JUNE, 1813.] French Decrees. [H. OF R. merce of America, should be produced, England | at this moment, the foul accusation stands bewould not revoke her orders in a similar man- fore this people and the world, uncontradicted, ner. On the contrary, he throughout disputed unexamined, unresented? If it is suffered thus even the partial repeal of the French decrees; to remain in mystery, its truth will soon be and says the question whether England would considered as established, and the stain on the revoke as to America, was premature, and could | American character so deeply fixed, as to defy be discussed to no purpose until America should every effort to wash it away. produce an authentic instrument of repeal. Sir, examine for a moment the circumstances of this dark affair. I have said that, from the date of the letter of the Duke of Cadore, from August 5th, 1810, down to the 20th of May, 1812, the British Government invariably refused to give credit to that letter, as a repeal or mod[ification of the French decrees. That Government declared the letter false and jesuitical, and invariably demanded some authentic instrument of repeal, issued by the French Government itself. For such an instrument, our Ministers in France had importuned the Emperor, always without success, until, on the 10th of May, 1812, Mr. Barlow prevailed, and the decree of the 28th of April, 1811, was produced. And now, let me appeal to this House and to the people of America—if this decree was communicated to Mr. Russell in April, 1811, and by him suppressed, he merits and shall receive the everlasting execrations of his country. If either by Mr. Russell or the Minister Serrurier, it was communicated to Mr. Monroe, and by him concealed from the Executive, is there a niche in the temple of infamy sufficiently infamous for him? But if, by any means, the decree came to the knowledge of the President; and if he, either through a paltry fear of proving his proclamation false, or from any other motive, buried it in darkness, and thereby delivered that country, which, by every bond human and divine, he was bound to protect, over to all the miseries of an unnecessary and bloody war, what maledictions can suit his conduct; what new and horrible punishment is commensurate with the bloody crime? Sir, the Presi"When, in the conversation above alluded to, the dent is old, and the reproaches of man may con- Duke first produced to me the decree of the 28th cern and move him but little. But he must April, 1811, I made no comment on the strange mansoon appear at the bar of Immortal Justice. If ner in which it had been so long concealed from me, he has done this deed, how will he stand ap- and probably from you. I only asked him if that palled before the accusing spirits of youth undecree had been published-he said no, but declared timely slain in battle?" How will his soul rethat it had been communicated to my predecessor, coil from those bloody ravages, that wide devas- here, and likewise sent to Mr. Serrurier, with orders tation, that mass of human misery, which his to communicate it to you. I assured him that it was own guilty conduct shall have produced? not among the archives of this legation; that I never before heard of it," &c. And here permit me to read a short extract from the letter of Mr. Barlow to Mr. Monroe, bearing date the 12th May, 1812. In this letter is contained an account of the ignominious attack upon the honor of the Executive: the decree. Has Mr. Russell, the "predeces sor" of Mr. Barlow, ever publicly denied it? No; he has been well contented that his honor should remain stigmatized by the black accusation. Shall I be asked, if I believe the Executive has done this guilty deed? I answer frankly Had the vile accusation been promptly conand sincerely, no. However poorly I may think tradicted, no doubt would, or could have reof the political character and conduct of the mained, as to the truth or falsehood of the Executive, I do not believe him capable of a charge. But by a strange fatality, every act of crime of such complicated wickedness; com- the Executive and of his Ministers and agents, bining all the blackest attributes of official tur- has tended strongly to confirm its truth. Did pitude, murder, and treason. But, sir, my be- Mr. Barlow contradict it? No; he simply delief or disbelief has nothing to do with the sub-clared, that he "never before had heard" of ject. It is not to satisfy myself alone, that I press this call-I have a more exalted motive. I stand on higher ground. The honor, the purity of my native country, is shrouded in darkness. Sir, national honor is a plant of peculiar growth; it can live and flourish only in the broad blaze of day; cover it with clouds and darkness, it withers and dies. The honor of my country cannot long survive amid the dark and pestilential vapors which hang around it. To disperse those clouds and vapors, to restore it to the genial beams of day, that America, Europe, and the world, may again behold it bright and unsullied; to frown contempt on the bloody despot who has striven to stain and destroy it-these are the objects-these I fondly hope will be the effects of this measure. FRIDAY, June 18. French Decrees. Mr. GRUNDY rose, and addressed the Chair as follows: Mr. Speaker, knowing that Congress had been convened at this time for the express purpose of providing an adequate revenue for the Has this House considered the black and hid- prosecution of the war in which our country is eous aspect which this subject now presents to engaged, I did believe that a discussion not imthe American people? Has it reflected that,mediately connected with this subject should have been avoided; but, as the Committee of Ways and Means are not yet preparad to act on the bills reported by them, that time may not be entirely lost which is given to the examination of points which have been introduced into