the fact thus proclaimed, it becomes, sir, a duty which we owe to ourselves and to the people, to inquire into its existence: for if it be true that no such repeal, as was contemplated by the law, has taken place; if indeed the president has been deceived, or was mistaken, we cannot too soon make it known, and relieve the country from the vexation and embarrassment which must result from the present state of things.

If, sir, additional motives were necessary, we may find them in the bills which have this morning been introduced into the house by the chairman of the committee of ways and means, at the instance of the secretary of the treasury; one of which goes to lay large additional duties, and the other to authorize a loan. The reasons assigned by the secretary for this new and heavy tax on our citizens are, that as the greater part of our duties on imports are collected on goods coming from Great Britain and her colonies, and as those duties will cease with the revival of a non-importation, it becomes necessary, in order to prevent a defalcation in the revenue, to tax the productions of other countries much beyond the present rate. On this presumed defalcation, too, in some degree depends the, proposition for a loan, or, if a loan be necessary, the amount of it. In this point of view, it becomes highly important to ascertain whether the non-intercourse has gone into operation; for if it has not, I trust we shall not proceed to give form and shape to the recommendation of the secretary, that we shall not burden the country with new taxes, or subject it to large loans.

In the commencement of this inquiry, Mr. Chairman, we naturally ask ourselves, what edicts were to be revoked, and how were they to be revoked? It is not material to extend this inquiry to Great Britain, as we know of no revocation on her part, and, under all circumstances, we have not, I fear, much reason to believe that there will be such revocation. But it may be well to notice here, something which has the appearance of inconsistency, on the part of our executive, towards that government.

The non-intercourse law of March, 1809, contains a provision, that "in case either France or Great Britain shall so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States," the president should declare the same by proclamation, and the non-intercourse was then to cease as to the nation revoking. It was under this law, and in consequence of the power so given to the president, that the celebrated, though ill fated arrangement, was made between the executive and the British minister, Mr. Erskine. Now, sir, by referring to this arrangement,

you will find, that on the 18th of April, Mr. Erskine proposed to secretary Smith, the revocation of the orders in council of January and November, 1807, as a compliance, on the part of Great Britain, with the terms of the act of March; and our secretary, on the same day, declaring that the withdrawing of such orders would be deemed satisfactory by the president, the arrangement was completed on the 19th, and a proclamation accordingly issued on the ground, and assuming the fact, that the British edicts had ceased to violate our neutral commerce, and again opening the intercourse between the two countries after the 10th day of June.

This arrangement, and the short and hasty correspondence connected with it, you will recollect, sir, were presented to con⚫ gress with the message, at the opening of the summer session of 1809, and we then passed a law, the object of which was to ratify and to carry into effect the arrangement. Here, then, we have an explicit opinion from both the executive and the legislature, that the only British orders, which came within the spirit and intent of the law of March, were those of January and November, 1807, and that when those orders were revoked, the edicts of Great Britain ceased to violate the neutral commerce of the United States.

I pray you now, Mr. Chairman, to turn with me to the law of May last: you will there find the precise phraseology of the act of March-" In case either Great Britain or France shall so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States," the president is to make known the fact by proclamation. The authority given to the president is in both cases the same, and it was to have been presumed, that it would have been exercised on the same terms. But, sir, it will be found, on recurring to the papers, that under the act of May, the executive made a farther requisition: the revocation of the orders in council of January and November were not to satisfy us, but the blockade of the year preceding was to be also annulled.

In the letter from secretary Smith to our minister at London, of the 5th of July, 1810, and which inclosed a copy of the law of May, it is said, "that in explaining the extent of the repeal which is required on the British side, Mr. Pinkney will let it be distinctly understood, that it must necessarily include an annulment of the blockade of 1806;" and our minister, accordingly, in his letter to lord Wellesley, of the 21st of September, tells him it is his duty to state," that an annulment of the blockade of May, 1806, is considered by the president to be as indispensable, in the view of the act, as the revocation of the British orders in council." Nay, so far has VOL. I. 3 C

the president gone in this particular as to give the French government a pledge that this will be required on the part of Great Britain. In the letter from secretary Smith to general Armstrong, of the 5th of July, 1810, the latter is authorized, if it should be found necessary, to "let it be understood, that a repeal of the illegal blockades of a date prior to the Berlin decree, namely, that of May, 1806, will be included in the condition required of Great Britain."

It is not my intention, at this time, to enter into a discussion on the subject of blockades, nor am I to be understood as giving countenance to the system of paper blockades, whether that system proceeds from, or is attempted to be inforced by England or by France; but, sir, I have gone into this examination to show, that the president has acted differently under two laws which ought to have had the same practical construction, because the terms used in them were alike: that under the law of May, 1810, he added a condition to a settlement with Great Britain, which he did not, and which we did not require under the law of March, 1809: and why this difference?

