wards offer reparation, in the face of the very instrument, the existence of which had been the only previous obstacle to the adjustment. But if the Federal writers have such wonderful genius as to be able to deter foreign governments from pursuing what their opponents conceive to be the obvious cause of their policy, how will the democrats admit the inference, that they have no power nor influence in our national councils?' But the federalists evaded the embargo laws, and thereby prevented its coercive effects. Then the effects have not been so very coercive after all? But will any democratick writer be so bold as unequivocally to declare, that men of any particular party were distinguished by evasions of the laws? We know that the Federalists opposed those UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS by constitutional means; but we undertake to assert that they paid as much real respect and observance to those laws as any set of men in the nation.

TEXT.

The federalists,' have had no power nor influence in our national councils for eight years past.' Chronicle, May 1, 1809.

COMMENT.

Their exertions (of the federalists) have been solely confined to dogerel paragraph writing; which has been as weak as their cause is despicable; and the only effect of which has been the keeping on the Embargo for the last twelve months. Chronicle May 1, 1089.

These two paragraphs contradict each other; the last proves the assertion contained in the first to be a falsehood; for if the federalists have had no influence in our national councils,' how could their writings have had any effect in keeping on the embargo? Surely in so far as relates to their influence on the national government, the writings of the federalists were impotent indeed! And if the embargo policy were persisted in consequence of such writings, the conduct of the government must have been the result of ignorance or spite. In so far as this conclusion is just, we shall not deny the force of the Chronicle assertion; we have always maintained that the majority in Congress were both ignorant and vindictive. The expression above might be thus changed; The federalists by their writings maintained such an influence on the national councils, that through spite, and ignorance of the welfare of the country, the government keep on a ruinous embargo for twelve months longerthan it was required; (thus far should the Chronicle have proceeded; and we would have added) for which they have justly incurred the determined hatred of all the wise and good men in the community.

DECLPTION.

'They' (the federalists), have even gone so far, as to threaten, "that unless the government took off the embargo, declared war against

France, and submission to British tribute and taxation, they would dissolve the union, and give the northern section to Britain.'

Chronicle, May 1.

This assertion is plainly and unequivocally made in the Chronicle, and yet the writer talks about the deceptions and lies of the federalists. Such are the weapons with which we are assailed. The cause which can only be supported by misrepresentations so apparent, and falsehoods so glaring, evinces its own inherent corruption.

MISREPRESENTATION.

'So far from the president being now called on to repeal his proclamation before any overtures are made, the whole business is explicitly stated in the first communication and the ground work of all the preliminary articles are offered for the consideration of the government. It seems then, that the late mission carefully avoided the former difficulty; and finding that the spirit of the government would not yield to such humiliating terms as were proposed by Mr. Rose, Mr. Erskine began in the first instance to tell what his majesty would do, before he could expect the president to relinquish our demands or relax in our measures.' Chronicle, May 1.

There was no necessity for demanding a repeal of the Proclamation; the non-intercourse formed a virtual repeal. If, according to the democrats, France had committed no outrages as violent as those of the British, surely a law which raised France to the same level of aggression with Great-Britain, is fairly to be considered tantamount to a repeal of the proclamation itself. It contains the very prohibitions against French ships, which the attack on the Chesapeak produced against English ships. We restore the equilibrium as effectually by adding weight to one side of the balance as by diminishing it on the other.

But we had done more, we had made a previous suggestion to Mr. Canning, that if he would repeal the Orders in Council, as far as regarded America, the embargo, as far as regarded England, would be removed. So in the non-intercourse law, the same principle is recognized without any condition relative to the Chesapeak annexed to it. It is provided by the 11th Sec. of that law, that in case, either France or England shall so revoke or modify her edicts as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States,' the President is authorised to declare the same by proclamation; after which the trade may be renewed by the nation so conducting.' The offer in respect to the Chesapeak, was therefore unsolicited, the negociations would have gone on without it, the trade would have been renewed without it, (according to the non-intercourse law, and the proposals made by Mr. Pinckney) so that all the merit which can attach to a candid disavowal and free and unexpected reparation for an injury, must be ascribed to the British Govern ment.

As we cannot understand what is meant by the term ' the ground work to all the preliminary articles,' being offered for consideration, we shall not attempt to refute or explain it.

The extract from the non-intercourse law which we have offered, is abundant proof of the falsehood of the assertion, which implies a necessity on the part of Mr. Erskine to tell, in the first instance what his majesty would do, before he could expect the president to relinquish our demands or relax in our measures.' The law itself had already 'relaxed our measures,' and we had assumed an aspect of equality, which (Great-Britain taking the earliest advantage of it) will probably oblige France to declare war against the United States. So much for the concessions we have obtained from Great-Britain.

our own.

THE NEGOCIATION.

