Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 4 (of 16)

by United States. Congress

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.

"There was a man bespoke a thing,
Which when the maker home did bring,
That same maker did refuse it;
The man that spoke for it did not use it,
And he who had it did not know
Whether he had it;—yea, or no."

True it is, that if this non-intercourse shall ever be, in reality, extended over us, the similitude will fail, in a material point. The poor tenant of the coffin is ignorant of his state. But the poor people of the United States will be, literally, buried alive in non-intercourse; and realize the grave closing on themselves and their hopes with a full and cruel consciousness of all the horrors of their condition.

For these reasons, I put all such common-place topics out of the field of debate. This, then, is the state of my argument; that as this non-intercourse system is not fiscal, nor protective of manufactures, nor competent to coerce, and is injurious, it ought to be abandoned, unless we are bound to persist in it, by imperious obligations. My object will be to show that no such obligations exist; that the present is a favorable opportunity, not to be suffered to escape, totally to relinquish it; that it is time to manage our own commercial concerns, according to our own interest; and no longer put them into the keeping of those who hate or those who envy their prosperity; that we are the constituted shepherds, and ought no more to transfer our custody to the wolves.

It is agreed, on all sides, that it is desirable to abandon this commercial restrictive system. But the advocates of the measure now proposed, say that we cannot abandon it, because our faith is plighted. Yes, sir, our faith is plighted; and that, too, to that scrupulous gentleman, Napoleon; a gentleman so distinguished for his own regard of faith; for his kindness and mercies towards us; for angelic whiteness of moral character; for overweening affection for the American people and their prosperity. Truly, sir, it is not to be questioned, but that our faith should be a perfect work towards this paragon of purity. On account of our faith, plighted to him, it is proposed to continue this non-intercourse.

But, Mr. Speaker, we may be allowed, I presume, to inquire whether any such faith be plighted. I trust we are yet freemen. We are not yet so far sunk in servility, that we are forbidden to examine into the grounds of our national obligations. Under a belief that this is permitted, I shall enter upon the task, and inquire whence they arise and what is their nature.

Whence they arise is agreed. Our obligations result, if any exist, under the act of May the first, 1810, called "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes." It remains, therefore, to inquire into the character of this act, and the obligations arising under its provisions.

Before, however, I proceed, I would premise, that whether I shall obtain, I am doubtful, but I am sure that the nature of my argument deserves, the favor and prepossession for its success, of every member in the House. My object is to show, that the obligation which we owe to the people of the United States, is a free and unrestricted commerce. The object of those who advocate these measures is to show that the obligation we owe to Napoleon Bonaparte, is a commerce restricted and enslaved. Now, as much as our allegiance is due more to the people of the United States than it is to Napoleon Bonaparte, just so much ought my argument to be received by the American Congress, with more favor and prepossession than the argument of those who advocate these measures. It is my intention to make my course of reasoning as precise and distinct as possible. Because I invite scrutiny, I contend for my country according to my conscientious conceptions of its best interests. If there be fallacy, detect it. My invitation is given to generous disputants. As to your stump orators, who utter low invective and mistake it for wit, and gross personality, and pass it off for argument, I descend not to their level; nor recognize their power to injure; nor even to offend.

Whatever obligations are incumbent upon this nation, in consequence of the act of the first of May, 1810, they result from the following section: "And be it further enacted, That in case either Great Britain or France shall, before the third day of March next, so revoke or modify her edicts as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, which fact the President of the United States shall declare by proclamation, and if the other nation shall not, within three months thereafter, so revoke or modify her edicts, in like manner, then the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eighteenth sections of the act, entitled 'An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes,' shall, from and after the expiration of three months from the date of the proclamation aforesaid, be revived and have full force and effect, so far as relates to the dominions, colonies, and dependencies of the nation thus refusing or neglecting to revoke or modify her edicts in manner aforesaid. And the restrictions imposed by this act shall, from the date of such proclamation, cease and be discontinued in relation to the nation revoking or modifying her decrees, in the manner aforesaid."

Divested of technical expression, this is the abstract form of this section. It provides that a new commercial condition shall result, on the occurrence of a specified fact; which fact the President shall declare. On this state of the subject I observe that nothing in the act indicates whether the object of the United States, in providing for this eventual commercial condition, was its own benefit, convenience, or pleasure; or whether it was in the nature of a proffer to foreign nations. It will, however, be agreed on all sides, that the object was either the one or the other. If the object were our own benefit, convenience, or pleasure, it will not be pretended that we are under any obligation to continue the system. For that which was adopted, solely for either of these ends, may, whenever our views concerning them vary, be abandoned; it being the concern of no other. But it is said that the act was, in truth, a proffer to the two belligerents, of commerce to the obsequious nation, prohibition of commerce to the contumacious nation. If this were the case, I shall agree, for the sake of argument, that it ought to be fulfilled to the full extent of the terms. But inasmuch as there is, in the terms of the act, no indication of such a proffer, it follows that its nature must arise from the circumstances of the case; and that the whole of the obligation, whatever it is, grows out of an honorable understanding, and nothing else. As such, I admit, it should be honorably fulfilled. The nature of this proffer is that of a proposition upon terms. Now what I say is, and it is the foundation of my argument, that whoever claims an honorable compliance with such a proposition, must be able to show, on his part, an honorable acceptance and fulfilment of the terms. The terms our act proposed were—an act to be done; an effect to be produced. The act to be done was, the revocation or modification of the edicts. The effect to be produced was that this revocation or modification should be such as that these edicts should "cease to violate our neutral commerce." Now the questions which result are, has the act been done? If done, has it been so done as to amount to an honorable fulfilment or acceptance of our terms? The examination of these two points will explain the real situation of these United States, and the actual state of their obligations.

In considering the question whether the fact of revocation, or modification, has occurred, it is unfortunate that it does involve, at least in popular estimation, the propriety of the proclamation, issued on the second of November last, by the President of the United States. I regret, as much as any one, that such is the state of things, that the question, whether a foreign despot has done a particular act, seems necessarily to be connected with the question concerning the prudence and perspicacity with which our own Chief Magistrate has done another act. I say in popular estimation these subjects seem so connected. I do not think that, in the estimation of wise and reflecting men, they are necessarily thus connected. For the fact might not have occurred precisely in the form contemplated by the act of May, 1810, and yet the President of the United States, in issuing his proclamation, might be either justifiable or excusable. It might be justifiable. A power intrusted to a politician to be used on the occurrence of a particular event, for the purpose of obtaining a particular end, he may sometimes be justifiable in using, in a case which may not be precisely that originally contemplated. It may be effectually, though not formally, the same. It may be equally efficient in attaining the end. In such a case a politician never will, and perhaps ought not to hesitate at taking the responsibility, which arises from doing the act in a case not coming within the verbal scope of his authority. Thus, in the present instance. The President of the United States might have deemed the terms, in the letter of the Duke of Cadore, such as gave a reasonable expectation of acceptance on the part of Great Britain. He has taken the responsibility. He has been deceived. Neither Great Britain accepts the terms, nor France performs her engagements. The proclamation might thus have been wise, though unfortunate in its result. And as to excuse, will it be said that there is nothing of the sort in this case? Why, sir, our Administration saw the Great Napoleon, according to his own confession, over head and ears in love with the American people. At such a sight as this, was it to be expected of flesh and blood that they should hesitate to plunge into a sea of bliss, and indulge in joy with such an amorous Cyprian?

