Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

cause to be executed without injury to himself. A defender of Mr. Jefferson says: it was not for America to commence knight errant, and contend with France for the interests of other neutrals. That was not expected of her, it is true; but, if she chose not to do it; if she chose to acquiesce in the principle of the decree, upon the condition that she should be exempted from its injurious effects, that could be no reason for our exempting her in the execution of any measure of retaliation, which we might think it right to adopt. France exempted her upon the ground of self-interest; no such motive could we perceive for an exemption. On the contrary, we found her as hostile towards us as her means of hostility would allow her to be. We found her with a nonimportation act, passed in order to punish us for not giving up to her a right, the exercise of which was essential to the preservation of, not our naval superiority, but of our navy itself. If America will so act as to make it our interest to exempt her from the effect of our maritime regulations, we shall then, doubtless, be ready to exempt her, as France did; but, until then, I hope we shall not. No: it was not feelings of " contempt," that the "empty blockade" was calculated to inspire. It was feelings of indignation, and of just vengeance, not only against France, but against every power, who, either by direct or indirect means, gave their sanction to the abominably insolent principle of the Berlin decree. It was not the loss of commerce, but the loss of character, which we should have sustained, by leaving that sanction unpunished. We were called upon by every motive, which, under such circumstances, ought to animate a nation, to convince the world, that every state, who dared to insult us, would rue the effects of its conduct. What resemblance is there, I would ask, between the Berlin decree and the wearing of the title and arms of the kingdom of France, by the king of England? A title that had been won by our ancestors, who really conquered and who really governed France, and which title was as much our property as the name of any man is his property. All the world knew, that it aimed no insult against France; that it was a mere record, or memorial, of deeds long passed. Can the same be said of a decree, which was professedly intended to cut England off from all connection with the rest of the world, until the day, when she would submit her neck to the yoke of France. This American, under the influence of that unnatural and base partiality, pervading the minds of so many of his countrymen, thinks it was

[ocr errors]

a

a galling yoke" that the French submitted to in permitting us to wear the arms and regal title of France; but, he seems to think very little of the yoke, which Napoleon has pledged himself to make us wear, and, as a preparatory step to which, he was endeavouring to place us under an interdict.This correspondent charges me with " gross mistatement of a plain matter of fact;" and then he states, with truth, perhaps, that what I said, in page 337, respecting a rise in the rate of insurance, which would naturally be occasioned by the Berlin decree, was incorrect. My statement related not to "a plain matter of fact." It related to what would, in my opinion, naturally be the case; it was calculated upon "the danger of capture in consequence of the French decree;" but, if the secret understanding between France and America was made known in America, then there would, of course, be no such consequence. This gentleman has, however, blinked the matter; for, though what he has said may be true, with regard to ships and cargoes coming from America, can he prove that it was so with respect to ships and cargoes going from England to America? If he can show, that the decree had no effect upon the rate of insurance as to such property, I shall think that the merchants concerned had a contempt for the power of France; but, I shall not, even in that case, think that we ought to have exempted America from the effects of our commercial regulations, seeing that she had not resisted the principle of the French decree, but had tacitly acquiesced in the right of France, generally speaking, to declare England to be in a state of blockade.The conclusion of the letter of this "Ame. rican Merchant" contains the following assertion: "You conceive yourself to have "been personally ill-treated in the United "States, and, it is currently reported, that? you said, to a fellow-passenger with yo1

[ocr errors]

to England, that you hated the United "States, and that, if ever an opportu"nity occurred to blow up the flame "of discord between the two countries,

