Chapter I: A. Coles.9 (1)

NOVEMBER 29, 1809.

[No order having been taken on it, the letter lies on the table of course.]

FRIDAY, December 1.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, EDWIN GRAY; and from North Carolina, MESHACK FRANKLIN, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

_Navigation Laws._

Mr. MACON said he wished early to call the attention of the House to two motions, the object of which he deemed to be very important. The first of them had been formerly submitted to the House by a gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. EARLY) but never acted on, and afterwards by a gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS;) the other had been presented by Mr. MACON himself at the last session, but at so late a period that it had not been acted on. It appeared to Mr. MACON that these motions combined with one submitted at different times by a gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. DANA,) would form something like a system. The object of the first motion he was about to submit, was to prohibit any foreign vessel from coming from any port or place to which the vessels of the United States could not go. Gentlemen would at once observe that there were many places whence vessels came to this country, to which we cannot go, and would perceive the extent of the motion. The other motion related to sea-letter vessels only. Mr. MACON said he wished to put them out of the nation, and to have no vessels belonging to the United States which were not perfectly American. He would have our vessels wholly American, or they should not at all partake of the character of American vessels.

After declaring that he considered his motions as calculated for permanent regulations, Mr. MACON submitted the following resolutions:

_Resolved_, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be
instructed to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting the
entry of any vessel into the United States from any port or
place to which a vessel of the United States is not admitted
by permanent regulation of the Government owning such port or
place by treaty.

_Resolved_, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures
be instructed to inquire into the expediency of authorizing
the registering anew of vessels built in the United States,
which are owned in whole by citizens of the United States,
any disability incurred by such vessel to the contrary
notwithstanding; and also into the expediency of forbidding by
law sea-letters or any custom-house documents being granted to
vessels not registered or licensed according to law, or not
owned by citizens of the United States, within a limited time
after the passing of such a law.

Mr. NEWTON having seconded these motions, Mr. MACON moved to refer them to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

Mr. DANA observed that these resolutions had in view merely an investigation by the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures into the subject of them. On such a question it was but necessary to ask whether the subject be of itself interesting, and whether or not the proposition bears on the face of it so much of probability and propriety that there could be no objection to it on the score of its being utterly inadmissible. Unless, therefore, the propositions were utterly inadmissible, if they related to a subject interesting to the nation in time of peace as well as of war, if they had a connection with one great branch of national policy, there could be no objection to have them investigated by a committee. Without expressing any opinion on the first proposition, which embraced a variety of important considerations, Mr. D. said that the motions were recommended to the House by their being founded on permanent principles, to which the nation may adhere in every alternative; and in addition to the attention due to them because they were of a permanent character and not merely temporary expedients, they might contribute to some of those measures of temporary policy deemed proper, and without a possibility of thwarting, might perhaps aid any project the Government might adopt. As to the second resolution, that he considered important in another point of view, as tending to encourage American manufactures. If there be any manufacture which requires great precision of science and experimental skill, any one which embraces more of the profound and elevated principles of science, and requires more dexterity in practical execution than any other, it is the constructing of ships. With these ideas, which Mr. Dana said were not applicable to the merits of the proposition, but to the question of reference, he should vote for referring them. He was extremely glad the motions had been brought forward, and particularly that they had been introduced by a gentleman so well qualified to sustain them, by his character and talents.

The motion for referring Mr. MACON'S propositions was carried.

[The following gentlemen compose this committee: Messrs. TALLMADGE, CLAY, BUTLER, REA of Pennsylvania, WEAKLEY, HALE, TURNER.]

7. _Resolved_, That so much of the Message of the President of the United States as relates to the finances of the United States, be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

8. _Resolved_, That so much of the Message of the President of the United States as relates to the fortifications of the ports and harbors of the United States, be referred to a select committee.

[This committee is composed of the following gentlemen: Messrs. CLOPTON, JOHN PORTER, EMOTT, MCKIM, GARDNER, MCBRYDE, and WITHERSPOON.]

MONDAY, December 4.

Several other members to wit: from Maryland, ALEXANDER MCKIM; from North Carolina, THOMAS KENAN; from South Carolina, ROBERT WITHERSPOON; from Kentucky, HENRY CRIST; and from Georgia, WILLIAM W. BIBB, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

_Committee of Manufactures._

Mr. SAWYER asked leave to lay upon the table the following resolution, of a nature similar to one which he had proposed at the last session, which, from the shortness of the session, he presumed, rather than from any unfriendly disposition, never had been acted on:

_Resolved_, That a standing committee be appointed, to be
called the Committee of Manufactures, whose duty it shall be
to take into consideration all such petitions, matters, and
things, touching manufactures, as shall be presented, or shall
or may come in question and be referred to them by the House,
and to report, from time to time, their opinion thereon.

