the province should be settled by authority.

A conspiracy was formed, during the present year, by some private individuals in the back settlements of the United States, to make war on the Spaniards, without waiting for orders from the federal government,and arms were collected and other preparations made for this extraordinary undertaking. But information of the design having been given to the American government, effectual mea sures were taken for preventing and suppressing the enterprize. Colonel Aaron Burr, late vice president of the United States, was accused of being the leader of this conspiracy, and the object of it was supposed to be no less hostile to the federal government than to the Spaniards. Indictments for treasonable practices were preferred to the grand jury of Kentucky against colonel Burr and general Adair, one of his associates, but both bills were rejected for want of evidence.* The subsequent proceedings against Mr. Burr fall not within the limits of our present volume, but afford a striking example either of the inadequacy of American courts of law for the attainment of justice, or of a spirit of inveterate hostility in his political adversaries, which reflects little credit on the good sense or moderation of our Trans-Atlantic brethren.

The complaints of the United States against Great Britain related to our practice of impressing British scamen found on board of their merchant vessels upon the high seas; to our violation of their neutral rights by seizing and condemning their merchantmen, though

engaged in a lawful commerce; and to our infringement of their maritime jurisdiction upon their coasts.

The first they contended was a practice derogatory to the honour of their flag, and inconsistent with their rights as an independent nation; and with better reason they argued, that it led to great outrages and abuses, and that while it lasted, there could be a sincere or cordial friendship between Great Britain and the United States. It continually happened, that native Americans were impressed by our sea officers on pretence of their being Englishmen, and forced to serve in the English navy; and such was the similarity of language and ex. ternal appearance between individuals of the two nations, that with the fairest intentions, these mistakes could not always be avoided. But a practice, that led necessarily to such an intolerable abuse, however it might be justified in the abstract on the principles of public law, could not be endured by any independent state, unless from inability to resist the injury. It was the duty of the

United States to protect their lawful trade from interruption and outrage, and to vindicate their citizens from compulsory service in the battles of a foreign power. They were ready to acquiesce in any measures that could be devised, to prevent deserters from the British navy from finding refuge in the American territory, or shelter on board of American ships, but they could no longer permit the liberty of their citizens to depend on the interested or capricious sentence of a British officer.

To this it was answered on the part of Great Britain, that no power but her own could release her subjects from their duty of allegiance, and that provided she infringed not the jurisdiction of other independent states, she had a right to enforce their services wherever she found them. But no state had such jurisdiction over its merchant vessels upon the high seas, as to exclude a belligerent from the right of searching them for contraband of war, or for the persons or property of enemies; and if in the exercise of that right, the belligerent should discover on board of a neutral vessel its subjects who had withdrawn from their lawful allegiance, upon what ground could the neutral refuse to give them up? If the subjects of an enemy are not protected from a belligerent by the neutrality of the vessel in which they are found, on what pretence can it be alledged, that the subjects of the belligerent, which institutes the search, are entitled to protection? It is impossible to maintain, that the belligerent may seize what belongs to its enemy, without violating neutral rights, and yet not reclaim what is its own. No reason can be given why a neutral vessel has not a right to protect the enemy of a belligerent, that will not equally shew, that it has not a right to protect one of his subjects. But, if the right to impress be clearly in favour of the belligerent, it is one too important to Great Britain in her present situation, too essential to her safety in the war in which she is engaged, to be abandoned or relinquished for an instant, unless some unexceptionable plan can be devised, of attaining the same end,

by means less violent and less liable to abuse. The difficulty of distinguishing between an Englishman and an American is no argument against the right of impressing, though it is a good reason for being cautious and reserved in the exercise of it. If an American happens to be impressed as an Englishman, he ought to be released as soon as his national character is ascertained, and should receive ample compensation for the injury done to him; and if any outrage unnecessary violence has marked the conduct of the belligerent officer who conducted the search, or if there is reason to believe that his mistake has been wilful, an exemplary punishment should teach him in future, when he enforces the rights of his country, not to violate those of neutrals.

