DEC. 30, 1824-Jan. 3 825.] Inland Trade between Missouri and Mexico.

[H. of R. & S.

Congress had, indeed, he said, frequently legislated exceeded the visions of the wildest imagination. The under a sense of this obligation. We have in existence journey to New Mexico, but lately deemed a chimerical a law, by which, if a citizen loses arms in the service-project, had become an affair of ordinary occurrence. arms which, by law, he is obliged to supply himself with Santa Fe, but lately the Ultima Thule of American en-you consider yourself under an obligation to pay him terprise, was now considered as a stage only in the profor his property so lost. So, too, we pay for the gress, or rather, a new point of departure to our invinloss of horses in service, of accoutrements, and of boats cible citizens. Instead of turning back from that point, in public employ. These, Mr S. said, were plain prin- the caravans broke up there, and the subdivisions ciples, to his mind; and, if there be such a class of cases branched off in different directions in search of new theamong the claims for losses on the Niagara frontier, atres for their enterprise. Some proceeded down the riCongress was morally bound to provide remuneration ver to the Passo del Norte; some to the mines of Chifor them. He asked of any gentleman to tell him where huahua and Durango, in the province of New Biscay; were the public barracks, during the late war, on the some to Sonora and Sinatoa, on the Gulf of California; Niagara frontier; or whether he has ever heard of a and some, seeking new lines of communication with the single public building on that frontier, excepting fort Pacific, had undertaken to descend the Western slope Niagara, during that period. Yet the troops of the Unit- of our continent, through the unexplored regions of the éd States were comfortably lodged. Where was the Multnomah and Buenaventura. The fruit of these enter arsenal of th United States on that frontier? Where prises, for the present year, amounted to $190,000 in were the stores deposited? Where, except in dwelling gold and silver bullion and coin, and precious furs; a houses? The hospitals, too, were in the dwelling sum considerable, in itself, in the commerce of an infant houses at Buffalo, and the inhabitants of that village State, but chiefly deserving a statesman's notice as an were the nurses of the sick soldiers. Are we to be told, earnest of what might be expected from a regulated and said he, that this was not a military occupation? Is this protected trade. The principal article given in exwhat is called a casual or temporary occupation? Either change, is that of which we have the greatest abundance, the property of individuals was occupied, or we must and which has the peculiar advantage of making the circome to the conclusion that the troops were not lodged, cuit of the Union before it departs from the territoand that all the ammunition, the hospitals, and military ries of the republic-cotton-which grows in the South, stores, were in the open air. There must, he said, be is manufactured in the North, and exported from the some class of cases on that frontier, for the loss of which West. Mr. B. said, that the attention of the Senate had the Government is, by the most perfect obligation already been drawn to this subject, and the Committee bound to provide. on Indian Affairs stood charged with an inquiry into the expediency of treating with the Indian tribes between Missouri and Mexico, for the right of a safe passage through their countries. The paper presented contained information essential to that committee. It contained precise information upon the route to be pursued, and the tribes to be conciliated. It contained, besides, authentic details upon the extent and value of the trade, and suggestions for its protection. It had been drawn up at his particular request, and in answer to queries proposed by him. He deemed it the fairest, safest, and most satisfactory manner of conveying to the Senate the body of facts on which he should rely when the question of extending protection to this trade shall be called up for decision. He therefore moved, that the statement of Mr. Storrs might be printed for the use of the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. The motion was agreed to.

If the first section of the bill were stricken out, it would be declared that there was no claim to indemnity on the part of any of the sufferers by destruction of property on the Niagara frontier. Although, therefore, he was opposed to the bill as it now stood, thinking the principle too broad, and that the House ought not to pass a bill to indemnify all losses without discrimination, still he thought the bill might be modified so as to make it just and reasonable; and he was, therefore, opposed to striking out the first section of the bill.

The committee then rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again; and

The House adjourned to Monday.

