But shall I be told that the letters of the Grand Judge and Minister

of Finance promised that the property taken from our citizens since

1st of November should be restored, if we cause the law to be carried

into effect after the 2d day of February, and therefore we were to

believe it and ought to wait until we hear whether that has been the

case? For the honor of my Government, I hope not. Is it really come to

this, that we are brought to acknowledge that the Duke of Cadore was

correct when he told General Armstrong that His Majesty could place

no reliance on the American Government? No, sir, if this be true,

for heaven's sake let us not express it. But what is this amendment

which re-enacts the law of May last, and such pitiful reasoning as I

have heard on this occasion, but placing our seal to that infamous

insinuation? The President, on the mere promise of the Minister of the

Emperor, that the Berlin and Milan decrees should cease to operate

on the first day of November, placed full faith and reliance on that

promise, and issued his proclamation on the 2d, presuming the promise

had been fulfilled--and, shall we say that the Emperor is justifiable

in disbelieving the law of May last, solemnly enacted by the three

branches of the Government and the President's proclamation, together

with the Circular of the Secretary of the Treasury, enjoining the law

to be carried into effect?

I hope not; for if we are become so pitifully servile as this, well

might Cadore, in his letter of February 14th, 1810, tell General

Armstrong that the Americans were without just political views, without

honor, and even independence. And if we, by adopting this amendment,

condescend to justify the Emperor, in his insult upon the plighted

faith of our Government, in my opinion we shall furnish the American

people and the world with just ground to say Amen to the declaration of

Cadore in that respect. Will any gentleman still say, that the decrees

ceased to operate on the first of November, since we have had official

information from the French Government itself, that our vessels are to

be seized under these decrees, until the second of February? I trust

not. Those gentlemen who support this amendment, ought to recollect

that the sections which go to re-enact the law of May last, contain a

confession that that law is not now in operation; for if the decrees

did actually cease to operate on the first of November, no one doubts

but the law is now in full force, without the provisions of this

bill. When the honorable chairman of the committee first offered his

amendment, a misunderstanding seemed to take place between him and

two gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, viz. the gentleman

from Maryland, (Mr. WRIGHT,) and the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr.

RHEA,) which undoubtedly happened in this way. While the honorable

chairman well knew that the decrees did not cease on the first of

November; therefore to keep alive the spirit of the law of May, which

gave England three months after they did cease, it became necessary to

lengthen the time for her to revoke; and the other two gentlemen, as

it would seem, really supposed, that because Mr. Pinkney had said that

Cadore's letter was precision itself, these decrees really did cease

to operate agreeable to that promise; although we have the official

information from Mr. Russell on our tables, that the Orleans Packet was

the first case that had happened after the first of November, to which

the Berlin and Milan decrees could have been applied, and that they

were applied in that case, and that several late arrivals, which left

France from twenty to twenty-five days afterwards, bring no information

from him that a change had taken place, and had that been the case, he

would certainly have communicated information to the Government before

the rising of Congress. On the contrary, these arrivals confirm what

he had stated, and say, that every vessel arriving in France shares

the same fate. Mr. Speaker, until I heard those two gentlemen, I did

suppose that no man of common sense could have believed a position, in

such direct opposition to evidence. And from the opinion which I have

of the discernment of the gentleman from Tennessee, I think I must have

misunderstood him, while perhaps it may be improper to include the

other gentleman in the supposition.

Sir, I seldom trouble the House with any observations of mine, nor is

it my intention, at this time, to examine and expose all the winding

and management which has been practised, to bring about such a state

of things as to render plausible this measure at this time. I shall,

however, examine the non-intercourse system from the date of the law

of March, 1809, and inquire what was its professed object? What use

has been made of it? And how has it been regarded by the belligerents?

And also notice some of its effects upon our own citizens as well as

upon the Treasury. What must be the inevitable consequence if this

measure is suffered to go into effect? I take it to amount to an entire

non-importation of any of the articles, products, or manufactures of

more than three-fourths of the civilized world, to which our merchants

would, at this time, run the risk of attempting voyages; for, from

the Continent of Europe no one returns unless at the expense of this

Government. The dominions of Great Britain, including the East and West

Indies, as well as her European dominions, and those on the American

Continent, are immense. The products of these various countries formed

a principal part of those importations of the last year, which, while

the non-intercourse slept, gave new life and vigor to every branch of

business. Our seaports, which the year before presented the gloomy

appearance of cities besieged by a hostile foe, again resumed the

appearance of enterprise, industry and wealth. Thousands, who in 1809

were either a burden to their friends, in the poor-house, or begging

their bread in the streets, were in 1810 enjoying the fruits of their

industry in a comfortable supply of the necessaries of life, while the

farmer and planter sowed his seed and cultivated his field, with the

comfortable prospect that his crop would not decay on his hand for

want of a market. Now, sir, although exportation is not interdicted

by this bill, yet I apprehend the result will be much the same. It

can hardly be expected that Great Britain, who gentlemen on the other

side of the House are fond of considering as the cause of all our

commercial distress, will condescend to pay us specie for our produce,

while our ports are closed, not only against her shipping of all kinds,

but against every article of her products and manufactures, as well as

those of her colonies and dependencies, while they are open to those

of her enemy. Again, what was the effect of the non-intercourse in

1809 upon our Treasury? In addition to the bankruptcy and wretchedness

spread over the face of the whole country, we are informed by the

annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury, laid on our tables,

that the net revenue arising from duties on merchandise and tonnage,

accruing during that year, amounted to only $6,527,000, while we are

informed in the same report, that this source of revenue in the three

first quarters of the year 1810, while commerce was free, amounted to

a sum exceeding $7,250,000, and the Secretary adds, that he believed

the whole revenue arising from duties on merchandise and tonnage for

that year would amount to more than $12,000; making an increase in this

year, when commerce was unshackled, of $5,473,000, notwithstanding all

the robberies of Napoleon, which probably amounted to more than forty

millions, a free importation of the avails of which would have greatly

increased the revenue of that year. From this view of the subject,

we find a deficit in the revenue of 1809, caused by this measure, of

$5,473,000, and, in anticipation of the effects of the law now about

to be enacted, the Secretary of the Treasury has, in the same report,

recommended an immediate additional duty to be laid upon importations,

which, together with the high duties already established by law, he

thinks will not amount to more than $8,000,000; making an anticipated

deficiency in the next year's revenue, occasioned by this measure, of

$4,000,000, compared with that of 1810. But if we compare the revenue

arising from duties on merchandise and tonnage during the year 1809,

while commerce was restricted by the non-intercourse, with what it was

in 1807, while it was unshackled, we shall find a deficiency of about

$11,000,000.

From this view of the subject, which is taken from authentic documents,

which I invite gentlemen to controvert if they have it in their

power, it is demonstrated that if we suffered this system to go into

operation, we are not only to again reduce our citizens to a state of

bankruptcy in their private fortunes, while loaded with additional

taxes, but, notwithstanding the aid of these additional taxes, our

Treasury is, if possible, to be reduced to a more complete state of

bankruptcy than at present. I put it to gentlemen, who are in the

confidence of the Cabinet, to say, why we are called upon again to

plunge this nation into such a state of poverty and wretchedness? Is it

necessary as a measure of self-defence, as the only mode of resistance

which will bring England to terms? For myself I should suppose that our

late experiment in this species of warfare, at which France took so

much offence, as to take occasion to seize and confiscate the property

of American citizens, to the amount of $40,000,000, which rendered

necessary an appropriation of $80,000 during the present session, in

order to enable those of our citizens, who had been thus robbed and

plundered, to revisit their native shores, afforded a spectacle too

humiliating to suffer us to make another attempt so soon, and before

we have so far recovered from the effects of our late experiment as to

be able to defray the ordinary expenses of government without having

recourse to annual loans for the purpose. Are we bound to adopt this

measure on account of the faith of Government being pledged to France

by the law of May last?

Here give me leave to inquire what has been the further effect of this

law. It seems England, although she saw that if it had any operation

at all, it operated only against her, was willing to consider it as

a municipal regulation of our own, and treated it as such, while

Bonaparte at first, and for ten months, passed it over as inoffensive

to him, until our vessels, which had been shut up in our ports by

its elder sister, the embargo, having got released from that strong

measure, flocked into the ports of France, Spain, Holland, and Naples,

all under the immediate and entire control of France, when, on the 23d

March, an order was issued by his gracious and loving Majesty to seize

and confiscate the property of our citizens in all those countries;

which property is, by the best calculation, estimated at more than

forty millions. And you will perceive, Mr. Speaker, that the Duke of

Cadore saw, that, by suffering the law to pass unnoticed, till our

property released from the embargo had filled nearly every port in

Europe under French control, and then issuing an order which was to

have a retrospective operation of ten months, was such a gross outrage

upon every principle of honor and justice, as well as the usages of

public law, that he, in a letter to General Armstrong, of the 5th

August, 1810, attempts to excuse the piratical transaction, by saying

that the Emperor knew nothing of the law of March, until very lately.

But, I pray gentlemen to take notice that General Armstrong, in his

letter to Cadore of the 10th of March, (five months before the one

just recited from Cadore,) asserts that this law was communicated to

him in the month of June or July preceding--one whole year before the

declaration made by Cadore.

But to pursue this subject: on the first day of May, 1810, while this

robbery, I ought to presume, was unknown to the Executive--certainly to

the people--this non-intercourse law was repealed; but the majority,

for wise purposes, I presume, did, in the same law that repealed the

non-intercourse, give the President power, in case England or France

should, before the 1st day of March, so revoke or modify her edicts

as that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the

United States, to declare the same by proclamation; in which case, the

non-intercourse should be revived against the nation neglecting to

revoke or modify her edicts, in like manner, for the space of three

months after the date of such proclamation. And you will recollect,

sir, that this law was also opposed by the minority, not so much,

perhaps, because they suspected either the integrity or impartiality of

the President, as because they thought it unconstitutional to commit

a power to the Executive which was, in its nature and effect, an act

of legislation, viz: to revive a law at his discretion which was to

affect the great interest of the nation, and might result in war. I

say, at his discretion; and I ask gentlemen to take notice that the law

reads, "so revoke or modify." This law was also sent by the President

to our Ministers at London and Paris, as he states in his Message. But,

what was it sent there for? Only to be used as an inducement to those

nations to revoke their unjust edicts, which was the avowed object of

the provision when it passed. And, if sent there for that purpose,

it would seem, that to have acted a neutral part, it ought to have

been used alike at the palaces of St. Cloud and St. James. But, Mr.

