H. OF R.

The Loan Bill.

FEBRUARY, 1814.

when it was so decisively applauded for the first? Government, dated in April, 1811, is a proof that And a minute analysis of the facts connected with they considered we had performed our engageeach but serves to increase the dilemma. ments. And I understand it, as its terms import The arrangement with Mr. Erskine for the re-it to be, no more than an absolute confirmation peal of the British Orders, it will be recollected, of the previous conditional repeal-a declaration promised their abrogation at a future day. I that we had performed the condition. think it was the tenth of June; not having looked into the documents recently, I am not certain that I am correct as to the dates, but this I well recollect, that it was adopted with avidity; in the language of the resolve, with a promptitude and frankness honorable to the President; and on the faith of it, before the day had arrived, the President issued his proclamation, notifying the fact and renewing the trade, then suspended by our non-intercourse act, from and after that day. The repeal of the French decrees was notified by the French Government to take effect from and after the first of November, and the proclamation of the President in consequence thereof was not issued until after that day. If there was any departure from the course of unequivocal impartiality in the two cases, it was certainly not to the prejudice of the British Government, as in their case the proclamation was in anticipation of the time fixed upon by themselves, and in the French case it was not until after the time had arrived. When Opposition found that they were driven from this untenable ground, they took their stand on another; the French declaration they said was fraudulent on the face of it, and couched in terms that were offensive.

I say nothing as to the charge whether this decree was not antedated; it is certainly fairly liable, from the circumstance of its concealment, to all the animadversions heaped upon its suspicious appearance. I am speaking only of its character and tendency; and I insist that the construction I have given is fair and reasonable. If so, the assertion that the repeal was not until after the proclamation, has not a shadow of reason for its support. Gentlemen, in the fertility of their invention, attempt to derive an argument from the subsequent repeal of the British decrees, against the justice of the war, which they call an act of rashness and precipitancy. And they allege there was every reason for believing the British would repeal their orders when they were notitied of the repeal of the French decrees. In vain have we referred to the declarations of Mr. Foster that such repeal would not take place unless France not only rescinded her decrees so far as they violated our rights, but permitted the British manufactures to be admitted into the Continent also. We also showed that their Minister for Foreign Affairs declared the same thing; and that all pretext might be done away we quoted the "declaration" of the Prince Regent to the same It was answered, that but two topics of just import. Affecting to disbelieve the confessions inquiry were presented in considering the sub- of the British themselves as proof of their intenject-first, had the French promised and was it tions, a new species of reasoning was resorted to, fair to presume a repeal of their decrees in virtue which, as all new discoveries are to be secured by of such promise?-and second, was the promise patent privileges, I hope the gentleman will obunequivocal and in terms unexceptionable? 1st. tain the exclusive right of using and vending. That they did promise a repeal no one will deny, They said, you rely on the official declarations of and in point of fact we have express proof that it the British Ministers and the Prince Regent to was conformed to, and not violated; our agents prove they would not repeal their Orders in abroad state this, and the exemption of our ves- Council unless the French decrees were unconsels from capture under those decrees, is confir-ditionally repealed-but they have neverthematory of the assertion. 2dly. As to the mode of making the promise; it will be recollected that we had prescribed a condition in our law to be performed in the event that either France or England revoked their edicts, and the other refused to do so within three months after such revocation, and the repeal of the Berlin and Milan de- Mr. Chairman, although the subject of invacrees was made to depend upon our fulfilment of sions of the right of property has been first conthis condition-namely, a renewal of trade with sidered in the order of my arrangement, I have the party repealing; and unless the outstanding always believed and still think it of most suborbelligerent repealed his decrees, a non-intercourse dinate importance in the scale of national wrongs with him. I cannot discover any just cause for endured by the United States; for, in so far as the the criticism. It was in the nature of a neutral rights of persons are more invaluable than the compact, requiring the fulfilment by each of the rights of property, do violations of personal rights condition it had prescribed, as the consideration merit the prompt interposition of the Governof its observance by the other; and it was exclu- ment; whilst spoliations of property admit of dilsively in our power by observing good faith to atory adjustment. Let it not be said that in the render the contract absolute, or by violating our only free Government on earth, where alone all engagements defeat it. We kept our promise, and power is derived from, and frequently exercised for the honor of our nation let it be understood, by, the people; and the rights of persons not only in no instance of our history has it been imputed constitute the key-stone of the arch of our politto the Government that its promise was disre-ical edifice, but the corner stone on which the garded. The subsequent decree of the French arch itself is erected; and above all, let it not be

