Читать книгу Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.) - United States. Congress - Страница 105

Non-Intercourse

On motion of Mr. Smilie, the House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of the Whole, on the bill from the Senate, to revive and amend certain parts of the act interdicting commercial intercourse.

Mr. Dana said the amendment moved to the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sheffey) went to give a construction to the bill which would operate as a complete exclusion of the vessels of both powers until a satisfactory adjustment of all existing differences shall have taken place. What, said Mr. D., is the situation in which we are now placed? On what principle is it that British ships were first excluded and on which their exclusion was confirmed by the non-intercourse law? They were originally excluded by the proclamation of the President of the United States in consequence of the attack on the Chesapeake. The President of the United States now in office has declared his acceptance of the proffered terms of satisfaction for that outrage. And, after that, is it proposed that we shall continue the measure of hostility when the cause alone which led to it is completely done away? I should suppose that in the very act of adjustment, which took place between the British Minister and the American Secretary, it is implied that we should do nothing further on this subject. The President of the United States has accepted the satisfaction offered; he has declared those terms, when performed, to be satisfactory. And are gentlemen considering the restoration of the seamen taken from the Chesapeake as a reason why we should continue the interdict? If we examine this subject fairly, the great principle of reparation was disavowed of the claim to search our armed vessels, and a homage to our rights. That matter must be deemed to be settled, if the President of the United States had authority to settle it. If the President had not power to settle it, this furnishes strong evidence that the vote of approbation of his conduct was a proper proposition.

As to the interdiction by the non-intercourse act, I apprehend that was founded on the violation of our neutral rights by the belligerent powers, the President of the United States being authorized to renew trade whenever the edicts violating our lawful commerce should be revoked. Whether or not the President has done right in accepting the assurance instead of the fact, gentlemen have considered it unnecessary for them to express any opinion upon it. If there be no edict affecting our lawful commerce in force by one belligerent, the interdict is at an end in point of fact in relation to that one. The question of the affair of the Chesapeake is settled, if the President had power to settle it; and as to the other cause of interdiction, the President has declared that the British orders will have been revoked on the 10th of June. Has the President acted correctly or not? If he has acted correctly in taking the assurance for the fact, the very principle of the non-intercourse is at an end as respects one of the belligerents, and there can be no ground for the exclusion of British armed vessels.

Mr. Taylor said he thought the gentleman from Connecticut used the word hostility in relation to this measure of including British armed vessels from the United States. Now, I believe, sir, said Mr. T., that if we go to the opinions entertained, not by the President of the United States, but entertained and expressed in the very foundation of the arrangement which was made, it will be found that the very hostility intended to be produced by the President's proclamation ceased at the moment when we passed the non-intercourse act in which we excluded the vessels of both the belligerents. The hostility was in the admission of the armed vessels of one, and excluding those of the other. It ceased by the non-intercourse law, and so satisfactory was this law of the last session, that it was the very foundation on which the overture was made which ended so much to the satisfaction of this nation. So that, in fact, when we perpetuate the order of things produced by that act, we do not perpetuate the state of things produced by the interdictory proclamation of the late President. It was matter of satisfaction to the British Government, as expressed by their Minister here, that the quality of hostility in the exclusion of her vessels was taken away by the non-intercourse law. Have we promised, in the negotiation which has taken place, that we will commit an act of hostility against France for the boon which we have received from the hand of Great Britain? No, sir; and yet, if we take the definition of Mr. Canning, as to excluding the vessels of one belligerent and receiving those of the other, according to the mode proposed by the amendment, without the sentence moved to be admitted to it, it will in fact be agreeing to go to war with France. According to the opinion of Britain, promulgated not only to this Government but to the world according to the demonstration made by the British Government, you will undertake a measure of active hostility against France; for what? For any great boon that this Government has received from the hands of Great Britain? No, sir. If all the promises were fulfilled to their full extent, we should then receive but justice at her hands. It was acknowledged, too, in the discussion which took place, that any nation, particularly a neutral nation, has a right to exclude the armed vessels of both belligerents; but that, on the contrary, the state now proposed to be produced, the exclusion of one and admission of the other, is an act of hostility of the party excluded. As I would not be compelled by the utmost ill usage by either belligerent to take part with the other against that one, neither will I take a consent or refusal from one or the other to do us justice as a motive for alliance, or a war which shall compromit our neutrality. I now speak of both, for both have used us as ill as was in their power. As kicks and cuffs have not compelled us to take part with them, neither shall caresses or fawning, for we will mete out an equal measure of justice to both. I consider the state of things produced by the non-intercourse as totally distinct from that produced by the proclamation of our late illustrious President.

