as a public law on both parties, and which would necessarily render a continuance of both would have a common interest in the French Decrees doubly obnoxious.— seeing duly executed. On his own prin- But, if, on this head, doubts could have ciple there ought to be a reciprocity, not been entertained, instead of rejecting the only in the execution of the compact, but arrangement, ought not the Repealing in the obligation and interest resulting Act on our part to have been met with from it. Besides, where there is a recia suspension, at least, of the Orders in procity in compacts between nations touch- Council, until it could have been seen ing attributes of sovereignty there is always whether the Non-intercourse Law would as much of sovereignty gained as is parted or would not have been continued against with, so that there be no loss nor indig- France? Such a suspension could not have nity on either side.-3d. The remaining given, in any point of view, more advanpoint in the dispatch, not secured by the tage to the United States, than was given arrangement, is that which required that to Great Britain by the repeal, which had whilst our prohibitory laws should be re taken place on their part. If this reasonpealed as to Great Britain, they should able course could not have been substibe left in force as to France and the powers tuted for the disavowal, why was not a fiadopting or acting under her Decrees. nal disavowal suspended with a proposiThis is the condition which alone properly tion, that the arrangement would be exebelongs to the subject; and it is to be re- cuted by Great Britain in the event of a marked, in the first place, that the British compliance on the part of the United project, of which this condition makes a States with the condition required as to part, contemplated two things in their na- France?-I am not unaware, you may be ture incompatible; one, a repeal of the told, that the Non-intercourse law of the prohibitory acts as to Great Britain, with- United States did not extend to Holland, out waiting for the conclusion of a regular though so intimately connected with France, treaty; the other a pledge, or engagement and so subservient to her Decrees against for their continuance as to the other neutral commerce. It would not be impowers. Now, from the nature of our proper on this occasion to observe, that Constitution, which, in this particular, this objection can be the less urged by ought to have been attended to by the Great Britain, as she has herself never in British Government, it is manifest that the her alledged retaliations adhered to her Executive authority could have given no principles on which they were foundedsuch pledge, that the continuance of the Thus she has, from the date of them, until Prohibitory Acts, being a subject of le- very lately, directed them against the gislative consideration, could not have American trade even to Russia, although been provided for until the meeting of the Russia had never adopted the French DeLegislature, and that the condition could crees, nor otherwise violated our neutral not, therefore, but have failed, either in trade with Great Britain. So, in her Orthe immediate renewal of commerce with der of April last, she has discriminated, Great Britain, or in the immediate engage- not only between the countries devoted to ment that it should not be renewed with France by the ties of blood, and other France. The British Government ought powers, but between Holland, Westphalia, to have acquiesced in, and indeed ought and Naples, in enforcing her prohibitory to have been satisfied with the attaint.ent Order against the first and not the two last. of the important object of an immediate Whilst, therefore, she finds it expedient repeal of our prohibitory laws; and with to make these distinctions, she ought to the consideration, that the other object, presume, that we, too, may perceive equal not immediately attainable, was unneces- propriety in the distinctions we have made. sary at the time, because the prohibition-But it may be of more importance here 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 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, to the departure of Mr. Erskine from his instructions, without shewing what those instructions were, and to allusions to an expression in the arrangement, without giving to his meaning the distinctness prerequisite to a just reply. It appears, however, that he lays great stress on the pro are opened to our commerce.-Under the arrangement of April, combined with our Act of Non-intercourse, all the ports of Europe, except France and her dependencies, including the kingdom of Italy, would have been opened to our commerce. The difference then is reduced merely to Holland, and that again is re-posal enclosed in his letter of the 27th Ocduced to the difference between a direct tober, as at once indicating the departure trade to the ports of Holland, and an indi- of Mr. Erskine from his instructions; and rect trade to Holland, through Tonningen, as containing the conditions on the basis of Hamburgh, Bremen, and Embden.--Now, which he was ready to enter on an adjustas the injuring of the enemies of Great ment. And from a note from the SecreBritain is the only avowed object of her tary of the British Legation, it appears interdicting Order against our trade, let a that he has complained of not having recomputation be made of the effect which ceived an answer to his proposal, as he this difference between the Order in Coun- had before complained that no answer cil and the arrangement could possibly had been given to his verbal disclosure on have in producing such an injury. And this head in his interviews with me. With then let the question be candidly answer- respect to his intimations in conversation, ed, whether, laying aside all considera- as they were preceded by no proper astions of right and justice, sufficient induce-signment of the reasons for not having exment could have been found in that result ecuted the original adjustment: it cannot for rejecting the arrangement, and for be necessary to remark, that no such noproducing the consequent embarrassments, tice, as he wished to obtain, could, with any as well to Great Britain as to the United sort of propriety, have been taken of them. States-If it be necessary, as Mr. Jack-With respect to his written project, it will on 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, that, when finally brought to the point, he referred for a justification of the disavowal 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 pensive repairs, the expedition frustrated, a number of the crew killed and wounded, several carried into captivity, and one of them put