merchandize of English growth or manufacture.-An immediate explanation having been asked from the French minister of foreign relations, he confirmed, in his answer of the 7th of October, 1807, the determination of his government to adopt that construction. Its first application took place on the 10th of the same month, in the case of the Horizon, of which the of De fect, still threatened an intended operation on the high seas. This if carried into effect, would be a flagrant violation of the neutral rights of the United States, and as such they would be bound to oppose it. The minister of the United States at Paris immediately applied for explanation on that subject; and the French minister of marine, on the 24th Dec. 1806, seven days before the date of the above-minister of the United States was not inmentioned note of the British government, stated in answer, that the decree made no alteration in the regulations then observed in France with regard to neutral navigation, or to the commercial convention of the United States with France. That the declaration of the British islands being in a state of blockade, did not change the existing French laws concerning maritime captures, and that American vessels could not be taken at sea for the mere reason of their being going to or returning from an English port. The execution of the decree comported for several months with those explanations; several vessels were arrested for having introduced articles of English growth or manufacture, and among them some which being actually from England, and laden with English colonial produce, had entered with forged papers as if coming from the United States. But no alteration of the first construction given by the French government took place until the month of September, 1807. The first condemnation on the principle that the decree subjected neutral vessels to capture on the high seas, was that of the Horizon, on the 10th of October following.-Prior to that time there could have been no acquiescence in a decree infringing the neutral rights of the United States, because till that time it was explained, and what was more important, executed in such a manner as not to infringe those rights, because until then no such infraction had taken place. The ministers of the United States at London, at the request of the British minister, communicated to him on the 18th of October, 1807, the substance of the explanations received, and of the manner in which the decree was executed. For they were at that time ignorant of the change which had taken place. It was on the 18th of September, 1807, that a new construction of the decree took place; an instruction having on that day been transmitted to the council of prizes by the minister of justice, by which that court was informed, that French armed vessels were authorized, under that decree, to seize, without exception, in neutral vessels, either English property or formed until the month of November; and everthey may injure the enemy, are lawful that the French decree was construed and and do not affect the legitimate rights of executed so as not to infringe their neutral the neutral. The only retaliation to be rights, and without any previous notice or used in such cases, must be such as will intimation, denying the correctness of that operate on the enemy without infringing statement.-The Berlin Decree as expoundthe rights of the neutral. If solely intended ed and executed subsequent to the 18th as a retaliation on the Berlin decree, as September, 1807, and the British orders in executed prior to the month of September, council of the 11th November ensuing, the British orders in council should have are, therefore, as they affect the United been confined to forbidding the introduc- States, cotemporaneous aggressions of the tion into Great Britain, of French or ene- belligerent powers, equally unprovoked my's merchandize, and the admission into and equally indefensible on the presumed British ports of neutral vessels, coming ground of acquiescence. These, together from a French or other enemy's port. In- with the Milan decree of December, 1807, deed, the ground of retaliation on account which filled the measure, would on the of any culpable acquiescence of neutrals principle of self-defence have justified imin decrees, violating their rights, is aban- mediate hostilities against both nations on doned by the very tener of the orders; the part of the United States. They thought their operation being extended to those it more eligible in the first instance by coutes from which the British flag was withdrawing their vessels from the ocean, excluded, such as Austria, although such to avoid war, at least, for a season, and at countries were nei her at war with Great the same time, to snatch their immense Britai`, nor had passed any decree in any and defenceless commerce from impending way affecting or connected with neutral destruction.