Mr. Randolah resumed, having asked and obtained the assent of the chair to his proceeding in the debate on the questionWhen Mr. Nelson enquired if it were in order, after a resolution was presented to the house, to debate it before the house had agreed to consider it. The Speaker said he had not before adverted to the imperative terins of the rule which required a previous question of considera tion, and which rule, on further reflection, he was of opinion applied to this case. speech by his own sense of duty and propriety. There cannot be any other rational rule, any other proper guide as to the extent or the length of his speech. "Admit” the right to exist at all, (and he would venture to say, not a motion had been made even in this session, on any important subject, without the exercise of it) to what other rule than the discretion of the mover can we resort to regulate its exercise? Shall any individual member interrupt the enjoyment of this important and invaluable privilege? And shall the feelings, the whim, or the policy of the majority, restrain or defeat its exercise? Shall their caprice or their irritation stop the! Mr. Randolph appealed from this decision of the chair. He call speaker at the moment when his remarks begin to bear hard up-ed the attention of the house to the fact that the operation of the on some favorite plan of their doctrine or their policy? Reason decision for reducing the motion to writing and requiring a second, and justice certainly forbid this resort, as the necessary, or at least was to deprive the person speaking of ins ancient, prescriptive the probable result of it would be an instability and favoritism (he had almost said constitutional) right of delivering his sentiwholly inconsistent with that equality of rights which attaches to iets in some manner or other to the house. This privilege was every member of this house. For these reasons, Mr. G. said he the last vestage of the liberty of speech enjoyed in this house could not give his assent to the honorable Speaker in this question except at the absolute will of the majority. The question of conof order; but should, by his vote, support the affirmative of this sideration itself was always of the nature of a previous question, position, that a member, who is about to submit a proposition to and went to take from a member of this house that privilege, prothe consideration of the house, has a right to preface his motion vided the house chose to exercise its power, viz. the privilege of with such decorous remarks, and with such length and detail of offering his sentiments, and if you will his grievances to the conexplanation, as he may think proper. sideration of the house and the people. The ineant st beggar has a Mr. Wright said, that the gentleman from Virginia, having been right to come here and state his grievances, and to be heard; called to order, and it having been decided by the speaker that he and yet a member of the house has no such right, except at the was out of order, from which decision he having appealed, the absolute will of the majority. If the decision be confirmed, we question now to be decided by the speaker is, was Mr. Randolph out shall have entirely departed from every principle heretofore reof order? In order, sir, to a correct understanding of the subject spected in this assembly and among those people from whom we by the house, it will be proper to revise his remarks, as well as the sprung. It appears to ine we have not got the old-fashioned libercircumstances under which they were ushered into the house. Sir, ty. When I compare the liberty of speech in the English parlia every gentleman has a right to be heard on a subject fairly before ment with late usages here, I am struck with consternation, griet the house, after the house had determined to consider it. But by and dismay. I once, sir, had the honor of being under the federal a positive rule of the house, declared by the speaker, no question regime, in what was called the reign of terror-1 then enjoyed the can be received until it is made and seconded, and, if required, re- liberty of speech. I had a right to protest against the acts of the duced to writing-nor after it is received can any question be de-men in power. These new discoveries in the construction of the bated, until the house agree to consider it. Therefore, the re- rules of the house were, were happily for the then minority, unquiring the question to be made and seconded and committed to known and unheard of. The present secretary of the treasury writing, is perfectly a matter of right, and the attempt to argue was attempted to be stopped in debate on the rule which required the question thus made and seconded, and committed to writing, that no member should speak more than once to any question. before the house had agreed to consider it, was in direct violation That great man-and great let me call him-laughed in derision of the rule, and therefore out of order. But sir, had it have been at the attempt. But not even in the year 298 was an attempt fairly be ore noticed, had the house agreed to consider this case, 1, made to prevent a man from speaking at all. The doctrine is sir, should contend that this gentleman's remarks were themselves new; it has come in under a new reign and a new race. Has it out of order-have we not been denounced as legislating under come to this, sir, that members of the house shall grow grey in the French influence? Yes, sir, we have. service, and in proportion to their experience become ignorant of the rules of proceeding, and receive the construction from those who have never been familiar with them? After having been fourteen years on this floor, is a man to be told he knows nothing of the rules of the house? Mr. Randolph called the gentleman to order. He said he had spoken hypothetically; he said, if war did take place, it would be confirmation strong as proof from holy writ, of an undue French bias. The Speaker said that the question of order submitted involved The Speaker requested the gentleman to confine bis remarks to a matter of fact, that is, whether the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. the question whether or not the decision of the chair was correct. R.) did or did not