(Mr. BURWELL) yesterday, connected with all those acts which I have recited, manifests a determination on the part of Great Britain, that our pride shall be humbled, the commerce which we have enjoyed shall be destroyed; that we shall bow to the supremacy of her thousand ships, and that we shall not sail on the ocean without her permission.

H. OF R.

and pusillanimous, always have, and my life on it, always will shrink from a contest with the powerful and the brave, and expose themselves to the imputation of cowardice. The act was disavowed; Governor Grand Pré denied that it had been done with his cognizance. I recollect seeing an account in the public papers during the last summer, that some officer of the United How is it when we cross over the water and States had pursued deserters from one of the gunlook at France? We find by the proclamation of boats in the Mississippi within the Spanish lines, General Ferrand, an attempt made to regulate our there seized upon the individuals himself, and trade to St. Domingo, inconsistent with our rights. brought them within our jurisdiction, and reThe Berlin decree, declaring the British islands tained them in custody. Is there not a wide difin a state of blockade, although ineffectual be- ference between this act, committed in a foreign cause she had not the power of executing it, was territory by our own officers, and the one committed not less outrageous than many of the acts to in our territory by individuals instigated by forwhich I have referred of the British Government. eigners? And if there were no difference, would The Milan decree, which may be considered as a this be considered by the Spanish Government as supplement to the British orders, has endeavored cause of war against us? Would our Governto extend the principle and to render more effi- ment hesitate to disavow the act? Certainly not, cient the measures of destruction which are as we do not claim the right of invading a foreign aimed by both the belligerents against our com- territory for the purpose of seizing deserters; and A decree is also said to have passed at would the unauthorized act of one of our officers Bayonne, by which France attempts to execute be cause of war against us? No, sir. Then as the embargo laws by seizing those American certainly it would not be cause of war by us, unvessels which have not returned home, and is of less indeed we act upon the principle that where the same character with the others. The burn- the enemy is weak and pusillanimous we must ing our vessels is among the most flagitious of take upon ourselves airs of resistance; and when the whole, for which no apology can be offered he is great and powerful we must shrink from consistent with reason and justice, and for which the conflict. I therefore do not admit that a failno apology has been attempted but the impracti-ure to make war for this individual offence was cability of keeping them in possession from the superior naval force of Great Britain.

merce.

at this time.

a submission or a cause of the declension of our character abroad. If it has declined at all, it is But we were told the other day that a recapi- in consequence of the unjust attacks made on tulation of the injuries which we have received this Government and on the majority of this served but to blazon the dishonor of the country. House and the nation by enemies in our own It is proper that they should be recurred to, be- country. The nation which goes to war for an cause they are the groundwork of our proceed- ignis fatuus offence, will not be followed in it by ings, and it impossible to keep them out of view, the people. They will understand the causes of although the recital of them may tend to irritate the contest; and when they find their Governand wound the feelings. But the reproach comes ment right and their adversary wrong, then they illy from those who say that our Government is will rally around the public functionaries; and I chargeable with all these misfortunes, and are believe that all honest and virtuous citizens of not attributable to the acts of our enemies, for so the country who understand the causes of our we may call them (although not declared ene- present difficulty, though many are deluded and mies) who trample on our rights, add confisca-imposed on, will rally round their Government tion to insult, and murder to both. And how is this assertion proven? Why, we are told by Mr. RANDOLPH, that, in 1805, when the Kempers were taken from our territory by American citizens, we had submitted to the hostile tread of a foreign nation; that our character has declined abroad ever since; and that we ought to have gone to war at this time. What was the case of the Kempers? As well as I recollect it was this: These persons had committed an outrage within the Spanish territories. They were either Spanish subjects or American citizens; they took ref. uge within the American territory, and were seized by American citizens and negroes, carried out of our limits, and delivered up to the Spaniards. And was this cause of war? Is it from such cases as this that attacks from Europe have been encouraged? Should this natiou have gone to war for this act? No, sir; for the nation or individual who is alive to the insults of the weak

