commander of the Chesapeake; and, here, let us just note the intolerable vanity of these people, in dubbing a man, having only a single frigate under his command, commodore," and authorizing him to hoist his broad pendant." This court of inquiry report, that Captain (mean

Commodore") Barron neglected to prepare his ship for battle in due time; that he used discouraging language to his men, when attacked by the Leopard; and, that, In short, it was entirely owing to his faulty conduct, that the ship was not defended, and that the men were taken out. The whole of the report of this court of Inquiry appears to have been drawn up for the express purpose of causing the world to believe, that, if the Chesapeake had been in as good a state for fighting as the Leopard was, the former would have made a gallant resistance. It was no trial of poor Barron; the real object of it has nothing to do with him; it is intended as an apology for an American ship, the "Commodore of the "American Navy," being so shamefully beaten; and, to any one who knows the parties, as I do, it must be good diversion to hear the pompous statement of “ Capt. "Alexander Murry, and Isaac Hull and "Isaac Chauncey," while, to those who do not know them, it may be necessary to say, that, in forming an idea of them, they must totally divest their minds of all the notions, which they have been accustomed to entertain of the character of captains of our navy. But, it is remarkable, that Barron" declined

to make any defence." Why? That is hot said, the circumstance being introduced merely by a parenthesis; and yet the court at a whole month, and that, too, on board the Chesapeake frigate. I dare say, every deep lawyer in the country had, more or less, a hand in the drawing up of this curious report. It is called a "surrender of the "Chesapeake." As if no attempt had been made at a defence. The commodore seems to have been as little anxious to defend himself as to defend his ship. His defence of himself might have been inconvenient ; it might have marred the symmetry of the court's report; it might have brought out facts to render the apology more lame than it now is; and, therefore, in return for his civil forbearance, the court state, that he shewed " no want of personal bravery." This was ery just; for one act of kindness should always meet with another. In spite, however, of the infinite pains taken by the Americans to disguise the truth, I believe it to be what their own news-papers stated at the time; to wit, that, as the "commodore"

had long previous notice of the intention of the English Captain, his ship was perfectly prepared, before she left the port; " and that her guns were ready loaded with "double headed, shot." This was the account which they themselves then gave of the state of their own ship; but, they perceived, that, in persisting in it, they were depriving their "navy" of all the apology for the disgrace it had suffered. It is this disgrace and the lurking fear that they shall not be able to wipe it off; it is the disgrace of being so shamefully beaten; it is the having given the world a proof of their incapacity to contend, for a moment, against an equal British force; it is this that mortifies; it is this that stings them to the quick; it is this that draws from their Congressmen the appellation of "pirates." Pirates, indeed! How was Captain Humphreys to know, or to suppose, that Captain Barron, was not prepared for battle? A ship of war, upon the high seas, ought always to be so prepared, and especially when duly forewarned, as the Chesapeake was. Besides, will any one be lieve, that the warning was known to nobody but poor Commodore Barron? And, if it was known, who would believe, that he did not receive, both from the government and populace, orders how to act? The Mayor and citizens of Norfolk must have heard of the warning as well as he, because the threat of the captain of the Melampus was published in the American news-papers before he sailed, even some weeks before, and yet, neither his officers on board, nor the govern ment, nor the Mayor of Norfolk, take any step to cause him to prepare his ship, and he himself quite forgets to do it! Aye Gentlemen, in Congress and in court of inquiry, you may report upon the matter as long as you please, all this is too wonder ful to obtain belief. You suspect it is so, and therefore it is that you are enraged. If a war should now come and cut you up, as it assuredly will do if it come, your ruin will be ascribeable solely to your vanity. Puffed up by your former success against the foolish efforts of England, by your success in trade, and by the praise bestowed upon you by writers in Europe ignorant of your character, you must needs have ships of war, and must call them "a navy." You must needs have a navy, and talk of " sovereignty upon your "waters." To see your aspiring hopes all

dashed in a moment was too much for you to bear. But it is better for you to bear that than worse. Indeed this rebuff, if you are not quite incurable, may do you much good. To the vain there is nothing so useful as a good serious, signal defeat. But, if

you

should

tion as bitter as ever yet touched the lip of mortals. You are, it appears to me, very much in error with respect to the temper, in which your abusive threats find the people of England. Your commercial friends, including the fund-holders, have not that power here now, which you suppose them to have. We understand the