Mr. S. said it was certainly too much to expect any one committee to do justice to two such important subjects, becoming daily more so, as those of commerce and manufactures. He wished to have employed on the subject of manufactures the undivided energies of the best talents of the House; he hoped that all the rays of patriotism and genius in the House would be directed to this subject as to a focal point at which they should all converge. How could one committee properly attend to the mass of business before the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures? The subject confided to them could not be acted on, and yet important matters were continually dropping into this gulf of oblivion. This committee, however, did all that could be expected of them; he did not believe that any member of it was hostile to manufactures; he could answer for the chairman, (Mr. NEWTON,) whom he knew to be friendly to manufactures, both from precept and example. It was because it was impossible for the committee to attend to all the business before it, that he offered the resolution.

Mr. S.'s motion lies on the table one day, of course, according to the rules of the House.

_Violations of Neutral Rights._

Mr. TROUP begged leave to submit to the consideration of the House several resolutions, which had for their object the vindication of the commercial rights of the United States against the belligerent nations of Europe. He submitted them at this time with less reluctance, because the introduction of them was in nowise inconsistent with the most friendly negotiation which might be pending with foreign Governments. It is high time, said Mr. T., in my opinion, that these commercial rights were either vindicated or abandoned. The remnant of commerce, which the joint operation of the belligerent decrees has left to us, is scarcely worth carrying on. To designate what this little is, would be no difficult matter, but it would be superfluous; every one who hears me understands it.

But, it would be well to inquire, on what principle the belligerents pretend to justify these commercial restrictions? The avowed principle is retaliation, but is it the true principle? Unquestionably not. And why? Because it is equally asserted by both belligerents. Both cannot be retaliators; one must be the aggressor, the other the retaliator. If this principle, then, be equally urged by both, who is to judge between them? If the alleged principle of retaliation be not the true one, what is? As respects France, the true principle of her decrees is to be sought in the policy of embarrassing England by excluding from the continent British merchandise; and as to Great Britain, the principle of her Orders in Council may be found in the consideration of her interest and her power. She avowedly contends that it is her interest to engross the commerce of the world; that she has the power to engross it, and, therefore, she will engross it.

But, what are the principles more specifically asserted by Great Britain? First, the right of blockade by proclamation; second, the right to turn your vessels into her ports to pay duty and take out a license. This right of blockading by proclamation is not a right growing out of a state of war; it is no belligerent right; it is a pretension, as applicable to a state of peace as to a state of war, and if we submit to it in a state of war, we must submit to it in a state of peace. The only principle of blockade which we recognize is that which gives to belligerents a right to turn from ports so closely invested as to make the entry of them dangerous, and after due warning, vessels bound to them. But the right asserted by Great Britain to blockade by a piece of parchment or paper, issued from her Council Chamber, a port or ports, a kingdom or kingdoms, a continent or continents, is a right no more relative to a state of war than to a state of peace; and, if we submit to the pretension in a state of war, we must equally submit to it in a state of peace. It is founded on the most arbitrary tyranny, it goes to the annihilation of your commerce. As to the other right, of forcing our vessels into her ports, to pay duty and take out license, this is equally applicable to a state of peace as to a state of war. We acknowledge the right of Great Britain, or any other nation, to shut her ports against us, provided there be no treaty stipulation to the contrary. But the right of Great Britain or of France to shut the ports of any other nation against us is a right no more appertaining to a belligerent than to a neutral. If we submit to it in war, we must equally submit in peace; and this right, like the other, is founded in the most arbitrary tyranny. What right has Britain to tyrannize on the ocean, and prescribe limits to our trade? She will not permit to us a trade which she cannot herself enjoy; she prohibits to us a trade which our Government permits, because it is her interest to monopolize it. It is equally our interest to monopolize, and, therefore, if you please, sir, we will prohibit the trade which her Government permits, and which it is our interest to monopolize.

If Great Britain can rightly prohibit our trade, because it is her interest to prohibit it, have we not the right to prohibit her trade for the same reason? If she, with right and justice, can stop and seize, and confiscate our vessels because they attempt a trade which she forbids, and only because she forbids it, cannot our Government do the same in relation to her trade? If she can turn our vessels into her ports to pay duty and take out license, what prohibits us from doing the same as to her vessels? England is a nation, so are we. England is independent, so are we. What prohibits us from doing to England what England does to us? Unquestionably nothing. To say that we have no right to do to England what England does to us, is to acknowledge our own inferiority; it is to acknowledge that she may demand without limitation, and that we are under obligation to submit without limitation.

