H. OF R.] Execution of British Treaty. [APRIL, 1796. hostile order was, to take away every pretext be thus extensive, and if it be so absolutely oblifrom evil-disposed persons among us, who, accord-gatory as to deprive the House of Representatives ing to the intelligence he had received, were en- of the right of judging as to the expediency of deavoring to irritate our people against Great Bri-making provisions for its complete effectuation, tain, as well as to oppose the measures of our own of what use is the House of Representatives as a Government, &c., and to assign the same reason distinct branch of the Government? Will it not for refraining from giving that opposition to some be a mere formal and not an efficient branch of exceptionable measures of our Government, which the Government? An entire new system of juhe might otherwise have done; and when the risprudence may thus be introduced by Treaty, United States so far listened to this language as and become obligatory on the House of Repreimmediately to enter into negotiation upon the sentatives-obligatory upon the nation. subject, his apprehensions of British interference and of British influence were strongly excited, particularly when the British Minister seems to make a common cause between the two Governments against what he is pleased to call evil-disposed persons. He would here incidentally remark, that as far as these "evil-disposed persons" had produced the revocation of the hostile order of November, and a relaxation of British hostility in other respects, they were certainly entitled to applause from the United States, whatever epithets had been bestowed upon them by a British Minister. He said, that whenever the question which necessarily results from the unlimited scope given to the Treaty-making power, shall be presented to the people of the United States, to wit: Shall the House of Representatives become a formal, or remain an efficient branch of the Government? they would pause before they would decide upon its annihilation. He said that their love of liberty, their love of their own interests would check, for a moment, personal affections or antipathies, party sensations, State jealousies would be disarmed, and the people would be found right in their decision. for a particular object, the people could not be led to such fatal extremities, as the doctrine contended for would necessarily produce. Much less would this be the case after they shall have been relieved from these causeless apprehensions. If, therefore, the House should exercise a Constitutional right of judging of the propriety of the object of expenditure, and a refusal should be the result of their judgment, he did not be He said the contents of the Treaty had very Even in the midst of the clamor of war and much confirmed his original intentions. Gentle-disunion, which has been momentarily excited men had often said, show us the danger of British interference of British influence. He said, to his mind, the Treaty itself contained the evidence: the Treaty itself corresponded with what he considered the object of the British Minister in giving the invitation to it. He found it in the following particular instances: Before the Treaty, the right of laying a special as well as a general embargo existed in the United States; the right of laying a special embargo upon British vessels is surren-lieve, that it would produce that fatal hostility of dered. Before the Treaty, the right of sequestration existed, and the exercise of it was proposed; this right, so far as it respects Great Britain, is forever surrendered. Before the Treaty, the right of discriminating against British goods in favor of those of other nations existed, and the exercise of it was proposed; this right is surrendered. Before the Treaty, the right of suspending commercial intercourse with Great Britain existed, and was proposed to be exercised; the exercise of that right is stipulated against for a limited time, &c. All these are restrictions of the exercise of the rights of national sovereignty, and seemed to him complete evidence of British interference. These circumstances furnished two reflections. The one was, that the British Cabinet deemed the measures proposed to be more efficacious than they have generally been represented to be in the United States, and hence the extreme caution to stipulate against the future exercise of them. The other was, that party sensations must have had great influence upon the extraordinary Envoy of the United States, to induce his consent to these great abridgements of the rights of national sovereignty. The Treaty not only contains abridgements of the national rights, but changes the municipal regulations of the United States, and how have these things been effected? By the substitution of a foreign power in the place of the House of Representatives. If the Treaty-making power departments which would eventuate in a total dissolution of the Government; but would be an exercise of one of the salutary checks provided in the Constitution; which, in his opinion, constitutes its merit. and not its reproach. Mr. GILES then proceeded to consider, whether a war with Great Britain would be the probable consequence of a refusal to make the necessary provision for carrying the British Treaty into effect; and he observed, that to his mind, there did not appear to be the least ground for the clamor which had been excited from this suggestion. He said he believed that Great Britain would make war upon the United States whenever she deemed it her interest to do so; and that the Treaty would impose no restraint upon her, if she thought her interest would justify