nature of our commercial connection with you tolerably well; and, I do assure you, that nine hundred and ninety nine men out of every thousand care but very little about the continuance of any part of that connection, over which your government has, or can have, any controul. We now are acquainted with all your former conduct, especially that relating to the pecuniary provisions of the treaty of 1794; and we feel, that we are now labouring hard and suffering distress in order to pay you the millions, which you ought to have paid to our fellow subjects, your creditors. We now clearly see, that this is only one amongst the immense sacrifices, which we have made to a regular commercial connection with you; and, therefore, that connection we are by no means anxious to preserve. We know that your general government revenue is all collected at the custom-house, and we know that our custom-house revenue does not form a tenth part of what we raise; and we know, that the coal-duty, raised in the metropolis alone, amounts to one seventh part of our custom-house revenue. We can make comparisons, you see, between ourselves and you; and the result is not likely to scare us much when viewed in conjunction with your hostility, though you may have fifty instead of three, ships like the Chesapeake. But, I will tell you more about this another time.--Let us now return to the report of the Congress committee.

It is said here, that three of the men, taken out of the Chesapeake, were American citizens. No; it is not positively said, that they were; it is said, that the committee might say that they were. Doubtless they might, for the President, in his proclamation, solemnly asserted, that all four were American citizens. Do the committee admit, that one of them was not an American citizen? I think, it is clear that they do admit this; and, then, it follows, that either the committee has admitted, or the President has asserted, a falsehood. Which are we to believe, the committee, or the President? This is a nice point indeed. For my part, I believe neither; for I am thoroughly persuaded, that all four of the

have been in America and obtained what are called certificates of citizenship" I will not take upon me to say was not the case; but, what had this to do with our claim upon them? this the Congress will find answered in the King's proclamation (page 669 of the preceding volume); and they will there find, that we are not disposed to acquiesce in their new law of nations, according to which all those who choose to get one of their dirty bits of paper are to be absolved from the allegiance due to their native country. The committee, however, apparently foreseeing, that their report would be exposed to remarks such as have here been made, fly off from their statement about citizenship, and say, that it is no matter who or what the men were: we attacked one of their ships of war, and that is enough. Satisfaction is" demanded" for this, the English officer is to be considered as a pirate", and so to be treated, of course, or. . . . . . or what? why, they will fortify their ports and harbours! Fortify landing places of, at least, seven hundred miles in length. This is a desperate resolution to be sure; but, it is not nearly so desperate as that of going without coats and shirts and rum. The Congress may pass laws to this effect, but the people will treat those laws as Swift recommends the people of Ireland to treat the votes of the "Legion Club."

-We come, then, to the question of right, respecting the search of ships of war, a question which we have discussed before. The ministers have not, in words, given up this right. They have conceded too far, and their concession has produced the present disputes, or, at least, the continuation of ; but, though they have abandoned the high and strong ground, they assert it to be the duty of our naval officers to demand out sailors even from on board neutral ships of war, leaving a refusal as a matter to be settled by the king. And, observe, that this case of the Chesapeake is quite peculiar. Our officers knew that their men were in her; they had been invcigled away under their own eyes; they had been led about to parade the streets of Norfolk in defiance of them; they had been refused to their respectful applications; and there seemed no way left but that of seizing them by force, in order to prevent a total desertion from every ship, which, under the sanction of the treaty of 1794, entered the ports of the American States. All these circumstances, which form a subject of just complaint on our part, the wise and impartial committee

think proper entirely to overlook, or, at least, to pass over in silence. But, we do not overlook them here. We attend to them; we see in then an act of hostility, which would have required immediate satisfaction, if our naval officers had not, with their accustomed patriotism and promptitude, taken satisfaction in the proper way; and the Congress may be assured, that we shall not hang Captain Humphreys as a pirate."- -But," the act was unparalleled in the history of civilized nations," whence, it may be presumed, that they and the French do not put in their claim to that character; for both have seized, by force, according to accounts published in their own news-papers, deserted seamen on board of neutral ships of war, or upon neutral territory. Capt. Decatur of the American ship of war, the Enterprize, seized by force an American seaman on board a French privateer, lying at Syracuse, which privateer bore the commission of the Emperor of France. And, it appears, that several seamen having deserted from the French frigate Cybele, at Norfolk, and entered into the service of the United States at the rendezvous, the French Captain sent an armed force to the rendezvous, demanded the deserters, and had them surrendered to him. "Aye," the Congress will say, "but this was all amongst friends." Very true; but you will hardly blame us much, if we like you none the better for being the friends of our enemies. If our officers had sent an armed force for their deserters at Norfolk, the very same place whither the French officer sent an armed force for his deserters, the militia would have been called out, a mob would have been raised, and every soul sent upon the errand would have been murdered, under pretence that they had invaded the country with a view to conquer it and "destroy its independence." Partiality like this does not become a neutral power; it is in itself, unjust and base; and the injured nation, which does not resent it, ought to be treated as we certainly should have been, had, as the Congress seems to wish, treated our public-spirited and gallant officers as "pirates," though, from the language of the Morning Chronicle, it would not be very unnatural in them to expect it. That priut, of the 29th of December, says, that the Committee of Congress have given to the act of Captain Humphreys " its proper "appellation;" that is to say, "piracy.' Was I wrong, then, in accusing this print of being on the side of the enemies of England? It is constantlythe advocate of the Americans. Its colurama bd with attempts to