I am aware that it may be objected to the resolutions that the adoption of them would lead to hostility: but the same objection is equally applicable to any resolution which would go to the vindication of our commercial rights. They ought not to lead to hostility; they are merely retaliatory. They follow the spirit of the British Orders in Council and French decrees, and therefore cannot be complained of by either power. There is a great and profitable commerce, and rapidly increasing, passing not indeed before our doors, but near enough to make the capture of vessels engaged in it convenient to us, which the resolutions have chiefly in view. I allude to the Brazil and Spanish Main trade.

Is it not matter of surprise that a commerce so profitable, so extensive, and so convenient, should have been permitted to a Government which permits no commerce to us but what her convenience and her interest suggest? Is it not strange that we should have suffered that Government to participate in a commerce which both our interest and our convenience stimulate us to engross? But, above all, is it not inexplicable that we should passively have suffered the monopoly of it by her, when we ourselves were willing and able to engross it? The House will perceive, on the face of the resolutions, that, as they regard France, they are equivalent to a war measure--neither by a war measure, nor by that which I have the honor to submit, can we come in contact with France; she has no commerce on the ocean. In relation to England it is short, infinitely short, of war; because by war her Continental Colonies would fall; her West India Islands would be distressed, and our privateers would cut up her commerce; but the resolutions propose merely to retort the evils of her own injustice, to do to her what, and no more than what, she has done to us. Reserving for another occasion any further remarks, I beg leave to read the resolutions to the House.

Mr. T. then read the following resolutions:

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to authorize the President
by law to instruct the commanders of the armed vessels of the
United States to stop and bring into the ports of the same
all ships or vessels with their cargoes, the property of the
subjects of the King of Great Britain and of the Emperor of
France, bound to ports other than those within the dominions or
colonies of either.

_Resolved_, That it is expedient further to authorize by law
the detention of all ships or vessels, with their cargoes,
the property of the subjects of the King of Great Britain,
until the duties to be regulated and ascertained by law shall
be first levied and collected upon the goods and merchandise
whereof the said ships or vessels shall be laden, and until the
said ships or vessels shall have received due license to depart.

_Resolved_, That it is expedient further to authorize by law
the detention of all ships or vessels, with their cargoes, the
property of the subjects of the Emperor of France, brought
within the ports of the United States, there to abide the final
decision or order of the Government in relation to the same.

_Resolved_, That an ad valorem duty of ---- be levied and
collected on all the goods, wares, or merchandise, of British
product or manufacture.

_Resolved_, That it is expedient further to authorize the
President, on payment of the duties authorized to be levied
and collected on the goods laden on board vessels the property
of the subjects of the King of Great Britain, forthwith to
grant a license to such vessels to depart and to proceed to
the port of original destination without further hindrance or
molestation.

The House having agreed to consider these resolutions--

On motion of Mr. TROUP, they were ordered to lie on the table, as he stated, to give every member the same time to consider them as he had himself taken.

TUESDAY, December 5.

Two other members, to wit, from Maryland, JOHN CAMPBELL; and from Georgia, DENNIS SMELT, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

TUESDAY, December 7.

Another member, to wit, from New York, URI TRACY, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

_Challenges, Duels, &c._

Mr. BACON said he held in his hands three propositions which deemed it his duty to submit to the House. They were not for the regulation of the great concerns with foreign nations, but for the necessary object of regulating themselves. It would be seen that these resolutions had not grown out of any personal considerations, nor out of any particular case, but out of the serious evils to which the House had been exposed by the want of such regulations from the commencement of the Government. In 1796, the evil had risen to such a height that the House had unequivocally expressed its opinion on it.[10] Mr. B. said he felt it his duty to express his sense on the subject by laying the resolutions on the table, and more particularly as he understood that the subject was now agitated in the committee appointed to draught rules and orders for the government of the House. He would merely remark that the resolutions might not be correct in form, or they might be altogether erroneous in principle. He was not anxious as to the particular form; but he was decidedly in favor of the general object, and wished to take the sense of the House upon it. For himself he was well prepared to act on them; but for the convenience of others he wished them to lie on the table.

_Resolved_, That the committee appointed to report on the rules
and orders for the government of the House, do report a rule
declaring, "That if any member, in the course of debate, shall
make use of opprobrious or vilifying language with respect to
any member, or call into question the integrity of his motives,
or those of either branch of the Government in relation to
the discharge of his official duties, except on a motion for
impeachment, or for other interposition of the constitutional
powers of this House--or apply to either indecorous or
reproachful expressions--it shall be deemed a breach of the
orders of the House."