But, whether the fact has occurred, on which alone this proclamation could have legally issued, is a material inquiry and cannot be evaded, let it reach where or whom it will. For with this is connected the essential condition of this country; on this depends the multiplied rights of our fellow-citizens, whose property has been or may be seized or confiscated under this law: and hence result our obligations, if any, as is pretended, exist. It is important here to observe, that, according to the terms of the act of May 1, 1810, the law of March 1, 1809, revives on the occurrence of the fact required, and not on the proclamation issued. If the fact had not occurred, the proclamation is a dead letter, and no subsequent performance of the required fact, by either belligerent, can retroact so as to give validity to the previous proclamation. The course required by the act of the 1st of May, 1810, unquestionably is, that the fact required to be done should be precedent, in point of time, to the right accruing to issue the proclamation; and of consequence that, by no construction, can any subsequent performance of the fact required operate backward to support a proclamation issued previous to the occurrence of that fact? Whenever this fact is really done, a new proclamation is required to comply with the provisions of the act, and to give efficacy to them.

I am the more particular in referring to this necessary construction, resulting from the terms of the act of the first of May last, because it is very obvious that a different opinion did until very lately, and probably does now, prevail on this floor. We all recollect what a state of depression the conduct of Bonaparte in seizing our vessels, subsequent to the first of November, produced, as soon as it was known in this House, and what a sudden joy was lighted up in it, when the news of the arrival of a French Minister was communicated. Great hopes were entertained and expressed, that he would bring some formal revocation of his edicts, or disavowal of the seizures which might retroact and support the proclamation. It was confidently expected that some explanation, at least of these outrages, would be contained in his portmanteau; that under his powder-puff, or in his snuff box, some dust would be found to throw into the eyes of the American people, which might so far blind the sense, as to induce them to acquiesce in the enforcement of the non-intercourse, without any very scrupulous scrutiny into the performance of the conditions by Bonaparte. But, alas! sir, the Minister is as parsimonious as his master is voracious. He has not condescended to extend one particle, not one pinch of comfort to the Administration. From anything in the Messages of our President, it would not be so much as known that such a blessed vision, as was this new Envoy, had saluted his eyes. His communications preserve an ominous silence on the topic. Administration, after all their hopes, have been compelled to resort to the old specific, and have caused to be tipped upon our tables a cart-load of sand, grit, and sawdust, from our metaphysical mechanic, who seesaws at St. James', as they pull the wire here in Washington. Yes, sir, a letter written on the tenth day of December last, by our Minister in London, is seriously introduced to prove, by abstract reasoning, that the Berlin and Milan decrees had ceased to exist on the first of the preceding November, of whose existence, as late as the 25th of last December, we have, as far as the nature of things permit, ocular, auricular, and tangible demonstration. And the people of this country are invited to believe the logic of Mr. Pinkney in the face of the fact of a continued seizure of all the vessels which came within the grasp of the French custom-house, from the first of November, down to the date of our last accounts; and, in defiance of the declaration of our Chargé d'Affaires, made on the 10th of December, that "it will not be pretended that the decrees have in fact been revoked," and in utter discredit of the allegation of the Duke of Massa, made on the 25th of the same month, which, in effect, declares the Berlin and Milan decrees exist, by declaring "that they shall remain suspended." After such evidence as this, the question whether a revocation or modification of the edicts of France has so occurred "as that they cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States," does no longer depend upon the subtleties of syllogistic skill, nor is to be disproved by any power of logical illation. It is an affair of sense and feeling. And our citizens, whose property has been, since the first of November, uniformly seized, and of which they are avowedly to be deprived three months, and which is then only to be returned to them on the condition of good behavior, may as soon be made to believe, by the teaching of philosophy, that their rights are not violated, as a wretch, writhing under the lash of the executioner, might be made by a course of reasoning to believe, that the natural state of his flesh was not violated, and that his shoulders, out of which blood was flowing at every stroke, were in the quiet enjoyment of cuticular ease.

Whether the revocation expressed in the letter of the Duke of Cadore, was absolute or conditional, or whether the conditions were precedent or subsequent, in the present state of our evidence, it seems scarcely important to inquire. Yet the construction of that celebrated passage, in his letter of the 5th of August, has been, as I have ever seen, given so much in the manner of lawyers, and so little in that of statesmen, that it deserves a short elucidation; how much the words "it being understood that," in their particular position are worth; and whether they have the effect of a condition precedent, or of a condition subsequent. A statesman will look at the terms contained in that letter in a different aspect, not for the purpose of ascertaining how much a court of law might be able to make of them, as to discern in what position of language the writer intended to intrench himself, and to penetrate his real policy, notwithstanding the veil in which he chose to envelope it. He will consider the letter in connection with the general course of French policy, and the particular circumstances which produced it. By these lights, it is scarcely possible to mistake the character and true construction of these expressions. Upon recurring to the Berlin and Milan decrees, it will be found that they contain a solemn pledge, that "they shall continue to be rigorously in force, as long as that (the English) Government does not return to the principle of the law of nations." Their determination to support this pledge, the French Government has uniformly and undeviatingly declared. They have told us constantly that they require a previous revocation on the part of Great Britain, as the condition of their rescinding those edicts. The question who should first revoke their edicts had come to be, notoriously, a sort of point of honor between the two belligerents. Perfectly acquainted with this state of things, we have been perpetually negotiating between the one and the other, and contending with each that it was his duty previously to revoke. At length the French Government, either tired with our solicitations, or more probably, seeing their own advantage in our anxiety to get rid of these decrees, which yet, as an essential part of its continental system of total commercial exclusion it never intended to abandon, devised this scheme of policy, which has been the source of so much contest, and has puzzled all the metaphysicians in England and the United States. Cadore is directed to say to Mr. Armstrong: "In this new state of things I am authorized to declare to you, sir, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, and that after the first of November they will cease to have effect; it being understood that, in consequence of this declaration, 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." In this curious gallimaufry of time present and time future, of doing and refraining to do, of declaration and understanding, of English duties and American duties, it is easy to trace the design, and see its adaptation to the past and present policy of the French Emperor. The time present was used, because the act of the United States required that previously to the proclamation the edicts "shall be" revoked. And this is the mighty mystery of time present being used, in expressing an act intended to be done in time future. For if, as the order of time, and the state of intention indicated, time future had been used, and the letter of Cadore had said the decrees shall be revoked on the first of November next, then the proclamation could not be issued, because the President would be obliged to wait to have evidence that the act had been effectually done. Now as the French Emperor never intended that it should be effectuated, and yet meant to have all the advantage of an effectual deed without performing it, this notable scheme was invented. And, by French finesse, and American acquiescence, a thing is considered as effectually done, if the declaration that it is done be made in language of time present, notwithstanding the time of performance is in the same breath declared to be in time future. Having thus secured the concurrence of the American administration, the next part of the scheme was so to arrange the expression that either the British Government should not accede, or if it did accede, that it should secure to France the point of honor—a previous revocation by the British; and if they did not accede, that there should be a color for seizures and sequestrations, and thus still further to bind the Americans over to their good behavior. All this is attained by this well-devised expression "it being understood that, in consequence of this declaration, the English shall revoke."