66

you would make the most of it."——That I was most unjustly and basely treated in the American States, and by two of the governments of that country, is a fact pretty well known to every person, who reads or hears much about America; that (with the exception of the Quakers of Pennsylvania, many other individuals in that State, and the people of New England) I hate the United States and all their mean and hypocritical system of rule, I have a thousand times declared in print as well as in conversation; and I have

further frequently declared, that, if I, or any one most dear to me, were destined to lose my or his life in a just war, I knew of no case, in which that life would be lost with so little regret, on my part, as in demolish ing the towns of America and in burying their unprincipled inhabitants under the rub bish. But, that I ever said, that I would avail myself of an "opportunity to blow up

the flame of discord between the two "countries," is a falshood; and, if the author of this charge had been any thing, no matter what, but an American, by birth or adoption, he would not, particularly after the invitation contained in my last Register, - have been so mean, so detestably cowardly, as to have suffered this charge to come forth unsupported by a name. -Those who have thought it worth their while constantly to read this publication, can scarcely fail to remember what, I think, must convince them of the falshood of this pretended report. Many are the eccasions, upon which I have thought it right to point out what I thought likely to secure the good will of America; and especially have I recommended the sending of persons of high rank as well as character, in the quality of ministers thither. At the making of the peace of Amiens I deprecated the idea of "placing the French upon the back of the Americans;' and I have uniformly recommended such a line of conduct towards America as would be likely to prevent a war between the two countries, though, from the bottom of my soul, I believe, that such war would, now at least, be greatly beneficial to England.But, of what consequence are my feelings, my love or my hatred, my forgiveness or my revenge, in this discussion? I have asked no man to rely upon my opinions of America. I have said, this hath she said and this hath she done. Let my statements be contradicted, and proved to be false; or, let the facts themselves be shown to weigh nothing against her character; but, iet no one hope to defend her by alledging that her accuser is prejudiced. He who has been robbed and assaulted has certainly no prejudice in favour of the robber, but is as certainly prejudiced against him; yer, we never hear this prejadice urged against the credibility of his testimony. Who is to complain but those who have suffered? Who is to accuse, if those are to be silent who have been witnesses of the guilt?But, after all, supposing me to have said, that I would avail myself of any opportunity that should offer to blow up the flame of war between the two countries, this may account for the asperity of my language (and I have no desire that my language with

respect to America should appear in any other light), but it can, in nowise, affect the state of the case, upon which the two nations are in dispute. It was not I who spurred on Mr. Jefferson to demand of England a renunciation of the right of searching for sea

men.

It was not I who inspired America with the insolent notion of forcing England to renounce this right, and to employ for the purpose an act of non-importation, passed just as a negociation was set on foot, and kept suspended while it was going on. It was not I who counselled Mr. Jefferson to send back to the king of England a treaty, concluded and duly signed by the plenipotentiaries on both sides, and to chalk out the alterations to be made, exactly in the same way, in which articles of capitulation are returned by a besieging general. It was not I who puffed this republican sovereign up with the conceit that he was able to bully the king of England into a revival of the negociation upon these dictated alterations of a treaty, for which revival, if our ministers had consented to it, they ought to have been hanged. It was not I who advised the base people of New York to meet in a mob for the purpose of encouraging an English boat's crew to desert from their officer, thereby exciting a mutiny mutiny in the ship, which might have ended in the loss of her and in the massacre of the officers, and which, owing to the prudence and courage of those officers, did end in the ignominious death of several of the men. It was not I who stimulated the officers of the American ships of war, as also the civil ma gistrates, of the town of Norfolk, to inveigle away, and to screen from the power of their commanders, the seamen of an English ship of war, which was then lying in a state of distress. It was not I who encouraged the printers of newspapers, in America, to pub lish, just under the eye of the general government, expressions of joy that the desertion from the English ships was going on at a rate that threatened the speedy annihilation of England's naval power. It was not 1, but some fiend, who pushed on those same printers to publish a proposal for raising, by public subscription, a fund out of which to give rewards to such English seamen as should desert, and arrive in America. It was not I who instilled into the empty skulls of the Americars at Rochefort to join the French, in toasting the liberty of the seas;" nor am I to blame that the same was done by the Americans at Petersburgh, who so cordially united with the vassals of the Czar, the moment the latter became the enemy of England, and who, upon the same ground, would unite with the devil and his angels. I