this debate. [JUNE, 1813, not have repealed the Orders in Council, had a copy of the French decree of the 28th of April, 1811, been communicated previously to the declaration of war. I shall not follow the example which has been set by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. GROSVENOR,) I shall not quote from memory the evidences on which I rely. I will not expose myself to that error into which others have fallen by trusting to their recollection, when referring to documents in their support. I have these documents before me, and will show from them that Great Britain required, as the condition on which she would revoke her Orders in Council, that the French decrees of Berlin and Milan should previously be rescinded, not as to the United States only, but as to all neutral nations. If this be done, gentlemen must be driven from that ostentation; for it will be recollected, that the French decree merely withdraws from the United States the operation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and leaves the decrees themselves in full force against all other neutrals. The Prince Regent, in his declaration of 21st of April, 1812, uses the following language when speaking of the Orders in Council: [Here the documents referred to were read.] Mr. Speaker, I feel humbled and abased that it has become my duty to quote the authority of the Prince Regent and the British Ministers, against the Representatives of my own country. I am mortified to hear doctrines advanced here in behalf of the British Cabinet which the British Ministers never avowed, and which they would not avow were they present and entitled to be heard on this floor. Sir, they would not dare to do so-their own words would confound them. I do hope, sir, that gentlemen who are still determined to persist in opposition, will take some other ground on which to rely; for it surely adds nothing to the honor of this The motion before us is to postpone indefinitely the consideration of the resolutions on your table; in other words, to reject them; to this I am opposed. I shall vote for them, and if modified in an inconsiderable degree, shall do so with pleasure. In doing this I shall be governed by reasons entirely different from those which have been assigned by gentlemen who have preceded me. I shall vote for them to do away the effect which has been produced, and may again be produced, by the misrepresentations of the friends of that fast-anchored isle, which, according to the opinions of some gen-ground which they have occupied with so much tlemen, has done us no essential injury; I shall vote for them, that the friends of that nation which is styled by some the bulwark of our holy religion, may not mislead any portion of the American people. I shall vote for them that the advocates of that nation which is said to be fighting the battles of the world may not have it in their power to weaken the arm of this Government in its present contest with a foreign power. These, sir, are the reasons on which I act, and not because I believe their adoption necessary to vindicate the honor of the Government or the character of those who administer it. The reputation of this Administration stands on a basis too solid to be shaken by any statement which the Duke of Bassano has or can make; and had not these new guardians of the Executive honor (Messrs. WEBSTER, OAKLEY, and GROSVENOR) been more sensitive than its old friends, no measure of this kind would have been deemed necessary. As this however is the first effort in their new vocation, so far as depends on my exertions, they shall be indulged and gratified. I have already said, that I shall vote with gen-country or to their individual credit to advance tlemen on the other side of the House for reasons very different from their own. Were I at liberty to speak of motives, I would undertake to show that in these we differ no less than we have already in the reasons avowed. It has been alleged by those who have advocated these resolutions, that if an authentic document containing the decree of the French Government, bearing date the 28th day of April, 1811, and which so modifies the decrees of Berlin and Milan as to exempt the United States from their operations, had been furnished to the British Government before the declaration of war, that the Orders in Council would have been revoked, and thereby war would have been avoided. If I have mistaken the position which gentlemen have laid down as the basis on which their whole argument is founded, I beg now to be set right. [Mr. GROSVENOR, of New York, stated that Mr. GRUNDY had not mistaken their meaning.] Mr. GRUNDY then proceeded-Then, sir, we are at issue: I deny the position laid down, and aver that the British Cabinet would and advocate doctrines which the British Ministry would be ashamed to own. Sir, unless I am altogether mistaken in the meaning of the plainest terms-unless the English language is entirely unintelligible to methe point is sufficiently established, that the British Government would not have revoked the Orders in Council, had a copy of the French decree, modifying the Berlin and Milan decrees, been presented to them; and the gentlemen on the other side of the House must be constrained to abandon the ground they have relied on ; and here this debate might close. For, although the French decree is made the pretext for the repeal of the Orders in Council, every man acquainted with the political state of the two countries must be satisfied that it was the suffering condition of the British manufacturers, united with the apprehension of an American war, which produced that change in British policy which did take place. Sir, I felt some astonishment to hear the member from New York, (Mr. GROSVENOR,) JUNE, 1813.] French Decrees. [H. OF R. who has visited, in the character of an American Minister, nearly half the Courts of Europe