NOVEMBER 29, 1809.

The Message and documents therein referred to were read, and five

hundred copies of the Message, and also five hundred copies of the

Message together with five hundred copies of the documents, were

ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.

On motion, by Mr. GOODRICH,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of the Senate, from

a sincere desire of showing their respect to the memory of the

Honorable SAMUEL WHITE, deceased, late a member thereof, will

go into mourning for one month, by the usual mode of wearing a

crape round the left arm.

THURSDAY, November 30.

PHILIP REED, from the State of Maryland, attended.

JOHN CONDIT, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of

New Jersey, in the place of Aaron Kitchel, resigned, produced his

credentials, which were read; and, the oath prescribed by law having

been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

MONDAY, December 4.

RICHARD BRENT, from the State of Virginia, and WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD,

from the State of Georgia, severally attended.

SAMUEL SMITH, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of

Maryland from the 15th of November, 1809, to the 4th of March, 1815,

produced his credentials, which were read; and the oath prescribed by

law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that

the House concur in the resolution of the Senate of the 30th of

November, for the appointment of Chaplains, and have appointed the Rev.

JESSE LEE Chaplain on their part.

TUESDAY, December 5.

_The British Minister._

Mr. GILES, from the committee appointed on the first instant, reported

in part the following resolution; which was read the first time, and

passed to the second reading:

_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the

expressions contained in the official letter of Francis James

Jackson, Minister Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty

near the United States, dated the 23d day of October, 1809,

and addressed to Mr. Smith, Secretary of State, conveying the

idea, that the Executive Government of the United States had

knowledge that the arrangement lately made by Mr. Erskine,

his predecessor, on behalf of his Government, with the

Government of the United States, was entered into without

competent powers on the part of Mr. Erskine for that purpose,

were highly indecorous and insolent; that the repetition of

the same intimation in his official letter dated the 4th of

November, 1809, after he was apprised, by the asseveration of

the Secretary of State, that the Executive Government had no

such knowledge, and that if it had possessed such knowledge

such arrangement would not have been entered into on the part

of the United States, and after also being officially apprised

that such intimation was inadmissible, was still more insolent

and affronting; and that, in refusing to receive any further

communications from him in consequence of these outrageous and

premeditated insults, the Executive Government has manifested

a just regard to its own dignity and honor, as well as to the

character and interest of the American people.

That the letter signed Francis James Jackson, headed

"Circular," dated the 13th of November, 1809, and published

and circulated through the country, is a still more direct

and aggravated insult and affront to the American people and

their Government, as it is evidently an insidious attempt

to excite their resentments and distrusts against their own

Government, by appealing to them, through false or fallacious

disguises, against some of its acts; and to excite resentments

and divisions amongst the people themselves, which can only

be dishonorable to their own characters and ruinous to their

own interests; and the Congress of the United States do hereby

solemnly pledge themselves to the American people and to the

world to stand by and support the Executive Government in its

refusal to receive any further communications from the said

Francis James Jackson, and to call into action the whole force

of the nation if it should become necessary in consequence of

the conduct of the Executive Government in this respect to

repel such insults and to assert and maintain the rights, the

honor, and the interests of the United States.

_Privileges of Foreign Ministers._

Mr. GILES, from the same committee, also reported the following bill,

which was read and passed to a second reading:

A bill to prevent the abuse of the privileges and immunities

enjoyed by Foreign Ministers within the United States.

_Be it enacted, &c._, That if any foreign Ambassador, Minister,

or other person, entitled to enjoy within the United States

the privileges and immunities of a foreign Minister, shall

have committed, or may hereafter commit, any such act as by

the laws and usages of nations would justify the President

of the United States in ordering such offending Ambassador,

Minister, or other person as aforesaid, out of the District

of Columbia, or out of the Territories of the United States;

or in sending him home to his Sovereign, or to some place

or territory within his Sovereign's jurisdiction; in every

such case where the President of the United States shall

deem it proper and expedient to exercise his constitutional

authority, in either of these respects he shall be, and is

hereby authorized and empowered to cause a warrant to be issued

and signed by the Secretary of State, directed to any civil

officer of the United States, authorized to serve process, or

any military officer under the authority of the United States,

commanding him to provide for and enforce the departure of such

Ambassador, Minister, or other person offending as aforesaid,

taking due precautions to avoid improper or unnecessary

violence in executing such warrant. And all officers, civil

and military, under the authority of the United States, are

hereby required and enjoined to be obedient to such warrant.

And in case any officer, civil or military, to whom such

warrant shall be directed, shall fail, or unreasonably delay to

execute the same, every officer so offending shall be deemed

guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be punished by fine

and imprisonment before any court of the United States having

cognizance of the offence. _Provided_, That the fine shall not

exceed ---- dollars, nor the imprisonment be for a longer time

than ---- years.

Mr. GILES gave notice that he should call for the consideration of this

subject on Thursday next.

FRIDAY, December 8.

_The British Minister._

The resolution reported by Mr. GILES, approving the conduct of the

Executive in refusing to hold any further communication with Mr.

Jackson, was taken up in the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. The

resolution having been read,

Mr. GILES rose, and spoke as follows:

Mr. President: Before I proceed to perform the duties enjoined upon me

as chairman of the committee who reported the resolution before you,

permit me to express my regret that the consideration of a subject

which justly excites so much sensibility should have been delayed, even

only one day, on my account; and be assured, sir, that nothing less

than an indisposition, sufficient to justify it, would have caused

me to have been absent from my place yesterday. Perhaps, sir, I owe

an apology to the Senate at this time for entering into this debate

under a state of hoarseness, which must necessarily disqualify me, in

some degree, from discharging my duty on the present occasion. But,

sir, it is a subject of great consolation to me, to reflect that I am

fortunately favored with associates on the committee, either of whom

could perform the task I am now engaged in better than myself, and some

of whom will certainly do me the favor of correcting any errors I may

unintentionally commit, or supplying any omissions I may inadvertently

make.

Although it appears to me that the propriety and urgency of the

resolution now under consideration must be strongly addressed, both

to the judgment and sensibility of every gentleman who has carefully

attended to the distribution of powers under our constitution, and who

has also carefully attended to the correspondence which gave rise to

the resolution, yet, in a case of so much delicacy, it would naturally

be expected, and is a respect due to the Senate, from the chairman of

the committee, to present to it at least some of the general motives

which induced the committee to report the resolution at this time.

It is to be observed, Mr. President, that our constitution is peculiar

in the organization and distribution of its powers; and in no respect

is it more peculiar than in the distribution of the particular powers

embraced by the resolution. In all other Governments known to us, the

same department which possesses the power to receive and negotiate

with foreign Ambassadors and other public Ministers, also possesses

the power to make war. It has been thought wise in our constitution to

separate these powers. With a simplicity of language, and a solidity of

wisdom almost peculiar to our constitution, the President is invested

with the power to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers;

thus using the broadest terms in granting this power, without even an

attempt at limitation or specification; evidently with a view that all

the incidental or consequential powers might flow from this general

expression to the department thus invested with this general power.

It was easy to foresee (and no doubt the framers of our constitution

did foresee) that the multiplicity and diversity of cases which would

arise in the course of various diplomatic manoeuvres and negotiations,

would set at defiance all attempts to limit or specify the powers of

the department, in this respect, to which these powers were confided,

and to be exercised on the part of the United States; and, therefore,

every attempt of that kind was wisely avoided, leaving to the President

to exercise his authority upon his own responsibility, to be regulated

by the only established standard amongst nations, to wit: the laws and

usages of nations. For, it never can be presumed, sir, that the wise

sages who framed our excellent constitution could for a moment have

tolerated the idea that the Ministers of foreign nations residing near

the Government of the United States, should possess greater privileges

and immunities than the Ministers of our Government residing near

foreign Courts. Of course, the same laws--to wit, the laws and usages

of nations--were left reciprocally to govern in every reciprocal case.

