themselves to obtain one when the articles of the first should expire, which should be more beneficial to the country. This pledge has been a principal cause of all our difficulties, and ought to be a cause of our eternal hatred of Mr. Jefferson and his administration.

Under the auspices of the administration of Mr. Fox, it was certain that many advantages would be conceded to us, which could have been obtained from no other ministry that had ever existed since we had been acknowledged an independent nation. But the benefits which we had already derived from the operation of the old treaty, so much denounced by the democrats, were so apparent, that even the Fox administration were unwilling to grant the same terms a second time; whilst Mr. Madison, with a wonderful gift of practical negociation, insisted with the most obstinate hardihood upon receiving other benefits, which he ought to have known could never, even in the last extremity of distress, have been granted by the British government, and benefits too, to which we had no pretension.

The following extract from Mr. Madison's letter of instruction to Messrs. Munroe and Pickney, dated May 19, 1806, will most strikingly evince the absurdity of his expectations.

"The first article of the project comprised in the instructions of 1804, relates to the impressment of seamen. The importance of an effectual remedy for this practice, derives urgency from the licentiousness with which it is still pursued, and from the growing impatience of this country under it. So indispensable is some adequate provision for the case, that the president makes it a necessary preliminary to any stipulation, requiring a repeal of the act shutting the ports of the United States against certain British manufactures. At the same time he authorises you, in case the ultimatum as stated in the article above referred to, should not be acceptable to the British government, to substitute one in the words following, "No seaman nor sea-faring person shall, upon the high seas, and without the jurisdiction of either party, be demanded, nor taken out of any ship or vessel, belonging to the citizens or subjects of one of the parties, by the publick or private armed ships or men. of war, belonging to or in the service of the other party, and strict orders shall be given for the due observance of this engagement.'

That the concession thus claimed could never have been realized, is apparent; because we had no right to demand it, and because if we had, Great-Britain would have very properly refused it on the ground of the most urgent necessity.

It is evident,' say the Edinburgh Reviewers, that the right to search a foreign vessel for deserters is of the very same nature, and governed by the same rules, with the right to search a neutral vessel for contraband goods. You have a right to search for those goods, only because you are injured by their being on board the vessel which trades with your enemy; you have a right to search for your own runaway

seamen who take shelter in the vessel, because you are injured by their being enabled to escape from you. If a neutral carries contraband goods, such as armed men, (which indeed treaties frequently specify in' the list) to your enemy, he takes part against you; and your remedy, your means of checking his underhand hostility, is to stop his voyage, after having ascertained the unfair object of it. If the same neutral gives shelter to your seamen, he takes part with your enemy; or if you happen not to be at war, still he injures you, and your remedy in either case, is to recover the property, after ascertaining that he has it on board. In both instances, the offence is the same, the foreign vessel has on board what she ought not to have, consistently with your rights. You are therefore entitled, say the jurists, to redress; and a detection of the injury cannot be obtained without previous search.?.

The same writers, whilst they deny the right of searching ships of war, maintain peremptorily that of searching merchant vessels, as follows:

'We now come to the right claimed, of searching private vessels for deserters. Some of the principles which were incidentally explained in discussing the first point, seem sufficient for the decision of this also. It was proved that a merchant ship is, in every respect, differ ently situated from a ship of war; and that no reason can be offered why it should not be subject to visitation, if suspected of carrying contraband. If a government pretends to be responsible for the conduct of each individual trader within its territory, we know that it is engaging to fulfil an impossible condition: and we are entitled to conclude, that it means to mock or to deceive us. The method of searching seems the only way of preventing or detecting the unfair dealings of neutral merchants. When confined to national ships,* it unites a degree of security to the rights of the belligerent, with an attention to the convenience of the neutral, which no other contrivance would possibly secure. Now, there seems to be no good reason for excepting the case of deserters from this right. If the crew belonging to an English man of war escape on board of American merchantmen, it is difficult to discover why they should not be pursued there, and brought back by their lawful commanders. It is preposterous to call each merchant ship a portion of the territory of the state, because the jurisdiction of the state extends to the persons on board of it. The same jurisdiction extends to the subjects of the state, though by any accident, they should be swimming at a distance from the vessel. An Englishman who should commit murder in this situation on the high seas, would be tried at the Admiralty session; and yet he was on no part of the English territo

This was done in the Ruffian treaty 1801; and Lord Grenville expressed his approbation in his celebrated speech upon that occasion.

ry. An English vessel, too, in a foreign port, is held to be foreign territory. If, then, deserters are pursued into a merchant ship on the high seas, they are only pursued on common ground; and no violation of territory takes place, any more than if they were picked up swimming at sea in their attempt to escape.

We have already shown, that all the reasons, derived from mutual convenience, are in favour of giving the belligerents the remedy of search for contraband in neutral merchant vessels. The same reasons apply almost as clearly to a search for deserters. There is only one circumstance, indeed, which can be supposed to distinguish the two cases. It is not so easy to determine which of the crew visited are deserters, and to seize them alone, as it is to determine that there are contraband goods, or hostile property on board, and to bring the vessel in for condemnation. The danger is certainly somewhat greater of our cruizers seizing American seamen, instead of British, than of their stop. ping vessels laden with neutral or innocent cargoes, instead of vessels pursuing an illegal voyage. But though this may render the adjustment of the mode in which our right of search shall be exercised a little more nice, it does not amount to such a difficulty as will invali date our title to use that remedy.'

