HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
To this it was answered on the 
part of Great Britain, that no pow- 
er but her own could release her 
subjects from their duty of allegi- 
ance, and that provided she in- 
fringed not the jurisdiction of other 
independent states, she had a right 
to enforce their services wherever 
she found them. But no state had 
such jurisdiction over its merchant 
vessels upon the high seas, as to 
exclude a belligerent from the right 
of searching them for contraband of 
war, or for the persons or property 
of enemies ; and if in the exercise 
of that right, the belligerent should 
discover on board of a neutral ves- 
sel itssubjects who had withdrawn 
from their lawful allegiance, upon 
what ground could the neutral re. 
fuse to give them up? If the sub- 
jects of an enemy are not protected 
from a belligerent by the neutral- 
ity of the vessel in which they are 
- found, on what pretence can it be 
alledged, that the subjects of the 
belligerent, which institutes the 
search, are entitled to protection? 
It is impossible to maintain, that the 
belligerent may seize what belongs 
to its enemy, without violating neu- 
tral rights, and yet not reclaim what 
is its own. No reason can be 
given why a neutral vessel has not 
a right to protect the enemy of a 
belligerent, that will not equally 
shew, that it has not a right te pro- 
tect one of his subjects. But, if 
the right to impress be clearly in 
favour of the belligerent, it is one 
too important to Great Britain in 
her present situation, too essential 
to her safety in the war in which 
she isengaged, to be abandoned or 
relinguished for an instant, unless 
some unexceptionable plan can be 
devised, of attaining the same end, 
245 
by means less, violent and less liable 
to abuse. The difficulty of distin- 
guishing between an [nglishman 
and an American is no argument 
against the right of impressing, 
though it is a good reason for being 
cautious and reserved in the exer- 
cise of it. If an American happens 
to be impressed as an Englishman, 
he ought to be released as soon 
as his national character is ascer- 
tained, and should receive ample 
compensation for the injury done 
to him ; and if any outrage or 
unnecessary violence has marked 
the conduct of the belligerent officer 
who conducted the search, or if 
there is reason to believe that his 
mistake has been wilful, an exempla- 
ry punishment should teach him in 
future, when he enforces the rights 
of his country, not to violate those 
of neutrals. 
But clear and indisputable as was 
the principle that America was 
bound to offer an adequate substi+ 
tute for the present practice of im- 
pressing seamen, before she could 
justly expect frem Great Britain to 
desist from it, the public mind was 
so inflamed in the United States, by 
stories of thousands of Americans 
forced to serve in the British navy, 
of American ships upon the high 
seas deprived of their hands by Bri- 
tish cruizers, and compelled to put 
into the nearest port for want of 
seamen to pursue their voyage, and 
of other outrages still more extra- 
ordinary and unpardonable, that 
looking only to the abuses of 
the right, their popular leaders 
went into the extreme of deny- 
ing its existence. A bill upon 
‘this principle was brought into 
congress, but fortunately for the 
credit and interest of the coun- 
R 3 try 