But, sir, notwithstanding the President is invested with the power "to

receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers," and, as I think, all

other incidental or consequential powers applicable to the various

agencies with such Ambassadors and other public Ministers, yet Congress

is invested with the power, without limitation or qualification, "to

declare war." Now, sir, it must be obvious to every understanding,

that these several powers are so intimately connected, and may be so

dependent upon each other, that the exercise of the power conceded

to the President may consequentially involve the necessity of the

exercise of the power conceded to Congress, as in the case now under

consideration. The refusal of the Executive to receive any further

communications from His Britannic Majesty's Minister, (Mr. Jackson,)

may consequentially involve us in war with Great Britain; or, in other

words, may serve as a pretext for Great Britain to make war upon us, if

she should conceive it her interest to do so, which I think not very

improbable. Hence arises, in my judgment, the propriety and urgency of

expression of the Congressional opinion upon this Executive act, and

a declaration of the Congressional will as to the course of conduct

Congress will pursue under any consequences which may flow from, or

possibly be attributed to, this Executive act.

I conceive, sir, that the expression of this opinion, and the pledge

of a solemn declaration, by Congress, are due to the people, because

the people have the greatest interest in the character of their

Government; and in no part of its attributes have a deeper interest

than in its efficacy to resist and impel injuries and insults from

foreign Governments. The people, also, are the mediate or immediate

electors of Congress, and as such have a right to expect and demand

that Congress will execute all their duties, and will never shrink from

their constitutional responsibility in any case; and, last of all, in a

case of so high and solemn a character as the one under consideration.

This course of conduct is essentially due to the Executive. The

President ought to know whether, with the indispensable co-operation

of Congress, he ought to proceed with dignified moderation and

intelligence to assert and maintain the rights, the honor, and the

interests, of the American people; or whether, for the want of that

co-operation, he shall with shame and confusion of face be compelled

to retrace his steps, and leave to Congress to abandon these high

attributes of the nation, and, with their degradation, to record their

country's ruin and disgrace. No, sir, it is not possible that an

American Congress does exist, or can ever exist, that would not spurn

from themselves every vestige of an idea that they could be brought,

under any circumstances, to perform so degrading and dishonorable

a task. It is imperiously demanded by the dignity and candor of

Congress itself. What, sir, shall the exercise of one of the highest

constitutional functions of Congress be brought into question, and

every individual in the nation engaged in expressing an opinion on

it; and shall Congress alone stand aloof, for fear of incurring a

responsibility imposed on them by the constitution? Shall Congress

stand by as idle spectators, and see a contest before the people,

between the President and a foreign Minister, and feel no interest and

take no share in such an unprecedented scene, especially when one of

their highest constitutional functions may be affected by it! No, sir.

Congress must speak--Congress must act. Congress never can shrink from

its constitutional responsibility. It is due to the dignity--it is

demanded from the candor--of Congress.

Above all, sir, it is important to the United States as a nation, that

the Congressional will should be proclaimed upon this delicate and

solemn occasion. It is of importance, it may be of the last importance,

to the United States, that Great Britain should know, before she

decides upon this subject, what is the Congressional will in relation

to it. Whether she will be called upon to act against an united,

harmonized Government and people--or whether she shall have for her

prey, a divided people and a discordant Government.

Do you believe, Mr. President, that the conduct of Great Britain would

be very different under these different conditions of the people and

Government of the United States? Let me ask you this question, sir:

would you not, sir, if you were Prime Minister of Great Britain,

consulting her interest alone, pursue a very different course of

conduct under this different state of things? Let every gentleman put

the question to himself; and the answer of every one would be the same.

Why then, sir, do we not unanimously take the ground here which, if we

were called upon to act in an opposite hostile character, would most

certainly deter us from persevering in that hostile character against

the United States? Sir, if there had been any doubt upon this subject,

our late experience ought to have removed it; for, sir, I have no

hesitation in saying, and with pain at heart I shall be compelled to

show it in the course of this debate, that, in my judgment, our present

embarrassments are too much to be ascribed to our former manifestations

of indecision, to our unfortunate dissensions and divisions. Sir,

whenever I approach this sorrowful and awful subject, my heart feels as

if it were bleeding at every pore, when I am compelled to reflect, and

to believe, that this our beloved and happy country may shortly become

a bleeding victim, from wounds--if not inflicted by the hands of her

own sons, at least by their unhappy divisions and dissensions. Yes,

sir, with a full knowledge of what is past, and strong presages of what

is to come, is it not deplorable to be compelled to think, that, in a

very few months, perhaps in a still shorter time, American blood must

be shed, to repel the hostile spirit of Great Britain, now rendered too

manifest to every understanding; and worse than all, sir, to wash away

the stains of our own unfortunate divisions and dissensions; and is it

not wonderful, as it is deplorable, that the virtuous and patriotic

American people, and sometimes called the most enlightened in the

world, with the experience of the horrible consequences, through all

ages, of the divisions of a people amongst themselves, should permit

themselves from the same cause, to fall a prey to the same inevitable

calamities?

Look, Mr. President, through all history, from the first dispute

between Cain and Abel, down to the late disastrous dissensions between

the Spanish branch of the Bourbon dynasty, and find if you can, sir, a

single instance of a people who gained any advantage from dissensions

among themselves, and especially, sir, when they carried them so far,

as to join a foreign against their country's standard! I believe,

sir, not one solitary instance of this kind stands recorded. Nor is

it possible or practicable in any state of human affairs--because in

all cases, the foreign interference in the internal concerns of its

neighbors is always for its own and never for its neighbor's benefit.

With these monitory lessons before our eyes, and a full conviction

of their truth upon our hearts, is it not wonderful, that we should

voluntarily give up ourselves victims to the same calamities? But, sir,

gentlemen may ask, where is the remedy? How can we make a sacrifice

of our own opinions? Sir, the case is a plain one. Let gentlemen

exercise their opinions and persevere in their arguments at all times

respecting our internal concerns, as well before as after the measures

are adopted; let them, respecting our foreign relations, urge their

arguments with a zeal proportioned to the magnitude of the subject;

they will be pleasurably received, and respectfully considered; but

after the Government has taken its attitude against a foreign nation,

it would be going too far to desert its standard, and to join that of

the enemy. It is then time for opinion to pause and reflect, whether

any consequence can be worse, or more disgraceful, than joining a

foreign against its country's standard? Whether it would not be better,

more patriotic, more virtuous, to support your country even in a

supposed unwise course of policy, than to join a foreign standard, and

use it to correct and change the course of policy thus disapproved?

Sir, in a contest between your own and a foreign nation, it never can

be wrong to join the standard of your own country; nor right to join

the standard of your enemy. Then, sir, here is a rallying point. It

is a plain and obvious one. No understanding can mistake it. No heart

can disapprove it. It is our own Government. Let that be the rallying

point. There never can be a more propitious moment than the present for

casting into oblivion all former irritations and dissensions. There

can never be a plainer case presented to the human understanding.

There never were more urgent considerations in favor of the course

recommended. Whether we respect their repulsive effects upon British

hostility or their harmonizing effects among ourselves, they appear to

me to be equally strong and persuasive. May I not then, sir, indulge

the pleasing hope, that the resolution before you will be received

as the signal of unanimity in Congress, and joyfully hailed in that

character through the whole of this great and extended country? Sir,

does it not manifest a strange perverseness in the human character,

for us to observe that, when it is perfectly at our option, we should

choose to distress and injure ourselves by irritations and resentments,

rather than delight ourselves with union and harmony and mutual good

offices? Especially, sir, when the latter choice would command the

respect, if not excite the alarm of our enemy. For, sir, do you believe

that if Great Britain saw the strong arm of this nation stretched out

to oppose her unjust spirit of hostility, guided in all its operations

by one undivided will, she would so readily encounter its powerful

influence, as if she saw it paralyzed in all its efforts from the want

of a unity of will and action? No, sir, we undervalue our energies and

importance, if we were to suppose that her conduct would be the same

in both of these situations; or that she is at all indifferent to the

course of conduct now to be pursued by us. Let us then all unite, sir,

in this proposition, and disappoint her mistaken calculations upon

her influence in this country. I verily believe, that union is all

that is wanting to appease her hostile spirit towards us. But perhaps,

sir, every gentleman present will admit, and it appears to me that no

human being can deny, that if the facts stated in the resolution be

supported by the correspondence upon which it is founded, that then

every gentleman would readily assent to the resolution. But, sir, it

is possible, although it appears to be scarcely possible, that some

gentlemen may doubt whether the facts stated in the resolution be

supported by the correspondence or not. This I admit is a fair though

delicate inquiry, and I will therefore immediately proceed to the

examination of that question--and I beg the most critical attention of

the Senate in the course of the investigation.

