ly it is a recent discovery --He never "hinted at any such right in discussing the "affair of the Swedish Convoy, in the "case above alluded to. He confines his argument solely to the right of searching "merchantmen, and denies that the merchantship can lawfully refuse to be search"ed. He goes on further than denying that the presence of the ship of war can legally prevent the search of the merchantmen. The searching of ships of war (and "in such a case, on Sir W. Scott's autho"rity, the right must be mutual), can `never be resorted to between the English " and Americans without nourishing heartburnings and enmities, of which surely "it is both humane and wise to remove the 66 causes. Besides, if we retain the right "of searching merchantmen, what possible "inconvenience can arise while America "is a neutral power, and has scarcely any "military navy at sea at all, from waiving "the right to search ships of war? What " is the number of our sailors that can be "detained in the American ships of war? "even if their whole crew were English, "the number would not be very great. If, "then, we have a right to search their mer"chantmen, how can they in the present "circumstances rob us with impunity of "our sailors? The right of searching ships "of war, therefore, is now at least of very "little importance to us; but, on the other "hand if the right is claimed by us, it must "be conceded to the Americans; and in "that case, we apprehend that the Ame"rican ships of war in exercising the right "of searching our men of war, would pro"bably find a good many. But in retain"ing and exercising the right of searching "merchantmen, we must say with Sir W. "Scott, that, considering the invidiousness "of such a proceeding, in all cases, and par ticularly to the Americans, almost in their "own harbours, "The right must unquestionably be exercised with as little of per*sonal harshness, and of vexation in the "mode, as possible." It is not very likely that it will be so exercised when so "much pains are taken to raise both "the contempt and the hatred of our navy against the Americans.- was made known in England. It was the Whigs and the Morning Chronicle, who began the dispute here; they explicitly condemned the conduct of our naval officers upon the American station; it appeared to me, that the conduct of these officers was not only justifiable, but highly praise-worthy; and, in defending them, I was naturally led to examine the principles of those, by whom that condemnation had been passed. These principles I found to be subversive of our rights upon the seas, and I again expressed my fears, that some of those rights had been sacrificed, in the treaty, recently made with the American States. If they have not been sacrificed I am glad of it, but, however angry it may make the Morning Chronicle, I shall not ascribe the prevention of such sacrifice to its particular friends, but to the Grenville part of the late administration.I am not aware, that I have assailed the Morning Chronicle in an ill-mannered tone of personal invec"tive;" but, what, other than an ad"vocate of the cause of our enemies, am I to call a writer, or a speaker, who invariably, is on the enemy's side? Who, in every dispute between America and Great Britain, has taken part with the former, though it is notorious, that America has taken every advantage that presented itself of shewing its hatred of us, and of evading the effect of stipulations that were intended to operate in our favour; and that, the people of England have to pay millions of money out of their taxes, owing to this conduct on the part of America. In spite of all this, as well known to the Morning Chro nicle as to me, and I have at hand proofs of the facts, that paper has been constantly on the side of the Americans, and has censured every thing, said or done, by any bo dy in the way of asserting our country's rights or claims, if those rights or claims were opposed to the interests of the Americans. What, else, then, than an advocate of the cause of our enemies am I to call such a print? "Nay,” says this writer, "the House of Lords itself is censured for "not having negatived a motion, that na"tions were to be considered as equal, as to "their rights." Their rights upon the seas was what I remarked upon. That all nations were upon a footing of perfect equality as to the rights upon the seas, was the proposition of Lord Stanhope. And how did I censure the conduct of the peers in not putting a direct negative upon this?" in my "opinion, said I, they should have met the question, and given a direct negative to "the proposition." Does the Morning Chronicle call this censure? Was this so galling to his ardent loyalty and love of “so cial order," as to induce him to point me out to the attention of the Attorney General ? There is no one so unjust, or so implacable, as a defeated disputant.But, now as to my so much derided doctrine: as to the right of searching for seamen on board of ships of war, it neither has been, nor "from the nature of things, can be exercis ed, without leading to disturbance and "irritation that would render peace between two countries little else than a feverish "expectation of war." My "learning," at which the Morning Chronicle is pleased to sneer, whether" deep" or shallow, is sufficient to enable me to assert, without the fear of being contradicted, that this right has, when we thought necessary, been exercised for centuries past, and that we have lived in perfect harmony with the powers, with respect to whom we have actually exercised it.