Now, Great Britain either would accede to the terms, or she would not. If she did, and did it as the terms required, in consequence of this declaration, then it must be done previous to the first of November, and then the point of honor was saved to France; so that thus France, by a revocation verbally present, effectually future, would attain an effectual previous revocation from the English. But if, as France expected Great Britain would not trust in such paper security, and therefore not revoke, previously to the first of November, then an apology might be found for France, to justify her in refusing to effectuate that present, future, and absolute, conditional revocation. And if ever the Duke of Cadore shall condescend, which it is probable he never will, to reason with our Government on the subject, he may tell them that they knew that the French Emperor had issued those decrees, upon the pledge that they were to continue until the British abandoned their maritime principles; that he told us, over, and over, and over again, that previous revocation by the British was absolutely required; that for the purpose of putting to trial the sincerity of the British, he had indeed declared that the French decrees "are revoked," on the first day of November ensuing; but then it was on the expressed condition that in consequence of that declaration, not of the revocation, but of that declaration, the British were to revoke, and, if they did not, the "understanding" was not realized; and his rights of enforcing his system remained to him. And I confess I do not well see what answer can be made to such an argument. Let us examine the case in common life. You, Mr. Speaker, have two separate tracts of land, each lying behind the farms of A and B, so that you cannot get to one of the tracts, without going over the farm of A, nor to the other tract without going over the farm of B. For some cause or other, both A and B have a mutual interest that you should enjoy the right of passage to your tract, over the farm of each respectively. A and B get into quarrels and wish to involve you in the dispute. You keep aloof, but are perpetually negotiating with each for your old right of passage-way, and telling each that it is owing to him that the other prohibits your enjoyment of it. At last A says "Come. We will put this B to trial. I on this fifth day of August, declare my prohibitions of passage-way are revoked, and, after the first day of November, my prohibitions shall cease to have effect; but, it is understood that B, in consequence of this declaration, shall also revoke his prohibition of passage-way." If B refuses, does A, under the circumstances of such a declaration, violate any obligation, should he refuse to permit the passage? Might not A urge with great color and force of argument, that this arrangement was the effect of your solicitation and assurance that B would be tempted by such a proffer, and that the revocation of B was required, by the terms, to be the consequence of A's declaration, for the very purpose of indicating that it must be anterior to the fact of A's effectual revocation? But let this be as it will; suppose that you, on the first of November, in consequence of A's assurance, had sent your servants and teams to bring home your products, and A should seize your oxen, and teams and products, and drive your servants, after having stripped them, from his farm, and should tell you, that he should keep this, and all other property of yours, on which he can lay his hands, for three months, and then he should restore it to you, or not, as he saw fit, according to his opinion of your good behavior. I ask, if, in any sense, you could truly say that on the first day of November the prohibitions or edicts of A were so revoked, that they ceased to violate your liberty of passage? Sir, when viewed in relation to common life, the idea is so absurd, that it would be absolutely abusive to ask the question. I refer the decision of so simple a case to the sound sense of the American people, and not to that of "scurvy politicians, who seem to see the things they do not." In a condensed form my argument is this. From a revocation merely verbal, no obligations result. By the terms of our act the revocation must be effectual, "so as the edict shall cease to violate our rights." Now the simple question is, whether a uniform seizure, since the first of November, under those edicts (for none other are pretended) of all their property, and holding it for three months, to see how they will behave, be or be not a violation of the rights of the American people? In relation to the revival by a formal declaration of the non-intercourse system, as is proposed in one of these sections, I offer this argument: Either the fact, on which the President's proclamation could alone have been issued, has occurred or it has not. If it has occurred, then the law of March, 1809, is revived, and this provision, by a declarative law, is unnecessary. If it have not occurred, then there is no obligation to revive it, for alone on the occurrence of the specified fact does our obligation depend. In such case the revival by declaration is a mere gratuity to Napoleon. This is in fact the true character of the law. As to the provisions for relief of our merchants against anticipated seizure, I hold them scarcely deserving consideration. Heaven be praised we have independent tribunals and intelligent juries. Our judges are not corrupt and our yeomanry will not be swayed in their decisions, by the hope of presidential favors, nor be guided by party influence. The harpies of your custom-house dare as soon eat off their own claws, as thrust them, in the present state of the law of March, 1809, into the fatness of their fellow-citizens. The timorous and light-shunning herd of spies and informers have too much instinct to pounce on such a prey.

But, in order to cause any obligation to result under the law of May 1, 1810, it is necessary, not only that the fact required be done, and the effect required produced; but also the terms of that act must be accepted. The proffer we made, if such be the character of that act, was only to revive the non-intercourse law against the contumacious belligerent, after three months had expired from the date of the proclamation. Now it is remarkable, that, so far from accepting the terms of the proposition contained in our act, as the extent of our obligations, Bonaparte expressly tells us that they mean something else; and something, too, that no man in this House will dare to aver they really intend. It is also remarkable that the terms of this celebrated letter from the Duke of Cadore, of the fifth of August, which have been represented as a relaxation in the rigor of the French Emperor's policy, are, in fact, something worse than the original terms of the Milan decree, and that, instead of having obtained a boon from a friend in this boasted letter, our Administration have only caught a gripe from a Tartar. By the terms of the Milan decree, it was to "cease with respect to all nations who compelled the English to respect their flag." By the terms of the letter of Cadore, it was to cease on condition that the United States "cause their rights to be respected." Now, as much as an obligation, of an indefinite extent, is worse than a definite obligation, just so much worse are the terms of the letter of Cadore, than the original terms of the Milan decree. Mr. Speaker, let us not be deceived concerning the policy of the French Emperor. It is stern, unrelenting, and unrelaxing. So far from any deviation from his original system being indicated in this letter of the Duke of Cadore, a strict adherence to it is formally and carefully expressed. Ever since the commencement of "his continental system," as it is called, the policy of Napoleon has uniformly been to oblige the United States to effectual co-operation in that system. As early as the 7th of October, 1807, his minister, Champagny, wrote to General Armstrong, that the interests of all maritime powers were common, to unite in support of their rights against England. After this followed the embargo, which co-operated effectually at the very critical moment, in his great plan of continental commercial restriction. On the 24th of the ensuing November, he resorts to the same language—"in violating the rights of all nations England has united them all by a common interest, and it is for them to have recourse to force against her." He then proceeds to invite the United States to take "with the whole continent the part of guaranteeing itself from her injustice, and in forcing her to a peace."

On the 15th of January, 1808, he is somewhat more pointed and positive, as to our efficient concurrence in his plan of policy. For his Minister, Champagny, then tells us, that "His Majesty has no doubt of a declaration of war against England by the United States," and he then proceeds to take the trouble of declaring war out of our hands, and volunteers his services, gratuitously, to declare it, in our name and behalf. "War exists then, in fact, between England and the United States; and His Majesty considers it as declared from the day on which England published her decrees." And in order to make assurance doubly sure, he sequesters our vessels in his ports, "until a decision may be had on the dispositions to be expressed by the United States," on his proposition of considering themselves "associated in the cause of all the powers," against England. Now in all this there is no deception, and can be no mistake, as to the purpose of his policy. He tells us, as plain as language can speak, that "by causing our rights to be respected," he means war, on his side, against Great Britain. That "our interests are common"—that he considers us already "associates in the war," and that he sequesters our property by way of security for our dispositions. This is his old policy. I pray some gentlemen on the other side of the House to point out in what it differs from the new. The letter of Cadore on the fifth of August tells us, it is expected that we "cause our rights to be respected, in conformity to our act," and the same letter also tells us what he understands to be the meaning of our act. "In short, Congress engages to oppose itself to that one of the belligerent powers which shall refuse to acknowledge the rights of neutrals." In other words, "by causing our rights to be respected," he means war on his side against Great Britain. In perfect conformity with this uniform, undeviating policy, his Minister, Turreau, tells our Government, in his letter of the 28th of November last, that "the modifications to be given to the present absolute exclusion of our products will not depend upon the chance of events, but will be the result of measures, firm and pursued with perseverance, which the two Governments will continue to adopt to withdraw from the monopoly and from the vexations of the common enemy a commerce loyal and necessary to France as well as the United States." And to the end, that no one feature of his policy should be changed, or even appear to be relaxed, his Excellency the Duke of Massa, and his Excellency the Duke of Gaete, in their respective letters of the 25th of December, declare, that the property taken, shall be "only sequestered until the United States have fulfilled their engagements to cause their rights to be respected." Now, Mr. Speaker, is there a man in this House bold enough to maintain, or with capacity enough to point out, any material variation between the policy of France to this country, subsequent to the Cadore letter, of the 5th of August, and its policy anterior to that period? The character of the policy is one and indivisible. Bonaparte had not yielded one inch to our Administration. Now, as he neither performed the act required by the law of May, 1810; nor produced the effect; nor accepted the terms it proposed; whence arise our obligations? How is our faith plighted? In what way are we bound again to launch our country into this dark sea of restriction; surrounded on all sides with perils and penalties?

