This is the language of the President. In pages 38 and 39 of the correspondence, we find the declaration of Mr. Smith, our Secretary of State, to General Armstrong, in the following words:

In pages 45 and 46, we have the declaration of General Armstrong and the Duke de Cadore. Mr. E. then read the following:

In page 47, we have the statement of Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney:

In page 71 of the correspondence, Lord Wellesley declares, in a letter to Mr. Pinkney:

From this, sir, it appears that if we are to credit the President, the Secretary of State, General Armstrong, the Duc de Cadore, and the British Minister, Lord Wellesley, the demand was confined to the blockade of 1806. Was this blockade such a violation of the neutral rights of the United States as to come decidedly within the act of the last session? Let us examine its features. This blockade is a compound one, presenting three distinct characters:

1. It obstructs a trade from one port to another of the same enemy—France for example. This trade has been denied latterly though not formerly, by Great Britain, to be free to neutrals. The United States assert the neutral right to it.

2. It obstructs a trade from the port of one enemy to the port of another—from a French to a Dutch port, for example. This is a principle not before asserted by Great Britain. The present Cabinet of Great Britain contended against its conformity to the law of nations, in opposition to their predecessors, who attempted to justify the orders of January, 1807, on that principle.

3. It obstructs the direct trade of neutrals from their own country to any part of the coast from the Elbe to Brest—a coast not less than a thousand miles. For this part of the blockade there can be no defence which is not applicable to the Orders in Council. This blockade has been continued for four or five years. No force, either adequate or inadequate, has been stationed for carrying it into effect. No new notification has been given. It is, in fact, like the Orders in Council, a permanent regulation of commerce, and has nothing of the character of a blockade, except the mere name. This blockade consists in great part of the same prohibition with the orders of January, 1807, in which it is said to be comprehended; that is, against a trade along the belligerent coast. If the orders be unlawful, therefore, the blockade must be so; and if the orders be repealed as a violation of neutral trade, in compliance with the act of Congress, the obligation to repeal the blockade, as a like violation, cannot be contested. This blockade of May, 1806, is in violation of the principles laid down by all authors on the subject of blockade. It is in violation of the principles laid down in all the treaties which attempted to define a blockade. It is in violation of the principles contended for by every Administration under the American Government, from the period of Washington to the present time. The correspondence under General Washington's Administration, between the Secretary of State and Mr. Hammond, may be referred to for the principles asserted under that Administration. In the correspondence before us we have the principles as laid down by General Marshall and Mr. King. To these I will refer.

Mr. E. then read the following extracts of letters from Mr. King and Mr. Marshall:

Extract of a letter from Mr. King to Lord Grenville, dated

Extract of a letter from Mr. Marshall, Secretary of State, to Mr. King, dated

I have shown, from the correspondence, that the blockade of May, 1806, was the only one included in the demand of the Executive. I have shown that it is not only a violation of our neutral rights, but of the principles contended for by men of all political parties under every administration of this country; and I cannot but express my regret that the gentleman from New York should consider that, under the law of the last session, this blockade ought not to have been included in the demand of the Executive on Great Britain; that he should declare in the hearing of the British agent that demands had been made by the Executive of the United States which it would be extremely convenient for us if Great Britain would allow, but which she never could yield. The gentleman from New York has entered into an argument to show that the Berlin and Milan decrees are not repealed. We have just heard of the arrival of a French Minister; he has left France at a time to bring us certain information on this question. I have no wish to enter on this interesting question, with a bandage round my eyes. Whether France has complied with her engagements; whether France has failed in her engagements, cannot be a subject of ingenious speculation many days longer. Whatever may be the information received, I shall endeavor to adhere to what I deem the real interests of my country, and, so far as I am able, to maintain its rights against the unprincipled aggressions of every foreign nation.