Speaker, what was the fact? Here we may learn the management of which

I spoke when I first addressed you. This law, which you will perceive

was in the nature of a generous overture made to the belligerent

who first revoked his edicts, changed its character when offered to

the other belligerent, who should neglect to revoke the obnoxious

edicts until after his enemy had done so; and, instead of being a

generous offer, contained a threat, that if she did not revoke, we

should shut our ports against her products, while they should be open

to those of her enemy. And this is the light in which it was viewed

by our Government, as will be seen in Mr. Smith's letter to General

Armstrong, of the 5th day of June, 1810, (printed documents, p. 35,)

in these words: "It might be added, that the form in which the law now

presents the overture, is as well calculated as the overture itself

to gain a favorable attention, inasmuch as it may be regarded by the

belligerent first accepting of it as a promise to itself and a threat

only to its adversary." For this view of the subject, gentlemen will

perceive that it is much more agreeable to close any matter in dispute

upon a generous offer for so doing, than it would be to do so while

threatened by their opponent that if it is not done they must suffer

the consequence of their own folly and his vengeance. Now, in looking

through the documents, I mistake if gentlemen have not discovered some

management in this business, so that while the law was presented to

France as an offer made to herself, it should be presented to England

in no other character than that of a threat. It seems that the first

correspondence with our Minister which we are suffered to see, is a

letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney, of the 22d May; although it

appears from that letter that the Secretary of State had sent a copy of

the law in a previous letter of the 4th of that month to Mr. Pinkney,

as also another copy in the letter of the 22d; but we hear nothing

of instructions in either to use this new overture, which the law

presents, to the best advantage at the Court of St. James, while it

retained its character of an offer made to that Government. Indeed, it

would seem most natural to suppose that the instructions given in this

business were contained in the letter of the 4th, which was the first

enclosing a copy of the law. But, at this we are not suffered to look,

nor at the one sent to General Armstrong, of the same date, which was

also the first to him enclosing a copy of the law.

But, Mr. Speaker, as we are not suffered to see the first

correspondence on this important business, which we are called upon

by the Executive to carry into effect by a new act of legislation,

it becomes doubly our duty to examine well this letter of the

twenty-second, and see what that treats of, and whether it compares

with the first we are suffered to see, sent to General Armstrong on

this subject. In this letter to Mr. Pinkney of the twenty-second, the

Secretary commences, as he says, with much surprise, that Great Britain

had not revoked her blockades, and that she had not sent a man of rank

to replace Mr. Jackson; and, after having dwelt at great length on

the latter of these subjects, he mentions that he had sent a copy of

the law, as also another, in his letter of the fourth of that month,

and tells Mr. Pinkney to let the British Government know that the

provisions of the law would be carried into effect, but not a syllable

of proffering it as an offer made to that Government and a threat to

France. But, instead of this, the Secretary selects two subjects,

which he must have known would be difficult to close, and tells Mr.

Pinkney that if another Minister was not sent to replace Mr. Jackson,

to let the British Government know that he would return to the United

States. And as though this was not sufficient to prevent the British

Government from closing with the conditions of the new overture, the

attack on the Chesapeake must be settled in a manner agreeable to the

propositions made to Mr. Rose and Mr. Erskine, which he might well know

would not be done, as the British Government had told him it could not

be closed in that way. On the first of July, Mr. Pinkney acknowledges

Mr. Smith's letter of the twenty-second of May, and very properly

goes on to execute the instructions it contained as to the British

Government sending a man of rank to replace Mr. Jackson, &c. And, in my

opinion, very properly notices the scrap of instructions it contained,

respecting the law of May last, by merely mentioning, that while he is

engaged with Lord Wellesley on these other subjects, he thinks he shall

draw his attention to the non-intercourse law, but I find no account of

his ever presenting the law to that Government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while we see in this letter of the twenty-second

the substance of all we are permitted to see of the use to be made by

Mr. Pinkney of this law, as an inducement to the British Government

to revoke the Orders in Council, let us examine what was the course

pursued towards the French Government to induce it to take advantage

of the law, while it retained the character of a favorable overture,

so that the British Government should have to meet it as a threat, or

as a rod held over them to procure the revocation of their edicts. In

order to do this, I shall examine the first letter which is suffered to

come to public view, from Secretary Smith to General Armstrong, after

the date of the law of May first. This bears the date of June fifth,

documents, page 34. In this, we find that he had sent two before,

each one enclosing a copy of the law, and no doubt both containing

instructions what use to make of it. For we find, even in this third

letter, that Mr. Smith tells General Armstrong, (to use his own words,)

"If there be sincerity in the language held at different times by the

French Government, and especially in the late overture to proceed to

amicable and just arrangements in the case of our refusal to submit to

the British Orders in Council, (not blockades,) no pretext can be found

for longer declining to put an end to the decrees of which the United

States have so justly complained." And here, I entreat gentlemen to

notice that this is the first ground stated by our Government to that

of France, as being that which would be insisted upon from England--a

compliance on her part required to entitle her to the provisions

of this law, viz., her relinquishing the Orders in Council. We may

here notice, that Mr. Smith adds, as a further inducement to France

to take advantage of the law, while it retained the character of a

favorable overture, "that by putting in force the non-intercourse

against England, agreeable to the terms of this statute, that the very

species of resistance would be made which France has been constantly

representing as the most efficacious." But, Mr. Smith goes still

farther in his instructions, and tells General Armstrong, "that it

may be added, that in the form in which the law now presents the

overture, it is as well calculated as the overture itself to gain a

favorable attention, inasmuch as it may be regarded by the belligerent

first accepting it as a promise to itself, and a threat only to its

adversary." In this letter, we find that the Secretary states a first

ground, which was necessary in the first instance to entitle the French

Government to the provisions of this law. What was this ground? Why,

he tells General Armstrong to let the French Government understand

that the President would not proceed to give the law effect, if the

restoration of the property of our citizens be finally refused; and

closes his letter by directing him to let that Government know that

the only ground, short of a preliminary restoration of the property,

on which the contemplated arrangement could take place, would be

an understanding that the confiscation was reversible, and that it

would become immediately the subject of discussion, with a reasonable

prospect of justice to our injured citizens. Was this the ground on

which the subject was placed? It seems so, from this official letter

of the Secretary. Yes, sir, it was; and with due deference, I may be

allowed to say, the only honorable and just ground; and if the American

Government had possessed independence enough to have still occupied

this ground, we would not have had the mortification to discuss the

bill on the table at this time. But, instead of this, although Mr.

Smith had just received Cadore's insulting letter, in which he more

than insinuates that, as a Government and nation, we are destitute of

just political views, without honor, energy, or even independence,

and closes by letting our Government know of the seizure and sale of

the property of our citizens in all the ports of Europe under French

control; what was the conduct of the American Government on this

occasion? I entreat gentlemen to take notice, that, with this horrid

picture of insult and robbery fresh in their recollection, the same

conciliatory disposition, guided by the principles of neutrality,

which dismissed a British Minister for an implied insult, induced

Mr. Smith to inform General Armstrong that the President thought it

best not to make any animadversions on that subject at that time.

(Printed documents, page 34.) The next letter on this subject worthy

of notice, is one of the 5th of July, in which Mr. Smith acknowledges

the receipt of information, that the property which he had said in

his last must be restored, in order to entitle France to the American

commerce while it was denied to England, was sold, and the proceeds

deposited in the _caisse prive_--privy purse of the Emperor. Here,

indeed, Mr. Smith seems to have almost forgot himself, and to conceive

he was giving instructions how to proceed with a British Minister,

and tells General Armstrong to demand every reparation of which the

subject was susceptible. But, Mr. Speaker, is it not worthy of notice

that he closes even this spirited letter, with such a history of piracy

and insult then on his desk before him, by quitting the ground he had

taken in his letter of the fifth of June, and, instead of a proposed

renewal of the non-intercourse against England, if she should neglect

to withdraw her Orders in Council, which was the only ground taken by

the President with Mr. Erskine, and also the only thing contemplated

when the law of May last was passed, as also the only ground taken by

himself only one month before, (having, it is presumed, heard from

France in the interval,) he condescends to tell the General, that

if France should demand it, he might give her to understand that it

was the President's intention to renew the non-intercourse against

England, if she did not also rescind her blockades. It is here again

to be noticed, that he again repeats, what he had before told General

Armstrong, that a restoration of the property was indispensable, in

order to a renewal of the non-intercourse against England.

But again: will, I had like to have said, the servile manner, in

which a rescinding the blockade is coupled as a condition with the

withdrawing the Orders in Council, escape notice? Immediately on

instructing General Armstrong to state to the French Government

that a repeal of the blockade of eighteen hundred and six would be

insisted on, the Secretary adds: "You will press the reasonableness

of permitting the United States to proceed in such way as they may

think proper, in relation to any subsequent blockades, or any other

blockades not against France," which to me reads in this way, _i. e._,

as we have, at the request of the French Government, receded from our

first ground, and included blockades also, you are instructed humbly to

request Bonaparte to permit us to do our own business in our own way in

future. _My God!_ After all this, to see the Government of my country

soliciting, at the feet of the Emperor of France, for permission to

manage their own affairs in their own way! What American can read this

correspondence without laying his hand upon his heart and exclaiming,

O my Government, my Government, now is the gold become dim, and the

most fine gold changed! The next thing we meet with, is Mr. Smith's

letter of the 2d of November, to General Armstrong, enclosing the

President's proclamation, declaring the edicts of France so revoked,

as that they ceased to violate the neutral commerce of the United

States, and of course the non-intercourse to be revived against England

after the 2d of February, if she did not in the mean time revoke

her orders, which, after the ground taken, and so often repeated,

with respect to the restoration of the property, must astonish every

American. But we have still this as a consolation, that Mr. Smith,

notwithstanding he had been told by the Duke of Cadore that it was

impossible any compromise could take place on that subject, says in

the letter enclosing the proclamation that the President presumes that

the requisitions contained in his letter of the 5th of July, as to the

restoration of the property, will have been satisfied. In the name of

God, Mr. Speaker, what grounds had he for this presumption? In addition

to this, in his letter of the 5th of November, Mr. Smith instructs

General Armstrong to let the Emperor know that the third section of the

law of March, 1809, at which he took so much offence, was not intended

to operate against his subjects, but against our own citizens. And

although this may be, and probably is, true, yet a confession of this

kind, after so recent and aggravated insult and violence, must I think

be sickening to the American people, and Napoleon himself will be at

a loss to know why it was made unless to testify our loyalty. But our

loyalty to the contrary notwithstanding, the Duke of Cadore in his

letter to General Armstrong of the 12th of September, in answer to one

from him of the 7th of that month, tells the General, that the Emperor

sees with pleasure that the Americans are far from acknowledging the

tyrannical principles of English legislation, yet informs him that as

to the merchandise confiscated, it having been confiscated as a measure

of reprisal, the principles of reprisal must be the law in that affair.

