repealed. We have already formally acknowledged this to be a fact. I, however, protest against the whole of the principles on which this doctrine is founded. It is a novel doctrine, and nowhere to be found out of this House, that you cannot select your antagonist without being guilty of partiality. Sir, when two invade your rights, you may resist both, or either, at your pleasure. It is regulated by prudence, and not by right. The stale imputation of partiality to France, is better calculated for the columns of a newspaper, than for the walls of this House. I ask, in this particular, of the gentleman from Virginia, but for the same measure which he claims for himself. That gen

tleman is at a loss to account for, what he calls, our hatred to England. He asks, how can we hate the country of Locke, of Newton, Hampden and Chatham; a country having the same language and customs with ourselves, and descending from a common ancestry. Sir, the laws of human affections are uniform. If we have so much to attach us to that country, powerful, indeed, must be the cause which has overpowered it.

Yes, sir, there is a cause strong enough. Not that occult, courtly affection, which he has supposed to be entertained for France; but it is to be found in continued and unprovoked insult and injury. A cause so manifest, that the gentleman from Virginia had to exert much ingenuity to overlook it. But, sir, here I think the gentleman, in his eager admiration of that country, has not been sufficiently guarded in his argument. Has he reflected on the cause of that admiration? Has he examined the reasons of our high regard for her Chatham? It is his ardent patriotism; the heroic courage of his mind, that could not brook the least insult or injury offered to his country, but thought that her interest and honor ought to be vindicated at every hazard and expense. I hope, when we are called on to admire, we shall also be asked to imitate. I hope the gentleman does not wish a monopoly

of those great virtues to remain to that nation. The balance of power has also been introduced as an argument for submission. England is said to be a barrier against the military despotism of France. There is, sir, one great error in our legislation. We are ready enough to protect the interest of the states; and it should seem, from this argument, to watch over those of a foreign nation, while we grossly neglect our own immediate concerns. This argument of the balance of power is well calculated for the British parliament, but not at all fitted to the American Congress. Tell them, that they have to contend with a mighty power, and that if they persist in insult and injury to the American people, they will compel them to throw the whole weight of their force into the scale of their enemy. Paint the danger to them, and if they will desist from injury, we, I answer for it, will not disturb the balance. But it is absurd for us to talk of the balance of power, while they, by their conduct, smile with contempt at our simple, good-natured policy. If, however, in the contest, it should be found, that they underrate us, which I hope and believe, and that we can effect the balance of power, it will not be difficult for us to obtain such terms as our rights demand. I, sir, will now conclude by adverting to an argument of the gentleman from Virginia, used in debate on a preceding day. He asked, why not declare war immediately. The answer is obvious; because we are not yet prepared. But, says the gentleman, such language, as is here held, will provoke Great Britain to commence hostilities. I have no such fears. She knows well, that such a course would unite all parties here; a thing, which, above all others, she most dreads. Besides, such has been our past conduct, that she will still calculate on our patience and submission, till war is actually commenced.

SPEECH OF JAMES A. BAYARD,

ON

HIS MOTION TO AMEND THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION, OFFERED BY MR. GILES, BY STRIKING OUT THAT PART WHICH IS IN ITALICS;

DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
FEBRUARY 14, 1809;

Resolved, That the several laws laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, be repealed on the 4th day of March next, except as to Great Britain and France and their dependencies; and that provision be made by law for prohibiting all commercial intercourse with those nations and their dependencies, and the importation of any article into the United States, the growth, produce or manufacture of either of the said nations, or of the dominions of either of them.

Ir will be perceived, Mr. President, by the motion which I have made to amend the resolution, offered by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, that I do not approve of the course, which it seems the government have determined at length to pursue. The honorable gentleman has told us, it is not his plan, and I give him credit for the fairness and candor with which he has avowed the measure to which he would have resorted. He would have raised the embargo and declared war against England. Being opposed, in this scheme by a majority of his friends, his next proposition was to issue letters of marque and reprisal; finding, however, that the other House had refused to go even so far, he had, on the principle of concession and conciliation with his friends, agreed to take the course proposed in the resolution, in hopes, that our vessels, going upon the ocean and being captured under the orders in council, would drag the nation into a war: when he

presumed, the war being made upon us, we would agree to fight our enemy. Sir, it is upon this very ground, and considering this as its object, that I am opposed to the resolution. England is not our enemy, nor does a necessity exist to make her so. I am not going to deny, that we have many, and heavy complaints to make against her conduct, nor shall I contend, that causes do not exist, which might justify a war; but I mean to say, that policy forbids the measure, and that honor does not require it.

I

The gentleman has painted, in very glowing colors, the wrongs and insults which we have suffered from British violence; he has recorded, in his catalogue, the offensive acts of British agents, as well as the injurious pretensions and orders of the government. mean not to defend, nor even to palliate any aggression, public or private, against the rights or honor of our country; but, sir, I cannot conceal my surprise, that this gentleman, so much alive to British wrongs, should be insensible to every thing which we have suffered from France. The gentleman has exhausted the language of terms of invective and reproach against the British government and nation, but he has been silent as the grave, as to the French. How can it be, that what is wrong in Britain is right in France? And wherefore is it, that the same acts of France are borne with patience, which, proceeding from Britain, excite such a spirit of indignation? You have the orders in council to complain of; but have you not the decrees of his imperial majesty? We are told, that the orders in council give us laws, regulate our commerce, and degrade us to the state of colonies; but do they contain more, or do they extend as far as the imperial decrees? Do they make us more the colonies of Britain, than the decrees make us the colonies of France? And are we to invoke the spirit of liberty and patriotism to a resistance to Britain, while we are tamely yielding ourselves to French bondage? We are told of our vessels being forced into British ports

and compelled to pay tribute; but nothing is said of their being invited into French harbors, and then seized and confiscated.

With all the complaints against the British orders, and the silence as to French decrees, ought we not to be surprised in discovering, that the orders are exceeded in severity and injustice by the decrees? Let it be remembered, that this system of outrage upon neutral rights originated, on the part of France, in the Berlin decree. That decree, in effect, forbids neutrals to trade to England, or her colonies, or to purchase, or to carry their manufactures or produce. In commencing this system, France justified its principle, and compelled her adversary to retaliate by acts of the same injustice against neutrals who submitted to it. Tell me which we have first and most to blame, the one who set the example, or him who followed it?

It is a consideration also of great weight, that at the time when the Berlin decree issued, France was bound to the United States by a solemn treaty to permit the trade which that decree prohibits; a treaty, signed by Bonaparte himself, and expressly providing for the freedom and security of our commerce with his enemy, in the event of war: and if the orders in council are a violation of the law of nations, they are not, like the French decrees, a breach of plighted faith. The orders leave to us the direct colonial trade. Our intercourse is not interrupted with the colonies and dependencies of France; but the decrees interdict all neutral commerce with the colonies and dependencies of England, as well as with the mother country. Your very ships, which enter an English port, are denationalized, and are liable, after the lapse of any time, though performing a voyage otherwise innocent, to seizure and confiscation.

Another feature of injustice and iniquity, distinguishes the decrees from the orders. By the orders, our merchants are apprized of the commerce which is interdicted. Full time for notice of the prohibition is