known to the President before the treaty of Monroe and Pinkney arrived. To have ratified that treaty, would have permitted commercial intercourse between us and Great Britain, been in direct violation of the Berlin decree, and have counteracted the designs of the French Emperor, thus explicitly expressed. Add to this, that Great Britain was then expected to be crushed, by the pressure of the war and taxes | upon her subjects, aided by the mighty genius and power of Bonaparte, and little doubt can remain of the real cause of the refusal of Mr. Jefferson to lay the treaty before the Senate.

Let us now, Mr. Chairman, look at the state of Europe when Mr. Jefferson recommended the embargo, on account of the increasing danger with which our vessels, our seamen, and merchandise were threatened on the high seas, &c. On the 14th June, 1807, was fought the famous battle of Friedland, in which the French were victorious over the Russians. In consequence of this battle, on the 14th of July following was concluded the Treaty of Tilsit, between France and Russia, by which the latter engaged to prohibit all commercial intercourse with Great Britain, &c. Austria was still bound to France by the humiliating Treaty of Presburg. Prussia, by proclamation, had prohibited all intercourse with Great Britain. Portugal, in August, 1807, soon after the Treaty of Tilsit, was threatened by France with invasion, if she did not in three weeks prohibit all commercial intercourse with Great Britain, prevent the departure of Englishmen from the kingdom, and confiscate all British property therein.

True, we have no official document to prove that France, at this time, made a similar demand upon the Government of the United States. But, when we look at the conduct of France towards other nations, that she compelled them, by force of arms, or by intrigues, to submit, have we any reason to doubt on this subject?

Such was the state of Europe at the meeting of Congress, in December, 1807. On the 18th of that month, Mr. Jefferson recommended a general embargo; a bill was hurried through both branches, and on the 22d of the same month, the act was passed, unlimited as to duration. This law, if not in compliance of a demand, was in conformity to the views and wishes of Napoleon.

But it may be said, it was a measure of an impartial character, as it respected the two belligerents. In theory it might be, but not in its practical operation. The object of France was the destruction of Great Britain, by a total interdiction of her commerce with all other nations. The United States, by the embargo, joined with France to facilitate the accomplishment of this object. The embargo, in theory, might be called a municipal regulation, but, practically, it was an act of hostility against Great Britain.

Does the measure, then, deserve the character of impartiality? Great Britain, at that time

[H. OF R.

struggling for existence against France, Russia, Austria, Prussia, and Denmark, felt no disposition to engage in a war with the United States. She, therefore, chose not to consider the embargo an act of hostility. France viewing it as an act of co-operation in her continental system, highly applauded the measure.

The French Minister for Foreign Affairs, (Talleyrand,) in a report to his Imperial Majesty, Napoleon, of September 8, 1808, thus speaks of the embargo:

"The Americans, a people who involve their fortune, their prosperity, and almost their existence, in commerce, have given the example of a great and courageous sacrifice. They have prohibited, by a general embargo, all commerce and navigation, rather than shamefully submit to that tribute which the English impose on all nations."

The French Emperor, himself, in an address to the Legislative body of France, October 26, 1808, is very explicit on the subject:

"The peace of Presburg, that of Tilsit, the assault of Copenhagen, the plans of England against all nations on the ocean, the revolution of Constantinople, the affairs of Spain and Portugal, have in various ways had an influence on the affairs of the world.

"Russia and Denmark have united with me against England.

"The United States of America have rather chosen

to abandon commerce and the sea, than to acknowledge their slavery.”

Having thus virtually engaged on the side of France, not by a declaration of war, but by the exercise of our restrictive energies, it was difficult to recede. The embargo, however, had become extremely unpopular, and on the 1st of March, 1809, it was repealed, and the nonintercourse substituted in its place. This repeal of the embargo, was also charged to the minority. Yes, sir, and happy, happy indeed, would it have been for the country, if the minority had been more successful in their opposition, and, with the death of the embargo, prevented the birth, if the term is applicable, of the non-intercourse.

The non-intercourse, however, had one feature of impartiality. It prohibited, as well French as British armed ships, from entering the ports and harbors of the United States after the 20th May then next.

This feature of impartiality was embraced by Erskine, the British Minister, to tender satisfaction for the injury done by the attack on the Chesapeake, and to propose an arrangement for the repeal of the Orders in Council. But the President, as if fearful the arrangement would be ratified by the British Government, takes particular care to accept the offers in a manner calculated to insure their rejection. Mr. Smith, Secretary of State, is instructed to say, that "the President owes it to himself, and the occasion, to let it be understood, that this equality was the result of a state of things growing out of distinct considerations." And Mr. Smith, in the same letter, adds:

"I have it in express charge from the President to

H. OF R.]

[FEBRUARY, 1814.