Now, Mr. Speaker, after seeing how the law of May, 1810, has been used

with the French Government, and for aught we know, not used at all

with that of England, until it had assumed the character of a threat,

together with the various changes of position taken by our Government

in this business, I think it demonstrates a management, which, if

duly examined, will not leave much doubt whether it be indispensably

necessary to suffer this law to go into operation, either as a measure

of resistance against England, or of good faith towards France. For

instance, at one time England must repeal her Orders in Council to

entitle her to the benefit of the law; at another, viz: after hearing

from France, the condition must include a repeal of the blockades also,

and on the part of France, she must rescind her decrees and restore the

property, then a promise is to be accepted as it respects the property,

and, to top the climax, the proclamation issues on the presumption

of an agreement having taken place, on the part of France, that the

property shall be restored. But after all this we are told by Cadore,

on the 12th of September, to be contented, for as to the property in

question it will not be restored.

But, Mr. Speaker, it seems that the President, in compliance with

a resolution of the House of the 21st of December, has furnished

documents which put the question beyond a doubt, that the proclamation

was issued, declaring that the French decrees were repealed, so that

they ceased to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, when,

to say the least, he had no official information of the fact, or, if he

had, he has taken care to keep it to himself. Mr. Smith, in his letter

to Turreau, of the 18th of December, is compelled to say in effect,

that the French restrictions on our commerce are not rescinded, or,

to use his own words: "If, then, for the revoked decrees, municipal

laws producing the same commercial effect have been substituted, the

mode only, and not the measure, has undergone an alteration." In this

situation, I should like to be informed why we are called upon by the

Executive so to modify our laws as to carry the non-importation against

England and her dependencies forcibly into effect, and thus destroy

the small remains of our commerce, the effects of which we have so

recently felt at the Treasury, since the repeal of the non-intercourse

law of May last, as I have already shown from the Secretary's report.

This information I have not as yet been able to obtain, although I

have sought for it, unless I resort to the last paragraph in General

Turreau's letter of December 12, to Mr. Secretary Smith, in answer

to one from the Secretary, remonstrating against the exclusion of

cotton and tobacco from the ports of France. In reply to which he says,

among other things, that he thinks some modification will take place

in this respect, but tells him that this will depend upon the firm

and persevering measures to be pursued by the two Governments against

the common enemy. In this intimation of his Imperial Majesty through

his Minister, which, by-the-by, is not the first of the kind, will I

fancy be found the only necessity of suffering this measure to go into

operation. And are gentlemen prepared to obey? I trust not. No, sir,

I will not for a moment entertain so degrading an idea. But firmly

believing the contrary, I still hope the amendment will be rejected,

and with it the whole restrictive system, until France shall learn to

respect our rights.

Mr. Speaker, if I am to be called an enemy to my country for opposing

this measure, under present circumstances, to my country I will

appeal; being entirely willing that the honorable gentleman from

Maryland (Mr. WRIGHT) and his friends should share the whole of the

honor of advocating the right of the Emperor to take and withhold the

property of our citizens. Sir, it creates no astonishment to hear

that gentleman contend that we are bound by the law of May to carry

the non-intercourse into effect against Great Britain, but, to hear a

gentleman possessed of the discernment of the honorable chairman of

the committee who reported this bill, make this declaration, is truly

astonishing, when the reverse is the fact. I trust I have already shown

that in every communication from our Executive to the French Government

on the subject, that Government has been told that if, in connection

with the revocation of the decrees, the sequestered property was not

given up, the non-intercourse would not be renewed against England.

These several letters were communicated to this House, and published

nearly three months since, and are, at this moment, in the hands of the

British Government, and, by this tenure, that Government has a right to

rest assured that the non-intercourse will not be renewed against them.

Indeed, to believe the contrary, would be an insult to the plighted

faith of the Executive.

Mr. BIGELOW.--Mr. Speaker, I regret extremely that, at this late period

of the session, and at this late hour of the night, the high sense of

the duty which I feel that I owe to my constituents and to my country,

should compel me to submit to the consideration of the House a few

remarks upon this all-important subject. They will be of a general

nature, candid, and as much as possible confined to the subject of

debate.

Sir, on this occasion, I feel no disposition to censure the conduct of

the President. Permit me, however, before I proceed to the subject,

to notice a very singular remark of the honorable gentleman from

Pennsylvania, (Mr. Ross.) That gentleman observed, "that when this

bill was laid on your table, he was determined to vote against

it; that he considered it wrong in principle, and injurious in its

consequences; and that he should now vote against it, had not several

gentlemen, particularly the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.

QUINCY,) been so severe in their censures upon the conduct of the

Administration. He felt it his duty to support the Administration, and

should, therefore, vote for the bill, although he disliked it."

Sir, I apprehend the President will not feel under very great

obligations to that gentleman for this kind of support. For myself,

I am free to declare, that stronger reasons than those must operate

upon my mind, before I can give my sanction to a measure professedly

impolitic and unjust.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is advocated on the ground that, by the law of

May, 1810, we are under obligations to France to prohibit commercial

intercourse with Great Britain. If, sir, I rightly recollect, for I

have not the law before me, the substance of the provision, as it

respected France, was, that if she so revoked or modified her edicts

and decrees, as that they should cease to violate our neutral commerce,

and Great Britain refused, for three months, to pursue a similar

course, then was this system of non-intercourse to commence, as it

respects Great Britain.

Mr. Speaker, I deny that the faith of the nation is pledged by the law

of May, 1810. It is neither a contract nor a treaty. To constitute

a contract, two parties are necessary, at least. All writers upon

the subject have so considered it; and, sir, if one party can make a

contract with another, without the knowledge, consent, or approbation

of the other, it is a new discovery, with which, as yet, I am

unacquainted. Such, sir, is the nature of the contract referred to.

The Congress was the only party concerned in making it. France knew

nothing of it; it was made wholly without her consent or approbation.

How, then, is the national faith plighted to France by that law? Sir,

I know of but one way in which the faith of this nation can be pledged

to another, and that is, by a treaty approved and ratified by the

constituted authorities; and surely, sir, no gentleman will contend

that this law amounted to a treaty. If, then, it was neither a contract

nor a treaty, the faith of the nation is not pledged. The most you can

make of it is, as was observed on a former occasion by the honorable

gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) "that it is a rule of conduct

for ourselves." But, sir, I am willing to admit, in case France had

fairly and honestly complied with the conditions of the law, so often

referred to, that good faith on our part might have required that we

should pass the present bill. What was the condition to be performed

on the part of France? Sir, she was to revoke and modify her decrees,

so that they should cease to violate our neutral commerce. This has

not been done. The Berlin and Milan decrees are not even nominally

revoked. Look at the letters of Mr. Russell, our Chargé des Affaires

at Paris, of the tenth of December last. Look at the letters of the

Dukes of Massa and Gaete, of the twenty-fifth of the same month. Look

at her conduct subsequent to the first of November, the time when you

were informed that those decrees would cease to operate. Has she not

seized every vessel which has arrived at her ports since that period?

Upon this point I will not waste the time of the House by attempting

to show that those decrees are still in force, a fact which has been

already so fully and amply proved by the candid and able arguments of

the honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. EMOTT.)

But, sir, I will go further, and, for the sake of argument, admit, not

only that the law of May, 1810, has all the binding force upon this

nation of a treaty made by the regular constitutional authorities, but

that the Berlin and Milan decrees were, on the fifth day of August

last, actually revoked; and, after the first day November, ceased to

violate our neutral commerce. There is still another important point to

be considered, and I hope gentlemen will attend to it with candor.

Sir, it is a principle well established by the law of nations, as

well as by the laws of nature and reason, that when one nation, in

consequence of revoking certain acts injurious to another nation,

claims from the other nation the performance of a promise made on

condition that those acts should be revoked, it is necessary that the

nation thus claiming the fulfilment of the promise, should first, not

only revoke those injurious acts, but it should also be done fairly

and honestly, without subterfuge or reserve, and without, at the same

time, adopting other measures equally injurious, and producing the same

effects. Now, sir, admit that the declaration of the Duc de Cadore,

in his letter of the 5th of August, 1810, that the Berlin and Milan

decrees were revoked, and, after the first of November, would cease

to violate our neutral commerce, was an actual revocation of those

decrees; still, sir, if this was merely to amuse and deceive us, if

another act equally injurious was at the same time substituted, will

it be contended that France has, nevertheless, fairly complied with

the conditions of your law? Sir, it is a very singular fact that, on

this very fifth day of August, another decree was issued by the French

Emperor, which was equally injurious, and amounted, in fact, to a

prohibition of our commerce, as much as the Berlin and Milan decrees.

I allude to the duties established by the Emperor on articles of

American produce, which were so enormously high, that the owner would

prefer an abandonment of his cargo to a payment of the duties. Even

this was insufficient; for, by a subsequent decree, various articles

were prohibited, and those which were allowed, must only be exported in

vessels which should sail from Charleston or New York.

Is this, sir, that fair, that honest repeal of the Berlin and Milan

decrees; is this that _bona fide_ performance of the condition; that

ceasing to violate our neutral commerce, which lays us under such

solemn obligations to France? Am I not, then, Mr. Speaker, authorized

to say, that the condition of the law of May, 1810, has not been

complied with? I trust, sir, as to this point, that the letter of the

Secretary of State to Mr. Turreau, of the 18th of December last, will

be considered as conclusive. In this letter, the Secretary, speaking

of the enormous duties which have been mentioned, observes: "If, then,

for the revoked decrees, municipal laws, producing the same commercial

effect, have been substituted; the mode only, and not the measure, have

undergone an alteration."

To my mind, sir, this insidious, this perfidious conduct, on the part

of Napoleon, is infinitely more base, and merits the indignation of

the American people infinitely more than would an open refusal to

revoke the obnoxious decrees. It is an attempt, if I may be allowed the

expression, to gull and deceive us, by an artful, intriguing policy,

which ought to excite our jealousy, and rouse our highest resentments.

I trust, sir, I have fairly shown that our faith is not plighted, that

we are under no obligations to Napoleon. If in this I am correct,

then the passage of the present bill is a mere question of policy and

interest.

