The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1814-10-22


The British government, aware of the truth
of this doctrine, has cnleavOred to avoid its
conSc iUcnceS in the late declaration Of IRE
Prince Regent. Il has not contenced that
British Cruzers have a right to pursue and
search cur vessels Ter British sc2raeu. 1t as
serts only that they have a right 10 search
them for other objects, and being on board for
a lflwfIl Cause, and finding British seaDen
thc'r, thar Ihcy have right 20 impress aIid
bring them sway, under the claim Of alles'-
ancc. NVhc1 we see systematic pursuit Of
our vessels bp British Clilizers, and the I'M
prcsSmeut of Seamen from them, not at
port Of tine enemy, where regular blockade
had beer inStitut.j, and by the blockaGlng
squadron, but III Z. cry part of the ocean. on
cur coast and even in our harbors, it is diff
cult 10 believe that impressmeht is not the
real motive and the JaeI the pretext for it.
But TO place this argLN mt Of the British gn-
Yernment en- the strongest ground, let it DC
admitted that the entry Mas lawful, IS It so to
commit an act not warren ed by the purpose
for which the entry was ma de ? There is Il
levity in this argument, wh1h neither su,ts the
parties nor the subject. Tie British govern
ment toiInds lis right ofimpreSs.uent from our
ships Oh ti.dt of allegiance, WHICH is perIna-
u-nc right, equally apple able 10 'eice * war.
The right otimpressmeIt, therefore, from the
vessels vi other pavers must likewise be per
manent, AMI equally applicable to peace and
war. 1t would not, however, take this
broad ground, lest the Injustice and ezuaya-
gance 81 tie 9retcntion might excite the astu-
nlshmcHt eIId Indignation of other powers TO
whom it would be equally applicable. To
Claim itas beilgcrent right Would nave been
equally unjast and absurd, as 10 trace Of it
coild be found in the Beiliserent Code. The
Brush Government WAS, therefore, reduced
10 a very embarrassing dilemma. 10 ac-
knowledge that 1t could nDt support the claim,
Oh either principle, would be to Telirquish it,
and yeti could rely OF n,i.her. 1t rndes-
voured tC draw some aid from both. A state
of w;tT exists which brings the parties tcgc-
ther, Great Britain, rs beligerent, y the d.
States as = neutral Power. British officers
have noW a right 70 board aud sc4rch Anne
rican vessels, bat for what Persons in the
service of an enemy, contrabaId OF war, or
encmy's property +! This would not accom-
plish the cnd. 1t ishowever, the utmost -
NIT OF the belhBerent right. Allegiance,
which Is the attribute Of sovereignty, comes to
her aid, ard communicates all the necessary
power. The National Character of the neu-
trail vessel CCascs. The complete right OF
sovereignty and jurisdiction over it is trans
teued to q. Britain. j IS on this foundation
that TIE British Government mas raised this
monstrc,1s s-i.1crstrdclG-c Il Is with shis hind
ofargHment that it &ttenlpt4 20 justify its
practice oIimpresshSpt from our vessels
the Prince Regent, that in iNprcssing British
seamen from American vessels. Great Britain
exercised no right which she was not willing
to a] ,oWicdge as appcrtaning equally to
the Government Oh the United States, wtlI
respect TO American seamcn in British msl-
chant ships, proves only that the British gov
crnment is conscious of the injustice Of The
claim, and DESTROYS Of giving 20 1t such aid Us
may be derived from a plausible argument.
.f lrrt-
proposition, which strikes at first view, ,lisap-
pears on fair examination. 1t is unfair, first,
because ii is impossible for the United States
to take advantage or 1t. lmpTesSmcnt is not
sn american practice, but utterly repuguant
to our constitution and laws. In Offering 10 re
clprocate 1t, nothing was offered, the Brit
iSh government well knew. 1t is unfair, Sc
condly, because if ImpressmCnt was allow
able, a reciprocati0n Of the practice would lie
no equivalent TO the United States. The ex-
erciSe of a right in common, at sea, by two
! Nations, each over the vessels of the other,
! the one powerful and the other comparatively
weak, would be, to put the latter completely
| at the mercy uf the former. Great Britain
| with her vast Navy, would SION be the only
| party which made impressment. The United
| states would be compelled to abstain from it,
| 'tud either to submit 10 the British .ule, with
! all the abuses incident to power, OF 20 resist it.
But, should the United States be permitted 10
make lmpressraent from British vessels, the
| elect would be unequal. Great Britain has
perhaps, thirty SHIPS Of war at sea, 10 one of
| the United States, and would prof; Of the ar
rangement in that proportion. Besides, in
! pressmenC IS q practice incident 20 war, III
which view, likewise, the inequality is not less
glariHg, she bcingat least thirty years ~ war,
! to one Of the United States. Gthe,' consider
auors prove at the British government mad
Ills acknowledgement merely as a prctcXt 20
JUSTIFY Us practice of lmpressment, without
| intending t'iat the right or practice should
ever be reciprocated What would be the
effect of its adoption By American ships OF
war, with British merchant vessels An A
merjcan officer boards a British merchant
vessel and clams, as American citizens,
whom he pltascs How many British sesmen
would disclaim title which would take them
TO The United States and secure them there
all the advantages of citizenship The rule
o. evidence, as the ground of impressments in
every instance, must likewise Be rcCiprCcated
betwsen the two governments. The aczuOw-
Judgement of the men would surely be "a bet
ter proof Of their national character than Che
deCsioH of a British CtCer who boarded an
American vessel hcTever impartial lie
might be, and sirens bi power of disCrimina-
ton, when opposed Nv the voluntary and So
iemp decIafat:uH Of the party in this way