That said committee be instructed further to report a rule
declaring, "That if any member, during the session of Congress,
whether of the House or not, shall give or send to any other
member during his actual attendance at the seat of Government,
a challenge to fight a duel, or if the member so challenged
shall accept the same, it shall be deemed a breach of the
privileges of the House, as well on the part of such members
as on that of any other person whether a member or not, who
shall be aiding, abetting, or assisting in giving or sending
such challenge, or in carrying the same into effect, and every
such member shall be held liable to be expelled from the House
therefor."

That said committee be further instructed to report a rule
declaring, "That if any person, during the session of
Congress, whether a member of the House or not, shall commit
personal violence or assault upon any member during his actual
attendance at the seat of Government, it shall be deemed a
breach of the privileges of the House, as well on the part
of the person so assaulting, as on that of any other person
who shall be aiding, abetting, or assisting therein, and such
person, if a member, shall be held liable to be punished
therefor, at the discretion of the House."

Ordered to lie on the table.

FRIDAY, December 8.

Two other members, to wit: from Maryland, PHILIP B. KEY, and from Virginia, DANIEL SHEFFEY, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

MONDAY, December 11.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, WILLIAM STEDMAN and EDWARD St. LOE LIVERMORE; from New York, BARENT GARDENIER; and from Pennsylvania, JOHN ROSS, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from WILSON C. NICHOLAS, resigning his seat as one of the members of the House, for the State of Virginia. The letter was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

_Batture at New Orleans._

A motion was made by Mr. SHEFFEY, that the House do come to the following resolutions:

_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law to authorize
the President of the United States to cause the several persons
who were removed from the batture, in front of the suburb St.
Mary, in the city of New Orleans, on the 25th January, 1808, to
be restored to the possession thereof; to be held with the same
right with which they respectively held the same, prior to such
removal; any thing to the contrary notwithstanding.

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to authorize the President of
the United States, if he shall be of opinion that the United
States have such a claim to the batture, in front of the suburb
of St. Mary, in the city of New Orleans, as will justify the
expense of prosecuting the same, with the assent of the
persons removed therefrom, on the 25th January, 1808, to name
three persons, who shall have full power to hear, and finally
determine, all right, title, claim, and demand, whatsoever,
as well of the United States as the persons so removed, both
in law and equity; and their decision, or a majority of them,
shall be binding, as well on the United States as the said
parties.

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to authorize the President
of the United States, if he shall deem it most proper, to
compromise the conflicting claims of the United States and the
persons removed from the batture of the suburb of St. Mary,
in the city of New Orleans, or cause the same to be tried in
a court of the United States, in such a manner, and at such
place, as will secure an impartial trial.

The said resolutions were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

_British Minister--Mr. Jackson's Circular._

Mr. QUINCY observed that he perceived that in the letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney accompanying the Message from the President of the United States of the 29th November, 1809, an allusion was made to an important paper headed "Circular," which had not been communicated to Congress. He perceived, also, that by the resolution just received from the Senate, a specific declaration was required as to the contents of that very paper. It appeared to him extremely proper that the House should have that paper on its files, and within the reach of its members, before a declaration was made respecting it. Under this impression he offered the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to lay before the House a copy of a paper purporting
to be a circular letter from Mr. Jackson to the British
Consuls in the United States, referred to in the letter of the
Secretary of State to Mr. Pinkney, accompanying the Message of
the 29th November.

Mr. DANA observed that there was another document which it might be of some importance to have on the file of the House, and which it might be also necessary to consult--that was, the despatch from Mr. Canning, which it appeared was sent by Mr. Pinkney to the Secretary of State. He moved to add that paper to the resolution.

Mr. QUINCY accepted the amendment as a part of his resolution.

Mr. EPPES asked for a division of the question. He said he was willing to call for any paper which was, or might be presumed to be in possession of the Department of State; but it could not be presumed that the circular of Mr. Jackson was in that office in any other form than that referred to in Mr. Smith's letter, viz: in a printed form. Certain it was that it could not be in the Department of State, because it was dated subsequently to the intimation that no further communication would be received from that source by the Secretary of State. The only reason, he presumed, why the other paper alluded to had not been communicated to Congress, was, that it was a printed paper, purporting to be a despatch from Mr. Canning. He had no further objection to the call for either of these papers, other than it was neither decorous nor proper to call upon the President for that which could not be officially in his possession.