Mr. Fisk. – It was my intention not to have troubled the House with any remarks on the bill now under consideration. I could readily have reconciled it to my feelings to have given a silent vote in favor of the bill, had not so many and various objections been made against it. But as it seems to be objectionable, and susceptible of so many amendments, in the opinion of so many gentlemen, the House will indulge me, while I offer the reasons which will govern my vote.

This bill for which we were convened, has, during the time we have been here, received as yet but a small portion of our attention; and it is so important that upon its passage, and the principles it shall embrace, may depend the destinies of our country. It deserves our immediate and most serious attention. I hope it may be coolly and dispassionately examined, and treated according to its real importance. Its principles have been carefully and scrupulously investigated by the committee who reported it, or a bill similar in its provisions, of which committee I had the honor to be a member.

The language is plain; public ships are not interdicted. There is but one question to be decided in disposing of this bill, and that is respecting public ships; for I believe all will agree to renew the non-intercourse act as respects France. The question is, what regulation shall we make respecting public ships, and one of three courses is to be pursued? Shall we exclude both, admit both, or discriminate?

There are many who would be willing to exclude the armed ships of every foreign power from our harbors and waters. And considering what we have suffered by admitting them, it may be well questioned whether it would not be the best policy of this nation to interdict them by a permanent law. Yet many gentlemen object to this, as being inexpedient at this period. It is said, and it is the principal argument urged against it, that it might embarrass our impending negotiations with Great Britain to interdict her public ships by this act. As I feel as much disposed for an amicable adjustment of our differences with that nation as any member of this House, and would be as unwilling to embarrass the negotiation, I would not insist on this interdiction.

It is also said that England has made reparation, or agreed to make reparation, for the aggression which caused the interdiction of her public ships, and that as the cause no longer exists the interdiction should cease. Be it so; and may we never have fresh cause to renew it!

But, say gentlemen, we must not now recede from the ground we have taken with respect to France, we must discriminate. Let us for a moment view the ground we have taken – not only as relates to France, but England also.

We are not at war with either of the belligerents. Our Ministers at their respective Courts are endeavoring to negotiate, and by negotiation to obtain redress for the injuries of which we complain, and whatever precautionary measures we might adopt would not be deemed a violation of our neutral character, so long as those measures were equally applicable to both the belligerents. We could not be deemed to have taken part with either to the prejudice of the other, while no other was benefited by our measures. While British public ships were interdicted, and our embargo existed, an offer was made to both the belligerents to resume our trade – the same equal terms were tendered to both. The nation refusing is left without a cause of complaint against us, for resuming our trade with the nation accepting the offer.

Before either nation does accept, America changes her position. The embargo is abandoned, and a general interdiction of the public ships of England and France, and a non-intercourse with these nations and their dependencies, is substituted. By this non-intercourse act, the particular interdiction is merged in a general regulation. This was to exist until the end of the next session of Congress only. This was virtually saying, that the proclamation interdicting British public vessels from our waters for a particular aggression shall be revoked; and a general municipal regulation, over which the President shall have no control, shall be substituted in its stead. It was then, in order to preserve our neutral character, necessary that this rule should embrace both the belligerents. It may be said, and has indeed been frequently said, that the reason of extending this restriction to France, was her having burnt our vessels and imprisoned our seamen. But never, at least in the history of diplomacy, have cause and effect been more distant and unconnected. France, on the high seas, burns our vessels, and in her own territories imprisons our seamen. We, at the distance of three thousand miles, interdict our ports and waters to her public ships, which do not or dare not come within five hundred leagues of the line of our interdicted territory, and this is to retaliate for the aggression. Can this interdiction be defended on this ground? It cannot. There must have existed some other reason. It was to preserve our relations with the belligerents in that state that should be consistent with our professions of neutrality.