IN SENATE, MONDAY, JANUARY 3, 1825. INLAND TRADE BETWEEN MISSOURI & MEXICO. Mr. BENTON rose, and stated to the Senate that he had received a paper which he took the liberty of presenting. It was a statement of facts in relation to the origin, present state, and future prospects, of trade and intercourse between the Valley of the Mississippi and the Internal Provinces of Mexico. Intending, for a year past, to bring this subject before the Senate, and to claim for it a share of the national protection, Mr. B. said, that he had felt the necessity of resting his demand upon a solid foundation of facts. With this view, he had addressed himself, during the last summer, to many in habitants of Missouri, who had been personally engaged in the trade; among others, to Mr. Augustus Storrs, late of New Hampshire, a gentleman of character and intelligence, every way capable of relating things as he saw them, and incapable of relating them otherwise. This gentleman had been one of a caravan of eighty persons, one hundred and fifty-six horses, and twentythree wagons and carriages, which had made the expedition from Missouri to Santa Fe, (of New Mexico,) in the months of May and June last. His account was full of interest and novelty. It sounded like romance to hear of caravans of men, horses, and wagons, traversing with their merchandise the vast plain which lies between the Mississippi and the Rio del Norte The story seemed better adapted to Asia than to North America, But, romantic as it might seem, the reality had already

LAFAYETTE

Mr. SMITH, from the Joint Committee appointed to announce to General Lafayette the passage of the act in his favor, and to request his acceptance of the provision made for him, reported to the Senate the following copy of an address of the committee to to the General, and his reply.

From the Joint Committee to General Lafayette. GENERAL: We are a Committee of the Senate and House of Representatives, charged with the office of informing you of the passage of an act, a copy of which we now present. You will perceive from this act, sir, that the two Houses of Congress, aware of the large pecuniary as well as other sacrifices which your long and arduous devotion to the cause of freedom has cost you, have deemed it their privilege to reimburse a portion of them, as having been incurred in part on account of the United States. The principles that have marked your character will not permit you to oppose any objection to the discharge of so much of the national obligation to you as admits of it. We are directed to express to you the confidence, as well as the request, of the two Houses, that you will, by an acquiescence with their wishes in this respect, add another to the many and signal proofs you have afforded of your esteem for a people, whose esteem for you can never cease until they have ceased to prize the liberty they enjoy, and emulate the virtues by

Gratitude to Lafayette.-Imprisonment for Debt.

which it was acquired We have only to subjoin an
expression of our gratification in being the organs of
this communication, and of the distinguished personal
respect with which we are, your obedient servants,
SAMUEL SMITH, Committee
ROBT. Y. HAYNE,
D. BOULIGNY,

said allegations are not well founded, it may make an order, to be entered on record, discharging the said bail or security from his or their suretyship;" being still under consideration.

On this motion the debate was resumed and continued some time. Messrs. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, and BARBOUR opposing the amendment, and Messrs. COBB, BRANCH, and BROWN, of Ohio, supporting it.

The question on striking out the clauses was finally House Reps. decided by yeas and nays, as follows:

The SPEAKER decided, that, inasmuch as the subThe Senate, according to the order of the day, pro-ject-matter of the resolution was before the House in ceeded again to the consideration of the bill abolishing imprisonment for debt-the motion of Mr.COBB to strike out the following clauses from the first section, viz. "But, after the return thereof, the defendant or defendants may contest the allegation of the said oaths or affirmations, before the court in which the said suit or action is instituted, in such form as the court shall prescribe And if the court shall be of opinion that the

JAN. 3, 1825.]

Niagara Sufferers.

[H. of R.

$50,000, to the inhabitants of Venezuela, whose ef fects were swallowed by an Earthquake,

feated? He felt convinced that such had been the case in the present instance. It was the connexion of his proposition with other features in the naval bill, which And, sir, within a few days we have paid a debt of had prevented its being taken up by the House. He, $200,000, as due to Republican principles, and the cause therefore, submitted whether, under this view of the of liberty. But, sir, have gentlemen read the proof acsubject, his motion for a separate inquiry into this sub-companying the report of the committee? If they have, ject, was not in order. I fondly hope their doubts, as to the cause of the deThe SPEAKER adhered to his decision, and explain-struction of the buildings, have been removed. The preed the rule of order, but suggested that other modes of attaining the same object might be resorted to. The question was then put, and the resolution was laid upon the table.

Mr. ARCHER, of Va. from the joint committee appointed to communicate to General LAFAYETTE the act passed for his benefit, asked and obtained leave to report-when he submitted copies of a letter from the committee to the General, and his reply, (as will be seen in the account of the Senate proceedings) which, on motion of Mr. CONDICT, were entered at large on the Journals of the House.