use the words ascribed to him by the gentleman Priority of seat, on this floor, said the speaker, gives to the senior from Maryland (Mr. W.) conveying an imputation of French in-members of the house no right to which the junior are not equally fluence, which (not having been in the chair) he could not decide. entitled. He could only say, that it the gentleman did use such words, they Mr. R. said he only desired that the senior members should have were highly aproper: if he did not, the gentleman from Mary-equal rights with the junior. The decision of the chair, said he, I land (Mr. W.) was out of order in attributing them to him. contend is incorrect in so far as this: that there has heretofore ex Mr. Wright quoted the words used by Mr. Randolph, to whichsted what was called the freedom of debate, which late rules and be contended his observations applicable. Sir, said he, could these late restrictions have taken away. We are in danger of losing the remarks of the gentleman be in order? I protest against them; hierty of speech entirely. If the decision of the chair be supported, they are unfounded as to myself, and I have no doubt, as to every it will indeed be the last dying speech of the liberty of speech.member of this house. The black catalogue of wrongs sustained This was the only mode left to a member in which he could, without by the outrages of Great Britain are such, that no man, not de- asking permission to do it, present himself to the house and to the voted to that nation, can, in my judgment, be at a loss for a just nation. If this be taken away, sir, a seat in this house is not worth cause of war, and such as no independent nation ought to sub- the having at least to those who do not find favor in its sight. mit to Mr. Randolph again called the gentleman to order, because discussing a subject which the speaker had declared should not be debated. The Speaker declared said he did not perceive the direct appli cation of the gentleman's remarks, but he appeared to be speaking in explanation of the expressions, for using which, he had before been called to order. Mr. Wright continued. Sir, said he, I do not admire the doctrine] of recrimination, nor will Icharge the honorable gentleman with being under British influence, although we see the British licensed spies within this hall, to hear this understood debate Mr. Kanph said the gentleman was again out of order. Mr. Johnson spoke in reply to Mr. Randolph and in defence of the majority and of the house, which never ought to be subjected to the caprice of any individual, as it would be in the gentleman's appeal was sanctioned by the house. Mr. Macon rose to speak to the question of order. He said he had no doubt the present decision of the speaker was correct; but it was equally clear to him that his first decision was a wrong one. Mr. Randolph said, out of respect to his friend's opinion he would withdraw his appeal from the speaker's decision. The Speaker said, that he would take the occasion to remark, that at the commencement of the session, he had doubted the pro priety of the rule requiring a previous determination of the house to consider a proposition, before it could be debated and decided. The Speaker. The gentleman from Maryland will please to take But he was then informed that it had been the practice of the his seat. If the chair understood hita correctly, he is certainly outhouse, and to that usage he had conformed. Whatever doubts he of order. If he meant to say that there was an understanding be- had entertained originally of its utility, had been removed by subtween a member of this house and a foreign agent out of it, in resequent experience. lation to proceedings to take place in the house, he was undoubted-| In regard to the decision requiring a second to a motion before ly out of order. it was received, of which there was some complaint, he understood Mr. Wright disclaimed having so meant to state; he meant to it to be the esta dished praedice of the British parliament. As to the say, that from the attendance of these persons, on the gentleman's alleged violation of the freedom of debate he remarkel, that he arguments, it might be fairly inferred, that they were apprised of should be extremely sorry, if any decision which it became his his intention to bring this subject before the house. But he hop-duty to make should protace minecessarily its abridgment. He ed the privilege of these spies would in a few days be arrested. was a great friend to a gitionate and decorous freedom of deHowever, he should always be prepared to submit his conduet to hate. And whether, by the house, or any determination of his, its the good sense and patriotism of the American people, without a liberty had been infringed, in the instance of any member, and fear of its being ascribed to French or any other improper influ- particularly in reference to the gentleman from Virginia, the dis cussions and proecedings of the house during the present session will illustrate and attest. ence. The question was then taken, to wit: "Is the decision of the 67 42 · Mr. Ranoph. Then, sir, I am compelled to submit my motion in writing, and under that compulsion I offer it. The Speaker. There is no compulsion in the case; because the gentle man may or may not offerit, at his option. The motion was then read from the chair in the following words: “Resolved, That munder existing circumstances it is inexpedient to resort to war against Great Britain." The right to repulite its own proceeding, he observed was a right inherent in every public deliberative body. It was a right necessarily attaching to every body, composed of human beings, independent of positive pr scription. It was a right, without the existence and exercise of which, it would be impossible to proceed in business at all, or to arrive at any cocclusión. But strong as was the natural basis upon which this 11,ht stands, it did not de pend upon that alone. The constitution had expressly secured to each branch of the notional legislature de powr to regulate its own proceeding. Whilst in this place with which he was honored it was his pleasure no less than his duty to enforce, as far as de- to proceed. Mr. R. again appealed from the depended upon him, the rules which