I will now make a few observations on the bill before the House. It contains but a single section, and exempts from forfeiture goods owned wholly by citizens of the United States, which shall have departed from a British port prior to the second day of February, 1811. When the report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of modifications of the non-intercourse system was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, it appeared to be the unanimous sentiment of the committee, that goods which had left a British port, before the President's proclamation reached the port, ought to be exempt from the penalty of the non-intercourse law, although they might not arrive until after the 2d day of February. It was considered not inconsistent with an honest compliance with our engagements with France, and seemed to be required by that general principle of policy which is adhered to in all free countries, of allowing sufficient notice to its citizens of the commencement of penalties and forfeitures. The bill for enforcing the non-intercourse system was reported with that limited provision. After the bill was printed various statements were received by the committee, all tending to show that the orders of our merchants were sent out in September and October; that, from the change in the actual state of commercial capital in this country, goods were at present purchased with cash, and not only became the property of our citizens under the orders of merchants sent before the President's proclamation issued, but were at the risk of the purchasers; that these goods were actually paid for before the President's proclamation issued; that they could not be brought in before the second day of February. The committee having previously decided that time ought to be allowed for the President's proclamation to reach a British port, and taking into view the great injury our own citizens would sustain from a rigorous construction of the law, determined to extend the time to the ultimate period at which a citizen could put his property on board without infringing the laws of his country. It is not supposed that the construction put upon the law is strictly within its letter—it is, however, perfectly within its object. It was designed to operate on the nation refusing to modify or withdraw its edicts. To give it a construction which would either confiscate property bona fide American, or lock it up in British ports, would be to destroy our own resources, and produce no effect on Great Britain. Under the sixth section of the law, it is not made unlawful to put on board British manufactures with the intent to import them, until the expiration of the three months after the proclamation; its being unlawful after that period depended on Great Britain's following the example of France and revoking her edicts; according, therefore, as the citizen was more or less sanguine, his interest might be more or less involved by supposing that Great Britain would withdraw. Orders sent previous to the issuing of the President's proclamation violated no existing law. Those sent afterwards cannot be considered as given in violation of law, inasmuch as the commencement of the law depended on a contingency, viz: the modification or withdrawal of the British orders. There is another circumstance which operated on the committee: The law of the last session was not considered by the committee as a plain rule of action which every citizen could clearly comprehend, and so arrange his affairs as to avoid its penalties. The fourth section of the act of last session revives certain sections of another act, on the happening of a certain event, three months after that event shall have been proclaimed by the President. This reviving section does not declare that on and after three months from the date of the President's proclamation there shall be non-intercourse, but that particular sections of a former non-intercourse law shall be revived. Each of the revived sections contain the words "20th of May next," and it has been made a question whether these words are revived as part of the sections. It is not supposed by me that such is a proper construction of the law. It is only stated for the purpose of showing that the law was not in that clear, decided form in which penal statutes ought to be enacted. In the construction given to the law, more regard was paid to its objects and principles than to its strict letter. And if, for the purpose of affording relief in cases peculiarly hard and operating on our own citizens exclusively, we have placed on the law a construction not warranted by its letter, I hope we shall be justified by the purity of the motives under which we have acted.

Mr. Emott explained.

Mr. Sturges said be was happy that he felt himself so situated that he could avoid that course of discussion upon the present occasion, so much reprobated by the honorable gentleman (Mr. Eppes) from Virginia. He said he should not undertake to enter into a discussion of our foreign relations, nor say much upon our restrictive system; that his friend from New York (Mr. Emott) had already done that fully and ably.

He said he was at present inclined to support the amendment proposed by the honorable gentleman, (Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee,) and if the words should be stricken out as proposed by that gentleman, (as one good turn deserved another,) he hoped he would be disposed to support a proposition, which he (Mr. S.) would then submit to the committee. If the committee should agree to strike out, Mr. S. would then propose to insert in lieu thereof, after the words "be it enacted" the following words, (which he read to the committee,) viz: "That an act entitled an act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes, passed May 1, 1810, be and the same is hereby repealed."

Mr. S. said he was inclined to favor the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee on another ground. He was not willing to imply by any vote of his a recognition of the efficacy of the non-intercourse law, so called, which could not, in his opinion, upon any principle, have any operative force, until the 20th of May next. He flattered himself, if gentlemen would be so good as to attend to him, that he should be able to demonstrate to their satisfaction the truth of this position; and that the chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, exercising his usual candor, would himself be satisfied. The law, passed March 1, 1809, contained a number of sections which went to prevent importations from Great Britain and France, and their dependencies. This law (containing a clause limiting its duration) was to expire at the end of the next session of Congress. The then next session of Congress ended the last of June, 1809. The law of March, 1809, therefore, then expired. The law of May 1st, 1810, enacted that certain sections of that of March, 1809, should be revived upon certain contingencies. Those sections, thus revived, are the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 18th. Mr. S. then recurred to those sections, and read the third, which is as follows:

[The section was here read.]

Mr. S. said it was unnecessary to read the other sections to which he had referred, as the phraseology, as to the time when they were to take effect, was the same as in the section which he had read. He said it would not answer the purpose of gentlemen who held a different opinion from him, to argue in such a case as the present, from the intention of the Legislature. He said it was a principle, in construing penal statutes, to construe them strictly. But he said it was not necessary for him, in support of his position, to resort to this rule of construction. The words of these sections are explicit, and the meaning plain. They are revived in the law of May, 1810. They must be considered as revived in todidem verbis—as the whole of the sections are revived generally, it is not competent to say that one part of the section is revived, and not the other part. If they had been transcribed verbatim, and incorporated in the law of May, 1810, there could have been no question; and there can be no difference as to this point between that case, and reviving them without excepting any part. Mr. S. therefore concluded, that as the expressions in the sections referred to were, that they were to take effect the 20th of May next; and the law reviving them passed the 1st of May, 1810; that they cannot have any efficacy until the 20th of May, 1811. And he said the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Eppes,) in attending to this point, had implied his doubts upon it by saying, that as there might be doubts among lawyers, though among unlearned men there could be none, the Committee of Foreign Relations, in reporting the bill now under consideration, were disposed to give a liberal construction to the meaning of the Legislature. But, said Mr. S., this cannot help the matter. No new law, in the nature of an explanatory law, can give efficacy to the former one, if that law would otherwise have no force. If, then, he was correct in his ideas upon the subject, and he thought every lawyer in the House must be of his opinion, Mr. S. asked, what is the consequence? He said that, from the 2d of February, any seizures which have been or shall be made by your custom-house officers, cannot be considered as legal. Your Federal courts cannot condemn property so seized; and in case they are made, your State courts will sustain actions of trover and trespass in favor of the owners thereof against such officers.