he whose literary acquirements have done honor to this nation, not understand the meaning of the common English words actually and unconditionally! Mr. Foster, too, the accredited Minister of the "fast-anchored Isle," sent by the British Government upwards of three thou sand miles to negotiate upon delicate and difficult points, is charged with the like ignorance. Sir, the gentleman who introduced these resolutions, (Mr. WEBSTER,) if he has ever read his namesake's spelling book, (and no doubt he has,) can readily expound them. Even a school-boy can tell you their meaning. I feel no great solicitude or tenderness about the reputation of the late British Minister, but surely he ought not to be subject to this imputation. who had no seat in this House when war was | declared, who was not even in this city at that time, state with so much confidence in what events the war would or would not have taken place. If the public documents are referred to it will be seen, that the impressment of our seamen was considered as a principal cause of the war. In the Executive Messages of that session, in the Reports of the Committee of Foreign Relations, it will be seen that the language of freemen was employed, the liberty of the citizen being deemed more valuable and precious than his property. I was one of those who voted for the war, and ought to be presumed to know something of the opinions and sentiments which prevailed at that time, and yet I feel no hesitation in saying, that no man can pronounce what would have been the course pursued, had the Orders in Council been In one idea advanced by the opposition, I revoked. I have heard many members say perfectly concur: if the Executive had received they would have voted for the war had the a copy of the French decree previous to the deOrders in Council been previously abandoned- claration of war, and had withheld it from the I have heard others say they would not; and British Minister, I should say he deserved the yet the gentleman from New York (Mr. GROS-execration of his country. The honorable genVENOR) affects to speak with great confidence and precision on this subject. There are two reasons why this honorable gentleman should have been less confident in his assertions. In the first place he was not present when the war was declared; in the second, he belonged to the opposition, and would not, on that account, have been so freely communicated with by those who supported it. Sir, I wish gentlemen clearly and distinctly to answer me this question-Will they give up the principle of impressment? Will they suffer the petty officers of the British Navy to seize at their pleasure American citizens, force them into a foreign service, and compel them with stripes to fight the battles of the enemy, even against that country which gave them birth? If so, let it be known to the people-let it be proclaimed to this nation of freemen-and let the line of distinction be drawn between those who will and those who will not submit to this tyranny of "the mistress of the seas.' Gentlemen have indeed said that they will not fight for the question of impressment. But will they surrender it? Will they yield this point to the King of Great Britain? Will they say that the slaves of George the Third have a right to seize and drive into captivity the freemen of the American States? I demand an answer yea or nay. There is no difficulty in understanding the question. The gentleman from New York, (Mr. GROSVENOR,) in adverting to the correspondence between Mr. Monroe and Mr. Foster, affects great difficulty in understanding its meaning. I cannot see wherein this difficulty lies-the language is plain, void of ambiguity, conveying distinct ideas, in clear and unequivocal expressions. The same gentleman has the modesty to tell you that Mr. Monroe and Mr. Foster did not understand the meaning of the words actually and unconditionally. What, sir! your Secretary of State, tleman who has manifested such critical skill in language might have drawn its character in terms of blackest import, and I would subscribe to it; but I know, with moral certainty, that the answer of the President will dissipate every idea of that kind-it will show, that, in the whole of this transaction, he has conducted with fairness and uprightness, and from a desire to prevent a conflict between this and any other nation. Yes, sir, he has acted in obedience to honorable feelings, to which many who implicate him are entire strangers. Having answered all the observations of others which are deemed material, I will make a few inquiries of the honorable mover of these resolutions (Mr. WEBSTER.) He certainly best knows the objects intended, and I pray him to answer for himself, and not by proxy. Is it his object to make it appear that the Duke of Bassano has been guilty of falsehood? If that shall turn out to be the case, what then? Will he make it a ground of going to war against France? Great, indeed, are the insults and injuries which we have received from the French Government, and much noise has the Opposition made respecting them; but, sir, when my friend from Kentucky (Mr. McKEE) offered a proposition to declare war against France, did the gentlemen on the other side of this House vote for it? To the best of my recollection, three of them voted for the measure-a majority of votes in favor of the proposition were given by this side of the House. He will not, I apprehend, say that he will go to war with France on this account. Is it intended to predicate any legislative act on the information which may be received from the Executive ? I can conceive of no legislative act which can grow out of it. What, then, do gentlemen mean? What can be the object of these resolutions? To make it appear that France has acted with bad faith, and yet neither go to war nor pass any legislative act in consequence of it? I can see but one thing