Mr. GARDENIER observed that, in addition to other forcible considerations, it would be treating the Executive rudely, when he had called their attention to a particular paper, to go to any other source to procure it; besides that, in the latter case, a spurious copy might be imposed upon the House. If the President referred to a certain document as justifying his conduct, by procuring that document the House would have the whole ground before it. What would be the situation of the House, if, pursuing the ideas of some gentlemen, every member was to bring forward a document which he believed to be the legitimate one, and all these copies should differ? Who was to decide which was the correct one? If the House were to act at all on this subject, it was not only respectful and just to the President, but extremely civil, to inquire of him on what ground he has acted. As a true American, and staunch republican, Mr. G. was desirous to give the President every opportunity of doing himself justice.

Mr. QUINCY said that a copy of this circular having been forwarded to our Minister in England, a copy must remain on the files of the Secretary of State's office; and, therefore, he asked for it merely that the House might have on this occasion precisely that information which the Secretary of State had communicated to Mr. Pinkney.

The question was taken on the first part of the resolution, viz: on that part moved by Mr. QUINCY, and finally carried--yeas 53, nays 52.

The question was then taken on Mr. DANA'S amendment, viz: on that part calling for a copy of the paper purporting to be a despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, and carried without opposition.

Mr. WHITMAN offered an amendment understood to be intended to embrace in the papers to be called for, the note from Mr. Erskine to Mr. Smith containing the "three conditions" which are admitted in Mr. Smith's letter of October 19, to have been submitted to him by Mr. Erskine.

On the suggestion of Mr. QUINCY, this motion was declared to be out of order, as it was now too late to receive an amendment to the resolution, both clauses of it having been affirmed by the House.

The question was then put on the whole resolution, as amended, and the yeas and nays being demanded on its passage.

Mr. RHEA said he should vote against the resolution, as by passing it the House could add nothing to its stock of information, nor receive any official document; in both cases it could receive only a printed paper.

The question was then decided by yeas and nays, in the affirmative--yeas 69, nays 46.

Mr. QUINCY and Mr. DANA were appointed a committee to present the foregoing resolution to the President of the United States.

TUESDAY, December 12.

Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, EBENEZER SEAVER, appeared, and took his seat.

_Committee of Manufactures._

Mr. SAWYER called for the consideration of the motion submitted by him for appointing a separate Committee of Manufactures.

The House agreed to consider the resolution, ayes 68.

Mr. SEYBERT supported the motion on the ground of the propriety of paying a more particular attention to the subject of manufactures, which had lately become of great importance.

Mr. NEWTON opposed the motion as unnecessary, because the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures was competent to the performance of all the business assigned it, and had always manifested a disposition to foster the manufactures of the United States.

The question on the resolution was decided in the negative, 24 members only rising in the affirmative.

FRIDAY, December 15.

_Mr. Jackson's Circular._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

According to the request of the House of Representatives,
expressed in their resolution of the 11th instant, I now lay
before them a printed "copy of a paper purporting to be a
circular letter from Mr. Jackson to the British Consuls in the
United States," as received in a gazette at the Department of
State; and also a printed paper, received in a letter from our
Minister in London, purporting to be a copy of a despatch from
Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, of the 23d of January last.

JAMES MADISON.

DECEMBER 12, 1809.

[The first paper enclosed was the "Independent American" of November 21, containing a copy of the "Circular." The second was a piece cut out of a London newspaper.]

The circular is as follows:

WASHINGTON, _November 13, 1809_.

(_Circular_.)

SIR: I have to inform you, with much regret, that the
facts which it has been my duty to state in my official
correspondence with Mr. Smith, have been deemed by the
President of the United States to afford a sufficient motive
for breaking off an important negotiation, and for putting
an end to all communication whatever with me as the Minister
charged with that negotiation, so interesting to both nations,
and on one most material point of which an answer has not
even been returned to an official and written overture. One
of the facts alluded to has been admitted by the Secretary
of State himself, in his letter to me of the 19th October,
viz: that the three conditions forming the substance of Mr.
Erskine's original instructions were submitted to him by that
gentleman; the other, viz: that that instruction is the only
one in which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for
the conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which it
related, is known to me by the instructions which I have myself
received. In stating these facts, and in adhering to them, as
my duty imperiously enjoined me to do, in order to repel the
frequent charges of ill faith which have been made against His
Majesty's Government, I could not imagine that offence would
be taken at it by the American Government, as most certainly
none could be intended on my part; and this view of the subject
has been made known to Mr. Smith. But, as I am informed by
him, that no farther communication will be received from me, I
conceive that I have no alternative left, which is consistent
with the King's dignity, but to withdraw altogether from this
city, and to wait elsewhere the arrival of His Majesty's
commands upon the unlooked-for turn which has thus been given
to his affairs in this country. I mean in the interval to make
New York the place of my residence, where you will henceforward
please to direct your communications to me, as I shall be
accompanied by every member of His Majesty's mission.

