except as lovers of truth and justice, and except too that we fear that the unfounded prejudices against Great Britain seattered among the uninformed in our own country may inflame the spirit of hostility against her, which is already too extensive and too deeply rooted, either for our interest or our honor.

It would be a strange phenomenon indeed, if Bonaparte, who has marched from one conquest, and the extinction of one neutral state to another, until but one nation on the continent of Europe retains any considerable share of independence, should be, in truth and sincerity, the friend of neutral rights upon the ocean. A man who can believe that he is, must believe something more. He must believe that every nation, which has been successively attacked and annihilated by France, was the aggressor. He must think that Holland had no right to elect her own rulers-that the Cisalpine republic had forfeited her claim to independence-that Venice deserved to be sold to Austria-that the Swiss had enjoyed liberty long enough that Prussia, in her concessions, had not been sufficiently humble and subservient-that the house of Braganza had not done enough to purchase the privilege of being undisturbed and finally, that with regard to Spain there has been a great deal of error and precipitate judgment, and that when the facts are candidly examined, it will be found the emperor has conducted toward that country with justice and honor. If he do not believe all this, he must admit, that Bonaparte has sometimes been violent and unprincipled, and if he admit this, how can he be quite sure of his moderation and equity upon the ocean? There is no magic in that element to lull ambition to rest, or to change the nature of an unrelenting despot.

Why should a man, who has declared, and all whose subjects are ready to declare, that France is formed by nature to be the guardian and protector of nations, both by sea and land, neglect to exercise this protecting power on the ocean, in the same benificent manner, in which it has been exercised on the land?

On the other hand, let us now look back for the last twen

ty years, and ask, what nation has Great Britain oppressed? Did she demand any sacrifices from the monarch of the two Sicilies for twice preserving him on his throne? Did she seize Egypt for her own use, after she had rescued it by her valor from the predatory incursion of Bonaparte? Had she not a thousand motives to retain this key to the Red Sea, and to her Indian possessions? Did she take advantage of the weakness of Spain, or of Portugal, to seize upon their ultramarine territories, which were absolutely in her power, and which are so important to her commerce?

But we come to what more immediately concerns us. Is it true, as M. de Montgaillard asserts, "that France has in vain, for more than a century past, made every effort to establish in Europe a maritime legislation, which would favor the navigation of every nation in time of peace, and insure that of neutrals in time of war?" And have "the British ministry, on the other hand, disavowed, outraged, and trampled on the rights of nations?" Again: Is it true, as he alleges, that "the French government has proclaimed the freedom of navigation, that it has at all times protected the maritime rights of nations, and that from Henry II to the last years of Louis XIV, all the royal ordinances of France have tended to the preservation of these rights?”

We say nothing about what France has proclaimed." We freely acknowledge that no nation was ever more liberal in her proclamations and professions than France; but we do undertake to prove that France has been the greatest enemy of the maritime rights of nations, of any power in Europe; and that Great Britain, since she has swayed the sceptre of the ocean, with uncontrolled dominion, which has been the case ever since Lord Howe's victory in 1794, has exercised a moderation, and a spirit of justice, of which France would do well to follow the example; and remembering our own country, we are constrained most earnestly to desire, that the dominion of the sea may never pass into the hands of the nation which has so often proclaimed her respect for maritime rights, and hy whom they have been so much oftener trampled upon.

. By an ordonnance of Louis XIV, passed in 1704, all trade of neutrals with the colonies of the enemies of France, or in productions of such colonies, was forbidden, under pain of confiscation. We add, that this was the first time this doctrine ever made its appearance; and it was the greatest, and most important inroad upon neutral rights, ever made by any nation. In 1744, in the reign of Louis XV, this statute or ordonnance was revised, and continued in force, and it was not till 1756, that Great Britain felt herself obliged to imitate the example of her then powerful rival. M. de Montgaillard admits, that France had no established marine, competent to cope with England, till the reign of Louis XIV. One of the first consequences of her maritime power was the inroad on the law of nations, as to the colonial trade, which we have cited above.

In 1778 France openly supported the armed neutrality, who in fact were her allies, because it was her interest that Great Britain should be humbled. In this spirit she professed herself the champion of the modern doctrine, that "the flag shall protect the goods," a doctrine very convenient to weak belligerents, but a direct violation of the ancient established law of nations.