NIAGARA SUFFERERS.

sumption is so strong, sir, as to amount to what is called a violent presumption. I think honorable gentlemen ought not to entertain any doubts on this subject. The destruction of the buildings, however, is said to have been an act of "retaliation," and if so, this Government ought not to pay for them. And to prove this, a Royal Proclamation of a Royal Governor of his most Royal Majesty, has been read. But, sir, I intend to spend no time in examining that wonderful production; my honorable colleague and friend has disposed of that, satisfactorily, I trust, to the minds of this committee. I will only say, that it was a "Salvo," a contemptible ebullition, to satisfy the compunctious visitings of a guilty conscience. Humanity has already passed judg ment upon the act, irrevocable as time, lasting as eterI have been instructed by the Legislature of New York, of which I am a citizen, to advocate these claims, Mr. CADY, of New York, then rose, and observed, it I do it most cheerfully, regretting only my feeble pow was but seldom that he obtruded himself upon the at-ers. She asks you to alleviate, in some degree, the losses tention of this House, but being a citizen of the state of of a portion of her citizens. She has long since extendNew York, and having had an opportunity of knowing ed her charitable hand-she asks you to do equal and exsomething of the merits of the petitioners in this case, he act justice-she has seen you pay for losses in the West could not consent to give a silent vote. I once, said and in the South-she has seen your western dragoons Mr. C. entertained an opinion nearly similar to the one remounted, and the negroes of the southern planter reexpressed by the honorable gentleman from North Ca- stored. Will you now listen to her application? Are rolina. I once believed that exaggeration had magnified there any more "constitutional objections" in the way? the sufferings and multiplied the losses of these peti- I well remember the time when she applied for your astioners-but, sir, that day of ignorance has gone by. It sistance, in the formation and completion of a work was once my duty, in the Legislature of New York, to which history has already recorded as the proudest monexamine this subject, and I do assure the honorable gen- ument of the age. But, sir, I do not wish to digress; tleman from North Carolina, and this committee, that, rest assured, that, in the state of New York, from Erie as regards the losses of these petitioners, and the mise- to Long Island, there is an universal prayer that we shall ries they endured, the truth has never been half told. I do something for these Niagara sufferers. If gentlemen am not now disposed to enter into a disquisition whether suppose the bill to be too broad, let us amend it in the this claim is to be classed under the head of a perfect or spirit of charity-let us say, 64 come let us reason togeimperfect obligation; the black letter reading of Coke ther," but do not let us any more, with a cold tombstone or of Blackstone, will have but little influence in deter- charity, say to those suffering petit.oners, "be ye fed mining my vote. Nor, sir, shall I consult the musty and be clothed." The honorable gentleman from Ohio pages of Grotius or l'uffendorf, to know for what losses has, in a warm, vivid, and glowing manner, peculiar to those gentlemen are pleased to say, Governments are himself, described some of the sufferings of these petibound to pay. But, sir, I have asked my conscience tioners. About two hundred inhabited dwellings were whether I believe this Government ought to do some- entirely consumed; they contained, probably, upon an thing for these claimants, and whether we are probibited average, from six to eight souls. From 12 to 1600 hufrom doing it. I have also read the Constitution of my man beings, with the aged father, the helpless mother, country, and in the preamble I am told that it was adopt the infant in the cradle, were involved in one promiscued "to promote the general welfare." I believe our ous labyrinth of woe. At that most inclement season, right to do something has not been disputed. Why when the cold northern blasts of winter chill to the very not then do it? One honorable gentleman seems to soul, were these claimants bereft of a home, without a suppose that the occupancy by our army of the build- shelter but the broad canopy of Heaven, the cold earth ings destroyed, was not the cause of their destruction. their bed. Their sufferings may be imagined-they What then, supposing it to be true, will you furnish no cannot be described. Many, to be sure, have gone to their long home, but many still remain looking up to us, and fervently imploring us to alleviate, in part, their distresses. Let us do it; we need not fear the consequences. No nation ever suffered by doing great, humane, and generous acts. They tend to engage the affection, and rivet the attachments of the people. Let us, then, sir, do something worthy of this nation, and rest assured that the American people will not only hail you as upright and able statesmen, but also as noble, generous, and charitable.