Had the interdiction been confined to British vessels by this law, what would Great Britain have said to this discrimination? In vain might we have told her that we meant to preserve our neutral character, and not to take a part with her enemies in the war against her. Our acts would have been directly opposed to our professions. With this discriminating, permanent, municipal law, could we expect Great Britain to treat with us as a neutral? If we did, we should be disappointed. If, then, it be inexpedient to make this discrimination against Great Britain, how is it less so, when directed against France? We are to admit British and exclude the French. And, are we to endeavor to negotiate, as neutrals, with France, upon this ground, with any reasonable prospect of success? It is desirable that the commercial intercourse between this country and France should be restored. Peace and free trade is the interest and the object of America. While we throw wide open the door of negotiation to England, why should we shut it against France? While we facilitate negotiations with the British, why should we embarrass and prevent the same with the French? I wish to leave the Executive and treaty-making powers of our Government free and unshackled, to enter on negotiation with both these Governments, under every advantage of success which we can give. On what ground can this discrimination be defended? You adopt this measure. Our Minister at Paris is requested to explain it. Is there any advocate for this discrimination in this House, who can conceive the grounds upon which our Minister or our Government are to justify this measure with our relations of neutrality? It cannot be defended. I am not for yielding to either nation, but, let our conduct be consistent, impartial, and defensible. If then, we are to be involved in a war with either, the resources of the country and the hearts of our citizens will support the Government, and we need not be afraid of the world. But those men, or that Administration that will, upon a mere useless, punctilious point of etiquette, commit the peace and happiness of this country to the ravages of war, will meet the indignation, and feel the vengeance of the intelligent citizens of the country. This temerity would meet its merited punishment. The people of America can see, and will judge for themselves; they can readily discern the difference between shadow and substance; they are neither to be deceived or trifled with, especially on subjects of such immense moment to their liberties and happiness.

Mr. Burwell said he deemed it in some degree his duty to make some remarks on the bill before the House. He intended to vote against both the amendments proposed to the bill. I think (said Mr. B.) that if my colleague who moved the first amendment, (Mr. Sheffey,) had taken that view of this subject which might have been presented to his mind, he would not have found such error in the course proposed to be pursued. He seems to have taken another ground, when by the clearest demonstration it might have been shown that the system proposed is one of impartiality to the belligerent powers of Europe. It will be recollected by gentlemen of this House, that at the time the exclusion of French armed ships took place, it was upon the express ground that the British Government objected to come to an accommodation with us, because we excluded her vessels and nominally admitted those of her enemy. On that ground I venture to say that the exclusion took place; because, at the time that it took place, it was considered a measure absolutely favoring Great Britain, yet not injuring France by a nominal prohibition of the entrance of her vessels. It was stated that there was not perhaps in the course of a year a single French public armed vessel in the harbors of the United States. Have we any French frigates now in our seas? None. Is there any probability that there will be any? No, sir; for France having now lost her West India Islands, if her vessels are freely admitted, it is probable that there would not, in the course of five years, be a single French vessel within our waters. As the exclusion would be perfectly nominal, I would not adopt any thing to prevent a settlement of our differences with France. I am not now sanguine in my belief that we shall settle our differences with her; for every one acquainted with that Government knows, I fear, that it is not to be diverted from its object by any arrangement we may make. But I would do away every possible justification that could be urged by France for not meeting our overtures for peace. This conduct would produce at home more union among our citizens; and, when our rights are attacked without a pretence for their infraction, there can be but one sentiment in the nation. I have always determined to admit British vessels as far as my vote would go; and should the House determine to exclude French vessels I should still vote for the admission of English vessels, because their former exclusion has been so artfully managed by the British Government, and the doctrine has been so admitted by the presses in this country, as to give rise to the most unjustifiable conduct ever pursued by one nation towards another. As to the idea advanced by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Taylor,) that, if we do admit them to take possession of our waters, they will take advantage of the privilege to our injury in negotiation, it has no force with me, for this plain reason; that, although the exclusion of them from our waters was not carried into execution by physical force, yet they did not enter our waters, which they might have done, in defiance of the proclamation. And why did they not? Because, I presume, they had no desire to rouse the indignation of this nation by an open violation of the laws of the land.