The true nature of this Cadore policy is alone to be discovered in the character of his master. Napoleon is a universal genius. "He can exchange shapes with Proteus to advantage." He hesitates at no means and commands every skill. He toys with the weak—he tampers with the mean—he browbeats the haughty—with the cunning he is a serpent. For the courageous he has teeth and talons. For the cowering he has hoofs. He found our Administration a pen and ink gentry—parchment politicians; and he has laid, for these ephemeral essences, a paper fly-trap, dipped in French honey. Hercules, finding that he could not reach our Administration with his club, and that they were out of their wits at the sight of his lion's skin, has condescended to meet them in petticoats, and conquer them, spinning at their own distaff.

As to those who, after the evidence now in our hands, deny that the decrees exist, I can no more reason with them than with those who should deny the sun to be in the firmament, at noon-day. The decrees revoked! The formal statute act of a despot revoked by the breath of his servile Minister; uttered on conditions not performed by Great Britain, and claiming terms not intended to be performed by us! The fatness of our commerce secure, when every wind of heaven is burdened with the sighs of our suffering seamen, and the coast of the whole continent heaped with the plunder of our merchants! The den of the tiger safe! Yet the tracks of those who enter it are innumerable, and not a trace is to be seen of a returning footstep! The den of the tiger safe! While the cry of the mangled victims are heard through the adamantine walls of his cave; cries, which despair and anguish utter, and which despotism itself cannot stifle!

No, Mr. Speaker. Let us speak the truth. The act now proposed is required by no obligation. It is wholly gratuitous. Call it then by its proper name. The first fruit of French alliance. A token, a transatlantic submission. Any thing except an act of an American Congress, the Representatives of freemen.

The present is the most favorable moment for the abandonment of these restrictions, unless a settled co-operation with the French continental system be determined. We have tendered the provisions of this act to both belligerents. Both have accepted—both, as principals, or by their agents, have deceived us.

We talk of the edicts of George the Third and Napoleon. Yet those of the President of the United States, under your law, are far more detestable to your merchants. Their edicts plundered the rich. His make those who are poor still poorer. Their decrees attack the extremities. His proclamation fixes upon the vitals, and checks the action of the seat of commercial life.

I know that great hopes are entertained of relief from the proposed law, by the prospect of a British regency. Between a mad monarch and a simpering successor, it is expected the whole system of that nation will be abandoned. Let gentlemen beware, and not calculate too certainly on the fulfilment, by men in power, of professions made out of it. The majority need not go out of our own country, nor beyond their own practice, to be convinced how easily, in such cases, proud promises may eventuate in meagre performance.

The whole bearing of my argument is to this point. It is time to take our own rights into our own keeping. It is time, if we will not protect, to refrain from hampering, by our own acts, the commerce of our country. Put your merchants no longer under the guardianship and caprice of foreign powers. Punish not, at the instigation of foreigners, your own citizens for following their righteous calling. We owe nothing to France. We owe nothing to Great Britain. We owe every thing to the American people. Let us show ourselves really independent; and look to a grateful, a powerful, and then united people, for support against every aggressor.

Mr. Mumford.—The gentleman (Mr. Quincy) from Massachusetts has given us a long talk, that amused the House very much with tropes and figures, and I hope has convinced himself that he is right. I am no advocate of either belligerent, I have not much confidence in the declarations of foreign Governments. I did, however, put some confidence in the Erskine arrangement, but I was deceived; it met my approbation, because I was among those who were determined to settle our disputes with Great Britain in our own way, as an independent nation. And I will now ask the gentleman from Massachusetts whether, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other higher authority in Great Britain, should write a letter to Sir William Scott, and a circular letter to the Collector of Liverpool, informing them that the Orders in Council did not apply to American vessels from and after the 1st November, he would not deem those letters to be evidence of the fact? If so, why not give the same credence to the letters of the Duke of Massa and the Duc de Gaete? I wish to preserve the faith of the nation. We have been plundered by both belligerents, and have as little confidence in the one as in the other; but without some reliance on the word of constituted authorities there is an end to all negotiations. The gentleman says that we are about to shut up "the only avenue to our commercial hope." These are his own words. Let us now examine this avenue to our commercial hope. I will in the first place ask the indulgence of the House while I read and state some facts from a letter I have just received from Liverpool, dated January 8, of the present year, from one of the most respectable houses there, which states that the importation of cotton from the United States was 320,000 bales in 1810; that there were then 145,000 bales on hand; tobacco imported in the same period, 14,700 hogsheads; and notwithstanding the consumption, the quantity imported kept the market supplied constantly with about the same number of hogsheads throughout the year 1810. Potashes imported 28,946 barrels, on hand 13,000 barrels: rice 39,000 imported, and there remain on hand very large supplies. Those are the principal articles of the produce of our soil unsold on 8th January, 1811, in the port of Liverpool alone, besides the quantities in the other ports of Great Britain; and the same letter observes: "This supply checks any attempt at speculation, and without an export vent is procured, the stock on hand must remain unsalable; if the belligerents return to a sense of justice, the continental markets being in that case reopened, will require large supplies, and cause our market to rise." The prices of upland cotton are stated at 12d. sterling per lb.; tobacco, very prime, 4d. to 7d., middling quality, great quantity on hand, fit only for continental market, at 1½ a 4d.; pot-ashes £43 to £44 per ton—rice 19 to 23 per cwt. Sir, there is no American merchant who can pursue that commerce, attended with the enormous charges and duties imposed on those articles without inevitable ruin; and I call to the recollection of gentlemen the numerous failures in consequence of bills of exchange returned under protest, which had been predicated on shipments to British ports; and yet the gentleman from Massachusetts tells us this is "the only avenue to our commercial hope." Send your vessels to the Brazils, you meet them there intriguing against your commerce; to Buenos Ayres, you find them there; to Cayenne, there also; to Terra Firma, you there find them in conjunction with Miranda intriguing and counteracting your commerce; to Barbadoes, Surinam, Demerara, Trinidad, Martinique, Guadaloupe, Jamaica, &c., and you are met with enormous port charges, and duties amounting to prohibition on the staple articles of the New England States; codfish, beef, pork, butter, lard, cheese, hams, &c. It is true we are admitted every now and then, at the mere will and caprice of a governor, to import into those colonies flour at a duty of one dollar per barrel; rice and lumber in proportion; on condition that you shall not take away any article but rum and molasses, and this is the only avenue to our commercial hope. They are like the locusts of Egypt in relation to our commerce. What has become of your 1,350,000 tons of shipping, valued at fifty dollars per ton, amounting to $67,500,000, one-third of which belongs to Massachusetts? Is the gentleman willing to surrender the carrying trade to Great Britain? Let him turn his attention to the ports of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, Charleston, and New Orleans, and he will find that British ships are now taking the bread out of the mouths of his own constituents. They are enabled to take freight on so much lower terms than American vessels can afford to do it in consequence of the very great difference of duties in Great Britain, between importations in America or in a British ship, that we cannot compete with them unless you will countervail them, and take a decisive stand in defence of your commerce to continental Europe, and carry your produce direct to the consumers, and be no longer subjected to be fleeced by the monopolizers and retailers of the old world. They are not content to have the whole products of your soil deposited on their Island, on which they receive an enormous import, and raise an extra war tax, besides; but they will claim very soon the exclusive right to carry it when and where they please in their own ships. We are thus reduced to a worse situation than in a state of colonization; we have now all the disadvantages of being plundered by their navy, and none of the advantages of receiving its protection, although they have the impudence to charge us four per cent. convoy duty on their gewgaws and manufactures, which convoy they do not give us. Can this be a desirable state of things? And if persevered in, I am convinced the commerce of the United States will descend into the same tomb with the gentleman's story of the coffin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But shall I be told that the letters of the Grand Judge and Minister of Finance promised that the property taken from our citizens since 1st of November should be restored, if we cause the law to be carried into effect after the 2d day of February, and therefore we were to believe it and ought to wait until we hear whether that has been the case? For the honor of my Government, I hope not. Is it really come to this, that we are brought to acknowledge that the Duke of Cadore was correct when he told General Armstrong that His Majesty could place no reliance on the American Government? No, sir, if this be true, for heaven's sake let us not express it. But what is this amendment which re-enacts the law of May last, and such pitiful reasoning as I have heard on this occasion, but placing our seal to that infamous insinuation? The President, on the mere promise of the Minister of the Emperor, that the Berlin and Milan decrees should cease to operate on the first day of November, placed full faith and reliance on that promise, and issued his proclamation on the 2d, presuming the promise had been fulfilled—and, shall we say that the Emperor is justifiable in disbelieving the law of May last, solemnly enacted by the three branches of the Government and the President's proclamation, together with the Circular of the Secretary of the Treasury, enjoining the law to be carried into effect?