if we

justify them, in all their acts of foul play towards us. -But, we shall see more of this, by and by, when we come to speak of its d fence of the President's speech, and its insinuations with regard to the lately-issued Or ders of Council. -The next proceeding, which is worthy of particular notice, is a bill, said to have been brought into the Congress and read once or twice, on the 24th of November. The following, as stated in the newspapers, are the out-lines of this bill: "It authorises the President to permit or "interdict, at his discretion, the entrance of "our harbours to all armed vessels belong. ing to a foreign power, and by force to repel and move them from the same, except in certain specified cases, in which "cases the said vessels are to conform to "rules prescribed by the executive.—It "further, in consequence of the late con"duct of the British, prohibits the entrance "of any British armed vessel into the har"bours or waters of the United States, except when driven in by stress of weather,

an enemy, and may be seized, and brought "in and forfeited, and shall accrue wholly

or

to the captors.--All pacific intercourse "with such vessel is forbidden.-The "President is authorised to use the land "forces and militia to seize such vessel."He is also empowered to refuse admission "to any vessel belonging to the subjects of "the nation whose armed vessel shall so "remain in the harbours of the United "States.It empowers any person persons to burn, sink, or destroy any such "vessel, for which a bounty of dol"lars is offered on each gun of said vessel. -It authorises the President, to carry "this act into effect, to fit out all the "armed vessels of the United States."This bill is nothing more than a sanction given to the President's Proclamation. It is greatly injurious to us to have our ships of war shut out of the roads and havens of the American States; because, upon their cruizes, it is necessary that they should sometimes put in to refit, and, still oftener to obtain water and fresh provisions. Out of their harbours they may be able to keep our ships, unless a considerable force were

sent to treat them with a few bombs and rockets; but, out of their roads they cannot keep them; and, as to driving them out of their "waters," as they term it, where have they the means of doing, or attempting, any such thing? All their "armed vessels" put together would not be able to make head against one fifty gun ship of England. The consequence of this law, therefore, will be to prevent our ships from going into their ports; but, it will not prevent them from obtaining provisions, an abundance of which the people will carry to them, or sell to their boats along shore, in spite of a thousand such laws passed by the Congress. One of the members complains, that our officers read their proclamations and laugh at them. Well they may; for, it is strange to me, if there be in this world any thing more ridiculous. The act is, however, malignant; it fully discovers the hostile mind; and it is an act of hostility, according to all the rules relating to the conduct of neutrals, which rules require a strict impartiality towards all the powers at war. This act of Congress openly avows a partiality. England is refused what is granted to France. A reward is offered for burning, sinking and destroying. English vessels of war if found in the same situation which French vessels of war are to be permitted to enjoy. As far as the Congress are able to go they have made war upon us; they have joined our enemy; and, as to the provision, that this war shall cease, when "satisfaction" shall have been made agreeably to their wish, this is the case with all wars; for, they all cease, when the parties making them have obtained what they deem satisfaction. Observe, too, that this act has been passed in mere continuation of the President's Proclamation, which was issued immediately after the searching of the Chesapeake, and, of course, before any demand of satisfaction could have reached England. This alone was quite enough to justify the king in refusing any satisfaction at all. The Americans had taken the satisfaction; to give them satisfaction under such circumstances would have been base in the extreme, even supposing it to have been, upon the original grounds, due to them. The fact is, that, with all their hypocritical cant about the blood of their citizens flowing in the Chesapeake, they were glad of the event; and eagerly seized hold of it as a ground whereon to urge demands, which we had theretofore rejected, and in which they hoped now to succeed by coupling them with this recent case. Nay, I am persuaded,. that it will soon appear, that this satisfac

tion," of the want of which they so bit

terly complain, they might, to a reasonable degree, have received from our ministers; but, that their envoy here was instructed not to enter upon any negociation upon that point, unless it was connected with other points, having, in fact, nothing to do with it, and being of a nature not to be treated upon by us. Of all this the people in America seem to be aware; and, we find the Inhabitants and Traders of Philadelphia, in a Memorial presented to the Congress against the

