"I have the honour to subscribe myself, dear sir, your much obliged and very humble servant."

The request was instantly complied with.-Men and all were released upon parole. In the case of com. Perry, the battle was fought on Lake Erie, on the 10th Sept. 1813. With vessels, carrying altogether 54 guns, he not only defeated, but captured the whole of our fleet, six vessels, carrying 65 guns as he stated in his official report; which report, by the bye, fully justifies our admiralty as to Lake Erie. I take the following paragraph from his report to his government upon this occasion:

"I also beg your instructions respecting the wounded. I am satisfied, Sir, that whatever steps I might take, governed by humanity, would meet your approbation. Under this impression, I have taken upon myself to promise capt. Barclay, who is very dangerously wounded, that he shall be landed as near Lake Ontario as possible, and I had no doubt you would allow me to parole him. He is under the impression that nothing but leaving this part of the country will save his life. There are also a number of Canadians among the prisoners, many who have families."

Capt. Lawrence, in the brig Hornet, attacked and sunk, in fifteen minutes, our brig, the Peacock, killing between thirty and forty of our men, while the Hornet had only one man killed and two wounded. Thus says the American report. Ours I have not at hand. Then comes the following letter: New-York, 27th March, 1813. "SIR-We, the surviving officers of his Britannic Majesty's late brig Peacock, beg leave to return you our grateful acknowledgments for the kind attention and hospitality we experienced during the time we remained on board the United States' sloop

Hornet. So much was done to alleviate the distressing and uncomfortable situation in which we were placed, when received on board the sloop you command, that we cannot better express our feelings than by saying, "We ceased to consider ourselves prisoners;" and every thing that friendship could dictate was adopted by you, and the officers of the Hornet, to remedy the inconvenience we would otherwise have experienced from the unavoidable loss of the whole of our property and clothes by the sudden sinking of the Peacock. Permit us, then, sir, impressed, as we are, with a grateful sense of your kindness, for ourselves and the other officers and ship's company, to return you and the officers of the Hornet our sincere thanks, which we shall feel obliged if you will communi. cate to them in our name; and believe us to remain, with a high sense of the kind offices you have rendered us, your humble servants-F. A. Wright, 1st lieutenant; C. Lambert, 2d lieutenant; Edward Lott, master; J. Whitaker, surgeon; F. Donnithrone Unwin, purser. James Lawrence, esq. commander U. S. sloop Hornet."

The American papers added, upon this occasion, the following:-"It is a fact worthy of note, and in the highest degree honourable to our brave tars, that on the day succeeding the destruction of his Britannic Majesty's brig Peacock, the crew of the Hornet made a subscription and supplied the prisoners (who had lost almost every thing) with two shirts, a blue jacket and trowsers, each."

Now, my lord, without going into more particulars, let me ask you, whether you think that this conduct towards our officers was the effect of disaffection towards their own government, of disapprobation of its conduct, of a hatred of the war, and

of "a disposition to put themselves under our protection?" And, if you answer in the negative, as you must, I suppose, why do you think, that the humane treatment of our officers elsewhere indicates such a disposition? Does your lordship see no possible danger in drawing such an inference? Do you think, that it is wholly out of all belief, that your being reported to have drawn such an inference may render the treatment of our officers, prisoners of war, less humane and kind in future? -Seeing that a disposition in an American citizen to put himself under the protection of our king is a disposition to commit treason, in the eye of the laws of his country, would it be so very surprising if, in future, the Americans should be very cautious how they exposed themselves to the merit of such a compliment? I must, however, do your lordship the justice to observe here, that what the proprietors of our newspapers have published as your speech, might never have been uttered by you.-I would fain hope, that they have, in this case, put forth, under your name, the suggestions of their own mind. I, therefore, comment on the thing as theirs and not as yours.

In order to show that there is no foundation for the hope entertained by people here, and so often expressed by our newspapers, of dividing the republic of America, I must go into a history of the parties which exist in that republic; give an account of their origin and progress, and describe their present temper and relative force.-The population are divided into two parties; the REPUBLICANS and FEDERALISTS. The latter also claim the title of republicans, but it is, and I think we shall find, with justice, denied to them by the former.

These two parties have, in fact, existed ever since the close of the revolutionary war, though their an

imosities have never appeared to be so great, nor to threaten such serious consequences as since the commencement of the French revolution, especially since the first presidency of Mr. Jefferson, whose exaltation to the chair, was the proof of decided triumph on the part of the republicans, and plunged their opponents into a state of desperation.

The federalists took their name from the general government, which being federative, was called federal. Some of the people, as well as some of the members of the convention who formed the constitution, were for the new general government, and some were against it. Those who were against it, and who were for a government of a still more democratical form, were called, at first, anti-federalists-but, of late, they have been called republicans, in opposition to the federalists, who were for a government of an aristocratical, if not of nearly a kingly form, and who proposed, in the convention, a president and senate for life. There was at this time a great struggle between the parties-the opposition of the republicans spoiled the projects of the federalists; and the government was, at last, of a form and nature, which was wholly pleasing to neither, but did not on the other hand greatly displease either.

The federalists, however, took the whole credit to themselves of having formed the government; and, as general Washington, who had been president of the convention, and was decidedly for à federative general government, was elected the president under the new constitution, the federalists at once assumed, that they were the only persons who had any right or title to have any thing to do with that government, treating their opponents as persons necessarily hostile to, and, of course, unfit to be entrusted with, the carrying on of the federal govern

ment.

When the first congress met, under the new constitution, it was clear, that the federalists endeavored to do, by degrees, that which they had not been able to accomplish, all at once, in the convention. They proposed to address the president by the title of his serene highness, and to introduce other forms and trappings of royalty, or, at least, of a high aristocra

cy.

Their intention was defeated to their inexprèssible mortification. The people were shocked at these attempts; and, from that moment, the opposite party seem to have gained ground in the confidence of the people, who abhorred the idea of any thing that bore a resemblance to kingly government or that seemed to make the slightest approach towards hereditary or family rule.

When the French revolution broke out; when that great nation declared itself a republic, and went even further than America had gone in the road of democracy, the two parties took their different sides. Heats and animosities were revived. While general Washington remained president, however, he acted with so much caution and moderation, that it was difficult for any one openly to censure him. He was blamed by both parties. One wished him to take part with France, the other with England. He did neither, and upon the whole he left no party any good reason to complain of him. But when Mr. Adams, who was a native of Massachusetts, where the federal party was in great force, became president, be certainly did, yielding to the counsels of weak and violent men, push things very nearly to an offensive and defensive alliance with us. The violent and unjust proceedings of the French government furnished a pretext for raising an army, which was, for some time, kept on foot in time of peace, in the very teeth of the constitution. A sedition bill

B