66

ships of military service, for a country which "has thus ceased to be their own country? "Certainly, certainly, my Lord, there can be but "one answer to this question. Is it not far more reasonable that England should either "prevent such emigration of her subjects, or

that, if she encourage and promote it, should "leave them, not to the embroilment of a "double and contradictory allegiance, but to "their own voluntary choice, to form such rela❝tions, political or social, as they see fit, in the country where they are to find their bread, " and to the laws and institutions of which they "are to look for defence and protection ?"

66

On these passages adduced by M. Lemoinne, a few remarks will now be made, in order to restore the British practice of impressment to a proper interpretation of the right upon which it stands.

The allegiance which British subjects owe to their native country during their natural lives, is founded upon that law inherent to and acknowledged by all communities, the law of self-preservation. During the struggle of the United States to secure their independence, from 1776 to 1783, it was openly acted upon to the greatest extent. All the Loyalists there who adhered to the mother country were publicly proscribed by the revolted authorities, their property confiscated, and num

bers of them executed. It is a law, however, which presses most stringently upon countries which, by reason of their limited extent and insular situation, find their independence peculiarly exposed. Such was the ancient situation of England before it became the powerful kingdom it now is. But even an occasion occurred during the present century, when the independent existence of our country was menaced, and it will not be denied that the law of self-preservation fully justified the Government at that time in compelling all the subjects of the Crown to aid in saving the country. Many of us yet live who remember the period when Napoleon Buonaparte had compelled all the maritime powers of Europe to arm against us-when, by his Berlin and Milan decrees, he had attempted to ruin our manufactures and commerce-and when he had assembled an immense army, insolent with success, for the invasion and conquest of our island. If the British Government of that day, cowering beneath the fearful cloud that was impending over us, had timidly regulated their proceedings with neutral powers, by entering into abstract discussions with them respecting their right to deprive this country of the aid of native British mariners, we might have drank the last dregs of humiliation by becoming a French depen

dency. But the Government of that day was equal to the fearful crisis, and, supported by the generous spirit of the nation, were never diverted from their great object of saving the countryalmost the only one that fearlessly raised the standard of self-government amidst the general wreck. America at that time became the great neutral carrying power; and, extending her commercial marine beyond the resources of her own population, tempted British sailors, anxious to enjoy immunity from service on board British men of war, and to receive high wages, to serve under the American flag. It followed, as a matter of course, that when our cruisers overhauled neutrals to search for enemies' property, these sailors, when recognized, were seized, and transferred to our own flag. Had they been permitted, upon mere abstract considerations, to continue to serve under a neutral flag, it is self-evident that the desertions from the British service would have been general, that our navies could not have been adequately manned, and might not have achieved those glorious naval victories which prepared the way for the pacification of Europe.

The practice, therefore, of impressment in extreme cases is justified by the law of selfpreservation. In its purpose it intends nothing derogatory to the independence of neutral

powers, who, if they will seek to derive a profit from the service of British sailors, thus withdrawn by them from aiding in the defence of their native country, should be satisfied with a prompt and fair reparation for any inconveniences which may unavoidably arise from the exercise of this right. It is not to be denied, however, that in periods of war individuals have been impressed into our service who were not natives of Great Britain, but of the United States; and irregularities of this kind will sometimes occur, for the sailors of both countries are undistinguishable from each other in language, dress, and manners; and when examined, are always, for obvious reasons, found in the same story, viz., that they are natives of the United States. Under such circumstances British officers have no course left but to detain those who claim to be illegally impressed, until undoubted proofs are given that they are Americans, when they will always be released. But these irregularities only occur in times of war, and we never hear of foreign vessels being searched for British sailors during peace, because then the navy of England is easily manned. The assertion, therefore, of Mr. Lemoinne, that Great Britain considers the practice of impressment as a part of international law, and that the British Government has the

exigency of the

same right to the property of her subjects as to> their personal service in the state, are altogether incorrect. And the fallacy of the analogy is shown by the marked difference which has always existed in the exercise of these rights, for the British subject is compelled by the prerogative to assist in maintaining the safety of his country by personal service, whilst his consent is necessary, through his representatives in Parliament, before his property can be taxed for the support of the Government.

For what purpose Mr. Lemoinne introduces the passages quoted from Mr. Webster's letter of August 8th, but to exaggerate this ancient difficulty betwixt the two countries, cannot be imagined. Indeed, he represents this question as a slumbering volcano only waiting for a spark to explode once more. From the published correspondence accompanying this Treaty, and from the opening paragraph of that letter, it would appear that this question of impressment was introduced into discussion with Lord Ashburton at the instance of the American Government. The words of the paragraph are:

"We have had several conversations on the "subject of impressment, but I do not under"stand that your Lordship has instructions from your Government to negotiate upon it, nor "does the Government of the United States