the house of representatives in the exercise of this constitutional power had thought proper to prescribe. He could have no interest but to perform with the utmost impartiality, this trust, and in doing it he should always com sult every source of information which was accessible to him. The question was then taken on the consideration of the reso. lution, as heretofore stated, and lost, 72 to 37. cision, but subsequently withdrew his appeal and thereby manifested his acquiescence in it. The house then refused to consider the motion by ayes and noes. Other questions of order, having no material bearing on this subject, were decided. Such were the circumstances of the case. It re. To the Editor of the National Intelligencer. sults that, between the decisions of Mr. Bibb and Some printed sheets, consisting of an address of discrepancy; unless it is to be found in the momenmine, certainly between my own, there existed no the hon. John Randolph of Roanoake, to the free, tary error, rectified almost as soon as committed, holders of certain counties in Virginia, and of wha- relative to the necessity of the house determining to purports to be the fragment' of a speech of that consider the motion. Not between the former, begentleman delivered in the house of representativest canse the points on which we decided were different. have fallen into my hands. The author appears tNot between the latter, because the first decision think that particular decisions of that body, of at the instance of Mr. Wright, recognized only the which he undertakes to give an account, have un admissibility of prefatory remarks, a quality which warrantably restricted the freedom of debate. How those of Mr. R. had, when the last determination ever reluctant I may be to offer myself, in this way, took place, long ceased to possess. to your notice, when a member of the house of representatives lends the high authority of his name first is, that the house has a right to know, through Two principles are settled by these decisions; the to an incorrect statement of a transaction, and its organ, the specific motion which a member inwhich, by the omission of material circumstances, tends making, before he undertakes to argue it at exhibits only a partial view of the case, I think it large; and in the second place that it reserves to itdue to the public, whose judgement and opinion self the exercise of the power of determining whe have been invoked, to have the matter set fully and ther it will consider it at the particular time when accurately before them. It is my intention to aim at the accomplishment of this object. It is not my purpose to notice particularly the manner or the substance of the residue of those compositions. How far the political speculations and sentiments of the author are just, the world may judge. not offered, prior to his thus proceeding to argue it. It would seem to be altogether reasonable, that when a member intends addressing a copious argument to a public body, for the purpose of enforcing a motion, he should disclose the motion in and of several if not of all the state assemblies, to require not only tended to be supported. It is the practice of the British parliament, that this should be done but that it should be seconded; thus af In the commencement of the observations of Mr. fording a protection against the obtrusion upon the body of the whimsical or eccentric propositions of a disordered or irregular R. after announcing his purpose to make a motion, mind, by the coincidence in opinion of at least two individuals.— it is true that, Mr. Wright having called him to At what particular period the proposition ought to be submitted is order, because there was no motion before the sy of all bodies will be found a sufficient safeguard against the experhaps not exactly defined or definable. Certainly in the courte house, it was stated by me that as he had signified clusion of matter properly introductive, explanatory, or prefatohis intention, it was usual to admit prefatory re from arguments in chief is not succeptible of accurate description. ry to the motion. The line separating matter of this character marks. Mr. R. proceeded, and having gone very It does not however present more practical difficulty than to dis much at large into the question of the repeal of the criminate between observations which are relevant or otherwise, French decrees, the subject of bockades, and other it is indeed not often that the rule is applied of requiring its speci decorous or reprehensible. When a member rises to make a motion. topics, I left the chair for a few minutes, placing fication, because the necessity of such application rarely occursthere my friend Mr. Bibb, as my substitute. I will cation than the non-existence of other rules, the actual enforce But its non-existence is no more to be inferred from its non-appli say what was the case upon which that gentlement of which does not take place in every special case to which in man, whilst he was so kind as to represent me, was rule is aforded in the very case complained of. Mr. Randolph terms they apply. The best demonstration of the utility of the called upon to decide, my attention not having been had addressed the house not less than an hour. The general particularly directed to the point. It is said by the tenor of his arguments would have conducted equally well to fragment,' and I will suppose it to have been on a or at least to several others to war, for example, or some almost any other conclusion than that to which he was carried, call to order by Mr. Calhoun, because "the ques-other measure of a hostile character against France-that the law tion of war was not before the house." I shortly of non-importation ought to be repealed as to England-or put after resumed the chair, and Mr. Calhoun again if not the whole of his speech, keeping out of mind the motion with on against her enemy. Any man who will now read seven-eighths, called Mr. R. to order and submitted whether he which it terminated, will, I apprehend, find it extremely difficult to was not bound to specify his proposition and pro- Now it is made the duty of the presiding officer (by the usages of conjecture that such was or what was to be the concluding motion cure a second before he proceeded further. It was all deliberate bodies, and moreover by express rules of the house decided that he was bound to state it, that it must of representatives) to keep the member, addressing the chair, to the be seconded, reduced to writing, according to a be offered, was that duty to be performed? How was the house point. How, that officer being ignorant of the motion intended to particular rule of the house, if required, and an tself to apply the arguments? In point of fact I was entirely nounced from the chair. At the time this decision would be submitted, and even after it was reduced to writing it was uncertain (others have assured me they were) as to what motion was made Mr. R. had been speaking I think at believed not to be the one originally contemplated by the mover. 