I hope not; for if we are become so pitifully servile as this, well might Cadore, in his letter of February 14th, 1810, tell General Armstrong that the Americans were without just political views, without honor, and even independence. And if we, by adopting this amendment, condescend to justify the Emperor, in his insult upon the plighted faith of our Government, in my opinion we shall furnish the American people and the world with just ground to say Amen to the declaration of Cadore in that respect. Will any gentleman still say, that the decrees ceased to operate on the first of November, since we have had official information from the French Government itself, that our vessels are to be seized under these decrees, until the second of February? I trust not. Those gentlemen who support this amendment, ought to recollect that the sections which go to re-enact the law of May last, contain a confession that that law is not now in operation; for if the decrees did actually cease to operate on the first of November, no one doubts but the law is now in full force, without the provisions of this bill. When the honorable chairman of the committee first offered his amendment, a misunderstanding seemed to take place between him and two gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, viz. the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Wright,) and the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Rhea,) which undoubtedly happened in this way. While the honorable chairman well knew that the decrees did not cease on the first of November; therefore to keep alive the spirit of the law of May, which gave England three months after they did cease, it became necessary to lengthen the time for her to revoke; and the other two gentlemen, as it would seem, really supposed, that because Mr. Pinkney had said that Cadore's letter was precision itself, these decrees really did cease to operate agreeable to that promise; although we have the official information from Mr. Russell on our tables, that the Orleans Packet was the first case that had happened after the first of November, to which the Berlin and Milan decrees could have been applied, and that they were applied in that case, and that several late arrivals, which left France from twenty to twenty-five days afterwards, bring no information from him that a change had taken place, and had that been the case, he would certainly have communicated information to the Government before the rising of Congress. On the contrary, these arrivals confirm what he had stated, and say, that every vessel arriving in France shares the same fate. Mr. Speaker, until I heard those two gentlemen, I did suppose that no man of common sense could have believed a position, in such direct opposition to evidence. And from the opinion which I have of the discernment of the gentleman from Tennessee, I think I must have misunderstood him, while perhaps it may be improper to include the other gentleman in the supposition.

Sir, I seldom trouble the House with any observations of mine, nor is it my intention, at this time, to examine and expose all the winding and management which has been practised, to bring about such a state of things as to render plausible this measure at this time. I shall, however, examine the non-intercourse system from the date of the law of March, 1809, and inquire what was its professed object? What use has been made of it? And how has it been regarded by the belligerents? And also notice some of its effects upon our own citizens as well as upon the Treasury. What must be the inevitable consequence if this measure is suffered to go into effect? I take it to amount to an entire non-importation of any of the articles, products, or manufactures of more than three-fourths of the civilized world, to which our merchants would, at this time, run the risk of attempting voyages; for, from the Continent of Europe no one returns unless at the expense of this Government. The dominions of Great Britain, including the East and West Indies, as well as her European dominions, and those on the American Continent, are immense. The products of these various countries formed a principal part of those importations of the last year, which, while the non-intercourse slept, gave new life and vigor to every branch of business. Our seaports, which the year before presented the gloomy appearance of cities besieged by a hostile foe, again resumed the appearance of enterprise, industry and wealth. Thousands, who in 1809 were either a burden to their friends, in the poor-house, or begging their bread in the streets, were in 1810 enjoying the fruits of their industry in a comfortable supply of the necessaries of life, while the farmer and planter sowed his seed and cultivated his field, with the comfortable prospect that his crop would not decay on his hand for want of a market. Now, sir, although exportation is not interdicted by this bill, yet I apprehend the result will be much the same. It can hardly be expected that Great Britain, who gentlemen on the other side of the House are fond of considering as the cause of all our commercial distress, will condescend to pay us specie for our produce, while our ports are closed, not only against her shipping of all kinds, but against every article of her products and manufactures, as well as those of her colonies and dependencies, while they are open to those of her enemy. Again, what was the effect of the non-intercourse in 1809 upon our Treasury? In addition to the bankruptcy and wretchedness spread over the face of the whole country, we are informed by the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury, laid on our tables, that the net revenue arising from duties on merchandise and tonnage, accruing during that year, amounted to only $6,527,000, while we are informed in the same report, that this source of revenue in the three first quarters of the year 1810, while commerce was free, amounted to a sum exceeding $7,250,000, and the Secretary adds, that he believed the whole revenue arising from duties on merchandise and tonnage for that year would amount to more than $12,000; making an increase in this year, when commerce was unshackled, of $5,473,000, notwithstanding all the robberies of Napoleon, which probably amounted to more than forty millions, a free importation of the avails of which would have greatly increased the revenue of that year. From this view of the subject, we find a deficit in the revenue of 1809, caused by this measure, of $5,473,000, and, in anticipation of the effects of the law now about to be enacted, the Secretary of the Treasury has, in the same report, recommended an immediate additional duty to be laid upon importations, which, together with the high duties already established by law, he thinks will not amount to more than $8,000,000; making an anticipated deficiency in the next year's revenue, occasioned by this measure, of $4,000,000, compared with that of 1810. But if we compare the revenue arising from duties on merchandise and tonnage during the year 1809, while commerce was restricted by the non-intercourse, with what it was in 1807, while it was unshackled, we shall find a deficiency of about $11,000,000.

From this view of the subject, which is taken from authentic documents, which I invite gentlemen to controvert if they have it in their power, it is demonstrated that if we suffered this system to go into operation, we are not only to again reduce our citizens to a state of bankruptcy in their private fortunes, while loaded with additional taxes, but, notwithstanding the aid of these additional taxes, our Treasury is, if possible, to be reduced to a more complete state of bankruptcy than at present. I put it to gentlemen, who are in the confidence of the Cabinet, to say, why we are called upon again to plunge this nation into such a state of poverty and wretchedness? Is it necessary as a measure of self-defence, as the only mode of resistance which will bring England to terms? For myself I should suppose that our late experiment in this species of warfare, at which France took so much offence, as to take occasion to seize and confiscate the property of American citizens, to the amount of $40,000,000, which rendered necessary an appropriation of $80,000 during the present session, in order to enable those of our citizens, who had been thus robbed and plundered, to revisit their native shores, afforded a spectacle too humiliating to suffer us to make another attempt so soon, and before we have so far recovered from the effects of our late experiment as to be able to defray the ordinary expenses of government without having recourse to annual loans for the purpose. Are we bound to adopt this measure on account of the faith of Government being pledged to France by the law of May last?