AMONG all the clamours of the democratick party in relation to the concessions of Great-Britain; they are perfectly silent in respect to We do not mean to maintain that our government have not done strictly right, in silently submitting to a state of circumstances which they could not control; all we assert is, that our former secretary of state has made many real concessions, which are quite as derogatory to our government as the presumed concessions on the part of the British. In his letter of instruction to Mr. Munroe, in Jan. 1804, Mr. Madison told the minister that unless our claims to the immunity of the flag in merchant ships were conceded to us even in the narrow seas, the negociation would then be at an end. The negociation did not end. On the same subject the secretary writes thus, in 1806, 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 non-importation act.' Yet when the British peremptorily refused the admission of such a claim, President Jefferson directed Mr. Madison. to instruct the minister to suffer the negociation to terminate without any formal compact whatever.' After this, however, we see negociations about to be renewed, notwithstanding the British proclamation respecting deserters, in which our claims on the subject are forever foreclosed. Concessions, therefore, on the very point which has engaged the best talents of the two governments for more than five years, are now made by us without any noise. The negociation is to be renewed notwithstanding all our threats; and then the great obstacle to an amicable issue, will be the British proclamation. That subject will exhaust a few years more in controversy before we come to a definitive settlement, and then, we venture to predict, we shall allow the British

to search for their own seamen on board our merchant ships; they giving bonds as the last rejected treaty contemplated, that the American sailor shall not be molested.

On the subject of reparation for the Chesapeak attack, we are forcibly instructed in the manner in which concessions have been made from time to time, which we dare say the democrats would wish were forever blotted from the pages of the publick documents.

First, in his letter of April 4, 1808, addressed to Mr. Pinckney, Mr. Madison, after noticing the correspondence of Mr. Rose, and the posture in which the final reply of that minister had placed the question of adjustment, observes, that the reparation should be made in America, 'but the president authorizes you to accept the reparation' there, (England) provided it be tendered spontaneously, be charged with no condition, unless it be that on the receipt of the act of reparation here, the proclamation of July 2 shall be revoked. Still it is to be understood' (on the subject of the orders in council) 'that whilst the insult offered in the attack on the American frigate remains unexpiated, you are not to pledge or commit your government to consider a recall of the orders as a ground on which a removal of the existing restrictions on the commerce of the United States might be justly expected.' The government made this stand, which seems to have been very cautiously examined; but the post we shall soon see was not tenable. In his letter to Mr. Pinckney of April 30, 1808, only twenty-six days after, Mr. Madison directs him in the event of the orders in council being rescinded, as they applied to the United States, and without any other condition being implied,' to authorize an expectation that the president will, within a reasonable time, give effect to the authority vested in him on the subject of the embargo laws.' Lest any doubt should remain as to the phrase 'authorize an expectation,' the secretary speaks of such course being taken by the British government as will render a suspension of the embargo certain or probable.' Here then was an authority to restore our intercourse with Great-Britain, without reference to the Chesapeak insult, which was included in his letter of July 18, 1808, in the term, 'other salutary adjustments.' Mr. Pinckney, accordingly, did on the 23d of August offer to Mr. Canning on behalf of the American government,' to suspend the embargo law and its supplements, as regarded Great-Britain, in case that nation repealed her orders.' He said he was authorized to give this assurance in the most formal manner.' It was at this time that the advocates of the embargo in America began to doubt of its efficacy in coercing Great-Britain, and Mr. Canning's reply, Sept. 23, to the proposal of Mr. Pinckney, completely satisfied them of the propriety of their doubts. After regretting the unfortunate operation of the orders in council, and stating the question relating to that measure, Mr. Canning proceeds respecting the embargo; his majesty sees nothing, in the embargo laid on by the president of the. VOL. 1.

M M

a

1

United States of America, which varies the original and simple state of the question.' He continues, his majesty does not conceive that he has any right or pretension to make any complaint of it, and he has made none. But in this light' (as a municipal regulation, in which Mr. Pinckney had considered it all along)' there appears not only no reciprocity but no assignable relation between the repeal by the United States, of a measure of voluntary self-restriction, and the surrender by his majesty of his right of retaliation against his enemies.'

We talk of receiving concessions, when we have made those of the greatest importance ourselves; we say that Great-Britain is at our feet, but we may hereafter find ourselves egregiously mistaken.

We are told we have gained much, but we cannot discover that we have gained anything. The great topicks of controversy, have been the colonial trade, and the immunity of the flag; we should be glad to know what advantages we have obtained, or are likely to obtain upon these subjects. Or in what respects has Great-Britain relinquished the most minute commercial advantage to this country? She has not relinquished one. Her claims in respect to the colonial trade, are manifestly unjust; but we have not obtained any relief on this subject. Why then are the exultations of the democrats so very high toned, when we are in no respect better situated than we might have been a year ago, if we had adopted the federal policy?

THE CHRONICLE.

WE are rapt in frequent astonishment at the profundity of the editorial remarks in the Chronicle. The general principles of politicks and the laws of nations or of truth are to be sure very seldom regarded, they are viewed with dignified disdain, and if ever approached, are kept at a convenient distance; but yet the observations are in themselves so original, and hurry the mind along in so copious a current of imagination, that though you often cannot grant a ready assent to the reasoning, the conclusions which result are certainly irresistible. We shall offer from the Chronicle of Thursday, some examples of the style, intelligence and profound thinking to which we have alluded.There is one paragraph which is couched in the following manner:

'The reconciliation between the United States and England is an act which appears to please all parties; the first thing of the kind which has occurred for a great while, and is certainly very honourable for the administration.'

so readily observe the art with Instead of declaring it' an act

Common readers perhaps will not which this sentence is constructed. which pleases all parties,' the author was determined not to commit himself, so he qualifies it thus, appears to please all parties;' it may