ELEVENTH CONGRESS.—THIRD SESSION. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. (continued 5)

There are three classes of your citizens to be provided for, as contemplated in the provisions of this bill—first, sequestrations in France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Prussia, and Russia. Second, those who have sailed to France under the faith of the Duke of Cadore's letter of the 5th of August. Third, importers of British manufactures. But it would seem by the arguments I have heard advanced in this House that there were only the latter class to be provided for, and, as I presume British precedent and authority will be admitted by the gentleman from Massachusetts to be good evidence, I will inform him and the House, what was the concurrent testimony of the English merchants before the bar of the House of Commons on the subject of exports and imports of the United States. They stated on oath that the exports to the United States were about twelve millions sterling, and that the imports were about four millions on an average for the years 1802, 1803, 1804, when there were no decrees against American commerce, and consequently it took its own natural channel and supplied each market according to its natural consumption. The difference between export and import being about eight millions sterling against us. Those English merchants state that it was made up and received from our trade with continental Europe; this has not been disproved by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor by his friend Stevens, of War in Disguise—it is a fact; they cannot deny it. And shall we be told about the profitable commerce with Great Britain? After a statement of these facts, shall we go on to gorge their warehouses with twelve millions sterling of produce, when their own internal consumption does not exceed four millions sterling? I hope not; and I do trust that the time is not far distant when we shall assert and defend our just rights.

Mr. Blaisdell.—Mr. Speaker: nothing would induce me to address you at this late hour, while there is so great a commotion in, and so many tokens of impatience manifested by, the House, but a sense of duty, and a desire to lend my feeble aid in arresting the progress of a measure which, in my opinion, involves a question of no less importance than whether we are prepared, after having been insulted, robbed, and deceived, by the French Emperor, to follow the fatal example of the petty, servile States of Europe, and throw this people into the embraces of that monster, at whose perfidy and corruption Lucifer blushes and Hell itself stands astonished. If I understand the amendment of the honorable gentleman from Virginia, its principal object is to renew the non-intercourse of 1809, so far as it respects Great Britain, which was previously attempted to be revived by the proclamation of the President of the second of November last. I should have supposed that, rather than have made so glaring a confession that that State paper misstated fact, the gentleman would have been dissuaded from his darling object, the non-intercourse. But it seems that when it comes in competition with the views of Napoleon, the veracity of the President must be sacrificed. But, sir, convinced as I am, that our paper war, which has been applied to all purposes, even to calling out the army, raising the militia, pressing the horses, &c., and sending them on an expedition the distance of five hundred miles, with express orders not to fight, has damned the character of this Government, broken down the spirit of the nation, embarrassed our citizens, and emptied the late overflowing Treasury, so as to render the resort to borrowing necessary; I cannot but hope that the amendment on your table will be rejected to give place to an amendment offered some days ago by an honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. Emott,) when this bill was under discussion in Committee of the Whole.

Sir, if I understand that amendment, it went to suspend the whole restrictive system, except the third section of the law of May last, which saves fines and forfeitures incurred under our various restrictions. This amendment, to be sure, changes the position recommended by the Executive, but not much more than the bill, with the addition of the amendment now under consideration. Although it becomes this House to pay due deference to Executive recommendations; yet, if there are good reasons for a departure from such recommendations, it equally becomes the members of this House, out of a regard to the correctness of their own proceedings, to make such a departure correspond with the reasons which produced it. The position recommended by the Executive made its first appearance in a short paragraph in the President's Message, recommending such a modification of the law of May last, as would remove all doubts as to its exposition and execution; for the details of such modification we are referred to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury. In this report we find a project recommended to enforce the non-importation against English merchandise of every kind and from every country. In the first place, by making the proclamation of the President, declaring that the French edicts had ceased to violate our neutral commerce on the first day of November last, the only evidence of that fact; and in the second place, by authorizing the officers of the army and navy to enter ships, dwelling-houses, stores, or any other place, to search for and seize merchandise suspected of being imported contrary to law, and making a donation of the boon so seized to the wretch who should be hardy enough, in defiance of all moral obligation, thus to rob his neighbor; and in the third place, by declaring all merchandise so seized in the Northern section of the Union, adjoining the British provinces, to be forfeited, unless by a palpable inversion of the rule of evidence in all other cases, and even in this case, adopted in all other sections of the Union, he is able to prove that the merchandise was legally imported and the duties paid—with many other provisions, all of which have been laid before this House, in the first bill on the subject reported by the Committee of Foreign Relations, the details of which are too well recollected to need pointing out, or to be suffered to meet a public investigation at this time.