Here give me leave to inquire what has been the further effect of this law. It seems England, although she saw that if it had any operation at all, it operated only against her, was willing to consider it as a municipal regulation of our own, and treated it as such, while Bonaparte at first, and for ten months, passed it over as inoffensive to him, until our vessels, which had been shut up in our ports by its elder sister, the embargo, having got released from that strong measure, flocked into the ports of France, Spain, Holland, and Naples, all under the immediate and entire control of France, when, on the 23d March, an order was issued by his gracious and loving Majesty to seize and confiscate the property of our citizens in all those countries; which property is, by the best calculation, estimated at more than forty millions. And you will perceive, Mr. Speaker, that the Duke of Cadore saw, that, by suffering the law to pass unnoticed, till our property released from the embargo had filled nearly every port in Europe under French control, and then issuing an order which was to have a retrospective operation of ten months, was such a gross outrage upon every principle of honor and justice, as well as the usages of public law, that he, in a letter to General Armstrong, of the 5th August, 1810, attempts to excuse the piratical transaction, by saying that the Emperor knew nothing of the law of March, until very lately. But, I pray gentlemen to take notice that General Armstrong, in his letter to Cadore of the 10th of March, (five months before the one just recited from Cadore,) asserts that this law was communicated to him in the month of June or July preceding—one whole year before the declaration made by Cadore.

But to pursue this subject: on the first day of May, 1810, while this robbery, I ought to presume, was unknown to the Executive—certainly to the people—this non-intercourse law was repealed; but the majority, for wise purposes, I presume, did, in the same law that repealed the non-intercourse, give the President power, in case England or France should, before the 1st day of March, so revoke or modify her edicts as that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, to declare the same by proclamation; in which case, the non-intercourse should be revived against the nation neglecting to revoke or modify her edicts, in like manner, for the space of three months after the date of such proclamation. And you will recollect, sir, that this law was also opposed by the minority, not so much, perhaps, because they suspected either the integrity or impartiality of the President, as because they thought it unconstitutional to commit a power to the Executive which was, in its nature and effect, an act of legislation, viz: to revive a law at his discretion which was to affect the great interest of the nation, and might result in war. I say, at his discretion; and I ask gentlemen to take notice that the law reads, "so revoke or modify." This law was also sent by the President to our Ministers at London and Paris, as he states in his Message. But, what was it sent there for? Only to be used as an inducement to those nations to revoke their unjust edicts, which was the avowed object of the provision when it passed. And, if sent there for that purpose, it would seem, that to have acted a neutral part, it ought to have been used alike at the palaces of St. Cloud and St. James. But, Mr. Speaker, what was the fact? Here we may learn the management of which I spoke when I first addressed you. This law, which you will perceive was in the nature of a generous overture made to the belligerent who first revoked his edicts, changed its character when offered to the other belligerent, who should neglect to revoke the obnoxious edicts until after his enemy had done so; and, instead of being a generous offer, contained a threat, that if she did not revoke, we should shut our ports against her products, while they should be open to those of her enemy. And this is the light in which it was viewed by our Government, as will be seen in Mr. Smith's letter to General Armstrong, of the 5th day of June, 1810, (printed documents, p. 35,) in these words: "It might be added, that the form in which the law now presents the overture, is as well calculated as the overture itself to gain a favorable attention, inasmuch as it may be regarded by the belligerent first accepting of it as a promise to itself and a threat only to its adversary." For this view of the subject, gentlemen will perceive that it is much more agreeable to close any matter in dispute upon a generous offer for so doing, than it would be to do so while threatened by their opponent that if it is not done they must suffer the consequence of their own folly and his vengeance. Now, in looking through the documents, I mistake if gentlemen have not discovered some management in this business, so that while the law was presented to France as an offer made to herself, it should be presented to England in no other character than that of a threat. It seems that the first correspondence with our Minister which we are suffered to see, is a letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney, of the 22d May; although it appears from that letter that the Secretary of State had sent a copy of the law in a previous letter of the 4th of that month to Mr. Pinkney, as also another copy in the letter of the 22d; but we hear nothing of instructions in either to use this new overture, which the law presents, to the best advantage at the Court of St. James, while it retained its character of an offer made to that Government. Indeed, it would seem most natural to suppose that the instructions given in this business were contained in the letter of the 4th, which was the first enclosing a copy of the law. But, at this we are not suffered to look, nor at the one sent to General Armstrong, of the same date, which was also the first to him enclosing a copy of the law.

But, Mr. Speaker, as we are not suffered to see the first correspondence on this important business, which we are called upon by the Executive to carry into effect by a new act of legislation, it becomes doubly our duty to examine well this letter of the twenty-second, and see what that treats of, and whether it compares with the first we are suffered to see, sent to General Armstrong on this subject. In this letter to Mr. Pinkney of the twenty-second, the Secretary commences, as he says, with much surprise, that Great Britain had not revoked her blockades, and that she had not sent a man of rank to replace Mr. Jackson; and, after having dwelt at great length on the latter of these subjects, he mentions that he had sent a copy of the law, as also another, in his letter of the fourth of that month, and tells Mr. Pinkney to let the British Government know that the provisions of the law would be carried into effect, but not a syllable of proffering it as an offer made to that Government and a threat to France. But, instead of this, the Secretary selects two subjects, which he must have known would be difficult to close, and tells Mr. Pinkney that if another Minister was not sent to replace Mr. Jackson, to let the British Government know that he would return to the United States. And as though this was not sufficient to prevent the British Government from closing with the conditions of the new overture, the attack on the Chesapeake must be settled in a manner agreeable to the propositions made to Mr. Rose and Mr. Erskine, which he might well know would not be done, as the British Government had told him it could not be closed in that way. On the first of July, Mr. Pinkney acknowledges Mr. Smith's letter of the twenty-second of May, and very properly goes on to execute the instructions it contained as to the British Government sending a man of rank to replace Mr. Jackson, &c. And, in my opinion, very properly notices the scrap of instructions it contained, respecting the law of May last, by merely mentioning, that while he is engaged with Lord Wellesley on these other subjects, he thinks he shall draw his attention to the non-intercourse law, but I find no account of his ever presenting the law to that Government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while we see in this letter of the twenty-second the substance of all we are permitted to see of the use to be made by Mr. Pinkney of this law, as an inducement to the British Government to revoke the Orders in Council, let us examine what was the course pursued towards the French Government to induce it to take advantage of the law, while it retained the character of a favorable overture, so that the British Government should have to meet it as a threat, or as a rod held over them to procure the revocation of their edicts. In order to do this, I shall examine the first letter which is suffered to come to public view, from Secretary Smith to General Armstrong, after the date of the law of May first. This bears the date of June fifth, documents, page [34]. In this, we find that he had sent two before, each one enclosing a copy of the law, and no doubt both containing instructions what use to make of it. For we find, even in this third letter, that Mr. Smith tells General Armstrong, (to use his own words,) "If there be sincerity in the language held at different times by the French Government, and especially in the late overture to proceed to amicable and just arrangements in the case of our refusal to submit to the British Orders in Council, (not blockades,) no pretext can be found for longer declining to put an end to the decrees of which the United States have so justly complained." And here, I entreat gentlemen to notice that this is the first ground stated by our Government to that of France, as being that which would be insisted upon from England—a compliance on her part required to entitle her to the provisions of this law, viz., her relinquishing the Orders in Council. We may here notice, that Mr. Smith adds, as a further inducement to France to take advantage of the law, while it retained the character of a favorable overture, "that by putting in force the non-intercourse against England, agreeable to the terms of this statute, that the very species of resistance would be made which France has been constantly representing as the most efficacious." But, Mr. Smith goes still farther in his instructions, and tells General Armstrong, "that it may be added, that in the form in which the law now presents the overture, it is as well calculated as the overture itself to gain a favorable attention, inasmuch as it may be regarded by the belligerent first accepting it as a promise to itself, and a threat only to its adversary." In this letter, we find that the Secretary states a first ground, which was necessary in the first instance to entitle the French Government to the provisions of this law. What was this ground? Why, he tells General Armstrong to let the French Government understand that the President would not proceed to give the law effect, if the restoration of the property of our citizens be finally refused; and closes his letter by directing him to let that Government know that the only ground, short of a preliminary restoration of the property, on which the contemplated arrangement could take place, would be an understanding that the confiscation was reversible, and that it would become immediately the subject of discussion, with a reasonable prospect of justice to our injured citizens. Was this the ground on which the subject was placed? It seems so, from this official letter of the Secretary. Yes, sir, it was; and with due deference, I may be allowed to say, the only honorable and just ground; and if the American Government had possessed independence enough to have still occupied this ground, we would not have had the mortification to discuss the bill on the table at this time. But, instead of this, although Mr. Smith had just received Cadore's insulting letter, in which he more than insinuates that, as a Government and nation, we are destitute of just political views, without honor, energy, or even independence, and closes by letting our Government know of the seizure and sale of the property of our citizens in all the ports of Europe under French control; what was the conduct of the American Government on this occasion? I entreat gentlemen to take notice, that, with this horrid picture of insult and robbery fresh in their recollection, the same conciliatory disposition, guided by the principles of neutrality, which dismissed a British Minister for an implied insult, induced Mr. Smith to inform General Armstrong that the President thought it best not to make any animadversions on that subject at that time. (Printed documents, page 34.) The next letter on this subject worthy of notice, is one of the 5th of July, in which Mr. Smith acknowledges the receipt of information, that the property which he had said in his last must be restored, in order to entitle France to the American commerce while it was denied to England, was sold, and the proceeds deposited in the caisse prive—privy purse of the Emperor. Here, indeed, Mr. Smith seems to have almost forgot himself, and to conceive he was giving instructions how to proceed with a British Minister, and tells General Armstrong to demand every reparation of which the subject was susceptible. But, Mr. Speaker, is it not worthy of notice that he closes even this spirited letter, with such a history of piracy and insult then on his desk before him, by quitting the ground he had taken in his letter of the fifth of June, and, instead of a proposed renewal of the non-intercourse against England, if she should neglect to withdraw her Orders in Council, which was the only ground taken by the President with Mr. Erskine, and also the only thing contemplated when the law of May last was passed, as also the only ground taken by himself only one month before, (having, it is presumed, heard from France in the interval,) he condescends to tell the General, that if France should demand it, he might give her to understand that it was the President's intention to renew the non-intercourse against England, if she did not also rescind her blockades. It is here again to be noticed, that he again repeats, what he had before told General Armstrong, that a restoration of the property was indispensable, in order to a renewal of the non-intercourse against England.