These

had nothing to do in promoting any of those numerous acts of injustice and of insolence, which America has, for the last fifteen years, been committing against England. are the causes of ill-blood; these are the causes of the present state of things between the two countries; these may, possibly, lead to war; but, they are none of them my work. I have, indeed, pointed them out to my readers; I have made them known to many persons who never would have heard of them except in a cursory way; and I have, I hope, contributed my full share to"wards exciting, in the minds of the people of England, that just indignation, which now appears to pervade all ranks of men, at the conduct of both the government and people of America. But, for the friends of America to blame me for this, is as absurd as it would be for the friends of a thief to blame the lawyers and judges for his being hanged. In exposing the culprit to the just vengeance of the nation, I have done no more than my duty; and, if duty happens to coincide with inclination, I cannot think that that circumstance requires any apology; for, if to have sustained an injury one's self is to disqualify one from speaking one's sentiments, as to the conduct of the offender, in other cases, he who has a mind to rob with impunity has only to injure every man capable of detecting and exposing him.

-But, I have, I am told, gone beyond my subject. I have taken occasion to speak of the internal government, and of the morals of the people. True; but, then, let it be borne in mind, that this became necessary, when I saw the defenders of America, with their usual effrontery, holding forth the United States as the only free and virtuous country in the world. Character does much, especially in England. It, therefore, became me to show, that the government of America is, in fact, one of the very worst in this world; that there is no such thing as real liberty in the country; that corruption prevails to an extent heretofore unheard of; and that the people (with the exceptions which I have before made) are the most profligately dishonest that I have ever seen, or heard described. These statements of inine might be attributed to revenge. Well, let the making of them be so; but, when I say, that a judge was detected, in Philadelphia, stealing bank notes out of a till in a shop; was afterwards driven from the bench by the shopkeeper's holding up and shaking his fist at him; and that no public proceeding, and no public expressions of indignation, were the consequence: when, I say, that it was proved that the American Secre

tary of State asked the French minister for a bribe, and that no impeachment or judicial proceeding was the consequence: when I say, that the separations of man and wife, and that elopements accompanied with robbéry, are so frequent, that the printers of news-papers keep, for the purpose of placing at the head of advertisements, relating to eloped wives, figures of women in the act of running off with a bundle: when I make these assertions, I put it in the power of the friends of America to contradict me; I put it in their power to clear up these heavy charges against the morality of that country. I say that the Americans, as a nation, are the most unprincipled people in the whole world; their friends deny it; but their friends never choose to deny my specific facts; and, if these facts cannot be denied, my general assertion will be believed. Upon this subject, I want no credit for impartiality and candour. The Americans, under pretences the most false, by means the most base that ever were employed, by the vilest mockery of judicial proceedings, by openly avowed and boasted-of perjury, robbed me of the earnings of my life up to that time, left me to begin anew with a family dependant solely upon my exertions, and have since cruelly persecuted several of my friends. For the sake of these friends more than for my own sake I hate the unprincipled nation. This hatred will never cease, until they do me justice, and. therefore, it will end but with my life. But, as to the matters in dispute between the two countries, how are they at all connected with my private feelings? Were I a minister, indeed, the case might be different. Private individual as I am, and having no access to any man in power, except through the means of the press, I can have had no hand in producing those events, upon which I have thought proper to comment, - In a second letter (received yesterday), the same correspondent tells me, that war with America may be "sport to me, but that it will be death to many others." It will not be sport to me; for I cannot but deeply lament all the hardships which my friends in Pennsylvania will suffer, and as to the perjured wretches, by whom I was robbed, I have the satisfaction to know, that many of them are already bankrupts, and, in other respects, miserable. But, to whomsoever a war will produce death, the fault rests with America: solely with her she is the aggressor: it is for her to say whether there shall be war or peace. She has passed a non-importation act to compel us to surrender our right of searching for our own seamen. She has

passed an act for the openly-avowed purpose of forcing us to do that which would, in a short time, sap the foundation of our naval power. This act she keeps in force; and yet her interested partizans cry out that we are urging on a war with her. I care, comparitively, very little about the Orders in Council, as far as they relate to America. It is notorious that those Orders were not, and could not be, the cause of the dispute, and the probable cause of war; and yet the partizans of America keep clamouring against that measure, as the sole cause of the war that they expect and dread.--As in the case of France, so in that of America, to keep clamouring against war, is, in effect, to call upon England to submit to the demands of those powers. I have several times put to them this question, regarding the dispute with America.

