Mr. G. said he felt himself constrained to move this amendment at this time, because he found it impossible to avoid a consideration of the subject involved in it, although he had heretofore hoped that it would not necessarily pass in review during the present session. He said this necessity arose from the limitation of these sections of the act at the last session. The connection of these sections with the commercial non-intercourse system, was contrary to his opinion at that time; he then wished the subject to be taken up and acted upon in a separate bill, and made the permanent law of the land. His opinion then gave way to the respect he felt for the opinion of others. This will appear from the resolution he then moved, "to extend the interdiction to the public armed ships and vessels of all foreign nations." In consequence of connecting that subject with the general commercial non-intercourse, and limiting its duration with that act, it was now rendered a very delicate question. His proposition, however, was, to do now, what it was right to have done at the last session. He said that the proposition was founded upon the principle, that the United States had as absolute and unqualified a right to exclusive jurisdiction over the marine leagues usually attached to independent nations, as to their territorial jurisdiction, and as a consequence from that principle, foreign nations had no more right to send armed ships within our acknowledged marine jurisdiction, than they had to send an army within our territorial jurisdiction. This proposition is, therefore, merely municipal, formed upon an unquestionable right, and it is dictated by the same spirit of impartiality as that which dictated the original non-intercourse law. Indeed, it appeared to him the only impartial course now left us, as it respects the belligerents. It ought to preserve the most perfect impartiality, which, Mr. Canning so justly tells us, "is the essence of neutrality."
Mr. G. said it could not escape observation, that, in the overtures made by the British Cabinet for the revocation of the Orders in Council of the 7th of January and the 11th of November, the obligation to protect our neutral rights against France, heretofore offered on the part of our Government, in case of her perseverance in her hostile edicts, had been entirely overlooked, or unconditionally dispensed with. He said he derived much satisfaction from this liberal conduct on the part of the British Government, because it manifested a confidence in the honor and firmness of our Government, which must be peculiarly gratifying to every American; but it rather increased than lessened the obligation to persevere in protecting our neutral rights against French aggressions, if they should be persevered in, contrary to his expectation.
The motive or ground of resisting the aggressions of France cannot, under this overture, be mistaken. In the former case, it might have seemed as if the resistance was dictated by a stipulated obligation to Great Britain to make it in this; it can only be dictated by a just sense of our own honor, character, and interests, which is left perfectly uncontrolled by the British overture. As this latter motive is the more honorable, it ought to be the more scrupulously adhered to and enforced. He had no hesitation in saying he had uniformly been influenced by this motive alone, entirely disconnected with any stipulated obligation to Great Britain; and under this influence, alone, he would be found at all times as ready to resist the aggressions of France, as he had at any time been those of Great Britain, if they should, unfortunately, be persevered in; but, at the same time, he wished to take away every pretext for such perseverance, by persevering in a conduct of the strictest and most scrupulous impartiality toward all the belligerents.
At the last session he had supposed, under the general interdiction of all foreign armed vessels, some regulations and modifications, as exceptions from the general rule, might be made by law, but further reflection had satisfied him that the preferable mode was by treaty.
He would state two or three reasons for this preference:
1. It will tend to avoid collisions with all foreign nations. Regulations made by law might not suit the views of foreign nations, whereas their consent would be necessary in treaties.
2. It will give us the aid of a stipulated obligation on the part of the foreign nation making the treaty, to enforce the arrangement. In the case of Great Britain this consideration is of great importance. Its importance results from the strength of her navy, compared with the weakness of ours.
3. By treaty we may obtain what the lawyers call a quid pro quo. We may want, at some future time, the use of some British ports, which she would readily give for the use of ours. He said he would act liberally with her in this respect; and, he believed, considering Great Britain now at war, and the United States at peace, it would rather accelerate than retard the expected negotiation. He said he was as much opposed to throwing any impediment in the way of the expected negotiation as any gentleman in the United States.
Great Britain cannot, and will not complain. The municipal right now proposed to be carried into effect, is admitted by Great Britain in its broadest extent, and will not be disputed by Mr. Canning at the present moment. This will appear from Mr. Canning's declarations in the debates of the last session of Parliament. He said he did not know whether it was correct to read newspapers in evidence, to ascertain the opinions and expressions of the speaker, but if the Senate would be content with this species of evidence, contained in a Ministerial paper, he would read it for their information. Mr. G. then read the following extract of Mr. Canning's speech, taken from a British Ministerial paper:
Extract from Mr. Canning's speech in Parliament.