Let us now, Mr. Chairman, look at the conduct of France in relation to the non-intercourse act of March 1st, 1809, and of our Government towards France.

Strange as it may seem, this very act, placing the two belligerents upon the footing of equality, was made the pretext by France for the decree of Rambouillet, of March 23d, 1810. A decree which, for fraud and injustice, has no parallel in the annals of any other civilized nation. This decree, after assigning as the reason for its enactment the non-intercourse act of March 1st, 1809, declares, that

"All vessels navigating under the flag of the United States, or possessed in whole or in part by any citizen or subject of that power, which, counting from the 20th May, 1809, (the time when her armed ships were prohibited entering our waters,) have entered or shall enter into the ports of our Empire, of our colonies, or of the colonies occupied by our arms, shall be seized, and the product of the sales shall be deposited in the surplus fund."

By virtue of this decree, more than one hundred American vessels were seized in the ports of France, and in those of Holland, Spain, Italy, and Naples, countries under French control.

Let it be recollected, Mr. Chairman, that this decree was promulgated but about four months previous to the pretended repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees. Let it be recollected, too, that General Armstrong was instructed not to engage that a non-intercourse should be adopted against Great Britain, upon the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees, unless a satisfactory provision was made for restoring the property seized under the Rambouillet decree. This I assert on the authority of the letter of Mr. Smith, to General Armstrong, of the 5th of July, 1810. In this letter he says:

"As has been heretofore stated to you, a satisfactory provision for restoring the property, lately surprised and seized by the order, or at the instance, of the French Government, must be combined with the French edicts, with a view to a non-intercourse with Great Britain-such a provision being an indispensable evidence of the just purpose of France towards the United States. And you will, moreover, be careful, in arranging such a provision for that particular case of spoliations, not to weaken the ground on which a redress of others may be justly pursued."

"It would well have comported with the conciliatory views, indicated by this proceeding on the part of France, to have extended them to all the grounds of complaint which now remain unadjusted with the United States. It was particularly anticipated that, as a further evidence of just dispositions towards them, restoration would have been immediately made of the property of our citizens, seized under a misapplication of the principle of reprisals, combined

with a misconstruction of a law of the United States. This expectation has not been fulfilled."

Still, however, it was urged by a majority of this House that we were pledged to France. Yes, sir, I well recollect that the speeches of honorable gentlemen, then members of this House, urged in the strongest terms the passage of the act of March 2d, 1811, renewing the nonimportation act against Great Britain, on the ground of our plighted faith to France. I well recollect, too, that the minority, who are too often charged with unreasonable opposition, as boldly declared that we were not pledged to France; that the Berlin and Milan decrees were not revoked. And who, sir, were correct, the majority or the minority?

But to return to the subject of the restoration of the property seized under the Rambouillet decree. In the President's Message of November 5th, 1811, we are told that—

"The justice and fairness which have been evinced on the part of the United States, towards France, both before and since the revocation of her decrees, authorized an expectation that her Government would have followed up that measure by all such others as were due to our reasonable claims, as well as dictated by its amicable professions. No proof, however, is yet given of an intention to repair the other wrongs done to the United States.”

Again, in his Message of the 4th November, 1812, he says:

"Our affairs with France retain the posture which they held at the date of my last communication to you. Notwithstanding the authorized expectation of an early as well as favorable issue to the discussions on foot, these have been procrastinated to the latest date. The only intervening occurrence meriting attention, is the promulgation of a French decree, purporting to be a definitive repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees. This proceeding, although made the ground of the repeal of the British Orders in Council, is rendered, by the time and manner of it, liable to many objections."

That such a provision was not, and has not

decree, that in the very letter of the Duc de Cadore to General Armstrong, of August 5th, 1810, the very letter on which the President's proclamation of November 2d, 1810, declaring

for."

[H. OF R.

"The act of March 1st, 1809, has raised the embargo, and substituted for it a measure the most injarions to the interests of France. This act, of which the Emperor knew nothing until lately, interdicted to American vessels the commerce of France, at the time it authorized that to Spain, Naples, and Holland, that is to say, to the countries under French influence, and denounced confiscation against all French vessels which should enter the ports of America. Reprisal was a right, and commanded by the dignity of France, a circumstance on which it was impossible to make a compromise."