Mr. Wright.—Mr. Chairman: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Emott) labored yesterday for three hours on his proposed amendment to the bill under consideration, and exercised all his ingenuity to seduce us into a violation of the faith of the nation, pledged in the act entitled "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes." By this act the nation pledged itself to Great Britain and to France, "that if either of them should so revoke or modify their edicts that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, that the President should, by proclamation, declare the same; and that, three months after the date of said proclamation, no goods, wares, or merchandise, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the other nation, her colonies or dependencies, should be imported into the United States." The Government, strictly preserving her neutral character, at the same moment presented to both nations the same proposition, and by the solemnity of that act, in the face of the world, pledged the faith of the nation to the faithful performance of the condition above stated, on their part to be performed, in the event of either Great Britain or France so revoking or modifying their edicts that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States.

France, on the 5th of August, 1810, did so revoke her edicts that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, after the second day of November; and, although the fact has been established by the letter of the Duke of Cadore, of the 5th of August, to General Armstrong, our Minister at Paris, and by him communicated to the President of the United States; and, although the President did, by his proclamation, bearing date the second of November, in obedience to the said act of Congress, declare "that the edicts of France violating the neutral commerce of the United States had been so revoked or modified, that, from and after the second day of November, they would cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States;" whereby, after the expiration of three months from the date of said proclamation, by virtue of the act aforesaid, "no goods, wares, or merchandise, the growth, produce, or manufacture of Great Britain, her colonies or dependencies, should be imported into the United States, unless she, before the expiration of that time, revoked her edicts." Yet, sir, this gentleman, to the bill on the table contemplating a faithful execution of the non-intercourse law against Great Britain, has proposed an amendment that "no vessel or merchandise shall be liable to seizure or forfeiture, on account of any infraction, or presumed infraction, of the provisions of the act to which this act is a supplement;" thereby substantially to repeal the non-intercourse act, although France has revoked her decrees, and Britain has refused to revoke her Orders in Council, and by the last information from our Minister in London, every spark of hope of their being revoked had been extinguished.

That gentleman, a representative of the American people, has proposed this direct breach of public faith, and as a pretext to the unprincipled act, has had the temerity to declare "that the President had no authority to issue his proclamation; that the assurances of France to our Government were deceptive; that the Berlin and Milan decrees were not revoked; and that the non-intercourse act is not in force;" and thus has arraigned the President for issuing his proclamation.

By the constitution, the Departments of the Government are distinctly marked, and the President authorized, as the legitimate organ, to discharge every function of the Executive. Besides, the non-intercourse act has expressly authorized and directed him, by proclamation, to declare the fact of the revocation or modification of the edicts which the belligerents were by that act invited to revoke.

As well might that gentleman question the legitimacy of a treaty after it had been ratified and declared by proclamation, or an act of Congress after it had passed the usual forms and been duly published. Sir, this act of the President, as to every fact stated, implies absolute verity, and, like any other record, can be tried only by itself.

Had the gentleman contented himself with the discharge of his legislative duties, and indulged the President in the exercise of his Executive functions, we should have been relieved from a long speech, calculated only to inculpate the President and expose the gentleman's devotion to Great Britain. How, I ask, could the President act a different part, from the evidence in the case? The Duke of Cadore, the French Minister of Foreign Relations at Paris, in writing, informed General Armstrong, the American Minister at that Court, on the fifth of August, "that he was authorized to declare to him, 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, 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, conformably to the act you have just communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected by the English." General Armstrong immediately communicated it to the President, who, being thus in possession of the information, was not only authorized, but bound to issue this proclamation.

I would ask, if this diplomatic evidence, the established mode of communication between nations, is not to be received and respected, if national confidence is not destroyed, and an end put to all diplomatic intercourse? Was not the President, in good faith, bound to believe the fact, and, believing it, bound to act as he did?

Sir, if Great Britain had made the like communication through Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney, and he to the President, who had, thereupon, issued his proclamation, what would have been the conduct and language of this gentleman and those who think with him in political opinion? They would, I have no doubt, been prepared to eulogize the President, and publicly approve the act. In this assertion I am not left to conjecture, but will prove it by the most unequivocal evidence, if the gentlemen are consistent with themselves. You will recollect that, by the act of the first of March, eighteen hundred and nine, interdicting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their colonies and dependencies, after a certain period, unless they should so revoke or modify their edicts that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, the President in the case of either power, so revoking or modifying their edicts, was authorized by proclamation to declare the same, whereby the interdictions were, as to the power so revoking, to be suspended, and in force only against the other; and I hope you never will forget the deep game that was played by Great Britain on that occasion, and the diplomatic trick that was practised on our Administration by Mr. Erskine's memorable treaty. The President then placed full faith in the act of the British Plenipotentiary, and, on the signing of that treaty which revoked the Orders in Council, immediately issued his proclamation, and thereby dissolved the commercial injunction, whereby Great Britain was supplied with the necessaries of her existence. Then the President acted promptly, as in the case of France; then he acted on the information of the British Minister as he did in the case of France on the information of the French Minister. Then the treaty revoking the Orders in Council was rejected by the British Government; but now, in the case of France, the revocation of her decrees is confirmed and carried into full effect. But the proclamation in the case of France is denounced by the gentleman from New York as neither formal, substantial, nor by authority, although by comparing it with the proclamation in the case of Great Britain, which I hold in my hand, it will be found formally and substantially a copy of it, varied only as to the Government to whose proceedings it relates. When I assure you that the President's proclamation in the case of Great Britain met with the approbation of the gentleman from New York and his political friends, you will feel surprised at their partiality; but, when you examine the resolution of the House of Representatives approbating the conduct of the President in that case, you will feel no doubt of the fact.

