Straight by the sect 'tis blaz❜d about, How can the wretches hope for bliss, RECENT PUBLICATIONS. 4. Letters to the Rev. Thomas Belsham, on his Sermon after the death of Dr. Priestly. By the Rev. John. P. Smith. 12mo. Boston, Farrand, Mallory & Co. This little book, neatly printed from the London edition, is a dispassionate effort to maintain the Trinitarian, or Arian, system, in opposition to Unitarianism. The letters, though not containing much weight of argument, are embellished with some beautiful allusions to the Roman classicks, particularly the writings of Cicero. 5. The Christian Monitor, No. IX. containing an earnest exhortation to a holy Life, and a Letter to a young Lady on Preparation for Death. Boston. Munroe, Francis, and Parker. This work, in a concise manner, unfolds the great obligations of Christians, and urges the motives of the gospel towards a diligent and persevering discharge of them. 6. The Panoplist, No. X. for March. Beside the usual quantity of paper wasted in promulgating the Calvinistico-Papistico-Hopkinistico ebullitions of the editors, they have added to this number eight pages, to give room for a review of the Christian Monitor, No. IX. Though these reviewers profess to be actuated by pure and conscientious motives, it is impossible for a disinterested reader to discover, throughout the whole production, any thing but a spirit of religious intolerance and a most diabolical malignity, that would disgrace the annals of the papal inquisition. They are extremely angry with the Monitor, because it is entirely cleared of every appearance of the arch-fiend,' a double portion of whose spirit seems to rest upon themselves.-' I declare, (quoth my uncle Toby) my heart would not let me curse the devil himself with so much bitterness.' TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. "A PATRON," from Newburyport, is received. more communications to make, upon matters which he will please to pay the postage. If he has any concern not us, "Let statesmen, then, reflect on these things; and in the present awful crisis of affairs, let them often ponder upon the priciples which should direct their publick conduct. Without neglecting the increase of their internal resources, by wise regulations, and gradual improvements of the civil and military constitutions of the countries intrusted to their care, let them constantly look from home, and remember that each state forms a part of the general system, liable to be affected by every derangement which it may experience; and of necessity, obliged to trust for its safety to a concurrence of other causes besides those which domestick policy can control." RIGHT OF SEARCH. AN authentick history of the negociations in relation to the treaty which Messrs. Munroe and Pinckney formed with the British ministers, Lords Holland and Auckland, would afford the American citizen abun. dant proof, not only of the insincerity with which that ministry were treated by us, but of the apparent determination of Mr. Jefferson's government, never to ratify any compact, which might be agreed upon by their ministers extraordinary. In considering the correspondence of Mr. Madison upon the subjects intrinsically connected with the discussion of that instrument, we are forcibly instructed in the absurdity of his expectations of British concessions; concessions which could never have been made to us without a sacrifice of the most vital interests of the maritime supremacy of Great-Britain, by means of which she had been enabled to stand alone and immoveable amidst the tempests which surrounded her, and which had rendered her alike the safeguard of the liberty of the suffering world, and the wonder and terrour of her enemies. It is very well understood, that the principal difficulty which impeded the progress of the negociations, which protracted it for several years, and which ultimately caused its rejection by Mr. Jefferson, was the determination of Great-Britain never to agree to our claim of the universal immunity of the American flag in merchants' ships. Under the treaty commonly called Jay's treaty,' we experienced a growth of prosperity more rapid than that which any other nation had enjoy ed. The democratick party in the United States, by their rebellious excesses in opposition to the ratification of that treaty, had pledged Vol. 1. Cc 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 véssel, 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 deşerters. 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, differently 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 4 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 de serters, 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 stopping 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 invalidate 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 affect 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 |