If, sir, you wish to gain the advantage of union at home, take away every pretext for the violation of your rights. Let me ask if it be not better to admit them? By so doing you give up a principle which does not benefit you, and receive an accession of physical strength by union at home. I do not say that every one will be satisfied, because I have no doubt England has agents in the country, but so few in number as to be unworthy of notice. If Great Britain, on the other hand, attacks us when we have taken away every possible ground of collision and violates her promise, the people in every part of the country will be satisfied that her deliberate object is to destroy our commerce. We should have no more of those party divisions which have distracted us for some months past.

It cannot be said that we are bound by any part of the negotiation to admit English vessels. I have seen nothing of the kind, if it exist; and I call upon gentlemen to point it out. Why do it, then? It may be considered a concession; and certainly manifests that disposition which we feel to settle all the points of difference in agitation betwixt us. And here I beg leave to say that, according to the most explicit declarations of the British Minister, you would not give the smallest umbrage by pursuing that course. On this subject Mr. B. quoted a speech of Mr. Stevens in the British Parliament. If we were to be governed by reference to expressions which existed in that country of our partiality to France, it did appear to him that this speech was entitled to weight, because it justified the course proposed by the bill, and stated a position which the British Government admitted was all that could be required from a neutral State. From this speech it appeared that placing the two belligerents on an equal footing was all that was required. Did not this bill completely come up to their wishes? Did it not interdict all trade with France under the most severe and heavy penalties? Mr. B. said he did not wish it to be understood that he would shape his conduct by the wishes of the British Ministry; but, as it had been said that the bill was somewhat hostile to that country, he had quoted the speech of a ministerial member to show that no such inference could be drawn. The same person, in his speech, also states, said Mr. B., that the reason why our offer in August last was not accepted, was, that, if it had been accepted, such was the situation of the law, that a commerce might always be carried on with the enemy; that, through the ports in Europe, her enemy might be as efficiently supplied as if the embargo did not exist in relation to him. But, sir, what is now the state of things? If it is possible to operate on France by commercial restrictions, let me ask if this bill will not accomplish that object? Let me ask if an American vessel under it can go to any port of France? It not only cuts off direct intercourse, but prohibits the importation of the products of France; and any attempt to carry on a circuitous commerce must be ineffectual, inasmuch as the produce will be liable to seizure when it comes into the ports of the United States.

If, according to the ideas of the British Government itself, this state of things be a sufficient resistance to France, let me ask of gentlemen how they can infer a partiality to France? What more can you do? If you exclude the armed vessels of France, though it may display a disposition to injure her, I defy any gentleman to show that it can, in the smallest degree, coerce or affect her. Let me call the attention of gentlemen to the present situation of Europe. If accounts lately received are to be credited, we may calculate on the universal control of the French Emperor over the ports of Europe. Is it to our advantage to be excluded from the trade of the continent? Is it not known that all the surplus product of the agriculture of this country finds its vent on the Continent of Europe? Is it not known that, of the whole of our tobacco, seven out of eight parts are consumed on the continent? That of our cotton, at least one-half finds its market there? Does not flour find a great proportion of its consumption on the continent? This cannot be denied. Then, let me ask of gentlemen, whether it be so much to our advantage to exclude this trade; and, if not, why we should take a step which can do France no injury, but which may, and probably would, be made a pretext for cutting off so valuable a part of our trade? With respect to partiality to France, let me call upon the gentleman from Virginia, or any other, to show if, from the conduct of the United States, and such thing can be inferred. Look at our relative situation. Have we opened our ports to her traders? Have we renewed commercial intercourse with her? Let me ask, which have we placed in the best situation, France or England? Every gentleman must answer – England. Whilst she gets all our commerce, her enemy is wholly excluded from any participation in it.

