Freeman's Chronicle

Mr. Grundy's Speech,

ON

Mr. Webster's Resolutions

Mr. Speaker! Knowing that Congress had been convened at this time for the express purpose of providing an adequate revenue for the prosecution of the war in which our country is engaged, I did believe that a discussion not immediately connected with this subject should have been avoided: but, as the committee of Ways and Means are not yet prepared to act on the bills reported by them, that time may not be entirely lost which is given to the examination of points which have been introduced into this debate.

The motion before us is to postpone indefinitely the consideration of the resolution on your table; in other words, to reject them; to this I am opposed. I shall vote for them, and if modified in an inconsiderable degree, shall do so with pleasure. In doing this I shall be governed by reasons entirely different from those which have been assigned by gentlemen who have preceded me.

I shall vote for them to do away the effect which has been produced, and may again be produced, by the misrepresentations of the friends of that first anchored isle, which according to the opinions of some gentlemen has done us no essential injury; I shall vote for them, that the friends of that nation which is styled by some the bulwark of our holy religion may not mislead any portion of the American people: I shall vote for them, that the advocates of that nation which is said to be fighting the battles of the world may not have it in their power to weaken the arm of this government in its present contest with a foreign power. These, sir, are the reasons on which I act, and not because I believe their adoption necessary to vindicate the honor of the government or the character of those who administer it. The reputation of this administration stands on a basis too solid to be shaken by any statement which the Duke of Bassano has or can make; and had not these new guardians of the Executive honor (Messrs. Webster, Oakley & Grosvenor) been more sensitive than its old friends, no measure of this kind would have been deemed necessary. As this however is the first effort in their new vocation, so far as depends on my exertions, they shall be indulged and gratified. I have already said, that I shall vote with gentlemen on the other side of the House for reasons very different from their own. Were I at liberty to speak of motives; I would undertake to show that in these we differ no less than we have already in the reasons avowed. It has been alleged by those who have advocated these resolutions, that if an authentic document containing the decrees of the French government bearing date the 28th day of April, 1811, and which so modifies the decrees of Berlin and Milan as to exempt the U. States from their operation, had been furnished to the British government before the declaration of war, that the orders in council would have been revoked, and thereby war would have been avoided. If I have mistaken the position which gentlemen have laid down as the basis on which their whole argument is founded, I beg now to be set right. Mr. Grosvenor of N. York stated that Mr. Grundy had not mistaken their meaning. Mr. Grundy then proceeded—Then sir, we are at issue, I deny the position laid down, and aver that the British cabinet would not have repealed the orders in council, had a copy of the French decree of the 28th of April 1811 been communicated previously to the declaration of war. I shall not follow the example which has been set by the gentleman from New York (mr. Grosvenor): I shall not quote from memory the evidences on which I rely; I will not expose myself to that error into which others have fallen by trusting to their recollection; when referring to documents in their support. I have those documents before me, and will shew from them, that Great Britain required as the condition on which she would revoke her orders in council that the French decrees of Berlin and Milan should previously be rescinded, not as to the U. States only, but as to all neutral nations. If this be done, gentlemen must be driven from that ground which they have occupied with so much ostentation; for it will be recollected, that the French decrees merely withdraws from the U. S. the operation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and leaves the decrees themselves in full force against all other neutrals. The Prince Regent in his declaration of 21st of April 1812, uses the following language when speaking of the orders in council: "And which his majesty has at all times professed his readiness to revoke, as soon as the decrees which gave occasion to them should be formally and unconditionally repealed, and the commerce of neutral nations be restored to its accustomed course." In the same instrument he also says. "And to give a decisive proof of his royal highness's disposition to perform the engagements of his majesty's government by revoking the orders in council whenever the French decrees shall be actually and unconditionally repealed. His royal highness declares, that at any time hereafter the Berlin and Milan decrees shall by some authentic act of the French government publicly promulgated be expressly and unconditionally repealed, then and from thenceforth the orders of 7th of January 1807, and 26th April 1809, shall without any further order be from thenceforth revoked." Now, I would ask any legal character to put a construction upon what has been read. Will he not answer, as every man must answer who understands the meaning of English words, that the term repeal imports ex vi termini a total abrogation of the act to which it refers? It does not mean modification or alteration, but an entire annulling of the act itself, placing every thing as it was previous to its passage, saving only the rights which had accrued under it. But, here it appears that the Prince Regent not only requires a repeal, but he requires it also to be unconditionally, not limited and partial, but universal in its operation. Can gentlemen longer affect to believe that a modification of the Berlin & Milan decrees would have satisfied the demands of the Prince Regent? Surely they have not read with attention these documents or have read them without a disposition to understand them correctly. But, sir, why rely upon construction, when we have the interpretation which the enemy himself has put upon his own act? If it shall be shewn that no ministerial advocate in Parliament, no minister of England at home or abroad; no, not even Lord Castlereagh, has ever advanced such a position, then why should gentlemen upon this floor assume this new and extraordinary ground, unless they are resolved to out-Herod Herod, and out-Castlereagh Lord Castlereagh himself? When mr. Foster was in this country, he corresponded with our government on this point. He, the minister of his sovereign, and sent here to interpret his will; he, who it must be presumed well understood the views of his government, demanded (as I will shew from the communications which passed between him and the American Secretary of State) as a condition of the revocation of the orders in council, a total & entire repeal of the French decrees. That minister, in his letter of the 30th of May, 1812, says— "America, as the case now stands, has not a pretense of claiming from Great Britain a repeal of her orders in