bate, no member is more responsible for its abuse; and if, on this occasion, its just limits have been violated, let him, who has been the unprovoked aggressor, appropriate to himself, exclusively the consequences.

did not choose to debate such a question in secret session. Whilst speaking of the proceedings on that occasion, I beg to be permitted to advert to another fact which transpired, an important fact, material for the nation to know, and which I have often regretted had not been

My honorable colleague, Mr. M'Kee, moved, in committee of the whole, to comprehend France in the war; and when the question was taken upon the proposition, there appeared but ten votes in support of it, of whom, seven belonged to this side of the House, and three only to the other! It is said that we were inveigled into the war by the perfidy of France; and that had she furnished the document in time, which was first published in England, in May last, it would have been prevented. I will concede to gentlemen every thing they ask about the injustice of France towards this country. I wish to God that our ability was equal to our disposition to make her feel the sense that we entertain of that injustice. The manner of the publication of the paper in question, was undoubtedly extremely exceptionable. But I maintain, that, had it made its appearance earlier, it would not have had the

I omitted, yesterday, sir, when speaking of a delicate and painful subject, to notice a pow-spread upon our journals. erful engine which the conspirators against the integrity of the Union employ to effect their nefarious purposes-I mean Southern influence. The true friend to his country, knowing that our constitution was the work of compromise, in which interests, apparently conflicting, were attempted to be reconciled, aims to extinguish or allay prejudices. But this patriotic exertion does not suit the views of those who are urged on by diabolical ambition. They find it conve- | nient to imagine the existence of certain improper influences, and to propagate, with their utmost industry, a belief of them. Hence the idea of Southern preponderance; Virginia influence; the yoking of the respectable yeomanry of the North, with negro slaves, to the car of Southern nabobs. If Virginia really cherishes a reprehensible ambition, an aim to monopolize the chief magistracy of the country, how is such a purpose to be accomplished? Virginia, alone, cannot elect a President, whose elevation de-effect supposed; and the proof lies in the pends upon a plurality of electoral votes, and a consequent concurrence of many States. Would Vermont, disinterested Pennsylvania, the Carolinas, independent Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, all consent to become the tools of inordinate ambition? But the present incumbent was designated to the office before his predecessor had retired. How? By public sentiment, public sentiment which grew out of his known virtues, his illustrious services, and his distinguished abilities. Would the gentleman crush this public sentiment, is he prepared to admit, that he would arrest the progress of opinion?

unequivocal declarations of the British government. I will trouble you, sir, with going no further back than to the letters of the British minister, addressed to the Secretary of State just before the expiration of his diplomatic functions. It will be recollected by the committee, that he exhibited to this government a despatch from lord Castlereagh, in which the principle was distinctly avowed, that, to produce the effect of a repeal of the orders in council, the French decrees must be absolutely and entirely revoked as to all the world, and not as to America alone. A copy of that despatch was demanded of him, and he very The war was declared because Great Britain awkwardly evaded it. But on the tenth of arrogated to herself the pretension of regulating June, after the bill declaring war had actually our foreign trade, under the delusive name of passed this House, and was pending before the retaliatory orders in council,-a pretension by senate, (and which, I have no doubt, was known which she undertook to proclaim to American to him,) in a letter to Mr. Monroe, he says: "I enterprise," Thus far shalt thou go, and no have no hesitation, sir, in saying, that Great farther," orders which she refused to revoke Britain, as the case has hitherto stood, never after the alleged cause of their enactment had did, nor ever could engage, without the greatest ceased; because she persisted in the practice of injustice to herself and her allies, as well as to impressing American seamen; because she had other neutral nations, to repeal her orders as instigated the Indians to commit hostilities affecting America alone, leaving them in force against us; and because she refused indemnity against other states, upon condition that France for her past injuries upon our commerce. I would except, singly and specially, America throw out of the question other wrongs. The from the operation of her decrees." On the war in fact was announced, on our part, to meet fourteenth of the same month, the bill still the war which she was waging on her part. pending before the Senate, he repeats: "I will So undeniable were the causes of the war, so now say, that I feel entirely authorized to assure powerfully did they address themselves to the you, that if you can at any time produce a full and feelings of the whole American people, that unconditional repeal of the French decrees, as when the bill was pending before this House, you have a right to demand it in your character gentlemen in the opposition, although provoked of a neutral nation, and that it be disengaged to debate, would not, or could not, utter one from any question concerning our maritime syllable against it. It is true, they wrapped rights, we shall be ready to meet you with a themselves up in sullen silence, pretending they revocation of the orders in council. Previously