I will now proceed, Mr. President, to inquire whether the facts stated

in the resolution are supported by the correspondence upon which it

is founded? In performing this task, I propose to read the whole

of the correspondence which I conceive bears any material relation

to the subject of the resolution, and no other; although the whole

may not be entitled to, nor receive any animadversions from me, yet

as my sole object is to get at the true exposition and meaning of

the correspondence, if I should unfortunately omit, misconceive, or

misinterpret any material part of it, I shall have the consolation to

reflect, that, by presenting the whole, the means of my correction

in either case will be presented to the Senate and the world, if the

observations I propose now to make should ever find their way out of

the walls of this Chamber. I shall also present this correspondence in

its responsive order, which will be found to be indispensable to the

due comprehension of some of its most essential parts.

Permit me, then, sir, to call your attention first to the letter of

Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith, dated the 11th October, 1809, pages 32,

33, of the printed documents. For, sir, although this letter is not

mentioned in the resolution, yet it furnishes the original offensive

insinuations, and is referred to and reiterated in the letter of the

23d October, which is noticed in the resolution, and therefore the

offensive expressions of the letter of the 11th are entitled to, and

shall receive, the most accurate and critical attention and analysis.

[Here the exceptionable passages were read.]

Now, sir, after thus stripping this extraordinary sentence of all

its disguises, and translating it into plain English, to what does

it amount? Why, sir, certainly and unquestionably to this:--You, Mr.

Smith, Secretary of State of the United States, have entered into an

arrangement with my predecessor, Mr. Erskine, under such scandalous and

dishonorable circumstances as could only lead to a disavowal of it; and

you yourself were so well apprised of them, and so conscious of their

inevitable operation, as even to think it unreasonable to complain of

the disavowal. I defy gentlemen to give to this offensive paragraph

any other fair and correct interpretation; and if this be the fair and

correct one, can you conceive, sir, of an insult more outrageous and

premeditated? And will you not be surprised, sir, to be told that the

insult does not stop here; that, as offensive as it already appears,

it does not stop here; that it is still further aggravated? Yes, sir,

Mr. Jackson, not content with making this extraordinary and insolent

communication in its ordinary form, underscores the words "could

only," containing the point or gist of the insult, thus aggravating

the act, either by the distrust thus manifested of Mr. Smith's mental

perceptions; or by letting Mr. Smith know, that the insult was known

to, and intentionally given by Mr. Jackson; for the underscoring

could not have had any other object in view. In this impudent act of

underscoring, Mr. Jackson reminds me, sir, of a set of miserable,

conceited pretenders to wit, who, having great confidence in the

acuteness of their own mental perceptions, and very little in that of

their hearers, will kindly and compassionately explain the point of wit

to their hearers, before they approach it in the recital of the story,

to prepare and qualify the hearers' minds to join in the laugh intended

to be produced by it. Yes, sir, this underscoring was as much as saying

to Mr. Smith, I am afraid that I have so nicely wrapped this insult in

the veil of mysteries and disguises, that it may escape observation

from the obtuseness of your mental perception, but am determined it

shall not. I have underscored it for you; you shall look at it; you

shall know that I, Mr. Jackson, understand and mean it. I have wrapped

it up in mystery and disguise to be sure, but I will rend the veil,

I will make an eyelet hole for you, that you shall look through, and

behold the insult in all its front of grossness and impudence.

But, sir, if Mr. Jackson had then known, as well as he now does, the

dignified character, the high sensibility, and the correct intelligence

of the Secretary of State, he would have found it more honorable

to himself to have spared his insult altogether, or at least might

have spared himself the trouble of underscoring. Sir, I conceive this

insult so gross and outrageous that I am surprised how the Executive

Government could reconcile it to itself to proceed another step in the

communications with Mr. Jackson. Certainly, sir, proceeding beyond

this point manifests on the part of the Executive great moderation,

great forbearance, and a condescension scarcely excusable; and, sir,

I am perfectly sure, that nothing could have induced it to consider

such gross intimations argumentatively, but the ardent and sincere

desire which has invariably actuated the present, as well as the last,

Administration to preserve peace and cultivate harmony and a good

understanding with Great Britain. And, sir, we shall see, in the course

of this investigation, how it has been requited for this, as well as

for all former acts of moderation, forbearance, and condescension.

Let me now, sir, select out of the quotation another extraordinary

expression, for a few animadversions, in the following words: "But the

very act of substitution evidently shows that those original conditions

were in fact very explicitly communicated to you, and by you, of

course, laid before the President for his consideration."

It is somewhat curious to observe what stress Mr. Jackson placed

through the whole of his correspondence, upon what he is here pleased

to term "the very act of substitution," and demonstrates to every

impartial mind how slender are the pretexts with which Mr. Jackson

is furnished, to apologize for, or rather to equivocate about the

disavowal of Mr. Erskine's arrangement. Let me, therefore, inquire,

in what this horrible act of substitution, as Mr. Jackson would

make it appear, consists? Why, sir, simply in this: That the three

inadmissible conditions mentioned in one of the despatches to Mr.

Erskine, were verbally communicated to Mr. Smith, and insisted upon

by Mr. Erskine, and that Mr. Smith, in rejecting those conditions

verbally, and with great propriety and frankness, told Mr. Erskine

what conditions he might obtain. Mr. Erskine, upon a review of all

his letters of instructions, finding it impossible to obtain his, the

three conditions first proposed, conceived himself fully empowered

to propose those which possibly might have been intimated to him

by Mr. Smith in conversation; and the arrangement was accordingly

and promptly made between these two gentlemen on the part of their

respective Governments. And now let me ask you, sir, what is there

dishonorable, unfair, or even unusual in this proceeding, which is

the whole amount of Mr. Jackson's "very act of substitution." Sir, it

is very easy to see, that Mr. Jackson keeps his ingenuity constantly

upon the stretch respecting this very act of substitution, evidently

with a view of producing an impression by the insinuation, that the

Executive Government of the United States had more than its share

in that arrangement, and, in fact, was concerned in a dishonorable

and scandalous combination with his predecessor, Mr. Erskine, for

the purpose of producing the arrangement. Which insinuation, if

true, must represent Mr. Erskine as a fool, a knave, or a traitor,

or all three, and our Executive Government still further lost to

every honorable sentiment, and utterly destitute of even the most

ordinary understanding. An insinuation so insidious and affronting,

cannot fail to excite the indignation and contempt of every patriotic

heart in America. But, fortunately for the Executive Government,

Mr. Erskine's previous explanation of this point to our Government

strips the transaction of every shadow of a shade of a doubt, of which

Mr. Jackson perhaps was not apprised at the time he was employed in

devising the gross insinuation. Yes, sir, this was one miserable effort

of Mr. Jackson to reproach our Executive Government for an act, for

which it merited, and universally received, the sincere applause and

grateful thanks of the American people. It restored the Executive, as

it ought to have done, to universal confidence, and utterly rooted out

every doubt of its sincerity in its diplomatic intercourse with Great

Britain, under which some of our misled and mistaken citizens, for a

while, unfortunately labored. For the moment terms were proposed on

the part of Great Britain, which could, with honor or propriety, be

accepted by the United States: they were frankly and promptly accepted

by the Executive, regardless of all consequences from any other

quarter. Sir, there is another part of this quotation which requires a

few animadversions.

I allude, sir, to the first solemn declaration made to this Government

by Mr. Jackson, respecting the despatch, in which the conditions were

prescribed to Mr. Erskine. It is in the following words:

[Here Mr. GILES read the paragraphs from Mr. Jackson's letter,

which charged that Mr. Erskine had shown to Mr. Smith,

Secretary of State, the inadmissible conditions laid down in

Mr. Canning's despatch; and then read Mr. Erskine's statement

that he had not shown that part of Mr. Canning's despatch, and

giving the reason why he had not done it.]

