H. OF R.]

French Decrees.

the testimony given by Mr. Smith, and all doubt is removed. In this state of things what did the Committee of Foreign Relations? The Chairman again introduced the law of resistance against England, bottomed upon the asserted repeal of the decrees and the President's proclamation, which itself rested upon what is now established to be a juggle of France-an undeniable untruth. The nation of course did infer that Mr. Surrurier had fully satisfied the Administration of the repeal of the decrees. There were those, to be sure, (Mr. H. was among the number,) who never for a moment changed their opinion, but the many continued under the delusion until Mr. Smith's disclosures burst upon the the nation, aroused general indignation, and struck with amazement and horror every man whose mind was open to conviction. Nevertheless, the Administration proceeded with a steady step to their point of destination, and finally plunged the country into this most ruinous, calamitous war, which has filled the nation with grief and mourning, and brought us to the verge, if not the gulf, of national bankruptcy. They rushed on blindfolded till they were so far advanced as not to have the power of preventing this people from being sucked into the vortex, which had well nigh swallowed up the liberties of the world, and but for the memorable and glorious events which have opened a new era to the nations of the earth, would have sealed the doom of this rising empire.

Mr. MONTGOMERY rose, and addressed the Chair as follows:

[JUNE, 1813. ference to the first of these objects: if it is intended merely to afford the ground of censure and invective against some one or more of our functionaries, it can produce no good effect, no public benefit could be expected to result; besides, there would be a species of unfairness in the course, as the facts and arguments in defence, on the part of the accused, could not be fully developed. If any misconduct sufficient to ground an impeachment has been transacted, let gentlemen make the charge and proceed by way of impeachment; the subject will then be fully investigated, the accused can be heard. Let us examine the subject with reference to the Government of France, and I believe it will be seen that no probable good can result. If it is merely to afford the foundation of philippics against the Emperor of France, I object to it, because I would view it as a waste of time, without so much as the consolation of believing that any thing we could say would produce a single instant of disagreeable feeling; and certainly it cannot be intended to pave the way for a declaration of war against that nation, when we have a negotiation pending, to finish which we have but recently sent a Minister.

Let us next examine the information sought for with a view to see whether the justice of the present war is dependent upon it: I hold that it is in no point of view dependent upon the withholding of timely information of the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees. This will lead me to take a short retrospect of the conduct of Great Britain and France about the time of the date of the Orders in Council, and the Berlin and Milan decrees, for the purpose of showing the true character of the difference

Mr. Speaker, I have risen to give a concise view of the reasons which have determined me to vote against the resolutions under considera-between those nations and this; in doing which, tion. Whenever I am made to believe, that information sought for by gentlemen, is necessary in order to form a correct opinion as to the course to be pursued in respect to any matter proper to be acted on by this House, I will heartily join in calling for it; and on the present occasion, if I could be convinced that the information sought for would prove that the war against Great Britain was unjust, that we are seeking to wrest from her something to which by the principles of national law she is justly entitled, I would join in the call, and would take such measures as would show that we now abandoned our pretensions and desired peace. But, sir, I cannot take this view of the subject.

I have reflected on these resolutions with a view of discovering whether the information sought for could form the basis of any useful act on the part of this House, or of this Government, and the conclusion of my mind is that it would not; I am therefore resolved to oppose them. I take the object of the mover to have been either to procure the information to serve as the basis of some act in this House in relation to some of our functionaries, the Government or Emperor of France, or the present war with England. Let us then examine them in re

it will not be necessary to ascertain which first aggressed upon our rights, or from which we receive the greatest quantum of injury; it will be enough that each has given us just cause of war. It will be recollected that France and Great Britain, after having carried on the present war several years previous to the year 1806-'7, with all the rancor which 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 selfaggrandizement; 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 no longer regarded: they commenced a system of depredation, of plundering of the commerce of all peaceful nations, each alleging

JUNE, 1813.]

French Decrees.