to your producing such an instrument, which I | nation, prone to peace as this is, to burst through am sorry to see you regard as unnecessary, you its habits and encounter the difficulties and cannot expect of us to give up our orders in privations of war. Such a nation ought but council." Thus, sir, you see that the British seldom to embark in a belligerent contest; but government would not be content with a repeal when it does, it should be for obvious and essenof the French decrees as to us only. But the tial rights alone, and should firmly resolve to French paper in question was such a repeal. It extort, at all hazards, their recognition. The could not, therefore, satisfy the British govern- war of the Revolution is an example of a war ment. It could not, therefore, have induced begun for one object and prosecuted for another. that government, had it been earlier promulga- It was waged, in its commencement, against the ted, to repeal the orders in council. It could right asserted by the parent country to tax the not, therefore, have averted the war. The colonies. Then no one thought of absolute withholding of it did not occasion the war, and independence. The idea of independence was the promulgation of it would not have prevented repelled. But the British government would the war. But gentlemen have contended, that, have relinquished the principle of taxation. in point of fact, it did produce a repeal of the The founders of our liberties saw, however, that orders in council. This I deny. After it made there was no security short of independence, its appearance in England, it was declared, by and they achieved that independence. When one of the British ministry in Parliament, not nations are engaged in war, those rights in conto be satisfactory. And all the world knows, troversy, which are not acknowledged by the that the repeal of the orders in council resulted treaty of peace, are abandoned. And who is from the inquiry, reluctantly acceded to by the prepared to say, that American seamen shall be ministry, into the effect upon their manufactur- surrendered, as victims to the British principle ing establishments, of our non-importation law, of impressment? And, sir, what is this prinor to the warlike attitude assumed by this ciple? She contends, that she has a right to government, or to both. But it is said, that the the services of her own subjects; and that, in orders in council are withdrawn, no matter from the exercise of this right, she may lawfully what cause; and that having been the sole impress them, even although she finds them in motive for declaring the war, the relations of American vessels, upon the high seas withpeace ought to be restored. This brings me to out her jurisdiction. Now I deny that she the examination of the grounds for continuing has any right, beyond her jurisdiction, to the present hostilities between this country and come on board our vessels, upon the high Great Britain. seas, for any other purpose than in the pursuit of enemies, or their goods, or goods contraband of war.

I am far from acknowledging, that, had the orders in council been repealed, as they have been, before the war was declared, the declaration of hostilities would of course have been prevented. In a body so numerous as this is, from which the declaration emanated, it is impossible to say, with any degree of certainty, what would have been the effect of such a repeal. Each member must answer for himself. As to myself, I have no hesitation in saying, that I have always considered the impressment of American seamen, as much the most serious aggression. But, sir, how have those orders at last been repealed? Great Britain, it is true, has intimated a willingness to suspend their practical operation, but she still arrogates to herself the right to revive them upon certain contingencies, of which she constitutes herself the sole judge. She waves the temporary use of the rod, but she suspends it "in terrorem" over our heads. Supposing it to be conceded to gentlemen that such a repeal of the orders in council, as took place on the twenty-third of June last, exceptionable as it is, being known before the war was proclaimed, would have prevented it: does it follow, that it ought to induce us to lay down our arms, without the redress of any other injury of which we complain?

Does it follow, in all cases, that that, which would in the first instance have prevented, would also terminate the war? By no means. It requires a strong and powerful effort in a

But she further contends, that her subjects cannot renounce their allegiance to her, and contract a new obligation to other sovereigns. I do not mean to go into the general question of the right of expatriation. If, as is contended, all nations deny it, all nations, at the same time, admit and practise the right of naturalization. Great Britain herself does this. Great Britain, in the very case of foreign seamen, imposes, perhaps, fewer restraints upon naturalization than any other nation. Then, if subjects cannot break their original allegiance, they may, according to universal usage, contract a new allegiance. What is the effect of this double obligation? Undoubtedly, that the sovereign having the possession of the subject, would have the right to the services of the subject. If he return within the jurisdiction of his primitive sovereign, he may resume his right to his services, of which the subject, by his own act, could not divest himself. But his primitive sovereign can have no right to go in quest of him, out of his own jurisdiction, into the jurisdiction of another sovereign, or upon the high seas; where there exists either no jurisdiction, or it is possessed by the nation owning the ship navigating them. But, sir, this discussion is altogether useless. It is not to the British principle, objectionable as it is, that we are alone to look; it is to her practice, no matter what guise she puts on. It is in vain to assert

the inviolability of the obligation of allegiance. | It is in vain to set up the plea of necessity, and to allege that she cannot exist without the impressment of her seamen. The naked truth is, she comes, by her press gangs, on board of our vessels, seizes our native as well as naturalized seamen, and drags them into her service. It is the case, then, of the assertion of an erroneous principle, and of a practice not conformable to the asserted principle-a principle which, if it were theoretically right, must be for ever practically wrong-a practice which can obtain countenance from no principle whatever, and to submit to which, on our part, would betray the most abject degradation.