Another argument has been used against discrimination, viz: that France has no public armed ships. If this is the case, gentlemen need not be alarmed; for, if they cannot come here, we need not be afraid of their resentment, because we will not admit them. But we know that her cruisers can steal out of their ports, go into foreign seas, and destroy our trade in spite of the ships of Great Britain. If an American vessel has British property on board, or has been spoken by a British cruiser, a French public armed vessel is bound to make prize of her. This being the case, let us for a moment consider the subject as respects ourselves. Our feelings ought to be for ourselves and our country. Here is a nation having public ships, having a right to come into your ports. Does it comport with our honor and dignity to admit into our ports and harbors the very vessels destroying our commerce? Not to go into an inquiry what has been the fact heretofore, but what may be now – if you pass a law that a French frigate may come into your waters and partake of your hospitalities, where is the obligation that it may not take advantage of the opportunity to make its prey more sure by watching it in port and then going out and entrapping it? If, from the intoxication of the man who rules the destinies of the nations of Europe, he does not feel disposed to treat with us on terms of reciprocity, that circumstance should have no effect on our measures. But the question on that point is no doubt already settled; time sufficient has been allowed for the vessel to go and receive an answer to the instruction sent to our Minister. I certainly would so far respect myself as to fulfil what I conceive to be good faith toward both, without respect to the wish or dictation of either.

As to the amount of produce sent to the continent, it cannot be great. Some few may have adventured there on desperate voyages; but that there is much property in jeopardy, I cannot believe, for France is known to be, in respect to mercantile property, the lion's den, easy of access, but impossible to return. Those, therefore, who have risked their property must have been extremely rash.

If the French Government would do us justice, I should be glad; if not, we must abide by the consequences. We must not do improper things because they will not do us justice. It is proper that we should assert what we conceive to be our rights. I believe, however, that the question of peace with France will not turn on this bill. I believe the point to be already settled. If it be not, and the exclusion of French armed vessels would be an impediment to it, the same objection would be valid against the whole bill.

Mr. Holland asked the indulgence of the House whilst he stated a few reasons why he should vote for the amendment under consideration. It had been asked whether it was consistent with the honor of this nation to admit French ships within our waters. Mr. H. said he would answer, that, as things now stood, he did not consider it consistent with our honor and dignity so to do; and the reason why was, that that Government had done sundry injurious acts towards this nation for which it had not made reparation, nor even intimated an intention of doing so. He therefore answered that it was inconsistent to admit the vessels of France within our waters. It was in consequence of injuries which they had done, according to my conception, that I voted for their exclusion. I was not influenced to vote for the prohibition of the ships of France from coming into our waters by any desire to produce an equality in our relations with the belligerents. It was no impression of that kind that influenced my vote; and yet I voted that French ships of war should not come into our waters. It was not the opinions of editors of newspapers, or the clamors of individuals, that influenced my vote, and I hope they never will. I think that every gentleman, on taking his seat in this House, should consider himself beyond suspicion. The only question for consideration of the members of this House, when a measure is presented to them, is the expediency of it; and on that ground alone I voted for the exclusion of French ships or of British ships. I was chiefly influenced to vote for the exclusion of British armed ships by the variety of acts committed in our waters, and the great disposition which she had shown to commit the most wanton acts of treachery. I can say for myself that my conduct was only partially influenced by the acts of British officers within our waters; I had in view a variety of other acts committed against the rights of the people of this country. Supposing the affair of the Chesapeake to have been authorized, I never wish to see the British ships of war within our waters, till they recede from the right of impressment. I wish the British Government to know that it was the determination of the major part of the citizens of the United States to resist her till she surrendered that right. I think it was a sacrifice of the dignity of the United States to receive British vessels so long as they committed those acts. It was therefore that I voted to exclude them.