Sir, this gentleman has told us that the non-intercourse act is not in force, and that the American people will not submit to its execution, notwithstanding the revocation of the French decrees, the continuation of the British Orders in Council, and the President's proclamation. Whence does this gentleman derive the power of declaring an act of Congress not in force, declared by the President's proclamation to be in force? Or in what section of the Union does the gentleman presume to say the American people will not submit to the law? That that gentleman's speech was intended to sow sedition among the people, and to encourage insubordination to this law, is too obvious.

Sir, the decrees of France, now they are revoked, seem to be more obnoxious to that gentleman than the British Orders in Council, now in full force. He denounces the Emperor for the Rambouillet decree, issued the twenty-third of March, eighteen hundred and ten; which subjected the ships of America to condemnation entering the ports of France, which the Emperor declares was an act of retaliation; because Congress had by their act of March, eighteen hundred and nine, subjected the vessels of France to condemnation entering the ports of the United States, yet that gentleman, when speaking of the British blockading order of eighteen hundred and six, issued without even a pretext, which by proclamation without investment subjected our ships to condemnation entering the ports of France, says, "with respect to their Orders in Council I have nothing to say as to their justice or their policy." He is prepared to condemn France for her act of retaliation, but he is not prepared even to speak of Great Britain's new paper blockading system, much less to declare it unjust or impolitic; although Sir William Scott, in 1 Robinson's Rep. page 96, expressly declares, "that no vessel was liable to condemnation for entering a port alleged to be blockaded, unless it was invested by such a naval force as to make the entry therein hazardous."

Sir, I am no apologist for France—nor do I know how any American, particularly a member of Congress, can be the apologist for either, after France and England have both expressly admitted, that their Orders in Council and decrees were direct violations of the law of nations, and adopted from necessity, as a measure of retaliation against each other, and have each charged the other with the first aggressions on our neutral rights. On examining that subject, I find that England, by her Orders in Council of May, eighteen hundred and six, by proclamation had placed France in a state of blockade; that France in eighteen hundred and seven had placed the British isles in a like manner in a state of blockade; that England, by her Orders in Council of the eleventh of November, eighteen hundred and seven, laid a toll on neutral vessels, and made them pass through her ports; France, by her decree of the seventeenth of December, eighteen hundred and seven, declared the vessels submitting to that order denationalized, and lawful prize; so that by their new principle of blockade, and their unprincipled retaliations, the commerce of the United States was cut up by the roots. The American Government, anxious to preserve the remnant of the property of the American merchants, that had escaped the rapacity of the tyrant of the ocean, on the twenty-second of December, eighteen hundred and seven, passes the embargo law, which the seditious clamors of certain arch traitors in the Eastern States, the violation of the law by treason and cupidity, induced Congress on the first of March, eighteen hundred and nine, to repeal, and to pass the present non-intercourse law, continued, under which France has revoked her decrees of Berlin and Milan, and now expects us to fulfil the conditions which we voluntarily imposed on ourselves, in the event of either revoking their decrees.

Sir, while Great Britain finds such able advocates on this floor, she will find no necessity to redress our wrongs, but will wait the issue of our proceedings in Congress, to see if our remedial laws are not repealed, or our citizens excited to oppose their execution. But we ought not to be surprised at this, when we take a retrospective view of their conduct, their united and uniform opposition to the Administration for many years. They have reprobated every measure—Mr. Erskine's British treaty only excepted—and, as soon as that was rejected by the British Government, as being made contrary to instructions, our Administration was charged with making it, knowing that Mr. Erskine had no authority, and with seducing him to make it contrary to instructions. Afterwards, when Mr. F. J. Jackson, of Copenhagen memory, was sent over as a Minister, while his hands were yet stained with the innocent blood of the inhabitants of Copenhagen, and insulted the administration with the charge of making the treaty with Mr. Erskine, knowing that he had no authority to make it, and after the peremptory asseveration "that Government had no such knowledge, that with such knowledge no such arrangement would have been made," and "that no such insinuation could be admitted," he replied, "that he made no insinuation, without being able to substantiate a fact, and in that I must continue;" thereby persevering in the charge of falsehood in the Administration for which he was dismissed. Again our Government was expressly charged with knowing that Mr. Erskine had no authority, and with dismissing Mr. Jackson without any just cause; that his charge was true, and that in this the Government acted under the influence of France. In order to make such an impression on the public mind, Mr. Jackson is treated with uncommon attention. When he arrives at Baltimore he is surrounded by tories, royalists, Burrites, and British agents, and treated with great politeness—when he arrives in Philadelphia, he is overwhelmed by the civilities of refugees, tories, Burrites, and United States' Bank directors—when he arrives at New York, he is received with open arms by a set of beings of the same description, who invite him to a public dinner, and to test their attachment to the British Government treat him to "God save the King"—when he reaches Boston, there is great parade indeed; he is welcomed to the city by tories, traitors, disorganizers, and embargo-breakers, and Fanueil Hall, once the Council Chamber of the patriots of the Revolution, is prostituted to the disgraceful purpose of a public dinner to this disgraced Minister, and there we see a distinguished Senator of the United States testing his loyalty by the toast of "Britain's fast anchored isle, the world's last hope." After this hasty review of the past, we ought not to be surprised at any measures that may be taken against the Administration, when Great Britain is in the question.