Hard, hard is my fate! once I freedom enjoyed,
Was as happy as happy could be!
Oh! how hard is my fate, how galling these chains!
I will not imagine the dreadful catastrophe to
which he would be driven by an abandonment
of him to his oppressor. It will not be, it can-
not be, that his country will refuse him protec-
tion.

แ

It is said, that Great Britain has been always willing to make a satisfactory arrangement of the subject of impressment; and that Mr. King had nearly concluded one, prior to his departure from that country. Let us hear what that minister says, upon his return to America. In his letter, dated at New York, in July, 1803, We are told, by gentlemen in the opposition, after giving an account of his attempt to form that government has not done all that was in- an arrangement for the protection of our seacumbent on it to do, to avoid just cause of men, and his interviews to this end with Lords complaint on the part of Great Britain; that Hawkesbury and St. Vincent, and stating, that, in particular, the certificates of protection, au- when he had supposed the terms of a convention thorized by the act of 1796, are fraudulently were agreed upon, a new pretension was set up, used. Sir, government has done too much in (the "mare clausum,") he concludes: "I regret granting those paper protections. I can never not to have been able to put this business on a think of them without being shocked. They satisfactory footing, knowing as I do its very resemble the passes which the master grants to great importance to both parties; but I flatter his negro slave-"let the bearer, Mungo, pass myself, that I have not misjudged the interests and repass without molestation." What do of our own country, in refusing to sanction a they imply? That Great Britain has a right principle, that might be productive of more to seize all who are not provided with them. extensive evils than those it was our aim to From their very nature they must be liable to prevent." The sequel of his negotiation, on abuse on both sides. If Great Britain desires this affair, is more fully given in the recent a mark, by which she can know her own sub-conversation between Mr. Russell and Lord jects, let her give them an ear-mark. The Castlereagh, communicated to Congress during colors that float from the mast head should its present session. Lord Castlereagh says to be the credentials of our seamen. There is Mr. Russell: no safety to us, and the gentlemen have shown it, but in the rule that all who sail under the flag, (not being enemies,) are protected by the flag. It is impossible that this country should ever abandon the gallant tars, who have won for us such splendid trophies. Let me suppose that the genius of Columbia should visit one of them in his oppressor's prison, and attempt to reconcile him to his forlorn and wretched condition. She would say to him, in the language of gentlemen on the other side: "Great Britain intends you no harm; she did not mean to impress you, but one of her own subjects; having taken you by mistake, I will remonstrate, and try to prevail upon her, by peaceable means, to release you, but I cannot, my son, fight for you." If he did not consider this mere mockery, the poor tar would address her judgment and say, "you owe me, my country, protection; I owe you, in return, obedience. I am no British subject, I am a native of old Massachusetts, where live my aged father, my wife, my children. I have faithfully discharged my duty. Will you refuse to do yours?" Appealing to her passions, he would continue: "I lost this eye in fighting under Truxton, with the Insurgente; I got this scar before Tripoli; I broke this leg on board the Constitution, when the Guerriere struck." If she remained still unmoved, he would break out, in the accents of mingled distress and despair:

Indeed, there has evidently been much misapprehension on this subject, an erroneous belief entertained, that an arrangement, in regard to it, has been nearer an accomplishment than the facts will warrant. Even our friends in Congress, I mean those who are opposed to going to war with us, have been so confident in this mistake, that they have ascribed the failure of such an arrangement, solely to the misconduct of the American government. This error probably originated with Mr. King; for, being much esteemed here, and always well received by the persons in power, he seems to have misconstrued their readiness to listen to his representations, and their warm professions of a disposition to remove the complaints of America, in relation to impressment, into a supposed conviction on their part, of the propriety of adopting the plan which he had proposed. But Lord St. Vincent, whom he might have thought he had brought over to his opinions, appears never for a moment to have ceased to regard all arrangement on this subject, to be attended with formidable, if not insurmountable obstacles. This is obvious from a letter which his lordship addressed to Sir William Scott at the time." Here Lord Castlereagh read a letter, contained in the records before him, in which Lord St. Vincent states to Sir William Scott the zeal with which Mr. King had assailed him on the subject of impressment, confesses his own perplexity

and total incompetency to discover any practical | not in Canada, that the tomahawk of the sav project for the safe discontinuance of that prac-age has been moulded into its deathlike form? tice, and asks for counsel and advice. Thus you see,' proceeded Lord Castlereagh, that the confidence of Mr. King on this subject was entirely unfounded.'