--Nothing is, by this candid writer, said about the order, which all our naval commanders have, to search all ships, without exception, for British seamen; nor until the question was agitated by me, does he appear to have known, that such an order was in existence. "Learn And why of course? Because she was not then an independent nation? That is a poor reason; for, when she did become independent, she became a sharer in all the checks which England possessed the right of imposing upon the operations of other nations upon the seas. But," France never yielded "to this claim of ours." Oh, gladsome circumstance! It is time, then, that she did yield; and, in the mean while, the principle remains unshaken by the circumstance of our having neglected to force her to a compliance; a neglect, too, which at the time referred to, might have arisen from the particular connections, subsisting between the kings of England and France. Selden, however, prescribes no such narrow limits; but asserts our right to dominion upon all the seas round about us, even unto the opposite shores; and not a mere "sort of nominal "dominion," but a real dominion, or own ership, including the right of opening, shut ting, permitting, prohibiting, and demanding of tribute. And why, I ask again, are not the opinions and assertions of Selden as good, to the full, as the opinions and asser tions of Grotius Against this doctrine of inequality, in point of rights, upon the seas, Sir William Scott is largely quoted; but, in the whole of the quotation, there is not one proposition hostile to the doctrine, for which I contend. He says, indeed, that he is to judge impartially; that he is to do by the Swedes, as he would wish the Swedes, in a similar case, to do by the British; but, acting fully up to these professions, he might have justified the searching of a Swedish flag ship for British seamen, and have denied a similar right to the Swedes; because we, having the dominion, or ownership of the sea, have a right thereon to do what other nations have not a right to do. Suppose Mr. Whitbread were to prosecute one of the Jazy and vicious English labourers for carrying a gun in pursuit of game, and to make him pay a penalty of five pounds; and, sup ing," Sir, properly so called, is knowledge; and, if I happen to know more than you, with regard to the subject upon which we are writing, I am, as to that subject, a more learned man, though my skin may be spot-less, and though you may still bear about you the marks of the blows, under which you acquired the knowledge of declining Latin nouns -The proposition, that all nations are upon a footing of perfect equality, as to their rights upon the seas, is what I deny, and I have shewn before, that it is a proposition, not only unne cessary to be declared, but a proposition containing an abandonment of the ancient claims of our country. "The law of nations" is cited upon me by this antagonist. But, why should not Selden's admirable book, sanctioned as it was by republicans as well as royalists, be considered as part of the code of public law? Why are we to rely upon Grotius, in answer to whom Selden wrote, more than we are to rely upon our own learned and excellent countryman? I should like to have a direct answer to this question. The book of Grotius contains merely the opinions of an iudi-pose this man were, the next day, to prosevidual; and, surely, Sulden's opinions are full as good, considered as a rule of conduct for ns.- -But, this writer, as if overjoyed to have discovered a lapse in the claims of is country, hastens to tell us, that we cute Mr. Whitbread for carrying a gun, and were to find, that he would have for his pains the payment of the costs. Yet the act would be the same. All the difference would consist in the rights of the parties respective ly. There is, however, no such thing as beating it into the head of the Morning Chronicle (I hope this is not personal), that there is, or has been, or ever can be, any difference between our rights and the rights of any other nation, upon the seas; and, in this article before us, he coolly concludes, as if upon admitted premises. that, if the right of searching ships of war be claimed by us, it must be conceded to the Americans. Why it must, he does not, indeed, tell us, but goes unconcernedly on to observe, that, as the Americans have scarcely any ships of war, and as ours are very numerous, we should get but few men out of theirs, while they, in all probability, would get great numbers out of ours. Really, after this, one need not be much surprised to hear it contended, that, because the magistrate has the power to take up the vagrant upon suspicion, the vagrant ought to have the same power with respect to the magistrate, than which a more satisfactory proof of equality of rights could not, I think. be required, even by Lord Stanhope himself --I agree, with Sir William Scott, that "the right of "search must unquestionably be exercised "with as little of personal harshness, and of "vexation in the mode, as possible;" but, says the Morning Chronicle, it is not very "likely that it will be so exercised, when so "mach pains are taken to raise both the contempt and the hatred of our navy against the Americans."