non-importation against her exclusively, then I make this declaration, that my decrees shall be revoked on the 1st November."

6

JUNE, 1813.

sell to the Secretary of State, dated the 9th of June, 1811. That vessel arrived in France on the 3d of December, more than a month after the proclamation of the President had been issued. Mr. Russell states that, "on the 5th of December, the director of the customs at Bordeaux seized her and her cargo under the Milan decrees of the 23d of November and 17th of December, 1807, expressly set forth, for having come from an En'lish port, and for having been visited by an English vessel of war." The proclamation of the President arrived in France, and was received by Mr. Russell, on the 13th of the same month. He had, on the 10th, presented a remonstrance against the proceeding, and kept back the proclamation. For what purpose did he thus act? To test the question, he says, whether the French decrees were in truth revoked. To have used the proclamation, he says, "would be nothing better than absurdly and basely employing the declar'lan decrees had been revoked, as the means of obtaining their revocation." He therefore kept it back to ascertain "whether the American 'Government had been shuffled into the lead where national honor and the law required it to 'follow." He did keep back the proclamation, and the question was decided; his remonstrance was disregarded. For, he says, "that the proces verbal, issued after his remonstrance was preAnd let me solemnly demand, have not subse-sented, expressly declares that the confiscation quent events demonstrated that, at the time. and of this property was to be pursued before the long after the date of this proclamation, the Ber- Imperial Council of Prizes at Paris, according lin and Milan decrees were in full force against to the decrees of the 23d of November and the America? I will briefly examine the matter, and 17th of December, 1807, or, in other words, the the American people, even that party which has 'decrees of Milan." nailed its colors to the mast of the Executive, and resolved, with him, to go to the bottom, shall no longer doubt the weakness of the President, and the black treachery of his imperial deceiver.

This is the plain import of this famous letter. It demanded that the Executive should "take the lead where national honor and the law required him to follow." It demanded, as a condition precedent to the absolute revocation of the French decree, that the President, under the law of May, 1810, should proclaim a non-importation act against England-a measure which, under such circumstances, the committee of this House, in 1808, had pronounced to be a "measure of war." What was the plain duty of the President? Surely to resist the demand-at least, to wait until time, and the conduct of France, should strip the "declaration" of its oracular ambiguity. On the contrary, the President, as if eager to bind his country in the toils; as if eager to violate the honor of the nation and the law, as soon as it was possible, issued a proclamation, in which he de-ation of the President, that the Berlin and Miclared the French decrees revoked or modified; in which he demanded from Britain a revocation of her Orders in Council, and in which he announced the act of non-importation against her, if she failed to comply with the demand by the second day of the February succeeding.

Never, sir, I venture to say, never was public astonishment greater than upon the 2d November, when this proclamation was published.

Mr Speaker: After the first of November, after the official proclamation of the President had, in the face of the world, pronounced the Berlin and Milan decrees repealed or modified so as no longer to violate the neutral commerce of America, American vessels were captured on the sea, and seized in France under these very decrees, were prosecuted under these very decrees, and never released from the grasp of these decrees, until late in the year 1811; and even then, not released by virtue of the Duke of Cadore's pretended letter of repeal, but in consequence of special orders of the Emperor, founded on the act of March, 1811, which confirmed the proclamation of the President, and established a non-importation act against England. If this proposition be true, all doubt is at an end. For folly or prejudice itself cannot believe that these vessels were seized and held nearly a year under decrees which were not in existence. They cannot believe that the courts of France could act upon and enforce laws which, a year before, had been repealed and extinguished by the Government. I will read to the House one case, selected as a fair specimen of numerous others. It is the case of the New Orleans Packet, detailed in a letter from Mr. Rus

His remonstrances having effected nothing, Mr. Russell did proceed, "absurdly and basely, to use the proclamation. He communicated it to the French Government on the 17th of the same month, and he says, from this very 17th of December, "all further proceedings against the New Orleans Packet were suspended."

6

These are the facts, and what is the inference of this honest and independent Minister? "It appears, therefore, that the remonstrance of the '10th of December, arrested the proceedings com'plained of," &c.

Now, sir, it appears to me, that a more barefaced perversion of facts was never attempted by any Minister. The remonstrance produced no effect whatever. Until the 17th, when the proclamation was presented, the vessel " was vigorously prosecuted." From that moment, "all further proceedings against the New Orleans Packet were suspended." That instrument alone arrested "the proceedings complained of," not only against the New Orleans Packet, but all other vessels which had been captured after the first of November. This is demonstrated by an order issued by the French Government to the President of the Council of Prizes, on the 25th of December, exactly eight days after the proclamation had been communicated by Mr. Russell. Suffer me to read an extract from that order:

"In consequence of this engagement entered into

by the Government of the United States, to cause their rights to be respected, His Majesty orders that all the causes that may be pending in the Council of Prizes, of captures of American vessels, made after the 1st of November, and those that may in future be brought before it, shall not be judged according to the principles of the decrees of Berlin and Milan; but that they shall remain suspended; the vessels captured and seized to remain only in a state of sequestration, until the 2d of February next, the period at which the United States having fulfilled the engagement to cause their rights to be respected, the said captures shall be declared null by the Council, and the American vessels restored, together with their cargoes, to the proprietors."

