The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1813-01-21

pretension, not necessarily dependent OH
state Of war. As the reason there
fore fails, the rule must cease. AS the re-
strictions upon the liberty of the flag flow on
" from the laws of war, the restriction on
account of seanen is most un {ounied inter
Jolaticn into toe laws OF nations which we
ought to resist.
The British ministerial papers have charg-
cd us, indeed. with an intention of doing
away the right of scarch altogether-fnr-
getting, or " remembering tn forget the
broad distinction which has iISt been laid
down. We acquicSce in the right of search
for coAtrdbana OF war. because it is Il pce-
tension acknowledged by the laws of war
very different, however, is tie search for
:oeamen, which is entirely derived from the
local regulations of Engiand.--lt is there
iore "A sophism, and "a most il!iberal inn
position on the British nation, To say, that
our government wishes to do away the RIGHT
OF search, because they wish 10 limit it 10
those legitimate cases which are acknnw
lodged by the general sense OF the civilized
world.
We shall dismiss this first proposition
with one remark more. We Sin ell not
here discuss the British doctrine Of alepi-
ancc. 1t flows from the monarchicai gent
rs OF the British Constitu' ion, which consi
dcrs man, not as a freeman. but rs a
slave not as born to consult the means Of
his own happiness and To seek it wherever
lie can find, it, but born as the slave Of his
king and unable to dissolve the letters
which bind the vassal to his liesc lord. We
say,iet use even admit this abstract doctrine
OF allegiance to be correct, with what
grace can Great Britain deny us the privi-
icge OF acknowledgement own subjects, when
by her own established statute she takes
upon her self to naturalize those seamen
ut other countries who serve only two years
in her own navy And farther
" Great Britain has the less TO say in ex
cuse tor tins practice, as it is in direct CON
tradiction 10 the principles on which she
proceeds in other Cases. Whilst she claims
and seizes on the high seas, her own sub
Jects Voluntarily serving il American YES
sells, She has constantly given, when she
could give, reason for not discharrinr
from her service American citizens, that
they had voluntarily engaged in it. Nav
more, whilst she impresses her own sub
jects from the American service, although
they may have been settled and married. &
even naturaliZcd III the UniteG States. She
constantly refuses to release from hers. A
merican citizens impressed into it, whene.
yer she Can give Tor reason, that thew
were either settled or married Within her
domnions. THUS, when the voluntary con
sen. OF the individual favors her pretensions.
she pleads the validity OF that consent-
When the voluntary consent of the indivi
duals stands III tie way of her pretensons.
IL goes for nothing When marriage or re
sdenee can be pleaded in her favor, she a
walls herself OF the plea. When marriage
and residence and even naturalization are
Salnst her, no respect whatever is paid to
q laS nv l.
jccts voluntarily serving in our vessels.-
She keeps by force American citizens in
voluntarily serving in hers. More fragrant
Inconsistencies cannot be imagined ''sS
We make these remarks on the yfeht of
Great Britain TO impress any Seamen from
on board other vessels on the higi. seas-
We now take up the End Proposition that,
admitting this right TO exist in other cases,
the abuses flowing from the exercise of il
on board OF American vessels are a com
plete bar to the exercise of it in our og.,r
case.
The Federal Leaders. as well the Spea-
kers ON the hoor Of Congress as their Es-
saylsts III the Newspapers, have exhausted
q world of learned sophistry on the subject.
They attempt to show that g. Britain
Claims no more at this time than what she
claimed two centuries ago, and what has
been claimed also BY France that France
has also passed edicts requiring her own sea
men To abandon the service of foreigners
and return to their allegiauce-and that
iii the 18th century a British Comman
der seized certain British seamen on board
Of Dutch ship 4; and that from this peri
cd, the rule seems TO have been established
IN England OF taking her own seamen from
foreign vessels, with the exception of ma =
tional ships
Why, all this learned lumber on
the present occasion These facts, if
they we're the only ones which could be CT
ted, would be of very little avail so differ
ept are the circumstances OF the cases.
You can tell an EngIisman :from Dutch
man or Frcnchman or FrcnChman
from either Their language, their air.
the whole aspect of their character is so
distinct. But it is much more dfiicult to
discriminate an Englishman from an Anne
rican. The Dutch might in some measure
tolerate the practice taking the British sea-
men from their ships for their own Coun-
trymcn could scarcely suffer from a mis-
TEX How different from our own sea-
men Speaking the same language, they
are liable TO the same impresSment. In Ia =
king their own seamen, the British press
gang are too apt, If no other inducem ents
existed, TO mistake our own iseamen for
therS.
Ihis TOO is the Experience toe
fatally veriies the remark. We prove
by the two following facts that in The real
o. pretended attempt 10 fake on1u fhei,
oggn ScamcH, they haze taken more Of ou,
orr.
The first fact is drawn from the period