Not content, however, with saying that the affair of the Kempers has been a cause of disgrace to the nation, the same gentleman has told us that the non-importation law produced our difficulties; that he prophesied the consequences of it, and his prophecy has become history. I shall refer to documents which come in such a shape and from such a source as with the gentleman will be unquestionable; and I will attempt to prove from them that he is mistaken. Mr. Monroe, in his letter of March 31, 1806, says:

From what I can discern, I think that there is much cause to believe that Mr. Fox has the best disposition to settle our differences on just principles, but it must be recollected that some other of the members of the Cabinet have not always thought with him or such topics. On the most deliberate reflection, I am convinced that too much reliance ought not to be placed on these favorable appearances, and that there

à on

I suppose, therefore, sir, that the non-importation law is not, in whole or in part, the cause to which any of our embarrassments are to be ascribed, because the then Minister of the United | States, who, with the gentleman making the "I observed that he must be sensible, after the subcharge, is high authority, residing on the spot, ject had been taken up by Congress, as it was before witnessing the career of the administration even the change of the Ministry was known, that it was of Mr. Fox, advised the adoption of the measure; impossible for that body to dismiss it without some and it was precisely pursuant to such advice that expression of the rights of the United States in the some measure ought to be adopted, that the non-question in dsspute, without exposing itself to the charge importation law was passed. Then, with regard of having abandoned them. He seemed finally to adto the dispositions manifested by the British Gov-mit that the Congress could not well have avoided ernment in relation to it, we have the evidence of doing something in the business, and that the measure the same gentleman in his letter of May 17, 1806- which had been adopted ought to be considered as a

H. or R.

lieve that Mr. Fox has the best disposition to settle our differences on just principles, but it must be recollected that some other members of the Cabinet have not always thought with him on such topics. On the most deliberate reflec

stipulations with our Minister, being overruled by his colleagues in the Ministry. Let us recollect under what circumstances he came into office. His great talents had been arrayed against Mr. Pitt, who was the favorite of the King, and whom Mr. Fox and his party drove from power. Hetion, I am convinced that too much reliance was brought in, in opposition to the will of the ought not to be placed on these favorable apmonarch, being forced upon him by the nation; pearances," &c. Here we have still further and if he were not, he was prevented from acting proof of the disposition of Mr. Fox to settle the according to the disposition which he felt. On a affairs of this country, and of the impracticabilreference to the documents it will be found that ty of doing it because he was overruled by the he came into office on the 12th of February, from Cabinet. Pursuing the subject further, we find which time to the 31st of May, when information the same ideas introduced into his letter of April of the extraordinary mission arrived in England, | 3, 1806. was a period of near four months; and was a longer time than was necessary for settling differences with our Minister and entering into a treaty which could have been discussed and concluded in a few weeks. If it was not, it might well be said that our national affairs were hung up in a Court of Chancery, where discussion might be protracted ad infinitum, and a decision postponed

to the end of time.

We are informed, by the letter of Mr. Monroe of the 12th of February, that " as soon as Mr. Fox 'took possession of his office, he requested an interview with the foreign Ministers, which took 'place yesterday." After detailing a part of their conversation, Mr. Monroe says:

"I could not avoid intimating to him that the friendly disposition which our Government had shown, had been most ungenerously requited by his; that it seemed as if it had pursued a just and friendly conduct towards the United States, till the moment that the new coalition was formed, and gave the present blow when the prospect was favorable to success, and kept the business in suspense to see the result of affairs on the Continent and in the United States. He heard me with much attention and apparent interest, intimated that he had been accused of being too friendly to America, and when I spoke of the treaty with Russia, he observed that he had thought that the arrangement made by it was a good one, though I did not understand him as pledging himself by the remark to its conditions. I requested that he would make himself master, as soon as in his power, of the correspondence between Lord Mulgrave and myself, and give me an interview, which he promised. I am happy to add, on a view of all circumstances, that I think the prospect of arranging our affairs with this Government, especially that one which respects the trade with the colonies of its enemies, on satisfactory terms, a very favorable one. It is certain that nothing more favorable to such a result was, or could reasonably have been expected from the first interview with the present Minister."