66

No language can add to the force of this extract; it recognises the Berlin and Milan decrees as existing against America. In consequence of the engagement," contained in the proclamation, it suspends all proceedings against our vessels, and says, when that "engagement" shall be "fulfilled" the vessels shall be restored. That engagement was fulfilled by the law of the 2d of March, 1811, which, I have already stated, confirmed the proclamation of the President, and established a non-importation act against England. On the 28th of April, 1811, the French tyrant issued his impending decree-I will read it to the

House:

PALACE OF ST. CLOUD,
April 28, 1811.

Napoleon, Emperor of the French, &c. On the report of our Minister of Foreign Relations:

Seeing, by a law passed on the 2d of March, 1811, the Congress of the United States has ordered the execution of the provisions of the act of non-intercourse, which prohibits the vessels and merchandise of Great Britain, her colonies, and dependencies, from entering into the ports of the United States:

Considering that the said law is an act of resistance to the arbitrary pretensions consecrated by the British Orders in Council, and a formal refusal to adhere to a system invading the independence of neutral Powers and of their flag, we have ordered and decreed, as follows:

The decrees of Berlin and Milan are definitively, and to date from the 1st of November last, considered as not existing in regard to American vessels.

NAPOLEON.

H. OF R.

American President was the dupe of the tyrant, that he was shuffled into the lead where national honor and the law required that he should follow."

I have said, if the French repealing decree had been made known to the Congress, to the American people, and to England, in the Spring of 1811, it would have prevented the present disas

trous war.

the date of the President's proclamation down to Permit me now to prove it. From the very declaration of war, our Government took the ground that the French decrees were in truth repealed, by the letter of the Duke de Cadore, on the 5th of August preceding; and upon this basis demanded the revocation of the British Orders in Council. Britain, denying that Cadore's letter was any repeal or modification, demanded the instrument of repeal issued by the revoke her orders. Neither the French or the Emperor, as the only ground on which she would American Government pretended that any such instrument was in existence; but the latter Government, deceived by the arts of the arch juggler, assumed the fact, and founded thereon hostile proceedings against England. If the decree had been published it would have been impossible that the vile deception could longer have been cherished by either Government, and Congress would have been forced by very shame to have retraced their steps, to have rescinded the proclamation, to have repealed the law of March, and to have placed the country on the same ground which she occupied in May, 1810. A war with England could not then have followed; unless, indeed, the Administration had been prepared openly to abandon all those principles of

national honor, national independence, national justice," and national policy, which they had adopted in the session of 1808.

Yes, sir, even though the British orders had remained unrepealed and unmodified, the publication of that decree would have cut the "Gordian knot," released this country from the toils of the tyrant, and have averted, perhaps for ever, this unnatural war. But suppose in this I am mistaken, yet have we not every reason to believe that if the French repealing decree had been

By the Emperor: The Minister Secretary of State, known to England, she would have modified her

THE COUNT DARU.

This decree is in perfect conformity to every act and proceeding of the French Government. It fulfilled the promise made by the Duke de Cadore, in his letter of the 8th of August. America, by the proclamation and by the law of March, 1811, had resisted England, and virtually declared war against her; she had fulfilled the conditions presented in that letter; in consideration of which the repealing decree of France was issued. Whether that decree was issued at the time it bears date, or whether by collusion with Mr. Barlow it was antedated, is of no importance; in either case it exhibits the true meaning of all the acts of France which preceded it. It proves the falsity of the President's proclamation, the fatal law of March, and demonstrates that the

Orders in Council, and continued peace would have been the consequence. Surely it is preposterous to pretend, if those orders had been revoked, that yet war would have been declared. The very reverse is proved by all the acts of our Government. In the Message of the President, at the commencement of of the war-session of Congress, the "Orders in Council" are the burden of the complaint-impressment is not even mentioned. In all the correspondence between the two Governments, which preceded the war, the "Orders in Council" constitute the great topic of discussion.

In the correspondence which commenced between Mr. Foster and Mr. Monroe, on the 30th of May, 1812, and continued almost daily, down to the very declaration of war, the repeal of the Orders in Council was the only subject of dis

H. OF R.

French Decrees.