It is to be observed from this quotation, in the first place, sir,

that Mr. Erskine explicitly disavows ever having shown the Executive

Government the despatch containing the inadmissible conditions; and

thus entirely exculpates it from the odious imputation attempted to be

thrown on it by Mr. Jackson, and for this respectful forbearance to our

Government, he is certainly entitled to the applause of his own. In the

next place, Mr. Erskine explicitly states that the despatch in question

contained but one part of his instructions, and that he thought that,

from the spirit at least of his several letters of instructions, he

was fully authorized to make the arrangement he had done. And I think

there is very little doubt but he had--that Mr. Erskine still thinks

so, there can be no doubt--for he nowhere says he is now convinced

that his powers were incompetent--he only says, that the disavowal by

His Majesty is a painful proof to him, that he had formed an erroneous

judgment of His Majesty's views and the intentions of his instructions.

Whether or not he had formed an erroneous view of His Majesty's views,

or the intention of his instructions, I imagine, will depend very

much upon the point of time to which the judgment he had formed is

referable. If it be referred to the time of Mr. Oakley's mission, I am

inclined to think he had neither formed an erroneous judgment of His

Majesty's views, nor the intentions of his instructions; but, if he

refers to the time of the disavowal, then I think it pretty certain,

he had formed an erroneous judgment of both--for I have no doubt but

His Majesty's views at least had completely changed between these

two periods of time, and the real cause of this change, and of the

disavowal itself, is to be looked for in the occurrences which took

place, both in Europe and in the United States, during that interval.

No, sir, the want of powers on the part of Mr. Erskine is not the true

cause of the disavowal. I will now venture to conjecture the true

cause, and, if it be the right one, the case will be a plain one, and

all equivocations in the explanations rendered unnecessary. To do this,

sir, I must call your attention to the state of events in Europe and

in the United States, at these different periods of time. Mr. Oakley's

mission was immediately after the British Government was apprised of

the precipitate retreat of Sir John Moore's army from Spain, and the

fortune escape of the remains of it from Corunna. The affairs of Spain,

which had before excited such high expectations in the British Cabinet,

were given up as hopeless, &c. Contemporaneously with a knowledge of

these events, the British Government was also informed of the measures

of resistance against her outrageous aggressions, contemplated by

Congress; which she then believed would certainly be carried into

effect, &c. Such was the state of things at the time of sending the

despatches by Mr. Oakley. At the time of the disavowal, a new coalition

had been formed, Austria had boldly entered into the war against

France, and the Spaniards had been animated into further efforts at

resistance, which excited new hopes of success, &c.

In this country, too, sir--it pains my heart to be compelled to recite

the circumstances--our contemplated measures of resistance had been

relaxed, and the whole country exhibited such scenes of divisions

and disaffections as paralyzed in some degree the movements of the

Government. I wish, sir, I could throw a shade of oblivion over

these unfortunate scenes, or recollect them only as they furnish the

strongest argument. Indeed, sir, they point with an infallible index

to the course it now becomes us to pursue. Yes, sir, it is to these

changes in the state of things, you are to look for the real causes

of the disavowal, and not to the want of competent instructions on

the part of Mr. Erskine; and it would have been more dignified on the

part of the British Government to have told us so at once. She would

then have said to us, the state of things is changed; at the time of

giving the instructions, I was depressed from a combination of untoward

events; I am now flushed with new hopes of elevation and of triumph.

Besides, you have convinced me that you are untrue to yourselves--that

you will shrink from the assertion and support of your own rights--if

you will not, I am not bound to respect them, &c. I was then down, I

am now up, and therefore I cannot grant you, in a spirit of triumph,

what I solemnly promised in a spirit of despondency--I now find this

the most favorable moment for establishing my favorite doctrine of the

despotism of the ocean; and I cannot, and will not deprive myself of

the advantage merely to avoid the imputation of bad faith. Yes, sir,

this would have been a much more correct and dignified course on the

part of Great Britain than the miserable effort made by Mr. Canning

in devising an ingenious mental retort, for converting the bad faith

of his own Government, in the disavowal of the arrangement, into a

reproach upon ours, for the circumstances under which that arrangement

was pretended to have been made. It is true, sir, that in the one case

there would have been an admission of _mala fides_, which is basely

attempted to be avoided by a miserable subterfuge in the other; but,

then the British Cabinet would have had the consolation of having

told the truth, taken the responsibility upon themselves and set us

at defiance; and we should have been left to our own remedy, with

a perfect understanding of the case. She would, also, have had the

plea of necessity, the old-fashioned plea of tyrants, and, indeed, of

everybody else, who has no better; but this is not Mr. Canning's mode

of doing business; he chooses to act by tricks and contrivances; and,

in the case of the disavowal, by a mental retort, flowing solely from

his own visionary mental conceits, without a fact or pretext for its

support.

Mr. President, I am told that Mr. Canning is a professed punster.

But, sir, I would not condescend to make the observation here, had he

not, after heaping upon us, during the whole of his administration,

every injury and insult in his power, at the close of it placed us

in a ludicrous situation by imposing on us an obligation, in a grave

and serious concern to the nation, of expounding his equivoques,

and unriddling his riddles. I really feel some condescension in

being compelled, in my place, to hunt out for his and Mr. Jackson's

meaning, through a transition of sentences, a collocation of words,

and a shifting of verbiage. And indulge me, sir, with remarking, that

I conceive the situation of a nation never can be more disastrous,

calamitous, and lamentable, than when its great and serious affairs are

placed in the hands of a parcel of punsters. For, sir, men of minds

of that description are too much employed in the pleasing amusement of

looking out for coruscations of wit and sentiment, to have any leisure

for the more dull and unpleasurable business of observing and marking

the great occurrences in human affairs, and of devising means of giving

them a direction favorable to their own views, or to their country's

interests. No, sir, this is too dull and plodding a pursuit for men

of such light, flitting, brilliant imaginations, and if ever they

unfortunately undertake it, they soon find the woful misapplication

of talents. If, sir, any illustration were wanting of the correctness

of these observations, it could nowhere be found better than in an

attentive review of the historical events which occurred during the

late British administration--the administration of the energetic,

the brilliant, the sarcastic, the facetious, the joking Mr. Canning.

He has carried his joking propensities far indeed. It may be truly

said he jests at scars indeed--at scars of the blackest disgrace and

ruin inflicted upon his bleeding country--upon a great nation, which

probably would have received, and certainly merited, a better fate,

if it had fortunately placed its destinies in better hands. Sir, it

appears to me, that all the military enterprises during his whole

administration, from the abominable attack on Copenhagen, down to the

last expedition against the islands of Zealand, were nothing more than

belligerent puns and conundrums. It has been constantly announced that

some grand, secret expedition was on hand, and each succeeding one

grander than the preceding, until the last expedition to Walcheren,

which was the grandest of all; and, when the secret really came out, it

appeared either that the object was abominable or contemptible, and the

means of executing even the contemptible object, upon experiment, were

generally found incompetent. Yes, sir, probably these enterprises have

cost the British nation the lives of fifty thousand brave officers and

soldiers, and I will not undertake to count the millions of dollars.

Sir, the same little-minded course of policy has also been uniformly

manifested during the same time against the United States; and in no

respect more than in the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's arrangement--in

avoiding to avow the real motives for it--and in the uncandid attempt

to convert the bad faith of the British Government into a reproach

upon our own; and this was to be done by an ingenious mental device,

prettily conceived by Mr. Canning, and adroitly executed by Mr.

Jackson, who, if not equal to Mr. Canning in the mysterious art of

punning, I think can be very little way behind his prototype in the

art of equivoques. Sir, the disavowal, in my judgment, was not for the

want of competent powers. Too great a share of the real cause of the

disavowal, unfortunately, is attributable to ourselves, and now is the

moment to relieve ourselves from the imputation.

Sir, it is painful for me to be so often compelled to question the

candor of any gentleman, particularly one clothed with the high

functions of Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty; but

permit me to ask you, sir, how it is possible for Mr. Jackson not to

conceive that offence would be taken at his offensive insinuations

after Mr. Smith's letter of the 1st of November, telling him in strong

and decisive terms that offence had been taken at them? or how can Mr.

Jackson reconcile it to himself to say that in adhering to these gross

insinuations, he did not intend to give offence? Let me ask you, sir,

what else he did, or could intend? For my part, I can see nothing else

that he could either rationally intend or expect. Here then, sir, is

another false or fallacious disguise thrown out before the people of

the United States, as will always be the case in every appeal to them,

calculated, or evidently intended, to excite their resentments and

distrusts against their own Government.