less been repealed without such modification of the French decrees, and this proves the reverse; and, reasoning a posteriori, it stands thus: "we had a right to believe the event would happen because it has taken place," although they all declared prior thereto that it would not.

་

believed that in such a Government a freeman can be despoiled of his liberty, or a citizen can be torn from his country, without producing more excitement than the capture of a bale of cotton or a barrel of flour. Impressments of our citizens are most certainly a primary cause of this

war.

We are met at the threshold of this inquiry with the assertion that impressment was not urged as an argument for the war, and this, if true, would be a non sequitur. The justice of our cause has never been made to depend upon the conclusiveness of our arguments. It would be a strange mockery of justice for a judge to say to a party before him- Sir, your cause is just; and 'I would be compelled to decide in your favor, if your advocate had not discovered an incompetency to argue it; on that ground alone I am constrained to decree against you." I ask, sir, if gentlemen are not mistaken in this assertion? Has not the practice of impressment been always urged as an intolerable injury by the Administrations of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson too, as well as the present? General Washington, twenty years ago, declared that it was an outrage not to be endured, and threatened reprisals. And will it be said that the Father of his Country would seriously contend for trifles, and assume a principle as the head of this nation which was to be given up as untenable? Sir. I think too highly of the character and virtues of that great man, whose reputation is the common property of his countrymen, without respect to the political distinctions set up by those who claim exclusive right to it, to subscribe for a moment to the unworthiness of the imputation; and permit me here to say, that the first general impression made on my youthful mind, was love and veneration for that great man, which no excitements of party spirit have ever unhinged or eradicated.

H. OF R.

sense of common danger and the united patriotism of the times alone rendered capable of sustaining any pressure, suddenly changed for a new system, against which the talents of some of the firmest patriots and strongest champions of liberty in the nation had been arrayed. The predictions of these men floated as beacons to guard against the dangers they had imagined; and in reducing order out of chaos, they were neither to be despised nor disregarded. It was his policy, and a wise one, to give the nation time to breathe and to grow strong; and in the mean time to enter a protest against this abuse, rather than go to war then to redress it. Let it be remembered, too, sir, that the injury then was small compared with its subsequent extent. It grew with our growth, and strengthened with our strength. Under the last Administration, it was of most alarming magnitude; under those of General Washington, and Mr. Adams, though each injury was an act of war, it might be compared to the murder of Pierce and the attack on the Chesapeake, admitting in the first instance of explanation without disgrace, and ultimate reparation. But if an hundred vessels had simultaneously murdered as many citizens, and attacked and destroyed all our vessels of war, no one could have forborne to identify the Government with its officers, and to hold it responsible for the outrage. Forbearance, under such circumstances, would have been pusillanimous and dishonorable; we must have repelled the hostile blow by hostile acts on our part, or surrendered the rank we have assumed as an independent nation. So, too, the first impressments of our citizens being disavowed, and reparation promised, the Government wisely preferred to rely on the justice of the British rather than on their own means for obtaining redress and future indemnity. Experience fatally proved the fallacy of this security; the cries of one American were And who, I ask, among us will have the hardi- drowned by those of his brother, who clung to hood to assert that he unjustifiably resisted the his country and to liberty until the violence of practice of impressment? Not the Washington the enemy had torn him from both, and riveted Benevolent Societies, I presume; for their "Aris- on him the fetters which had been forged for our tides" was the organ through which the Presi- citizens. Thousands of them in this manner were dential instruction was communicated. Sir, I do seized and carried off and still endure the slavery not allude to the appellation given to the venera- and degradation to which they have been doomed, ble gentleman in derision; I am willing to allow unless in cases where a kind Providence has been him all the virtues claimed by his admirers, and pleased to close their eyes in death. And yet, attribute his errors to human frailty. Another that justice might be done to the long forbeardistinguished favorite of Opposition, (I mean the ance and pacific policy of this Government, year Chief Justice,) while Secretary of State, wrote after year it sought redress in vain, and the an with energy and ability against this growing out-swers of the British were a practical commentary rage. The honorable Mr. King, too, when Minister at London, reiterated the same complaints; and Mr. Jefferson made it a sine qua non of negotiation. Now, I ask, with these facts staring gentlemen in the face, can they pretend that impressment was not considered an inadmissible pretension? Evading an answer where none can be given, they tell us that Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, did not go to war for it. It is true, they did not, and still the admission proves nothing. The first found his country exhausted, and by slow degrees recovering from the shock of a revolution; the Government of it, which the