-Another appeal has in the rights-Nor are the orders justifiable on mean time been made, under the authority the pretence of an acquiescence on the vested in the President for that purpose, part of the United States, in the French to the justice and true interests of France decree as construed and executed subse- and England. The propositions made by quent to the 18th Sept. 1807, when it be- the United States and the arguments urged came an evident infraction of their rights, by their ministers are before Congress. By and such as they were bound to oppose. these, the very pretext of the illegal edicts For their minister at Paris immediately was removed, and it is evident that a revomade the necessary remonstrances, and cation by either nation on the ground on the orders were issued not only without which it was asked, either must have prohaving ascertained whether the United duced, what both pretended to have in States would acquiesce in the injurious al- view, a restoration of the freedom of comteration of the French decree, but more merce, and of the acknowledged princithan one month before that alteration was ples of the law of nations; or in case of known in America. It may even be as- refusal by the other belligerent, would serted that the alteration was not known have carried into effect, in the most efficient in England when the orders in council manner, the ostensible object of the edicts, were issued; the instruction of the 18th and made the United States a party in the September, 1807,which gave the new and war against him. The effort has been ininjurious construction, not having been effectual.-The propositions have been acpromulgated in France, and its first publi- tually rejected by one of the Belligerent cation having been made in December, powers, and remain unanswered by the 1807, and by the American government other. In that state of things, what course itself. The British orders in council are, ought the United States to pursue? Your therefore, unjustifiable on the principle of committee can perceive no other alternaretaliation, even giving to that principle tive, but abject and degrading submission ; all the latitude which has ever been avow- war with both nations; or a continuance edly contended for. They are in open and enforcement of the present suspension violation of the solemn declaration made of commerce.-The first cannot require by the British ministers in December, 1806; any discussion. But the pressure of the that retaliation on the part of Great Bri- embargo, so sensibly felt, and the calamitain would depend on the execution of anties inseparable from a state of war, natuunlawful decree, and on the acquiescence of neutral nations in such infraction of their rights. And they were also issued, notwithstanding the official communication made by the minis.ers of the United States, rally create a wish that some middle course might be discovered, which should avoid the evils of both, and not be inconsistent with national honour and independance. That illusion must be dissipated; and it is necessary that the people of the United | she would be satisfied with that favourable States should fully understand the situation state of things, or whether, considering in which they are placed.-There is no that boon as a pledge of unqualified subother alternative, but war with both nations, mission, she would, according to the tenor or a continuance of the present system. of her orders, interrupt our scanty comFor war with one of the belligerents only merce with Russia, and occasionally under would be submission to the edicts and will some new pretext, capture rather than of the other; and a repeal in whole or in purchase the cargoes intended for her own part of the embargo must necessarily be use, is equally uncertain and unimportant. war or submission. A general repeal with- Nor can it be doubted that a measure out arming, would be submission to both which would supply, exclusively, one of nations.—A general repeal and arming of the belligerents, would be war with the our merchant vessels, would be war with other. Considered merely as a quesboth, and war of the worst kind, suffering tion of profit, it would be much more elithe enemies to plunder us without retalia-gible, at once to raise the embargo in felation upon them.-A partial repeal must, from the situation of Europe, necessarily be actual submission to one of the aggressors, and war with the other.--The last position, is the only one on which there can be any doubt; and it will be most satisfactorily demonstrated by selecting amongst the several modifications, which might be suggested, which that may on first view appear the least exceptionable; a proposition to repeal the embargo, so far only as relates to those powers, which have not or do not execute any decrees injurious to the neutral rights of the United States. It is said that the adoption of that proposition would restore our commerce with the native powers of Asia and Africa, and with Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Russia. Let this be taken for granted, although the precise line of conduct now pursued by most of those nations, in relalation to the United States, is not correctly ascertained. So far as relates to any advantages which would result from that measure, if confined to its ostensible object, it will be sufficient to observe, that the exports of articles of the domestic produce of the United States, during the year ending the 30th September 1807, amounted to 43,700,000, and that the portion exported to the countries above enumerated falls short of seven millions; an amount too inconsiderable, when compared with the bulk of our exports, to deserve attention, even if a question affecting the independence of the nation was to be decided by considerations of immediate profit. But the true effect of the proposition would be to open an indirect trade with Great Britain, which, through St. Bartholomew and Havannah, Lisbon, Cadiz or Gottenburg, would receive, at prices reduced by glutted markets, and for want of competition, all the provisions, naval stores, raw materials for her manufactures, and other articles which she may want. Whether tion to Great Britain, as we would then, at least, have the advantages of a direct market with the consumer. But the proposition can only be defended on the ground that France is the only aggressor, and, that having no just reason to complain of England, it is our duty to submit to her orders. On that inadmissible supposition, it would not only be more candid, but also more dignified, as well as a more advantageous course, openly to join England, and to make war against France. The object would be clearly understood, an Ally would be obtained, and the meanness of submission might be better palliated.