House had not the power to legislate. Although it was a general principle that all petitions should be heard, this rule certainly did not include petitions on local matters, or Siate concerns, on which the House had no jurisdiction. It seemed to him improper, therefore, that the petitions should have been received; but, having been received, he wished them to lie on the table.

Mr. BACON observed that the adoption of the resolution would not commit the House at all. He was aware that there was a difficulty in acting on this subject, and he only wished to give an intimation to the Senate that such petitions had been received. It was but decorous to the petitioners that their petitions should be brought into view; though, Mr. B. said, with the gentleman from Kentucky, he doubted whether anything could be done for them.

The resolution was agreed to-yeas 51, nays 24.

REPEAL OF THE EMBARGO.

H. of R.

gentlemen, they would have mistaken the source of our calamities, and, shutting their eyes against the attacks of our enemies, have found nothing to condemn but their own Government; and least of all did I expect it from the gentleman from Delaware, whose candor I had highly appreciated; nor am I now willing to accuse him of a want of candor, although his statements are partial, and his conclusions incorrect, but rather attribute it to that unfortunate imperfection of our nature which presents subjects to our minds in a form most congenial to our feelings. Looking at one side only, we are blind to the evidences on the other; and hence, often with the most upright intentions, we condemn measures which all honest men should approve.

The gentleman from Delaware set out with declaring that the Administration were the source from whence all our embarrassments have flowed. And how did he prove it, sir? Why, by recurring to the volume of documents published at the last session of Congress, upon which the nation has emphatically pronounced its judgment of ap

The following resolutions were offered by Mr. DURELL on Saturday, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the resolutions of Mr.proval. I am surprised that it escaped the sagaNICHOLAS and Mr. BACON:

Resolved, That the United States will consider any capture and condemnation of merchant vessels of the United States, owned wholly by a citizen or citizens thereof, and engaged in lawful commerce, by an armed vessel sailing under a belligerent flag, and acting by and under authority of orders, decrees, or edicts violating the lawful commerce or neutral rights of the United States, as a declaration of war on the part of that Government to which said belligerent flag shall belong, and in whose courts such condemnation shall be had.

Resolved, That the President of the United States, on being satisfactorily informed of such capture and condemnation, as aforesaid, be requested, forthwith, to recall from such belligerent State, by and under whose authority such capture and condemnation shall be made, such resident Minister or Ministers of the United States as may reside at the Government thereof.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the resolutions offered by Mr. NICHOLAS, Mr. BACON, and Mr. DURELL.

The amendment offered to Mr. NICHOLAS's resolution by Mr. RANDOLPH, in the following words, being under consideration: "To authorize the 'merchant vessels of the United States, owned wholly by citizens of the United States, to arm ' and defend themselves against any armed vessels 'sailing under the British or French flag, so long as their orders or decrees remain unrevoked:" Mr. J. G. JACKSON rose and addressed the Chair as follows:

city of the gentleman, that in that volume we have official information that those embarrassments owe their origin principally to the hostile spirit Mr. predominant in Great Britain against us. Monroe, in his letter concerning the Chesapeake, (Doc. No. 1, p. 20, communicated last Winter,)

states:

"Such is the state of this country [Great Britain] at the present crisis, that it is impossible to foresee what will be its conduct towards the United States. There has been at all times, since the commencement of the present war, a strong party here for extending its ravThis party is combined of the shipages to them. owners, the navy, the East and West India merchants, and certain political characters of great consideration in the State. So powerful is this combination, that nothing can be obtained of the Government, on any point, but what may be extorted by necessity," &c.

The same evidence of hostility occurs again, in page 23 of the same document. Mr. Monroe observes;

"By Mr. Canning's queries, in his last note, I was led to consider it as preparatory to an embargo on American vessels, and intended to found some measure, on my reply, of an unfriendly nature, as most of the gazettes had recommended, and the public mind seemed to be essentially prepared for it."

In Mr. Monroe's valedictory letter, (Doc. No. 4, p. 44) he states:

"Great Britain was resolved to yield no ground which she could avoid, and evidently prepared to hazard war, rather than yield much."

Mr. Chairman: The questions before the Committee most assuredly involve the destinies of this I prefer relying on the testimony of Mr. Monroe, nation, its honor, and most essential interests. We rather than on the unequivocal acts of a hostile have arrived at a crisis, solemn and portentous, character committed by Great Britain, because which no human wisdom could foresee, no pru Mr. Monroe has been considered better authority dence avert. The injustice of foreign nations has with certain gentlemen than his Government itself; increased with their knowledge of our pacific dis-and the facility of explanations, disavowals, and positions, until, driven to the wall, it behooves us to make a stand in defence of our country, its liberties, and its rights. I could not have supposed that, at such a period, with the full lights before 10th CoN. 2d SESS.-44

all that, do a way the force of measures which may be taken towards us, in the estimation of men who always attempt to put their Government in the wrong. This gentleman it is, who tells us that