But again: will, I had like to have said, the servile manner, in which a rescinding the blockade is coupled as a condition with the withdrawing the Orders in Council, escape notice? Immediately on instructing General Armstrong to state to the French Government that a repeal of the blockade of eighteen hundred and six would be insisted on, the Secretary adds: "You will press the reasonableness of permitting the United States to proceed in such way as they may think proper, in relation to any subsequent blockades, or any other blockades not against France," which to me reads in this way, i. e., as we have, at the request of the French Government, receded from our first ground, and included blockades also, you are instructed humbly to request Bonaparte to permit us to do our own business in our own way in future. My God! After all this, to see the Government of my country soliciting, at the feet of the Emperor of France, for permission to manage their own affairs in their own way! What American can read this correspondence without laying his hand upon his heart and exclaiming, O my Government, my Government, now is the gold become dim, and the most fine gold changed! The next thing we meet with, is Mr. Smith's letter of the 2d of November, to General Armstrong, enclosing the President's proclamation, declaring the edicts of France so revoked, as that they ceased to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, and of course the non-intercourse to be revived against England after the 2d of February, if she did not in the mean time revoke her orders, which, after the ground taken, and so often repeated, with respect to the restoration of the property, must astonish every American. But we have still this as a consolation, that Mr. Smith, notwithstanding he had been told by the Duke of Cadore that it was impossible any compromise could take place on that subject, says in the letter enclosing the proclamation that the President presumes that the requisitions contained in his letter of the 5th of July, as to the restoration of the property, will have been satisfied. In the name of God, Mr. Speaker, what grounds had he for this presumption? In addition to this, in his letter of the 5th of November, Mr. Smith instructs General Armstrong to let the Emperor know that the third section of the law of March, 1809, at which he took so much offence, was not intended to operate against his subjects, but against our own citizens. And although this may be, and probably is, true, yet a confession of this kind, after so recent and aggravated insult and violence, must I think be sickening to the American people, and Napoleon himself will be at a loss to know why it was made unless to testify our loyalty. But our loyalty to the contrary notwithstanding, the Duke of Cadore in his letter to General Armstrong of the 12th of September, in answer to one from him of the 7th of that month, tells the General, that the Emperor sees with pleasure that the Americans are far from acknowledging the tyrannical principles of English legislation, yet informs him that as to the merchandise confiscated, it having been confiscated as a measure of reprisal, the principles of reprisal must be the law in that affair.

Now, Mr. Speaker, after seeing how the law of May, 1810, has been used with the French Government, and for aught we know, not used at all with that of England, until it had assumed the character of a threat, together with the various changes of position taken by our Government in this business, I think it demonstrates a management, which, if duly examined, will not leave much doubt whether it be indispensably necessary to suffer this law to go into operation, either as a measure of resistance against England, or of good faith towards France. For instance, at one time England must repeal her Orders in Council to entitle her to the benefit of the law; at another, viz: after hearing from France, the condition must include a repeal of the blockades also, and on the part of France, she must rescind her decrees and restore the property, then a promise is to be accepted as it respects the property, and, to top the climax, the proclamation issues on the presumption of an agreement having taken place, on the part of France, that the property shall be restored. But after all this we are told by Cadore, on the 12th of September, to be contented, for as to the property in question it will not be restored.

But, Mr. Speaker, it seems that the President, in compliance with a resolution of the House of the 21st of December, has furnished documents which put the question beyond a doubt, that the proclamation was issued, declaring that the French decrees were repealed, so that they ceased to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, when, to say the least, he had no official information of the fact, or, if he had, he has taken care to keep it to himself. Mr. Smith, in his letter to Turreau, of the 18th of December, is compelled to say in effect, that the French restrictions on our commerce are not rescinded, or, to use his own words: "If, then, for the revoked decrees, municipal laws producing the same commercial effect have been substituted, the mode only, and not the measure, has undergone an alteration." In this situation, I should like to be informed why we are called upon by the Executive so to modify our laws as to carry the non-importation against England and her dependencies forcibly into effect, and thus destroy the small remains of our commerce, the effects of which we have so recently felt at the Treasury, since the repeal of the non-intercourse law of May last, as I have already shown from the Secretary's report. This information I have not as yet been able to obtain, although I have sought for it, unless I resort to the last paragraph in General Turreau's letter of December 12, to Mr. Secretary Smith, in answer to one from the Secretary, remonstrating against the exclusion of cotton and tobacco from the ports of France. In reply to which he says, among other things, that he thinks some modification will take place in this respect, but tells him that this will depend upon the firm and persevering measures to be pursued by the two Governments against the common enemy. In this intimation of his Imperial Majesty through his Minister, which, by-the-by, is not the first of the kind, will I fancy be found the only necessity of suffering this measure to go into operation. And are gentlemen prepared to obey? I trust not. No, sir, I will not for a moment entertain so degrading an idea. But firmly believing the contrary, I still hope the amendment will be rejected, and with it the whole restrictive system, until France shall learn to respect our rights.

Mr. Speaker, if I am to be called an enemy to my country for opposing this measure, under present circumstances, to my country I will appeal; being entirely willing that the honorable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wright) and his friends should share the whole of the honor of advocating the right of the Emperor to take and withhold the property of our citizens. Sir, it creates no astonishment to hear that gentleman contend that we are bound by the law of May to carry the non-intercourse into effect against Great Britain, but, to hear a gentleman possessed of the discernment of the honorable chairman of the committee who reported this bill, make this declaration, is truly astonishing, when the reverse is the fact. I trust I have already shown that in every communication from our Executive to the French Government on the subject, that Government has been told that if, in connection with the revocation of the decrees, the sequestered property was not given up, the non-intercourse would not be renewed against England. These several letters were communicated to this House, and published nearly three months since, and are, at this moment, in the hands of the British Government, and, by this tenure, that Government has a right to rest assured that the non-intercourse will not be renewed against them. Indeed, to believe the contrary, would be an insult to the plighted faith of the Executive.