"Do

you advise the ministers to give up to Mr. "Jefferson the right of search for seamen?" Never can I obtain an answer. They talk vaguely about a conciliating disposition and language. They talk about the amount of exports and imports; but never do they give me an answer. The exports and imports are, in my opinion, and for the reasons I have given, of very little consequence to the strength and greatness and happiness of England; but, suppose one half of her comforts to depend upon them; nay, suppose the whole of her comforts to be so dependent, the case remains the same; for what our enemies, neutral as well as belligenent, demand of us is, a surrender of the sole means of maintaining our independence, If it be true, as is now reported, that the Americans are disposed to cease their unjust demands and their hostile conduct, why, then, peace with them by all means, and I have, for my part, no objection to the granting of them commercial advantages, nor even to a relaxation, with respect to them, in the execution of the Orders in Council; but, so long as they persevere in showing, by open acts, their unnatural and base partiality towards France, so long as they continue to make insolent demands upon us, so long am I for treating them with rigour.

If we are to have peace with America, however, we shall, I repeat, have the present ministers to thank for it. Had the conceders remained in power, we must have had war; for, the Americans, when they had gotten from us the right of search for seamen, would have put forward some new demand; and, the insolence of all their vile captains (by far the worst of all mankind, as far as my observation or hearing has gone), and all their other agents and emis

saries and partizans, in every quarter and corner of the world, would have been such as the officers of the English navy never I could have borne. In a short time, there must have been war. The firmness of the ministers, in this respect, is highly praiseworthy. The letter of Mr. Canning to the American plenipotentiaries clearly shews that he well knew whom he had to deal with; and, I am persuaded, that, though it has been loudly censured by Lord Grenville, it will hereafter be regarded as a model for those English ministers who shall have to deal with the American States. Here, I hope, we may say, that we have done with the Orders in Council, that fertile source of parliamentary motions and debates. But, I have a word or two to add upon the second letter of my correspondent, which was not received until after the former part of this article was written. In my last, I had called upon him for his name, seeing that he had charged me with having declar ed, that I would, when an opportunity offered, blow up the flame of discord between the two countries. His answer to that call is this: "You demand my name, but I am disposed to withhold it for the follow"ing reasons. I have stated nothing as 5 fact, but what rests on so firm a basis of "notorious truth, that it cannot be contra dicted, nor does it require the sanction of What you are pleased to call a

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a name.

66

base imputation," I have given as a "current report only, and have qualified my remarks on it with an "if this be ""true." I have not even said this of you, "but to you, giving you the alternative of suppression, if you chose it, or of con "tradiction, if in your power, as I would willingly hope it is. As a man of up rightness, therefore, I do not think I "have taken a step which requires me to go "forth from that privacy, which my ha"bits and disposition desire, nor am I wil ling to put it in your power to hold me up by name to all that observation and perhaps ridicule, which your talents "know so well how to cast, whether justly

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

or unjustly, upon your opponents." Ve rily a most lame and paltry excuse! A cur rent report! why, calling it a current report constitutes your offence. If you were to tell your neighbour, that it is currently reported that he is a thief, you would find that the subterfuge would not save your ears or your purse, according to the mode of prosecution which he might choose to adopt. As to the alternative which you left me, is it not evident, that you intended the whole of your letter for publication? Is it not

at

foulest injustice, and who had the basenes, even in what they call their courts of justice, to express their satisfaction at the prospect at seeing me" blighted with misery, and my children begging their bread." When I left them, I certainly did shake the dust off my shoes; but, the only curse I pronounced upon them was this: "May you have Jef"ferson for a President and Rush for a "Doctor!"