1 least one hour. An appeal was taken to the house,able in the requisition, on the part of a body addressed to illustrate think then I am justified in saying that there is nothing unreason who confirmed the decision. He was then request-enforce and establish a given proposition, that the mover of it shall ed to reduce his motion to writing, which he did, specify it, that it shall be seconded, and, to prevent misconception of and presented it to the chair, remarking that he did announced from the chair, before he advances into a boundless field its precise import, that it shall be reduced to writing, and distinctly it under the compulsion of the house, to which it of argument. Indeed I understand from the address, as well at was replied that it depended upon his own pleasure to withhold or offer his motion. After it was stated speaker, or being in writing, it shall be handed to the chair, and read from the chair, Mr. R. was proceeding in his argu aloud by the clerk, before debated." "When any member is about ment, when he was called to order upon the ground to speak in debate, or deliver any matter to the house, he shall rise that the house must, previous to the discussion, deshall confine himself to the question under debate, and avoid per from his sent, and respectfully address himself to Mr. Speaker; and termine whether it would at that time consider the sonality."-Rules of the house. In England, still greater restraints proposition. I observed that that rule did not ap question in hand, it stands with the order of the house for the speaker have been imposed. "If any man speak impertinently, ar beside the ply to the case, but immediately correcting the im to interrupt him; and to know the pleasure of the house whether they pression, it was declared that the house must come will further hear him." "If any superfluous motion or tediens to such a resolution, or he would not be at liberty by Mr. Speaker."-Hatscll's procedents speech be offered in the house, the party is to be directed and ordered "When a motion is made and seconded, it shall be stated by the 267 H. CLAY. from what transpired on the occasion, that the real source of com, so abused its authority as to excite alarm or justify censure, will Washington, 17th June, 1812. Declaration of War. Various are the expedients resorted to by deliberative bodies to From the National Intelligencer Extra. 4 o'clock P. M. June 18, 1812. To the senate and house of representatives of the United States. British cruisers have been in the continued practice of violating whatever doubts I entertained originally of its propriety. It has the American flag on the great high way of nations, and of seize been indiscriminately applied by the house to members of all paring and carrying off persons sailing under it; not in the exercise ties. The right of one or two members to compel a body to con- of a belligerent right founded on the law of nations against an dera proposition which, on account of the time, its manner, or enemy, but of a municipal prerogative over British subjects.its matter, they do not think proper to deliberate upon, can only British jurisdiction is thus extended to neutral vessels in a situation be maintained by a reversal of the rule that the plurality of mem-where no laws can operate but the law of nations and the laws of bers is to govern, and would, as to that particular subject, make the country to which the vessels belong; and a self-redress is as the mover and his second superior to the whole body. It may, in- sumed which, if British subjects were wrongfully detained and deed be alleged that, unless such a privilege be recognised, great alone concerned, is that substitution of force, for a resort to the abuse may be practised-that the body may refuse to consider the responsible sovereign, which falls within the definition of war.-most imperious and momentous subject of national interest. The Could the seizure of British subjects in such cases be regarded as obvious reply is, that an indulgence of such a privilege expose; within the exercise of a belligerent right, the acknowledged laws the body to great abuse by any member who can obtain a second, of war, which forbid an article of captured property to be adjudg and, in the danger of opposite abuses, it is believed there is greated without a regular investigation before a competent tribunal, er safety on the side of greater numbers. The responsibility of would imperiously demand the fairest trial where the sacred rights a representative body, for what is not done, exists no less than for of persons were at issue. In place of such a trial, these rights are what is done. It is not, therefore, probable that it will refuse to subjected to the will of every petty commander. eonsider, and consequently to adopt, a measure presented for its deliberation under circumstances unexceptionable as to time, form and nature of the proposition. The abuse, however, of a rule, in its practical operation, is best tested by an examination of the eases to which it has been applied. I will content myself with that furnished by Mr. Randolph's own record. An extraordinary sesson of congress is convoked; various laws are passed, with the avowed purpose of war. During their pendency, both in their incipient and matured forms, the subject is discussed at great length. Against this crying enormity, which Great Britain would be so Every topie calculated to excite the passions, alarm the