[H. OF R.

that the course taken was founded in just re- | spect to the first, I will barely remark, that one taliation. Under this state of things, what was of the strongest possible guarantees against the the American Government bound to do? I repetition of national injuries, is the exacting answer, that at most, barely to demand repara- complete reparation for the past wrongs. With tion from both; and upon refusal, she might respect to the second, it is in every point of rightfully declare war against one or both, ac- view important: the very end of the institution cording to our view of political expediency. We of Government is violated in respect to our seawere under no moral obligation to procure a re- faring men, if we neglect or refuse to protect peal of the Berlin or Milan decrees, as a condi- them to the utmost of our power. A second tion precedent to our having a just cause of war argument is drawn from the very injurious against Great Britain for captures under her effect the practice would have upon our comOrders in Council; neither were we bound to merce; it would be in the power of the Britprocure a repeal of the Orders in Council as a ish Government in this way to supplant us in condition precedent to a just war against France every market. A third argument to show its for captures under the Berlin and Milan decrees. importance, is drawn from the inestimable value Each had violated our perfect rights, and we had of personal liberty. A fourth reason for making a right to select our enemy. As well might it a firm stand in opposition to it, is, that it is of be contended, that a man is bound to adjust a permanent nature; it is not one of those the priority of injury between two highwaymen rights which Great Britain sets up as a belligerwho have at distinct times robbed him, before ent right, depending upon the present war; he shall proceed to enforce the law and recover but one which she claims to exercise through all his property, as to insist that we could have no time. just cause of war against France or Great Britain, without procuring a repeal of the Orders in Council, or Berlin and Milan decrees.

From the foregoing view, the conclusion is much strengthened, that we had good cause of war; and that political expediency required it should be declared is, to my mind, also strongly evinced.

The American Government it will be recollected endeavored to procure justice, to procure the repeal of these lawless interdictions of neu- Further, sir, I am opposed to these resolutral commerce by negotiation, and failed. It was tions, because they seem to imply that we had then deemed expedient to adopt some counter no cause of war except for spoliations under the restriction, with the view and with the hope Orders in Council, or that we were willing to that it would dispose one or both of the belli- abandon the other causes. If these resolutions gerents to act justly. It was highly important to pass, it might be inferred, and would, I have no succeed in obtaining justice from even one, as doubt, by our enemy, that we now thought we that would have left us to contend single-hand- had not sufficient cause of war, without resorted against the other. With this view we re- ing to injuries under the Orders in Council; sorted to embargo, non-intercourse, and non- that we now repented the course we have importation laws, connected with negotiation. taken. I am opposed to such policy; nothing We were bandied about from Paris to Washing-can be gained by it, and much may be lost. We ton, and from Washington to London, to no purpose but to prove the perfidy of the belligerents, for several years. Here let me ask, whether we are bound perpetually to pursue this course? I think most certainly not. We had a perfect right to cease to endeavor to procure the repeal of either of the belligerent restrictions, and assert our right to the peaceful navigation of the ocean. We did so, and war was declared against Great Britain. I think it but a fair conclusion, from what I have advanced, that the war was just at the time of declaring it, as it stood connected with the Orders in Council. But a view of the war as connected with other causes will go to establish still more firmly the conclusion, and strengthen the arguments before advanced.

have taken a course, it is not unjust, and interest and honor requires we should pursue it firmly, and if possible bring it to a successful end.

Again, sir, I am opposed to these resolutions, because I believe they are ill-timed, and may have an unhappy effect on our negotiations now pending with Great Britain. It appears to me entirely probable, that if the British Ministry are informed of our being about to review the causes which have been alleged for the war, that she will be indisposed to concede any thing until she knows the result; this may produce delay, and defeat the negotiation entirely. We ought not to expect reparation, if we but seem to doubt our claim.

It is contended on the part of those that support the resolutions, that the British GovernWe were entitled to compensation for spolia- ment were not notified of the repeal of the Bertions upon our commerce; and a renunciation on lin and Milan decrees in proper time; and that the part of Great Britain of the doctrine of her the war would have been prevented by a timely right to impress seamen from on board Amer-notice of the repeal, by producing the repeal of ican ships; and an abandonment of the practice. As I have heard no person contend that there were not causes for war, according to the principles of national law, it will be unnecessary to stop to prove them so; it will only be proper to remark somewhat on their nature. With re

the Orders in Council. It is impossible to know certainly that a repeal of the Orders in Council would not have preceded our declaration of war, if the repeal had been promptly communicated; but, to my mind, there seems to be little ground for the inference, that they

H. OF R.]

French Decrees.

[JUNE, 1813. that the result of this inquiry was, that their own restrictions were recoiling upon themselves; that their own manufactures, one of the main

to be sapped, and the nation vitally injured; and this I believe was the real cause of the repeal of the Orders in Council. The modification of the Berlin and Milan decrees happily presented an apology, and rescued them from the open shame of being obliged to abandon their own measures without a plausible reason.

