After stating the motives which led to the introduction of these resolutions they were laid on the table for the consideration of the members.
On the 21st of March Mr. Sedgwick's motion, authorizing the President to lay an embargo, was negatived by a majority of two votes, but in a few days the consideration of that subject was resumed, and a resolution passed prohibiting all trade from the United States to any foreign port or place for thirty days, and empowering the President to carry the resolution into effect.
On the 27th of March Mr. Dayton moved a resolution for sequestering all debts due to British subjects, and for taking means to secure their payment into the treasury, as a fund out of which to indemnify the citizens of the United States for depredations committed on their commerce by British cruisers, in violation of the laws of nations.
The debate on this resolution was such as was to be expected from the irritable state of the public mind. The invectives against the British nation were uttered with peculiar vehemence, and were mingled with allusions to the exertions of the government for the preservation of neutrality, censuring strongly the system which had been pursued.
Before any question was taken on the proposition for sequestering British debts, and without a decision on those proposed by Mr. Madison, Mr. Clarke moved a resolution which in some degree suspended the commercial regulations that had been so earnestly debated. This was to prohibit all intercourse with Great Britain until her government should make full compensation for all injuries done to the citizens of the United States by armed vessels, or by any person or persons acting under the authority of the British King, and until the western posts should be delivered up.
On the 4th of April (1794) before any decision was made on the several propositions which have been stated, the President laid before Congress a letter just received from Thomas Pinckney, the minister of the United States at London, communicating additional instructions to the commanders of British armed ships, which were dated the 8th of January. These instructions revoked those of the 6th of November (1793), and, instead of bringing in for adjudication all neutral vessels trading with the French islands, British cruisers were directed to bring in those only which were laden with cargoes the produce of the French islands, and were on a direct voyage from those islands to Europe.
The letter detailed a conversation with Lord Grenville on this subject, in which his lordship explained the motives which had originally occasioned the order of the 6th of November, and gave to it a less extensive signification than it had received in the courts of vice-admiralty.
It was intended, he said, to be temporary and was calculated to answer two purposes. One was to prevent the abuses which might take place in consequence of the whole of the St. Domingo fleet having gone to the United States; the other was on account of the attack designed upon the French West India islands by the armament under Sir John Jervis and Sir Charles Grey; but it was now no longer necessary to continue the regulations for those purposes. His lordship added that the order of the 6th of November did not direct the confiscation of all vessels trading with the French islands, but only that they should be brought in for legal adjudication, and he conceived that no vessel would be condemned under it which would not have been previously liable to the same sentence.
The influence of this communication on the party in the Legislature which was denominated Federal was very considerable. Believing that the existing differences between the two nations still admitted of explanation and adjustment, they strenuously opposed all measures which were irritating in their tendency or which might be construed into a dereliction of the neutral character they were desirous of maintaining, but they gave all their weight to those which, by putting the nation in a posture of defense, prepared it for war should negotiation fail.
On the opposite party no change of sentiment or of views appears to have been produced. Their system seems to have been matured, and not to have originated in the feelings of the moment. They adhered to it, therefore, with inflexible perseverance, but seemed not anxious to press an immediate determination of the propositions which had been made. These propositions were discussed with great animation, but, notwithstanding an ascertained majority in their favor, were permitted to remain undecided, as if their fate depended on some extrinsic circumstance.