fears, or enlighten the judgment, is exhausted. More than any other member prompt to avenge if committed against herself, the United States of the house (often, I own, with admiration on my own part of his have in vain exhausted remonstrances and expostulations. And alents, however much I disapproved his sentiments) is Mr. R. pa- that no proof might be wanting of their conciliatory dispositions ently and repeatedly heard to develope his views on that solemn and no pretext left for a continuance of the practice, the British question. The period at length arrives when, by every previous in-government was formally assured of the readiness of the U. States dication, a declaration of war would seem to be absolutely inevita- to enter into arrangements, such as conld not be rejected, if the ble. Of that very committee, from which it was expected such a recovery of British subjects were the real and the sole object. The declaration was to emanate, Mr. R. is a member. It is admitted by communication passed without effect. The practice, hence, is so far from affecting British subjects alone, that, under the pretext of searching for these, thousands of Ame rican citizens, under the safeguard of public law, and of their national flag, have been torn from their country and from every thing dear to them; have been dragged on board ships of war of a foreign nation, and exposed, under the severities of their disci pline, to be exiled to the most distant and deadly climes, to risk their lives in the battles of their oppressors, and to be the melancholy instruments of taking away those of their own brethren. British cruisers have been in the practice also of violating the himself on the 30th May, that on the succeeding Monday it was believed it would be presented to the house.It is admitted by rights and the peace of our coasts. They hover over and harrass himself that it was intended to be discussed with closed doors.our entering and departing commerce. To the most insulting preten Yet on that day (the 30th May) what does he attempt? Forestalling stons they have added the most lawless proceedings in our very harthe friends of the measure, with open doors, without disclosing bors; and have wantonly spilt American blood within the sanctuary his particular motion, he engages in an argument which, after con- of our territorial jurisdiction. The principles and rules enforced suning one hour, is now denominated a fragment only; and by that nation, when a neutral nation, against armed vessels of bel when required by the house, reluctantly subunits the negative ligerents hovering near her coasts, and disturbing her commerce proposition, that it is not expedient, at this time, under existing are well known. When called on, nevertheless, by the United ircumstances, to go to war with Great Britain! Can I be mis- States to punish the greater offences committed by her own vessels, taken in believing that the refusal of the house to consider such a her government has bestowed on their commanders additional proposition, ao brought forward, will be approved by the good sense marks of honor and confidence. Under pretended blockades, without the presence of an adequate of an intelligent public? It is said that a precedent for such a motion is to be found in the motion of Mr. Sprigg, made in 1798. force, and sometimes without the practibility of applying one, our That gentleman, when the house was in committee of the whole commerce has been plundered in every sea; the great staples of on the state of the union, offered three resolutions, of which one our country have been cut off from their legitimate markets; and was negative, and the other two affirmative. The subject before a destructive blow aimed at our agricultural and maritime interests, the committee was the President's message of 19th March, 1798. In aggravation of these predatory measures, they have been consiAnd to render At that time the practice (now no longer existing) prevailed to dis-dered as in force from the dates of their notification; a retrospec uss such messages in full. That message was a war message.tive effect being thus added, as has been done in other important Being under consideration, it was the nature of an affirmative pro-cases, to the unlawfulness of the course pursued. position for war, to which Mr. Sprigg's motion, in the nature of the outrage the more signal, these mock blockades have been rean amendment, was the negative. The message was the text, the iterated and enforced in the face of official communications from primary subject; his motion was incidental and ancillary. But the British government, declaring, as the true definition of a legal Mr. R's motion was primitive, and not appurtenant to any pend-blockade that particular ports must be actually invested, and preNot content with these occasional expedients for laying waste our ing question. In the instance of Mr. Sprigg, no point was made vious warning given to vessels bound to them, not to enter." whether the committee would consider the proposition. Perhaps, being a direct response to the message, they were bound to consi-neutral trade, the cabinet of Great Britain resorted, at length, to der it, or not to act upon the message. Out of Mr. R's motion, the sweeping system of blockades, under the name of orders in Dot supposing it adopted, no positive act could grow. It would be council, which has been moulded and managed, as might best suit as if the house should formally adopt an original resolution that its political views, its commercial jealousies, or the avidity of Bri they would not pass a particular law. The cases of Mr. R. and tish cruisers. Mr. S. are not analogous. Supposing, however, that they were, in To our remonstrances against the complicated and transcendant all their material circumstances, what would be proven? Only injustice of this innovation, the first reply was that the orders were that a body, having the power to prescribe the time when it will reluctantly adopted by Great Britain as a necessary retaliation on consider the subjects brought before it, has seen fit at one time (no decrees of her enemy proclituing a general blockade of che British reason then existing against it) to deliberate upon a question, isles, at a time when the