on the insolent answers of their commanders, that "his Majesty's navy must have sailors." The nation was driven to the wall, where individual resistance becomes lawful in the sight of Heaven and all human laws, even though death ensue; there the constituted authorities took their stand, and the war was declared for "free trade and sailors' rights." Not, however, contented with a discussion of the avowed causes of the war, which is artfully evaded by the Opposition, they venture to presume others never contended for by the Administration, and level their artillery against those pretended causes. They say we claimed

H. or R.

The Loan Bill.

FEBRUARY, 1814.

by all, disputed by none. Yet, if tested by this construction, the advocates of the British pretension in regard to us, have nothing whereon to predicate an argument. The question of impressment, however, has nothing to do with the others, although gentlemen attempt to hide it in a mass of imposture, and in the jargon of the law of despotism. The single point is, will you protect your natural-born citizens in the enjoyment of their personal liberty at sea, as well as on the land? Let the career of our sailors be the answer, those gallant spirits who have borne our thunders on the mountain wave, and taught the enemy that he is not invincible; who carry from the masthead the motto of "Don't give up the ship," as an earnest, that, so far as the badge of sovereignty is confided to their keeping, the national honor has nothing to apprehend, if the Government respond to the sentiment-as I would have the Legislature speak to the Executive in relation to the execution of his functions, Don't give up the crew. I ask, Mr. Chairman, will you tear such a man from his ship; from his family; from the wife of his bosom, and the children of their love; from his aged parent who assisted to rear the fab

that free ships should make free goods, and that there should be no belligerent right of search. Sir, I deny the assertion in toto; and I believe if we could procure, by the common consent of nations, the adoption of a provision that there should be no search whatsoever, our interest would forbid it. I will acknowledge, sir, that on this point my private opinions have undergone a change. I do not recollect that I ever avowed them. I had believed that if the flag covered the vessel and cargo against all search, it would contribute much to the freedom of the seas, if, as a necessary condition of this privilege, no vessel were allowed to abuse the flag; to carry any other than its own; or to violate the law of nations-in relation to contraband of war, and carrying enemies in the military service of an enemy. Without these securities the privilege would not be desirable; and when I look to the experience of other nations as well as our own, I look for them in vain. Unfortunately for the honest merchant, and we have many, there are others of a different stamp, whom no laws will restrain, by whom no principles will be respected-even now they are in secret correspondence with our enemy, and subserving his schemes of murder and conflagration, by furnish-ric of liberty, and rejoices now in the evening of ing the instruments of death, and the means of subsistence. To illustrate my views, I will suppose a case. We are at war with a foreign nation who effects a landing in Louisiana; our navy nevertheless gives us the command of the American seas and I am indulging in no improbable hypothesis, for we are destined to become a great naval Power-the invader cannot subsist his army without fresh troops, other implements of war, provisions, &c., and these he knows will fall a prey to our naval superiority; a corrupt neutral, stimulated by gain, ministers to his necessities, carries men, arms, and ammunition, to relieve him. Our gallant tars believe this fraudulent trade is practised; but they dare not search the vessels employed in it, because of their abused immunities. Should we restrain them, and stay their hand from tearing the flag from the mast of the enemy in disguise, and making him pay the forfeit ?

his days that his eyes will be closed by a brave son worthy of his father? No, sir; rather tell Liberty to tear the Constitution to pieces; to depart from this Hall, and scatter it to the winds; to pull down the dome of this magnificent temple; to raze the monuments of freedom to their foundation; to leave us forever, for we have insulted her, and all our pledges and pretensions were a disgraceful mockery of her principles.