6

6

6

FEBRUARY, 1809.

the ship-owners, the navy, the East and West In- referring to his instances, he adds: "I think mydia merchants, and certain political characters of self perfectly correct in stating that nothing ocgreat consideration in the State, are for war with 'curred in our conferences to justify an inference us; that the gazettes had recommended, and the 'that he thought them unreasonable. They were public mind were prepared, for hostile measures; postponed from time to time, at his instance, and that they would yield nothing that was not ex- finally transferred to Lord Harrowby, his succestorted, and risk a war rather than yield much. sor." Page 80 of No. 3, we find that Lord VinAnd pray, sir, who are the characters described cent entertained the subject in August 1806. by him? Why, the whole ruling interest in that | Page 84, Mr. Fox expresses his solicitude to make nation. When such language is addressed to the such arrangements as will render perpetual a American people, and they contemplate what are system of mutual friendship." Page 93, Messrs. the claims of their Government-what has been Monroe and Pinkney state that Lords Holland its forbearance; how just are its pretensions, and and Auckland "were diligently and anxiously how hostile those of Great Britain-I am filled employed in endeavors to devise an arrangewith surprise unutterable that their ignorance can ment which should be convenient and honorbe so far counted on by men among us as to able to us, and at the same time free from imexpect credit for their charges that we are hostile proper hazard to Great Britain;" and in page to Great Britain; that we are enforcing unjust 109, the same gentlemen inform their Governdemands; and that we are in the wrong! The ment that "to (their) original project thus amendgentleman from Delaware accuses the Govern-ed, the British Commissioners seemed to give ment of neglecting our interests-of omitting to their assent." In No. 1, page 41, even Mr. Ĉantreat with Great Britain in time. We know, sir, ning, the redoubtable and polite Mr. Canning, by painful experience, that treaties are a poor bar- condecends to admit that "at a proper time Great rier against belligerent encroachinent; and whilst Britain may be ready to entertain it." Away we observe them with good faith, they are wan- then with the idle charge that the Executive tonly violated by others. We have now a treaty were insincere, and have proved it, by urging a with Great Britain, consisting of ten articles. point which they knew never would be, and They are to be perpetual, and the first of them never could be conceded; for all the Administradeclares, that "there shall be a firm, inviolable, tions of England professed a willingness to remand universal peace, and a true and sincere friend-edy the evil. One of them proposed to enter into ship" between them and us. Notwithstanding an agreement to do it partially, and Mr. Canning which, they have violated our peace, and tram- himself, at "a proper time," will listen to you. pled upon all the ties of friendship. Treaties, After disposing of this serious charge, I come to therefore, are nothing-the laws of nations are the merits of the question. Was the ground nothing, also. taken by us concerning seamen, proper? Did the honor and rights of the nation require it? In considering this important subject I will examine,

1st. The practice of impressments, and the right to exercise it.

to?

2d. Shall it be tolerated? can it be submitted

3d. The propositions made by us to Great Brit ain in relation to it.

4th. The formal arrangement.

But sir, there was no neglect on our part to make a new treaty; for the moment the Treaty of '94 was loosened from around our neck, where it had hung like a millstone, offers were made— measures were taken to enter into stipulations with them; and the gentleman, aware of his mistake, changed his ground, by asserting that the Executive took a position in relation to seamen, which they knew would not, and could not be conceded by the British Government. Sir, the reverse is the fact; and as mine is a matter-of- Upon the first point, I will call the attention of fact argument, as the principles I assume can be the Committee to the volume of documents pointsubstantiated, I will adduce my proofs, for with ing out the practice and its injustice. Nothing intelligent men, they are worth all the declama- that I can add would shed light upon it; the hand tion of the most eloquent orators. The position of a master is seen in the able elucidation, which I take is this-the Executive had the best reasons no one who deserves the name of freeman can for believing that Great Britain would give up read, without feeling honest, honorable indignaher claim to the right of impressment. In No. 2, tion; and resolve that he will rally round the page 20, it is stated an arrangement had been constituted authorities to resist the usurpation. made with Mr. King, to give it up, and the only Sir, I intended to read to the Committee the luobstacle was an exception of the "narrow seas." minous letter of Mr. Madison, in pages 14, 15, 16, No. 3. page 32, the same fact occurs. In 1802 17, 18, and 19, of No. 2, of the documents, but I Lord Hawkesbury agreed with Mr. King "to pro- perceive that I shall be drawn into a much more hibit impressments altogether on the high seas." lengthy discussion than I intended, and shall ocIn page 5 of No. 3, it is repeated; then surely it cupy more time than I ought. I will therefore was reasonable to believe that Great Britain omit reading it. It is, or ought to be, in the hands would relinquish it entirely, when she had offered of every man, and is doubtless recollected by all; to relinquish it upon the "high seas." In Feb he speaks of the sacred regard in which property ruary 1806, page 112 of No. 2, Mr. Monroe in-found on the high seas is held by all nations'; forms Mr. Fox, that he had presented the subject that no matter how manifest the presumption is, to his predecessor, Lord Hawkesbury, and after that it is liable to seizure; no matter how incon

1st. To afford no refuge or protection to Brit-thereby afforded-he construed it as it was inish seamen.

