6

It is proved that Commodore Rodgers bore down on the Lille Belt; it is proved that he endeavoured to place his ship in a position for raking the Lille Belt; it is proved that Captain Bingham wore three times to avoid the President's taking this advantage. Commodore Rodgers avows that he took a position to windward on the same tack, within short speaking distance,' and that the chace appeared, from his manoeuvres, anxious to prevent it.' The aggression then is on the part of Commodore Rodgers. But which of the two fired the first shot? If we cousider the difference of force, we must set down Captain Binghain as a madman, before we can consent to allow the Lille Belt to have given the first shot. The minutes of a court of inquiry, held at Halifax, prove the President to have fired first; the minutes of the American court-martial prove the Lille Belt to have fired first. Hence the quantity of proof is pretty nearly equal; as to the quality of the evidence, we shall not make one single observation. But there were two seamen on board the President at the time of the aggression, who have voluntarily made oath as follows. William Burkett, an Englishman, sworn at Deptford, deposes that the President fired the first gun by accident; that he turned round to acquaint the lieutenant with this circumstance, but that, before he could do it, the whole broadside of the President was discharged; and that immediately after, a general order was given to fire away as quick as possible. John Russell, an American, sworn at Bristol, deposes that he was on board the President at the time of the action; that the first gun was fired by accident from the President: that the guns had locks, and were all cocked; that, after the action, he was informed by the men in the waist, that a man had been entangled with the lanyard of the locks, which occasioned the gun to go off. But we really do not think it worth an argument who fired first; the true question is, who chaced? who took an hostile position? who placed the ships in that situation in which even the accidental firing of a gun, must inevitably produce decided warfare? who came down with his ship cleared for action,-the crew at their quarters, -guns double-shotted, matches lighted? The neutral! He who had not an enemy on the seas, makes a display of all this 'pomp and circumstance of war,' and then complains of the hostility of those who had used all their endeavours to avoid his double-shotted neutrality. If to all these circumstances we add the important consideration that Captain Bingham was directed, by Admiral Sawyer's instructions, to be particularly careful not to give any just cause of offence to the government or subjects of the United States of America; and that Mr. Madison has thought fit to conceal the orders under which Commodore Rodgers chaced the Lille Belt, we think it is pretty clear, that the wisest policy of the American

govern

government would have been to have wrapped up the conduct of their Commodore in profound obscurity, and covered, with the veil of discretion, this uncalled for effusion of American valour. England has voluntarily and distinctly disclaimed the practice of searching ships of war. Not content with this concession, the United States set up the pretension that free ships make free goods,' and claim the right to use the ocean as the common and acknowledged highway of nations.'

This claim, we presume, is put forward either to deny the 'right of search' of merchant vessels, or to provoke a discussion of the English title to the dominion and sovereignty of the seas. It will not be our misfortune, we sincerely hope, to see the day when the former shall be abandoned. As to the latter, we are of opinion that the pretensions to this right, set up by Selden and others, went no farther than that right which conquest, and an uninterrupted superiority of naval power, had achieved, and which had obtained the sanction of most of the nations of Europe.

Great Britain never pretended to any legal and possessory right, to the exclusion of others. The first idea of sea dominion seems to have been taken from the ordination of the laws of Oleron, which were promulgated from that island by Richard I. on his return from the Holy Wars, obeyed by all seafaring people in the western parts of the world, and made the common standard of right and wrong in the maritime law of nations. It must, however, be observed that Richard was Duke of Aquitain and Normandy, and, in right of the latter, lord on both sides the English Channel; for which reason a code of laws was necessary to regulate the intercourse between his English and French subjects and those of his allies, and for the more speedy and impartial determination of all controversies which might occasionally arise. The laws of Oleron are but, in fact, a transcript of the old Rhodian laws to which all the surrounding nations conformed; and the adoption of them in England infers no more a sea dominion, than it conferred on the Romans the sovereignty of the Mediterranean, for conforming themselves, in their maritime affairs, to the laws of the little republic of Rhodes. The ordinance at Hastings, made by King John in the second year of his reign, ordered all ships laden or empty, to strike their sails at the command of the King's governor or admiral, or his lieutenant.' King John, being in possession of Normandy, was lord of both shores; and it has never been disputed that he is lord of the intermediate river who is lord of both banks. This, therefore, was nothing more thau a mere municipal regulation for merchant vessels, and implied nothing whatever of sovereignty.

The right of the flag was demanded from all nations in the British seas, from a very early period of our naval history.

B 4

Philip

Philip II. of Spain was shot at by the Lord Admiral of England, for wearing his flag in the narrow seas, when he came over to marry Queen Mary.

Sir William Monson says, that, in 1605, he met with a Dutch admiral in Dover roads, and made him not only strike his flag, but keep it in all the while he was in company.

In the Earl of Northumberland's first voyage to sea, the Happy Return, meeting the Spanish fleet, consisting of 26 sail, between Calais and Dunkirk, made them strike on their own coasts.

In 1647, a fleet of Swedish men of war, and ten merchantmen, bound for Constantinople, refusing to strike to some of our men of war off the Isle of Wight, an engagement ensued, and they were all brought into the Downs, but soon released.

In 1672, the Count D'Etrées, vice-admiral of France, joining the Duke of York, with a squadron of 34 men of war, saluted him with 13 guns, and struck his flag.

In 1663, Sir R. Holmes, going down the Swin, in the Charles, met the King of Denmark's brother coming into the river with his flag flying, and suffered him to go by without striking, for which he was sent to the Tower.