Here we find that the disposition which characterized him while in the opposition had not deserted Mr. Fox when in power, and he intimated to our Minister that he had been accused of too friendly feelings to this country.

On the 31st of March, Mr. Monroe writes that Mr. Fox gives him reason to expect that the condemnation of American vessels, which was then very frequent, owing to the resuscitation of the rule of 1756, would be suspended. In the same letter Mr. Monroe says: "From what I can 'discern, I think there is the best reason to be10th CoN. 2d SESS.-21

"How the Cabinet is disposed in this question, it is not in my power to state. Some of its members are known to have differed with Mr. Fox in respect to the policy of Great Britain towards the United States on former occasions, and in similar cases. It is possible that the spirit of conciliation on which the Ministry is formed inay be felt in the present one. Every view, however, which I have been able to take of the subject, confirms me in the justice of the remarks which were communicated to you in my last of the 31st ultimo."

We are told in one of the letters which I have read, that Mr. Fox intimated that he would give orders to suspend the condemnation of American vessels. On the 18th of April, we find this had not been done, and although assurances had been given, the hostile acts were continued, as his influence had not been sufficient to procure a suspension of them. Mr. Monroe writes on the 18th of April that Mr. Fox had the day before said that he was essentially ready to proceed in the discussion of the subjects of difference.

"Some remarks of his having led the conversation to the merits of the principal topic, I told him that he must leave us in the enjoyment of the trade in question, and pay us for the property taken. To the first proposition he immediately assented. To the second, he said there would be objections. He added that he had taken steps to prohibit the further condemnation of our ships and cargoes, as I had desired, of which he intended to have informed me by note, but had been prevented by other business; he had no objection, however, still to do it."

In his letter of the 20th of April, Mr. Monroe says, " the prohibition mentioned in my letter of the 18th is to be extended to the seizure as well as the condemnation of our vessels, of 'which he is to give me an official note in a day or two." On the 28th of April, Mr. Fox, although he had stated on the 20th that he had taken steps to prohibit further seizures, said that such orders had not been issued; that in truth to issue them would be to give up the point in negotiation. What does this prove? Not that Mr. Fox would be guilty of sanctioning such an unpardonable libel on his own character, by equivocations in this way and doing nothing, but that he was controlled by his associates in the Administration. On the 28th of April, Mr. Monroe says:

"You will observe that Mr. Fox insisted in the late interview on restricting the trade with enemies' colo

nies in a greater degree than he had done in the preceding one. I am convinced that this was produced by the Cabinet deliberations on the subject, for I am strong in the opinion, that if left to himself, he would meet in arrangements which would place the whole business, and indeed all our relations, on the most broad and liberal basis, in a firm belief that, by so doing, he would advance the best interests of his country. But he has to consult and accommodate with others, some of whom may perhaps not enter tain in all respects the same sentiments, or be equally prepared to encounter, in a new scheme of policy, ancient and deep-rooted prejudices."

On the 17th of May we find the following: "After my interview with Mr. Fox, on the 25th ultimo, I waited a fortnight without hearing from him. This new instance of delay surprised me, because he had shown a sensibility to the former one, and did not seem aware of the necessity of adding to it."

Thus this friendly Ministry, with Mr. Fox at its head, although Mr. Monroe had given an opinion, from the intimations of Mr. Fox, that everything would be amicably settled, on the 16th of May had done nothing towards it, but we find the blockade of the coast, from the Elbe to Brest inclusive, notified to Mr. Monroe on that day. Heretofore assurances of friendship had not been wanting, and now we find them verified by the blockade of a coast of a thousand miles, which all the ships of war of Great Britain are scarcely competent to blockade in an effectual manner. Here comes proof to put assertion to the blush. In his letter of the 20th of May, Mr. M. says:

"With respect to the delay to which I am exposed, it is utterly out of my power to explain to you the cause. I have no reason to change the opinion which I have heretofore expressed of Mr. Fox's disposition on the subject, though I have had no late communication with him."