JUNE, 1813.

throughout disputed even the partial repeal of the French decrees; and says the question whether England would revoke as to America, was premature, and could be discussed to no purpose until America should produce an authentic inIn the last letter which he wrote to Mr. Mon

act declaring war, he avers that his preceding letters had been misunderstood and misconstrued, and finally declares-"I will now say, that I feel entirely authorized to assure you, that if you can at any time produce a full and unconditional repeal of the French decrees, as you have a right to demand it in your character of a neu'tral nation, and that it be disengaged from any connexion with the question concerning our

with a revocation of the Orders in Council."

cussion-and that alone was demanded, as a sine qua non to a restoration of a friendly intercourse. Impressment, though always a subject of difference between the two nations, had never been by our Government for a moment considered as a sufficient cause of war. Hence, in the arrange-strument of repeal. ment with the British Minister, Erskine, not a word is said, not a stipulation made on that sub-roe, only four days before the final passage of the ject. Hence, in all the correspondence which immediately preceded the war, the subject of impressment is rarely if ever mentioned; and hence, in this House and the Senate, the act declaring war passed upon the sole but delusive ground that France had modified or repealed her decrees, and that England had refused to revoke or modify her Orders. Let me appeal to the members of this House who voted for the war. Would they have dared to have done that deed upon the sub-maritime rights, we shall be ready to meet you ject of impressment alone? I am sure they would not-I speak not from personal knowledge However, then, in the course of Mr. Foster's -I speak from all that preceded, that accompan- letters, some paragraphs may be selected, which, ied, and that followed that dreadful measure. unconnected with what preceded and followed, The subject of impressment was never swelled might prove the position of the honorable gentleinto that hideous form it now wears; it never man, it is clear to me, that, when viewed as a became "a dog of war," until when the Orders whole, they neither prove or support it. I might in Council were revoked, and an armistice de- demonstrate this by wading paragraph by paramanded by England, it was dragged forward to graph through the whole correspondence, But repel the demand and to justify the Administra- this I shall omit, both because the honorable gention for "wading deeper and deeper in blood."tleman from South Carolina has placed but little But let gentlemen on this floor answer what they reliance upon the letters of Mr. Foster, and bewill of this, I am certain the people of this coun- cause, in truth and in fact, they have but little try would never have joined in the quixotic ex- bearing upon the question? What is the quespedition. The cant of "free trade and sailors' tion? If the French repealing decree of April rights," heard only in the woods of the West 1811 had been made known to England at its where no trade exists, and no sailors are to be date, would she have revoked her orders as relafound, could not have drowned the voice of com- ted to America? Mr. Foster's letters can weigh merce, of agriculture, of justice, and of peace. but little, because, at the very time they were Let gentlemen on this floor answer what they writing, that decree was before the English Govmay, I tell them, they could not, they durst not ernment, and that Government was then deciding have plunged this nation into war if the British the very question. Of course, and most certainly, Orders in Council had been repealed or modified. we are not to look to the letters of Mr. Foster to But those orders would have been repealed or decide the question, but to the acts of the Govmodified if the French decree had not been ernment itself. The gentleman from South Caroconcealed. lina, aware of this, has resorted to an act of GovernOn this subject no doubt can exist. And never ment-to the declaration of the Prince Regent, was I more astonished than when I yesterday issued the 21st of April, 1812. On that paper he heard the honorable gentleman from South Caro- has planted himself. With a violence, and in a lina (Mr. CALHOUN) deny this position. Upon manner but little becoming his situation on this what grounds does he place this denial? First, floor, and in language both improper and indeupon the letters of Mr. Foster to Mr. Monroe, corous, he has avowed, that in that paper is conwhich preceded the war. Sir, that correspond- tained an express avowal, that "although France ence I have perused, and a more singular, equivo- should repeal or modify her decrees, so as that cal, weak, and indistinct correspondence I have they should cease to violate our neutral comnever seen. It is undeniable, that in some para-merce, the English Government would not regraphs of Foster's letters, abstracted from the residue, something like the position of the honorable gentleman may be found. But even these, abstracted from the rest, are declared by Mr. Monroe himself to be equivocal. The whole correspondence clearly proves that Mr. Foster never intended to declare, and never did definitively declare, that if an authentic instrument Mr. G.-I have, in my opinion, described the repealing the French decrees, so far as they vio-"language" of the honorable gentleman correctly. lated the neutral commerce of America, should I have said no more than I understood the honbe produced, England would not revoke her orable gentleman to admit in his explanation orders in a similar manner. On the contrary, he when called to order by a gentleman from New

6

peal or modify its orders in the same manner." [Here Mr. BIBB-then in the Chair-called Mr. G. to order. He said it was disorderly to apply the epithet "indecorous," to any gentleman on that floor. Mr. CALHOUN then rose and said, he should say nothing then, but would reply to Mr. G.J

time of its date it had been made known to Congress, to Britain, and to the world, this war would have been averted?

JUNE, 1813.