Now, sir, upon the most critical review of this exposition, is there a

single gentleman present, who is not prepared to say, that the facts

stated in the resolution are fully justified by the correspondence?

And if they be, sir, what inducement can possibly prevent unanimity on

the present occasion? Surely those, who wish peace with Great Britain,

will find unanimity upon this occasion the most likely to deter from

war; and surely, sir, every gentleman must feel and see that the

declarations contained in the resolution are imperiously due to the

dignity and honor of our own Government, as well as to our respect for

the people and ourselves. Sir, what would be the effect of passing by

unnoticed these gross and insidious insults to both the people and

Government? Why, sir, foreign Ministers would begin to conceive, that

an appeal to the people was amongst the most sacred of their privileges

and immunities. The frequency of them already is almost sufficient

to establish and sanctify the rule. The cases of Genet, Yrujo, the

publication of Mr. Canning's letter in one of the Boston newspapers,

&c., never received sufficient animadversions from Congress; and if

this most aggravated case of all should pass over unnoticed, I should

not be surprised to see Mr. Jackson during the present winter set

himself up as a British President in New York, contesting the point

of jurisdiction before the people, with the American President at

Washington; whilst Congress, regardless of their own constitutional

powers, &c., should stand by and behold the extraordinary scene in a

state of perfect neutrality. Sir, is it possible that Congress can so

far forget their duties to the people and their respect for themselves?

Independently of the obvious propriety of this proceeding in itself,

have we, sir, no examples of the course of conduct recommended by the

resolution? Let me remind you, sir, of the case of Count De Palm in the

British Parliament. In that case, sir, the Count De Palm presented a

memorial to the British King by the express order of his Government,

complaining of the misrepresentation of facts made in the King's

speech to Parliament, which complaint the British historians admit

was well founded. After presenting the memorial, he caused it to be

published and circulated through the country, etc. What, sir, was

the conduct of the British Parliament and nation upon that occasion?

Sir, the Parliament unanimously entered into resolutions expressing

the highest indignation at the insolent procedure; and presented an

address to His Majesty requesting him to order the Count De Palm out

of the country immediately. Sir, I will not trouble the Senate with

reading the proceedings of the House of Commons upon this memorable

occasion; because I presented them to the Senate last winter in the

case of the publication of Mr. Canning's letter in the Boston paper,

and I, therefore, presume they are now fresh in the recollection of

every gentleman. And what, sir, was the conduct of the opposition

in the British House of Commons, when their King and country were

insulted by a foreign Minister? Did they hold back, did they attempt

to paralyze the proceedings of their Government in resenting this

conduct and retrieving its wounded honor and dignity? No, sir, they

were Englishmen, and felt the indignity to themselves! They were

patriots, and could not see their Government and nation insulted with

indifference! They stepped forward, sir, and were the first to move

the resolution and address. The proceeding was unanimous; and what

benefit did the British nation receive from this unanimous and prompt

proceeding? Why, sir, from the year 1726 to the present time, the

insult has not, I believe, been repeated, and probably never will again.

Sir, how honorable, how patriotic, was this course of conduct to the

British opposition! How honorable and laudable would be its imitation

here! Especially, sir, when union is all that is wanting to make us

happy and victorious. Why then, sir, should we not have union, when it

is so easy and efficacious a remedy for all our difficulties? Sir, the

nation expects it; the nation has a right to demand it. May I not then

hope, sir, that the hitherto dominant spirit of party will now yield

to an occasion, so obvious, so urgent, so honorable! Sir, I cannot

express to you the pleasure I should feel at my heart, if I could see

all irritations banished, and harmony and mutual good will universally

pervading all political scenes and all social intercourse. That the

present occasion may be improved to this desirable end, is the most

fervent prayer of one, who, in the present delicate, interesting crisis

of the nation, feels a devotion for his country beyond every thing else

on this side of Heaven!

After Mr. GILES concluded, the question was taken on the passage of the

resolution to a third reading. There were twenty-four members present,

besides the President _pro tem._; of whom twenty voted in favor of it.

It was ordered to be read a third time on Monday next.

MONDAY, December 11.

Mr. GILMAN, from the committee, reported the resolution relating to the

official correspondence between the Secretary of State and Francis J.

Jackson, Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty, correctly

engrossed; and the resolution was read the third time.

On the question, Shall this resolution pass? it was determined in the

affirmative--yeas 20, nays 4, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brent, Condit, Crawford, Gaillard,

German, Giles, Gilman, Gregg, Griswold, Lambert, Leib,

Mathewson, Meigs, Parker, Pope, Reed, Smith of Maryland,

Sumter, and Turner.

NAYS.--Messrs. Goodrich, Hillhouse, Lloyd, and Pickering.

MONDAY, December 18.

JOHN SMITH, from the State of New York, attended.

THURSDAY, December 21.

JOSEPH ANDERSON, from the State of Tennessee, attended.

TUESDAY, December 26.

JESSE FRANKLIN, from the State of North Carolina, attended.

THURSDAY, December 28.

CHARLES TAIT, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State

of Georgia, in the place of John Milledge, resigned, produced his

credentials; which were read, and, the oath prescribed by law having

been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

TUESDAY, January 2, 1810.

JAMES A. BAYARD, from the State of Delaware, attended.

THURSDAY, January 4.

JENKIN WHITESIDE, from the State of Tennessee, attended.

FRIDAY, January 12.

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the

State of Ohio, in place of Edward Tiffin, resigned; and CHRISTOPHER G.

CHAMPLIN, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Rhode

Island, in the place of Francis Malbone, deceased; severally produced

their credentials, which were read. And the oath prescribed by law

having been administered to them, they took their seats in the Senate.

TUESDAY, January 23.

_Naval Armament._

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill authorizing the

fitting out, officering, and manning, the frigates belonging to the

United States.

THURSDAY, February 1.

The PRESIDENT communicated a letter from the Governor of the State of

Kentucky, enclosing a certificate of the appointment of HENRY CLAY a

Senator of the United States, in place of Buckner Thruston, resigned.

And the certificate was read, and ordered to lie on file.

MONDAY, February 5.

HENRY CLAY, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of

Kentucky, in the place of Buckner Thruston, attended, and the oath

prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in

the Senate.

THURSDAY, February 22.

_Non-Intercourse._

Mr. GILMAN, from the committee, reported the amendments to the bill,

entitled "An act respecting the commercial intercourse between the

United States and Great Britain and France, and for other purposes,"

correctly engrossed; and the bill was read the third time as amended.

Mr. CLAY.--Mr. President: At all times embarrassed when I have ventured

to address you, it is with peculiar diffidence I rise on this occasion.

The profound respect I have been taught to entertain for this body, my

conscious inadequacy to discuss, as it deserves, the question before

you, the magnitude of that question, and the recent seat I have taken

in this House, are too well calculated to appall, and would impel me to

silence if any other member would assume the task I propose attempting.

But, sir, when the regular troops of this House, disciplined as they

are in the great affairs of this nation, are inactive at their posts,

it becomes the duty of its raw militia, however lately enlisted, to

step forth in defence of the honor and independence of the country.

I voted yesterday against the amendment offered by the gentleman from

Maryland, because, while that vote did not pledge me for the ultimate

passage of the bill, it would have allowed me to give it my support

if no better proposition was tendered. I do not like the bill as sent

from the House of Representatives. It was a crazy vessel, shattered and

leaky; but it afforded some shelter, bad as it was. It was opposition

to the aggressive edicts of the belligerents. Taken from us without a

substitute, we are left defenceless, naked, and exposed to all the rage

and violence of the storm.

Sir, have we not been for years contending against the tyranny of

the ocean? Has not Congress solemnly pledged itself to the world not

to surrender our rights? And has not the nation at large in all its

capacities of meetings of the people, State, and General Government,

resolved to maintain at all hazards our maritime independence? Your

whole circle of commercial restrictions, including the non-importation,

embargo, and non-intercourse acts, had in view an opposition to the

offensive measures of the belligerents, so justly complained of by

us. They presented _resistance_--the _peaceful_ resistance of the

law. When this is abandoned without effect, I am for resistance by the

_sword_.