the conduct. He also believed, that, if there should be no Treaty with Great Britain, she would not go to war with the United States, unless her interest would dictate the measure. In short, he believed, that Great Britain, like all other nations, would make her interest the criterion of her conduct in every other question of peace or war. If this opinion be well formed, the probability of war may be tested by this question. Is it the interest of Great Britain to make war upon the United States in the relative situation of the two countries? Great Britain is now engaged in a war in which the Government hazard everything. APRIL, 1796.] Execution of British Treaty. [H. OF R. She is at this moment engaged in an important the 3d of May, the rebellion of Corsica comenterprise against the French West Indies. She is under the necessity of resorting to the United States for sundry supplies for facilitating the enterprise. The United States are the best commercial customer she has in the world. Under these circumstances, what would be her inducement for war? What would be her inducements to avoid it? These questions furnish their own answers. He said that the argument of war was an argument of dependance. It is also an argument which will last forever. If the fear of war is now to influence our conduct against our judgments, will not the same argument apply with double force two years after the expiration of the present war, to induce a continuance of the Treaty upon its present injurious conditions? Mr. G. said, that as the argument of war was the chief instrument by which the Treaty was pressed upon the people of the United States, he begged the indulgence of the Committee in taking a retrospective view of the subject, and in examining it with some minuteness. Whatever might have been his opinion at the time of receiving the information of the hostile order of the 6th of November, he was now of opinion that at that time Great Britain did meditate war against the United States, although he believed there was no danger of it at present. He believed, too, that the neutrality proclaimed by the United States, did not, in the smallest degree, influence the conduct or disposition of Great Britain towards the United States in regard to war or peace, but that the true explanation of her disposition will be found in the course of events in Europe. On the first of February, 1793, France declared war against the King of England, and the Stadtholder of Holland, and on the 7th of the same month, against Spain. France was then at war with the Emperor of Germany, and the King of Prussia, &c. A combination of the most of the despots of Europe had previously been formed (it is generally believed on the 21st of July, 1791, at Pilnitz) for the purpose of crushing the revolutionary spirit which had appeared in France. The accession of Great Britain, Spain, Holland, Portugal, and some of the Italian States, to the combination already formed, made it the most formidable which had ever appeared in the history of modern times. The most desperate and bloody war, of course, ensued, and immediately succeeded the declaration of war against Great Britain, a series of successes took place, which threatened the absolute subjugation of France. menced; 29th, the rebellion of the department of Loire; 30th, the rebellion of the city of Lyons; June 2d, thirty-two deputies of the Convention, generally called the Brissotines, were arrested. About the same time, a rebellion commenced in the departments of Bouches de Rhone, Calvados and Eure; June the 8th, the first order issued by Great Britain for seizure of neutral vessels bound to France with provisions was issued. It is here to be remarked, that the impartial state of neutrality proclaimed by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES on the 22d of the preceding April, was probably known to the British cabinet. But whilst flushed with these successes in her crusade against liberty, the neutrality of the United States could not protect them from the invasion of their neutral rights; on the 10th of July, Conde surrendered to the combined armies; on the 27th, Mayence, &c.; on the 28th, Valenciennes; at the end of July, the Spaniards were in possession of Bellegarde, Collioure, St. Elme, &c., and of the whole department of the Eastern Pyrenees, and part of the Lower Pyrenees; the Prussians and Austrians were possessed of the lines of Weisemburg, Fort Vauban, &c., and had blockaded Landau. The Piedmontese and Hanoverians had made successful inroads into other parts of France, the Royalists of La Vendee were in possession of four departments. The royalists of the south were in possession of Lyons, Marseilles, Toulon, and the departments of the Vaucluse and Rhone. On the 28th August, all Frenchmen were put into requisition; on the 28th, Toulon surrendered to Lord Hood by the Royalists; on the 9th of September, the Duke of York was defeated; on the 11th, Lyons was subdued; on the 30th of October, the Brissotines were executed. This was nearly the state of the war upon the European Continent at the time of issuing the hostile order of the 6th of November. In this chronological statement of facts may be found the hostile disposition of Great Britain widened by that order against the United States. France, convulsed with intestine divisions, which extended to the very heart of the Convention, laboring under the most formidable external pressure, was supposed to be an easy prey to this terrible combination of despots. The combination having in object, as he believed, the total destruction of liberty. Great Britain, possessed of the most triumphant and formidable fleet, and