nitive repeal of the decrees, while the law itself was founded on the fact, declared by the President's proclamation, that they were already definitively repealed.

Thus it is, now, as clear as the light of day, that the proclamation of the President was rash and precipitate; that the fact on which it rested did not exist; that the declaration of the Duke of Cadore was false and deceptive; and that thus the calamitous war, in which we are now involved, has its very foundation in the duplicity and fraud of the French Government, and in the blind or wilful folly of our own.

H. OF R.

whether the effect of the Orders in Council was injurious to the British nation; whether the extent of that injury was so great as to make it expedient to abandon them, notwithstanding France might still refuse to revoke her decrees. Great Britain must always have been sensible, that the effect of those orders was injurious to herself. The clamors of her manufacturing interest against them had been long as loud, and importunate, as they were at the period of their repeal. She wished only for a pretence to repeal them consistently with the ground she had uniformly taken with respect to the decrees of France. And I have little doubt that they would have been ultimately repealed without that pretence. The communication of the decree of April 28th, at the time it bears date, would have afforded the opportunity she had long wished; an opportunity which the event has shown her eager to improve. But, sir, it is again intimated, that the concealment of that decree was unimportant, for we are told, that although its promulgation might have produced the repeal of the Orders in Council, that repeal would not have prevented the war. The right claimed by Great Britain to impress her own seamen on board of our merchant vessels, it is now said, was in itself ample cause of war. Sir, I can never believe, that for this cause alone war would have been declared. Did not the Administration, at a late period, profess its readiness to overlook the question of impressment, and to give up its whole restrictive system against England, on an arrangement of the other matters of difference between the two Governments? If we go back to the negotiation with Mr. Erskine; if we consider the eagerness with which that negotiation was conducted, and the rapidity with which it was hurried through all the forms of diplomacy; and if we consider, also, that in the arrangement made with that Minister, the question of impressment was untouched, we must be convinced that the Administration considered it a point of minor importance.

But, sir, it has been urged with great warmth, by the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, that, had there been no concealment of the decree of the 28th of April, had it been communicated to the British Government at the time it bears date, it would not have produced a repeal of the Orders in Council; and the gentleman refers us to the declaration of the Prince Regent of the 21st of April, 1812, and the subsequent correspondence between the Secretary of State and the British Minister in this country; by which he tells us, it will appear, that a repeal of the decrees of France, only as they related to the United States, would not have been satisfactory to that Government. Sir, admitting for the sake of the argument that the gentleman's construction of that declaration and correspondence is correct, it by no means supports the position he has taken. If the British Government has assumed at all the ground in relation to the French decrees, now asserted by the gentleman, it assumed it by the declaration of the 21st of April, 1812. For one year, then, after the date of the decree of the 28th of April, 1811, had Great Britain been requiring the definite evidence afforded by that decree, of the repeal of the decrees of Berlin and Milan-standing pledged on the receipt of that evidence to proceed, pari passu, in the repeal of the Orders in Council. Although, then, by the declaration of the 21st April, she may have assumed higher ground, can it be reasonably doubted, that if that decree had been communicated to her at the time it bears date, the Orders in Council would have been revoked? We cannot doubt about it, sir, when we know that, notwithstanding that declaration, she did repeal them in a manner" susceptible of explanations meeting the views of that Government" within a reasonable time after that decree was made known to her. I say within a reasonable time, for when we consider the unsettled state of the British Ministry at that period, the intervention of thirty days, between the receipt of the decree and the repeal of the orders, cannot be considered a material cir-been declared, because, by the declaration of

cumstance.

But, sir, we are told by the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, that the result of the inquiries, then going on in the House of Commons, as to the operation of the Orders in Council on the commerce and manufactures of Great Britain, was the true cause of their final repeal. But, sir, let it be remembered, that the object of those inquiries was not so much to ascertain

It is not reasonable to expect on this subject that any proof can be drawn from the formal declarations of the Government. But even here we may discover something which may serve to show in what light a repeal of the Orders in Council before the declaration of war would have been viewed. In the letter before alluded to, of the 21st of August, 1812, from the Secretary of State to Mr. Russell, we are told, that "it is not now a question whether the declaration of the Prince Regent (repealing the Orders in Council) is such as ought to have produced a repeal of the non-importation act, had war not

war, that question was superseded." A ground is thus afforded for a fair inference, that the Administration felt itself precluded by the declaration of war from giving to the repeal of the Orders in Council that effect and influence on the policy of this country, to which it might otherwise have been entitled.

But, sir, independent of all evidence on this subject to be drawn from the acts or declarations

H. OF R.

French Decrees.