It would be a mere waste of time to attempt, by a reference to the past

evils which have resulted from this restrictive system, to show the

impolicy of its continuance. The bad effects already produced are but

too well known. This, sir, is the favorable moment to erase it from

your statute books; the policy and interest of the nation require it.

Let us examine, for a moment, the consequences of its continuance.

Do you believe, sir, that your merchants, a great portion of whose

property has been seized by foreign nations, when the remnant of their

vessels, which have escaped, shall, upon entering your own ports, be

seized by your own custom-house officers, that they will be satisfied

to lose the remainder of their property, in pursuance of your own

laws? They will think it hard enough, that millions of their property

have been seized by France, by Denmark, and by Sweden, without having

the remainder seized on their return, and confiscated by their own

Government. Surely, sir, they will require strong evidence of the fact

that your faith is plighted to France, before they will be satisfied

with the measure you are about to adopt.

Mr. Speaker, I am not the Representative of merchants; I feel no

peculiar interest in their favor, but I consider them a useful class of

citizens; their interests are closely connected with the interests of

your farmers; and, in this point of view, they are at least entitled to

notice. Hitherto, your merchants have been noted for their fairness,

and for the respect they have paid to your revenue laws. But, sir,

after having their property plundered by France, by Denmark, and

Sweden, will they not, when they learn that from a scrupulous regard

to your faith plighted to France, a faith, however, which has no

existence, you seize, with a few exceptions, all which return; will

they not, I repeat it, endeavor to land their cargoes so as to escape

the vigilance of your officers? Have you no apprehension that, when

they have once learnt the art of smuggling to save their property from

seizure and confiscation, they will afterwards practise it, to avoid

the payment of duties? I fear that this system will have a tendency

to corrupt the morals of your merchants, and from them it will extend

throughout the country.

WEDNESDAY, February 27.

The House formed a quorum at half-past ten o'clock.

Mr. GOLD.--Mr. Speaker, at a period when the civilized world is

convulsed by continued war, to its centre; when the European continent

is exhibiting the marks of ruthless conquest, and is threatened with

all that barbarism, with which Attila, with his invading hordes,

overwhelmed the Roman world, it becomes the Councils of this nation to

move with cautious steps on the theatre of our foreign relations; to

move, sir, with a fixed eye on the great law of neutrality, and yield

an implicit obedience to its high injunctions.

It eminently becomes, sir, the Government of this country, in all our

concerns with the belligerents of Europe, to carry an even hand, to

manifest to both a fair, impartial, and equal conduct. Without such a

course, the consequences to our peace and prosperity, from the jealousy

and violence of warring nations, are inevitable, and, with it, we can

hardly promise ourselves exemption from aggressions and spoliation;

such and so destructive is the spirit of the times. Need I, sir, to

excite caution in legislation, refer the House to the consequences of

the non-intercourse act of the 1st of March, 1809; for, however free

from all exception from the belligerents was that act, yet France, in

the wantonness of power, made it the pretext for the exercise of the

rigorous right of reprisal by an additional decree, which, with the

preceding, have, like the besom of destruction, swept our property from

the ocean.

It was on that act, that the Rambouillet decree of the 23d of March

last, was founded for its sole justification; and so do the very terms

of the decree, shameful and disgraceful as it is, import.

In reviewing the proceedings of our Government under the act of the

1st of May last, (the act upon which the President's proclamation for

a non-importation with Great Britain is founded,) permit me, sir, to

ask if the spirit of a fair and impartial neutrality, so eminently

necessary in the critical situation of the United States, has guided

our proceedings with the respective belligerents? By this act, if

either of the belligerents rescinded its edicts, violating our neutral

rights, the non-intercourse act was to be put in force against the

other refusing to rescind, and the President, by proclamation, was

to declare such fact of rescinding. Under this provision, sir, the

President substituted a prospective engagement for a fact done; a

promise for a performance; the future for the past, and hence, sir,

have resulted our present difficulties; that crisis which bears so

hard upon the American people. It is not, sir, my object to impeach

the motives of the President in this ill-fated proceeding; I am to

presume a love of country guided him; but it is impossible not to see

in the measure a course indulgent to France, a construction upon the

letter of the Duke de Cadore, of the 5th of August last, (touching the

revocation of the decrees of Berlin and Milan,) the most favorable and

advantageous to that country, and offensive to Great Britain. For,

sir, notwithstanding the above proclamation, the noon-day sun is not

plainer than that those decrees are not revoked; nor indeed, sir, will

they, in my opinion, ever be revoked under the above act. The utmost

extent of our hopes, from the last despatches transmitting the official

communication of the twenty-fifth of December last, from the Grand

Judge Massa, and the Minister of Finance, Gaete, is, that our vessels

(with their cargoes) seized in the ports of France since the first of

November, in violation of the stipulation of the above letter of the

5th of August, and of all that is holden sacred among nations, may be

at some future day, under some new and embarrassing conditions, flowing

from the policy of Napoleon, restored to our suffering citizens. By the

last paragraph of the above letter of the Minister of the Finances,

it would seem that the Emperor and King has shut his eyes upon past

engagements, and referred all that concerns us to the second day of

February, when new toils are to be spread, as is to be presumed, for

the unsuspecting, credulous, and confiding American merchant and

navigator. Against the mass of evidence, that the French decrees are

not revoked--evidence which is increased by the melancholy advices of

every east wind--the honorable member (Mr. RHEA) from Tennessee, refers

us to the President's proclamation, as a foundation for our faith in

the repeal of the decrees to rest on; this is evidence indeed of things

not seen. As well might the trembling mariner look to his almanac for

the state of the weather at the moment the pitiless tempest is beating

upon him, and his vessel is sinking under the shock of the elements.

Whatever ground of hope or belief in the good faith of France existed

at the time of issuing the proclamation, subsequent events have removed

those grounds from under our feet, and blasted all our hopes; the wily

policy of the French Court stands confessed; the Emperor loves but to

chasten; he seduces but to destroy.

While the indulgent course, the favorable interpretation of the letter

of Cadore of the 5th of August above mentioned, was adopted by the

Cabinet towards France; was a similar temper and disposition manifested

in relation to Great Britain?

I fear, sir, this part of the case will not well bear scrutiny. That

the Orders in Council, and not the doctrine of blockade, were the

objects of the act of the 1st of May, in relation to Great Britain,

not only the debates of the period, but the recollection of every

member of this House, will bear me out in asserting. That mere cruising

blockades, and every other blockade not supported by an actual

investing force, is unwarranted by the laws of nations, is my clear

conviction; it is the result of examination and reflection on the

subject; but unfounded in public law as is the doctrine set up by Great

Britain, its abandonment or modification can only be expected from

treaty, and not by an isolated declaration at the threshold, under the

threat of a specific alternative. The Orders in Council being removed,

the blockade of May, 1806, would have been little more than nominal;

why then was it insisted on as indispensable, under the above act?

Through a strange fatality, something, inconsiderable in itself, is

always found in our demands upon Great Britain, to bar a settlement.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is calculated much more to put in jeopardy the

neutral character of our Government is the bill on the table. While

all is uncertainty and embarrassment with France; while her decrees

remain merely suspended and not revoked; while your merchants, trusting

to the plighted faith of the Emperor, have been drawn into the French

ports and there betrayed and sacrificed; while commerce is bleeding

at every pore under the merciless gripe of Napoleon, we are called on

to go farther to conciliate France, than she was entitled to, had she

faithfully revoked her decrees. Upon revoking his decrees, the Emperor

was entitled to have the act of the 1st of May carried into effect

against Great Britain, and he was entitled to no more. Such, sir, is

the precise condition imposed on the United States by the letter of

the Duke de Cadore, of the 5th of August, and this is the whole extent

of the requirement. Upon what ground, then, sir, is it that we are

called on to pass this additional non-importation act against Great

Britain? If France has revoked her decrees, is not a non-importation

with Great Britain inevitable, and does it not exist? But I will put

the key to the door; let us not dissemble; France has not revoked,

and for that cause and that alone, has the question arisen, whether

there be at this time a legal non-importation with Great Britain. If,

sir, there be any other difficulty, in the way of a non-importation

with Great Britain; if there does exist any other possible obstacle,

let the advocates of the bill name that obstacle. I make the appeal

to gentlemen, I demand of the chairman of the committee who reported

this bill, why and wherefore it is presented? France has failed to

revoke her decrees, and as such revocation was, under the act of the

first of May, a prerequisite to non-importation with Great Britain,

such non-importation must fall, unless this additional act in favor of

France is passed. This, sir, is the whole length and breadth of the

case; and on no other ground can this disastrous measure be placed.

If France revoked her decrees, she was entitled to a non-importation

against Great Britain, and if she failed to revoke, what? The bill

gives the answer--she is equally entitled; so that, do what France may

do, the end must be a non-importation with England. Such, sir, is the

logic of your bill; such the impartiality towards the belligerents;

such and so barefaced the subversion of the great principle of the act

of May last.

The principle of the act of May was just and equal; our offers to Great

Britain and France were the same, and the result, in case of refusal,

alike to both. France met the offer by the famous letter of Cadore,

of the 5th of August; in which, with more than conjurer's skill, this

disciple of the Jesuits brought together and united both present and

future; he revoked and did not revoke; he gave up the decrees and

yet retained their operation or effects; he made the revocation both

absolute and conditional; absolute for obtaining the President's

proclamation, conditional for the purpose of eluding performance;

absolute for drawing our property within his clutches, conditional for

retaining it, to fill his coffers and fatten his minions; in fine,

sir, the letter was one thing, or another thing, or nothing at all, as

artifice might suggest or future events render necessary.

But, sir, the most copious source of error that I have witnessed during

the various debates upon the proceedings under the act of the 1st

of May, is found in the extent of the Berlin and Milan decrees. The

gentlemen who have commenced their career of conciliation with France,

treated those decrees as operating only on the narrow ground of direct

commerce between the United States and Great Britain and on our vessels

to other ports which have submitted to British search; hence the effort

to justify the late seizures of our vessels in France, upon grounds

consistent with the repeal of those decrees, as being laden with

British colonial produce, &c. But, sir, this cannot avail or give the

least color to the pretence of a repeal.