It has been contended by some of those who support these resolutions, that, if the Orders in Council had been repealed, we would not have gone to war on account of the doctrine and practice of impressment; and they infer this from our Government failing to press the sub

certainly would have been repealed, taking into view the terms of the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees, or rather the modification, and the kind of repeal which was re-pillars of their opulence and power, was about quired by the British Government. Mr. Foster, the British Minister, in his letter to Mr. Monroe, our Secretary of State, dated July 3d, 1811, says "That, whenever France should | have effectually repealed her Berlin and Milan decrees, and should have restored neutral commerce to the condition in which it stood previously to the promulgation of those decrees, we should immediately repeal our Orders in Council." This is the language of the authorized agent of the British Government; and, from this declaration, we were required not only to procure from France such a modification as would restore our own commerce as a neu-ject of impressment for some time in the course tral to its wonted footing, but a complete re- of the last attempts at adjustment by negotiapeal, restoring the commerce of all neutral na- tion. To this I answer, that it is impossible to tions to the footing upon which it rested before know what course our Government would have the issuing of the Berlin and Milan decrees. taken; but it is very clear to me, that this naThe repeal or rather modification of the Berlin tion would have shown an astonishing indifferand Milan decrees of the 28th of April, 1811, ence to its honor and interest to have abanonly respected American commerce, leaving the doned the ground which it had taken, and ably commerce of all other neutrals to their opera- maintained by argument, in relation to this tion. Hence it is evident, that the Orders in point. But I conceive there is a very satisfacCouncil could not be expected to be repealed tory reason why the American Government upon the production of an instrument merely did not continually press this point; this was & modifying those decrees to favor the Americans: matter in which Britain stood alone: it did not and this would seem at least a tolerable apol-depend upon the war; it was important to ad ogy for not giving the British Government just with one of the warring powers the differ early information of the existence of such in-ences connected with the war, with a view to strument. It was not such a writing as they required. And, by the way, I think their requisition so insulting and so unreasonable, that no further attempt ought to have been made; it was not enough that we would obtain from France a partial repeal or modification so as to secure our rights, but we were required to engage in the very chivalrous business of being the advocate and champion of all neutral nations, in order to procure the exercise of our rights.

But, sir, I do not believe the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees was the true cause of the rescinding the Orders in Council. The Prince Regent, in the instrument repealing the Orders in Council, expresses his opinion that the French repealing decree was not such as had been required; from which, believing as I do, that he was not disposed to yield to the United States or any other nation any thing through mere courtesy, I infer that some other reason or cause induced the repeal. More than a month elapsed between the notification of the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees, before the Orders in Council were repealed. Another reason to show it improbable that the one was really the cause of the other:-it will be recollected, that great complaints existed in the great manufacturing towns of Great Britain on account of the operation of the Orders in Council; that a lengthy investigation was had in the House of Commons to ascertain their effects upon their own commerce and manufactures. Now, sir, I believe

placing one of them more directly and exclusively in the wrong. This I take to be the true reason why the point of impressment was not so constantly pressed, and not that our Government viewed it as inconsiderable in its nature.

Mr. TELFAIR expressed his regret at the range that this question had taken, though an apprehension of the reality had been excited by the introduction of the resolutions before the House. He arose not to follow the example of gentlemen, but to exhibit it in a point of view in which, to his surprise, it had not yet been presented. Sir, the question of the policy, the justice, or necessity of a declaration of war, is not the one now before the nation-it is idle to spend time in debating it-the special and important objects of this session will not sanction the discussion of it. It has not only been discussed in its proper place, but was renewed at the last session, and the causes most ably developed. May I be excused, sir, in expressing an apprehension that the consciousness of defeat at that time has induced the opposition to renew their charge at this session, goaded on as they are by recent mortification, and cheered by the enchantments of existing hope. But, sir, is there no termination to a question of this sort? Is every effort of the Government in prosecuting the war to be clogged by details of the causes which produced it? What, Mr. Speaker, is the acknowledged definition of war? It is the combined energies of one nation brought

JUNE, 1813.]

French Decrees.

[H. OF R.