It is said, by the gentleman last up, that we are at peace with Great Britain. Does it follow, from that, that they are entitled to all the rights of hospitality that one nation could possibly show to another? Certainly not. We ought yet to hold up some indication that we are not perfectly reconciled to them. When they abandon the outrageous principles which govern that nation with respect to neutrals; when they abandon the practice of impressment; when they make restitution for spoliations of our trade; we will hold the hand of fellowship to them. It is not enough for me to hear the British Minister say that an Envoy Extraordinary is to come out and settle all differences. I have heard something like this long ago. I heard that a Minister was to be sent out to make reparation for the affair of the Chesapeake. We have experience on this subject. Have we forgot that every thing which accompanied that mission was evidence that the British Government was not sincere, and that it did not intend to accommodate? When I see an abandonment by Great Britain of the principles destructive to neutrality, I can consent to admit that nation to the rights of hospitality.

Mr. Johnson observed, that, to say any thing on this subject, after the time which had been already consumed, and the speeches which had been made, was contrary to a rule which he had laid down for his own conduct. But his excuse would be found in the introduction into the House of a proposition, which, it was said, proposed to place us on a neutral ground. Nothing, said Mr. J., is dearer to me than neutrality as to our foreign relations; but, the bill submitted to the House by the committee of which I had the honor to constitute one, and which is the same with that now before us, so far from being in hostility to Great Britain, and partiality to France, I contend, is a concession to Great Britain, at the same time that I admit that it is not hostility to France. The admission of the belligerent vessels into our waters, so far from being hostility to Great Britain, is concession. I bottom the remark upon the fact, that, at this moment, as many and as heavy causes of complaint exist unsettled between this Government and Great Britain, as between this Government and that of France. If then, the same causes exist to exclude from our waters the vessels of both, I ask whether the admission of both will not be an actual benefit and concession to Great Britain, and a nominal benefit to France? And, still, it is to go forth to the nation that we are about to commit an act which will sink the nation, from the elevated situation in which it is now placed by our former measures! I hope that we shall continue to convince the world that the United States of America are incapable of other than neutral conduct. Is it a fact, that greater injuries exist from France than from Great Britain? What injuries have been received from France? Have they been committed within our waters? Has our hospitality been violated and our officers insulted in our very ports by the vessels of France? or is her hostility merely commercial? It is of the latter description. Is it not admitted that we may lawfully exclude or admit the vessels of both belligerents? If you admit the vessels of one nation with whom you have cause of difference, and exclude those of another nation with whom you have only the same cause of difference, I ask whether you do not commit the dignity of the nation, and jeopardize its peace?

I will put this question to gentlemen: what has Britain done which would require a discrimination as to her public vessels? She has rescinded her Orders in Council. And what have we done in return? Have we done nothing? Has Great Britain held out the hand of friendship, and have we refused to meet her? Has she withdrawn her Orders in Council, and have we insisted on a continuance of our commercial restrictions? I have understood that she has done nothing but rescinded her Orders in Council, and we have renewed intercourse with her therefore. I am more astonished at the proposal to discriminate, when we see that, at this moment, orders are in existence blockading countries to which your merchants have, long ago, taken out clearances, in violation of stipulations which Britain had proposed to us. When she has violated our rights, I am more astonished that gentlemen should wish to go beyond this letter of the law. And, let the consequence be what it may, it would result to the benefit of this nation that we should not be influenced by idle fears of imaginary dangers. My better judgment tells me we should exclude the armed vessels of both nations; but the general sentiment appears to be against it. It is asked of us, why admit the vessels of France, whilst injuries which she has done us are unatoned for? And, I ask, sir, why, then, admit the vessels of England standing in the same relation to us? I only make these remarks as going to show that we ought to be strictly neutral. If, sir, you wish to take part in the broils of Europe, embody your men, and send them over to the disposal of England at once, and let her send them to Spain or Austria. But, if you would remain neutral, either admit or exclude the armed vessels, as you would armies, of both belligerents.