council; she must recollect that the British government never for a moment countenanced the idea that the repeal of those orders could depend upon any partial or conditional repeal of the decrees of France. What she always avowed was her readiness to rescind her orders in council, as soon as France rescinded absolutely and unconditionally her decrees. She could not enter into any other engagements without the grossest injustice to her allies, as well as to neutral nations in general, much less could she do so, if any special exception was to be granted by France upon conditions utterly subversive of the most important and indisputable maritime rights of the British empire." Here the British minister plainly lays down the principle upon which the British government is determined to act. The French decrees are to be rescinded absolutely and unconditionally, by which it appears that England required of us not only that we should cause the decrees of Berlin and Milan to be repealed as to the U. States, but as to all the world. Could a more unreasonable requisition be conceived? We had a right to demand of France a modification of her decrees so far as we were affected by them, but no further—whenever she went so far as to prevent any injury to us by their operation, our claims upon that government ceased, we having no right to interfere between her and her enemy, except so far as we were interested. But England, not content with this, insists that we shall cause the French government to open the ports of all neutrals to British commerce and make the continent of Europe a market for her manufactures. This we had no right to demand of the French government, and England knew we could not obtain it. In the letter of the 3d of June 1812, from Mr. Monroe to mr. Foster, reference is had not only to the declaration contained in the letter I just read, but also to the instructions given by Lord Castlereagh to Mr. Foster, which conveys the same ideas in stronger terms. It says, "in the letter of May the 30th which I had the honor to receive from you on the 1st. inst. I perceived a difference in a particular passage of it, from a passage on the same subject, in the dispatch from Lord Castlereagh to you, which you were so good as to communicate to me entire, as appears from the tenor of the letter to have been intended by your government." The passage in your letter to which I allude is as follows— "America as the case now stands,"&c, as in the preceding quotation—Mr. Monroe then proceeds, "According to the tenor of the dispatch of Lord Castlereagh to you, my recollection is, that in stating the condition on which the orders in council were to be repealed, in relation to the United States, it was specified that the decrees of Berlin and Milan must not be repealed singly and specially in relation to the United States, but be repealed also as to all other neutral nations, and that in no less extent of a repeal of the decrees had the British government ever pledged itself to repeal the orders in council: However susceptible the passage in your letter may be, of a construction reconcilable with the import of the dispatch from Lord Castlereagh, yet as a similar phraseology of your government on other occasions has had a construction less extensive, and as it is important in every respect, that there should be no misunderstanding or possibility of error, you will excuse me for requesting that you will have the goodness to inform me whether in any circumstances my recollection of this passage in lord Castlereagh's dispatch is inaccurate," Mr. Foster in no part of his after communications pretends that mr. Monroe had mistaken the contents of Lord Castlereagh's Instructions. Here then you have not only, the statement of the British minister to our government, but the authority under which he acted. In this there can be no mistake, no misapprehension. On the 10th of June, 1812, mr. Foster if possible becomes more explicit. He then declares to the Secretary of State: "I have no hesitation in saying that Great Britain, as the case has hitherto stood, never did nor never could engage without the grossest injustice to herself and her allies, as well as to other neutral nations, to repeal her orders as affecting America alone, leaving them in force against other states upon condition that France would except singly and specially America from the operation of her decrees." This declaration it would seem had removed every doubt which could possibly exist in relation to the interpretation of the British government. But the executive of the United States, solicitous to avoid the evils of war, and to prevent an appeal to the last resort of injured nations, on the 13th day of June, 1812, again addresses the British minister in the following terms; "It is satisfactory to find that there has been no misapprehension of the condition without which your government refuses to repeal the orders in council. You admit that to obtain their repeal in respect to the United States, the repeal of the French decrees must be absolute and unconditional, not as to the United States only, but as to all other neutral nations, not as far as they affect neutral commerce only, but as they operate internally and affect the trade in British manufactures with the enemy of Great Britain. As the orders in council have formed a principal cause of the differences which unhappily exist between our countries; a condition of their repeal communicated in any authentic document or manner, was entitled to particular attention. And surely none could have so high a claim to it as the letter from lord Castlereagh to you, submitted by his authority to my view for the express purpose of making that condition, with its other contents, known to this government." From this it is evident that the executive of this country understood the British minister as insisting on a total repeal of the French decrees before the orders in council were revoked. And another fact equally important is manifested by this document, which is, that the British government had not only a knowledge of the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees so far as related to the United States, but communicated that knowledge to their minister resident in this country, with a view that he might confer with this government respecting the terms and conditions contained in it. How then can it be contended, with the least degree of plausibility, that it was the want of evidence of the existence of the decree of the 28th day of April 1811, which induced the British Government to persist in its order in council. To the letter last mentioned, mr. Foster on the 14th June gives an answer, which closes the correspondence between the parties. The language is too plain to admit of but one construction. Listen to it and tell me if the most sceptical man can doubt. "I will now say that I feel entirely authorised to assure you, that if you can at any time produce a full and unconditional repeal of the French decrees, as you have a right to demand it in your character of a neutral na."
tion, and that it be disengaged from any question concerning our maritime rights, we shall be ready to meet you with a revocation of the orders in council." Previously to your "producing such an instrument, which I am sorry to see you regard as unnecessary, you cannot expect us to give up our orders in council."