guided almost implicitly the movements of this great combination, already anticipated the destruction of liberty in France, and On the first of March, the French sustained a began to turn her attention towards the same obconsiderable loss by the surprise of the vanguard ject in the United States. Hence the order of of their army on the river Roer; on the 13th, the the 6th of November; hence the truce between rebellion of La Vendee commenced; on the 18th Portugal and Algiers; hence the talk between Dumourier was defeated; on the 30th, he aban- Lord Dorchester and the Indians. These, he addoned his army; on the 3d of April his army re- mitted, were all acts of hostility, and evidently treated into France; on the 4th, Dumourier him- produced by the state of things before described. self was outlawed; on the 13th, France made a But what events followed these acts of hostility? declaration against all interference with foreign A complete reverse of fortune immediately sucGovernments; on the 22d of April, the PRESI-ceeded. The Duke of York had been already DENT issued the Proclamation of Neutrality; on defeated. On the 17th of December Toulon was H. OF R.] Execution of British Treaty. [APRIL, 1796. which would justify apprehensions of war from Great Britain? And are the United States to tremble at the sound of war from a nation thus circumstanced? He trusted not. And for what cause is this war to be produced? Because the House of Representatives may deem it inexpedient to become the instrument of giving effi He verily believed that the alarm of war was not serious. He verily believed it was resorted to as an artificial instrument to effect a favorite object. For his part, he believed the hazard so small as not to constitute an item in estimating the present question. Mr. G. said, he believed that Great Britain considered the United States as a more important commercial connexion (particularly as it respects her views in the West Indies) than some gentlemen seem to admit; and he believed, also, that she viewed the United States more formidable as an enemy. He inferred these opinions from the avidity with which this Treaty seems to have been received in that country, and particularly from an expression in the speech of the King at the late meeting of Parliament. He said that two reflections were strongly impressed upon his mind from that speech. The one was, that the Treaty was deemed a very advantageous one to Great Britain; the other was, that Great Britain has no appetite for war against the United States in her present situation. retaken by the French; on the 22d, the Austrian Prussia at peace with France, and almost at war with Great Britain; Spain at peace with France, and hardly at peace with Great Britain; Holland at peace, and in alliance with France, and at war with Great Britain; Austria herself almost exhausted, and desirous of peace; and a continuation of French exertions and successes, which has excited the admiration and astonishment of the world. Are these the circumstances Hence, he said, that he could not believe that there was the least possible foundation for the suggestion of the fatal hostility of departments of Government, or war with Great Britain, as amongst the consequences resulting from a refusal to make the necessary provisions for giving efficacy to the Treaty. As the present Treaty is incomplete, and as further negotiations are stipulated in the Treaty itself, and in the event of a decision either way, are expected, he thought the most important consequences of the vote would be this: If the House should refuse to make provisions for carrying the Treaty into effect, the new negotiations would commence without the concessions contained in the present Treaty. If the provisions should be made, the further negotiations will proceed under the weight of the concessions already made, and very little amelioration of the present conditions can be expected, as the United States will have very little left to induce the amelioration. And if no final adjustment of differences should ensue, the United States will at least continue to possess all the rights attached to national sovereignty. Much has been said, and much unnecessarily said, about intemperance and heats. He said he would appeal to the recollection of the Committee, whether there ever was a more harmonious session than the present, until this Treaty was introduced into the House; and then whether its opponents had not discovered at least as much coolness and deliberation as its advocates. He said that the Treaty itself was the torch of discord which had been unfortunately thrown APRIL, 1796.] Execution of British Treaty. [H. of R. into the United States, and it was extraordinary questionably carry on almost all the trade of Upto observe those who have been most instrumental per Canada, and that great Western country in introducing it, impute heat to others, for a firm which will be opened to us; by which means we and decisive opposition to it. It is too much to shall have at least an equal share in their fur suppose that the absolute sacrifice of opinion is trade also with them, which we have so long an obligation due to the embarrassments into wanted. But it is said, the portages or carrying which this Treaty has thrown the United States. places being common to both, they will run away Upon the whole, he conscientiously believed with the greater part of the trade. Why so? I the Treaty to be a bad one. He believed it con- am not afraid but the citizens of the United tained the most complete evidence of British inter-States, if they are put on an equal footing with ference in our internal affairs, and had laid the