66

non-importation act" (which was to go into force on the 15th of December), complaining, that the President had made, upon England, unreasonable demands, and that he had shut the door against reconciliation by accompanying his demand of satisfaction with a proclamation of a nature decidedly hostile. And now, for this famous nonimportation act; but, let us first, take a look at the debate upon the memorial against it.. This debate is curious, in many respects. The reader will bear in mind, that this act was passed nearly, if not quite, two years ago; that it has been suspended from time. to time; and, that the last suspension extended to the middle of December, 1807. It was, therefore, he will observe, upon other ground than that of the affair of the Chesa- . peake that the act was passed. To prevent it from going into effect in December it was that the memorial in question was presented; and upon this memorial the following debate took place, in the House of Representatives, on the 27th of November."Mr. J. CAY presented a Mem rial from. "sundry inhabitants and traders of the City, "of Philadelphia, praying, that the Act.

66

prohibiting the importation of certain "goods, wares, and merchandize, passed. "the 18th of April, 1806, may be repealed.

-MR. CLAY moved that the Memorial "be referred to the Committee of Com-. merce and Manufactures-MR. Row

AN hoped the petition would not be refer "red to any committee. He thought it. "would be beneath the dignity of the "House to give it any consideration. Had "he been in Congress at the time the law

passed, he would have voted against it; "but as it had passed, and as we had re"ceived a fresh insult from Great Britain "in the attack on the thesapeake, he would

"whoever would examine it would find, "that many of its provisions were very de"ficient, and in some cases totally nugatory. "He pointed out some of its defects, and "observed, that it contained so many ab"surdities, that he doubted whether it could (c ever go into operation.—Mr. CROWN

INSHIELD said, that as to the non-impor"tation law, it might be obscure in some

parts, but there were more than a dozen "articles, on which there could be no doubt "at all. Under what circumstances had "that law passed? We had been making "demands on Great Britain for many years, "which she had refused to satisfy; and

this law had been passed to induce her to "do us justice. Since that period she had "committed the outrage on the Chesa

peake. The blood of American citizens "had freely flowed in that vessel:-Great "Britain had known this for some months,

and yet we had obtained no redress. He "knew indeed that the law in question was 66 suspended but for a short time at present; "but from the rumours which were afloat "and from what he knew of the disposition

of Great Britain, he entertained, no hope "that she would do us justice. He thought

that we were sleeping at our posts. We "knew that Great Britain was making ac"tive preparations; that she was endea

vouring to decoy the Indians on our fron

tiers; that she was arming her militia in "Canada and Nova Scotia; and that she

had, besides, an immense navy. The lafe attack on Copenhagen had convinced us that she paid no regard to justice or the "ław of nations. She had in that instance "violated every principle of humanity. "Could we expect better treatment than "Denmark, a nation that had never injured her? Might not our cities be wrapt in flames as well as Copenhagen? The petitioners state that they are alarmed at the demands of our government: what were those demands? "Did they know them? He knew not, "although a member of that House;

and yet the petitioners are "alarmed" at them. Mr. C. then moved that the pe"tition lie on the table.Mr. MILNER "could not see any impropriety in referring "the petition. He was acquainted with "the characters who had signed it, and he "knew them to be men of the highest

66

66 seen a law to prohibit all intercourse at once. He agreed with the Gentleman "last up, that we were sleeping at our "posts; that our affairs with Great Britain were in such a situation as to render it extremely doubtful whether they would "be amicably settled; and that under these "circumstances we ought not to be idle. -Mr. ALSTON moved, that the Petition "be referred to a Committee of the whole "House. Mr. SMILIE thought that re"ferring this Petition to the Committee of "the whole would be giving it too much "importance. That there was a party in "this country strongly prejudiced in favour "of the British Government, he never "doubted for a moment, and that this was

out of respect for the nation. This would "afford the House an opportunity of ex"pressing their sentiments on the present interesting state of affairs. The House "had been sitting some time, and not onė "word had been uttered on the subject; "he wished this silence to be broken. "Mr. CHANDLER knew not who these Pe"titioners were: he did not know but that they were British subjects residing among us if he were certain that such was the "fact, he would move to have the Petition "thrown under the table, without taking any further notice of it; but as he was

imported on account of the glass being "prohibited. He said he felt extremely "hurt at the observations of the gentleman "from Pennyslvania (Mr. Smilie), when "he knew that the signers of the Petition

were native American citizens. But it "seemed natural that a Member of Congress must speak on all subjects, whether