It is said we have gone to war to protect British subjects; that we naturalize and employ their sailors. In the very nature of things, few if any can be naturalized; and it is a pretence merely. The seaman who conforms to our naturalization laws, which require five years residence in a State or district, and testimonials of good character, rarely, if ever, returns to the sea, so long abandoned by him; and, in fact, as I have been informed by an honorable gentleman in the minority who is conversant with such subjects, (Mr. JACKSON, of Rhode Island,) but few naturalized seamen are to be found. Sir, we don't want naturalized seamen, as our law which forbids their employment evinces. I have said, on a former occasion, and the remark has been recently quoted with an air of triumph, that the men who come hither from Europe in search of an asylum, securing to them civil and religious liberty, go to the interior, they follow the plough or some me

It is said, too, that we are fighting for the establishment of a new law of blockades, that "there should be an investment by land and water;" this is equally incorrect. We stand in regard to them upon the British doctrine; we demanded the observance of their own rules; which they disregarded by substituting proclamations and orders for men and ships; it was their paper blockades, against which this Government contended. We are accused of insisting on a violation of the pub-chanic art, they are valuable men and good citilic law of Europe, in protecting naturalized men. And whilst the genius of free Governments, and of our Constitution, as well as the uniform practice of all the nations of Europe, and of Great Britain in particular, are overlooked, gentlemen gravely advocate her abstract rights and municipal regulations. If a plain man were asked what is the public law of Europe? I apprehend he would answer, the universal practice of all the States of Europe, exercised by each, assented to

zens; but there are others who infest the seaport towns and wear our privileges to hide their foreign connexions, who are a pest to society and a curse to the country; and I would rejoice to see a provision in our laws preventing them from engaging in commerce or navigation. I would say to them, in explicit terms, Whilst you live among us and obey our laws, we will protect you; but the moment you go to sea heyond our territorial limits, you cease to be a citizen; you have no right there.

FEBRUARY, 1814.

The Loan Bill.

H. OF R.

us, will we admit a citizen to go off, join the standard, and add to the force of the enemy? I answer, no. In time of war between two nations the migrations of the citizens of one to the other nation is unlawful; in time of peace it is far different. In war, the motive is clearly hostile and treasonable to his country; but in peace, the just presumption of reason and humanity being in favor of its continuance, no such idea is inferrible from the act, which is not only not unlawful, but permitted. The case put is in no wise analogous. Pursuing the argument, which, in effect, justifies or palliates the British practice, the gentleman (Mr. SHEFFEY) tells us impressment is only the abuse of the usage (I really apprehended he would say the right) of Great Britain, long established. Sir, I deny that the practice is of ancient date, and I deny, too, that it has been exercised against any nation, even the most unimportant, except the United States. Prior to the Revolution, this country being colonies of Great Britain, and our merchant vessels subject to the regulations of the parent State, any practice then need not be mentioned, because not applicable. During the Revolutionary war, impressments, in the nature of things, could not be practised, as nothing but superior force placed our seamen in the power of the enemy, and then they were held as prisoners of war only. Since the treaty of peace, this ancient usage, as it is called, was first commenced against the free citizens of this country. It was promptly met and resisted by manly remonstrance, indicating that, unless redressed, resistance of a different character would be resorted to.