Talk of the extraordinary mission suspending negotiation, sir, when it is proven that it had been suspended from the 12th of April to the 20th of May!

"His present reserve is unfavorable, but it may be accounted for, and on principles which are quite natural, and therefore presumable. He may have experienced more difficulties in the Cabinet than he had expected. Many of the members may be indisposed to an arrangement on such terms as can be accepted, and most of them willing to postpone any decision, until the result of the proceedings in Congress is

DECEMBER, 1808.

ment, but to a persevering disposition of a part of the British nation, not to permit our rights to be exercised or acknowledged on the high road of nations.

Sir, the effect of these decrees and measures, which I have noticed in the course of my observations, has been to sweep our commerce from the ocean, and even from the seashore, because there the commerce of the United States has been attacked, or if permitted to be carried on, it is only on conditions which every man in this House, every American, must spurn with indignation. What! shall we pay tribute for permission to sail on the ocean? The idea is too preand Warren, and a host of worthies, who bled posterous to be combated. Montgomery. Mercer, for the attainment of our independence, died in vain-WASHINGTON and his compatriots, who, at the expense of toil and bloodshed in the field, aided by our Solomons in the Cabinet, established our independence, fought to little purpose, if, after the lapse of a short period of thirty years. we can consent to pay tribute for the liberty of exercising an undeniable right. But I have as yet considered these measures, these encroachments of the belligerents, only with reference to their effects on ourselves. I will now consider them with reference to violations of neutral right affecting each other.

First, let us consider the measures of Great Britain. The impressments of our seamen, a topic on which I can never think with coolness or without sensations which confound my judgment, are not to be considered injurious only in reference to us. They have been injurious to the enemies of Great Britain, because they have tended to maintain the naval superiority of that nation which has kept all the Powers of Europe in check, and dictated maritime law to all nations, and would have been just ground of complaint by France against us if we had acquiesced in them. The vexation of the colonial trade; what is it? I have merely glanced at it, because I was aware that if I had extended my remarks I should have destroyed the patience which I fear I have already almost exhausted. The colonial trade was one which enabled the enemies of Great Britain to subsist, and conveyed the produce of the enemy's colony to the mother country. France would then have had great right to complain if we had acquiesced in the destruction of this trade, because France reThen, in his letter of the 9th of June, Mr. cognised its legality in the war which gave rise Monroe writes word that accounts were received to the celebrated rule of 1756. A vessel during on the 31st of May, that the President and Sen- that war was captured by a British cruiser, reate had adopted the measure of a special mis- captured by the French, and brought into portsion. The negotiation had previously been sus- the recaptors claiming salvage. The vessel and pended by the impossibility of producing a con- cargo were discharged by the French courts, sentaneous disposition in the Ministry with whom which decreed the salvage was not due, because Mr. Fox was associated, and by whom he was the capture was illegal, and the Admiralty Court overruled. I must therefore conclude that the of Great Britain would have released the vessel charge is equally incorrect in relation to the fail- and cargo. Surely, then, they would have cause ure of the negotiation, as I have proved it to be to complain if we had acquiesced in that infracfutile as to the hostile tread of our territory; that tion of our commercial rights. On the subject neither the consequences ascribed to the one or of blockades, if we had submitted, France might the other were at all attributable to our Govern- I have complained with much greater right. The

known."