I had thought, sir, not only from the acts of our Government, but from conversing with gentlemen, that we hailed the present as an auspicious moment, as a political jubilee; I had thought that we had been on the verge of war with the two most powerful nations of the earth, but that our situation was changed, and that, at the same moment we now offer the only asylum to the victims of European wars. And are you now about again to jeopardize the peace of this nation, without any cause whatever?

The exclusion of French and British armed vessels at the last session, may be taken on this ground. It was a defensive war, not only for the injuries we had received, but in expectation of actual hostility. Has it occurred? No, sir. Would you have excluded British vessels since 1793, for taking the vessels engaged in your lawful trade, and for impressing your seamen? You did not do it; and it was not for that alone that you did it at the last session, but for other causes, which have nearly or quite disappeared.

I have done, sir. I shall not vote for any proposition which makes a difference between France and Great Britain; not that I am afraid of the conscripts of Napoleon, or the navy of George III. But I cannot consent to adopt a course which will again obscure with clouds our political horizon.

Mr. Smilie said, that if he now took up five minutes of the time of the House, he could not excuse it to himself; and he should not have risen, but to explain the reasons for the course which he should take. As to the amendment, to that he could never agree. The question which the Legislature often had to decide, was not what was best, but what is practicable. Now, he thought it a happy circumstance that parties in the other House had united on this subject. However we may differ as to local affairs, said he, I think it good policy, if it can be done without a sacrifice of principle, to meet in concert on measures of external relations. What may be the effect, if you introduce either of these two principles into this bill? We know that, if this bill does not go to the Senate till to-morrow, if amended, a single member of the Senate can, according to their rules, prevent the bill from passing altogether. My opinion is, that it is our duty to pass the bill in its present form. If any material alteration be made in the bill, I believe it will not pass. If it does not, all that has taken place between this country and Great Britain is at an end. And I hope that this reason will induce gentlemen to permit the question to be taken.

Mr. J. G. Jackson said he had intended, before the day had so far progressed, to have explained to the House the motives by which he was actuated in relation to the bill. He said he would still take the liberty of stating to the few members present, (the House being very thin,) why he offered the amendment to the amendment. It will be recollected, said Mr. J., that the other day I stated that a construction had been given to the law contemplated to be re-enacted by the bill on the table, which, notwithstanding the renewal of intercourse, excluded armed vessels from our waters; and, for the purpose of doing away completely that construction, I moved an amendment which, gentlemen conceiving it unnecessary, I withdrew. If gentlemen are correct in the opinion which they advanced, and which induced me to withdraw that motion, they cannot, consistently, vote for the amendment of my colleague providing an exception to a provision which the bill does not contain. Where is the necessity of a proviso if the law does not bear such a construction? Is the Executive to infer from the proviso that something exists in the law which the friends of the proviso declare does not exist? The amendment proposed by my colleague provides for the admission of the armed vessels of those nations with whom commercial intercourse shall have been (not has been) permitted. Are you, by this phraseology, about to devolve upon the President a discretionary power, holding the scale of national honor in one hand, and the injury and atonement in the other, to decide which nation shall be thus favored, when it is conceded on all hands that the admission of the armed vessels of one nation and the exclusion of those of the other, is an act ipso facto of hostility?

Gentlemen have observed that there ought to be an exclusion of French and admission of English armed ships, and that any other course would be an acquiescence in the views of "sister France," and hostility to England. This language, sir, does not help the cause which the gentleman advocates. What must be the effect of such insinuations? They must excite feelings which, I am happy to say, have not been displayed on this floor during the session. Might it not be retorted, as a natural consequence, that gentlemen who wish to admit British and exclude French ships, and thus serve the interest of England, are desirous of subserving the views of mother Britain? The attachment to sister France on the one hand, is about as great as the attachment to mother Britain on the other. I believe it has been emphatically declared to the nation that we would not go to war for existing differences. If, however, gentlemen, since the last session, have so materially altered their ideas of the policy proper in relation to one belligerent, let us go to war openly; I am not for using the stiletto, or for stabbing in the dark.