or

But clear and indisputable as was the principle that America was bound to offer an adequate substi tute for the present practice of impressing seamen, before she could justly expect from Great Britain to desist from it, the public mind was so inflamed in the United States, by stories of thousands of Americans forced to serve in the British navy, of American ships upon the high seas deprived of their hands by British cruizers, and compelled to put into the nearest port for want of seamen to pursue their voyage, and of other outrages still more extraordinary and unpardonable, that looking only to the abuses of the right, their popular leaders went into the extreme of deny. ing its existence. A bill upon

this principle was brought into congress, but fortunately for the credit and interest of the counR 3

try

as from its repugnance to every principle of honesty and humanity, it must have brought indelible disgrace on the American name, and from the violence which it authorized, it must inevitably have led to imme. diate hostilities with Great Britain. When it was at length determined by the American government to send a special mission to England, for the adjustment of differences between the two nations, our practice of impressing on the high seas was stated as the first in importance of their grievances, and their plenipotentiaries were instructed to urge the abandonment of a practice so disgraceful and injurious to their country as the point most essential to its peace, honour and tranquillity. With respect to the second ground of complaint, we had conceded to the Americans, in the late war, permission to trade with the colonies of the enemy, for articles intended for their domestic consumption; and in case no market was found in the United States for articles imported with that intention, we had permit ted them to re-export these articles to any port, in any part of the world, not invested by our blockading squadrons. But we had constantly refused them permission to trade directly between the colonies of the enemy and the mother country, and we professed to tolerate the indirect communication above mentioned, on the supposition, that the goods so transmitted had been inter.ded originally for American consumption, and would not have been re-exported, but for want of a market in America. "It is now distinctly understood," says his

port officially communicated by lord Hawkesbury to the American government, and transmitted to all our vice-admiralty courts abroad, as a rule for their future guidance and direction, *" that the produce of the colonies of the enemy may be imported by a neutral into his own country, and may be re-exported from thence even to the mother country of such colony. The direct trade, however, between the mother country and its colonies, has not, I apprehend, been recognised as legal, either by his majesty's government or by his tribunals. What is a direct trade or what amounts to an intermediate importation into the neutral country, may sometimes be a question of some difficulty. But the high court of admiralty has expressly decided, that landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country, breaks the continuity of the voyage, and is such an importation as legalizes the trade, although the goods be reshipped in the same vessel, and on account of the same neutral proprietors, and be forwarded for sale to the mother country." The de cision of the high court of admiralty, to which sir John Nicholl alludes in this report, was probably the judgment pronounced by sir William Scott in the case of the Polly, delivering which that learned judge expressed himself in the following manner. "An American bas undoubtedly a right to import the produce of the Spanish colonies for his own use; and after it is imported bona fide into his own country, he would be at liberty to carry them on to the general commerce of

in

† July 5th, 1800.

Europe.

Europe. It is not my business to say, what is universally the test of a bona fide importation. It is argued, that it would not be sufficient, that the duties should be paid, and that the cargo should be landed. If

these criteria are not to be resorted te, I should be at a loss to know what should be the test; and I am strongly disposed to hold, that it would be sufficient, that the goods should be landed and the duties paid." From this guarded opinion of sir William Scott, with the com. mentary furnished by lord Hawkesbury, it came to be universally understood in America, that the mere act of landing the goods, and" pay. ing the duties in the neutral country, was sufficient to break the continuity of the voyage; and legalize the trade" in the eyes of our court of admiralty. And it must be confessed, that this conclusion was fully warranted by the words of lord Hawkesbury's communication, which the American govern. ment was bound to consider as an official expression of the deliberate determination of our government on this important question. The opinion of sir William Scott, it is true was somewhat different, for that learned judge held, not that landing the goods and paying the duties rendered the importation a bona fide importation, but that these criteria were the best evidence of a bona fide importation. But however impor. tant the consequences to which this distinction afterwards led, as no allusion was made to it in lord Hawkesbury's official paper, nor any effect given to it by our prize courts, the American government

* Robinson's Reports, vol. 2, p. 368.

was not entitled to bring it into discussion, or demand to what extent it was meant to be carried. Soon after this correspondence the peace of Amiens put an end for a short time to all questions of this nature. When hostilities recommenced between France and England, the merchants of America, recollecting the footing on which this trade had been placed at the conclusion of the former war, embarked in it without apprehension as a commerce perfectly lawful; and carried it on to an immense extent, and without interruption till summer 1805, when a new ground of decision was adopted by our admiralty courts, which, suddenly and without the smallest warning, exposed the whole of their trade to seizure and condemnation. It was now decided, that the proof of payment of duties in America was no evidence of a bona fide importation into that country; + because payment of duties in America does not mean that the duties have been actually paid in money, but that they have been secured by bonds; and from the peculiar system of revenue laws established in the United States, the merchant, who re-exports goods previously imported, gets a profit by his transactions with the customhouse, instead of suffering any loss or deduction from his gains. The importer, where the duties are ascertained, gives bonds for the amount; but if, next day, he should enter the goods for exportation again, he is entitled to debentures from the custom-house, payable on the same days with the bonds, and made out for the same sums, with

R 4

a deduction