The Berlin decree (that decree which emanated from the French Emperor

at the capital of prostrate Prussia, where he sat like Marius over the

ruins of Carthage) contains ten distinct articles; the 6th and 7th

prohibit all trade in British merchandise, and, the more effectually to

close all the avenues to the continent, exclude from the continental

ports all vessels coming from Great Britain or her colonies, or that

shall have visited the colonies after the date of the decree. The

Duke de Cadore, by the above letter of the 5th of August, pledged the

Emperor, his master, for the entire repeal of this decree without any

reservation. Had this pledge been faithfully redeemed; had such repeal

been had with good faith, it would have subverted the whole continental

system and removed all difficulty both between the United States and

France, and between us and Great Britain, as it must have produced the

actual result required by Great Britain, in restoring the commerce of

the world to that state it was in at the promulgation of the decrees.

Although the above decrees partake of municipal as well as external

regulation, yet the French Emperor, foreseeing that Great Britain

would not relinquish the ground taken while the continental system,

so hostile to her commercial interests, was continued, and yielding

for a moment, as is supposed, to the groans of subjugated States,

stipulated by the above letter for a relinquishment of his system by an

entire repeal of those decrees. Let me repeat, sir, had France proved

faithful to her engagements, the United States would at this moment

have had a prosperous commerce with Europe, and the present state of

things is fairly imputable to the Emperor, with whom that bill on your

table invites us to proclaim "all is well." I look about me, sir, with

emotions of concern and anxiety to find a ground on which to justify

the course adopted by this bill towards the belligerents. The peace,

the reputation, and honor of my country are concerned. While the great

principles of justice and fair neutrality shall be our landmarks and

guide, come what may, fall when we may, we shall stand justified to the

world, and what is of more consequence, we shall have the support of

our own consciences; the sweet and consoling reflection, that we stand

clear of fault and deserve a better fate. This bill will not give the

United States this high and enviable condition.

Mr. PEARSON.--It is but seldom, Mr. Speaker, I address you, especially

on subjects of the nature and importance of that which is now under

discussion. Perhaps on this account, I may not be the less entitled to

your indulgence and the attention of this assembly.

Being opposed to the principles of this bill, and having no confidence

in the reasons or pretences by which it is attempted to be justified,

I shall not trouble you with an exposition of its particular details,

however novel, arbitrary, and impolitic they may appear. The bill

proposes substantially a revival of that system of commercial

restrictions, under which the people of our country have so long

and severely suffered. It substantially denies all intercourse with

Great Britain and her colonies, by excluding from our ports British

vessels of every description, and the products and manufactures of

that nation of every kind, and to whomsoever they belong; while at

the same time, every possible indulgence is granted to France--her

vessels, armed and unarmed, her products and those of the nations which

she has subjugated, find no restraint from us. Here let me remark,

that to those two contending powers, whenever their interest, or the

interests of either of them come in contact with the interests of my

own country, I feel no preference, I make no discrimination; my first

best wishes ever are at home. I now solemnly appeal to gentlemen, why

shall we, at this moment, make this marked distinction? Why shall we

take this hostile attitude against Great Britain, and open our arms to

the embrace of France--when, by doing so, we must inevitably afflict

our own people, and depart from that character of neutrality, which

has been the alleged boast of the present and late Administration; and

which alone has afforded those in power an apology with the people for

those wild schemes of policy, with which their course has been but

too plainly marked, and that accumulated distress which every man has

seen, and every honest man has felt? Can it be because Bonaparte has

said he loves the Americans? I, sir, know no other cause. I know it

has been said on this floor, and said too by the honorable gentleman

who reported this bill, and his honorable colleague, (Mr. GHOLSON,)

that the Berlin and Milan decrees are revoked; and, in compliance with

the law of the late session of Congress, the faith of this nation

is pledged to Bonaparte, for the due execution of that law against

Great Britain. To those opinions my understanding cannot assent--the

obligation to Bonaparte I neither feel nor believe. That none such

exist will not, in my opinion, be difficult to prove. For a fair

understanding of this question, it becomes necessary to apply to the

law of May, 1810. On that law and the proceedings which have been

subsequently adopted by this Government and France, must the propriety

of the present measures be justified or condemned. The act alluded to,

in substance, declares: "That in case either Great Britain or France

shall, before the 3d day of March next, so revoke or modify her edicts,

that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United

States, which fact the President of the United States shall declare

by proclamation, and if the other nation shall not, within three

months thereafter, so revoke or modify her edicts in like manner, the

restrictive provisions of the law of 1809 are to be revived and have

full force and effect against the nation so refusing or neglecting to

revoke or modify," &c., and the restrictions imposed by the act, are

from the date of such proclamation, to cease and be discontinued in

relation to the nation revoking or modifying her decrees in the manner

aforesaid.

The emphatic words of this law are, so revoke or modify, as that they

cease to violate, &c. Here is a positive, unconditional, indispensable

prerequisite, to be complied with before the President was authorized

to exercise the power given to him; a specific fact was to exist, and

he was empowered simply to make its existence known to the nation;

no discretion was allowed; nothing left to doubtful construction--no

conditional promissory note of a perfidious agent, of a more perfidious

master, was contemplated by the law. The great question now is, does

the fact on which the proclamation was alone to issue, and on which

its legitimacy solely depends, exist, or does it not? The very doubt

ought to decide the question--the burden of proof unquestionably ought

to rest on those who call on us to pass this law; and in their own

language, execute the contract, and violate not the faith so solemnly

plighted to "Napoleon the Great"--unfortunately the evidence on which

they rely disproves the fact, and we are enabled to do what can seldom

be done, and ought never to be required--prove a negative.

The letter of the Duke de Cadore, of the 5th August, 1810, the

proclamation of the 2d of November, and Mr. Pinkney's diplomatic

special pleading in his letter to the Secretary of State, of the 10th

of December, constitute the whole burden of proof upon which the

advocates of this bill rest their defence, and the evidence of the fact

on which alone it can be justified. I have stated the law, and what I

conceive to be its obligations on the President and ourselves. It will

now be proper to take a correct view of this famous letter of the Duc

de Cadore of the 5th August, this honeyed charm, which has seduced

us into a labyrinth, from whose gloomy cells and devious windings we

are, I fear, not soon to be extricated. This letter, which contains

but one sentence of plain truth, viz: "That the Emperor applauded the

general embargo laid by the United States"--after asserting the most

palpable falsehood, by denying that the Emperor had knowledge of our

law of March, 1809, until very lately, and justifying the seizure and

condemnation of all American property which had entered, not only

the ports of France, but those of Spain, Naples and Holland, dating

from the 20th of May, 1809; and declaring that reprisal was a right

commanded by the dignity of France, a circumstance on which it was

impossible to make a compromise--the letter proceeds: "Now Congress

retrace their steps, they revoke the act of the first of March, the

ports of America are open to French commerce, and France is no longer

interdicted to the Americans. In short, Congress engages to oppose

itself to that one of the belligerent powers which should refuse to

acknowledge the rights of neutrals. In this new state of things, I

am authorized to declare to you, sir, that the decrees of Berlin and

Milan are revoked, and that after the first of November they will

cease to have effect; it being understood, that in consequence of this

declaration, (remark, Mr. Speaker, this declaration, not this fact,)

the English shall revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce the new

principles of blockade, which they have wished to establish, or that

the United States, conformable to the act you have just communicated,

shall cause their rights to be respected by the English"--then follows

in sweet accents His Majesty's declaration of love for the Americans,

his solicitude for our prosperity, and the glory of France.

This is the gilded pill, in which lurks a most deadly venom, and which

if we swallow, I fear all the political quackery of the nation cannot

save us. On this letter, gentlemen rely for the revocation of the

French edicts, and the freedom of our commerce with France. Allowing

the most favorable construction to this letter, and abstracting it from

circumstances and facts both before and after its date, it will not

bear gentlemen out in their conclusion; it does not satisfy your law,

and did not warrant the state of things which has been and is about

to be produced. Instead of an existing and determined fact, we have a

promise, and that too clogged with conditions, which it was well known

to the Emperor would not or could not be complied with to the extent

required by him. The conditions which depended on Great Britain, he

knew, never would be yielded, and that which depended on ourselves was

nothing short of war with England or our own citizens, by oppressing

them with a perpetual embargo. Instead of an authenticated act of

revocation, bearing the authority of the most ordinary law or edict of

the French Empire, we have nothing but a letter from the agent of the

Government, and which the Emperor may disavow at pleasure--as was done

in the case of the Minister of Marine, in his explanations to General

Armstrong of the intended operation of the Berlin decree--instead of

the restoration of the immense amount of American property, of which

your citizens have been most cruelly and unjustly robbed by this

fell monster of the age--and which the President declared, through

the Secretary of State, in letters to General Armstrong of the 5th

of June and July, must precede an arrangement with France, and was

an indispensable evidence of the just purpose of France towards the

United States; instead of having forty or fifty millions' worth of

our property restored, we are vauntingly told, that the property

was confiscated as a measure of reprisal, that the principles of

reprisal must be the law in that affair, and that a compromise would

be inconsistent with the dignity of France--the plain English of which

is, we have the property and we will keep it. Mr. Speaker, are we to be

thus amused? Common honor and common sense revolt at the idea.

An honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CHEVES,) whom I am

very much inclined to respect, in an ingenious argument which he made

the other day, to prove that the French decrees were revoked, told you

that the _revocation_ of those decrees depended on the mere _volition_

of the mind of the Emperor, not requiring authentication or form; and

although they might be revived the next moment, or substituted by

other regulations equally affecting our neutral rights, still they

were revoked. Thus attributing an authority to Bonaparte, descriptive

of the power of the God of nature--when he said, let there be light

and there was light. And in reply to the gentleman from Massachusetts,

(Mr. QUINCY,) who contended that _form_ was essential to the repeal

of a decree, he remarked that the gentleman wanted _form_ and not

substance. From this course of reasoning, I conceive the gentleman

has admitted, that this pretended revocation has neither form nor

substance. An edict may be defined to be a law promulgated in such form

as the institutions of the country require, or some act of sovereign

authority, which has gone through the established forms of office, so

as to become obligatory. The edicts of France have an appropriate form,

their authority is attested by the Emperor and publicity is given, for

the direction of those whose duty it is to carry them into effect.

Sir, the decree of the most absolute monarch on earth is no decree

till it is published. I contend that a _revocation_ or modification of

an edict requires the same or equal solemnities with its enactment;

the _fact_ must exist and be officially made known before it becomes

obligatory--no declaration of an intention to revoke, can constitute an

actual revocation. The act ought not only to be determined and public,

but susceptible of authentication, and capable of being communicated to

the nation and the world.