2d To deliver them up if they took refuge among us.

3d. To make laws for restoring them.

4th. To aid in searching for, seizing, and restoring them.

5th. To keep them in our prisons when requested.

6th. To prohibit our citizens from carrying

them off.

7th. To prohibit their employment.

8th. To make penal laws for punishing their employers.

9th. To make it our duty to restore them. 10th. To extend the foregoing provisions, not only to deserters, but all seafaring people..

6

6.

tended by the British Government. In his letter to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, page 32 of No. 3, he remarks,-the security is "that instructions have been given, and will be repeated, for enforcing the greatest precaution, &c. If the future instructions are to be repetitions of the past, we 'well know the inefficacy of them. Any instructions which are to answer the purpose, must differ essentially from the past, both in their tenor and their sanctions." His exposition was the correct one. The objections he took are conclusive; they contain the mullum in parro. The construction given by our Ministers is to be found in No. 3, page 138-9, wherein they state, our opinion is, that the practice would be essentially, if not completely, abandoned. That opinion What more could have been asked, required, or has been since confirmed by frequent conferences given, than is contained in these offers? Noth- on the subject with the British Commissioners, ing more-unless, indeed, they had asked our in- who have repeatedly assured us, that in their dependence, and, yielding to the requisition, we judgment we were made as secure against the had given it. Sir, we do not want the British exercise of their pretension by the policy which seamen, even when they are naturalized. If the their Government had adopted, in regard to that unfortunate inhabitants of Europe, escaping from very delicate and important question, as we could the tyranny of the old world, and panting after have been made by treaty." Again. in page 178 their long lost liberty, fly to the more hospitable No. 3-"It was their idea that by discontinuing regions of the new, I am willing, on their com- the practice in the mode proposed by them, &c. pliance with our naturalization laws, to receive the United States would in the interim enjoy the them into the American family, to let them par-security they sought." In their letter to Mr. take of the blessings we enjoy, whilst they remain among us; but I would prohibit their departure from this country, or, if they went off, refuse them our protection. If they are dissatisfied with their situation on the land. I would say to them, "your allegiance is still claimed by your parent country; we will not risk our peace for you out of our territorial limits; if you pass beyond them, you that it contained a concession in (our) favor, cease to be an American citizen." I would go favorable to our interest." [Mr. J. read those pasfurther, and prohibit them from owning American sages at length, and referred particularly to page registered vessels. Sir, those who come here in 7, wherein Mr. Monroe says]-“I mean however search of an asylum, go into the country; they distinctly to state, that it was understood that pursue agriculture. or the mechanic arts-they the practice heretofo e pursued should be abanare valuable men, and virtuous citizens; but the doned, and that no impressment should be made mongrels who infest the sea port towns, wear your on the high seas," excepting in cases like one privileges as a cloak to hide their foreign con- put to him, wherein he supposes a merchant vesnexions-they are wolves in sheep's clothing-sel laying in the Tagus, and the desertion of seaBritish merchants, under American colors; they men from a British ship of war to the merchant interrupt your happiness, and endanger your safety. vessel, that there it would be reasonable, "and to I come now to the informal arrangement made such cases it was understood that the practice with the British Ministers, which it has been al should in future be confined" Our Ministers leged secured our seamen against impressments. were mistaken-for the obvious import of the What was it? See No. 3, p. 117 and 118-"His words in the British note is (if it meant anything) Majesty's Government has not felt itself pre- a complete recognition of the right, which we pared to disclaim, or derogate from a right which deny; and a mere promise to exercise it cauhas ever been maintained, &c., and actuated by tiously. But, sir, I stand upon firmer ground an earnest desire to remove every cause of dis- than the exposition of our Government and the 'satisfaction, has directed his Majesty's Ministers fair meaning of the note. I have British authorto give to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney theity for saying that they were mistaken; and I most positive assurances that instructions have will bring before the Committee a most important

เ

Canning, page, 208 of No. 3, referring to the informal arrangement, they state, that as "an effectual equivalent for the forbearance of the practice" the informal understanding was, that its practical effect would remove the vexation complained of." Mr. Monroe, in his letter No. 4, pages 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, even goes further-he contends

To which they returned the following answer, tain the discussion of any plan that can be devised to dated July 28, 1807:

secure the interests of both States, without any injury to rights to which they are respectively attached." The Sec-obvious sense of this paragraph, and the forms and substance of the completed treaty, and the proposed additional articles, appear to us to leave no doubt relative to the mutual understanding and views of those who were employed in a negotiation of such importance to their respective countries.