Saturday, February 23.

Commercial Intercourse.

Mr. Milnor said: Mr. Chairman, when I take a view of the course which has been pursued in relation to this subject, during the present session, I confess I feel greatly surprised that we should be called upon to adopt the present measure. It will be recollected, sir, that, at a very early period, the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported a bill supplemental to the act of the 1st of May last. Although the gentleman did make one or two feeble attempts to call it up for consideration, yet it was manifest that there was a general indisposition to act upon it at that time. This, in the opinion of myself and many others, arose from a doubt in the good faith of the Emperor of the French. It was true that he had, through the Duke of Cadore, declared that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked on the 5th of August and that they should cease to have effect after the first of November; and it was also true that the President of the United States had, by his proclamation of the 2d of November, declared, not simply that this promise had been given, but that the decrees were revoked, and had ceased to operate. Notwithstanding this declaration of the President, the previous conduct of the French Emperor inspired an almost universal doubt of his good faith, and the curious character of the declaration made by Cadore, was calculated to increase it. The decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked; that is, dead on the 5th of August, and ceased to have effect; that is, to live on the first of November; thus this creature had the wonderful faculty of being dead and alive at the same time; of ceasing to have effect, and acting with full vigor at the same instant. While all was doubt and hesitation, despatches were received from Mr. Russell, our Chargé d'Affaires at Paris, which made it apparent that the decrees which were to cease to have effect on the first of November, were, in the month of December, still in existence, and in full and practical operation. It is now evident that the President was duped by the French Emperor, and led to issue a proclamation on the faith of his promise, declaring a fact which did not exist. So convinced were the House that this was the true state of the case, that the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations himself moved to recommit the bill he had previously introduced, and it was done. What, then, I would ask, sir, has since occurred to alter the face of affairs, to induce this new attempt to fasten on the restrictive system against our intercourse with Great Britain? Is there any thing in the last communication from the President, calculated to produce such an effect? On the contrary, it furnishes the most conclusive evidence of the treachery of Bonaparte, and ought to serve as a beacon to warn us against trusting him further. It is true that there is a letter from Mr. Pinkney to Lord Wellesley, dated December 10th, in which the former labors to prove, that Cadore's note to Armstrong is an absolute repeal of the French decrees, without any conditions precedent, and that therefore the British Government ought to be satisfied of its validity, and take immediate measures for revoking their orders and blockades, agreeably to their promise. But, it unfortunately happened that, on the same day on which our Minister at London was performing his duty, in transmitting his able but theoretical argument to the British Ministry, our Minister at Paris was also performing his duty in remonstrating against the practical operation of those very decrees, which were to have ceased to have effect on the first of November. [Here Mr. M. read the letter of Mr. Russell to the Duke of Cadore, dated December 10th, remonstrating against the seizure of the brig New Orleans Packet, it being the only case, as declared by Mr. Russell, to which the decrees could be applied subsequent to the first of November.]

I recollect, sir, when Mr. Russell's correspondence was communicated to this House, an apology was set up for the French Emperor. It was alleged that the President's proclamation had not arrived in France at the time of the seizure of the New Orleans Packet, and that Bonaparte, having received no evidence of the intention of the American Government to fulfil their engagement, had used the precautionary measure of seizing the vessel, until he should receive some evidence of our good faith; and we were exultingly told that the President's proclamation would put all to rights, by satisfying his doubting Majesty of our sincerity, and would induce him to release all property seized subsequent to the first of November, and once more to put an end to those nine-lived decrees. How has this prediction been verified? The President's proclamation was communicated to the French Government on the 12th of December, two days after Mr. Russell's remonstrance; and yet, for any thing we know, that remonstrance remains unanswered, and the New Orleans Packet remains under seizure to this very day. It is true that, after waiting thirteen days, His Majesty condescended to direct the partial suspension of the decrees, thereby giving the most positive proof not only of their existence, but of their active operation. On the 25th of December, the Dukes of Massa and of Gaete, by the direction of their master, severally wrote a letter to the officers connected with their respective departments, directing them to suspend the operation of those very decrees, so far as respected the condemnation of vessels and cargoes seized after the first of November; not only those then in custody, but such as should thereafter be seized. I will read a part of those letters for the purpose of refreshing the memories of gentlemen on the subject. The Duke of Massa writes to the President of the Council of Prizes as follows: "In consequence of this engagement entered into by the Government of the United States, to cause their rights to be respected, His Majesty orders that all the causes that may be pending in the Council of Prizes, of captures of American vessels, made after the first of November, and those that may in future be brought before it, shall not be judged according to the principles of the decrees of Berlin and Milan, but that they shall remain suspended; the vessels captured or seized to remain only in a state of sequestration, and the rights of the proprietors being reserved for them until the 2d February next, the period at which, the United States having fulfilled the engagement to cause their rights to be respected, the said captures shall be declared null by the Council—and the American vessels restored, together with their cargoes, to the proprietors." The letter of the Duke of Gaete is of a similar import. I will read a single paragraph, which is as follows: "His Majesty having seen in these two pieces" (the President's proclamation and Gallatin's circular to the collectors) "the enunciation of the measures which the Americans purpose taking on the second of February next, to cause their rights to be respected, has ordered me to inform you that the Berlin and Milan decrees must not be applied to any American vessels that have entered our ports since the first of November, or may enter in future; and that those which have been sequestered, as being in contravention of these decrees, must be the object of a special report."