and our duty to protect you then ceases. But the rights and duties change in relation to persons in our territory, on the soil of our country. We have, by the Constitution, a power to naturalize foreigners, and I did not expect it would be contended that man has not a natural right to dwell where he pleases, to choose his form of Government and political society. This power of naturalization has received the sanction of all parties; it was first exercised by the Washington Administration; and even the old Congress of the Revolution, in their addresses, particularly to the inhabitants of Ireland, in the most eloquent language, invited them to come and live with us as members of our political family. Although no direct invitation is now given by this Government, yet when a foreigner comes under the faith of our Constitution and laws, conforms to their provisions, and becomes a citizen, a contract is entered into of the most solemn character and binding validity on his part, that he will serve the country faithfully as a citizen, and, on the part of the country, that it will protect him in the enjoyment of his rights; he owes obedience to our laws, is bound to give his money in taxes, and his personal services in battle, and if taken prisoner it would be disgraceful to us as a nation to permit the enemy with impunity to hang him up as a traitor. As a militiaman, suppose he is called to Hampton, that memorable scene of British honor and humanity, and while contending in your ranks to repel the ruthless invader he is captured, would you consent to his immolation? I have said that man has a natural right to choose his country and his political society, and even this proposition, so reasonable and just, is controvert- Impressment, it is said, could have been ared, and a new principle of social duty is assumed ranged, in the opinion of high authority; and here. The sovereign (it is said) is absolute over Mr. King has often been alluded to as being of 'the subject; he becomes a tenant of the soil on that opinion. It is true that the English Minis'which he is ushered into life, and cannot be ter agreed with him to desist from impressment 'transplanted; he owes a perpetual allegiance to altogether, except in the narrow seas; but there it, and is punishable for acts inconsistent with is no doubt that the exception insisted on was to 'that allegiance." This definition of the sover-prevent any arrangement, as was in effect avowed eign power suits only the regions of despotism, where man is a slave; the whole of it reduces him to the condition of a Russian serf, who is sold with the estate of the lord to whom both beloug.

Much as I detest the Godwinian principle, that the son owes no duty to his parents, (if, as the gentleman contends, such be his doctrine,) that which assumes that the duty of man to the land of his birth is as strong, is equally abhorrent. What! man belong to the soil? Man, whom God created in his own image and likeness, and to whom he gave dominion over the earth and sea, and all that in them is! Shall he be bound in gratitude to the land where he is accidentally born-from which his parents and all his race are either driven, or were destroyed there in his infancy by the tyrant hand of oppression, and from whose persecutions he flies to a clime where civil and religious liberty are consecrated by the laws, and enjoyed alike by the great man in his palace and the peasant in his cottage? We are asked, with seeming triumph, if France invades

since. Mr. King refused to make the exception, and he declared that he would rather lose all than agree to it. Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney are also alluded to, as proving that the accommodation could have been effected. It will be recollected that after the death of Mr. Fox, who was the head and soul of his Ministry, and whilst the remnant that remained were descending from power, a treaty was formed with Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, in which they would not consent to insert any provision in relation to impressment, but agreed to an informal note, which it was supposed contained something valuable. Mr. Canning, soon after, was at the head of the Foreign Department, and on receiving a communication notifying him of the promise contained in this note, he addressed a letter to the ex-Ministers, Lords Holland and Auckland, who had written it, to know if they had promised any suspension or discontinuance of the practice of impressment. They referred him, at first, to the note itself, and, on his pressing them further, they declared that they "only intended to promise the

H. OF R.

The Loan Bill.

FEBRUARY, 1814.