No man in the nation wants peace more than I; but I prefer the troubled

ocean of war, demanded by the honor and independence of the country,

with all its calamities and desolation, to the tranquil and putrescent

pool of ignominious peace. If we can accommodate our differences

with one of the belligerents only, I should prefer that one to be

Britain; but if with neither, and we are forced into a selection of

our enemy, then am I for war with Britain, because I believe her prior

in aggression, and her injuries and insults to us were atrocious in

character. I shall not attempt to exhibit an account between the

belligerents of mercantile spoliations inflicted and menaced. On that

point we have just cause of war with both. Britain stands pre-eminent

in her outrage on us, by her violation of the sacred personal rights

of American freemen, in the arbitrary and lawless imprisonment of our

seamen, the attack on the Chesapeake--the murder, sir. I will not

dwell on the long catalogue of our wrongs and disgrace, which has

been repeated until the sensibility of the nation is benumbed by the

dishonorable detail.

But we are asked for the means of carrying on the war, and those who

oppose it triumphantly appeal to the vacant vaults of the Treasury.

With the unimpaired credit of the Government invigorated by a faithful

observance of public engagements, and a rapid extinction of the debt of

the land, with the boundless territories in the west presenting a safe

pledge for reimbursement of loans to any extent, is it not astonishing

that despondency itself should disparage the resources of this country?

You have, sir, I am credibly informed, in the city and vicinity of New

Orleans alone, public property sufficient to extinguish the celebrated

deficit in the Secretary's report. And are we to regard as nothing the

patriotic offer so often made by the States, to spend their last cent,

and risk their last drop of blood, in the preservation of our neutral

privileges? Or, are we to be governed by the low, grovelling parsimony

of the counting room, and to cast up the actual pence in the drawer

before we assert our inestimable rights?

It is said, however, that no object is attainable by war with Great

Britain. In its fortunes, we are to estimate not only the benefit to be

derived to ourselves, but the injury to be done the enemy. The conquest

of Canada is in your power. I trust I shall not be deemed presumptuous

when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are

alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet. Is

it nothing to the British nation; is it nothing to the pride of her

Monarch, to have the last of the immense North American possessions

held by him in the commencement of his reign wrested from his dominion?

Is it nothing to us to extinguish the torch that lights up savage

warfare? Is it nothing to acquire the entire fur trade connected with

that country, and to destroy the temptation and the opportunity of

violating your revenue and other laws?

War with Great Britain will deprive her of those supplies of raw

materials and provisions which she now obtains from this country. It is

alleged that the non-intercourse law, constantly evaded, is incapable

of execution. War will be a non-intercourse, admitting of but partial

elusion. The pressure upon her, contemplated by your restrictive laws,

will then be completely realized. She will not have the game, as she

will if you press this bill without an efficient system, entirely in

her own hands. The enterprise and valor of our maritime brethren will

participate in the spoils of capture.

Another effect of war will be, the reproduction and cherishing of a

commercial spirit amongst us. Is there no danger that we shall become

enervated by the spirit of avarice, unfortunately so predominant? I do

not wish to see that diffusive military character, which, pervading

the whole nation, might possibly eventuate in the aggrandizement of

some ambitious chief, by prostrating the liberties of the country.

But a certain portion of military ardor (and that is what I desire)

is essential to the protection of the country. The withered arm and

wrinkled brow of the illustrious founders of our freedom are melancholy

indications that they will shortly be removed from us. Their deeds of

glory and renown will then be felt only through the cold medium of the

historic page. We shall want the presence and living example of a new

race of heroes to supply their places, and to animate us to preserve

inviolate what they achieved. Am I counting too much on the valor of my

countrymen, when I indulge the hope, that, if we are forced into war,

the American hero now lives, who, upon the walls of Quebec, imitating

his glorious example, will avenge the fall of the immortal Montgomery?

But we shall, at least, gain the approbation of our own hearts. If we

surrender without a struggle to maintain our rights, we forfeit the

respect of the world, and (what is worse) of ourselves.

We are often reminded that the British navy constitutes the only

barrier between us and universal dominion. When resistance to Britain

is submission to France, I protest against the castigation of our

colonial infancy being applied in the independent manhood of America.

I am willing, sir, to dispense with the parental tenderness of the

British navy. I cannot subscribe to British slavery upon the water,

that we may escape French subjugation on land. I should feel myself

humbled, as an American citizen, if we had to depend upon any foreign

power to uphold our independence; and I am persuaded that our own

resources, properly directed, are fully adequate to our defence. I am

therefore for resisting oppression, by whomsoever attempted against us,

whether maritime or territorial.

Considering then that the bill as amended in this House, in furnishing

no substitute for the law of non-intercourse, which it repeals, nor

the proposition of the other House, intended to take its place, is a

total dereliction of all opposition to the edicts of the belligerents,

I cannot vote for it in its present form. I move a recommitment of

the bill to supply this defect. What ought to be the substitute, I

confess I have not satisfied myself--not expecting that it would

fall to my lot to make you this motion. The committee, however, can

deliberate upon the subject, and propose one. I would suggest two for

consideration--either a total non-importation, which our laws can

doubtless enforce, or to arm our merchantmen, and authorize convoys.

A day may be fixed, allowing sufficient time for the last effort of

the negotiation. That failing, our merchants then to be permitted to

arm, and to receive all the protection by convoys which the public

vessels can give. This latter measure may lead to war, but it is not

war. Our neutral rights are violated by the belligerents. Each places

our commerce under restrictions, not warranted by the law of nations.

We must then submit, or protect it. Whilst we confine ourselves within

the pale of that law, neither has a right to complain. When so armed,

and pursuing our lawful destination, let those who attempt to molest

us take to themselves the consequences of their own violations. On our

part, a war thus produced will be a war of defence.

But, Mr. President, if, after all our deliberation, it shall be

deemed unwise to adopt either of these expedients, perhaps some other

unexceptionable course may occur. I insist that you do not return the

bill to the other branch of the Legislature in its present form. They

have sent you a measure, I acknowledge, weak; it is, however, not

submission. It professes to oppose (in form, at least) the injustice

of foreign Governments. What are you about to do--to breathe vigor and

energy into the bill? No, sir; you have eradicated all its vitality,

and are about to transmit back again the lifeless skeleton. I entreat

the Senate to recollect the high ground they occupy with the nation.

I call upon the members of this House to maintain its character for

vigor. I beseech them not to forfeit the esteem of the country. Will

you set the base example to the other House of an ignominious surrender

of our rights, after they have been reproached with imbecility, and

you extolled for your energy? But, sir, if we could be so forgetful

of ourselves, I trust we shall spare you the disgrace of signing with

those hands, so instrumental in the Revolution, a bill abandoning some

of the most precious rights which it then secured.

The motion of Mr. CLAY to recommit the bill, for the purpose of

amendment, was determined in the negative--yeas 13, nays 20, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brent, Campbell, Clay, Condit,

German, Mathewson, Meigs, Parker, Pope, Robinson, Sumter, and

Whiteside.

NAYS.-Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Champlin, Crawford, Franklin,

Gaillard, Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg, Hillhouse, Horsey, Lambert,

Leib, Lloyd, Pickering, Reed, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New

York, Tait, and Turner.

On the question, Shall this bill pass as amended? it was determined in

the affirmative--yeas 26, nays 7, as follows;

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Brent, Campbell, Champlin,

Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg,

Hillhouse, Horsey, Lambert, Leib, Lloyd, Mathewson, Meigs,

Pickering, Reed, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Sumter,

Tait, Turner, and Whiteside.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Clay, Condit, German, Parker, Pope, and

Robinson.

So it was resolved that this bill pass with amendments.

On motion, by Mr. SMITH of Maryland, it was agreed that the title of

the bill be amended, to read as follows: "An act to interdict the

public ships and vessels of France and Great Britain from the ports and

harbors of the United States, and for other purposes."

WEDNESDAY, February 28.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceded to the election

of a President _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and the

honorable JOHN GAILLARD was appointed.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the President of the United

States, and acquaint him that the Senate have, in the absence of the

Vice President, elected the Honorable JOHN GAILLARD President of the

Senate _pro tempore_.

TUESDAY, March 6.

_Non-Intercourse._

The Senate resumed the resolution of the House of Representatives

disagreeing to their amendments to the bill, entitled "An act

respecting the commercial intercourse between the United States and

Great Britain and France, and for other purposes."

