more envenomed prejudicc-more unblushing misrepresenta tion.

The atrocious case of the Horrizon, which was the first in stance wherein the Berlin decree was carried into effect against American vessels, had previously occurred. Of this case Mr. Armstrong had transmitted an account in a letter dated Nov. 12, 1807, of which I have submitted a copy to the reader.* This letter and the documents accompanying it, established, beyond a possibility of doubt, the extreme danger of our commerce from French depredation, French cruizers, and French courts.

Of the determination of the British government to meet the Berlin decree with measures of equal violence, undoubted information had been received by our administration in private letters, and even in the public papers. The recommendation of the embargo took place on the 18th of December, 1807: and that day there had been published in the National Intelligencer the following paragraph from a London paper:

London, Noυ. 10.

"A proclamation is now, we understand, in readiness for his majesty's signature, declaring France and the whole of her vassal kingdoms in a state of siege, and prohibiting all intercourse with her or them and all entrance of vessels into her or their harbours,-EXCEPT OF SUCH AS HAVE CLEARED LAST FROM A BRITISH PORT, EITHER HOME OR FOREIGN."

Thus, between the two nations, our commerce was completely cut up by the roots. The only part of Europe, except her own dominions and dependencies, with which Great Britain allowed us to trade, was Sweden. And the Milan decree, by an extravagance of despotism, folly and wickedness, never exceeded in the annals of piracy and rapine, regarded every neutral vessel, that had been searched by a British cruiser, as ipso facto denationalized, and liable to be taken, bound whence or where she might. The mind is lost in astonishment at this ne plus ultra of wickedness, madness, and rapine. It was punishing as criminal, an act perfectly innocent-wholly unavoidable-and in which the party punished had been merely passive!

Under these circumstances, what prudent merchant would send a vessel to sea-liable to capture whatever might be her destination? For even if bound to Sweden, or any other corner of Europe, (if any such there were) not embraced in the scope of decrees and orders in council, she might be searched by an English privateer, and thus be subject to capture by the next French privateer that might overhaul her.

What course had a government to steer, which, bound to watch over the interests of its constituents, was sincerely dis.

posed to perform that duty faithfully? Let any man not trammeled by faction or inveterate prejudice, calmly consider this question, and I feel most perfectly satisfied, he will reply-the alternative was, war against both nations--or a general embargo.

1

Notwithstanding this plain state of the case-notwithstanding the imperious necessity of this measure-there was, as I have stated, no act of the federal government, since its first organization, that excited so much outcry or clamour. It was the subject of incessant abuse in all the federal papers from NewHampshire to Georgia, and from the Mississippi to the Atlantic. It has been ten thousand times reiterated, that it was unnecessarily oppressive-that it was wicked and tyrannical-dictated by Napoleon-a sacrifice of the dearest interests of the nation-and, to cap the climax, unconstitutional.

In times of faction, the public possesses a wonderful faculty of swallowing the most monstrous and improbable falsehoods. It was almost universally believed in the Eastern states, that the embargo was the result of a combination between the Southern and Western States, to ruin the Eastern!!! I have repeatedly heard this assertion made by men otherwise of sound minds and cultivated understandings, and whose veracity convinced me that they did not attempt deception, but were themselves deceived. This extravagant idea proceeds upon the miserable and fatuitous supposition, that the merchant, whose vessels remain unemployed at the wharves, will in consequence be ruined; but the agriculturist, whose wheat, flour, rice, cotton, naval stores, &c. stagnate on his hands, will thereby suffer no injury, or rather derive advantage, although they fall in value 30, 40, 50, or 60 per cent. 'Tis passing strange! Tis

Never was there a more factious or unfounded clamour excited. Never, I repeat, was a public measure more loudly called for by existing circumstances, never one better timed, and never one that would have produced more salutary consequences, had not faction deprived it of its efficacy.

I feel perfectly satisfied, that with the knowledge Mr. Jefferson possessed, of the mighty dangers impending over our commerce, he would have justly merited impeachment for a dereliction of his duty, had he not recommended an embargo for its protection.