of all the misfortunes we have experienced on | persevered in and insisted upon. Yet adminis land. But for it, the Indian war would have been in a great measure prevented or terminated; the ascendency on Lake Erie acquired, and the war pushed on perhaps to Montreal. With the exception of that event, the war, even upon the land, has been attended by a series of the most brilliant exploits, which, whatever interests they may inspire on this side of the mountains, have given the greatest pleasure on the other. The expedition under the command of Gov. Edwards and Colonel Russell, to lake Pioria, on the Illinois, was completely successful. So was that of Captain Craig, who, it is said, ascended that river still higher. General Hopkins destroyed the prophet's town. We have just received intelligence of the gallant enterprise of Colonel Campbell. In short, sir, | the Indian towns have been swept from the mouth to the source of the Wabash, and a hostile country has been penetrated far beyond the most daring incursions of any campaign during the former Indian war. Never was more cool, deliberate bravery displayed, than that by Newman's party from Georgia; and the capture of the Detroit, and the destruction of the Caledonia, (whether placed to a maritime or land account,) for judgment, skill and courage on the part of Lieutenant Elliot, have never been surpassed.

It is alleged, that the elections in England are in favor of the ministry, and that those in this country are against the war. If, in such a cause, (saying nothing of the impurity of their elections,) the people of that country have rallied round their government, it affords a salutary lesson to the people here, who, at all hazards, ought to support theirs, struggling as it is to maintain our just rights. But the people here have not been false to themselves; a great majority approve the war, as is evinced by the recent re-election of the chief magistrate. Suppose it were even true, that an entire section of the Union were opposed to the war, that section being a minority, is the will of the majority to be relinquished? In that section the real strength of the opposition has been greatly exaggerated. Vermont has, by two successive expressions of her opinion, approved the declaration of war. In New Hampshire, parties are so nearly equipoised, that out of thirty or thirty-five thousand votes, those who approved and are for supporting it, lost the election by only one thousand or one thousand five hundred. In Massachusetts alone have they obtained any considerable accession. If we come to New York, we shall find, that other and local causes have influenced her elections.

What cause, Mr. Chairman, which existed for declaring the war has been removed? We sought indemnity for the past and security for the future. The orders in council are suspended, not revoked; no compensation for spoliations. Indian hostilities, which were before secretly instigated, are now openly encouraged; and the practice of impressment unremittingly

tration has given the strongest demonstrations of its love of peace. On the twenty-ninth of June, less than ten days after the declaration of war, the Secretary of State writes to Mr. Russell, authorizing him to agree to an armistice, upon two conditions only, and what are they? That the orders in council should be repealed, and the practice of impressing American seamen cease, those already impressed being released. The proposition was for nothing more than a real truce; that the war should in fact cease on both sides. Again, on the 27th of July, one month later, anticipating a possible objection to these terms, reasonable as they are, Mr. Monroe empowers Mr. Russell to stipulate in general terms for an armistice, having only an informal understanding on these points. In return, the enemy is offered a prohibition of the employment of his seamen in our service, thus removing entirely all pretext for the practice of impressment. The very proposition which the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Pitkin, contends ought to be made, has been made. How are these pacific advances met by the other party? Rejected as absolutely inadmissible; cavils are indulged about the inadequacy of Mr. Russell's powers, and the want of an act of Congress is intimated. And yet the constant usage of nations I believe is, where the legislation of one party is necessary to carry into effect a given stipulation, to leave it to the contracting party to provide the requisite laws. If he fail to do so, it is a breach of good faith, and becomes the subject of subsequent remonstrance by the injured party. When Mr. Russell renews the overture, in what was intended as a more agreeable form to the British government, Lord Castlereagh is not content with a simple rejection, but clothes it in the language of insult. Afterwards, in conversation with Mr. Russell, the moderation of our government is misinterpreted and made the occasion of a sneer, that we are tired of the war. The proposition of Admiral Warren is submitted in a spirit not more pacific. He is instructed, he tells us, to propose that the government of the United States shall instantly recall their letters of marque and reprisal against British ships, together with all orders and instructions for any acts of hostility whatever against the territories of his majesty or the persons or property of his subjects. That small affair being settled, he is further authorized to arrange as to the revocation of the laws which interdict the commerce and ships of war of his majesty from the harbors and waters of the United States. This messenger of peace comes with one qualified concession in his pocket, not made to the justice of our demands, and is fully empowered to receive our homage, a contrite retraction of all our measures adopted against his master! And in default, he does not fail to assure us, the orders in council are to be forthwith revived. Administration, still anxious to terminate the war, suppresses the indignation which such a