were under an obligation to restrain their vessels from carrying certain articles, the produce of those islands, to any other place than the United States. One of these articles was cotton. It is now generally known, that the American minister, who negotiated the treaty, was not aware that cotton was already introduced into the United States, and had become an article of export ;—a fact of which he could well be ignorant, for we find it stated in the debates of Congress, that a member from South Carolina observed, in the House of Representatives in '89, that the people of the southern states intended to cultivate cotton, and "if good seed could be procured, he believed they might succeed." When the treaty was made, the amount of the export could not be ascertained; for, till 1802, no discrimination was made between cotton wool of domestic and of foreign growth. The twelfth article would, therefore, have certainly stopped the export of that commodity, which amounted, at the time this article would have expired by its own limitation, to about 45,000,000lbs. annually. It is also quite clear, that this article would have broken up the greater part of the American carrying trade. During the continuance of it, the Americans were forbid from carrying "any molasses, sugar, coffee, cocoa, or cotton, in American vessels, either from his Majesty's islands, or from the United States, to any part of the world, except the United States." This provision would have, in effect, deprived America of a great part of the benefits she derived from a state of neutrality, during the wars in Europe. Access to the West India islands, under the protection of treaty, was abandoned by cancelling this article; though the arrangement, as to the burthen of the vessel, may be considered a judicious one. On another occasion, an intercourse was permitted, by the French government, with their islands, in vessels not exceeding sixty tons in burthen. The treaty restored the posts on the western frontier to the Americans, without an indemnity for their long detention, or for the slaves carried off by Sir Guy Carleton. The English had held these posts twelve years, in violation of

the treaty of '83. This provision can only be considered as an acknowledgment, on the part of the Americans, of having violated the same treaty, to the extent declared by the English, and it was an absolute surrender of the property removed from New York in '83.

Ship timber, tar, hemp, sails and copper were declared contraband, though declared free in all the treaties made with the United States and other nations. The laws of nations do not specifically enumerate them as subject to confiscation. Provisions also, were declared contraband, according to the modern usage of nations.* This is, obviously, an arbitrary distinction, and in most respects unmeaning,—because the question, in the correspondence between the two governments, had turned upon the point, whether public law made provisions contraband or not. Referring the principle to this standard was, in other words, acknowledging the pretensions of England. Wherever she had the power to enforce her orders, she had declared provisions contraband of war. There was, also, an express declaration, that the flag did not cover the merchandise. This is the only treaty, signed by America, in which this acknowledgment can be found. We have never been able to obtain from England a denial of this right of the belligerent, but silence wears a very different aspect from a direct confirmation of the legality of the practice. The American government had, however, before acknowledged this principle, in its official correspondence. We refer to a passage in Mr. Jefferson's letter of July '93.† The treaty did not define the right of search or blockade, but acknowledged both in general terms.

*The article, however, entitled them to the right of pre-emption; though this provision does not, in reality, alter the principle of the stipulation.

"Les marchandizes neutres chargées par l'enemie sont libres mais le pavillon neutre ne neutralize pas la marchandize ennemie." (Schoell, vol. iv. p. 15.) This is the leading doctrine in the oldest

These were the points that related to the laws of nations. They certainly could not be considered as favourable to the United States; but these were doctrines England would not relinquish, as this government has had abundant experience. She would not yield them to the armed neutrality of '80, nor has any one state, or coalition of states, yet succeeded in compelling her to abate a tittle from a rigorous enforcement of them. Mr. Jay's treaty has been called an instrument that settled nothing. There is some ground for the description. The position and boundaries of the Mississippi and the St. Croix, the debts, and the spoliations, were referred to commissioners; the West India trade, reciprocal duties, contrabands, the neutral flag, and provisions, to future negotiations. These were really the principal provisions of the treaty. It is worth while to trace, for a moment, the history of these different objects of negotiation. The north-western and northeastern boundaries, though in progress, have not been settled to this day; the commission on the debts was suspended, and the American government agreed to pay, under the convention of Mr. King, in 1802, a sum of £600,000, as a release from the obligations of the sixth article of Mr. Jay's treaty; the West India trade has not yet been secured; and the great questions of neutral flag, contrabands, and provisions, rest in the same profound uncertainty that they did in '94. But the treaty was not without some advantages to the United States, though its principal advantage work extant on maritime law. It was received at a time when it was easy to ascertain the ownership of goods or cargo-when the owner embarked with and accompanied his goods to a market. The application is more difficult in modern days. Business is now done by commission, and the transfers of trade are constant, and exceedingly involved. England. at the peace of Utrecht, acknowledged that the flag covered the merchandize. The basis of the armed neutrality of 1780, and 1800, was this principle,-but they effected nothing for neutral commerce.

consisted in its having decided the question of neutrality ;— if it settled none of the leading questions of neutral rights, it at least prevented a war, at a moment when the government and nation were in every respect unprepared,-in itself a vast benefit. It opened all the ports of Great Britain in Europe, on equal terms; all her ports in the East Indies, but it made the trade round the cape direct, and forbid the coasting trade. Before the treaty, the Americans had both an indirect and a coastwise trade in India. They carried cottons, for example, from the British settlements in the East Indies, to Canton. But the trade to India and Europe depended, before '94, on the pleasure of the British government. It was now secured by treaty; a fur trade to Canada was also gained.

The ratification of this treaty may be considered the proper solid foundation of the commercial prosperity of the United States. It was the first act of the government that proved the stability of the federal constitution. It was a severe trial; and the steadiness with which the government bore the shock, may be attributed, in some degree, to the personal character of the President.*

* In 1791, the lords of the committee of Privy Council made a very minute report on the trade of England with America. This report was intended to show on what terms it would be favourable for Great Britain to conclude a treaty with the United States. The West India planters were very desirous of having an intercourse opened with America, immediately after the peace of '83.—(Collection, &c. of reports on trade and navigation, &c. London, 1807, published by order of the society of ship owners, &c.)

CHAPTER X.

TREATY OF GHENT OF 1814 WITH GREAT BRITAIN.

Little settled by Jay's treaty-Mr. King, minister to England-Made no treaty-Succeeded by Mr. Monroe-Proposes a convention to Lord Hawkesbury-Rule of '56-Account of it-Injurious to American commerce- ·Special mission of Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney-Convention with Lords Holland and Auckland-Most favourable ever made-President rejects it without consulting Senate-ImpressmentAccount of it-Opinions of Foster, Mansfield, and Chatham-Convention with Lord St Vincent-Chesapeake―England offered reparation-Refused to consider the affair in connexion with other topics in discussion-Mr. Rose-Mission ineffectual Orders in councilGreat sensation--Erskine arrangement-- Unsuccessful-Erskine withdrawn-Mr. Jackson-His correspondence with government—Dismissed-- England expresses no mark of displeasure-Antedated decree -England refuses to repeal orders--Declaration of 1812-WarRemarks on neutrality-Mediation of Russia -Not successful-Peace of Ghent-No disputed point settled - Peace-Policy of AmericaWar of 1812, good effect on national character-Mr. Adams, minister to England-Mr. Bagot to this country.

WE shall give, in this chapter, an account of the different negotiations that led to the war of 1812 with Great Britain, and finally terminated in the peace of Ghent of 1814. We propose to divide this period into two parts;-the first relating to events immediately preceding the orders in council of