The question pending, when the Senate adjourned yesterday, was on

adherence to their amendments to the bill.

Mr. ANDERSON observed that, when he had made the motion yesterday

to _adhere_, he had done it under the impression that it was proper

to bring the subject to a conclusion, and because he believed the

interest of the country required that it should be finally acted on.

He said he was still impressed with that idea; but, paying a deference

to the opinion of his friends, desiring also to treat the House of

Representatives with the respect due to that body, and because it

was more conformable to the rules of proceeding generally observed,

he withdrew the motion to _adhere_, and moved to _insist_ on the

amendments. He said he should, by parliamentary practice, have been

fully justified in the motion to adhere before insisting. But it was

proper that the two Houses of Congress should be courteous in their

conduct to one another, and the state of affairs at present peculiarly

required it; he therefore varied his motion. The question was then

taken to _insist_, and carried without a division.

Mr. ANDERSON then moved to appoint a committee of conference, to confer

on the subject with such committee as should be appointed by the House

of Representatives.--Agreed to.

Messrs. ANDERSON, LEIB, and SMITH of Maryland, were accordingly

appointed on the part of the Senate.

THURSDAY, March 8.

_Demands upon Great Britain--Reprisal._

Mr. LEIB submitted the following resolutions:

"_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be

required to instruct our Minister at the Court of Great Britain

to demand of the British Government an immediate compliance

with the arrangement made by their Minister, Mr. Erskine, with

this Government, comprising atonement for the attack upon the

frigate Chesapeake, and a relinquishment of the Orders in

Council; and that, on failure to execute that arrangement, our

Minister be directed forthwith to return to the United States.

"_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be

required to instruct our Minister at the Court of Great Britain

to demand of the British Government an immediate release of all

American citizens impressed into the British service, and that,

on failure or refusal to make such release, our Minister be

directed forthwith to return to the United States.

"_Resolved_, That, on the failure or refusal of the Government

of Great Britain, after demand made by our Minister to carry

into effect the arrangements made by Mr. Erskine, the British

Minister, or, on the refusal or failure to release all American

citizens impressed into the British service, the President of

the United States be authorized to issue letters of marque

and reprisal against the ships and vessels belonging to the

Government and subjects of Great Britain."

MONDAY, March 12.

_Withdrawal of Resolutions._

Mr. LEIB, on request, had leave to withdraw his resolutions submitted

for consideration on the 8th inst.

Mr. LEIB remarked that he had submitted the resolutions upon the table

of the Senate under a conviction that the honor and interests of the

nation required such a course of measures. He believed that it was time

to have done with trifling, with a war of words, and with what had been

termed _gasconade_; that the cup of expedients had been drained to

the last dregs, and that a new mode of warfare became indispensable,

to vindicate our honor and assert our rights. His impressions were,

that a determined attitude alone could rescue us from the oppressor's

wrong, awaken a sense of justice, or lead to that necessary alternative

which an injured nation is sometimes obliged to resort to, to avoid

greater calamity. He said that he was no friend to war--that peace

was the first wish of his heart--but that he could not consent to

preserve it by a prostitution of the attributes of freemen. Insult,

robbery, and murder, cried aloud for justice or for vengeance; and duty

requires of him the aid of his feeble efforts to rescue the nation from

degradation. He remarked, that the resolutions were directed against

one of the belligerents only, and he would assign his reasons for

the discrimination, and why he had selected Great Britain for their

object. It had been admitted that we had a right to choose our enemy,

and Great Britain was selected, because she was first in the career of

maritime despotism, and had exercised it with unrelenting severity;

because she stands alone in the impressment of our citizens, and dooms

them to ignominious punishment, or compels them to fight her battles;

because the national honor had been vitally wounded, in the attack

upon our flag; and because she had heaped outrage upon aggression,

and had imbrued her hands in the innocent blood of our citizens.

Since the resolutions were offered, he further remarked, the aspect

of things seemed to be somewhat varied, and a hope is entertained,

from the advices received, that a change of attitude may be rendered

unnecessary; and that, under present circumstances, such change is

inexpedient, and may prove injurious. However skeptical he might be on

this subject, he had no wish to embarrass the Administration in its

negotiations; but, on the contrary, he wished to give full scope to any

efforts for an amicable adjustment of our differences. He wished not

to throw in a cloud to intercept that glimpse which was supposed to be

breaking upon us. His enmities, he said, were national, and would cease

with the cause of excitement. Under these impressions, and in deference

to the judgment of political as well as personal friends, to whose

opinions he was always ready to render a willing homage, he said that

he would withdraw the resolutions, reserving to himself the right to

renew them under other circumstances.

MONDAY, March 19.

_Non-Intercourse._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the managers at

the conference on their part, on the bill, entitled "An act respecting

the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain

and France, and for other purposes."

On motion, by Mr. CLAY, to postpone the further consideration thereof

until to-morrow, it was determined in the negative. And the question

recurring on the original motion--

Mr. S. SMITH said: Mr. President, the question before the Senate is, to

adhere to their amendments made to the bill "respecting the commercial

intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France."

It is with extreme reluctance that I rise on the present occasion. I

feel, sensibly feel, the situation in which I place myself by opposing

a measure countenanced by the vote in the other House, of almost all

those with whom I have been accustomed to act, and by many in the

Senate, for whose superior judgment and correct opinions I have ever

had the highest respect. Finding, however, that I differed with those

gentlemen, I took the bill to my lodgings, and considered it with a

disposition to find in it something that should induce me to give up

my own opinion to that expressed by the vote in the other House; but

I looked in vain, and I found myself compelled to take the ground of

opposition to the bill. In doing this, I must hope for the indulgence

of those with whom I differ, and of the Senate, for detailing the

reasons for the motion I made to amend the bill. To do this, it may not

be unprofitable to take a review of the causes that led to the measures

adopted by the United States, and the course taken by Congress to

resist the injuries imposed upon us by Great Britain and France.

The insult offered to the honor of the nation in the affair of

the Chesapeake, so far from being redressed, was heightened by a

proclamation from the King of Great Britain, authorizing publicly, in

the face of the world, the boarding of our merchant ships, and taking

therefrom whomsoever their officers should call a British subject;

to palliate this outrage on our independence, it was recommended to

the boarding officer to execute this indignity with politeness. About

the same time the Government was informed of the case of the Horizon,

condemned under the Berlin decree, and that the Emperor had determined

that that decree should embrace Americans as well as other neutrals.

This determination was directly contrary to the assurance given General

Armstrong, by the French Minister of Marine, as well as to the practice

under the decree. This was the first intimation given to our Government

that the Berlin decree would operate on the interest of the United

States.

The President (as was his duty) laid both of those subjects before

Congress in a Message, and it was well known at the same time,

(although not officially,) that the British Order of Council of

November had been issued.

What was then our situation with those nations? France had declared

every American vessel that was bound to or from Great Britain, or

having on board goods, the produce or manufacture of Great Britain,

to be lawful prize. Great Britain declared that every American vessel

bound to any port of Europe, should first come into her ports, there

land her cargo, pay a transit duty, and depart (if they pleased) to

their original port of destination; and any vessel failing to do so,

should be liable to condemnation; that any American vessel having a

certificate of origin on board, should be considered good prize. Thus

situated, we had a choice of war or embargo. To make war on France

would have been idle; we could inflict no wound on her by war, except

that of withholding our supplies from her West and East India colonies,

and this would as effectually be done by an embargo. In a war with

England, we could inflict severe wounds on her immense commerce, and

she is always vulnerable on the side of Canada. A more pacific system

was however adopted--_the embargo_. Had that measure been rigidly

enforced, it could not have failed to have compelled a removal of

the unjust conduct of those nations, most certainly of that of Great

Britain. The Senate, aware that a measure of that kind could not be

enforced without a physical force, sensible that the prospect of profit

would induce many to prevent its intended operations by evasions, did

immediately pass a bill authorizing the President to fit out and put

to sea all the armed vessels of the United States, for the purpose of

preventing evasions of the law, to employ our seamen who were thrown

idle, and to be prepared for events should a war ensue. The bill slept

in the other House, and, by an ill-timed economy, was ultimately

rejected, by which a free scope was given to evaders of the law, and

the system (which was a wise one) was in some degree frustrated; yet

it had an effect highly salutary on Great Britain, it compelled her

to modify the Orders of Council of November, and no longer were our

ships compelled to go into her ports, and there pay tribute; no longer

were our vessels subjected to condemnation for having a certificate of

origin on board. The embargo was severely felt by Great Britain while

in force, every article which they had been accustomed to receive

from us rose immediately in price, and I am confident that had it

been continued and executed, full satisfaction would have been given

by Britain for the various outrages which had been committed on our

honor and independence. It was relinquished, and a non-intercourse was

substituted as to both nations. This measure, although less strong,

was such as would have been very severely felt by the British nation.

