When one upon her checks appears, ART. 13. Poems. By Edward Rushton. 12mo. Of thefe poems there are fome which we can readily com. mend, and others which we are compelled to cenfure. They are in general harmonious, and, in fome inftances, pathetic and interefting; but we cannot approve of the author's political principles, nor deem all his poems of a beneficial, or even harmlefs tendency. He is ftill, notwithstanding all the horrors with which it was accompanied, and the tyranny which it has produced, a moft inveterate admirer of the French revolution; nay, he feems confident, that the love of freedom is fo ftrong in that country, as to prompt the people, even now, to burst the chains of their oppreffor. In our opinion (and we believe in that of every reflecting perfon), by far the majority of the French Revolutionists never had the least defire, or even notion, of true liberty; and if Bonaparte has no enemies in France but the public-fpirited and patriotic, his ufurpation is, in that quarter at leaft, fecure. The tendency of the feveral difmal poems of this author on a Mary le More (whom we prefume to be an imaginary perfonage), feems to be only to revive the animofity of parties in Ireland, and in. flame the difcontents (if any remain) which have defolated that kingdom. In every mention of the Americans, the poet eagerly embraces the opportunity of vilifying the conduct of Britain. But the author (whom, from his long acquaintance with the gout, we prefume not to be a young man) might have learned to cherish more rational and British feelings, or at least to make allowance for the weakness of thofe, who ftill feel a partiality to He is certainly a pleafing verfifier, their native country. though not a first rate poet. We will give a specimen of his talents, felected for its brevity, and not on account of any fuperior merit. THE SWALLOW. "Go place the fwallow on yon turfy bed, Go raife him even with the daify's head, So, oft' thro' life, the man of powers and worth, Like Burns, muft ftruggle on the bare-worn carth, P P BRIT, CRIT, YOL, XXVIII, Nov, 1806, Yet Yet fhould the hand of relative, or friend, Soon would be rife from anguifh to delight. We agree with the author in his enmity to the flave trade; but even here his hoftility to the British character appears: for, in a dialogue between a Weft India planter and one of hs negroes (in which the barbarity of the former is represented s incredibly outrageous) the planter is conftantly denominated Britan. POLITICS. ART. 14. PP. 1806. The very able author of "War in Difguife" having, in a fubfequent publication, intimated his intention of replying to thofe writers who had entered the lifts with him, we, on that account, delayed noticing the pamphlet before us, in hopes of be ing able to prefent to our readers at the fame time both this An. fwer and the Reply. But as no reply from that quarter has, we believe, as yet appeared, we will give a fhort account of the chief arguments ufed by this American author in behalf of his countrymen, leaving to the readers of both works to determine on their validity. The writer before us, in the outfet of his work, candidly af. fents to all the objections of his adverfart against the carrying (or as he more properly terms it the covering) trade, and agrees that "it is inconfiftent with neutral duties, and eventually hof. tile to neutral rights, that it derogates from the national honour, poifons the public morals, and is injurious alike to the interest and reputation of his countrymen.” He further intimates (what we truft will prove to be the cafe) that the American government will honeftly and heartily concur in every measure of reafon and justice to restrain it. The fole point, therefore, which he contests, is the right of Great Britain to prevent neutrals from trading with the colonies of her enemies. He denies that the rule of the war of 1756 has been affented to by the neutral powers: on the contrary, he declares that it was complained of by the Dutch fo early as the year 1758, and ftrong diplomatic reprefentations were made again it. He then recites at length, the opinion of Sir William Scott, in November November 1799 (cited by the author of "War in Difguife") and combats it with confiderable ingenuity, denying that the general rule laid down by Sir William ("that the neutral has a right to carry on, in time of war, his accuftomed trade, but not a trade which he never poffeffed in times of peace") is a rule of the law of nations, and contending that it is only a rule of the Prize Court, and eftablished in confequence of the royal inftructions, by which that Court is bound. His argument is, that there is no reafon for limiting neutral trade as to place, that would not equally juftify the reftraining it as to commodities. Yet, he obferves, Great Britain herfelf permits, in time of war, the importation in neutral veffels, of thofe merchandizes which, in time of peace, cannot be imported by her Navigation Acts, in any veffels but British or native: and he adds, it is not pretended that fuch goods (if not contraband of war) can be feized in ncutral fhips by her enemies. This is his chief argument; which, fpecious as it may appear to fome, we do not think the author of "War in Disguise," will find it difficult to controvert. There appears to us to be a confiderable diftinction between articles of merchandize and places of trade; at leaft, where fuch places are remote colonial poffeffions, acceffible only by fea, which fea is occupied and almoft covered by the victorious fleets of the adverfe belligerent. There appears to us alfo to be a great difference between fupplying a belligerent at the accustomed places of trade, with articles not ufually imported by neutral veffels during peace, and opening during war an entirely new intercourfe with countries from which, during peace, all fuch veffels are invariably prohibited; more especially when fuch colonies muft, but for that intercourfe, unavoidably fall into the hands of the adverse power. If the fuperiority of one of the belligerents by fea be (as in the prefent cafe) fo great as wholly to prevent the other from any trade or intercourfe with her colonies, we know not how the conduct of neutrals, who, by taking all the commodities and fupplying all the wants of thofe colonies, enables them to hold out againft fuch a fuperiority, and prevents its inevitable confequence (a furrender) can be faid to differ, in point of principle, from the violation of a blockade. This is one ftriking point of view in which the queftion appears to us, and in which it feems to have been contemplated by Sir W. Scott, when he ufed the term of "forcing out of poffeffion;" an expreffion which, as applied to colonies not abfolutely conquered, is ftrongly objected to by the author before us. In general, however, he is candid and temperate; though, here and there, he is grossly miftaken, and at the latter end of his treatife he seems to have work. ed himself up into a violent paffion. We allude particularly to his appeal to the world, whether the danger to Martinique was greater than the danger of Britain," and his curious affertion, that Great Britain negatiated with every Court, and folicited aid to ward off the danger to which he was expofed!