In support of the opinion that if the French decree had been known in England, the orders would have been repealed, quotations were made from the correspondence with Mr. Foster; and though it was admitted that some paragraphs of the letters, abstracted from the residue, appeared to assert the contrary, even these, it was averred, are allowed by Mr. Monroe himself to be equivocal, and when viewed as a whole, that appearance would vanish. In the last letter which he wrote to Mr. Monroe, only four days before the final passage of the 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 neutral nation, and that it be disengaged from any connection with the question concerning our maritime rights, we shall be ready to meet you with a revocation of the orders in council." The order of revocation of the 23d of June, 1812, was likewise quoted in support of this opinion.

"And whereas the charge des affaires of the United States of America, resident at this court, did, on the 20th day of May last, transmit to lord viscount Castlereagh, one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state, a copy of a certain instrument, then for the first time communicated to this court, purporting to be a decree passed by the government of France on the 28th day of April, by which the decrees of Berlin and Milan are declared to be definitively no longer in force in regard to American vesels." The order then states, that although the "tenor of said instrument" does not satisfy the conditions of his former declaration, yet, wishing to re-establish the intercourse between. neutral and belligerent nations, he "therefore is pleased" to revoke his orders so far as they relate to American vessels and property. The prince regent does here expressly aver, that his revocation is founded on the French repealing decree.

The enquiries in the house of commons, it was averred, had no decisive effect in producing the revocation, for the pressure had been long felt by the people, and long known to the government; the loud clamours of the people had long been heard without the slightest effect. The delay of thirty-three days by the British in issuing their decree of revocation, was easily accounted for by the ministerial interregnum, which ensued on the murder of Perceval.

If the war would have been averted by the publication of the repealing decree at the time of its date, is it not, it was asked, of the utmost importance for congress to know who was charge

able with the guilt of suppressing it? And was it not the duty of every member of the house, and above all the friends of the administration, to afford the executive an opportunity to hurl back on the French government the imputation which it had thus cast on its character?

Mr. Grosvenor, one of the principal advocates of the resolutions in the original form, thus concluded his speech. "There are thousands and hundreds of thousands of this people, who do believe that your councils are contaminated by the influence and guided by the hand of France. For a series of years they have beheld, or they think they have beheld, the hand of the despot in our affairs. They have seen, or they think they have seen, their government the unresisting dupe of French intrigue, the tame object of French insult and injury. If it so please you, call these men tories-call them the friends of England-call them the victims of delusion-call them what you will, still, until you "can rail their judgments from their minds," or until your councils change, such will continue their honest belief.By rejecting these resolutions you fix their opinions for ever. If they are deluded, you establish their delusion beyond the possi bility of removal. On the other hand, if you pass these resolutions, and if, in consequence thereof, the president shall dis solve the darkness, shall step forth to the public pure and unspotted; if he shall evince that he has felt and acted as it became the chief of a high minded and free people; if he has repelled and resented the base imputation, happy, beyond measure happy will be the consequences of this proceeding. On my conscience, I believe it will go farther to destroy all suspicion of French influence, it will go farther to restore confidence to the executive, than any other mean that could have been selected."

The speakers on the other side of the house contended that these arguments were totally irrelevant. France and Great Britain, it was stated, after having carried on the present war for several years with all the rancour the human mind is susceptible of each struggling for the destruction of the other-found their efforts unavailing by the ordinary course of warfare. France, inflated with, and wielding a power on the continent rarely witnessed, had been unable to conquer Great Britain by the direct operations of war: Great Britain, powerful on the ocean beyond all example, had been unable to bring France to terms by the ordinary course of war upon her ships, colonies, and commerce. In this state of things, they seem to have determined respectively that every thing should yield to their views of mutual destruction and self aggrandizement; that

those principles of natural reason, which ought to govern all nations, and which, under the name of national law, had been acknowledged by all civilized nations, should be longer regarded: they commenced a system of depredation, of plundering of the commerce of all peaceful nations, each alleging that the course taken was founded in just retaliation. Under this state of things, what was the American government bound to do? At most, barely to demand reparation from both; and, upon refusal, she might rightly declare war against one or both, according to her view of political expediency. We were under no moral obligation to procure a repeal of the Berlin or Milan decrees, as a condition precedent to our having a just cause of war against Britain for captures under her orders in council; neither were we bound to procure a repeal of the orders in council, as a condition precedent to a just war against France for captures under the Berlin and Milan decrees. Each had violated our perfect rights, and we had a right to select our enemy. As well might it be contended, that a man is bound to adjust the priority of injury between two highway-men who have at distinct times robbed him, before he shall proceed to enforce the law and recover his property, as to insist that we could have no just cause of war against France or Great Britain, without procuring a repeal of the orders in council or Berlin and Milan decrees.

