Mr. S. remarked, that it had been suggested that the British nation had been guilty of a violation of the laws of nations in their treatment of us; and that, therefore, we were not bound to govern ourselves by that law in our conduct towards them. This argument, however plausible, he said, would not bear the test of examination; that all reprisals were justified only on the principle that the nation on whom reprisal is made has been guilty of a previous violation of the laws of nations. When a nation disregards that general law by which the conduct of all independent communities towards each other is to be regulated, the same law points out the mode of redress. If there has been no violation of that law, there can be no reprisal. If there has been a violation, then the reprisal must be pursuant to the law, for it is the highest absurdity to say, that because there has been an infraction of a law which authorizes a certain mode of redress, that we may pursue a different mode of redress in violation of the law which gives us the right. This would be at once to renounce the whole system of the laws of nations, and throw mankind back into a state of savage barbarity and ferocity.
Mr. S. then adverted to the policy of the measure. He said, upon a fair calculation, it would be found that the adoption of the proposition would be productive of far greater injury to this country than the amount of the losses sustained by our citizens in consequence of the spoliations committed upon our commerce. It is evident that this country, even admitting that a war should take place, would wish to renew their commercial connection with Great Britain. But if, in contempt of the law of nations, we seize on private debts, we shall for ever forfeit all credit; no trust can be reposed in our citizens, and no faith in our Government. No foreign merchants will ever deal on credit with our citizens, from a well-guarded apprehension that, in case of a war between the countries, the sacred nature of private contracts will not protect them against the hand of a Government which has exhibited the example of a deliberate violation of the laws of nations. When we consider the immense advantages that can be derived from private credit and national honor, it will be easy to imagine the infinite mischief that must result from a disregard of those principles.
Mr. S. objected to the measure on the ground that he considered it to be a declaration of war; and he did not think that the circumstances required or justified our taking that step. He said that notwithstanding the unwarrantable proceedings of the British nation; yet, no act had been done by the British Court that clearly indicated an intention to make war directly upon us, or that could be considered as direct and intentional war, though we might consider many of their acts as just causes of making war on our part.
The revocation of the Order of the 6th of November, the new instructions of the 8th of January, and the explanation given to the merchants of London, clearly evidenced that a war might be avoided with that nation. While there was the remotest possibility of preserving our peace we ought not to do an act which might endanger a war. While then the conduct of the British Cabinet would admit of an explanation, while there was a prospect that we might obtain by negotiation restitution of the property of our citizens or compensation for the losses they had sustained, we ought to pursue that mode; but if we proceeded to make reprisals by adopting an illegal measure, it must certainly be deemed a declaration of war.
The omission of the regular means of obtaining satisfaction by negotiation, and an unwarrantable mode of reprisal, would certainly be just causes of war. If we must be driven into a war, it would be of the highest advantage to us to conduct it in such a manner as to convince the people of Great Britain that we sincerely wished to avoid it, and that the unjust and illegal proceedings of their own court have been the sole cause of the war. In such a case we have reason to think, that so great is the interest of that nation in preserving our commercial connection, that a powerful party will be formed in our favor to oppose the injustice of the Government. The sentiments of the people will be against the war, and the court will find it extremely difficult to maintain it under such circumstances.
But if, without demanding an explanation, we proceed to adopt rash, violent, and unwarrantable measures, the spirit of the nation will rise against us, and the people will join the court in prosecuting a war which will be then deemed just and necessary.
Mr. S. then observed that we ought to take into consideration the present situation of Europe; that the late successes of the French nation had materially changed the political prospect. It was possible that these successes had been the cause which had produced an alteration in the views of the British Court. If events had happened which had rendered the disposition of that nation less unfriendly and hostile, we ought to take advantage of that circumstance, and not do any thing to check the progress of that favorable disposition. He most sincerely hoped that these successes would convince the combined powers of the impossibility to conquer France, and produce a general pacification.
While such were the prospects, he ardently wished that a measure repugnant to the principles of common honesty and common justice might be rejected; and he hoped that no gentleman in the committee would vote in favor of a proposition which would fix an indelible stigma on our national character.
The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.