This opinion, if it needs authority, is supported by the instructions

of the Secretary of State to our Ministers at Paris and London, of

the 5th July. Mr. Pinkney is directed in these words--"If the British

Government should accede to the overture contained in the act of

Congress, by repealing or so modifying its edicts, as that they will

cease to violate our neutral rights, you will transmit the repeal,

properly authenticated, to General Armstrong, and if necessary, by a

special messenger, and you will hasten to transmit it also to this

Department--similar directions are given to General Armstrong."

Will it for a moment be contended, that the formal _authentication_

required by the Administration, could mean a Jesuitical, insolent,

equivocal, conditional letter, full of sound, and meaning nothing for

our good? But, say gentlemen, the President received the evidence and

issued his proclamation. This is true; but why has he done so, and how

justified by the law under which alone he was authorized to act, is, to

my mind, perfectly inexplicable; why, in the course of this arrangement

with France, he has varied the ground which he first took--why

dispensed with requisites at one time declared indispensable--why he

advanced in exactions from Great Britain in proportion as he receded

from demands on France, is left for himself and those who have more

wisdom than myself, to determine. I trust, sir, I have a proper share

of confidence in the Executive, and have no disposition to detract

from his merit; but he is only man, and therefore subject to the

frailties man is heir to. We have as yet no such maxim among us, as

that the Executive is infallible--he can do no wrong. Whatever may be

the disposition of other gentlemen, I am as yet too free, too much of

a genuine _Republican_ to subscribe to such a doctrine. I said, sir,

that in the course of this arrangement with France, the Administration

advanced in their demands on Great Britain and receded as to France.

I argue from the documents, which accompanied the President's Message

at the opening of the present session of Congress. The first letter in

the documents from the Secretary of State to Mr. Pinkney, of the 20th

January, 1810, does not contain a word on the subject of blockades--on

the contrary, the Orders in Council are alone required to be repealed,

as preparatory to a treaty with Great Britain; and the British

Government are assured of the cordial disposition "of the President

to exercise any power with which he may be invested, to put an end to

acts of Congress which would not be resorted to but for the Orders in

Council, and at the same time of his determination to put them in force

against France, in case her decrees should not also be repealed."

His letter of the 4th of May, which was the first after passing the

act of the 1st of May last, that enclosed a copy of that act, is not

published. On the 22d of May, another letter is sent enclosing a

second copy of the act of Congress, in which there is not to be found

any requisition of a repeal of the blockade which is now made a _sine

qua non_ to an arrangement with Great Britain. But on the 2d of July,

after the arrival of the John Adams, which brought the correspondence

between our Ministers at Paris and London, and the Agents of the

British and French Governments, on the subject of the repeal of their

several orders and decrees; and when it was known that the British

Government would not abandon her system of blockade and adopt the

principles contended for by France--in this letter, I say, is contained

not only a demand of the repeal of the Orders in Council, but also

of the blockading order of May, 1806. I have already shown, from the

letters before me, of the 5th June and July, that the restoration of

the property of our citizens, confiscated by the order of Bonaparte,

was declared by the Executive as an indispensable prerequisite to an

arrangement with the French Government. But the proclamation of the

President has been issued without a cent of property being restored;

nor is there the most distant prospect of our regaining a shilling from

his iron grasp. Thus have the Administration changed the ground first

taken, increased the demands on Great Britain, and abandoned what was

deemed indispensable on the part of France.

So conscious was the President of the just expectation of the people

of this country, that provision would be made for the restoration of

their property, he informs Mr. Armstrong on the 2d of November, the day

the proclamation was issued, that "in issuing the proclamation it has

been presumed, that the requisition on the subject of the sequestered

property will have been complied with." From what this presumption

arose, I am at a loss to say--the letter of the Duc de Cadore to

General Armstrong, of the 12th September, had been received here; we

had been told there would be no compromise; the law of _reprisal_

must govern. Sir, the law of reprisal, as recognized by the laws of

nations, could never have authorized the seizure. Reprisals can only

be resorted to in case of an act of hostility committed by one nation

on the property or citizens of another, and after compensation for

the injury has been demanded and refused; and even in that case, the

property taken is to be held only in _pledge_, till satisfaction is

made by the offending nation. The moment that confiscation takes place

the principle of reprisal ceases and it becomes an act of war. We had

done no injury to France; we had violated neither the rights of the

persons or property of her subjects--no demand of indemnity was ever

made; not a complaint whispered, till nearly twelve months after the

passing of the law, (and after its expiration too,) which is made the

pretext for this monstrous outrage. The law of reprisal had nothing

to do with the affair, and the confiscation of our property excludes

the idea of restoration. I confess I was astonished, and felt humbled

as an American, when I heard the language of the President of the

United States, in his Message to Congress at the opening of the present

session on this subject. Instead of that high indignant tone, demanded

by the honor and feelings of the nation, he, in the mildness of calm

philosophy, says, "It was particularly anticipated that as a further

evidence of just dispositions towards them, restoration would have

been immediately made of the property" of our citizens, seized under a

_misapplication of the principles of reprisals_, and a misconstruction

of a law of the United States. This expectation has not been fulfilled.

Thus the question as to the restoration seems to be abandoned; one

kind, loving word from Napoleon the Great, (as he has been triumphantly

called in this House,) this modern Alexander (without his virtues, with

all his faults) disarms us of our rage, and we give millions for his

embrace.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee (Mr. EPPES) who reported the

bill, in reply to the very able speech of a gentleman from New York

(Mr. EMOTT) who addressed you in the early stage of this discussion,

appeared to me rather to question the purity of the source from which

they came, than to have answered the arguments of that gentleman. This

mode of reasoning may answer the purposes of gentlemen, but is surely

unfavorable to fair investigation; it tends to abridge the freedom

of debate, and prevent that firm, decisive, and candid exposition of

those measures, which we conceive may vitally affect the happiness of

the people. This is a privilege and a duty which I shall ever regard

and ever perform. The same gentleman (Mr. EPPES) and several others,

have reminded us of the arrangement made with Mr. Erskine; and offer it

as a precedent for the justification of the President's proclamation

and this bill, (which are substantially one and the same thing.) I

had supposed that that unfortunate arrangement would have been kept

out of sight by gentlemen on the other side of the House. It was

to have been expected they would carefully avoid an attempt to make

one bad precedent justify another; they must have forgotten how that

arrangement militates against the proclamation, and the demand which is

now so positively made of a revocation by Great Britain of her order

of blockade of May, 1806. That arrangement, almost dictated by the

Administration, and which was perfectly satisfactory to us all, did

not contain one syllable, not the most distant information, relative

to the repeal of that order, which now appears to excite so highly the

indignation of gentlemen, and has been magnified into a cause of war.

The order of blockade was at that time more recent, and if so injurious

as now alleged, could not have escaped the attention of the Executive,

and his vigilant Cabinet, when they were providing for the annulment of

the Orders in Council of January and November, 1807. That arrangement

was made without requiring a repeal of the blockade--now nothing can be

done without a repeal, and thus we are to be blockaded both at home and

abroad.

It may be further remarked, that by the law of February, 1808, the

President was authorized to suspend the embargo as to France or Great

Britain, on the same conditions pointed out by the act of May, 1810.

In the exercise of that power, the President instructed Mr. Pinkney

to propose to the British Government a repeal of the embargo as to

that nation, and its continuation against France, if the Orders in

Council of January and November, 1807, should be rescinded. At that

time nothing was said, no demand was made, not even a proposition

offered on the subject of the blockade in question. My attention, sir,

has been somewhat drawn to this part of the subject by the importance

which has been given to it in the document before me, and the arguments

of gentlemen of this House, particularly the gentleman from Virginia,

(Mr. EPPES,) who said much on this subject the other day, in answer

to arguments which the gentleman from New York (Mr. EMOTT) did not

make. He reiterated last night that his arguments were unanswered and

unanswerable. I do not profess, sir, to be perfectly acquainted with

the practical extent of the order of blockade of May, 1806, nor do I

know the precise quantum of injury we have sustained by it, nor am I

to be understood as attempting its justification--I should be the last

to concede any principle or any right to which my country has a claim.

But, sir, I am compelled to believe, that an artificial importance

is at this moment given to the subject, which it has not received at

any other period since the adoption of that regulation by the British

Government. I have already shown that, in the negotiation of 1808, and

in the arrangement with Mr. Erskine, the question was not even made a

matter of contestation; and, sir, from an examination of the Executive

papers, from the date of the order of the blockade, down to the present

session of Congress, I have not been able to discover a single paper

remonstrating against the order, or insisting on its revocation, nor do

I know of a single case of the condemnation of an American vessel under

its operation. On the contrary, at the time of its adoption, (during

the administration of Mr. Fox, who was believed to be as friendly

disposed towards us, as any man who ever administered the affairs of

the British Cabinet,) this measure was spoken of by our Minister at

London (Mr. Monroe) as a relaxation favorable to neutral commerce. It

may not be improper to refer to the order itself, as communicated by

Mr. Fox to Mr. Monroe, on the 16th of May, 1806; after the preamble

this note states "that the King, taking into consideration the new

and extraordinary means resorted to by the enemy for the purpose of

distressing the commerce of his subjects, has thought fit to direct

that necessary measures should be taken for the blockade of the coast,

rivers, and ports, from the river Elbe to the port of Brest, both

inclusive; and the said coast, rivers, and ports, are, and must be

considered, as blockaded. But His Majesty is pleased to declare, that

such blockade shall not extend to prevent neutral ships and vessels,

laden with goods not being the property of His Majesty's enemies,

and not being contraband of war, from approaching the said coasts

and entering into and sailing from the rivers and ports, (save and

except the coast, rivers, and ports, from Ostend to the river Seine,

already in a state of strict and rigorous blockade, and which are to

be considered as continued,) provided the said ships and vessels so

approaching and entering (except as aforesaid,) shall not have been

laden at any port belonging to, or in possession of, His Majesty's

enemies, and that the said ships and vessels so sailing from the said

rivers and ports, (except as aforesaid) shall not be destined to any

port belonging to, or in possession of His Majesty's enemies, nor have

previously broken the blockade." This order, then, only excludes from

those ports vessels having enemies' property on board or articles

contraband of war, in both of which cases they are liable to seizure by

the law of nations, at least it has been long contended for on the part

of Britain; it also prevents the direct carrying trade from one port to

another of an enemy. If this latter extension is not recognized by the

law of nations, it is generally the subject of treaty, and was provided

for by our treaty with the British Government, and the late convention

formed by Mr. Monroe with the British Government, but which was

rejected principally because Great Britain required us not to submit

to the Berlin decree--a requisition, sir, infinitely short of what we

are now to comply with, at the dictation of France--by which colonial

produce was required to be relanded in the United States before it

would be admitted into the ports of the continent. By this order, _bona

fide_ neutral vessels, with neutral produce, sailing from our own

country, never were affected.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. EPPES) has said this order of blockade

has not a single feature of a regular blockade; in this, the gentleman

is tolerably correct, and when he denounces, what in the fashionable

cant of the day are called paper blockades, I join most heartily in

the execration. It is true this order of May, 1806, has scarcely a

feature of a regular blockade. It was not avowed at the time to be even

a constructive blockade, nor was the right contended for of blockading

without an actual investing force. It does not, like ordinary

blockades, attempt a complete prohibition to all trade with those

ports, but only to the particular objects and specified cases which I

have mentioned. The previous measures of France are declared by Mr.