Will it be said, that when the arrangement was made with Mr. Erskine, the president had no knowledge of the blockading orders of May, 1806: Not so, sir. By recurring to a report made by Mr. Madison, as secretary of state, in December, 1808, of belligerent decrees and orders affecting neutral commerce, you will find this very blockade; and certainly what he knew as secretary in December he must have known as president in the April following. Shall I be told, the president had discovered that the blockade had been "avowed to be comprehended in, and identified with the orders in council." I fear this will not be a satisfactory answer. For, in this case, if the orders in council are rescinded, the connexion between them and the blockade will necessarily be at an end, and the blockade will then stand as it was supposed by the executive to stand when the arrangement was entered into.

Persons, Mr. Chairman, more prone to jealousy than myself, and who are disposed to find fault with the late executive projects, may perhaps point to that passage in the letter from secretary Smith to Mr. Pinkney, of the 22d of May, 1810, in which it is said, that the president has read, with surpriseand regret, the reply of lord Wellesley to the note requiring explanations with respect to the blockade of France, which " evinces an inflexible determination to persevere in the system of blockade," as affording a reason for this added condition: they may say that it was thrust in when our administra

tion were satisfied that it would not be acceded to by the British, and for the purpose of preventing an accommodation with, and keeping up the irritation against that nation. But while, for myself, I disclaim this inference, I must confess that I am at a loss to assign a sufficient motive for the dif ference in the two cases.

As to France, sir, what were the edicts to be revoked, and how revoked? I shall have occasion, before I sit down, to notice the Berlin and Milan decrees. But were there not other decrees?

We have before us the Rambouillet decree, with a date of the 23d of March, 1810, which declares that "all vessels navigating under the flag of the United States, or possessed in whole, or in part, by a citizen or subject of that power, which, counting from the 20th of May, 1809, have entered, or shall enter into the ports of our empire, of our colonies, or of the countries occupied by our arms, shall be seized, and the product of the sales shall be deposited in the surplus fund." Thus embracing almost the whole of continental Europe: for, with the exception of the Russian ports on the Baltic, and two or three places in the European peninsula, every port, frequented by the Americans, belonged either to the empire of France, to the colonies of that empire, or to countries occupied by the forces of the empire. The seizuresunder this decree were consequently great and distressing to our merchants.

This decree purports to be an act of reprisal on this country, and for what cause? Not for any act of hostility by us, not for any seizures or confiscations of French vessels or French property under the authority or within the limits of this government. No, sir, a pretence of this kind appeared too absurd to be inserted even in a French decree. It is true that general Armstrong, in his letter to secretary Smith, of the 10th of September, 1810, communicates a verbal explanation which accompanied the last letters of the French minister: "if you confiscate French property under the law of non-intercourse, they will confiscate your property under their decree of Rambouillet." Ay, sir, and they have given a practical explanation that they would confiscate our property under the decree, although we did not confiscate their property under the nonintercourse law. Look at the decree itself, and you will find the motive, or rather the pretext for this act of reprisal. It is grounded on the passing of the act of the 1st of March, 1809, and it is grounded on that alone.

Thus, because we deemed it advisable to pass a law which we supposed was a mere municipal regulation, inasmuch as it

related to our own citizens, or our own territories; a law, which, according to its letter, applied equally to both belligerents, and which, as it was not to commence its operation until the 20th of May, contained in itself a notice sufficient to prevent any injury to French subjects; for this cause, and for this alone, the emperor adopts, as an act of reprisal, a decree which subjects to seizure and confiscation not only American property which should reach the continent after notice of the decree, or even after its date, but property which arrived there at any time for the preceding twelve months. I will not stop to inquire what would and what ought to have been the feelings of the administration and of the country, if such an outrage had been committed by England for such a cause. But, sir, if the French government is allowed to have in the act of March an excuse for reprisal, we had better discontinue making laws altogether; for it is difficult to find in our statute books a law less hostile to France, or more within the right of an independent government to enact.

To see the true character of this decree, we must approach it a little nearer; and with the letters of the duke of Cadore in my hand-those letters, sir, which have occasioned our present embarrassments-I am strangely deceived if this proceeding of the French government does not appear to partake of the nature of an offence which, as respects individuals, is called swindling. It is a taking of property under false pretences.

In the letter from the French minister to general Armstrong, of the 5th of August, 1810, we find the French government attempting to justify the issuing of the Rambouillet decree at the time it did, because it, until "very lately," had no knowledge of the non-intercourse law. "The act of the 1st of March has raised the embargo and substituted for it a measure the most injurious to the interests of France. This act, of which the emperor knew nothing until very lately, interdicted to French vessels the commerce of France. Reprisal was a right and commanded by the dignity of France." Permit me, sir, to recall to your recollection a fact, that this decree, although it is dated the 23d of March, was not issued until the 14th of May, 1810, and to refer you, for the evidence of this fact, to the letter from general Armstrong to Mr. Smith, of the 24th of May, in which the general states, that "on the 14th instant was published here (at Paris) a decree of the emperor, dated at Rambouillet on the 23d of March, and that several of our ships and cargoes, with regard to which compromises have been made under the sanction of the council of prizes, have been seized again to satisfy the provisions of the new decree." From the date of our law, the 1st of March, 1809, until the time of publishing the decree, the 14th of May, 1810, we have