others, will make their way equal with any profoundation for the further extension of British in-ple on earth. But it is said, by way of lessening fluence. It has restricted the exercise of some of the important rights of national sovereignty. It has voluntarily hazarded the neutrality of the United States in the present European war, and destroyed all pretensions to its character of impartiality. It has not afforded protection to our neutral rights, which was amongst its great objects; and in the adjustment of the differences resulting from the inexecution of the Treaty of Peace, it is unequal and unjust. All these important circumstances considered, and when it is also considered that the British persevere in impressing our seamen and seizing our vessels, in violation of the clearest rights of neutral nations, even since the signing of the Treaty, he could not consent to be the instrument of giving it efficacy. He believed that it was one of those extraordinary cases which justified strong and extraordinary re-admitted. sistance. the advantages of this trade, that goods imported into Canada pay little or no duty, and the goods that we import are by our laws subject to high duty, and that no drawback of the duty can be established upon their being sent into Canada, and therefore, we cannot supply them on equal terms. To this, I reply, that I do not know what duty they impose on goods when imported into Canada, but I believe it is considerable; and I do not believe but it is possible to devise a plan for a drawback of the duty which may have been paid on our goods when they are sent into Canada, and that at any rate the ease by which we can send them there up the North river, compared with their being introduced by the St. Lawrence, will more than compensate for any difference of duty, in case a drawback should not be 2. We have got established by the Treaty a When Mr. GILES had concluded his speech, right to trade with all their settlements in India Mr. GOODHUE addressed the Chair as follows: on the same terms with their own subjects, and Mr. Chairman: Much noise has been made, thus we have laid open to us a free trade with and every art has been practised to prejudice the those vast possessions of theirs in that quarter of people against the Treaty now under considera- the globe, which, it is said, contains twenty or tion. I mean to look at it and see if it be the thirty millions of inhabitants. Let me inform horrid thing it is represented to be, and particu- the Committee, that our trade to India is already larly to examine the commercial part, to know very great and profitable. In the town of Salem whether we have made a good bargain or not. only, in which I live, we have thirty sail of IndiaI will take notice of some objections that have men, and doubtless, in the United States, the been made, and then touch on the great evils that whole amount must be nearly an hundred; and may justly be apprehended if we refuse to carry the number will increase in such a manner, as by it into effect. And here let me observe, the sub- our superior enterprise, industry and economy, ject is the most momentous that ever came be- that we shall not only supply our own wants, but fore this House, and I mean to put no false colors those of the West Indies and Europe, in a great on it, or to paint any evils that will follow a re- measure, with India articles; for though, by the jection, beyond what, in such an event, I most Treaty which gives us this free trade, we are not conscientiously believe will be realized. I will permitted to carry India goods from their settlenow state what new sources of commerce are ments directly to Europe, yet there is no doubt, opened to us by the Treaty that we had not be- in my mind, but we can export from hence fore, and then see what we have given for them. thither cheaper than they can get them any other 1st. We have got by the Treaty a perfectly free way, for this obvious reason, because their trade trade across the land, and by means of the lakes to India is carried on by their companies, in which with Canada, that we had not before, and on the despatch and economy is by no means so much same terms with British subjects, which I esti- attended to, as it is when managed by an indivimate as a great advantage to this country; for it dual. But it is said we had this trade before the is evident, that we can introduce into Canada- Treaty. I answer, it is true we had, but it was up the North river and across the Lakes-almost only by way of indulgence, subject to be deprived any kind of goods, at less expense and on better of it whenever they thought fit; and let me ask, terms than the British can up the river St. Law- is it not vastly better to have it secured as a right, rence, which is very lengthy, and frozen up six than to have it rest on the precarious tenure of or seven months in the year. Having this advan-indulgence? Here, Mr. Chairman, let me retage, can it be doubted that we have not industry and enterprise to improve it? No, sir, the enterprise of our people is such, that we shall un mark, that they have granted to us this free trade to India, which their own subjects (except the India Company) are entirely shut out from. What must be the feelings of British subjects when they see their Government has given to strangers a perfect freedom of trade to their India settlements, and shut them out from it altogether? And what must be their astonishment when they hear that some people amongst us think that Great Britain has conferred no favor upon us by doing it? Hear what the famous Mr. Grattan, the great Irish patriot, said in the Irish Parliament, on the subject: This very America, which the British Minister insulted and then crouched to, had, by the late Treaty of Commerce, been admitted to all the British settlements in the East and West Indies, to the latter of which Ireland was only conditionally admitted, and from the former unconditionally excluded; yet Ireland was a loyal, attached nation, and America an alien." These are the commercial acquisitions we have obtained by the Treaty; and, let me ask, what have we given to Britain in return for them? I answer, nothing more than they have all along enjoyed in our ports, by the laws of the United States, in common with other foreign nations. No new commercial advantages have we given them; they can come here now on no better terms than before. But, it is said, we have tied our hands by the Treaty, that we will not lay any greater duties on their commerce than we do on all other foreign nations. Pray, let me ask, if Great Britain have not equally tied their hands? And can we be so unreasonable as to suppose that they would ever consent to a Treaty that had not such terms of reciprocity? [APRIL, 1796. not before enjoying in our ports; and they, on their part, have given us considerable; and consequently, on our side, the bargain must be a good one. Let me ask, why there is forever so much complaint against Great Britain because she does not open all her colonies freely to us? Does Portugal open the Brazils? No; she shuts out all foreigners. Did Holland, before the present war, open to us all her rich possessions in the East Indies? No. Does Spain open her rich islands in the East and West Indies, and her immense possessions in South America? No. Does she, in the Treaty lately made, open even Florida, as Great Britain has Canada? No. Did France, before this war, give us free trade to her colonies? No. And do not all those nations, as well as every other, come into our ports on the same terms with the British? Why, then, make this rant about the British? Let them fare as well in our ports as other foreigners, inasmuch as they certainly grant as much to us as most others do, is all I contend for. I do not wish they should fare better. Let me observe, Mr. Chairman, that ever since this Government has been established, and long before, it has been the uniform complaint against Great Britain that she would not enter into a Commercial Treaty with us; and now many of those very people who made the greatest complaint, find great fault with our negotiator for having meddled with the subject, and say they wanted no Commercial Treaty with them. Every one must know this to be true; and it is past my comprehension to reconcile such contradictory sentiments. The 12th article, relative to the West India trade, which was rejected by the Senate, and forms no part of the Treaty, is conjured up as a scare-crow, and has been made use of by the opposers, as though it formed a part of it. They say it is only suspended. Why are they not candid, and say the subject is suspended, as is truly the case, and is now the subject of negotiation by Mr. Pinckney with the Court of London? It is again said, by way of objection, that they have reserved to themselves the right of counter vailing the difference of duty, which we, by our laws, have established between our own citizens and foreigners, and that she will now exercise that right by imposing equal duties on our vessels in the ports of Great Britain. Let me answer this objection to the Treaty, by asking if she had not this same right, and even an unlimited one, of imposing what duties she saw proper on our vessels in her ports before the Treaty? She did not see fit to exercise it then, neither is it probable she will now. And, lest it should be said she will It has been made an objection to the Treaty, now do it, because we are restrained by the Trea- that there is no stipulation that free bottoms shall ty from increasing the duty on her ships beyond make free goods. I answer, it could not be exwhat it now is, and, therefore, she has not the pected that Great Britain, the most powerful same fear operating to prevent it that she had be- nation of the ocean, would ever accede to such a fore, let me remark, that if she was restrained principle; for it is one that was brought into view by any such considerations, this same restraint only by the weaker Powers, to form a combinawould be in force again in two years after the tion against the stronger; and, if properly expresent war ceased, being the period of the exist-amined, must be found a visionary though a pleaence of those articles of the Treaty-a time so short as to render it highly probable she will not think it worth while to make the experiment. A great cry has been made against the commercial part of the Treaty, and I must confess I never could see on what ground, for it is a certain fact we have given Great Britain no new privileges in our Atlantic ports by the Treaty, and no other in their intercourse by the way of Canada than they have given us; and, therefore, it may fairly be said that, by the Treaty, we have given them no new commercial privileges they were sing idea, that can never be practised upon so long as war continues among the nations of the earth. Beside, if such a thing was practicable, I am not sure that we should ever be gainers by entering into such a stipulation; for it is highly probable that, in a war with Great Britain, she would have more of her property shielded by neutral bottoms than we should. We have such a stipulation with France, and we found she did not adhere to it, neither could she, without giving her enemies a great advantage over her. Another objection is made, that provisions are |