JUNE, 1813

these resolutions. The nation ought not, and will not be satisfied without this inquiry. The public voice imperiously demands it. Now when the pressure of the war begins to be felt; when you are about to impose heavy burdens on the people for its support, at least let them know that if you have been the dupes, you have not been

of the Government, I may venture to appeal to honorable gentlemen who were members of this House at the time war was declared, and to ask them whether such a declaration would or could have been made, had it not been for the conviction which the majority then professed to feel, that the Orders in Council would not be revoked? I may appeal to the general sense and understand-the willing dupes of the intrigues and falsehood ing of the nation on this head, and to the univer- of France. You accuse us of thwarting the sal expression of regret, when it was found that measures and views of the Administration by these orders were in fact revoked about the time our opposition to the war. If you know your war was declared; that that declaration had not own interest, take from us the most deadly weapbeen delayed. Sir, I can be convinced of noth-on that can be wielded against you. Be prompt ing more firmly than that the sober sense of this in repelling the charge that you have been tricked House, or of this people, would never have sanc-and betrayed into this war by France, and that tioned a declaration of war on the ground alone you have not dared to remonstrate. Let the Adof the British claim to impress their own sea-ministration tell us where the falsehood lies, and if they are innocent, let us know how they repelled the vile calumny. Let us see that they have had spirit enough to resent an imposition which they had discernment enough to detect.

men.

I have thus, Mr. Speaker, endeavored to state to the House the reasons which have induced me to think that the promulgation of the decree of April 28th, at the time of its date, was highly important to the best interests of this country. You will have perceived, sir, that my remarks have been founded on the supposition, that that decree was in truth made by the French Government at the time it bears date, and that it has been suppressed by that Government, or our own, or by both in concert. I have also ventured to state to the House the considerations which operate powerfully to convince us that the declaration of the Duke of Bassano, charging the suppression exclusively on the Government of this country, is true. And really, sir, when we consider that this declaration is the solemn official act of the French Government; of a Government to whose acts and declarations this Administration has always declared that the most unbounded confidence was due; that it is a declaration as yet unexplained and uncontradicted, and that, for the act it imputes to the Administration, adequate motives may be assigned, the mind must struggle hard to resist the conviction pressed upon it by such a weight of evidence.

Sir, these are considerations which I urge to gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House. To me, had I a seat there, they would be conclusive. But, sir, I confess I have much higher motives; motives which, I have no doubt, operated strongly on the mind of my friend from New Hampshire, when he determined to call the attention of the House to this subject. My political observation, limited as it has been, has taught me that many of the worst evils under which this country has suffered have arisen from that overweening confidence in French faith and honor, which is felt not only by the men who administer the Government, but by a portion of the people. It is this confidence that has bound and hoodwinked every victim which has been sacrificed by France, I confess, sir, I wish this delusion in the public mind corrected. I wish to see this Administration compelled to stamp on the forehead of France, the falsehood she has dared to utter, that it may remain there as a mark to warn the nations, that there is no safety but in her open and avowed enmity. And sir, if, contrary to our hopes, the Administration have been a willing party to this dark intrigue; if they have connived at the falsehood of the French Government, and have not dared to repel the grossest insult which could be offered to the independence and honor of our country, I equally wish to see the mask stripped from the faces of men, who will then be acknowledged to have too long deceived an honorable and confiding people.

Viewing the subject in this point of light; considering that as the facts now stand before the public, this Administration must be convicted of having suppressed an important public document for the worst of purposes, I must be permitted, in common with my eloquent friend from Maryland, (Mr. HANSON,) to express my surprise that the resolutions now on the table, should be opposed. These resolutions are designed to throw light on this dark transaction. If it will bear the Mr. GROSVENOR addressed the Chair as follows: light, the friends of the Administration ought to Mr. Speaker, I cannot suffer the question to be promote the inquiry. They ought not to shrink taken without offering to the House my reasons from a measure which must result in the vindi- for supporting the resolution. In doing this, sir, cation of its honor, if indeed it can be vindi- I, like the honorable gentleman from South Carcated. We now tender to the majority an oppor-olina, may become warm; yet as I can never adtunity, which they ought themselves to have mit that such warmth furnishes any license to taken, of repelling this foul slander on our Gov-him for personal attack, or improper language, so ernment. We would fain hope that the effect of I shall claim no such license myself, by condethis investigation will be to wipe away the sus-scending to imitate his example. I have, Mr. picion which is now attached to our rulers-a Speaker, adverted to the example of the honorsuspicion which is daily gathering strength, and able gentleman, for the purpose of informing him which will soon become conviction, if you reject that the boisterous language on this floor by way

of defiance, threat, or intimidation, will no longer have its wonted effect.