The House then proceeded to the order of the day, and went again into committee of the whole, Mr. CAMP-nity. BELL, of Ohio, in the chair, on the bill for the relief of the Niagara sufferers.

relief?

Are our hands tied down and manacled, so that we dare not touch one cent in the Treasury? This has not always been the case. The moneys heretofore given to alleviate great calamities, the grants heretofore made and appearing on your statute books, speak a different language. The select committee, in their report upon this subject, has called our attention to some other grants:

$8,500 to the citizens of Pennsylvania, who suffered losses by the wanton violence of some of her misguided and misinformed inhabitants.

24,000 acres of land to the settlers at Galliopolis, because some speculators had cheated them. $15,000, to unfortunate emigrants from Hispaniola. VOL. 1.-8

Mr. SHARPE, of New York, expressed a wish that the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. P. P. BARbour,) would withdraw his motion to strike out the enacting clause of the bill, as the time spent in discussing it would prove, in a great measure, time lost, if the House re

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

[JAN. 3, 1825.

fused to agree to the motion, since the bill would then Mr. WRIGHT, of Ohio, then said, that, as he was adhave to undergo amendments, and all the discussion vised that the gentleman from New York, who had just would have to be gone over again. Whereas, if the taken his seat, as well as other gentlemen, had prepared motion to strike out the enacting clause were suspended, amendments to the bill, in order to give them an opporuntil its friends had had a fair opportunity to render the|tunity of submitting them, he would withdraw that now bill as perfect as they could, it might then be put, and under consideration, stating, at the same time, that he the sense of the House as well, and better, taken upon had himself also prepared another amendment, which it, than in the present stage of the bill. he should present at the proper time.

Mr. P. P. BARBOUR observed, in reply, that he had made the motion to strike out the enacting clause on a principle which he had invariably followed, viz. to save the time of the House in discussing the forms of a measure, when he believed that the measure itself, from its principle, would be rejected. He did not agree with the gentleman from New York, that the time which was occupied in discussing such a motion was time lost. The amendments might as well be engrafted after the general principle of the bill had been discussed as before, and that discussion might itself suggest amendments; but, as the gentleman from New York requested him to withdraw the motion, and considerable discussion had already been had upon it, he would not refuse. Mr. B. accordingly withdrew the motion to strike out the enacting clause of the bill.

Mr. WRIGHT'S motion for amendment having been withdrawn, and the question being on that offered by Mr. STORRS,

Mr. FORSYTH, of Georgia, observed, that he did not think he correctly understood the object of the amendment. He went into a recapitulation of what had previously been done on this subject-the act of 1816the powers of the commissioner-his decisions-the interposition of the President, and the subsequent act of 1817. By this act, it was required to be proved that the property was occupied by order of an officer of the United States; and, as he understood, all the claims which had been brought under the provisions of this act had been paid. The object of the claimants now seemed to be to undo the restrictions of the law of 1817, and restore them and their claims to the same state as they were under the act of 1816. Now, the act of 1816 had been extended by the commissiouer to all property occupied with or without an order of any United States' officer; and, if such was, in any way, the object of the present bill, or of the amendment, he should be opposed to it in toto, knowing, as he did, the abuses to which the extraordinary decision of the commissioner would have led.

Mr. STORRS then rose, and said that he was opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. WRIGHT,) inasmuch as all the difficulty which had hi therto occurred to retard the settlement of these claims, has sprung out of a phrase in the bill of 1816, almost word for word the same as that now proposed by the present amendment. And whoever had attended to the reports of committees of this House, on the various individual claims which had been submitted, for injuries by the enemy, would perceive that the rejection of those claims had al ost invariably turned on this same idea, viz. that it did not appear that the occupation by the United States was the cause of the destruction: a point which former acts required to be proved affirmatively, which the present bill did not require to be proved; but which it was the effect of the amendment again to bring in question. Mr. S. maintained that this was not a proper point to be inquired inte; the only point material in the claim, was, whether a citizen, by surrendering his property to the use and occupation of his Government, had divested it of its private character, and whether, under such circumstances, it had been destroyed. If these two facts were shown, the Government was bound to make up the loss; but the moment you go a step beyond this, you meet an artificial difficulty of your own creating. Where private property, indeed, retaining its private character, becomes the subject of depredation by the enemy, as when the vessel of a merchant is unlawfully captured, or his goods wasted and destroyed, the case, though a hard one, gives no claim upon the Government for indemnity; it comes under the general case of losses in war, and must be borne as it may. But as soon as he, by his voluntary act, gives up his property to public use, it becomes as much an instrument of war as a cannon is. It is part of the materiel of the war, and the enemy may inflict upon it what injuries he will, lawful or unlawful; he may even destroy it in sport. It does not touch the question of indemnification; the fact of the destruction is a plain one, susceptible of ample proof; but the moment you leave this to inquire into the motives of the enemy, you enter on a field of speculation and uncertainty. If the House shall reject the amendment now proposed, this will be avoided. Mr. STORRE then moved to amend the bill by striking out that clause which grants indem-the occupancy of his dwelling by United States' troops nity, provided the property "had been at any time during the war" in the occupation of the United States, and substituting the proviso, that it was in such occupation "at the time of its destruction, or immediately before."