Fox to be the cause of this order. What were those measures? They were

no less, as regards ourselves, than a violation of the treaty which

had been solemnly entered into between this country and France; by

harassing our trade, seizing and confiscating our vessels in pursuing

the commerce guaranteed to us by that treaty; she had usurped authority

in almost every port and city from Elbe to Brest, and excluded the

introduction of British products and merchandise, whether belonging to

American citizens or British subjects.

Now, sir, let me state to you the language of our Minister (Mr. Monroe)

at the time this order was issued. In his letter of the 17th of May,

to the Secretary of State, speaking of the order, he says, "the note

is couched in terms of restraint, and professes to extend the blockade

further than it has heretofore done, nevertheless it takes it from

many ports already blockaded, indeed all east of Ostend and west of

the Seine, except in articles contraband of war and enemy's property,

which are seizable without blockade; and in like form of exception,

considering every enemy as one power, it admits the trade of neutrals

within the same limits to be free, in the productions of enemy's

colonies, in every but the direct route between the colony and parent

country.

"It cannot be doubted but the note was drawn by the Government in

reference to the question, and if intended by the Cabinet as a

foundation on which Mr. Fox is authorized to form a treaty, and

obtained by him for the purpose, it must be viewed in a very favorable

light; it seems clearly to put an end to further seizures, on the

principle which has heretofore been in contestation." This view of

the subject, which surely is a fair one connected with the silence of

the Administration for four years, must put an end to the clamor so

often raised against this order, which has been the alleged cause of

the Berlin decree, and charge against Great Britain, of having been

the first aggressor on our neutral rights. Sir, we have indeed been

insulted, injured, and abused by both nations, to an extent which

would justify any measures in our power, but let us not palliate the

crimes of one, and magnify those of the other; and, above all, let us

not whip ourselves because they will not respect us; let us not become

so Quixotic, as to act the part of a famous knight in the tales of

chivalry, who tortured himself because his mistress would not be kind.

Mr. Speaker, as the arrangement with Mr. Erskine has been often

mentioned, and much relied on by the advocates of this bill, it

deserves some further notice. That arrangement was the first act of

the present Executive, after he came into office; it was presumed

to have been fairly and properly made--it was hailed as a political

jubilee by all denominations of politicians--particularly those who

had not contributed to the elevation of the present Chief Magistrate;

we thought we perceived in that event the evidence of a disposition in

the present Executive (which we could not discover in his predecessor)

to relieve this country from that system of commercial restriction,

that self-destroying policy, which had made us poor indeed; we also

thought a determination was manifested not to decline any advantageous

accommodation with Great Britain, whether France said yea or nay.

It will be but too well remembered that we had been groaning for

two years under the pressure of non-importation, embargo, and

non-intercourse--your treasury was drained, your citizens unable to

pay their debts, and your courts of justice actually shut up, at least

so far in many States (and among the rest the State which I have the

honor in part to represent) as to suspend the effect of executions;

your cities and seaports were inactive or deserted; gloom and dismay

marked the features of the nation, and hope had almost bid us farewell;

we fancied in this arrangement the glimmerings of returning sunshine,

peace, and prosperity: with honest and upright hearts, we were willing

to applaud the hand that gave it, without questioning or suspecting the

manner or motives with which it was given. The delusion soon vanished;

and I have no hesitation to declare, had I then known what I now know,

I should have not offered such unqualified applause.

Mr. Speaker, let us make a very strange and very false supposition,

that the Berlin and Milan decrees were actually repealed, and did cease

to have effect on the first of November. What have we gained? What

advantage have we derived from it? And have we not been officially

informed by the French Minister in this city (General Turreau) in his

letter to the Secretary of State, of the 12th December, 1810, that

our most valuable productions, particularly of the Southern States,

are at this moment excluded from the ports of France? As to the

important articles, cotton and tobacco, he says: "their importation

into France is at this moment especially prohibited, but I have reasons

to believe (and I pray you meanwhile to observe, sir, they do not

rest on any facts) that some modifications will be given to this

absolute exclusion. These modifications will not depend on the chance

of events, but will be the result of other measures, firm and pursued

with perseverance, which the two Governments will continue to adopt

to withdraw from the monopoly and from the vexations of the common

enemy a commerce loyal and necessary to France as well as the United

States." In this letter we find the touchstone, the true clue to French

favor--war with England. Connected with this letter from Turreau, is

a decree of the 16th July, 1810, which, in point of principle and

arrogance, is not surpassed by any act in the history of Bonaparte. By

this decree thirty or forty American vessels may import into France,

under license, cotton, fish, oil, dye-wood, salt-fish, codfish,

and peltry; they must export wine, brandy, silks, linens, cloths,

jewellery, household furniture, and other manufactured articles; they

can only depart from Charleston and New York, under the obligation

of bringing with them a gazette of the day of their departure, also

a certificate of the origin of the merchandise, given by the French

Consul, containing a sentence in cypher. The French merchants who shall

cause their vessels to come, must prove that they are concerned in the

fabrics of Paris, Rouen, and other towns. Here is an attempt to extend

French influence by bribing a select class of our merchants; granting

favors to favorites. It is an attempt to make commercial regulations

in our own ports, and to violate our constitution, by giving a

preference to the ports of Charleston and New York, over all the rest

in the United States, which is specially denied by the constitution.

In addition to all this, we have a list of duties established at the

French custom-house on the 5th August (the very day on which twenty or

thirty American vessels and cargoes were sold and the proceeds given

over to Bonaparte--the very memorable 5th August, the birthday of the

celebrated letter of the Duc de Cadore) subjecting long staple cotton

to a tariff of eighty cents per pound, short staple sixty cents, and

tobacco forty cents per pound. By another decree of the 12th September,

1810, potash is taxed at one dollar twenty-five cents, codfish two

dollars, rice four dollars per hundred--thus are we loved, favored, and

taxed.

There can be no importation of American productions into France but on

terms utterly inadmissible. The act of May last, in the language of

the Secretary of State, had for its object not merely the recognition

of a "speculative," legitimate principle, but the enjoyment of a

substantial benefit. The overture then presented obviously embraced the

idea of commercial advantage, it included the reasonable belief, that

an abrogation of the Berlin and Milan decrees would leave the ports

of France as free for the introduction of the produce of the United

States, as they were previously to the promulgation of the decrees.

If, then, for the revoked decrees, municipal laws, producing the same

effect have been substituted, the mode only and not the measure has

undergone an alteration. If France, by her own acts, has blocked up her

ports against the introduction of the products of the United States,

what motive has the Government in a discussion with a third power,

to insist on the privilege of going to France? Whence the inducement

to urge the annulment of a blockade of France, when, if annulled, no

American cargoes would obtain a market in any of her ports? In such

a state of things, a blockade of the coast of France would be to the

United States as unimportant as would the blockade of the Caspian Sea.

This is the language of truth and common sense, language which I did

not very much expect to hear from the Secretary at this time; because

it exposes the proclamation of the President, and condemns the present

bill. But truth, like murder, will out, and it ought to strike dumb the

advocates of this bill, and open their eyes to a different policy. But,

sir, going on to the supposition that the French decrees are actually

repealed, and cease to have effect, pursuing the principle about to be

established of taking words for deeds, and form for substance, what is

to become of the promise of Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney, of the 31st

of August, 1810, when he states that he is commanded by his Majesty to

repeat the declaration made to this Government in February, 1808, of

his Majesty's desire to see the commerce of the world restored to that

freedom which is necessary for its prosperity, and his readiness to

abandon the system which had been forced upon him, whenever the enemy

should retract the principles which had rendered it necessary; and to

assure us that whenever the repeal of the French decrees shall have

actually taken effect, and the commerce of the neutral nations shall

have been restored to the condition in which it stood previously to the

promulgation of those decrees, he will feel the highest satisfaction

in relinquishing a system which the conduct of the enemy compelled

him to adopt. Here is a promise equally solemn, (and as there is at

least as much virtue in the British Government as there is in that of

France,) as much to be relied on as that of the Duc de Cadore; and as

certainly as the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and would cease

to have effect on the first of November, so certainly have we the same

assurance that the orders of Great Britain would be rescinded. Shall we

then believe the one and not the other? Shall we frown and look big at

England, while, with timid and abject submission, we crouch at the feet

of France, and quietly rivet the chains prepared for us? Mr. Speaker,

the goddess of justice has been described as being blind, with sword in

one hand, and the scale and balance in the other, but if she is invoked

in this measure, she comes blind indeed, with a sword in one hand, but

no balance in the other; in one hand is the emblem of war, in the other

the badge of slavery.

If war with England must happen, let it be done openly and for

ourselves; let us not commence the attack by practising on our own

citizens; and let it not be said we have been caught in the snares of

Bonaparte. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this bill because it professes

to give some relief to those merchants whose vessels sailed before the

date of the proclamation, and which may have departed from a British

port, prior to the 2d of February, 1811, but, sir, because I wish to

rid the country of this whole consumptive system; and, if that cannot

be done, I will not aid in propping up the President's proclamation,

by taking from the judiciary of the country the power of deciding on

its validity, which is one of the avowed objects of this bill. I had

rather trust to the opinion of the judges for entire relief to our

citizens, from the operation of the law of May, 1810, than grant the

partial exemption contemplated by this bill. The honorable gentleman

(Mr. EPPES) who reported this bill, declares that its great object is

to prevent questions arising in the courts, on the construction of

the law of May, 1810, and the effect of the President's proclamation.

This, to my understanding, is legislating retrospectively; it is _ex

post facto_; and, like the Rambouillet decree, is not only prospective,

but retroactive. It takes from our citizens the right of appealing to

the courts of justice, and makes the fiat of the Executive the supreme

law--a doctrine subversive of the first principles of republicanism,

and strange to be advocated by gentlemen who came into power under the

name of republicans.

