ment, and makes it piracy to be engaged in the trade. As we have thus uniformly outstripped the British in devising means to check this odious commerce, one would have thought that they would have at least done as much at home as we had, before they began to stimulate us to do more. But without waiting for this, they are constantly and anxiously pressing us, simply on grounds of common humanity, to fresh efforts, notwithstanding that we have already done so much more than they. And the mode in which they have done this has not been less contrary to common international usages than the thing itself. Looking behind our public acts and perceiving or thinking they perceive that these acts are sometimes evaded, (as in the nature of things they must be) the principal object of their endeavours is to urge upon us to put in execution our own laws. Such extraordinary indiscretion would admit of no excuse, were it not for the intrinsic excellence of the cause, which covers and justifies every thing. In order to realise the better the true character of this interference, let us suppose that another nation, as for example the United States, should venture upon it with the British government; should point out to them British laws that are not enforced, and should press upon them for years the necessity of enforcing them, offering at the same time the armed force of the United States to assist in this object, would such application be received by the British cabinet in a friendly spirit? The practice of impressment, for example, as is well known, is in

direct opposition to the whole spirit of British jurisprudence and to various special statutes. Magna Charta declares that no British subject shall be deprived of his liberty, except by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land, which cannot mean an arbitrary order of the government, because the provision was expressly made to prevent such orders. In like manner, the habeas corpus act provides, that every man, in any way deprived of his liberty, shall be brought before a magistrate within twenty-four hours, and released if there are no charges against him. As it is no crime to be a seaman, the enforcement of this regulation would defeat the practice of impressment in every instance. Or reasoning from analogy, if a general warrant to search houses has been declared illegal, how much more so must be a general warrant to seize and im prison persons. Of the illegality of the practice there is no doubt.* Suppose then that the go

*It was highly honourable to the colonial courts in Massachusetts, that they uniformly refused to sanction the practice of impressment within their jurisdiction. A solemn decision to this effect by the highest authorities took place not long before the revolution, of which an account may be found in President Adams's pamphlet, entitled The inadmissible Principles of the King of England's Proclamation. There was an earlier case of the same or a similar kind, I think in the time of Queen Anne, which is mentioned in Hutchinson. Not having the book at hand, I am not able to refer to the passage. Considering the supposed difficulty of this subject, these decisions were perhaps a still more noble proof of independence, than the refusal to sanction the relation of slavery previously to the decisions of the English courts to the same effect.

vernment of the United States should urge upon Great Britain, repeatedly and for a series of years, to abolish it in the name of common humanity; and should offer to station a regiment of soldiers on Tower Hill to assist in releasing seaman apprehen. ded by a press gang. Indiscretion, I suspect, would be the mildest name applied to such a proposition. Yet such is the precise character of the interference of Great Britain with the American government in regard to the abolition of the slave trade. Indeed, the American government would really shew much less indiscretion in making such proposals, because the cessation of the practice of impressment at home would remove one of the great points of difference between the two nations. They might say to England with great propriety, "In the name of God and of common humanity, put in force your statutes in favour of personal liberty, and we shall then, at least on this head, have nothing to complain of."

It is not, however, for the purpose of disapprobation that I have pointed out the indiscretion of these proceedings on the part of England. In so good a cause indiscretion itself becomes a virtue; and if, as I love to believe, the British government is moved exclusively by feelings of humanity and compassion for the unhappy Africans, I would exhort them myself to persevere in their efforts, reminding them, however, that it would be more consistent to do, in the first place, at least as much at home as the nation has done which they undertake to sti

mulate; and reserving to the other nations the right of rejecting propositions, however well meant, that violate the first principles of national independence, as that of employing British ships to enforce the laws of the United States. My object in making these remarks was to shew to what an extraordinary extent Great Britain had carried the practice of urging other nations to the adoption of political measures on grounds of mere humanity; and thus to strengthen the remark that she could not, without inconsistency, refuse to listen to such arguments, when employed in favour of the principle of respecting private property in time of war by sea as well as by land. Let us hope that this provision, which seems to be imperiously demanded by a regard for consistency, if by no higher motive, may become in time a part of the code of nations.

While the contrary practice continues, the abolition of privateering, which has been occasionally suggested by well meaning persons in the United States, would be highly injudicious, and directly unfavourable to the cause of humanity. Privateers are the natural defence of a weaker maritime power against a stronger, and furnish the only possible resource for a commercial nation, which does not choose to load itself with the monstrous burden of a large standing navy. If the general practice of plundering private property by sea were abolished, privateering would of course disappear with it.

383

CHAP. X.

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS.

In the first chapter of these remarks I have expressed the opinion that civilization, including, as one of its branches, political improvement, is in a progressive state in every part of the Christian world; and, in a subsequent chapter, I have stated that the moral influence of Russia is already extending itself very fast through the neighbouring countries; and that, at no distant period, this power may very probably obtain an actual military dominion over the rest of Europe. As Russia is at present in a very low state of civilization, these opinions may appear at first view contradictory. The military occupation of the west of Europe by an uncivilized power would tend, it may be thought, to check, and perhaps entirely stop, the farther progress of improvement. Hence, if this event is probable, it might appear that civilization is not likely at present to proceed much further. In this concluding chapter, it will be my object to inquire into the probable results of the combined operation