6

some

H. OF R.

Government of Great Britain has declared whole to him than in relation to the tyrant of the sea; Continents in a state of blockade; to use the that the language and instructions of the Governdiplomatic language of their orders, they tell us ment have partaken of this character; and that that "they must be considered as in a state of it has manifested more sensibility to the injuries rigid blockade." although perhaps the notifica- committed by France, than to those committed tion was made without a vessel to annoy the en- by Great Britain. When the Berlin decree was trance of the ports, and under a total impossibil-issued, Mr. Armstrong wrote to M. Decres immeity of annoying it within the limits marked out. diately for an explanation of it. It has been obThe law restricting our commerce with unblock- jected that although the explanations, given by aded ports was also a violation of the law of that Minister, were satisfactory, if he were the nations. In the case of the Cambrian, the com- proper organ of the Government, he was not the mander of which vessel has to be sure been pun- person of whom to ask them, that the Minister of ished by his Government with promotion, there Foreign Affairs was the proper person. But surely was also a cause of complaint if acquiesced in, the individual to whom the execution of the debecause it is actually prohibited by the law of cree was confided must be considered as the pronations that a belligerent shall increase his force per person to give explanations concerning its imwithin the territory of a neutral State. The port. But we have proof from Mr. Champagny, order of January, 1807, restricting the trade from the successor of Talleyrand, that Decres was the one port to another of a belligerent Power, was proper organ, and that he was to be consulted. also injurious to France, and of which she would Champagny, in his letter of August, 1807, says have had good cause of complaint against the that "as the execution of the maritime measures United States if we had acquiesced in it. All indicated by the imperial decree of the 21st Nothese are so many violations of neutral rights vember, 1806, rests naturally with his Excellency and national law injurious to France, and all but the Minister of Marine, and that moreover he the last preceded the Berlin decree, and the last has already had the honor of addressing you was before the operation of it. first observations on the application of that decree, I transmitted without delay your letter." Thus the Minister of Foreign Relations, to whom it is said that our Envoy at Paris should have addressed his note, and from whom alone he should have received them, referred him to the Minister of Marine for the proper explanations. So that the utmost diligence was manifested by the representative of this nation at the Court of France, in obtaining proper explanations in relation to the construction of the decree; and not only the explanation was satisfactory, but, what was more important, the practice under it was satisfactory also, as it corresponded with the explanation given. When our vessels were burnt at sea, an outrage so scandalous as to destroy the pretensions to civilization of the nation authorizing it, a special remonstrance was directed against the injurious How are the decrees of both belligerents con- procedure. When the offensive note of Mr. sidered with reference to an acquiescence by us? Champagny was presented, Mr. Armstrong was There never was a more base libel than the in- specially directed to remonstrate against it; and sinuation of acquiescence by us in the edicts of he did remonstrate in such terms as were consiseither. A recurrence to the documents will prove tent with the dignity and honor of this nation. it. The United States have never acquiesced in But when the infamous rider attached to the faany violation by either of the belligerents. But mous treaty was presented, there was no remonit is admitted by the minority that enough has strance directed, although that rider, with other been said as to Great Britain though not as to communications, from the same source, are equally France; that there has been an acquiescence in as offensive and equally obnoxious and repugnant French usurpations; and indeed it has been asserted, to every American feeling as the insulting lanwith a temerity not to be passed over with im guage of Champagny himself. Let us compare punity, that there has not only been an acquies-them, and see if I am not justified by facts in the cence in the decrees, but a disposition to obey the conclusion which I draw. Champagny sayscommands of the French Emperor. It is true that "In the situation in which England has placed the there has not been as much said or written in re- Continent, especially since her decrees of the 11th Nolation to France as to Great Britain, because the vember, His Majesty has no doubt of a declaration of injuries committed by the latter exceed those of war against her by the United States: whatever tranthe former tenfold. So far from admitting that sient sacrifices war may occasion, they will not believe there has been an acquiescence in the conduct of it consistent either with their interest or dignity to ac the conqueror of Europe and tyrant of France, a knowledge the monstrous principle, and the anarchy recurrence to the documents will prove that mea- which that Government wishes to establish on the seas. sures of greater vigor have been taken in relation | If it be useful and honorable for all nations to cause the

In what point of view are the decrees of France to be estimated in relation to Great Britain? The Berlin decree was mere brutum fulmen, and I will take British authority and prove that her own vessels could not venture to sea. The Berlin decree in part was no cause of just complaint, because it related to municipal regulations which do not interfere with the acknowledged rights of neutrals. The Milan decree was very hard on paper, but we are told, and it is verified by experience, that Great Britain yields nothing to the thunders of that artillery, it passes by like an idle wind which she regards not. But I acquiesce with pleasure in the declaration that both France and Britain are regardless of justice when opposed to the exercise of the power of prostrating our rights.