—It appears unnecessary to pursue any further the examination of propositions, which the difficult situation of the United States could alone have suggested, and which will prove more inadmissible, or impracticable, as the subject is more thoroughly investigated. The alternative is painful; it is between a continual suspension of commerce and war with both England and France. But the choice must ultimately be made between the two; and it is important that we should be prepared for either the one or the other. The aggressions of England and France, collectively affecting almost the whole of our commerce, and persisted in, notwithstanding repeated remonstrances, explanations, and propositions the most candid and unexceptionable, are to all intents and purposes, a maritime war waged by both nations against the United States. It cannot be denied, that the ultimate and only effectual mode of resisting that warfare, if persisted in, is war. A permanent suspension of commerce, after repeated and unavailing efforts to obtain peace, would not properly be resistance: it would be withdrawing from the contest, and abandoning our indisputable right freely to navigate the ocean. The present settled state of the world, the extraordina y situation in which the United States are placed, and the necessity, if war be resorted to, of making it at the same time against both nations, and these the two most powerful of the world, are the principal causes of hesitation. There would be none in resorting to that remedy, however calamitous, if a selection could be made on any principle of justice, or without a sacrifice of national independence.--On a question of such difficulty, involving the most important interests of the Union, and which has not, perhaps, until lately, been sufficiently considered, your Committee think the house alone competent to pronounce a decisive opinion and they have, in this report, confined themselves to an exposition of the subject, and to such introductory resolutions, as will be equally applicable to either alternative. The first of these being merely declaratory of a determination not to submit to foreign aggressions, may, perhaps, at a first view, appear superfluous. It is however, believed by the committee, that a pledge by the representatives of the nation, that they will not abandon its essential rights, will not at this critical moment be unacceptable. The misapprehensions which seem to have existed, and the misrepresentations which have been circulated, respecting the state of our foreign relations, render also such declaration expedient. And it may not be useless that every foreign nation should understand that its aggressions never will be justified or encouraged by any decription of American citizens. For the question for every citizen now is, whether he will rally round the government of his choice, or enlist under foreign banners? Whether he will be for his country or against his country? increasing pressure upon the people; and every day's experience justifies a belief that a continuance of these laws must soon become intolerable. As measures of coercion, they are now acknowledged to be altogether impotent. They afford satisfaction to France, and are regarded as ineffectual demonstrations of a hostile disposition by Great Britain. Upon our own country, their effects are becoming daily and palpably more injurious. The produce of our agriculture, of our forests, and our fisheries, is excluded altogether from every foreign market; our merchants and mechanics are deprived of employment; our coasting trade is interrupted and harrassed by the most grievous embarrassments; and our foreign trade is becoming diverted into channels, from which there is no prospect of its return. The sources of our revenue are dried up, and government must soon resort to direct taxation. Our sailors are forced to expatriate themselves. Strong temptations are offered to systematical evasions of the laws, which tend to corrupt the spirit of honourable commerce, and will materially injure the public morals. In fact, the evils which are menaced by the continuance of this policy are so enormous and deplorable, the suspension of commerce is so contrary to the habits of our people, and so repugnant to their feelings and interests, that they must soon become intolerable, and endanger our domestic peace and the union of these states. As the embargo laws have been the cause of the public distress your committee are of opinion that qual, permanent, or effectual relict can be afforded to the citizens of the commonwealth, but by the repeal of these taws. They persuade themselves that the congress of the United States must be fully Report of a Committee of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, upon the sub-impressed with a sense of the total ineffiject of the Embargo, dated 15th Nov. 1808. THE Committee appointed to consider "Whether it will be expedient for this legislature to adopt any measure with a view to procure a repeal of the laws of the United States, interdicting to the citizens all foreign commerce, and imposing vexatious embarrassments on the coasting trade; to relieve the people of the commonwealth from their present distressed state, and to arrest the progress of that ruin which threatens to involve all classes of the community," beg leave to report: That the committee perceive with the most-serious regret, that the distresses occasioned by the several laws imposing an embargo, have borne with extreme and cacy of these laws for any valuable purpose, and of their direct tendency to the most serious consequences. Your committee, therefore, trust, that congress will not fail to repeal them. In this confidence, therefore, your committee are of opinion, that, upon this subject, the legislature should, in its present session, confine itself to a repeated disapprobation of the laws interdicting foreign commerce, and to instructing our senators, and requesting our representatives in congress to use their utinost exertions to procure their repeal.