I am, &c.

F. J. JACKSON.

On motion of Mr. QUINCY, these papers were ordered to be printed--for the motion 59, against it 40.

MONDAY, December 18.

Another member, to wit, from New York, HERMAN KNICKERBACKER, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

THURSDAY, December 21.

_Conduct of the British Minister._

The House again went into Committee of the Whole on the resolution from the Senate.

Mr. EMOTT concluded his speech against it, as given entire in preceding pages.

Mr. GHOLSON said, that notwithstanding much had already been said on the subject before the committee, he hoped he should be pardoned for occupying a small portion of their attention. The resolution before us seems to embrace several objects pre-eminently entitled to the dispassionate consideration of Congress; objects altogether unconnected with those factions and political dissensions which have unhappily too long prevailed among brethren of the same common family, and which may one day prove fatal to political liberty. The first question which presents itself in the investigation of this subject, involves on the one hand the veracity and dignity of the American Government, and, on the other, the character and reputation of a British Envoy, and, in some degree, of the British Ministry.

In my remarks on this subject, I consider it regular to commence with the origin of the mission from Great Britain to the United States; out of which has arisen the present unpropitious posture of the affairs between the two countries. What, sir, were the circumstances under which that mission was despatched here? In the month of May last, it was known to the British Ministry that a commercial arrangement had been made by their Envoy resident here, (Mr. Erskine,) with the American Government, but under the allegation that it was made contrary to instructions, it was no sooner known than it, and the Minister making it, were disavowed. Mr. Jackson was then appointed to substitute Mr. Erskine, the disavowed agent, and at the time he (Mr. Jackson) was sent to this country, it was well known by the British Ministry that the Government of the United States stood solemnly pledged to the American people to maintain, and that they had inviolably and steadily adhered, to certain points and principles in our differences with England, a surrender of, or departure from which, would be a sacrifice of the honor and best interests of this nation.

Yes, sir, when they well knew that, in the affair of the Chesapeake, our Executive would not, and the voice of almost the whole nation had pronounced that he ought not to make the first advance to a reconciliation, Mr. Jackson was charged, not only to require the first advance from us, to wit: that in the document which should contain the adjustment of that affair, the revocation of the President's proclamation of 1807, interdicting the British armed ships from our own water, should be recited as an indispensable preliminary; but to require from us also the violation of the principles of our naturalization laws, by insisting on the surrender of foreigners who had become naturalized. As to the Orders in Council, we know not what specific propositions he was charged with in relation to them. As far as we are able to deduce any thing from facts before us, it must be understood that the British Government had determined to accept of no conditions for the repeal of the Orders in Council except such as had been previously declared on the part of the American Government to be inadmissible. Notwithstanding what has been said by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. EMOTT,) I think it is easily to be demonstrated that the British Government did not intend to make any arrangement different from that contemplated by the celebrated instructions of the twenty-third of January, transmitted to Mr. Erskine. If the British Government, so recently as May last, disavowed an arrangement, and recalled its Minister, under an allegation that he violated his instructions, was it to be supposed that they would, in two or three months, so far change their policy as to authorize an arrangement on the same principles that they had just rejected? Certainly not, sir. It is evident that such an accommodation could not have been designed, because Mr. Canning says that such measures must be adopted as should secure the objects of the Orders in Council. That they did not by this mean the mere continuance of the non-intercourse law as to France, is manifest; for Mr. Canning says to Mr. Pinkney, that a repeal as to Great Britain, would be a repeal as to the whole world, unless the British Navy were to be permitted to enforce the law interdicting intercourse with France by the seizure of such vessels as should be found violating it.