Sir, examine for a moment the circumstances of this dark affair. I have said that, from the date of the letter of the Duke of Cadore, from August And now, let me appeal to this House and to 5th, 1810, down to the 20th of May 1812, the Britthe people of America-if this decree was com-ish Government invariably refused to give credit municated to Mr. Russell in April, 1811, and by him suppressed, he merits and shall receive the everlasting execrations of his country. If either by Mr. Russell or the Minister Serrurier, it was communicated to Mr. Monroe, and by him concealed from the Executive, is there a niche in the temple of infamy sufficiently infamous for him? But if, by any means, the decree came to the knowledge of the President; and if he, either through a paltry fear of proving his proclamation false, or from any other motive, buried it in darkness, and thereby delivered that country, which, by every bond human and divine, he was bound to protect, over to all the miseries of an unnecessary and bloody war, what maledictions can suit his conduct; what new and horrible punishment is commensurate with the bloody crime? Sir, the President is old, and the reproaches of man may concern and move him but little. But he must soon appear at the bar of Immortal Justice. If he has done this deed, how will he stand appalled before the accusing spirits of youth "untimely slain in battle?" How will his soul recoil from those bloody ravages, that wide devastation, that mass of human misery, which his own guilty conduct shall have produced!

to that letter, as a repeal or modification of the French decrees. That Government declared the letter false and jesuitical, and invariably demanded some authentic instrument of repeal, issued by the French Government itself. For such an instrument, our Ministers in France had importuned the Emperor, always without success, until, on the 10th of May, 1812, Mr. Barlow prevailed, and the decree of the 28th of April, 1811, was produced.

And here permit me to read a short extract from the letter of Mr. Barlow to Mr. Monroe, bearing date the 12th May 1812. In this letter is contained an account of the ignominious attack upon the honor of the Executive:

When, in the conversation above alluded to, the Duke first produced to me the decree of the 28th April 1811, I made no comment on the strange manner in which it had been so long concealed from me, and probably from you. I only asked him if that decree had been published-he said no, but declared that it had been communicated to my predecessor, here, and likewise sent to Mr. Serrurier, with orders to communieste it to you. I assured him that it was not among the archives of this legation; that I never before had heard of it," &c.

Mr. Russell, the "predecessor" of Mr. Barlow, ever publicly denied it? No; he has been well contented that his honor should remain stigmatized by the black accusation.

Shall I be asked, if I believe the Executive has Had the vile accusation been promptly contradone this guilty deed? I answer, frankly and dicted, no doubt would, or could have remained, sincerely, no. However poorly I may think of as to the truth or falsehood of the charge. But, the political character and conduct of the Exec- by a strange fatality, every act of the Executive, utive, I do not believe him capable of a crime of and of his Ministers and agents, has tended such complicated wickedness; combining all the strongly to confirm its truth. Did Mr. Barlow blackest attributes of official turpitude, murder, and contradict it? No; he simply declared, that he treason. But, sir, my belief or disbelief has noth-"never before had heard" of the decree. Has ing to do with the subject. It is not to satisfy myself alone, that I press this call-I have a more exalted motive. I stand on higher ground. The honor, the purity of my native country is shrouded in darkness. Sir, national honor is a plant of peculiar growth; it can live and flourish only in the broad blaze of day; cover it with clouds and darkness, it withers and dies. The honor of my country cannot long survive amid the dark and pestilential vapors which hang around it. To disperse those clouds and vapors, to restore it to the genial beams of day, that America, Europe, and the world, may again behold it bright and unsullied; to frown contempt on the bloody despot who has striven to stain and destroy it-these are the objects-these I fondly hope will be the effects of this measure.

Has this House considered the black and hideous aspect which this subject now presents to the American people? Has it reflected that, at this moment, the foul accusation stands before this people and the world, uncontradicted, unexamined, unresented? If it is suffered thus to remain in mystery, its truth will soon be considered as established, and the stain on the American character so deeply fixed, as to defy every effort to wash it away.

And what has been the conduct of the Exécutive? The session of Congress in which the war was declared did not terminate until the 6th of July. Mr. Barlow received the decree on the 10th of May preceding. Of course, unless there was uncommon delay, it must have been received by the Executive while Congress was in session. Why was it concealed from them? Was it feared that, even then, if convinced of the perfidy of France, the falsehood of the proclamation, and the error of all their own acts founded on that proclamation, they would provide a remedy for all their errors, and prevent the war? Was it feared, that even then, the banquet of blood might be refused to the guests, whose knives were sharpened and whose appetites were importunate for the barbarous feast? Locked up in the bosom of the Executive, it did remain until Congress met in the succeeding November. Then, surely, the foul accusation was communicated to the representatives of the people; then, surely, the feelings of wounded honor, of indignant innocence, smarting under false imputation of guilt, burst forth in