— Your committee might have contented themselves with the preceding remarks, had not the late Message of the President of the United States excited the most serious alarm; which, in the present critical state | but the adoption of measures of the most of the country, they conceive it a duty to rigorous and hostile description. But express. They perceive, with the most even on the precise presumption that the painful regret, that, in the estimation of course adopted by the government, in the president, our country is now presented refusing to revoke the proclamation as a with the only alternative of a continued preliminary to the adjustment of that conembargo, or a ruinous war; but they can- troversy, be sanctioned by the usages of not hesitate to express their confident nations, and the justice of our claims, your belief that the wisdom of the government Committee are still of opinion, that a puncmay yet find means to avoid the necessity tilious adherence to diplomatic forms and of electing between these great public precedents should not be maintained at the calamities. If, however, this severe ne- risk of war, by a nation whose genius and cessity exists in regard to Great Britain, policy are pacific; and which, while justly they are led by the message to presume jealous of its national honour and indepen that it results, in a great measure, if not dance, looks principally to the substantial entirely, from the determination of the security of those blessings, and regards as executive to adhere to the proclamation insignificant those petty contentions which of July, 1807, interdicting all British originating in courtly pride and vanity, ships of war from the waters of the United frequently terminate in bloody wars and States; which has been, and as we infer they, therefore, think that this proclamafrom the message, is still deemed by the tion ought not, in the present situation of British Goverment, a measure so inhos- Europe and this country, to remain as the pitable and oppressive, if not hostile in its only, or even as the principal, barrier to character, as to form an insuperable ob- the restoration of our amicable relations stacle to amicable adjustment.-Upon this with the British nation.-Your Committee delicate and important subject, the com- therefore ask leave to report the following mittee are far from asserting, that the resolutions:-Resolved, that the Senators of attack on the frigate Chesapeake did not this commonwealth in congress, be injustify the original issuing of this procla- structed, and the representatives thereof mation, and enforcing it so long as the requested, to use their strenuous exertions injury might be presumed to have the to procure an immediate repeal of the vasanction of the British government. But rious laws imposing an embargo on the as this violation of the neutral rights was ships and vessels of the United States; as promptly and explicitly disavowed by the the only equal and effectual means of afSovereign of the aggressor, before the re- fording permanent relief to the citizens of monstrances or measures of our govern- this commonwealth from the aggravated ment could be known as the right to evils which they now experience.-Research our national ships was expressly solved, that although this legislature would disclaimed, and a special envoy deputed cheerfully support the general government for the professed object of making to our in the prosecution of a just and necessary government a full, satisfactory, and public war, yet they cannot perceive the necesreparation, on the simple condition of sity intimated in the message of the Presi a previous revocation of this proclama- dent to congress, of continuing the embartion; your committee are constrained to go, or resorting to war. That it is not the declare their opinion, that such a revo- policy of the United States to engage in a cation, under such circumstances, would controversy with any nation, upon points not have involved any dishonourable of diplomatic usage, or equivocal right, concession, or an abandonment of any provided substantial reparation for injuries just right of pretensions, but would have can be obtained; and that the revocation been a fair, reasonable, and magnanimous of the proclamation interdicting the British pledge of the sincerity of the wishes of ships of war from our waters ought not, in the American Government to restore the the opinion of this legislature, to be deemed accustomed relations of peace and amity an inadmissible preliminary, which should between the two countries. This course obstruct the adjustment of the controversy must have compelled the British envoy to between the United States and Great Brihave offered that ample and honourable tain. reparation, which would have been deemed by our nation and by the world, an adequate atonement for the outrage; or have justified, in the event of its refusal, not only the renewal of the proclamation, Twenty-first Bulletin of the French Army in THE English entered Spain on the 29th |