Gentlemen, in the course of debate, have revived the insulting, and I had hoped obsolete charge of French influence. It is not, sir, in my nature to enter a defence, which would be as degrading to me, as derogatory to the Chief Magistrate of this nation, whose enlightened and

hallowed selfishness of soul which grasps at the trappings of aristocracy, and with conscious littleness shrinks from the sacred principles of Republicanism, because it affords no artificial props to ephemeral greatness. The private as well as public virtues of this man so effectually shield him from the shafts of unjust insinuations as to need no vindication. I speak, sir, with freedom, because I am conscious that those who know me will not believe me capable of flattery. As I should depise more than I can express the Administration susceptible of such an influence, in like manner is my abhorrence of such a charge made upon any other than the most irresistible evidence.

forcibly into action against the united exertions of another, legitimately authorized by either.| Who, sir, under our constitution, is authorized to declare war? Not, as in England, a capricious or ambitious monarch; but the Congress of the United States-a body taken from the people, and liable again to remain among them-liberalized mind early rose superior to that unemphatically, sir, the people themselves. Surely, then, when the nation is legitimately declared to be in a state of war, when, in the language of the definition, the people are called upon to unite in resisting foreign dominionwhen the enemy is knocking at your very doors, it is the duty not only of the minor officers of this country to stand forth in its cause, but it is more imperiously the duty of every branch of that power which had declared it to prosecute it with vigor, to the intent that an honorable and permanent peace may be secured. The declaration of war, when legitimately made, is like every other truth demonstrated to the human mind, which is ever after received as an undeniable proposition whence to deduce other Sir, the gentlemen who repeat this charge consequences, until refuted by additional devel- should recur to the source whence so degrading opments of the same faculty which established an imputation first emanated. He who first it. But the same authority under our constitu- proclaimed the existence of French influence in tion which declared the war is not adequate to this country was proven an abhorred and cruel a restoration of peace. Hence, the want of traitor. Yes, sir, the first tongue which dared complete analogy; hence, when the Congress to utter such an insinuation was that of the ever have declared the nation in a state of war, its accursed Arnold-let gentlemen then pause, and judgment is final as to itself-to prosecute it is weigh well the motive of such a charge. But within its competency; but legislation for a let me not, hence, be supposed to accuse every peace is by this act transferred to the treaty-one who repeats it of nurturing the same exemaking power. But, sir, further, this is defensive war; for that nation which has committed the first aggression upon some primary or essential right of another, has commenced the act of war, and that other which reacts under a declaration, whether by retaliation or otherwise, is on the defensive. Yes, sir, such a nation is on the defensive, even though an attack upon the I am now, Mr. Speaker, brought to the speenemy in his own quarters be made, in order to cial reasons which will induce my negative to secure you from future harm. And will gen- these resolutions. It has been admitted by the tlemen pretend to say that Great Britain has not gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. SHEFFEY,) or the committed glaring outrages upon the primary mover of these resolutions, (Mr. WEBSTER,) I and essential rights of this nation; that she has cannot distinctly recollect which, and if I err in not levelled a deadly blow at its very independ- the reference, I assert the fact myself, that the ence? That she has not essayed to bring us resolution introduced at the close of the last back to a state of colonization? Was not the session, and answered by the President, emrequisition to pass all of our vessels through her braced all the matter in general terms, containports, there to pay a tax or duty, in the formed in those now before the House, so far as is of license, such an outrage? Was not the ex- consistent with the relative characters of the tensive blockade of the ports of Europe, without Executive and Legislative branches. It was in an adequate force, under which our vessels were these words: rifled, such a violation of the fundamental principles of national law as to justify this nation in resistance? Was not, I ask, sir, the horrid usurpation of impressing American seamen, of consigning them to the most cruel of bondage, that under which they might be compelled to serve as instruments in heaping insult and injury upon their own nation, upon their countrymen, their brethren, an encroachment of the most daring kind-a violation of a primary and essential right of this nation, such as called for manly reaction on our part?

crable spirit-no, sir, I dare not wrong myself by uttering so unwarranted an accusation against honorable members; yet I would expect of gentlemen to refer to those sentiments of honor which are their boast before they repeat so foul a charge derived from so infamous a

source.

66

be requested to be caused to be laid before this House Resolved, That the President of the United States 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; and also any cor respondence or information touching the relations of the United States with France, in the office of the Department of State, not heretofore communicated, which, in the opinion of the President, it is not incompatible with the public interest to communicate."