These, sir, were the circumstances under which the mission commenced. What were those that characterized its progress and termination? I think it very easy to show that the conduct of the Minister himself, after he arrived, partook strictly of the same character as the conduct of the Ministry who sent him. I think I have shown that the disposition manifested by the Ministry in sending him here was insulting to this country. Let us next inquire into the character disclosed, and the conduct displayed by that Minister after his arrival. And, in this inquiry, without wading through all the documents, which gentlemen can as well understand by perusing them in their chambers as by hearing them read here, I will merely advert to the offensive expressions used by Mr. Jackson, and to the manner in which those expressions were met by the Secretary of State. By doing this, it will be very discernible, not only that the facts stated in the resolution are sustained by the correspondence, but that the resolution does not go so far as facts would warrant. In Mr. Jackson's letter of the 11th of October, he says, that the arrangement with Mr. Erskine was made under such circumstances as could only lead to a disavowal. If the circumstances were such as could only lead to a disavowal, they must have been dishonorable, and Mr. Jackson, by intimating that our Government had a knowledge of these circumstances, charges it with being _particeps criminis_. Can any thing be more palpable than this? He expresses this idea in still stronger terms when he intimates that Mr. Smith had a principal agency in the misconduct on this occasion. It certainly was not in Mr. Smith's power to substitute conditions for those which he declined accepting, but it must have been done by Mr. Erskine. But, notwithstanding this, he charges Mr. Smith, not only with conniving at a conduct improper in itself, because it could only lead to rejection of the arrangement growing out of it, but insinuates that he was the principal actor in the scene. In Mr. Smith's letter in answer to Mr. Jackson, the animadversions are too clear in their object to be mistaken. Mr. J. is informed of the displeasure of the American Government at such insinuations; and, in the very first letter which was written by the Secretary of State, he disclaims pointedly having had any knowledge whatever of the deficiency of Mr. Erskine's instructions at the time of making the arrangement. And what says Mr. Jackson in reply? He says again, that Mr. Erskine's instructions were known to Mr. Smith. Sir, I acknowledge very candidly, that on a superficial perusal of the correspondence, the charge of falsehood, from the art and adroitness with which it is wrapt up, does not appear so palpable as when it is more closely examined. Yet, sir, notwithstanding all knowledge of the instructions had been denied by Mr. Smith, Mr. Jackson reiterates the assertion that they were known. Do gentlemen say that there is no insult in this? That there is nothing wrong in the assertion of a knowledge on the part of the Secretary of State which he had before formally and solemnly disclaimed. In Mr. Smith's letter to Mr. Jackson, of the first of November, he intimates to Mr. Jackson that a language implying such a knowledge on the part of the American Government, was altogether inadmissible. What is Mr. Jackson's reply in his letter of the 4th of November, which is the last communication that a proper self-respect on the part of the American Government would permit it to receive from him? After again insinuating that our Government had a knowledge of Mr. Erskine's instructions, he says: "That any thing therein (in his former letter) contained may be irrelevant to the subject, it is of course competent to you to endeavor to show; and as far as you succeed in so doing, so far will my argument lose of its validity; but, as to the propriety of my allusions, you must allow me to acknowledge only the decision of my own Sovereign, whose commands I obey, and to whom alone I can consider myself responsible." In speaking of the propriety of his allusions, he acknowledges that he had made them, and does not deny that they are of the character ascribed to them. This insolent letter is concluded by expressions too plain for any misconception whatever. He says: "I have carefully avoided drawing conclusions which did not necessarily follow from the premises advanced by me, and least of all should I think of uttering an insinuation where I was unable to substantiate a fact." He here, in fact, recognizes the insinuation imputed to him, and says he would not have made it if he could not have substantiated it. Collecting all his insinuations, on the one hand, and the refutation of them, on the other, I draw the conclusion that Mr. Jackson not only insulted the Government, but charged it with one of the foulest crimes--with direct falsehood.

If the circumstances under which he was sent, and his conduct after he arrived here, were such as I have described, I ask if the occasion does not require that the American Government should take a firm and dignified stand? That we should repel insults and respect ourselves? Shall the authority to whom only is entrusted the most solemn act of government which can be performed, the act of deciding on the last appeal of nations, stand by and see the Executive insulted by an emissary, such as Mr. Jackson was? I hope not, sir.

Sir, I consider the present no time for the causeless crimination of our own Government, and much less is it a time to countenance any other. We should discard domestic differences and party spirit, which, at a juncture like this, may be disastrous to our country. If we differ among ourselves, in the name of God let us unite against foreign aggression and foreign insult. It is admitted by gentlemen on the other side, that both Great Britain and France have done us wrong. If so, why not unite against the one as well as against the other? A conduct like this must produce the happiest consequences. If any thing like union is discovered against insult and injury, I believe in God that it would not be long ere we met on reciprocal terms of amity. Sir, for my country, I only desire the rule of right; that we must obtain. If it is thought I wish any disaster to befall the British nation, I am misunderstood. I am willing that Great Britain should be great, happy, and prosperous. I should view her downfall as an inauspicious event; consequences might result from it which I will not undertake to estimate; but I hope that the expectation never will be encouraged from this Hall, that Great Britain can or will receive any terms from us other than such as are fair, honorable, and reciprocal.