which gentlemen can promise themselves to follow from this course of proceeding. They may hope by this to throw new difficulties in the way of the Administration, to draw off the attention of the people from the prosecution of the war, paralyze the national energies, and multiply the chances of getting new men into power. If this be the object, the gentleman may please himself with the idea of having labored for the good of his country; but sure I am that the country can derive no benefit from such a course, however great his labors may be. Mr. SHIPARD addressed the chair as follows: Mr. Speaker, after the very able manner in which the subject under consideration has been discussed, by my honorable friends on this side of the House, I cannot hope to do more than glean the trifles which they have left me. The honorable gentlemen on my left are opposed to the resolutions before the House; and in order the more effectually to combat them, have introduced topics of discussion wholly extrinsic and foreign from the proper subject of debate. Sir, in my opinion, they have lost sight of the question, and unnecessarily drawn into dispute what they call the merits of the war, and the demerits of one of the great political parties of this country. Why, sir, all this zealous opposition to the adoption of these resolutions? Do they fear that a disclosure of the truth may injure the reputation or feelings of the President? Do they fear, if the veil should be rent asunder, which has so long concealed this dark and mysterious transaction, that it would appear to us, the American people, and the world, that the Executive had been a traitor to the dearest interests of that people, whose mistaken partiality | had invested him with the honorable badges of exalted office? If they do, sir, I pity their timidity, and blush for them; but I hope they have no such fears. I sincerely hope the Chief Magistrate of this great and once honorable nation, has not sunk to such an abominable depth | of corruption, as to conceal a public document of such importance as the decree of revocation of the 28th of April, 1811. A document, had it been timely promulged, would have promised to hush the bickerings and contentions between us and Great Britain, to prevent a bloody war, to have enlivened and invigorated our fainting commerce, and restored our long lost prosperity. It really appears to me, sir, that the gentlemen pay your President a very ill compliment in opposing the resolutions; for, should they succeed in that opposition, some might say that he and his friends dreaded the unmantling the truth; that they feared to see it stripped naked. Sir, I submit to the House, to the gentlemen themselves, upon reflection, the question, if there would not be good cause of suspicion, that there had been an improper concealment of this paper, should the resolutions be voted down? [JUNE, 1813. I have ever entertained some vulgar notions, that a frank and prompt disclosure of that which was proper to be disclosed, was a sort of presumptive evidence of integrity. And that an honest man would not wait to have the truth drawn from him as from the felon under examination, but would volunteer what a moral and political obligation required him to make public. I have supposed a certain kind of mysterious shrinking from the light, in public officers, in relation to official conduct; a rolling up in shade and secrecy transactions which the public wishes loudly demanded to be explained, was no very fair earnest of future good faith and honest dealing; or any very satisfactory proof that what had been done must necessarily be agreeable to the public sense of what ought to have been done. I have supposed, sir, that the honest and faithful steward would rather court than shun an inquiry into his stewardship; and, fortified with conscious integrity, would, at all times, be ready to exhibit his accounts, and prove himself trustworthy; and more especially when suspicion had hovered over him and perched upon him. I should really think he would be unwilling to slumber away, year after year, with such a bird of prey devouring his reputation, but that he would instantly arouse himself, and with manly and heroic dignity drive her from her perch. Sir, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. CALHOUN) has admitted that there is guilt somewhere; either that the decree of 28th April, 1811, was concealed in the French Cabinet, or by our President, or that it was ante-dated. Now, sir, whether the one or the other of the positions be true, no gentleman will venture to assert, is immaterial. I fear no contradiction when I make the assertion; for such a contradiction would be of so rare a nature that few, if any, gentlemen will be ambitious first to introduce it. It would be saying, at least, that it is a matter of indifference to the American people, whether their Chief Magistrate has been dabbling in the pollutions of French policy and French intrigue,-whether he has been ignorant of, or criminally concealed, a document, which, if it had been disclosed, would have saved him from suspicion, and the nation from the horrors of war. It would be saying, sir, that we have no interest in knowing whether Mr. Russell, our late Chargé d'Affaires in France, performed his diplomatic duty with integrity or not: whether he sold his country for Imperial smiles, or guarded her interests with scrupulous vigilance. It would be saying that it was a matter of indifference to us whether France was acting with good faith in her correspondence with our Government, or whether we were made the dupe of imposture. Sir, if it would be correct to say all these things, then I admit that the resolutions are idle, and we are spending our time in vain; but if they are not correct, then it must create some surprise, that gentlemen who love their country with such amazing and exclusive warmth of