To support this position, which she never meant to respect when it should not suit her convenience, she inserted an arti cle to this effect in her treaty with us. The first war in which we were neutrals, was the war of the French revolution, which broke out between her and Great Britain in February, 1793. In May of that year, an American ship, bound from Charlestown to London, and laden with rice, the property of London merchants, was carried into France, and there claimed, under the clause of the treaty which makes the cargo free, if the flag be neutral;, but the national convention, upon appeal, condemned the whole; and we undertake to say, that no one case can be found in the whole history of French piracies, in which the doctrine, so strenuously urged by her

* Our authorities are Valeu, in his Com: sur les ordon: de Louis XIV, and the ordonnances sur la marine de la France published under the auspices of Bonaparte.

18

statesmen, of the freedom of merchandize under neutral flags, has been recognized by her courts. So far from this, several hundred cargoes have been condemned which were bona fide neutral property, solely on the suspicion of their being the property of enemies. France is the only nation in Europe, which ever had the injustice and cruelty to condemn a neutral ship, because it carried enemy's property not contraband of war. In the war of 1756, she had such an ordonnance, and in the war of 1793, since Bonaparte's friends were in power, she passed a decree, that if upon any neutral vessel should be found any goods, wares, or merchandize, the growth or product of Great Britain, whether owned by British subjects or not, as well the said goods, as also the ship, and all other goods laden on board such ship, should be lawful prize.

Can any parallel be found in the records of the enemies of neutral commerce," to this fact, which we have cited from those of " its friends and protectors?"

But we need not go so far back for evidence of the moderation and justice of France. We know what have been the acts of the monarch, who sits himself up as leader in this crusade for the establishment of maritime rights. His deerees of Berlin and Milan are the proofs which he has given of his respect for these rights. The whole country of his enemy, her islands, her possessions in each hemisphere, even her productions are proscribed to neutrals. No excuse is received by this inexorable judge. No time can wash away the pollation of contact with British territory, or productions. He has declared, that the ship which has offended against his edicts shall be forever after denationalized. It shall cease to be neutral, not during the voyage in which she has offended, but forever. In ferocious contempt of all principle and precedent were these edicts enacted. And their author is the man whom some believe, when he professes to be the assertor of the freedom of the seas, and of the rights of neutrals.

But the practical illustrations of the laws of nations by France exceed those of her decrees. When admiral Villeneuve, closely pursued by Lord Nelson, burnt every Ameri

can vessel he saw, men, although they were stupified at this unexampled defiance of all the wholesome usages of nations, which require a solemn, judicial decision in all cases of prize, yet made some excuse for him, from the imminent danger he was in, and the dread he felt that Nelson would discover his track. But what shall be said when we find that this practice has grown into an usage, and will soon be quoted to us, as a part of the law of nations, supported by innumerable precedents? France has continued this usage every year since the year 1805, to the time when we are writing.

be

Let us now examine the conduct of Great Britain, who, according to M. de Montgaillard, "disavows, outrages, and tramples on the rights of nations." When did she ever declare that any portion of French productions should contaminate both vessel and cargo? When did she ever declare that French produce should under all or any circumstances b lawful prize? We know that she never retaliated this tyranical portion of the Berlin and Milan decrees. When did she ever declare that the touching at a French port should forever denationalize the ship? We know that she had too much justice to imitate in this the example of her enemy. When did she ever burn or sink a neutral vessel, without trial or examination? Would this point of difference, even if it were the single one between her and her enemy, be nothing?

But the general character of a nation is to be judged by her general, and habitual conduct towards neutrals. If Great Britain were as jealous of neutral commerce, as her enemies in France, and in this country contend, if she enter tained the disposition to exercise her maritime power with so little regard to the rights of other nations as is pretended, what has restrained her from sweeping all neutral commerce from the ocean? What has prevented her from exercising as despotic a control on that element, as France has done upon the continent? It is said, that she is envious of the power commerce of the United States, why has she not effectually checked that power, and that lately increasing commerce? Was it the want of ability? Where has been the naval force, by which she could have been restrained?

and