-We may fafely deny that Britain ever was in danger, and challenge the author to produce any authority, excepting the hireling newspapers of France, for fuch pretended folicitations. As to Martinique, we have no doubt that it would have furrendered long ago, had the French garrifon and inhabitants received no fupplies by the vei fels of neutral powers. Our limits will not permit us to pursue the argumente further; and, indeed, (as the author of " War in Difguife" may probably refume it) we hope to fee the fubject in abler hands. The paf fionate exclamations at the end of this pamphlet, as they are unwarranted by fact, can only excite our pity. ART. 15. An Examination of the British Do&rine which fubjets to capture a Neutral Trade not open in Time of Peace. The Second Edition: containing a Letter from the Minifter Plenipotentiary of the United States to Lord Mulgrave, late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 8vo. 217 pp. 55. America, printed; London, reprinted for Johnfon. 1806. In the work before us (which feems to have been produced un. der the aufpices of the American government) the question on the claim of neutrals to an unlimited trade with the colonies of our enemies, is profeffed to be tried by the following tefts:— ift, By the writings moft generally received as the depofitories and oracles of the law of nations : 2dly, By the evidence of treaties: 3dly, By the judgment of nations other than Great Britain: 4thly, By the conduct of Great Britain herself: 5thly, By the reafoning employed in favour of the principle. Arguing on thefe feveral grounds, the author cites, on the firft of them, feveral paffages from the moft eminent writers on the Law of Nations; none of which, he admits, directly apply to the point in question; but he argues, from the general scope of their expreffions, and even from their filence as to this point, that the refpective authors, had this queftion been before them, would have decided it in favour of the neutral powers. This is, at best, but a fallible mode of reafoning, and might, we think, in the prefent cafe, be shown to be completely erroneous; fince the abufe of which Great Britain complains did not arife till after the periods when most of the above works were written, and falls within the general principles which all the writers maintain. The fecond head of difcuffion opens a wider field of argument than our plan will permit us to enter upon. But it appears to us that, alhough in feveral treaties, Great Britain has, as to particular nations, waved the right the now contends for, the never meant, or could mean, univerfally and finally to abandon it. On the conduct of other nations," the author fays little, except that they do not appear in their diplomatic tranfactions or maritime maritime ordonances, 66 to have founded, on the diftinction between a trade permitted and a trade not permitted in time of peace, a belligerent right to interrupt the trade in time of war. The conduct of Great Britain herself is next appealed to as pronouncing her own condemnation;" nay, the author is hardy enough to affert, that "the innovation which fhe endeavours to enforce as a right of war, is a mere project for extending the field of maritime capture, and multiplying the refources of commercial aggrandifement; and warfare," he infits, "against the commerce of her friends, and a monopolizing grafp at that of her enemies." To prove this affertion, he undertakes to show "first, that while Great Britain denies to her enemies a right to relax their laws in favour of neutral commerce, the relaxes her own, thofe relating as well to her colonial trade as to other branches. Secondly, that, while fhe denies to neutrals the right to trade with the colonies of her enemies, fhe trades herfelf with her enemies, and invites them to trade with her colonies." This argument has been ably anticipated, and probably will be ftill further anfwered, by the author of "War in Difguife." We will therefore only remark, that a partial relaxation of fome particular laws, for a temporary and perhaps a flight convenience, is very different from an entire change of fyftem during war; by which change alone the greater part of the colonies remaining to our enemies are preferved from the alternative of a furrender to our arms, or abfolute ruin, This confideration alfo accounts for the conduct of Great Britain, in not infifting upon the rule in queftion before the war of 1756, or uniformly during the American war; fince, till the last war, our fuperiority at fea was not fo decided as abfolutely to preclude any regular intercourfe between the colonies of our enemies and the parent countries; and confequently their refiftance to us did not wholly depend on the trade with neutrals, which (it must be repeated) arofe, and is permitted by the governments hoftile to Britain from neceffity alone. We do not (it is conceived) claim, as this author ofes, a right of attacking all neutral commerce not permitted in peace,' ," but only fuch as necessarily influences the course of the war, and manifeftly deprives us of thofe advantages which our naval fuperiority would confer, enabling our enemies to oppose to us a refiftance not derived from their own means or power. We fhall not follow this author through his long statement of the different orders of the British government and decifions of the Admiralty Court on this fubject; although we conceive that there are fome mifreprefentations in that ftatement, and many fophiftries in the remarks interwoven with it. We have no doubt that the author of " War in Difguife," who takes a very different PP 3 view |