Mr. MARVIN, of New York, rose, in reply, and said that it was not the object of the present bill, or of the amendment, to establish any new principle. He thought the gentleman from Georgia had not stated the case quite fairly. It was true that the commissioner's proceedings had been arrested, and that a new law was passed, establishing a different rule of adjudication, and empowering him only to examine and report. Under this law, a new commission issued to two members of this House, and another gentleman of great talents, to whom was added an agent of the United States. These gentlemen repaired to Niagara, and, in their examinations and report, were governed by the law of 1817. They took ample testimony-they made a detailed report-they did both by the authority of this House; but there their powers stopped, and there this House stopped also; fr, after receiving that report, nothing had been done-not a dollar was granted for settling the claims. Last session, a cominittee, indeed, had been appointed to inquire what it was proper to do in the matter, and the report of that committee is before the House, and they propose the present bill, not to set up any new principle, but merely to carry the former acts into effect. Why did the House order them to report, if it was not intended to follow up their report with some corresponding measure? Not one of these claims had been paid since 1817, and they were so numerous that it was utterly impracticable for Congress to deliberate upon them singly. Some general act was requisite to carry the rule the House had laid down into some practicable effect. Such was the simple object of the present bill. Its friends, indeed, did wish to get rid of an objectionable phrase in one of the former acts on this subject, which provides that the occupancy of the property must have been the cause of its destruction. Under that law, if a claimant comes and proves both

or magazines, and its destruction by the enemy, he is answered “Ay, but you have not shown that the one was the cause of the o her." If he attempts to prove this by inference, it is objected that the destruction was on a principle of retaliation for the burning of Newark.

If he attempts to show that whole villages were burnt,
he is again told that neither the occupancy by United
States' troops, nor the burning of Newark was the cause,
but only the premtory character that marked British
Warfare in former wars as well as the present. The claim-
ant is sent to examine the mind, and to probe the con
science of the enemy, and tell what his true motives were.
It was from such a requirement that the present bill
sought to free these unhappy sufferers, many of whom
had endured a second desolation in consequence of the
legislation of this Hall. The acts of 1816 and 1817 led
them to expect indemnification; and the expectation was
a just one; it was founded in their confidence in this
House, and the execution of its laws. In consequence,
they had begun to rebuild their burnt buildings, and
had incurred responsibilities by doing so. The execution
of those acts was suspended; the time of payment for
The same citizen who had
their repairs came round.
once been stripped by the enemy, had to see his pro-
perty a second time swept away by judgment and exe-

cution.

He did not mean to enter into the discussion of the general principles of the bill; but surely the Government had fully settled it by its own act respecting the destruction of Newark. He knew that act had been disavowed by the Government: he should not express any opinion on the question, whether the act was or was not a justifiable one; but he would call the attention of the House to the letter of the Secretary of War. [Here he quoted the letter.] Now I do not say, observed Mr. MARVIN, that the act of burning was in obedience to this letter. The letter says that it might become necessary. I admit that it was not unavoidable; for at the same time we burnt the village, we evacuated Fort George. All I insist on is, that, in that letter, the principle was recognized, that the burning of a village might become necessary in the lawful prosecution of a military enter prize. Did the Secretary apprehend any danger that the buildings and houses of Newark should arrange themselves into battalions, and march against our army? No; but he knew that they protected the British forces. Shortly after our troops evacuated the British territory, they entered ours, and took Fort Niagara. Now, said Mr. MARVIN, suppose that the taking of that fort had been followed by a letter of precisely the same import as that of our Secretary of War, where would be the difference of the cases? (Experience had shown that the villages on both sides were a covering to the troops; and the British order might have expressly referred to the fact that, in 1812, the whole frontier was converted into one great cantonment.) Sir, the act was done and I contend it was done on the self same principle as our own act in burning Newark.