The interdict of British armed vessels from entering our ports was not on account of the affair of the Chesapeake only. It is unnecessary now to repeat the cause which led to it. If gentlemen will turn to the letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. Rose, they will find the causes detailed. Since that time other injuries have been committed; and it has been justly observed that the burning the Impetueux was an insult to the sovereignty of this nation scarcely less than the affair of the Chesapeake. If we permit hostility from one belligerent to another within our territory, we become party to the war, as we do, by admitting the enemy even to pass through our territory to attack another nation. It is in vain to say that a nation preserves a neutral attitude, when it permits one of the belligerents repeatedly to violate its sovereignty. If there be as much injury unatoned on the part of Britain as on the part of France, then a discrimination will be a departure from the ground which we took last session, that both should be excluded. And the President had no power over that part of the law. Inasmuch as we know that Great Britain has the command of the ocean, and that a French ship of war cannot, without a miracle, escape across the Atlantic, we, in fact, by the operation of the bill as it came from the Senate, admit English and exclude French ships.

We throw open our ports and admit the thousand ships of Britain, without opening our eyes to the consequences which have heretofore resulted from so doing. And shall we now refuse admission to the vessels of France? It is indeed difficult to say what led to their exclusion; for it has been with truth observed that the non-intercourse bill had not an advocate in the House. It was something like throwing all our discordant opinions into one crucible, and after fusion, extracting what was expected to be gold, but which all called dross. When gentlemen speak of their zeal to maintain the ground taken last winter, I beg of them to recollect their own speeches, from which it will be found that the bill was so obnoxious to them that they would not even extend its operation to the next winter, and that it was with difficulty that it was extended to the end of the present session.

Gentlemen ask, has there not been a satisfactory adjustment of our differences with Great Britain? I deny it. What is the expression of the British Envoy on which gentlemen rely, and on which they are about to sit down quietly under the vine and fig tree? "In the mean time, with a view to contribute to the attainment of so desirable an object, His Majesty would be willing to withdraw his orders," &c. In the mean time, still persisting in the principle of taxing our exports, a right denied even to us by the constitution. It is to be hung up in terrorem, to be let loose upon us hereafter, if we shall not do every thing which is required of us. There is a marked cautious style of language in this letter, which shows that Great Britain in fact has promised nothing. She does not say that she will repeal or revoke her orders, but that in the mean time she will withdraw them; and, sir, in the mean time she has withdrawn them, and substituted other orders or proclamations equally obnoxious. This is reason sufficient for not going beyond the letter of the agreement; which however I will consent to do, by admitting instead of excluding British armed vessels.

When Mr. J. G. Jackson concluded, Mr. Sheffey, in order to obtain a direct question on his own amendment, adopted Mr. Jackson's rider to it, as a part of his own motion, and called for a division of the question, taking it first on his own amendment as first moved.

Some doubt arising whether it was correct thus to act, according to the rules of the House, Mr. Macon produced a precedent in which he had himself done the same in the case of a motion for the repeal of the second section of the sedition act, nine or ten years ago.

Mr. Taylor said that, as the House had decided that they would not discriminate between the admission of British and French public vessels, he wished to try the question on the exclusion of both. He made a motion having in view that object; which was decided without debate, fifteen for it, one hundred against it, being a majority of eighty-five against the exclusion, at this time, of the public vessels of both belligerents.

Mr. Montgomery observed that the decision of the courts of the United States had been that, after a law had expired, they had dismissed all suits pending for the recovery of penalties incurred under the act. He conceived that this bill should have a saving clause, that penalties and forfeitures incurred under it, should be recoverable and distributable after the act itself had expired. He therefore moved an amendment to that effect.