In 1675, Captain Joseph Harris, commander of the Quaker ketch, having struck his topsail to a Spanish man of war, in the bay of Biscay, was tried at a court-martial, and sentenced to be shot to death; and he was accordingly brought upon deck, and men stood ready with their muskets to shoot him; but was pardoned, under the great seal, in consideration of his former good services, and known proofs of courage.

King Charles II. in his declaration of war against the Dutch in 1671, observes,' The right of the flag is so ancient, that it was one of the first prerogatives of our royal predecessors, and ought to be the last from which this kingdom should ever depart, &c.Ungrateful insolence! that they should contend with us about the dominion of those seas, who, even in the reign of our royal father, thought it an obligation to be permitted to fish in them!' And King William's declaration of war against France, in 1689, has these words: The right of the flag, inherent in the crown of England, has been disputed by his (Louis's) orders, in violation of our sovereignty in the narrow seas, which, in all ages, has been asserted by our predecessors, and which we are resolved to maintain for the honour of our crown, and of the English nation.'

In the general printed instructions to the commanders of ships of war, issued by order in council of 1734, and continued down to 1806, the article runs thus:

When any of his Majesty's ships shall meet with any ship or ships belonging to any foreign prince or state, within his Majesty's seas, (which

extend to Cape Finisterre,) it is expected that the said foreign ships do strike their topsail and take in their flag, in acknowledgment of his Majesty's sovereignty in those seas; and if any shall refuse, or offer to resist, it is enjoined to all flag officers and commanders to use their utmost endeavours to compel them thereto, and not suffer any dishonour to be done to his Majesty."

But the right of the flag, as well as that of searching ships of war, has been abandoned. When the glorious victory of Trafalgar had swept every hostile fleet from the ocean, the new general printed instructions, issued immediately after that battle, dropt the article respecting the flag altogether. How far this concession of a right so highly prised by our ancestors, was wise or politic, we will not trust our feelings to argue. But it is, at least, a refutation of the charge so frequently brought against us of being the tyrants of the sea.' Possibly, indeed, it is not our injustice, but our too great concession and moderation which has produced or encouraged these captious complaints. Had England maintained the state of her naval throne, America would never have dared to refuse obeysance and reverence to her power.

The modern Charlemagne, however, talks of restoring the liberty of the seas.' A specimen of what that liberty would be, were the French flag triumphant, the Americans have already had in the destruction of their merchant vessels by French incendiaries. Let Mr. Jefferson himself furnish the description. Speaking of French armed vessels, (but concealing the name,) some with, some without, and others with illegal, commissions, they have captured,' says he, at the very entrance of our harbours, as well as upon the high seas, not only the vessels of our friends, coming to trade with us, but our own also: they have carried them off under pretence of legal adjudication; but not daring to approach a court of justice, they have plundered and sunk them by the way, in obscure places, where no evidence could arise against them, maltreated the crews, and abandoned them in boats in the open sea, or on desert shores, without food or covering."* Yet it is by these people that America expects her maritime rights' to be respected; these are the apostles of the liberty of the seas.

3. The impressment of American seamen furnishes an inexhaustible topic of appeal to the passions of the multitude. In the last message, Mr. Madison adverts to it only in a general way among those other wrongs of which America has to complain;' but the committee make ample amends for the President's silence.

'While we are laying before you the just complaints of our merchants against the plunder of their ships and cargoes, (by the French, let it be observed, though designed as a charge against England,) we

* Jefferson's message to Congress, in December, 1805.

cannot

cannot refrain from presenting to the justice and humanity of our own country, the unhappy case of our impressed seamen. Although the groans of these victims of barbarity for the loss of (what should be dearer to the Americans than life) their liberty; although the cries of their wives and children, in the privation of protectors and parents, have of late been drowned in the louder clamours at the loss of property, yet is the practice of forcing our mariners into the British navy, in violation of the rights of our flag, carried on with unabated rigour and severity.'

Bold and often repeated clamours, however groundless, seldom fail in making their impression; and as this is a subject that must ever be a source of irritation, we have taken some pains to ascertain the true state of the case, from which we think it will appear that the Americans are not the aggrieved party.

We presume it will not be denied that the king has a right to the services of every British seaman; that all British-born subjects owe him allegiance, which they cannot shake off, but which follows them wherever they go; and that no rights of citizenship conferred on them by a foreign sovereign can exempt them from the duties which they owe to their own. Those duties they are called upon to perform by the king's proclamation, during war. The officers of the navy are directed, by their instructions, to search for such British seamen in foreign merchant vessels, and to take them out whenever found. By the same instructions his Majesty's officers are forbidden to impress foreigners, who are in fact protected by act of parliament; as well as by the law of nations. There is no difficulty whatever in discriminating British seamen from all foreigners, except Americans. The American tounage has more than doubled itself within the last ten years. This vast increase of tonnage not only affords employment for British merchant seamen, but encourages desertion from the British navy. In such a state of things, it would be madness to forego the only means of reclaiming to the service of the sovereign the multitude of British seamen, whom not any unnatural preference for a foreign service over that of their own country, but accidental circumstances, the love of novelty and change, and temptations held out to them of superior advantages (held out, but never fulfilled) have seduced into the American mercantile navy.

Where similarity of language and external appearance produce so great a difficulty in discrimination, it would be idle to pretend that no mistake is ever committed; but a very slight consideration is sufficient to shew that for one wrongful assertion of the claim, there are and must be a thousand cases in which our just claims are eluded.

An act of Congress, entitled An Act for the Relief and Protection of American Seamen,' passed no doubt for the purposes which