It is evident on pursuing the arguments on this question, contained in Mr. Madison's letter to Mr. Munroe, of Jan, 1804, that they refer almost exclusively to the odious practice of Great-Britain, in not properly discriminating between her subjects, and American citizens; but do not af fect the abstract right of that nation to take her own sailors wherever she can find them. Our laws, which admit the naturalization of inhabitants of all nations, are in direct repugnance to those of Great-Britain, which prohibit the expatriation of British subjects. As it is probable that neither nation will recede from its fundamental laws, the difficulty which has arisen in consequence of the practical opposition of the neutral to the belligerent regulations, ought to be settled by compromise. The right of search of neutral merchant vessels, however we may presume it undoubted in the abstract, is in the practice highly odious to us and oftentimes disgraceful to the British searching officers. Besides it has many strong opposers in this country; and it may be necessary to enter into the discussion of the subject yet more at large. It is only brought forward at this time to show that our administration have most obstinately adhered to a claim of exemption, with a confidence and pertinacity that could only be warranted in a case where the right was not only clear, but unquestionable. But Mr. Madison has caused his demand in respect to the American flag in merchant ships, to be made the sine qua non in the negociation; when, to say the least, the British have always had a very strong side in regard to the right, and

every ministry has been willing to enter into arrangements, by which the practice so much and so justly complained of by us, might be regulated to our satisfaction.

REVIEW.

WE have always endeavoured since we have undertaken to conduct the Ordeal, to be strictly impartial respecting such communications as we may occasionally receive from correspondents. The pages of this Journal are alwas open to opinions on literary, political and religious topicks, which are sufficiently local in their nature to come within the compass of the original intention of the publication. But the editors do not intend it to be understood, as an inference, that they subscribe to the opinions of all the productions, which, from the very nature of their plan, they consider it proper to publish. The Remarks which follow were sent to us for publication; they are local, and are published of course. The editors, however, do not consider themselves responsible to the tribunal of taste or literature, for the accu racy of the critical sentiments contained in the Remarks; but on the contrary, they feel themselves deterred by motives of delicacy, from taking any side in the controversy to which the criticism may possibly lead. The admirers of the Sermon will have an opportunity to reply to the Remarks' through the same medium, which conveys them.

REMARKS

On a Sermon delivered at King's Chapel, Boston, 1st January, 1809. Br SAMUEL Carer.

THE publick have lately been gratified by an Ordination Sermon, which reflects great credit on its author, the Rev. W. Channing. A funeral sermon and a second ordination sermon have also been published by gentlemen in considerable estimation as preachers: all have been admired, though not perhaps in an equal degree. The discourse proposed to be now examined, though it may not bear a comparison with either of the others above referred to, contains many very excellent observations. And here it is proper to state, that the remarks which follow arise entirely from a desire to make the author of the sermon in question more useful and acceptable both as a minister and a man. It is to be regretted that the gentleman did not submit his discourse to the examination of some candid and able friend before he ventured to commit it to the press.

The first striking impropriety in this production is the extreme length of several of the sentences. The second sentence contains thirteen lines, the third contains upwards of twenty-five, and there are many others that are tediously long. If these sentences had been prop

erly separated and curtailed, the ideas would have been more forcibly conveyed, and the sermon advantageously shortened. This is pecaliarly remarkable in the sixth sentence, which contains about fourteen lines. The author says, "If in the confusion of worldly business, and in the ardour of worldly attachments, men, however willing to go 6 right, are constantly in danger of mistaking the road, are forever deviating from the course which terminates in heaven, into winding paths, where dangers terrify, and darkness bewilders them; then they who stand ready to take them by the hand, and lead them back to light, and hope, and safety, whose friendly voice warns them of 'their danger, admonishes them of the pitfalls which lie before them, 'consoles them when they sink fainting to the earth, and animates 'them to press forward in the race, and be crowned at the goal; are. 'their truest friends and their greatest benefactors.' The idea intended here to be conveyed is entirely bewildered in verbosity.

'So spins the silkworm small its slender store,

'And labours till it clouds itself all o'er.

The sentence might be read as follows: If men are constantly in danger of mistaking the road to heaven, those who stand ready to lead them to safety are their greatest benefactors.

3

Page 5. At the bottom, our author says, 'The ambassadors of a 'meek and lowly master, are armed with no weapons but those of reason,' &c. &c. Pray what have ambassadors to do with arms or weapons? Their business is not to fight,

6

Page 6. He says, we would be loved because we have discharged the duties,' &c. &c. As he is here speaking of persons actually engaged in the ministry, he perhaps intended to have written because we discharge, &c. Our author proceeds, we neither profess to be endow⚫ed with the supernatural gifts and wisdom of the apostles, nor with ⚫ their power of dictating opinions without the possibility of errour,? &c. Does any body suppose, that the ministers of these days are so endowed? Where is the use of contradicting what no body supposes to be true? In the next paragraph he says, speaking of his text, ‘Į ⚫ shall understand it,' &c. and I shall arrange the duties,' &c. Will our author condescend to consider whether the words, we may, would not have had a more agreeable effect upon the mind than I 'shall?' whether the words proposed to be substituted would not have savoured more of that diffidence and modesty, which is so becoming in all persons, more especially in one just assuming the character of an ⚫ ambassadour of a meek and lowly master?'

Page 7. The author says, an opinion has unfortunately got into • the world, founded upon misconception of some of the doctrines of ⚫ the New Testament, or not properly discriminating between the ⚫ world as it was in the days of the apostles, and as it is at present