66

LORD WELLESLEY. -The resolutions, which were moved, in the House of Commons, by Lord Folkestone, and the discussion upon which terminated on the 15th instant, produced, at last, a vote apologiz

that vote was proposed by Sir John Anstruther.The charges, preferred against Lord Wellesley by Mr. Paull, every one has read. The proposed resolutions contained the substance of the Oude Charge. They were all, except the last, put aside, by one of those twin-brothers, Order-ofthe-day and Previous-question, which seem to stick by every succeeding ministry with as much staunchness as Alderman Shaw or Billy Baldwin. The last resolution, which alone would have been sufficient for all the purposes, which the mover could have had in view, was negatived; and when bat had been done, Sir John Anstruther moved, "That it appears to this house, that mar

evident, that you had, as one of your principal objects, the intention of causing it to be believed, that I had misrepresented the case of America, merely from motives of private revenge, and that I was doing no more than acting this selfish part in pursuance of a pre-conceived and settled design? Besides, supposing me to have been liberty, which I was not, to suppress this part of your letter, and to publish the other parts of it, I could not suppress the knowledge of it in my own mind. If I believed you, I must believe one of the five gentlemen (for there were no more) who were my fellow passengers to England, to be a scoundrel; and, was it acting the parting for his lordship's conduct; but, then, of "a man of uprightness" to expose them all to the effects of my suspicions? If, in naming five men, I assert that one of them, without naming him, is a scoundrel, they have all the same ground of complaint against me. You, in effect, name all my fellow passengers to me, and then you assert, that one of them, whom you decline to name, has said that, which, if he did say it, I know 'to be false; you, therefore, are guilty of the grossest injustice towards four, at least, of my fellow-passengers, and also towards myself. The truth I believe to be, that you never heard such a report as proceeding from the source, to winch you pretend to trace it. That the story has obtained currency I have no doubt, nor am I at all surprized that it should. It is so natural for those who cannot answer one, who cannot deny the accusations we prefer against them, to impute to us motives of spite, like the highwayman in Joe Miller, who threatened to swear the peace against the judge," seeing that he had obviously a design upon his life.This question respecting America, Sir, I now regard as settled. I look upon it as certain, that almost the whole of the people of England have now correct notions respecting the government, the peo ple, the means pecuniary and military, of the American States; that they are decidedly of opinion, that war with that country is preferable to any further concession, of whatever nature and however small in amount; and, to the producing of this state of the public mind, I have the satisfaction to believe, that I have contributed as much as any private individual ever did contribute towards the producing of any national effect; a satisfaction, which I am free and forward to say, is not at all diminished, but, on the contrary, greatly augmented, by the reflection, that I have at the same time contributed towards humbling the pride of those, who used their power to treat me with the

[ocr errors]

one

quis Wellesley, in carrying into execa"tion the late arrangements in Oude, was "actuated by an ardent zeal for the public "service, and by the desire of providing "more effectually for the prosperity, the defence, and the safety of the British territories in India."So, Sir John calls the taking of a king's dominions away from him an " arrangement," does he? The word arrangement has this meaning in the Oriental Dictionary!-Let no suppose this to be a triumph to the Wellesleys, however, The motion was carried, of course, by a great majority; but, here is not a word of approbation; there is not even a word of defence. There is only an apology, and just such an one as Pitt made for his ardent-minded" friend, the Lord Advocate of Scotland. The ministers would go no further; and, the reader may be assured, that they were much better pleased with Lord Folkestone's resolutions than the opposition were. No, no: they like the Marquis very well where he is; but, they do not, I guess, want any of his " ardent zeal in their cabinet. Another question is coming on respecting the Nabob of Oude; and this the ministers will also like. They will, like two or three, at least, of such questions,

[ocr errors]
« FöregåendeFortsätt »