utmost caution in the exercise of the right, but in the Court of King's Bench, in England; and, no suspension or discontinuance of the practice instead of protecting our citizens by the national of impressment." (I quote the correspondence arm, we should have feed the lawyers who pracfrom memory, but I know that I quote it substan- tice in their Inns of Court to recover indemnity tially.) Mr. Canning then wrote to our Minis- in damages, to be assessed by a British jury in a ters that no engagements were entered into by British court. Sir, there are some propositions Great Britain except such as appeared on the face too outrageous to admit of discussion, and, perof the treaty. Sir, Great Britain never claimed mit me to say, I rank these among that number. the right to impress our natural born seamen. We are told that the rejection of the treaty of They always professed to exercise the utmost 1806 produced the war, and that it should have caution, and this was no more. An avowed dis- been ratified. I regret that a want of time preregard of it would have been war at once. Yet vents me from a re-examination of this question, what had we to expect for the future by recurring because it is much pressed by Opposition, and may to the past? Thousands of our seamen had been be fully refuted; perhaps a simple denial would impressed; the cries of "I am an American citi- suffice for a mere assertion, for it is not attempted zen," were disregarded, and, as if to manifest a to be shown that the assertion is justified. I deny contempt of all appearances, Danes, Swedes, Ger- that the treaty afforded any security against the mans, and negroes, were taken from our vessels abuses we have recited; it contained no indemunder the plea that they were British subjects. nity for the vast spoliations of property; and it is The gentleman from Virginia is for drawing a a principle of common law and reason, applicable strange line of distinction. He will risk nothing to individual transactions as well as to national for persons coming here for the last fifteen years. controversies, that a claim advanced in a settleHe will permit them to emigrate, but will not ment and resisted, for which no provision is made, naturalize them. What! make the alien a nul- is considered to be barred by such settlement. So lity; like a monk, professed in good old common far from healing up existing differences, and prelaw, civiliter mortuus? It would be a dangerous venting future ones, the seeds of controversy were situation to society to have persons in it owing a sown deep by the British, and the outrageous temporary allegiance here, and a paramount per- pretension was set up to chastise us for French manent allegiance elsewhere. If they have no aggressions, unless we resisted them in the manrights they can be subject to no duties; neither ner they required. I refer gentlemen to the offientitled to hold property, nor prosecute suits, nor cial note delivered by the British Commissioners liable to pay taxes. Their situation must be that at signing the treaty, in which they state that it of an outlaw, who may be hunted and killed as a is not to be considered as binding on their part, wild beast. To my mind, the apology offered for unless the United States, by their conduct and British impressment, that it is a "municipal reg-assurances, give security to resist France; and ulation," is the most exceptionable. What! shall the municipal regulations of Great Britain be exercised on board our vessels? If so, with equal justice may they be exercised on the land also, and thus, we shall see British officers traversing our country, seeking out and seizing their victims, and carrying them off in defiance of our national sovereignty and independence.

We are reminded of the pretences under which other nations justify their wars, and are told that Great Britain goes to war for fooleries, such as the Spanish succession, &c.; and gentlemen advise us to pursue a more laudable course. It is worthy of remark that this Government was censured for refusing to become implicated in this Spanish war, which is now denounced from the same quarter as a foolery. And can it be that the rights of these States are compared to the fooleries of madmen, and debauched, corrupted monarchs? Our Government was formed for the common defence and general welfare; its primary duty is, to preserve the immunities of persons and the rights of property inviolate; and whatever may be said by the malcontents of the present day of the manly efforts to maintain these, posterity will not fail to do us justice.

It will do justice, also, to the opinion advanced by the Opposition, that we should have gone on, clamoring more and more about the Orders in Council, and prosecuted the culprits who kidnapped our sailors, by actions of false imprisonment

when the Minister was told that we had, by our conduct, given those assurances, he declared he was not satisfied therewith. Thus, sir, we were to bind ourselves by a treaty, which was or was not to be obligatory on the enemy, according to his capricious opinions of the degree and character of resistance we were to make to the encroachments of the French. And no one can be so credulous as to believe that any measure short of war would have been satisfactory. The acts of the British were obviously founded in the belief that we had no intention to maintain and enforce a respect for our rights. Gentlemen even now admit that they considered the intimation of the necessity of war as an idle threat. No doubt they did, sir; their friends here had asserted the same belief, and on this error their impositions were predicated. If after all that had been said and done by our Government, and the contempt with which it was treated, we had succumbed, we should, after having become the scorn and derision of the world, by refusing to fight for our rights and honor, have been compelled at last to fight for our existence as a nation. Among nations, as between individuals, no point should be urged unless sanctioned by right and justice; but, once urged, it should be maintained manfully and bravely. The advice of the good old Polonius to his son should be followed-"Beware of entrance on a quarrel; but, being in, be firm, and then thy enemy will beware of thee."