naval force of that enemy dared not to iswhich at another time (when there are cogent reasons against it)sue from his own ports. She was reminded, without effect, that her awa prior blockades, unsupported by an adequate naval force It has not thought proper to consider. The right of the house of representatives to regulate its own actually applied and continued, were a bar to this plea; that exe proceedings is quite manifest, whether we advert to the express cuted edicts against millions of our property could not be retaliation provision of the constitution, or to the nature and properties of a on edicts, confessedly impossible to be executed; that retaliation, deliberate body. It is undoubtedly responsible for the abuse of that to be just, should fall on the party setting the guilty example, not right, no less than it is for the abuse of any other power with which on an innocent party, which was not even chargeable with an aeit is invested. Whether, in the instance under consideration, it has quiescence in it." 268 the belief, that the disavowal proceeded from a spirit of hostility to the commercial rights and prosperity of the United States. And it has since come into proof, that at the very moment, when the pub lie minister was holding the language of friendship and inspiring confidence in the sincerity of the negociation with which he was charged, a secret agent of his goverement was emploped in intrigues, having for their object a subversion of our government, and a dis memberment of our happy union. When deprived of this flimsy veil for a prohibition of our trade with her enemy, by the repeal of his prohibition of our trade with Great Britain, her cabinet, instead of a corresponding repeal, or a practical discontinuance of its orders, formally avowed a determination to persist in them against the United States, until the mar kets of her enemy should be laid open to British products; thus asserting an obligation on a neutral power to require one belliger ent to encourage, by its internal regulations, the trade of another belligerent contradicting her own practice towards all nations, in peace as well as in war; and betraying the insincerity of those professions which inculcated a belief that, having resorted to her orders with regret, she was anxious to find an occasion for putting an end to them. Abandoning still more all respect for the neutral rights of the United States, and for its own consistency, the British government now demands, as pre-requisites to a repeal of its orders as they rekite to the United States, that a formality should be observed in the repeal of the French decrees, nowise nee ssary to their termiscation, nor exemplified by British usage; and that the French repeal, besides including that portion of the decrees which operate within a territorial jurisdiction, as well as that which operates on the high seas against the commerce of the United States, should which have been heaped on our country: and such Such is the spectacle of injuries and indignities not be a single special repeal in relation to the United States, but the crisis which its unexampled forbearance and zhould be extended to whatever other neutral nations unconnected conciliatory efforts have not been able to avert. It with them, may be affected by those decrees. And as an addition States our attention is necessarily drawn to the warfare just renew. ed by the savages on one of our extensive frontiers; a warfare which In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain towards the United is known to spare neither age or sex, and to be distinguished by for the activity and combinations which have for some time bera developing themselves among tribes in the constant intercourse with features peculiarly shocking to humanity. It is difficult to account British traders and garrisons, without connecting their hostility with that influence; and without recollecting the authenticated examples of such interpositions heretofore furnished by the officers and agents of that government. al insult, they are called on for a formal disavowal of conditions might at least have been expected that an enlightand pretensions advanced by the French government, for which ened nation, if less urged by moral obligations, or the United States are so far from having made themselves respon invited by friendly dispositions on the part of the ble, that, in official explanations, which have been published to the world, and in a correspondence of the American minister at United States would have found, in its true interest London with the British minister for foreign affairs, such a respon-alone, a sufficient motive to respect their rights and sibility was explicitly and emphatically disclaimed. It has becomic, indeed, sufficiently certain that the commerce of their tranquility on the high seas; that an enlarged he United States is to be sacrificed, not as interiering with the bel policy would have favored that free & general circulaigerent rights of Great Britain, not as supplying the wants of her tion of commerce,in which the British nation is at all enemies, which she hersel supplies, but as interfering with the monopoly which she covets for her own commerce and navigation. times interested, and which in times of war is the She carries on a war against the lawful commerce of a friend, that best alleviation of its calamities to herself as well as se may the better carry on a commerce polluted by the forgeries and perjuries which are, for the most part, the only passports by which it can succeed. the other belligerents; and more especially that the carious and surreptitious intercourse with hostile British cabinet would not, for the sake of the premarkets, have persevered in a course of measures which necessarily put at hazard the invaluable market of a great and growing country, disposed to cultivate the mutual advantages of an active come merce. Anxious to make every experiment short of the last resort of in jured nations, the United States have withheld from Great Britain, water successive modifications, the benetis of a free intercourse with their market, the loss of which could not but outweigh the pats accruing from her restrictions of our commerce with other wations. And to entitle these