It is in vain, Mr. Speaker, to seek for the justification of this

measure from any thing France has done, or from the indications which

she has given of her fixed course of policy. Her great object is the

destruction of the commerce of the world; and she wishes to make us

tributary to that end, and, if possible, to embroil us in a war with

England.

The disposition of Bonaparte towards us rests not alone on his acts

of aggression, rapine, and plunder; the imprisonment of our citizens,

the burning and sequestration of our property. He has heaped upon this

devoted country all the epithets which malice could suggest or tyranny

dictate; he has exhausted the cup of bitterness, and made us drink the

dregs of humiliation; he has declared his decrees should suffer no

change, and that the Americans should take the positive character of

allies or enemies. As long ago as the 15th of January, 1808, he issued

a declaration of war for us against Great Britain; an unconditional

surrender of your rights is demanded, or an obedience to his dictates.

And are we not in the act of yielding obedience? Sir, the nation which

pretends to dictate laws to another offers chains. With more than

Christian charity do we seem to forget and forgive the indignities

offered to our national character; and the unkind, the severest cut

of all to the present Administration, contained in the letter of the

Duc de Cadore to General Armstrong, of the 17th of February, 1810,

in which we are told that His Majesty could place no reliance on the

proceedings of the United States. We are advised to tear to pieces the

act of our independence; declared to be more abject than the slaves

of Jamaica; that we are men without honor, energy, or just political

views; that we will be obliged to fight for interest, after having

refused to fight for honor. Our present rulers are there contrasted

with the brave and generous heroes of our Revolution, and they are

declared to be fit for the yoke which had been thrown off by their

ancestors. This letter had scarcely reached our shores, the ink was

scarcely dry, it was fresh in our memories, when the letter of the 5th

of August was received; which, like a Lethean draught, threw the shade

of oblivion over our insults and our wrongs; we sipped the poison as it

fell, and I fear it is fast spreading through the body politic.

Mr. Speaker, I turn with disgust from those polluted pages before

me--this history of our wrongs, this tyrant's love--would to God they

could be blotted from our memories; or, if remembered, let it be with

abhorrence and detestation.

I deprecate the course of policy, if policy it may be termed, which

is now about to be forced upon us. I protest against it as a measure

injurious to ourselves; weak, temporizing, and partial in its operation

on foreign nations; unauthorized by the actual state of things; and

calculated to hasten the period of our union with the destinies of

France.

Sir, unless we turn from this wayward course, this highway to ruin, the

time cannot be very distant when your deserted ports, your uninhabited

cities, your oppressed people, and even your firesides and your altars,

will only exhibit the sad signs of what they were. And I fear, sir, the

period is fast approaching when it will not again be said, "that we are

a people with whom the fierce spirit of liberty is stronger than among

any other people on earth; whose institutions inspire them with lofty

sentiments; who do not judge of an ill principle only by an actual

grievance; but who anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of

the grievance by the badness of the principle; who snuff the approach

of tyranny in every tainted breeze."

When Mr. P. had concluded, the House adjourned to six o'clock this

evening.

_Six o'clock, P. M._

The House was called to order, and resumed the unfinished business.

A motion was made by Mr. RANDOLPH to postpone the subject to Friday

next, and lost--ayes 36, noes 36.

A motion was then made by Mr. R. to postpone it until to-morrow.

On this motion a debate, which from its nature caused irritation, took

place, in which Messrs. RANDOLPH and EPPES were the principal speakers.

Much warmth was excited, and frequent calls to order made.

The question on postponement till to-morrow was decided by yeas and

nays. For postponement, 44; against it, 74.

Mr. Pitkin spoke more than an hour against the bill generally, and in

support of the particular proposition which he was about to make. He

contended that the Emperor of France had not fulfilled his engagement

to the United States, inasmuch as the decrees, if revoked, which he

denied, had not been revoked on the day on which he had engaged to

revoke them. He quoted the history of the connection of Spain with

France as evidence of the perfidy of Bonaparte, from whom, he said,

no compliance with his promises could be expected, &c. In supporting

his amendment, Mr. P. contended for its beneficial effects to our

merchants: and it would not, he said, be more a breach of our contract

with France than the first section of the bill now before the House.

The one was, in fact, as much a departure from the engagement with

France as the other. The following was the amendment offered by Mr.

PITKIN:

_Provided_, _also_, That nothing in this act, or the act to

which this is a supplement, shall be construed to affect any

vessels owned wholly by a citizen or citizens of the United

States, or the cargoes of any such vessels which shall have

cleared out from any port in the West Indies within ---- days

after the 2d of February, 1811.

The yeas and nays on the motion were, 46 yeas; 58 nays.

Mr. MACON addressed the Chair on the merits of the bill at some

length. He believed the President to have been justified in issuing

his proclamation by the Duc de Cadore's letter; but as subsequent

information had been received from France, the question appeared

to him to resolve itself into this: Was the sequestration of our

vessels from the 1st November to the 2d of February a violation of our

neutral rights or not? Had the decrees been so modified, under present

circumstances, as that they had ceased to violate our neutral commerce?

He conceived not, and should therefore vote against the bill. He

deprecated the course of debate, and the irritation which prevailed in

the House, as tending to bring this body into disrepute, &c.

Mr. P. B. PORTER then said that, for the purpose of coming to a

decision on the bill, and putting an end to a scene which was, to say

the least of it, disreputable to the House, he moved for the previous

question on engrossing the bill.

The previous question was taken and decided in the affirmative, and the

bill ordered to a third reading--65 to 9.

The bill was then read a third time.

The previous question was required on its passage, and carried in the

affirmative.

Mr. RANDOLPH twice successively moved an adjournment. Motions

negatived; the first 65 to 10, the second 66 to 8.

The question on the passage of the bill was then decided in the

affirmative--yeas 64, nays 12, as follows:

YEAS.--Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jun., William Anderson,

David Bard, William T. Barry, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb,

Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler,

Joseph Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, Matthew Clay, James Cochran,

William Crawford, Richard Cutts, Joseph Desha, John W. Eppes,

William Findlay, Meshack Franklin, Barzillai Gannett, Gideon

Gardner, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, James Holland, Jacob

Hufty, Richard M. Johnson, Thomas Kenan, John Love, Aaron Lyle,

Samuel McKee, William McKinley, Pleasant M. Miller, Samuel L.

Mitchill, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore,

Jeremiah Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thos. Newbold, Thos.

Newton, John Porter, Peter B. Porter, John Rea of Pennsylvania,

John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias Richards, Samuel Ringgold,

Erastus Root, Ebenezer Sage, John A. Scudder, Ebenezer Seaver,

Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, Dennis Smelt, John Smilie, Geo.

Smith, John Smith, Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner,

jr., Robert Weakley, Robert Whitehill, and Robert Witherspoon.

NAYS.--Abijah Bigelow, Barent Gardenier, Richard Jackson,

jr., William Kennedy, Nathaniel Macon, Elisha R. Potter, John

Randolph, Richard Stanford, Jacob Swoope, Archibald Van Home,

Laban Wheaton, and Ezekiel Whitman.

The House then adjourned to meet again at one o'clock.

The following is the bill as it passed this House:

A Bill supplementary to the act, entitled "An act concerning

the commercial intercourse between the United States and

Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for

other purposes."

_Be it enacted, &c._, That no vessel, owned wholly by a citizen

or citizens of the United States, which shall have departed

from a British port, prior to the 2d day of February, 1811,

and no merchandise owned wholly by a citizen or citizens of

the United States, imported in such vessel, shall be liable to

seizure or forfeiture on account of any infraction or presumed

infraction of the provisions of the act to which this act is a

supplement.

SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That, in case Great

Britain shall so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they

shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United

States, the President of the United States shall declare the

fact by proclamation; and such proclamation shall be admitted

as evidence, and no other evidence shall be admitted of such

revocation or modification in any suit or prosecution which may

be instituted under the fourth section of the act to which this

act is a supplement. And the restrictions imposed, or which may

be imposed, by virtue of the said act, shall, from the date of

such proclamation, cease and be discontinued.

SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That, until the

proclamation aforesaid shall have been issued, the several

provisions of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth,

ninth, tenth, and eighteenth sections of the act, entitled "An

act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United

States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies,

and for other purposes," shall have full force and be

immediately carried into effect against Britain, her colonies,

and dependencies: _Provided, however_, That any vessel or

merchandise which may, in pursuance thereof, be seized, prior

to the fact being ascertained, whether Great Britain shall,

on or before the second day of February, one thousand eight

hundred and eleven, have revoked or modified her edicts in the

manner above mentioned, shall, nevertheless, be restored, on

application of the parties, on their giving bond with approved

sureties to the United States, in a sum equal to the value

thereof, to abide the decision of the proper court of the

United States thereon; and any such bond shall be considered

as satisfied if Great Britain shall, on or before the second

day of February, one thousand eight hundred and eleven, have

revoked or modified her edicts in the manner above mentioned:

_Provided, also_, That nothing herein contained shall be

construed to affect any ships or vessels, or the cargoes of

ships or vessels, wholly owned by a citizen or citizens of

the United States, which had cleared out for the Cape of Good

Hope, or for any port beyond the same, prior to the tenth of

November, one thousand eight hundred and ten.

SATURDAY, March 2.

_Bank of the United States._

Mr. P. B. PORTER, from the committee to whom was referred, on the

twenty-fifth ultimo, the memorial of the Stockholders of the Bank of

the United States, made the following report, which was read:

"The committee to whom was referred the memorial of the

Stockholders of the Bank of the United States, report:

"That they have carefully examined the various matters set

forth in the said memorial, and attentively listened to the

representations of the gentlemen who have appeared in behalf

of the said petitioners. The object of the memorialists is to

obtain extension of their corporate powers beyond the period

limited for the expiration of their charter, so as to enable

them to prosecute for their debts, and to arrange, liquidate,

and close the various concerns of the company.

"The committee are of opinion that a law of Congress, granting

the powers prayed for, would facilitate the final adjustment of

the affairs of the bank, although they do not think such a law

indispensable to that object. But believing, as your committee

do, that, in granting the original charter to the stockholders,

Congress transcended the legitimate powers of the constitution;

the same objection now presents itself to the extension of any

of their corporate capacities.

"If the committee had time to go into the investigation, and to

present to the House the various reasons which have conduced

to this opinion, it would be more than useless to divert its

attention from the important concerns of the nation, at this

late period of the session, to a subject which, but a few days

since, was so fully and elaborately discussed.

"They therefore beg leave to introduce the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the prayer of the memorialists ought not to

be granted."