Mr. Bigelow.—Mr. Speaker, I regret extremely that, at this late period of the session, and at this late hour of the night, the high sense of the duty which I feel that I owe to my constituents and to my country, should compel me to submit to the consideration of the House a few remarks upon this all-important subject. They will be of a general nature, candid, and as much as possible confined to the subject of debate.

Sir, on this occasion, I feel no disposition to censure the conduct of the President. Permit me, however, before I proceed to the subject, to notice a very singular remark of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Ross.) That gentleman observed, "that when this bill was laid on your table, he was determined to vote against it; that he considered it wrong in principle, and injurious in its consequences; and that he should now vote against it, had not several gentlemen, particularly the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Quincy,) been so severe in their censures upon the conduct of the Administration. He felt it his duty to support the Administration, and should, therefore, vote for the bill, although he disliked it."

Sir, I apprehend the President will not feel under very great obligations to that gentleman for this kind of support. For myself, I am free to declare, that stronger reasons than those must operate upon my mind, before I can give my sanction to a measure professedly impolitic and unjust.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is advocated on the ground that, by the law of May, 1810, we are under obligations to France to prohibit commercial intercourse with Great Britain. If, sir, I rightly recollect, for I have not the law before me, the substance of the provision, as it respected France, was, that if she so revoked or modified her edicts and decrees, as that they should cease to violate our neutral commerce, and Great Britain refused, for three months, to pursue a similar course, then was this system of non-intercourse to commence, as it respects Great Britain.

Mr. Speaker, I deny that the faith of the nation is pledged by the law of May, 1810. It is neither a contract nor a treaty. To constitute a contract, two parties are necessary, at least. All writers upon the subject have so considered it; and, sir, if one party can make a contract with another, without the knowledge, consent, or approbation of the other, it is a new discovery, with which, as yet, I am unacquainted. Such, sir, is the nature of the contract referred to. The Congress was the only party concerned in making it. France knew nothing of it; it was made wholly without her consent or approbation. How, then, is the national faith plighted to France by that law? Sir, I know of but one way in which the faith of this nation can be pledged to another, and that is, by a treaty approved and ratified by the constituted authorities; and surely, sir, no gentleman will contend that this law amounted to a treaty. If, then, it was neither a contract nor a treaty, the faith of the nation is not pledged. The most you can make of it is, as was observed on a former occasion by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) "that it is a rule of conduct for ourselves." But, sir, I am willing to admit, in case France had fairly and honestly complied with the conditions of the law, so often referred to, that good faith on our part might have required that we should pass the present bill. What was the condition to be performed on the part of France? Sir, she was to revoke and modify her decrees, so that they should cease to violate our neutral commerce. This has not been done. The Berlin and Milan decrees are not even nominally revoked. Look at the letters of Mr. Russell, our Chargé des Affaires at Paris, of the tenth of December last. Look at the letters of the Dukes of Massa and Gaete, of the twenty-fifth of the same month. Look at her conduct subsequent to the first of November, the time when you were informed that those decrees would cease to operate. Has she not seized every vessel which has arrived at her ports since that period? Upon this point I will not waste the time of the House by attempting to show that those decrees are still in force, a fact which has been already so fully and amply proved by the candid and able arguments of the honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. Emott.)

But, sir, I will go further, and, for the sake of argument, admit, not only that the law of May, 1810, has all the binding force upon this nation of a treaty made by the regular constitutional authorities, but that the Berlin and Milan decrees were, on the fifth day of August last, actually revoked; and, after the first day November, ceased to violate our neutral commerce. There is still another important point to be considered, and I hope gentlemen will attend to it with candor.

Sir, it is a principle well established by the law of nations, as well as by the laws of nature and reason, that when one nation, in consequence of revoking certain acts injurious to another nation, claims from the other nation the performance of a promise made on condition that those acts should be revoked, it is necessary that the nation thus claiming the fulfilment of the promise, should first, not only revoke those injurious acts, but it should also be done fairly and honestly, without subterfuge or reserve, and without, at the same time, adopting other measures equally injurious, and producing the same effects. Now, sir, admit that the declaration of the Duc de Cadore, in his letter of the 5th of August, 1810, that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and, after the first of November, would cease to violate our neutral commerce, was an actual revocation of those decrees; still, sir, if this was merely to amuse and deceive us, if another act equally injurious was at the same time substituted, will it be contended that France has, nevertheless, fairly complied with the conditions of your law? Sir, it is a very singular fact that, on this very fifth day of August, another decree was issued by the French Emperor, which was equally injurious, and amounted, in fact, to a prohibition of our commerce, as much as the Berlin and Milan decrees. I allude to the duties established by the Emperor on articles of American produce, which were so enormously high, that the owner would prefer an abandonment of his cargo to a payment of the duties. Even this was insufficient; for, by a subsequent decree, various articles were prohibited, and those which were allowed, must only be exported in vessels which should sail from Charleston or New York.

Is this, sir, that fair, that honest repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees; is this that bona fide performance of the condition; that ceasing to violate our neutral commerce, which lays us under such solemn obligations to France? Am I not, then, Mr. Speaker, authorized to say, that the condition of the law of May, 1810, has not been complied with? I trust, sir, as to this point, that the letter of the Secretary of State to Mr. Turreau, of the 18th of December last, will be considered as conclusive. In this letter, the Secretary, speaking of the enormous duties which have been mentioned, observes: "If, then, for the revoked decrees, municipal laws, producing the same commercial effect, have been substituted; the mode only, and not the measure, have undergone an alteration."

To my mind, sir, this insidious, this perfidious conduct, on the part of Napoleon, is infinitely more base, and merits the indignation of the American people infinitely more than would an open refusal to revoke the obnoxious decrees. It is an attempt, if I may be allowed the expression, to gull and deceive us, by an artful, intriguing policy, which ought to excite our jealousy, and rouse our highest resentments. I trust, sir, I have fairly shown that our faith is not plighted, that we are under no obligations to Napoleon. If in this I am correct, then the passage of the present bill is a mere question of policy and interest.

It would be a mere waste of time to attempt, by a reference to the past evils which have resulted from this restrictive system, to show the impolicy of its continuance. The bad effects already produced are but too well known. This, sir, is the favorable moment to erase it from your statute books; the policy and interest of the nation require it.

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

Do you believe, sir, that your merchants, a great portion of whose property has been seized by foreign nations, when the remnant of their vessels, which have escaped, shall, upon entering your own ports, be seized by your own custom-house officers, that they will be satisfied to lose the remainder of their property, in pursuance of your own laws? They will think it hard enough, that millions of their property have been seized by France, by Denmark, and by Sweden, without having the remainder seized on their return, and confiscated by their own Government. Surely, sir, they will require strong evidence of the fact that your faith is plighted to France, before they will be satisfied with the measure you are about to adopt.

Mr. Speaker, I am not the Representative of merchants; I feel no peculiar interest in their favor, but I consider them a useful class of citizens; their interests are closely connected with the interests of your farmers; and, in this point of view, they are at least entitled to notice. Hitherto, your merchants have been noted for their fairness, and for the respect they have paid to your revenue laws. But, sir, after having their property plundered by France, by Denmark, and Sweden, will they not, when they learn that from a scrupulous regard to your faith plighted to France, a faith, however, which has no existence, you seize, with a few exceptions, all which return; will they not, I repeat it, endeavor to land their cargoes so as to escape the vigilance of your officers? Have you no apprehension that, when they have once learnt the art of smuggling to save their property from seizure and confiscation, they will afterwards practise it, to avoid the payment of duties? I fear that this system will have a tendency to corrupt the morals of your merchants, and from them it will extend throughout the country.