[H. of R.

braced within the principle of existing laws. The effect of the present bill would be to embrace cases which the Commissioner of Claims was about to allow, and would have allowed, but for the interference of Congress, and some of which, indeed, were allowed, without, in his opinion, any color of authority by law. The bill now before the House embraced, in fact, a new principle, recognizing a vast number of the claims, covering he knew not what amount of money.

Mr. MERCER, of Virginia, said this appeared to be a proper moment for correcting an error which had been fallen into by several of the gentlemen who had spoken, and lastly by the gentleman from Georgia, relative to the course of the Commissioner of Claims under the act of 1816. Mr. M. said he was authorized by the document which be held in his hands to aver, that the Commissioner had put no construction upon that act but what had received the sanction of the President of the United States. As soon as he took possession of the office to which he was appointed, the Commissioner addressed four queries respecting the construction of that act, to the Attorney General of the United States, who returned for answer that he did not think himself bound, in the discharge of his official duty, to answer those queries. What did the Commissioner then? He addressed a letter to the acting Secretary of War, who did furnish him with an exposition of the views of the Executive on this question. What was the exposition? It was precisely that which the member from New York had now put upon the law. Mr. M. here quoted the documents to sustain this statement of the facts. He read also part of another document, being a letter addressed by the Commissioner to the Secretary of War on the 1st of November, 1816, in which he says he feels it to be his duty to conform his decisions to any construction of the law which the President should think the proper one, and that he would make no other decisions under it, until he should receive further instructions on that head. How could it be said, under these circumstances, that decisions had been made by the Commissioner, under that act, without any color of authority?

Mr. M. here reviewed the history of the decisions, the great number of them, and the considerable amount which they involved, which reduced Congress to the alternative of revoking the law, so as to shut out the cases not yet allowed, or that of laying by the cases for further consideration. The latter course was preferred, and, by causing testimony to be taken in regard to the destruction of property at Buffalo, &c. a hope was held out to the claimants that the same measure would be dealt out to them as to others similarly situated, whose claims had been allowed before the execution of the original law was suspended.

He was happy to find that the gentleman from Geor Upon the question whether the laws of civilized war gla was disposed to acquiesce in the principles of the justified the destruction of the Niagara frontier, Mr. M. acts of 1816 and 1817; and when that gentleman disco-expressed the decided opinion that the usage of civilized vers that he was mistaken in supposing that the claims under those acts had been paid, he will allow that a law which provides for their payment is every way just and

necessary.

Mr. FORSYTH said he did not know whether any of the persons, whose case came fairly within the provisions of the acts of 1816 and 1817, had been paid. He was perfectly certain that those who came within them were entitled to be paid, and he considered it to be the duty of the House, when the cases were fairly made out, to pay them. But, he asked, what is now the question? Not to pay those who, under those laws, are fairly entitled to be paid, but to alter the law, and embrace in a new enament cases expressly excluded by those two acts. After taking a brief review of the history of the act of 1816, and the adjudications under it, Mr. F. said that gentlemen had mistaken their remedy altogether, if, as the gentleman suggested, these cases were em

nations did not justify it. He defied any one to put his
finger on any passage in any esteemed writer on Nation-
al Law, or on any page of history, in which such a
transaction was reconciled to the principles of lawful
warfare. So far from a belligerant being entitled to
destroy private dwellings because of their being or hav-
ing been occupied by its enemy, Mr. M. maintained
The most fertile and popu
the reverse to be the law.
lous countries of Europe, he remarked, had been most
frequently the theatres of war-Flanders and Lom-
hardy, for example, the cock pits of Europe, in which
France and Germany had so often contended for empire.
Of the ravages which would have been made of these
beautiful countries, if the principle now suggested had
been acted upon, he drew a vivid outline, concluding by
saying that, by the conduct of her commanders on the
shores and frontiers of this country during the late war,
the arms of Great Britain had been stained with a dis-