[PRICE 10D.

$13]

SUMMARY OF POLITICS. DOMISION OF THE SEAS (continued from p. 422),Upon this subject, there was a letter, from a correspondent, inserted in the Register of the 19th of September, at page 429, which letter I should have answered, in my last, had it not been done in so able and complete a manner by my correspondent WROG, of Lincoln's Inn, whose admirable letter will be found at page 502. Thus is the ground of "occupancy, or first possession, "completely demolished. -A second correspondent, under the name of CANDIDUS, at page 506, takes up the same subject, and he differs from me Increly upon the propriety of my definition of law; but, he has not, I think, satisfactorly shewn, that it is proper to denominate law that which no tribunal can possibly enforce. "A law," says he, " is a rule of action, and I apprehend, that a conscientious man may lay down for himself a rule * of conduct, from which he will not deviate,

though there should be no tribunal that "could enforce his obedience." Very true, but, this is using the word law in a figura tive sense; and, as to the force of such a law, as applied to the affairs of nations, it would, I think, be very difficult to discover, in the history of the world, any, even the slightest, traces of it. My correspondent says, that, as to the tribunal *for enforcing these rules, the interest of "the whole creates such a tribunal, by. producing a confederacy of the different states for that purpose." But, here we revert to might again, to force, to mere power, to the " right of the strongest;' aud, as I explicitly said before, the only de-. fence of weak states consists in the opposite interests and the mutual jealousies of the strong ones --With respect to the present state of things, however, Candidus agrees with me, that one power having swallowed up all the others, upon the continent of Europe, the law of nations, or the rules of conduct, were, from that moment, at an end, and that no state cau now be called upen to act according to those rules.

But, the chief reason for my reverting to this subject, at this time, was, that I thought

46

and recommend that Great Britain should exact tribute from every ship that sails "the sea, because she is able to do it. Our "readers, however, cannot suppose that

such doctrines ever were held by any "statesman or politician, or are likely to "be acted upon. The equality of nations

as to their rights, so far from being a new "or dangerous doctrine, is the doctrine by which we have a Court of Admiralty "which determines causes by that very Law "of Nations which is called unmeaning

myself as stationed here not to deliver "occasional and shifting opinions to

serve present purposes of particular ""national interest, but to administer

"with indifference that justice which the "law of nations holds out, without dis""tinction, to independent states, some

"happening to be neutral and some to ""be belligerent. The seat of judicial ""authority is indeed locally here, in the ""belligerent country, according to the ""known law and practice of nations.

But the law itself has no locality. It ""is the duty of the person who sits here, "to determine this question exactly as

he would determine the same question "if sitting at Stockholm; to assert no pretensions on the part of Great Bri****tain which he could not allow to Swe

den in the same circumstances, and to impose no duties upon Sweden as a neutral country, which he would not admit to belong to Great Britain in the same character." Here is the opinion of Sir Wm. Scott distinctly in favour of the equality of nations. Mr. Cobbett reprobates the mention of such an equality. The judicious reader may chuse which he likes best. We cannot help hinting, however, that if Mr. Cobbett's authority prevail, the Admiralty Court may be forthwith abolished, and divers placemen cashiered. We humbly apprehend, therefore, and with great deference to Mr. Cobbett's deep learning, who judiciously quotes the trite and comSermon place Tory principle, that this coun

try should affect naval dominion, and not

fight upon the Continent, in order to "establish the right of this country to "universal naval property and dominiou. "The sweeping claims now made to the "dominion of the sea is quite a different thing, and aims at different consequences "from the old maxim of cultivating naval

"

power, in contradiction generally to land "force. At no time has this country claim"ed that dominion or property now talked "of, and so strangely confounded with "the encouragement of naval strength. "We never claimed more than a sort of "nominal superiority, confined entirely "to the narrow seas, which by the Treaty "with the Dutch in 1674, extending them

as far as could be dreamt of, were defined "to be the seas from Cape Finisterre to Cape "Stat (in Norway). Tothis claim France ne

ver yielded, and America of course had "nothing to do with it; but even this "claim, if admitted to its fullest extent; "if revived by a treaty containing the clause

left out in 1802, is utterly foreign to the right claimed all the world over. Selden "himself offers as an argument in favour of our British seas, that others have similar