But, sir, with all due deference to the high ministerial officer who recommended the project, and likewise to the honorable committee who reported the bill, I may be allowed to pay it the compliment of saying that, in my opinion, previous to the reign of that tyrant, who, by a military force, aided by projects of this kind, has destroyed the sanctuary of justice, and has spread pillage, debauchery, robbery, and death, throughout the greater part of Europe; such a bill as that would have been scouted from this Hall as the production of a madman. But on receiving the Message of the President, covering the letters of Mr. Russell, the American Chargé des Affaires at Paris, stating that American vessels, loaded with bona fide property of American citizens, had been seized and sequestered in the ports of France, under the Berlin and Milan decrees, as late as the 9th of December, doubts seemed to arise in this House, whether the decrees had ceased to operate on the first of November, as the President had declared. And the bill was sent back to the committee, for the purpose, as I understood, of bringing in a bill to suspend the operation of the law of May last, until we should hear from France, whether the Emperor had disavowed those seizures, and whether the decrees had actually ceased to operate on the first of November. And I did understand the honorable chairman of the committee, and several other gentlemen on the other side of the House, to say on that occasion, that if, after we had new arrivals from France, that did not prove to be the case, they should be as ready as any gentleman to repeal the whole code of restrictive laws until the Emperor should learn to respect our rights. What evidence have we had since to give us a more favorable prospect, as it respects the revocation of the decrees? Not a syllable. But, on the other hand, we have conclusive evidence that they were not so revoked that their operation ceased on that day.

If it be asked where this evidence appears, the answer is ready. In the first place, by the letter of the Grand Judge, the Duke of Massa, to the President of the Council of Prizes, as also by the letter of the Minister of Finance to the Director General of the Customs, both dated the 25th of December, fifteen days after the manly remonstrance of Mr. Russell, in the case of the Orleans Packet; in which remonstrance he states the outrageous conduct of the custom-house officers, and requests a prompt and speedy disavowal of the seizures, and that the property be again placed in the hands of the owners. But, sir, is there any thing in these two letters which looks like a disavowal of the seizure in express violation of the promise of the Duke of Cadore? No, sir, although these letters were written fifteen days after the remonstrance of Mr. Russell. Instead of this they both agree that the decrees did not cease to operate on the first of November, but that the property taken with the Orleans Packet, and all the property which should be seized between the first of November and the second of February, must remain in depot to wait the pleasure of the Emperor, on our causing our rights to be respected by England.

But how, Mr. Speaker, are we to cause our rights to be respected? Is it by merely reviving the law of May last, as is the object of this amendment? Certainly this is not their meaning; for both these letters have reference to that law, as well as the proclamation of the President giving it effect, and to the circular of the Secretary of the Treasury, addressed to the collectors of the several ports, enjoining a strict execution of that law. No, sir, this is not what is to be done, which will satisfy the Emperor. He who flatters himself that this will be sufficient, shuts his eyes against official evidence to the contrary; as well in the above-recited letters, written with a perfect knowledge of the performance on our part, and the promise of a performance on the part of France on the first day of November, as in the letter of the French Minister in the United States on the 12th of December, in which we are told that the French restrictions on our commerce are not to cease, but only on the result of firm and energetic measures to be adopted and persevered in by the two Governments against the common enemy.

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.