experiments to the more favorable consideration, they were so framed as to enable her to place her adversary under the exclusive operation of them To these appals her government has been equally inflexible, as if willing to Laake sacrifices of every sort, rather than yield to the claims of jus tice or renounce the errors of a false pride. Nay, so far were the and conciliation have had no other effect than to attempts carried, to overcome the attachment of the British cabi Other councils have prevailed. Our moderation et to its unjust edicts, that it received every encouragement with encourage perseverance, and to enlarge pretensions. in the competency of the executive branch of our government, to We behold our seafaring citizens still the daily vicespect that a repeal of them would be followed by a war between tims of lawless violence committed on the great the United States and France, unless the French ediets should also be repealed. Even this communication, although silencing for common and highway of nations, even within s ght ever the plea of a disposition in the United States to acquiesce in of the country which owes them protection. We i those edicts, originally the sole plea for them, received no atLention. If no other proof existed of a predetermination of the British go- our soil and industry, or returning with the honest vernment against a repeal of its orders, it might be found on the proceeds of them, wrested from their lawful destibehold our vessels freighted with the products of Forrespondence of the minister plenipotentiary of the United States at London, and the British secretary for foreign affairs in nations, confiscated by prize courts, no longer the 1810, on the question whether the blockade of May 1806, was cor organs of public law, but the instruments of arbi the French government, which urged this blockade as the ground trary edicts; and their unfortunate crews dispersed peal that decree; which, being filowed by alternate repeals of the into British fleets: whilst arguments are employed of its Berlin decree, was willing, in the event of its removal, to re- and lost, or forced or inveigled, in British ports, other offensive edicts, night aoohsh the whole system on both sides. This inviting opportunity for accomplishing an object so in support of these aggressions, which have no important to the United States, and professed so often to be the foundation but in a principle equally supporting a desire of both the belligerents, was made known to the British go claim to regulate our external commerce in all ca. vernment. As that government admits that an actual application of an adequate force,is necessary to the existence of a legal blockade ses whatsoever. and it was notorious,that if such a forcehad ever been applied,its long discontinuance had annulled the blockade in question, there could be sidered as in force or as not in force. It had been ascertained that We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain no sufficient objection on the part of Great Britain to a formal a state of war against the United States; and on the revocation of it; and no imaginable objection, to a declaration of side of the United States a state of peace towards the fact, that the blockade did not exist. The declaration would Great Britain. have been consistent with her avowed principles of blockade, and would have enabled the United States to demand from France, the picged repeal of her decrees; either with success, in which case the way would have been opened for a general repeal of the bel under these progressive usurpations, and these ac ligerent edicts; or without success, in which case the United States cumulating wrongs; or, opposing force to force in Whether the United States shall continue passive would have been justitied in turning their measures exclusively defence of their natural rights, shall commit a just against France. The British government would, however, neither rescind the blockade or declare its non-existence; nor permit its cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of non-existence to be inferred and affirmed by the American plenipotentiary. On the contrary, by representing the blockade to be events, avoiding all connections which might encomprehended in the orders in council, the United States were tangle it in the contests or views of other powers, compelled so to regard it in their subsequent proceedings. There was a period when a favorable change in the policy of the British cabinet, was justly considered as established. The minister honourable re-establishment of peace and friendship, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an plenipotentiary of his Britannic majesty here proposed an adjust is a solemn question, which the constitution wisely ment of the differences more immediately endangering the harmo confides to the legislative department of the governny of the two countries. The proposition was accepted with a promp tulad cordiality corresponding with the invariable professions ment. and lasting reconciliation. Mistedi. In recommending it to their early delibera. of this governinent. A foundation appeared to be laid for a sinceretions, I am happy in the assurance that the decision The whole proceeding was disavowed by the British go The prospect, however, quickly va verspent without any explanations which could at that time repress cils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation. will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic coun Having presented this view of the relations of preserve the relations of friendship with Great Brithe United States with Great Britain and of the tain. Of this disposition they gave a distinguished solemn alternative growing out of them, I proceed proof, at the moment when they were made the victo remark that the communications last made to tims of an opposite policy. The wrongs of the last congress on the subject of our relations with France war had not been forgotten at the commencement will have shown that since the revocation of her de- of the present one. They warned us of dangers, crees as they violated the neutral rights of the Uni- against which it was sought to provide. As early ted States, her government has authorised illegal as