Here, sir, we find these two officers, by direction of their master, explicitly recognizing the existence of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and suspending their operation not as to sequestration, but only as to condemnation. Not only those which had arrived after the first of November, but those which should thereafter arrive, were to be held in a state of sequestration, and to be subject to a special report. With this plain statement before their eyes, will gentlemen assert, can they possibly believe, that the decrees were revoked and ceased to have effect on the first of November? They surely cannot. If, then, the declaration of the fifth of August is proved to be false, and the assurance that the decrees should cease to have effect after the first of November was mere delusion, what becomes of the act of the first of May, and of the President's proclamation? Sir, they are mere dead letters, having no binding force or operation. The practical operation of the act of the first of May was to depend upon the performance of certain conditions on the part of one or the other of the belligerents, and the President's proclamation was intended as a mere notification of such performance. Admitting, then, that a faithful performance of the pledge of the fifth of August, on the part of France, would have had a binding force on us to carry our part of the agreement into effect, can any man under the existing circumstances believe we are so bound? Can a violation of a solemn pledge confer an obligation which was only intended to be created on the complete fulfilment of that pledge? Surely not. Sir, the law of the first of May, professed, on the face of it, to be impartial towards the two nations who have violated our rights. It promised that, if either would so revoke or modify her edicts as that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, in that case certain restrictive measures should be revived against the other. Have either complied? France did, indeed, make a declaration that her edicts were revoked, and should cease to have effect on a certain day. That day has long since passed, and, for any thing we know, those edicts are in full operation. Nay, we have positive proof of their active existence, nearly two months after they were to have ceased; for, on the 25th of December, their operation as to the condemnation of American property was suspended, while their power to sequester was absolutely recognized and continued. With such glaring, such positive proof before our eyes, of the perfidy of France, we are about to act as though we believed she had performed her promise with the utmost good faith. Nay, more, sir; if she had, indeed, complied with her engagement, she could require nothing more of us than the act of the 1st of May last; that was the full amount of our engagement, the utmost limit of our bond. Upon, and in consequence of that, was the Emperor's promise founded. Yet we are not satisfied with that; persisting, in the face of the most positive and conclusive testimony to the contrary, to affect to believe that he has performed his promise, we are going beyond our contract; and, lest some doubts should arise of the Emperor's want of faith, lest our courts should decide, as they must decide, that the decrees being still in force, the act of the first of May is a mere dead letter, we are about to volunteer our services, and, by the section of the bill now under consideration, to revive those sections of the old non-intercourse law which were intended in a certain event to have been revived by the act of the first of May; to revive them against Great Britain, and that without exacting any conditions on the part of France. And must this sacrifice be made in order to bolster up the President's proclamation so prematurely issued? Must the best interests of the nation be put to hazard to save him the mortification of acknowledging his error and retracing his steps? Here, I fear, lies the true motive for our present procedure.