Mr. Pickering, was the earliest, the most ardent, and the most zealous opponent of the embargo. After having in vain made every exertion in the Senate to prevent its vassing, he laboured, and unfortunately with two much success, to excite a strenuous and seditious opposition to it in his own state, and in

the other Eastern States. He wrote a long, elaborate, and impassioned letter against it to the governor of Massachusetts, in which he endeavoured to prove the measure wholly unnecessary-dictated by Erance-and adopted purely through hostility to England, who, he unqualifiedly asserted, "had done our commerce no essential injury."

To form a correct idea of the embargo, it must be considered in two points of view, wholly distinct-one, its original creation-the other, its long duration. The latter may have been, and I believe was an error. But I should not hesitate at this moment to submit the decision of the question to Governor Strong, Rufus King, George Cabot, or James Lloyd, jun. whether an embargo was not an indispensible measure, at a period when all Europe, except Sweden, was declared in a state of blockade ?

The embargo was laid on the 23d of December, 1807. Mr. Pickering's letter was dated Feb. 16, 1808, when it had not been two months in operation; of course its denunciations must have been levelled against the enaction of the law--and had no reference whatever to its duration.

To enable the reader to form a correct estimate of the soundness of Mr. Pickering's denunciation of this measure, let it be observed, that at the date of his letter, F full and authentic information had arrived in this country, of the enforcement of the Berlin decree, and of the enaction of the orders in council, and of the Milan decree.

I deem it therefore highly proper to place Mr. Pickering's declarations in contrast with each other--and likewise with the real state of affairs. The reader will then be enabled to decide the question correctly himself.

Let me explain the four succeeding columns. The first contains a statement of the British depredations on American commerce, abstracted from the mercantile memorials of 1805-6the second, Mr. Baring's statement of the effects of the orders in council-the third, the resolution of the Senate, Feb. 10, 1806, on which Mr. Pickering voted in the affirmative, and the fourth, Mr. Pickering's vindication of England, Feb. 16

1808.

The three first paragraphs of the first column are from the Bos ton Memorial, signed by James Lloyd, George Cabot, &c. These gentlemen are responsible for the truth or falsehood of the allegations, in which the British government is almost in terms charged with absolute piracy: for, according to Messrs. Lloyd and Cabot, and their friends, they were, "preying upon the unprotected property of a friendly power," which is but a mild form of expression for piracy.

1805-6,

MEMORIALS.

1808,

MR., BARING.

Mr. Picker- Mr. Pick

ing's senti- ering's

"All trade directly from ments, Feb,

"We confine ourselves America to every port and, 10, 1806.

to the more alarming; be. country at war with Great
"The cap-
cause more extensive deten- Britain, or from which
sions and condemnations of the British flag is exclu-ture and con-
American vessels by Great ded, is totally prohibited.

Britain."*

at

demnation

senti

ments, Feb. 16, 1808.

"These

In this general prohibition under orders facts deof the British monstrate, "New vessels, on their every part of Europe, with alfirst passage from the Uni- the exception present government, that ted States to Europe, are of Sweden, is included : arrested, carried out of and no distinction whatever is made between the

their course, and injurious

and adjudica- though tions of their England courts of ad- with

her

of

ly detained under the vex- domestic produce of Amer. miralty, of A- thousand merican ves- ships atious pretence of a con- ica, and that of the colo- sels and their war, could tinuity of voyage from the mes, re-exported from country or colony of a bel- thence."

ligerent."*

cargoes on have de. It would probably the pretext of stroyed "It cannot become the be no exaggeration to magnanimity of a great and say, that upwards of three employed in merce, powerful nation to prey fourths of all the mer- the enemies REALLY upon the unprotected proper chants, seamen, &c. enga of Great Bri- DONE IT ty of a friendly power" ged in commerce or navi

pressed the external com- at some time or other, suf

merce

a trade with SHE HAS

ES

ed mume of SENTIAL

Having totally sup-gation in America, huve tain, promoit- NO of her enemies, fered from acts of our peace, is an INJU Great Britain is now coun- cruisers, which to them un provoked RY."* selled to appropriate to her- have appeared unjust, "ggression self that of her friends."† and which frequently upon we pro