I wish that honorable gentleman and every other gentleman on this floor distinctly to understand, that their threats have no terror for us. They pass by us like the idle winds which we respect not. Sir, I stand here the independent representative of a free people. Upon all topics which come before this House, I shall ever "speak what I do think," restrained by nothing but the rules of decorum which are here established, and which it may become every gentleman to observe.

I stand upon my own personal right, which I will yield to no man. I stand upon the freehold of the Constitution, from which I will not be driven without a struggle.

H. of R.

But it is said that no reason is assigned in the resolutions for the call, no purpose designated for which the information is required.

Sir, I had considered that this objection was settled forever in the session of 1796. The President then refused the information demanded by the House. Upon this refusal the House passed two resolutions, the one of which I will read:

"Resolved, That it is not necessary to the propriety of any application from this House to the Executive for information desired by them, and which may relate to any Constitutional functions of the House, that the purposes for which such information may be wanted, or to which the same may be applied, should be stated in the application."

On the passage of this resolution, Mr. Madison and Mr. Gallatin, then members of this House, both spoke and voted in the affirmative. Can the Executive shrink from the rule which he when on this floor adopted? Or will his supporters here deal to him a measure different from that which he dealt to the Father of his Country? The principle on which this resolution is founded, has prevailed here to this day; and strange indeed would it be, if now it should be violated, to shield from its fair operation the very man who originated and established it among us.

Another objection has been started. It seems that the resolutions are too categorical and particular. Sir, I do admit that the resolutions are strongly marked with a particular, categorical, and even inquisitorial character. From them no casuistry, no art, can enable the President to escape. They were thus drawn for no other reason than to preclude all evasion and elusion-to obtain the particular and precise information demanded. I well know, that the ordinary general form is more proper and more respectful. But, sir, there may be cases in which mere form must yield to substance and necessity, courtly respect to plain Republican sincerity. Is not this precisely such a case?

Sir, I have no doubt that this House has a perfect right to the information demanded by the resolutions. How can we speak or act upon subjects inseparably connected with our foreign relations, if the Executive, the only organ of communication with other nations, may be suffered at his sovereign will and pleasure to withhold from us all his correspondence? By admitting such a course of practice, the President has had the destinies of this nation in his hands-nor is it strange that this House, that Congress and the nation, have been hurried from one restrictive measure to another, and finally into an unnecessary and a wanton war. Sir, I have not the slightest doubt that to this constant habit of Executive secrecy, to the garbled extracts of letters from and to the French Government, which deform our journals and deceive the public; to the deep darkness which shrouds our intercourse with the arch tyrant; more than to any other cause, may be imputed all our present dangers and calamities. Let this House, let this country, no longer be forced to feel its way in thick darkness when the light and the day are within its reach. In England, it is true "His Majesty can do no wrong" and when his Ministry draw a veil over their conduct, they step boldly forth and demand the confidence of the Parliament and the country, secure in the protection of the King and the majority. But, sir, I am utterly astonished when I find gentlemen who bluster much about the purity of their republicanism, who are in an absolute political fever when the theory or practice of that "corrupt, despotic, and treacherous" nation is even hinted at, should now wish to introduce here a practice precisely similar. The foundation of our whole system of Government is responsibility. The President and most of his dependents are by This is the material part of the resolution. the Constitution obnoxious to the animadversions What was the reply to this resolution? A simof this House. And every official man in the Re-ple communication of the degrading accusation public is responsible to the people. Let this responsibility never be destroyed or evaded by suffering any officer, be he high or be he low, to draw a permanent veil over his official conduct; and, if he attempts it, let this House, planting itself upon the Constitution, raise its arm, tear asunder the pernicious covering, and expose the naked truth to the view of the people. In the pure age of our Republic such was the theory and the practice under our Constitution.

At the close of the last session, upon the motion of the honorable gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH,) a resolution was adopted in the ordinary and general form

“Resolved, That the President be requested to cause to be laid before the House the French decree, purporting to be a repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees, referred to in his Message of the 4th of November last, together with such information as he may possess concerning the time and manner of promulgating the same," &c. &c.

of the French Minister, and that only. Not one word of denial or of comment; not a murmur of resentment at the foul stigma which the Duke of Bassano had attempted to fix on the honor of the Executive and the character of the country. All information that the President "might possess relative to the time and manner of promulgating" the decree was refused or evaded; and thereby the blot on our national honor was rendered tenfold deeper and blacker.