the year 1804, the Minister of the United States captures, by its privateers and public ships, and at London was instructed, to invite the British gothat other outrages have been practised on our ves-vernment to enter into a negociation on all the sels and our citizens. It will have been seen also, points on which a collision might arise between the that no indemnity had been provided, or satisfactorily two countries, in the course of the war, and to pledged for the extensive spoliations committed un-propose to it an arrangement of their claims on fair der the violent and retrospective orders of the French and reasonable conditions. The invitation was acgovernment against the property of our citizens cepted. A negociation had commenced and was seized within the jurisdiction of France. I abstain depending, and nothing had occurred to excite a at this time from recommending to the considera- doubt that it would not terminate to the satisfaction tion of congress definitive measures with respect to of both the parties. It was at this time, and under that nation, in the expectation that the result of un- these circumstances, that an attack was made, by closed discussions between our minister plenipoten surprize, on an important branch of the American tiary at Papis and the French government will commerce, which affected every part of the United speedily enable congress to decide, with greater ad States, and involved many of their citizens in ruin. vantage, on the course due to the rights, the inte rests, and the honor of our country. JAMES MADISON. Washington, June 1. 1812. The commerce on which this attack was so unexpectedly made, was between the United States and the colonies of France, Spain, and other encmies of G. Britain. A commerce just in itself; sanctioned by the example of Great Britain in regard to the trade with her own colonies; sanctioned by a solemn act between the two governments in the last war; and sanctioned by the practice of the British government in the present war, more than two years having elapsed, without any interference with it. That after the experience which the United States have had of the great injustice of the British go vernment towards them, exemplified by so many The injustice of this attack could only be equalacts of violence and oppression, it will be more dif ficult to justify to the impartial world their paled by the absurdity of the pretext alleged for it. tient forbearance, than the measures to which it It was pretended by the British government, that hss become necessary to resort, to avenge the in case of war, her enemy had no right to modify wrongs, and vindicate the rights and honor of the its colonial regulations, so as to mitigate the calamnation. Your committee are happy to observe, on ities of war to the inhabitants of its colonies This a dispassionate review of the conduct of the United States, that they see in it no cause for censure. pretension peculiar to Great Britain, is utterly incompatible with the rights of the sovereignty in If a long forbearance under injuries ought ever everyindependent state. If we recur to the well estto be considered a virtue in any nation, it is one blished and universally admitted law of nations, wewhich peculiarly becomes the United States. No shall find no sanction to it, in that venerable code. people ever had stronger motives to cherish peace: The sovereignty of every state is co-extensive with none have ever cherished it with greater sincerity its dominions, and cannot be abrogated, or curtailed and zeal. in rights, as to any part, except by conquest. NeuBut the period has now arrived, when the United tral nations have a right to trade to every port of States must support their character and station either belligerent, which is not legally blockaded; among the nations of the earth, or submit to the and in all articles which are not contraband of war. most shameful degradation. Forbearance has ceased Such is the absurdity of this pretension, that your to be a virtue. War on the one side, and peace on committee are aware, especially after the able manthe other, is a situation as ruinous as it is disgrace-ner in which it has been heretofore refuted, and exful. The mad ambition, the lust of power, and composed, that they would offer an insult to the undermercial avarice of Great Britain, arrogating to her-standing of the house, if they enlarged on it, and if self the complete dominion of the ocean, and exer any thing could add to the high sense of the injuscising over it an unbounded and lawless tyranny, tice of the British government in the transaction, have left to neutral nations an alternative only, be- it would be the contrast which her conduct exhibits tween the base su render of their rights, and a in regard to this trade, and in regard to a similar manly vindication of them, Happily for the United trade by neutrals with her own colonies. It is known States, their destiny, under the aid of Heaven, is in to the world,that G. Britain regulates her own trade their own hands. The crisis is formidable only by in war and in peace, at home and in her colonies, their love of peace. As soon as it becomes a duty as she finds for her interest-that in war she relaxes to relinquish that situation, danger disappears.the restraints of her colonial system in favor of the They have suffered no wrongs, they have received colonies, and that it never was suggested that she no insults, however great, for which they cannot had not a right to do it; or that a neutral in taking advantage of the relaxation violated a belligerent But with Great Britain every obtain redress. right of her enemy. It is only in a trade with her eneWith thing is lawful mies that the United States can do wrong. them all trade is unlawful. More than seven years have elapsed, since the commencement of this system of hostile aggression by the British government, on the rights and inter ests of the United States. The manner of its com In the year 1793 an attack was made by the Brimencement was not less hostile, than the spirit with which it has been prosecuted. The U. States tish government on the same branch of our neutral have invariably done every thing in their power to trade, which had nearly involved the two countries |