to death under a military sentence. The three seamen, though Anterican citizens, and therefore on every sup position detained as wrongfully as the of a full power in due form for the express purpose of concluding a Treaty or Convention. But it still remains uncertain, whether by the Treaty or Convention to which it related was not meant an eventual or provisional Treaty on the general relations between the two countries, without any reference to the case of the Chesapeake.ship would have been detained, have, notCertain it is that the British government, withstanding, remained in captivity bein 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. cose, 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- seif, and by what immediately followed rity distinct from his credential letter.it, was unjustifiable, and that a repeal of That Mr. Jackson has any such com- it was properly a condition precedent to a mission 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 enclosed in my official letter to you of the 27th ult." Considering then the conditions in the proposal as an ultimatum, in what light are we compelled to view such an attempt to repair the outrage committed on the frigate Chesapeake, and to heal the disappointment produced by a disavowal of a previous equitable reparation?-It is impossible on such an occasion not to recal the circumstances which constituted the character of the outrage to which such an ultimatum is now applied. A national ship proceeding on an important service, was watched by a superior naval force, enjoying at the time the hospitality of our ports, was followed, and scarcely out of our waters when she was, after an insulting summons, attacked in a hostile manner, and the ship so injured as to require ex 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 been honoured by his Government with a new and more important command.—3d. By admitting a right on the part of Great Britain to claim a discharge from our service of deserters generally, and particular ly of her natural born subjects, without excepting such as had been naturalized in due form under the laws of the United States.-It has not been explained, whe ther it was meant, as the universality of the term "deserter" would import, to include American citizens who might have left the British service. But what possible consideration could have induced the British Government to expect that the United States could admit a principle that could deprive our naturalized citizens of the legal privileges which they hold in common with their native fellow-citizens? (To be continued.) LONDON:-Printed 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. 44 [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 « spirits 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 happened 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, therefore, 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. BOOтH'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. 66 46 161] SUMMARY OF POLITICS. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. I. -[162 "Walcheren." The speech, by which this motion was prefaced was, it appears, 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, só 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 on the first day of the Session, the ministers had, in the House of Lords, 144 votes against 92; and that, in the House of Commons, they had 263 against 167. The Amendment, as will be seen by a reference to it, contained a censure upon the conduct of the ministers, and also a declaration, that inquiry was necessary. How any man, at all informed of what had taken place in Spain and in Walcheren, could, for one single moment, hesitate as to whether the conduct of the ministers merited censure, is, to me, utterly incomprehensible. Yet, many there were who would not, as they said, censure without inquiry!II. Well, they were soon put to the test upon this point; for, on Friday, the 26th, came LORD PORCHESTER with a motion for the House going into a com"mittee to take into consideration the "policy and conduct of the Expedition to Hon. MR. QUIN. The task of opposing this motion was, it seems, allotted to a MR. CROKER, a briefless lawyer from Ireland, who, as the reader may recollect, cut a conspicuous figure during the Ducal Investigation, and who is now SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY, with a salary of 4,000l. a year. This Mr. Croker opposed the motion of Lord Porchester by another motion for the previous question, which, as the reader very well knows, amounts to just the same thing as a direct negative to the proposition, to which it is opposed. This Mr. Croker does not appear to me to have given any reason, worth a moment's attention, for this motion of his; but, he concluded with a pretty broad hint about the king, which it is quite proper to bear in mind, especially considering the quarter whence it came. He asked the House, the newspapers tell us, "Whether it was dealing fairly and respectfully by his Majesty to F "vote for inquiry, when he had assured 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 superfluous, when his majesty's govern«ment had advised his majesty to proffer "that information, on which only an In 66 66 why then papers more so might be "moved for, but how could the question "be affected by waiting to see; what "could the loss of a day or few hours signify? Another hon. gentleman had 66 spoken of Parliamentary tactics; indeed "it was a science in which they seemed "miserably deficient; they had terribly quiry could be founded?-It might be "that this information should not be "decmed sufficient; but why not wait to "see? Where could be the mighty dif "ference between Saturday and Monday? "This, however, would be quite incon"sistent; it would be toò deliberative for the hon. gentlemen opposite. Oh, no, say they, we will wait for no information; it is unnecessary to us: we will 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 of his. He is young, too, in all probability, and we know, that, at that time of life, the feelings of affection, as well as all other feelings, are stronger than at a more advanced age. I dare say, that, anon, his love for the king, though not at all diminished, will become more subservient to reason; but, at present, I must confess," that I do not think this ebullition of loyal affection a thing to be so much found fault 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 as these papers would mismanaged their manoeuvres on the "first night of the session. If they were "wise, they would have proposed the Mo"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, gentlemen 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!) |