The prince regent, on the face of the decree which revokes the orders in council, shows that the meaning of the British government was what I have contended for; and although other gentlemen may understand the views of the British cabinet better than I do, yet I am bound to consider the prince regent of England as good authority when speaking of the intentions of his own government and to its advantage.

The French decree, bearing date the 28th of April last, is a full and absolute repeal as it relates to the United States. The language is "The decrees of Berlin and Milan are definitely, and to date from 1st November last, considered as not existing in regard to American vessels."

More than 50 days after, a copy of this decree was furnished to the British government. They repeal the orders in council. And upon the face of that repeal, the prince regent says, "That he cannot consider the tenor of the said instrument as satisfying the conditions set forth in the said order of the 21st of April, 1812."

Why was this not a compliance with the declaration of April, 1812?--as to the United States it was full and complete. It was because it was not a repeal as it related to all neutral powers.

Mr. Speaker, I feel humbled and abased, that it has become my duty to quote the authority of the prince regent and the British ministers against the representatives of my own country. I am mortified to hear doctrines advanced here in behalf of the British cabinet, which the British ministers never avowed, and which they would not avow, were they present and entitled to be heard on this floor. Sir, they would not dare to do so--their own words would condemn them. I do hope, sir, that gentlemen who are still determined to persist in opposition, will take some other ground on which to rely: for it surely adds nothing to the honor of this country or to their individual credit to advance and advocate doctrines which the British ministry would be ashamed to own.

Sir, unless I am altogether mistaken in the meaning of the plainest terms; unless the English language is entirely unintelligible to me--the point is sufficiently established that the British government would not have revoked the orders in council, had a copy of the French decree, modifying the Berlin and Milan decrees, been presented to them--and the gentlemen on the other side of the House must be constrained to abandon the ground they have relied on; and here this debate might close. For although the French decree is made the pretext for the repeal of the orders in council, every man acquainted with the political state of the two countries must be satisfied that it was the suffering condition of the British manufacturers, united with the apprehension of an American war, which produced that change in British policy, which did take place.

(To be concluded in our next.)