Besides, it was contended, every man acquainted with the political state of the two countries must be satisfied, that it was the suffering condition of the British manufacturers, united with the apprehension of an American war, and not the repeal of the French decrees as to America, which produced the conditional repeal of the British orders in council. The declaration of the prince regent of the 21st of April, 1812, was quoted to show, that, in order to produce a revocation of the orders as to America, it was necessary, not that the French decrees should be modified so as to except American commerce from their operation, but that these decrees should be "unconditionally repealed, and the commerce of neutral nations be restored to its accustomed course." The language of the French repealing decree is,

"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."

And the prince regent, in the decree repealing the orders in council, declares,

That he "cannot consider the tenor of the said instrument as satisfying the conditions set forth in the said order of the 21st of April, 1812."

Why, it was urged, was not this a compliance with the declaration of April, 1812? As to the United States it was full and complete. It was because it was not a repeal, and because it did not relate to all neutral powers.

The correspondence of Mr. Foster was likewise quoted in support of this opinion. In a letter to the secretary of state, dated June 10, 1812, he says, "I have no hesitation in saying, that Great Britain, as the case has hitherto stood, never did nor ever could engage, without the grossest injustice to herself and her allies, as well as to other neutral nations, to repeal her orders as affecting America alone, leaving them in force against other states, upon condition that France would except singly and specially America from the operation of her decrees."

This declaration, it was urged, had removed every doubt that could exist in relation to the intention of the British government. But the executive of the United States, solicitous to avoid the evils of war, on the 13th of June, 1812, again addressed the British minister in the following terms:

"It is satisfactory to find that there has been no misapprehension of the condition without which your government refuses to repeal the orders in council. You admit that to obtain their repeal in respect to the United States, the repeal of the French decrees must be absolute and unconditional, not as to the United States only, but as to all other neutral nations; not as far as they affect neutral commerce only, but as they operate internally and affect the trade in British manufactures with the enemy of Great Britain. As the orders in council have formed a principal cause of the differences which unhappily exist between our countries, a condition of their repeal communicated in any authentic document or manner was entitled to particular attention. And surely none could have so high a claim to it as the letter from lord Castlereagh to you, submitted by his authority to my view, for the express purpose of making that condition, with its other contents, known to this government.”

To the letter last mentioned Mr. Foster gave an answer which closes the correspondence between the two countries. The language is too plain to admit but of one construction.

"I will now say, that I feel entirely authorised 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 neutral nation, and that it be disengaged from any question concerning our maritime rights, we shall be ready to meet you with a revocation of the orders in council. Previously to your producing such an instrument, which I am

sorry to see you appear to regard as unnecessary, you cannot expect of us to give up our orders in council."

From these authentic documents, it was urged, no man could doubt that, even if the French decree had been produced at the period of its date, it would have failed in bringing about the revocation of the orders in council.

With regard to the question of impressment, it was urged, that, if the public documents were referred to, it would be found, that it was considered as a principal cause of the war; and that no man could with confidence pronounce what would have been the course pursued had the orders in council been revoked before war was declared. Now that the war was commenced, it was asked, shall the question of impressment be given up? If gentlemen will not fight for the personal rights of American citizens, will they surrender them?

These arguments, however, it was stated, were not urged against the passage of the resolutions, but merely to rebut the assertion, that the country had been involved in war by the concealment of the decree.

The debate on this subject continued until the 21st, when Mr. Bibb having stated it to be the intention of the committee of ways and means to call up the tax bills the following day, motions for amendment and indefinite postponement, then before the house, were withdrawn by their respective movers, and the resolutions passed as follows: for the passage of the first resolution, yeas 137, nays 26; for the second, yeas 137, nays 29; for the third, yeas 134, nays 30; for the fourth, yeas 125, nays 34; and for the 5th, yeas 93, nays 68. The following resolution was likewise passed, on motion of Mr. Rhea, and a committee appointed to present the resolutions to the president.

Resolved, That the president of the United States be requested to transmit to this house copies of a declaration and order in council of the British government of the 21st of April, 1812, and a copy of a note from lord Castlereagh to Mr. Russell, being the same alluded to in the letter of Mr. Russell to the secretary of state, of the 26th April, 1812.

3. In answer to this call of the house, the president transmitted a report of the secretary of state, accompanied with a correspondence between Mr. Barlow and the French government, between Mr. Barlow and Mr. Russell, a correspondence between Mr. Russell and the department of state, and letters from Mr. Monroe to Mr. Barlow after the declaration of war, all of them relating to this subject.

The secretary, in his report, states, that the first intelligence which this government received of the French decree of the 28th