stronger than at a more" signify? Another hon. gentleman had advanced age. I dare say, that, anon, his "spoken of Parliamentary tactics; indeed love for the king, though not at all dimi- "it was a science in which they seemed nished, will become more subservient to "miserably deficient; they had terribly reason; but, at present, I must confess, "mismanaged their manoeuvres on the that I do not think this ebullition of loyal "first night of the session. If they were affection a thing to be so much found"wise, they would have proposed the Mofault of, especially as the person, in whose heart it seems to reign, appears to have been formed by nature for the entertaining of this particular attachment.MR. PERCEVAL seconded the motion. of this Mr. Croker. This speech, as coming from the person who is prime minister, is of consequence, and, therefore, I shall insert all of it that is material, in the least degree, as an answer to Lord Porchester, or rather, as to why the motion for a committee of inquiry should not be adopted.The pretence was, that the king had, in the Speech, ordered the House to be assured, that he would cause papers, relative to the Expedition, to be laid before them; and that is these papers would

"tion of this night as an Amendment to "the motion for the Address, in place of

pre-judging the question as they did, "and now moving for an Inquiry into it " (Hear, hear!) But that would not do:

no; they were more confident: they "would bear down all precedent; they "would shew their strength, and carry a "motion such as had never been made "before! (Hear, hear!) Perhaps, gentle"men opposite might say, there never be"fore was such an occasion. (Loud cheers "from the opposition.) Even if there was "not, it still became any assembly which "wished to carry even a shew of justice, "to deliberate before they decided; to in"quire before they condemned. (Hear!)