H. OF R.

French Decrees.

JUNE, 1813.

Would these honorable gentlemen have us re-establish an impartial policy between the two peat an experiment which issued in such conse- belligerents, assumed what was then called its quences? Would they again adopt a course final neutral attitude. which would again disappoint us and disgrace our country? No, sir, if this information ought to be obtained, this is the only form, the only manner to obtain it. We must tell the Executive without ambiguity and with precision, and yet with every respect compatible with our duty, our objects and our requests. If these resolutions pass, they must be met with satisfactory information, or with a refusal to communicate. The reply will rest with the President, and upon him be the responsibility for the form and substance of that reply.

Having disposed of the form of these resolutions, I will now proceed to their substance.

6

The Committee of Foreign Relations of this House, under the immediate influence of the direction of the present Executive, on the 22d of November, 1808, made a report, in which was described the situation of the country in relation to France and England, the ground which the Administration were about to occupy distinctly pointed out, and the principles of justice and policy which would influence its conduct towards those nations fully developed. I beg the attention of the House to a few passages in that report.

They reject the first alternative, and then proceed: "There is no other alternative but war with both nations, or a continuance of the pres

The framers of the report first describe the origin and foundation of the French decrees and British orders, the manner in which they violate An instrument purporting to be a French de- American rights, the policy of the embargo, and cree, modifying or repealing the French Berlin the efforts made by the American Government to and Milan decrees, so far as they violated our obtain a revocation of those decrees and orders. neutral rights, was communicated by the Duke They then say, "The effort has been ineffectual. of Bassano to Mr. Barlow, our Minister in France, The propositions have been actually rejected by on the 10th of May, 1812. This decree bears' one of the belligerent Powers and remain undate the 24th of April, 1811. It had been con- answered by the other. In that state of things, cealed for more than one year from the time of what course ought the United States to pursue? its date. Mr. Barlow, conscious that the publi-Your committee can perceive no other alternacation of the decree, at its date, would have saved tive but abject and degrading submission, war this country from many evils, and astonished at with both nations, or a continuance and enforceits concealment, demanded of the Duke of Bas-'ment of the present suspension of commerce." sano whether it had ever been published. The Duke replied, that it had been communicated to our Minister in France, and sent on to Mr. Serrurier, to be communicated to our Government.ent system; for war with one of the belligerents If the Duke of Bassano stated the fact correctly, then our Government was guilty of concealing the decree. If he stated a falsehood, then his own Government is guilty of the concealment, with the full addition of duplicity and falsehood. Certainly, the charge of the French Minister implicated the honor and the honesty of the Executive of this country. It struck a blow at the integrity and honor of the Government. Yet the Executive has never publicly denied the foul accusation. It is to arrive at truth in relation to this dark and alarming transaction, to acquit the innocent, and to hang the guilty up a detestable spectacle to the universe, that these resolutions are offered. Let me ask the House, let me ask the nation, is not the object laudable-is not the duty important and imperious?

would be submission to the edicts and will of the other." "Nor can it be doubted, that a measure that would supply exclusively one of the belligerents, would be war with the other." While the decrees of both nations remain unrepealed, the committee here distinctly state, that any "restrictive measures that would exclusively supply one of the belligerents, whether of nonintercourse or non-importation against the one nation, would be, ipso facto, war with that nation, and submission to the edicts and will of 'the other."

They then consider the question of war, and say: "The present unsettled state of the world, the extraordinary situation in which the United States are placed, and the necessity, if war be ' resorted to, of making it, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I have not one doubt that, if that against both nations, and these the two most decree had been published at the time of its date, powerful in the world, are the principal causes it would have prevented the present war and all'of hesitation. There would be none in resortits calamitous consequences. To establish thising to the remedy, however calamitous, if a position, I must solicit the attention of the House selection could be made on any principle of justo the facts and events which conducted this de- ' tice, or without a sacrifice of national indepenvoted nation to its present disastrous situation.dence." Language cannot be plainer. The After unsuccessfully negotiating for the repeal of the French decrees and British orders after a wild and destructive experiment had evinced that the embargo, a measure founded in the grossest political error, continued in obstinacy, and ending in national disgrace and commercial ruin, was equally imbecile abroad and pernicious at home-the Government, either shrinking from the frowning aspect of the North, or resolving to

committee, acting, I repeat, under the entire control and direction of the Executive, distinctly state, that war with either nation, whether by the new fashioned mode of commercial restrictions, or by the old fashioned mode of fighting, while the decrees of both nations were in force, would be dishonor, injustice, submission, and a sacrifice of national independence, and in direct contradiction to the idea advanced yesterday by the

gentleman from South Carolina. In such circumstances, neither nation could be, with honor and justice, selected for hostility.