This restrictive system is now to be revived against England, the French decrees being in full force and operation against us at the same time. Is this an honest neutrality? Is it equal and exact justice to those two nations? Is it not rewarding the perfidy of the one at the expense of the other, and at the expense of ourselves? Let us be cautious how we proceed in this course. If France choose, in consequence of our non-intercourse law of 1809, which was equal in its operation as to both nations, to take it so much in dudgeon as to confiscate the whole of the American property within her power, even that which had sought the rights of hospitality in her ports, how much more may Great Britain feel herself justified in retaliating on this most partial and unjust measure which we are about to adopt against her, by confiscating the millions of our property now within her power. And if we have been silent under the former, and have apparently acquiesced in it, what shall we, what can we, say, in case the latter event should take place? But, sir, the apologists of France tell us that His Majesty, the Emperor, has pledged his royal word that the decrees shall cease to operate as it respects us; and that, though he has thought proper to postpone the measure from the first of November to the second of February, he has only done so in order to ascertain whether we mean to go on to fulfil our engagements with good faith; that he is only holding our property seized since the first of November as security for our performance; and that, when he finds we are determined to resist the illegal orders and blockades of Great Britain, he will give up the property of our citizens. How insulting, this, to American feelings, to be told that a total violation of faith on the part of this man is excusable, because he chooses to suspect our faith. But, sir, do these people really believe the property of our citizens will be given up after the second of February, and in consequence of the measure we are now about to adopt? When did that voracious monster ever disgorge the plunder he had once received into his insatiable maw? Of the millions upon millions of which he has, at different times, and under various pretexts, plundered our unsuspecting citizens, where is the instance of a single dollar returning to its rightful owner? No, sir, let it once get within his iron grasp, and it is lost forever. The present measure is evidently intended as a propitiatory sacrifice to conciliate Napoleon—to induce him to become our friend, and to cease to rob and plunder our defenceless citizens. Is it calculated to produce this effect? Short-sighted as we confessedly are, sir, I should suppose we can scarcely be such silly politicians as to expect such an effect from such a measure. A brief view of the course which has been pursued, and is pursuing, by the Emperor of France, must produce a conviction in every unprejudiced mind, that he is not to be diverted from his purpose by a toy like this. Sir, it must be evident to every mind that his ambition soars to universal conquest. To this point all his measures tend—every other consideration is made to yield. For the accomplishment of this object, almost every nation on the Continent of Europe has been insulted, plundered, and subdued. To this end the external commerce of the continent has been annihilated, the agricultural and manufacturing interests have been depressed, and millions of his own subjects, and those of nations under his influence, impoverished and ruined. But there is one impediment to his gigantic project. Britain, proud, haughty Britain, stands in the way, and puts a stop to his career. Isolated, as she happily is, and the proud mistress of the ocean, she presents an impenetrable barrier to his ambitious views. But Britain must be humbled, she must be subdued. Her power on the ocean must be destroyed; and, to effect this, she must be attacked through her commerce and manufactures. For this purpose, what he is pleased to call his great continental system has been devised and rigorously enforced. Finding that all his restrictions and confiscations, aided by all his civil and military power, could not prevent the introduction of British merchandise upon the continent, he has resorted to a plan which promises to be more effectual. Regardless of the rights and interests of his subjects, he does not inquire whose the property may be; if it is of British origin it is committed to the flames. Such is his plan; such are the efforts and sacrifices he is making to insure its accomplishment. And yet, Mr. Chairman, it would seem as if we had the consummate folly to believe that we can appease this merciless tyrant by so weak, so silly, so futile a measure as this one now under consideration. We seem to have the madness to believe that this man, after the immense sacrifices he has made for the attainment of his object, would yield that object in our favor, and in order to be upon friendly terms with us would forego all other considerations. And from what premises is such a conclusion drawn? Is it from his past treatment of us? Let us, Mr. Chairman, take a brief review of his past conduct towards us, in order to see what we may expect in future. It is some years since he ordered our ships and cargoes to be burned upon the ocean, and many were burnt. He has, at various terms, and under different pretexts, seized and confiscated the property of our citizens on the ocean, and in his ports, and in the ports of his vassals. No longer ago than last spring, he told us that we were without just political views, without honor, without energy; and that, after refusing to fight for honor, we might find it necessary to fight for interest. This insulting declaration, which was dated on the 14th of February, was followed on the 23d of March by the Rambouillet decree, which confiscated all American vessels and cargoes which had arrived from the 20th of May, 1809, or should thereafter arrive in any port of France, her allies, or those occupied by her arms. Thus was from twenty to thirty millions of the property of our unsuspecting and confiding citizens, who had sought the rights of hospitality in his ports, sacrificed without a pretext, or with a pretext which added to the injury. Finding, after this gross violation of every principle which ought to govern honest and honorable nations, that our merchants, taught by sad experience that there was no safety within the range of his power, would venture there no more, he found it necessary to throw out another lure to entice the unwary within his reach. His tone is now suddenly changed. Instead of the haughty and insulting tyrant, he assumes the shape of a fond and doating lover. "His Majesty loves the Americans. Their prosperity and their commerce are within the scope of his policy. He is pleased in aggrandizing the United States." Yes, truly, His Majesty loves the Americans! If not for our persons, yet for our property, he has given the most ample and convincing proofs of his love. These sugared words, displaying so much of the milk of human kindness, seem to have perfectly reconciled us to his loving Majesty, and to have quite obliterated the remembrance of his harsh and unkind language so lately used towards us. And not only so, but it seems to have fully compensated us for all his robberies; and we forbear to touch that string, lest he might be somewhat ruffled, and once more induced to vent his anger on us. But lest his bare professions of love should not have the desired effect of inducing the Americans once more to place their property within his power, he directed his Minister to declare that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and should cease to have effect after the first of November. Our Administration, confiding in his assurances, in the face of all his previous conduct, published the proclamation of the second of November, and thereby assisted in deceiving our too credulous citizens. But few, however, ventured to place trust in him; and those who did, have met with a fate which every man of reflection ought to have anticipated. If, sir, such has been the course of that man's conduct towards us, (and that it has, I appeal to all the documents which have been laid before us,) I would ask why are we called upon to pass the section now under consideration? To me, it is matter of mystery and astonishment.

Monday, February 25.

Commercial Intercourse.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of Saturday last, to wit, the bill supplementary to the act entitled "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes," and the amendments reported thereto by the Committee of the whole House. The said amendments were read at the clerk's table.

Mr. Quincy.—Mr. Speaker: The amendments contained in the sections under consideration, contemplate the continuance and enforcement of the non-intercourse law. This proposition presents a great, an elevated and essential topic of discussion, due to the occasion, and claimed by this people, which comprehends within the sphere and analogies of just argument, the chief of those questions, the decision of which, at this day, involves the peace, the happiness, and honor of this nation. Whatever has a tendency to show, that if the system of non-intercourse exist, it ought not to be continued; or, that if it do not exist, it ought not to be revived; whatever has a tendency to prove, that we are under no obligation to persist in it, nor under any obligation to abandon it, is now within the fair range of debate.