--This I take to myself, and am ready to justify it upon the best of all possible grounds, that of truth employed in defence of my country's interest and honour. I appeal to my readers, whe ther this very Morning Chronicle had not conveyed to the public the paragraphs, contained in the American papers, abusive of our officers and of our country, before I said a word upon the subject; whether those pa ragraphs did not contain charges of cowardice and villainy against our officers, and threats against us, unless we instantly submitted to the American demands; whether this Morning Chronicle, and a weekly writer, who now condescends to borrow its plumes and fight under its wings, had not openly espoused the cause of these our revilers, and, tacitly at least, approved of their revilings? I appeal to my readers, whether this be not true; and was it not, then, my duty to show to the public, and to other nations, as far as I might have a chance of succeeding therein, not only that the charges against us were false, but also of what character our accusers were, and what were the motives of their accusations? Very tender is the Morning Chronicle of the reputation of the Americans and of Captain (I beg his pardon, Commodore, I mean) Barron; bat, nothing chafed does it appear at hearing Admiral Berkeley denominated "a piratical "commander in chief," Captain Humphreys " a murderer," and Captain Douglas, one of the best even of British naval officers, "an insolent ruffian." Let the Americans abuse us in their own prints as long as they please; but, as often as their abuse is circulated by the prints in England, and, through those prints, is likely to find its way to other countries, so often will I, though singlehanded, use my best endeavours to farnish an antidote to the poison, and, if I am not successful, the fault, I am resolved, shall not be mine. If the consequence of my animadversions upon these American attacks, be that contempt and hatred, of which the Morning Chronicle so feelingly deprecates the effects, the fault be with the agressor; for I have not yet brought myself to adopt the Quaker maxim, that it is the second blow which is most sinful, because it is that which makes the battle. My belief is, that pens as well as limbs, were given us for our defence, and that, if the attack be unjust, the defence is just. Suffer these aspersions, these bitter reproaches against us, to pass, in our own journals, unresented, and what is the consequence? Why, that the whole world will believe them to be just; or that we are so base and infamous become, that, from motives of party or of discontent at the conduct of our rulers, while many take delight in promulgating charges of foreigners against their country, there is not a man amongst us, who will move pen or tongue in its defence. I have a quarrel with abuses of all sorts; I have a quarrel with peculation and plunder, under whatever specious names they may be disguised; but, I have no quarrel with my country, which I live in hopes of seeing restored to all the liberties and blessings she formerly enjoyed. In all laveful endeavours to effect a reform of the destructive abuses that exist, I will set my "foot as far as he that goes farthest," in the way either of labour or of sacrifice; I have so done hitherto; but, I trust, that nothing will ever induce me to act as if I thought to escape from my share of the reproach, due to those abuses, by throwing the blame upon the country instead of throwing it upon those who ought to bestir themselves for the resto ration of her liberties and renown. The Morning Chronicle may resent, as long as it pleases, my imputations of coldness towards the country; but, cold and abstracted I must say it is, upon all questions wherein the country is a party; and, I will further say, that the whole of the politicians, belonging to the Whigs, have but too frequently discovered the same sort of feeling. It is but of late years that this feeling has crept in; this surprising liberality; this perfect impartiality. About four years ago, the editor of the Booksellers' Annual Register took oc casion to remark that it was time to lay aside,` the song of Britannia rule the waves," as being insulting to foreign nations! And, it is truly curious, that this man's name was Thompson, whereunto he had, for the purpose, I suppose, of distinguishing himself from the immortal author of the song, prevailed, for what price I know not, upon the learned gentlemen of Edinburgh to add the title of Doctor of Laws. This proposition alone, published, as it was, in a book of wide circulation, is sufficient to stamp the character of the age. I am for our ruling the waves still, being confident, that, if we cease to do that, we shall soon be released from the trouble of ruling the land. AMERICAN STATES. The London prints have extracted from those of America, within these few days, several articles, which clearly show, that a considerable part of the people of that country are, as I said they would be, decidedly opposed to the assertion of those arrogant pretensions, of which the "Revenge" cutter is supposed to have been the bearer. One of these articles I can. not refrain from extracting. It is dated at Boston, August the 10th, and it will serve as a pretty tolerable good answer to all those, who have expressed such alarm at the prospect of a rupture with America." Some of our warm democratic papers, consider "it a mere half-day's job to ruin Great Bri"tain, and compel her to subscribe to such "terms, as in our humanity we may conde scend to offer. Were it as easy to do as "to talk, we could have made England "long 'ere this, one of the territories of the United States. Supposing, while they are making their calculations, we also "make a few.In the first place, it is "agreed, that the war will be on the ocean, almost entirely and on the ocean, let it "be seriously enquired, how little we can gain, and how much we must lose. Great "Britain will not hazard her produce and "manufactures to the capture of our priva"teers. She will convoy together perhaps an hundred sail of merchantmen, by ten frigates, or even five. Can we capture "them? No. We are to trade to the West "Indies, to neutral ports, and to the ports of her enemies, says one paper; but how Convoyed? Will our merfor convoy? If are man. So far from the country's being "enriched by privateering-so far from our having" 700 respectable privateers," as " our government paper declares, our owners of vessels could not fit out one "hundred. They would want a prospect "of success: they would rather, from eco nomy, permit their vessels gradually to "rot in their docks. Men engage not in "privateering, seamen enlist not in priva"teering, without an expectation, a strong "probability, of a balance of chances in "their favour.But the Intelligencer is "told to say, that we are to receive an in come equal to our revenue, from 700 "respectable privateers." What ideot be "lieves it? Yet, if it were so, it is no in come to the government. How is our "civil list to be paid? How our national "debt decreased? Aye, but the democratic 66 bawling for the necessity of lowering and "banishing the national debt, entirely ceases, when we can hire money to ruin "ourselves, to ruin the British, and to ag "grandize France. We can hire mo "ney:" we have now a "national estab "lished credit," and can hire money. We can afford to lose a revenue of a dozen "millions of dollars, and run in debt yearly "four millions. We once could not do so. "For French or Spanish insults, or spolia"tions, or aggressions on our rights, our "honour, or our territory, nothing could be "done; not even provision made for 4000 "men. The case is widely different. We " see it is. England is the insulter now. "The Spaniards, backed by the French, "and because backed by the French, may "shut the port of New Orleans; may keep "us with an armed force from territory "purchased; may carry off our citizens; may exact and receive duties at the Mo "bile, when our government years since by law established a custom-house to re"ceive duties ourselves; may seize the mi litary stores of the United States; may "at the head of an enlightened govern"ment."- -We have no idea of succum bing to the insults or injuries of either na❝tion; nor do any but children and block"heads declare so; nor any but children " and blockheads, believe, that those are ""tories," or partial to Britain, because 66 they wish to avoid war, if consistent with "national honour, and our rights. Yet the "whole answer, and the whole argument "of certain democrats is, tories, tories, tories. With far more truth could we say, Frenchmen, Frenchmen, Frenchmen. "The National Intelligencer says, we are "to make our fortunes by privateering, "should a war take place with G. Britain; "that its profits are to equal the present revenue of the country from foreign imports; and that this immense sum, in"stead of going into the national trea 66 sury, is to flow into every man's pock(6 et. This is a charming picture of "the solid resources of a great coun 'try; and would be looked on with "some complacency, could the agricul"turist, whose surplus productions would " illegal proceedings and disorders, and to assist the magistracy, should such distur"bances occur. It is often the case that "acts the most illegal and unjustifiable are "committed partly through violence, part"ly through ignorance, but mostly from "the instigation of particular seditious tempers and the writings of such scribblers as are constantly endeavouring to disturb "the peace of the town, through the "Chronicle. This measure of the Com"mander in Chief is prudent, and highly "praise-worthy.-The Intelligencer says, "we have "the highest authority the case "admits of," the President's Proclamation? "to prove they were American citizens. "With shame and with sorrow we say, we "have an executive in whom we wish we "could place more reliance. We know. not but that they are American; but Ad"miral Berkeley says NO in his Proclama"tion. Why will not the Intelligencer ob"tain from government the documents that "induced the President to believe them "Americans? They would give great sa"tisfaction."--My life upon it, they will be found to be British subjects. I never believed the contrary, for one moment; and, this article confirms me in my first persuasion. Party spirit may, for aught I know, have had some influence with this writer; but, his arguments are before us; of them we can safely judge; and they tend to confirm all that I have said respecting the consequences of a war to the American States. -In vain would the American govern. ment impose prohibitions with respect to the supplying of our West-India Islands with provision and lumber. The people of America would supply them in spite of all prohibitions. They would clear their ships out for other ports and go to ours. They would agree with English privateers to capture them in such or such places. They would evade all the laws, if hundreds were made, upon the subject; or, not being able to evade them, the States to the north (or, as they call it, there, to the east), would openly set the general government at defiance, and effect that separation, for which some of them have long wished, and which has even been proposed in print.—— Here, I think, the public mind seems to be made up to war with America, rather than yield the smallest particle of our rights to her; and, indeed, the events, which have recently taken place in Europe, so far from rendering it advisable to yield in this respect, must, unless the plans of the ministers be partial and paltry, lead to an abridgement of that liberty of navigation, which the Americans have hitherto enjoyed upon the sea. America is now the great trading neutral power; the chief feeder of our fee; and, though she is not to be blamed for thus consulting her interests, we shall be compelled to interfere with these her pursuits, or, we shall soon fall under that foe. This is to be done without a war, and even without a quarrel. A declaration, on the part of the king, applying equally to all neutral nations, and stating broadly the necessity of exercis ing an absolute maritime dominion, until a change should take place with respect to the governing powers of those states of Europe, |