affection, who discover so much zeal for her honor, should oppose with a spirit bordering on frenzy, measures which it must be seen are calculated to favor her best interests, and heal her wounded honor. Sir, I consider it a duty we owe Mr. Russell, the Executive, and the nation, diligently to inquire into this matter, and, if possible, to fix the guilt and odium upon the right man. If Mr. Russell is innocent let him be put to the test, and acquitted before the world. If the President is innocent, it would be the height of injustice to him not to give him an opportu- | nity to brush off the suspicions that have gathered upon him. If either or both of these gentlemen are guilty, we wrong our country if we do not awake from its slumbers this monster of sin. If the Emperor of France is guilty, (and really I can never suppose him otherwise,) it becomes highly interesting that the world should know the fact; that they should know how much confidence is to be reposed in the Imperial decrees of our loving friend, this cutthroat Emperor. Will the gentleman say there is no cause of suspicion against the President? Sir, I cannot divest myself of a belief that all is not right in the Cabinet in relation to this affair. And I have been led to believe this, from a variety of suspicious circumstances which have been thickening and gathering upon my mind since the proclamation of the President of November 2, 1810, which emphatically declared that the decrees of Berlin and Milan were repealed. [H. of R. and unambiguous explanation-that the honor of the nation, and the honor of the President, loudly demand it. I do mean to say that, unless this explanation is given, we have a right, indeed it is our duty, to withdraw our confidence from all concerned in the transactions. How, sir, can gentlemen hang their confidence upon the integrity of the Executive, if ultimately no reason shall be given for transactions which are irresistible presumptions to the candid mind, that the dearest interests of our country have been made subservient to the base intrigues, the ambition and malignant passions, of the greatest monster of depravity that ever waded to a throne through blood? Sir, the President has been charged with falsehood by the Emperor of France; he or his Ministers have been charged with secreting— wickedly secreting a very important document, in the disclosure of which the people of this country were deeply concerned; and if he has done so, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. GRUNDY) admits "he ought to be held up to the execration of mankind," and yet, say some gentlemen, it is a matter of total indifference to us to know whether these charges are true or false. For one, I never can be reconciled to consider it as a matter of indifference; and I entreat gentlemen to give the President and Mr. Russell an opportunity to deny this foul charge, and, so denied, the nation must and will believe them. Let them deny it, and brand the infamous falsehood upon the Duke of Bassano. And I do not hesitate to say, if the President and Mr. Russell will disavow the truth of the statement of that Duke to our Minister, Mr. Barlow, they will be believed; for one, I would believe them, in preference to all the mushroom Dukes and Emperors that have grown into power in that Government, whose least vices are falsehood, imposition, and fraud. Was this proclamation true? No, sir, it was false, and from the date of that proclamation, until the promulgation of the long-slumbering, repealing decree, purporting to bear date April 28, 1811, the French Emperor particularly charged upon the President this falsehood. He, the Emperor, after the date of that proclamation, and after he must known of it, declared his decrees of Berlin and Milan to be a part of Sir, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. the laws of his Empire. Not only so, but the CALHOUN) asserted, that "if the Orders in ocean from time to time was illuminated with Council had been repealed, yet we should have the conflagration of our vessels, burned avow- had war. The impressment of our seamen was edly by the authority of the Emperor, and in a sufficient cause, and for that would they have pursuance of those decrees which our prophetic declared it." Now, sir, much as I respect that Chief Magistrate had declared to be repealed. gentleman's talents and integrity, in this inNever was falsehood more evident! Mathema-stance I must believe he is mistaken. For I ties cannot produce more certain demonstration. Sir, I do not mean here to charge upon the President wilful and corrupt falsehood; but the least that can be said is, that he had been cheated, he was too proud to acknowledge it, and too much ensnared in the toils of his mighty friend to demand satisfaction. Sir, I will not charge any misconduct upon our Administration without proof. I do not here mean to charge them with any thing artfully committed; but I do mean to be understood that the facts before the American people are strong evidence upon my mind, and I beheve upon the minds of thousands, that there is much in our intercourse with France, which decisively demands of the Executive prompt VOL. V.-2 will not believe that the Administration would have been given up to such fatal infatuation, such a bewildering, deadly mania, that they would have been so incurably mad as to have plunged this nation into a war on a point, in principle, the most inconsiderable in controversy, without making one more effort, at least, to an amicable adjustment of differences. Mr. GASTON said that when he entered the House that morning, he had no expectation of taking a part in this debate. He was perfectly conscious of the disadvantages under which he must appear, in attempting, without the benefit of previous reflection, an examination of the argument contained in the extraordinary harangue of the gentleman from Tennessee; an |