* Letter

so. perty of the from the "This novel principle must have been citizens of the hon. Timogoes to nothing short of the They read, it is true, of United States thy

the

state

PickFrance. destruction of neutral compower of merce." BUT THEY FEEL EV. aviomion ering, sen"Every sail is stretched ERY DAY THAT OF of their neu-ator from tral rights- the to collect the unwary Ameri- BRITAIN."†. cans, who are unsuspectingly " By attempting to and un ew of Mass to confiding in what was the confine the European croachment his exceltrade of America to upon theirna- lency Jas.

of the said

law of nations." "Our vessels and effects, Great Britain, and by the tional inde- Sullivan, to a large amount, have avowal of an intension pendence."* governor lately been captured by her to tax that trade on its pus- * Resolu- state dated commissioned cruisers, up- sage to the continent, we those tion agreed Feb. 16 on the foundation of new are returning to to by the se- 1808 page principles, suddenly in principles, to which, even vented."§ as a colony, she would not nate of the 12.

"The revival of her dis- submit. It is immaterial, U. States.carded rule was character- whether it be a tax on

Feb. 10

ized with such circumstances stamps, or on cotton. This 1806.-Sec
of iniquity and violence as question has been alrea- page 108.
rather to heighten by the dy the subject of a long
contrast the veneration of and bloody war; and it
mankind for the past jus- can hardly be supposed
tice of her tribunals."§ that America will now

It is not for me, to reconcile Mr. Pickering's sentiments* to each other-nor to the tenor of the Memorials-nor to Mr. Baring's correct view of the orders in council. Let it be observed, let it never be forgotten, that the "unprovoked aggression" of 1806, remained unredressed at the date of the letter to Governor Sullivan. February, 1808. And further to this "unprovoked aggression" of 1806, the orders in council had been added in 1807, which more than quintupled the original outrage. But even independent of this extravagant addition, it is out of my power, by all the rules of logic at my command, to satisfy my mind how "the capture and condemnation of our vessels"--under false "pretext," and, as appears by the memorials of the merchants, to a most enormous amount--"the unprovoked aggression upon the property of our citizens"the" violation of neutral rights," and "the encroachment upon our national independence" can be made to accord with the broad, the sweeping, the unqualified assertion that Great Britain has "really done our commerce no essential injury."

To be serious. The subject requires seriousness and sobriety.

Is not this a most astonishing and never enough to be lamented instance of the horrible delusion in which strong party passions involve those who submit to their guidance? Can light and darkness-vice and virtue-- seraphs and demons--be more opposite to each other than these assertions are? Would it not have been a most awful inconsistency had they both been cotemporaneoushad the state of affairs, at the period of making the second, been exactly what it was at the period of making the first? But what an immense aggravation does this inconsistency receive from the consideration, that in Feb. 1808, the first grievances had been unredressed, and others, as I have stated, incomparably more intolerable, been added? The orders in council were, an outrage, and injustice, and infraction of our rights of sovereignty, far beyond the enforcement of the rule of 1756, which was the ground of complaint in 1806, as wanton murder is beyond mere assault and battery.

Never was I more deceived in my life, than I am at this moment, if every candid, unbiassed reader do not agree with me, that the opposition to the operation of the embargo, was factious, disorganizing, absurd, and impolitic in the extreme; and that those who rendered the law nugatory and unavailing have a high crime to answer for to their injured country.

* Some of the friends of Mr. Pickering, in order to destroy the effect of the inconsistency of these sentiments, have asserted that he did not make the declaration that "England had done our commerce no essential injury." I dare Mr. Pickering thus publicly and explicitly in the face of this nation to deny it himself. I pledge myself to prove it incontrovertibly. But he Rever will dare a denial.