Mr. Speaker, this report, and all its principles, emanating directly from the Executive, were adopted by this House, and by Congress. The Government of the United States thereby pledged their honor, their character, and their faith to our merchants, to our people, to the belligerent nations, and to the world, to be governed in their future policy by its provisions, and they never violated that pledge until the President of the United States issued his inconsiderate-his false proclamation, on the 2d day of November, 1810. Soon after this report and its principles were adopted in this House, the embargo descended to the grave, I hope, never again to rear its "miscreated front" among us. In pursuance of the principles of the report, on the 1st of March, 1809, an act, commonly called the non-intercourse law, was passed, to commence on the succeeding 20th of May, against both belligerents, but in strict accordance with the new and impartial policy of our Government, containing a provision that, if France or England should so far repeal or modify her edicts, as that they should cease to violate our neutral rights, the fact should be proclaimed by the President, and the act was to cease as to that nation.

This act was to expire with the next session of Congress. I pass over the arrangement of the British Minister, Erskine, the proclamation of the President founded thereon, the rescinding of that proclamation, the outrageous conduct of France upon the pretence of retaliation for that act, the vile insults heaped upon our Government by France, and borne with a patience bordering on pusillanimity, and request your attention to the act of the 1st of May, 1810. This act was founded on the principles of the report; it was passed just before the expiration of the act of non-intercourse, and was intended to supply its place. It declared that, if Great Britain or France should so revoke or modify her edicts as that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, which fact the President should declare by proclamation; and, if the other nation should not, within three months thereafter, revoke or modify her edicts in like manner, then certain sections of the non-intercourse law of March, 1809, should be revived against the nation so refusing to revoke or modify. The sections, thus to be revived, constituted an iron system of non-importation against such nation.

H. OF R.

an Executive. What a wild field of Gallic intrigue was now presented! The imperial magician had now only to seduce or to dupe the Executive, and this proud nation would lay prostrate, in the snares of French perfily and violence. A "gordian knot" would be fastened upon us, and this last Republic be found fighting in the universal battle, side by side, with the veriest tyrant that ever crimsoned the earth with blood.

From the moment that this law was known in France, the work of duplicity began, and it never ceased until all the designs of the French despot were fully accomplished. By the principles of the report, adopted by Congress; by the avowed and permanent policy of the Government; by the non-intercourse law of 1809; by every consideration of " justice, national honor, and national independence," and finally by the express provision of the law of May, 1810, on which only he could act, the President was solemnly bound never to issue his proclamation, until the French Government should have, in good faith, repealed or modified her decrees, in relation to American commerce. How was the fact? The President waited for no such repeal or modification. He became the dupe of French duplicity and falsehood. In the language of Mr. Russell, then our Minister in France, the President " was shuffled into the lead where national honor and the law required him to follow."

For the indubitable correctness of these propositions I appeal to facts. On the 5th of August, 1810, the Duke de Cadore, the French Minister of Foreign Relations, addressed a note to Mr. Armstrong, then our Minister in France, from which I will read an extract: "I am authorized to declare to you, sir, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, and that after the 1st 'November they will cease to have effect; it be'ing well 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." Sir, this is the instrument, and the only instrument, upon which the proclamation of the President was founded. Upon perusing this letter, its hollow, juggling, jesuitical character is visible and glaring. Unconnected with subsequent events, which stripped it of all ambiguity, from its very terms, who will dare to say that it revoked or modified the decrees, as required by the act of Mr. Speaker, from this act this country may May preceding? It does not even purport to do date the origin of those sinister events, which this; it has not even the merit of Pythian obscur now cover her with distress and blood. This is ity; it ought not to have deceived the weakest the Pandora's box, whence have escaped all that understanding. "It being well understood," that swarm of disasters which that nation will long is, "upon condition," (not in consequence of this remember with tears of blood. It placed the fate revocation, even the juggler himself had not the of this country, its peace, its prosperity, its hap-impudence to call it a revocation,) "the English piness, in the hands of men unable to guard and protect them. The Constitutional guardians of the people, the immediate sentinels of our honor and independence, shrinking or flying from their posts, surrendered their power, to be exercised by

shall revoke, &c., or America cause her rights to be respected." What is the plain English of this jesuitical instrument? "Upon condition that England revokes her decrees, or that America, in case she does not so revoke, proclaims a measure of