Then follows the pretended revocation. Now, sir, what reason had the President to expect a restoration of this property? Was it because in this letter he was told that

"His Majesty loves the Americans. Their prosperity and their commerce are within the scope of his policy. The independence of America is one of the principal titles of glory to France. Since that epoch, the Emperor is pleased in aggrandizing the United States; and, under all circumstances, that which can contribute to the independence, to the prosperity and the liberty of the Americans, the Emperor will consider as conformable to the interests of his Empire." Other nations, Mr. Chairman, have learnt by fatal experience what he means by his love, and by his efforts to contribute to their independence, to their prosperity, and their liberty. Thanks be to the God of Battles, who has put it out of his power ever again to give the United States any further specimens of his love, either for their commerce, their liberties, or their independence!

There is still another important view in which this subject ought to be considered.

A recurrence to facts and to dates will not only prove that the Berlin and Milan decrees were not revoked on the 5th of August, 1810, but that our Government had no right to consider them as revoked.

On the 14th of February, 1810, Champagny, in a note to Armstrong, after, in an insolent manner, telling him that

"The Americans cannot hesitate as to the part they are to take; they ought either to tear to pieces their act of independence, and to become again, as before the Revolution, the subjects of England, or to take such measures as that their commerce and industry should not be tariffed by the English, which renders them more dependent than Jamaica, which at least has its Assembly of Representatives and its privileges." After thus severely lashing the Government of the United States he changes his tone, and proceeds:

"If then the Minister of America can enter into an engagement, that the American vessels will not subit to the Orders in Council of England, of November 1807, nor to any decree of blockade, unless the blockade should be real, the undersigned is authorized to conclude every species of convention, tending to renew the Treaty of Commerce with America, and in which all the measures, proper to consolidate the commerce

VOL V.-12

Here is an explicit declaration of the terms on which we were to expect any modification of the Berlin and Milan decrees. The very next specimen of the Emperor's friendship, was the promulgation of the Rambouillet decree of March 23, 1810, which I have noticed, and by virtue of which, all American vessels, with their cargoes, then in the ports of France, or of the countries under her control, were seized, sold, and the proceeds deposited in the surplus fund. Well, sir, the next thing we hear from France, after this characteristic mark of friendship, the Rambouillet decree, was the pretended revocaand Milan decrees. Now, sir, either Armstrong tion on the 5th of August, 1810, of the Berlin did enter into an engagement, agreeably to the terms prescribed by Champagny, in his letter of February 14, 1810, or the President must have known that the pretended repeal of August 5, 1810, was conditional. How, then, could the President say, as he did, by his proclamation of November 3d, 1810, that those decrees were revoked? That the Emperor of France considered this repeal conditional, we have his own subsequent declarations. On the 31st March, 1811, in an address to the Council of Commerce, in Paris, he thus expresses himself:

"The decrees of Berlin and Milan are the funda

mental laws of my Empire. For the neutral navigation, I consider the flag, as an extension of territory. be considered as neutral. The power which suffers its flag to be violated cannot The fate of the American commerce will soon be decided. I will favor it, if the United States conform themselves to these decrees. In a contrary case, their vessels will be driven from my Empire. The commercial relations with England must cease. I tell it to you very loudly."

The Emperor then waits, until satisfied by the proceedings of Congress, at their session of 1811-'12, that the United States would declare war against Great Britain, and then, on the 12th of May, 1812, at the earnest solicitation of Mr. Barlow, publishes the following decree:

PALACE OF ST. CLOUD, April 8, 1811. Napoleon, Emperor of the French, &c., &c. On the report of our Minister of Foreign Relations: Seeing by a law passed on the 2d of March, 1811, the Congress of the United States has ordered the execution of the provisions of the act of non-intercourse, which prohibits the vessels and merchandise of Great Britain, her colonies and dependencies, from entering into the ports of the United States:

Considering that the said law is an act of resistance to the arbitrary pretensions consecrated by the British Orders in Council, and a formal refusal to adhere to a system invading the independence of neutral powers, and of their flag, have, and do decree as follows:

The decrees of Berlin and Milan are definitively, and to date from the first of November last, considered as not having existed (non avenus) in regard to

American vessels.

By the Emperor:

The Minister Secretary of State,

NAPOLEON.

THE COUNT DARU. Mr. Chairman, upon these facts no comment