It completely excluded the importation of her manufactures into the

United States; it took from her a market for more than one-half of her

manufactures; it turned idle a large number of workmen, and although

it did not prevent her from getting our productions, yet she obtained

them in such a way, that they cost her, in some instances, double their

usual price. This new system was however checked in its course by the

arrangement made with Great Britain through Mr. Erskine. Our ports

were thrown open, and our vessels (then nearly all in our harbors)

soon filled Great Britain with every thing she wanted at low prices;

flour fell instantly in England to nine and a half and ten. dollars the

barrel.

Great Britain, in lieu of the Orders of Council, excluded us from

France and Holland, and their colonies, and from Italy, by a paper

blockade; an iniquitous, illegal system, which she had adopted in

1793, and has either contracted or extended at her pleasure ever

since. Our own law excluded us from France and Italy. This tended to

give a direction to a great proportion of our trade to Great Britain,

and thereby completely supplied her wants. On the disavowal of Mr.

Erskine's arrangement, the non-intercourse was renewed, and a stop

put to our exports to Great Britain; the consequence was, that flour

rose immediately to fourteen and fifteen dollars in England; cotton,

tobacco, and other articles, in a proportion still greater. I mention

this to show, that whenever we stop our trade to Great Britain she

feels it sensibly in the high prices she has to give for our exports,

and thus to show the efficacy of the system that had been taken, if it

had been duly executed. But in her exports Great Britain felt little,

for our merchants had given their orders under the arrangement, and

it would have been unjust to have prevented them from receiving the

goods they had ordered; the non-importation part, which I conceive the

most essential part of the non-intercourse, had in consequence been

inoperative.

What, then, was our situation when Congress met? The French privateers

were capturing our defenceless merchant ships, burning those of little

value, and carrying into their ports for condemnation those which were

valuable. Great Britain had, by a pretended blockade, excluded us from

entering the ports of Holland, France, Italy, and their West and East

India colonies. She had sent a Minister to succeed Mr. Erskine, who, so

far from offering any explanations on the disavowal of the arrangement

made with his predecessor, added insult to injury, and bearded us to

our teeth; he gave us to understand that the terms proposed in the

instructions to Mr. Erskine would be insisted on--terms that I am

confident no citizen of the United States would accede to.

In this state of our foreign relations Congress met, the members

brought with them the feelings of the people, who were all alive to the

late indignity offered their Government, all expected that measures of

energy would be pursued. This House felt and acted. Resolutions passed

almost unanimously, expressive of their sense of the insult offered by

the British Minister.

The Senate passed a bill ordering the whole of the vessels of war to

be put in commission, (which bill sleeps still in the other House,)

and were progressing in preparations for the defence of the honor

and safety of the nation, when the bill now under consideration was

reported by the Committee of Foreign Relations. It operated instantly

like an electric shock, it paralyzed every effort, and gentlemen were

astonished when they were told that this bill was the great measure

that was to preserve our honor in the eyes of all the world; that

it was the grand panacea which was to heal the wounds that had been

inflicted on our rights by the belligerents. In fact, it was the only

measure on which we were to rely for a redress of all our grievances.

Mr. President, I read this grand effort with attention. In vain did

I look for something therein that would tend to obtain satisfaction

for the insult on the Chesapeake; in vain for any thing that would

tend to prevent the future impressment of our seamen; in vain for any

thing that would induce or coerce the belligerents to repeal their

unjust orders and decrees against our lawful commerce. One great

feature, and one only, was to be discovered, to wit: the repeal of the

non-intercourse law--covered by a thin veil, composed, as the gentleman

from Kentucky (Mr. CLAY) has said, of shreds and patches. Not so, Mr.

President; if it had been patchwork alone, I should not have disturbed

its arrangement. But I found in it, or believe I did, that which would

be ruinous to the commerce of the United States, and therefore felt

myself bound by the duty I owe to my constituents to remove the veil,

and leave the measure open to public view; the Senate concurred with

me in opinion, to wit: to strike out the injurious sections, to which

opinion I shall vote to adhere.

I have been asked, shall Congress rise and do nothing? I answer, that

it is better to do nothing than to do that which will only injure

ourselves. But, sir, I wished to do something; I proposed, in select

committee, to strike out those sections which would only do us injury,

and then fill their place with sections (which I had draughted and

presented for consideration) authorizing the arming of the merchant

ships, not for defence alone, but with authority to capture and make

prize of any vessel that might assail them while engaged in lawful

commerce, and to employ the public ships of war in convoying the trade

of the nation. I met with no support in this system; there were in

committee four against my motion. Discouraged by so large a proportion

voting against me, I neglected, or was deterred from making the same

motion in Senate, and this error I regret, although I know not whether

I should have been more successful in Senate than I had been in

committee; but I should have been better pleased with my own conduct.

I had, it is true, an expectation that, in a committee of conference

between the two Houses, that something might be introduced that would

please both branches of the Legislature; and I presumed that the convoy

system would be substituted. I have been mistaken. The conferees met,

and the committee of Senate submitted a section, "authorizing the

President, under his instructions, made conformably to the laws of

nations, to grant convoy to the merchant ships of the United States

engaged in lawful commerce." That proposition spoke this language to

the belligerents: The United States have taken every pacific means of

obtaining justice from you without success. We will no longer deprive

ourselves of commerce; we will open our trade, and we will defend it.

We are ready to meet the consequences that may arise, and will stand

prepared for war, if war shall ensue. This, Mr. President, appeared to

your committee as a course that would be honorable to the nation. It

was unanimously rejected by the committee on the part of the House,

who, in turn, proposed that "British ships should be permitted to bring

into the United States the produce and manufactures of that nation,

but should not be permitted to carry from the United States any of the

produce thereof," and the same as to France. This most extraordinary

proposition was unanimously rejected by the conferees on the part of

the Senate. Strip the proposition, and what language does it speak?

That the British merchant may send into your ports his ships and fill

your market with British goods, to the great injury of your infant

manufactories; he may enter into competition with them and work their

destruction. But he must not enter into competition with the merchants

in the purchase of a return cargo, nor with the ship owners in the

carrying of the produce of the country. No, sir, that was hallowed

ground, and must not be trodden. The conferees of the two Houses could

not agree, and the question now before the Senate is, to adhere to

their amendments. For which I shall vote, although the bill will then

not be such as I wish it had been. But, sir, it cannot in this stage

be amended. I am aware that my vote will be disapproved by many of my

friends. But, sir, I trust that time, and a further consideration of

the subject, will convince them that my objections to the rejected

sections have not been unfounded.

The question being then taken that the Senate adhere to their

amendments, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 15, as

follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Champlin, Gaillard, German,

Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg, Hillhouse, Horsey, Leib, Lloyd,

Parker, Pickering, Smith of Maryland, Sumter, and Whiteside.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brent, Campbell, Clay, Condit,

Crawford, Franklin, Giles, Lambert, Mathewson, Meigs, Pope,

Smith of New York, Tait, and Turner.

THURSDAY, March 22.

_National Bank._

Mr. BAYARD, from the committee appointed on the subject the thirteenth

instant, reported a bill making provision for the establishment of a

National Bank; and the bill was read and passed to a second reading.

[The bill was for a new bank of 30 millions capital, the

subscription for shares open to every citizen of the United

States or of its Territories, to copartnerships composed of

such citizens or body politic incorporated within the United

States, to the amount of 1000 shares.]

WEDNESDAY, April 4.

_Bank of the United States._

The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following report of the

Secretary of the Treasury, made in pursuance of the resolution of the

Senate of the 2d instant:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, _April 3, 1810_.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit a report, prepared in

obedience to the resolution of the Senate of yesterday.