After long delay, and much coy demeanor, the Administration of this country have condescended to develop their policy. Though they have not spoken to our mortal ears, with their fleshly tongues, yet they have whispered their purposes through the constituted organs of this House. And these are the features of the policy which they recommend: it is proposed to grant particular and individual relief from anticipated oppressions of the commercial restrictive system. It is proposed to perpetuate that system, indefinitely, and leave our citizens, still longer, subject to its embarrassments, its uncertainty and its terrors. The chairman of our Committee of Foreign Relations, (Mr. Eppes,) at the time he introduced these amendments to the House, exhibited the true character of this policy, when he told us that it was "modelled upon the principle not to turn over to the Judiciary the decision of the existence of the non-intercourse law, but to make it the subject of legislative declaration." In other words, it is found that the majority of this House have too much policy to deny, and too much principle to assert, that the fact, on which, and on which alone, the President of the United States was authorized to issue his proclamation of the second of November last, has occurred. A scheme has, therefore, been devised, by which, without any embarrassment on this intricate point, the continuance and enforcement of non-intercourse may be insured, and toils, acceptable to France, woven by the hands of our own Administration, spread over almost the only remaining avenue of our commercial hope.

The proposition, contained in these amendments, has relation to the most momentous and most elevated of our legislative obligations. We are not, now, about to discuss the policy by which a princely pirate may be persuaded to relinquish his plunder; nor yet the expectation entertained of relaxation, in her belligerent system, of a haughty, and perhaps jealous rival; nor yet the faith which we owe to a treacherous tyrant; nor yet the fond, but frail hopes of favors from a British regency, melting into our arms, in the honeymoon of power. The obligations which claim our observance are of a nature much more tender and imperious; the obligations which, as Representatives, we owe to our constituents; the allegiance by which we are bound to the American people; the obedience which is due to that solemn faith, by which we are pledged to protect their peace, their prosperity, and their honor. All these high considerations are materially connected with this policy.

It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to dilate on the general nature and effects of this commercial restrictive system. It is no longer a matter of speculation. We have no need to resort for illustration of its nature to the twilight lustre of history, nor yet to the vibrating brightness of human intellect. We have experience of its effects. They are above, around, and beneath us. They paralyze the enterprise of your cities. They sicken the industry of your fields. They deprive the laborer and the mechanic of his employment. They subtract from the husbandman and planter the just reward for that product which he has moistened with the sweat of his brow. They crush individuals, in the ruins of their most flattering hopes, and shake the deep-rooted fabric of general prosperity.

It will, however, be necessary to say a word on the general nature of this system. Not so much for the purpose of elucidating, as to clear the way, and give distinctness to the course of my argument. It will also be useful to deprive the advocates of this system of those colors and popular lures, to which they resort, on a subject in no way connected with the objects with which they associate it.

My argument proceeds upon the assumption of the irrelevancy of four topics, usually adduced in support of the system contained in the law of May, 1810, and of March, 1809; commonly called the non-intercourse system. I take for granted that it is not advantageous; in other words, that it is injurious; that it is not fiscal in its nature; nor protective of manufactures; nor competent to coerce either belligerent. That it is injurious is certain, not only because it is deprecated by that part of the community which it directly affects, but because no man advocates it as a permanent system, and every one declares his desire to be rid of it. Fiscal it cannot be, because it prohibits commerce, and consequently revenue; and by the high price and great demand for foreign articles, which it produces, encourages smuggling. Protective of manufactures it cannot be, because it is indiscriminate in its provisions and uncertain in its duration; and this uncertainty depends, not on our legislative discretion, but on the caprice of foreign powers; our enemies, or rivals. No commercial system, which is indiscriminate in its restrictions, can be generally protective to manufactures. It may give a forced vivacity to a few particular manufactures. But in all countries, some, and in this almost all manufactures, depend, either for instruments or subjects, on foreign supply. But, if this were not the case, a system, whose continuance depended upon the will or the ever variant policy of foreign nations, can never offer such an inducement to the capitalist, as will encourage him to make extensive investments, in establishments resting on such precarious foundations. As to the incompetency of this system to coerce either belligerent, I take that for granted, because no man, as far as I recollect, ever pretended it; at least no man ever did show, by any analysis, or detailed examination of its relative effects on us, and either belligerent, that it would necessarily coerce either out of that policy which it was proposed to counteract. Embargo had its friends. There were those who had a confidence in its success. But who was ever the friend of non-intercourse? Who ever pretended to believe in its efficacy? The embargo had a known origin, and the features of its character were distinct. But "where, and what was this execrable shape—if shape it may be called, which shape has none?" We all know that the non-intercourse was not the product of any prospective intelligence. It was the result of the casual concurrence of chaotic opinions. It was agreed upon, because the majority could agree upon nothing else. They who introduced it, abjured it. They who advocated it, did not wish, and scarcely knew its use. And now that it is said to be extended over us, no man, in this nation, who values his reputation, will take his Bible oath that it is in effectual and legal operation. There is an old riddle on a coffin, which I presume we all learned when we were boys, that is as perfect a representation of the origin, progress, and present state of this thing, called non-intercourse, as is possible to be conceived.