rights in their seas, as the Venetians in "the Adriatic, and the Danes in the North; "and he is very well satisfied with being "able to make out a claim of a servitude "in our favour over the seas belonging to "the Danish sovereignty. To talk then of our "ancient sovereignty of the seas is an abuse

of the words. Indeed, though we had "always claimed and obtained this sove

reignty in the sense now alluded to, of "a sovereignty over the whole ocean, it wou'd "avail nothing; for even when admitted "in the narrow seas, it never has enabled "us to exert the right of searching ships of "war. If any proof of this were wanting,

we might refer to the demand made by "Cromwell, in 1653, after a war ostensibly entered in for the honours of the flag, "and really originating in naval jealousy; a war, too, in which he had beat the Dutch "in seven great sea-1 a-fights. He demand"ed, as the ne plus ultra of maritime claims, a right to visit Dutch ships of war in the "British seas. The Dutch, almost ruined, "and eager for peace, gave him all he "asked, except this; this they positively "refused, and the treaty 1654 was accord

rity, the right must be mutual), can ne"ver be resorted to between the English "and Americans without nourishing heartburnings and enmities, of which surely "it is both humane and wise to remove the causes. Besides, if we retain the right of searching merchantmen, what possible inconvenience can arise while America "is a neutral power, and has scarcely any military navy at sea at all, from waiving the right to search ships of war? What **is the number of our sailors that can be detained in the American ships of war? even if their whole crew were English, "the number would not be very great. If, "then, we have a right to search their mer"chantmen, how can they in the present "circumstances rob us with impunity of our sailors? The right of searching ships of war, therefore, is now at least of very little importance to us; but, on the other hand if the right is claimed by us, it must "be conceded to the Americans; and in "that case, we apprehend that the Ame"rican ships of war in exercising the right

66

ticularly to the Americans, almost in their "own harbours, "The right must unquestio

τα

nably be exercised with as little of personal harshness, and of vexation in the mode, as possible." It is not very likely that it will be so exercised when so "much pains are taken to raise both "the contempt and the hatred of our navy against the Americans.

To take these observations in their or der, I will first say, that I know of no clamour that has been raised against the late ministers, on account of concessions made by them to the Americans; but, I expressed my fears, that they had made such concessions; and, these fears were greatly increas ed by the tone which Mr. Whitbread took, the moment the affair of the Chesapeake

If

was made known in England. It was the Whigs and the Morning Chronicle, who began the dispute here; they explicitly condemned the conduct of our naval officers upon the American station; it appeared to me, that the conduct of these officers was not only justifiable, but highly praise-worthy; and, in defending them, I was naturally led to examine the principles of those, by whom that condemnation had been passed. These principles I found to be subversive of our rights upon the seas, and I again expressed my fears, that some of those rights had been sacrificed, in the treaty, recently made with the American States. they have not been sacrificed I am glad of it, but, however angry it may make the Morning Chronicle, I shall not ascribe the prevention of such sacrifice to its particular friends, but to the Grenville part of the late administration.I am not aware, that I have assailed the Morning Chronicle in "an ill-mannered tone of personal invec"tive;" but, what, other than an ad"vocate of the cause of our enemies, am I to call a writer, or a speaker, who invarially, is on the enemy's side? Who, in every dispute between America and Great Britain, has taken part with the former, though it is notorious, that America has taken every advantage that presented itself of shewing its hatred of us, and of evading the effect of stipulations that were intended to operate in our favour; and that, the people of England have to pay millions of money out of their taxes, owing to this conduct on the part of America. In spite of all this, as well known to the Morning Chro nicle as to me, and I have at hand proofs of the facts, that paper has been constantly on the side of the Americans, and has censured every thing, said or done, by any body in the way of asserting our country's rights or claims, if those rights or claims were opposed to the interests of the Americans. What, else, then, than an advocate of the cause of our enemies am I to call such a print? Nay," says this writer, "the House of Lords itself is censured for "not having negatived a motion, that na"tions were to be considered as equal, as to "their rights." Their rights upon the seas was what I remarked upon. That all nations were upon a footing of perfect equality as to the rights upon the seas, was the proposition of Lord Stanhope. And how did I censure the conduct of the peers in not putting a direct negative upon this?" in my opinion, said I, they should have met the question, and given a direct negative to the proposition." Does the Morning