The terms which have been offered to us are not of that kind. I submit it to gentlemen's own decision. We have long experienced injustice, and if we are only capable of being firm to our purpose, and adhering to the principles of neutrality which have hitherto guided the councils of our country, and especially the enlightened policy of the Executive department, we shall no doubt obtain justice.

In every view, therefore, it appears to me that the resolution from the Senate not only is supported by the correspondence laid before us, but is rendered peculiarly important by the occasion. The appeal made by Mr. Jackson from the Executive, from the organ with which alone a foreign Minister can have communication, to the people, to a tribunal with which he cannot communicate, adds great force to the arguments in favor of a firm stand on our part. I hope it will be made, and that it never will be abandoned till we receive that justice which has been but too long delayed.

Mr. Ross observed: I, for one, am an Administration man, if that Administration act correctly, whether it shall, in a time of great difficulty and doubt, insure a prospect of peace with Great Britain, or whether it may find it necessary in asserting the rights and independence of the Government to involve the nation in war. I think the importance of the one course is as great as the other, and I will, under such circumstances, equally support them when they are likely to make war as to make peace, however other gentlemen may differ from me on this head.

Before I proceed to state, sir, what I conceive necessary to be understood, in order to come to a correct judgment on these resolutions, permit me to premise that there is more than a presumption that Mr. Erskine had a power to enter into the arrangement which he made. 1st. Because he himself declared he had such power. 2dly. Because he acted in conformity to that declaration; and, 3dly. Because Mr. Jackson does not deny he had such power. Mr. Jackson does not pretend to say that Mr. Erskine had not other despatches and other instructions than those of the 23d of January, and that, in them, there were not other conditions of a different grade and character from those contained in that despatch. Hence, I think it is fairly to be concluded, that Mr. Erskine had the power to enter into the agreement. It has, however, been said by the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. DANA,) that this is not so much a question of what our Government was ignorant of, as of what they knew, or what they ought to have known; and he has entered into a long examination of the mode of commissioning diplomatic characters, whether by letters of credence or by full powers, and has drawn a distinction between the two. In the first place, I apprehend it is in nowise material, to enable the House to decide on the resolution, whether the President did or did not know the nature of Mr. Erskine's powers. But it is necessary to rescue him from the imputation which those are disposed to cast on him who are desirous to pull down the Administration. What was the amount of the gentleman's showing on this occasion? That in all cases, in order to complete a treaty, it is necessary there should be a commission or full power. But has he shown that it is necessary in order to make a preliminary arrangement similar to that entered into? I apprehend he has not. On referring to the letter quoted by him from Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary of State, to Mr. Hammond, we find the former calling upon the latter to exhibit his powers to enter into a negotiation; but Mr. Jefferson afterwards recedes from that demand, and receives the word of Mr. Hammond that he is possessed of power to negotiate as sufficient evidence of his being clothed with the proper power without the exhibition thereof. But the ratification was not withheld, as has been justly said, because there was an absence of a full power on this occasion. Mr. Jackson himself states that this was not the ground on which the ratification was withheld. It must first be proved that it was obligatory on the Executive to call for Mr. Erskine's full power, and it must then be proved that he did not, before his observations can be brought to bear on the question. Where is the proof that the Executive did not call for those powers? It is not pretended that Mr. Erskine had not a power to make an arrangement, but that it was not concluded in pursuance of his instructions. Therefore, if he had produced ten thousand powers, unless his instructions had authorized him to do what he did, the British Ministry would have rejected the terms stipulated for them, as they have done. But why is it necessary to know, on this occasion, whether the President did call for these powers or not? The inquiry composes no part of the resolution; it is neither expressly mentioned nor glanced at; and why this inquiry is raised, I confess I am utterly at a loss to know, unless it was to prove that the President of the United States had a knowledge of the instructions, and that they restricted Mr. Erskine's powers. The gentleman has not ventured to infer that the President of the United States had this knowledge, but the course of his argument goes to show that, in his opinion, he did possess this knowledge. He lays down the position, that it was the duty of the President to have seen those powers, and, I presume, supposes that the conclusion will be drawn that the President performed his duty; and, of course, taking it for granted that there were no other instructions than those of the 23d of January, that the President must have seen those instructions, and consequently have known that Mr. Erskine had not power to conclude the arrangement. All his argument went to raise a structure to induce a belief in this House, and in the public at large, that this knowledge must have been in possession of the President. The gentleman, at the same time, professes the utmost regard and respect for Mr. Madison. This, I confess, is following the direction of the poet, who says:

"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer;
And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer."