bringing the question before their lordships. To their feelings he left it to repeal measures which were proved to be in direct violation of the laws of nations, and the eter nal principles of justice. In the interval between the last and present session, his majesty's ministers had full opportunity of abandoning the fatal policy that had been so rashly adopted. It was not now his intention to trouble their lordships with a recapitulation of the arguments that he then urged against what the event had proved to be an act of the most egregious folly of the most onexampled ignorance that ever disgraced the councils of a state. Since August last, there was not one shadow of a pretence for continuing that most impolitic system maintained in the orders in council. That was the question to which he wished to bring them. If, in August last, an offer was made to repeal the embargo, its continuance at this day is the effect of the orders in council. The position was not to be controverted, that, from the 23d of August, if the embargo has continued, it is solely, exclusively, totally and absolutely an account of the orders in council. They have produced the embargo, and by their effects must the question be tried. There were two points of view in which he wished to consider the subject: one would embrace the consequences of the orders in council, since August last; the other, the measures that it would be necessary to take for putting an end to this mischievous system. By the shameless proceedings in the Baltic, we destroyed the neutral commerce in that quarter. Nothing remained for us but America. After the unfortunate change in the North of Europe, it was our policy to conciliate the United States. Notwithstanding all the clamour that was so in dustriously raised against it, that was our true policy; it had been so since 1783. At the commencement of the late war, the first care of Mr. Pitt was, that all differences with America should be adjusted. The treaty was consequently concluded, which had the effect, notwithstanding the accidental subjects of dispute that sometimes arose, of preserving harmony between the two countries during the whole of the war. When towards the conclusion of the conclusion of that war, the Northera powers combined against the maritime rights of Great Britain, the United States became no party to that confederacy, but adhered to the treaty. How had we to rejoice, that we had a family of our own in another hemisphere, capable of taking off all

our commerce! After those fatal councils, which termiated in the battles of Ulm and Austerlitz, and laid the Continent of Europe at the feet of France, how consoling would it not have been for us to say, there is a country which is beyond the reach of the arms or influence of that predominating power! When he was called to his majesty's councils two years ago, he recollected the policy of Mr. Pitt, and he adopted that policy. That was the policy which, on every view of the subject, he felt he ought to have pursued. No sooner, however, was the treaty signed, than every artifice was used to disgust the country with an arrangement of the conditions of which the persons who excited the clamour against it knew nothing. That was enough to induce them to persuade the people of this country that their rights were sacrificed, their interests betrayed. During all this uproar, the government, of which he made a part, were silent. The treaty came back, and he defied any one to point ont a single article in it, in which the rights or interests of the country were sacrificed or betrayed. Nay, so far from it, he procured an article to be inserted in the treaty which went directly to recognize our maritime rights, which recalled that which the letter of the noble lord had abandoned. A change of administration took place, and those who succeeded them resolved to adopt quite a contrary course of policy. Their conduct towards Ireland, their conduct towards the Northern Powers, their domestic policy, their finance measures, all, all were directly the reverse of the conduct of their predecessors. But in no instance was it more contrary than in what respected America: his policy was to conciliate, theirs was to exasperate the government and the people of America. Their policy, he had not the smallest doubt upon his mind, was to force this country into a war with America. That such was their intention, he might appeal to facts rather than arguments. They added insult to injury. Their policy is the cause that there are neither commercial, nor any other relations subsisting between us and America. Such were the consequences of their system. They violate the independence of a neutral power, and tell them they shall trade with England only. All your ships shall be brought to Eng land. They shall be subject to the caprices of our coancils; and not satisfied with this, they add insult to injury, and say you shall pay duty in our ports. My lords, you

lost America, by taxation, and as if there was a fatality in your resolutions on this subject, you are about to plunge into a war for the maintainance of the same principle. I told you, last year, the effects your orders in council would inevitably produce, both here and in America. Instead of producing revenue to support you in the war against France, they are likely to involve you in hostility with America. The sublime invention of making the subjects of Buonaparte pay the expences of the war against France, has had ample scope for operation. Let us see what the result has been. In the last year this duty produced 31,000l. Thirty-one thousand pounds is the duty levied on the necessities of Buonaparte's subjects, through the medium of neutrals. This is the large sum proceeding from ships brought in by force. Such is the resource by which ministers proposed to meet the exigen cies of this great crisis. A vulgar notion prevails in America, and it is sedulously encouraged by the advocates of France, that it is the intention of this government to avail themselves of any favourable opportunity of re-entering into possession of their former rights and authority in that country. No statesman, no man of common under. standing, could give credit to any such intention, but still there is no doubt that the opinion prevails in the United States. A great proportion of the inhabitants of that country are persuaded, that it is the intention of the British Government to re-establish the old colonial con. nexion. The system of the present government was cal culated to encourage that idea; that it was intended to subject the commerce of America to the former state of colonial monopoly in the hands of Great Britain. That was the sum and substance of the orders in council. When he said, on a former occasion, that the president's offer was not one of equal justice, he was not in possession of the information now before their lordships. The documents were before the House, and by them let the question be tried. So far from having offered more to France and less to England, America did quite the contrary. She offered less to France and more to England. Such was the feeling in America, such was the fair construction of the president's message, and in that light was it understood by the legislature of the United States. These all incontestibly prove that the larger offer was to England, and the lesser to France. [His lordship here read several extracts from

the president's message.] The proposal to both the belligerents, as it is truly stated in that document, was modified according to their relative strength and situation. To England he said, repeal your orders in council, I will suspend the embargo as against you, and that state will eventually lead to war with France. The proposal to England contained, in fact, two conditions, eventual war with France, and the immediate repeal of the embargo. To France the proposal was, repeal your decree, and if England does not follow your example, I will continue the embargo against her. This was the sense in which the proposal was understood by the Committee for foreign affairs, to whom the message was referred. It would also appear from a reference to the instructions 40 Messrs. Armstrong and Pinkney. The threat of war was exactly held out to France as it was to England. It was no light matter to have a fact of this importance misrepresented in this House. The language to France was, you must repeal your decrees, unless you mean to force a contest with the United States. It was material to shew when so much stress was laid on the difference of the conditions to both the govern ments, that they were precisely the same not only in substance but in words. The taking off the embargo as against England, must have produced war with France. What would their lordships say if he read to them from Mr. Canning's letter, the admission of the precise fact. In this let er he is stating to Mr. Pinkney what he wishes to be understood in America. This document he read in an American newspaper; he had to other authority. The House had addressed his majesty for papers, but this did not appear among them. In the reply to it, it was suggested that America would arm her merchant vessels against France, that collisions between armed vessels would produce war, and that war with France would produce virtual, if not formal alliance with England. He did not wish now to allude to the former conduct of the American government, but never was there a more fair overture than that made in the month of August to both countries, When the orders in council were issued, the American government adopted measures as moderate as could well be conceived. It did not shut itself up in sullen silence, but made the overture to return to the ancient friendly relations. They established the orders in council in the presumed acquiescence of America in the French decrees.

America offered to resist them even to the extremity of war, The moment the offer was made, we had not an inch of ground to stand on. The presumed acquiescnce in the decrees were the foundation of the orders in council, It is so described in the two notes of Mr. Erskine; it is so described in the dispatches of the secretary of state. That was now gone, and every hour that was passed since that overture was made, has been a continuance of the most wanton, ruinous, reprehensible, and impolitic system that ever was. Can I say more? By accepting the offer they would procure the repeal of the French decrces, which is perhaps their chief object, whatever they may say, or obtain the monopoly of the American commerce, and eventual alliance with that power. The object of ministers seemed to be to compel all nations to join us in war against France, as France had compelled the continental powers to join the confederacy against us. There were two roads of arriving at this object, one of injustice, the other of cons ciliation. Ministers had chosen the former. [His lordship next commented on Mr. Secretary Canning's letter to Mr. Pinkney] He objected to the principle sanctioned in that letter, as well as in the declaration on occasion of the attack on Copenhagen. It was monstrous and shocking. It did not follow that because France was unjust, we had a righ to be so too. In that letter the principle is maintained that a power has to retort upon its enemy the evils of his own injustice, and that if a third party suffers, he must seek his redress, as against the original aggressor. It would follow from this, that because Buonaparte had placed his brother upon the throne of Spain, we had a right to place any king that we may chuse on the throne of Sicily. Such was the fair deduction from the mon strous principle contained in that paper. And here be could not but remark with the utmost indignation the tone of irony and sarcasm contained in this letter, and addressed to the representative of a neutral, if not friendly power. This tone may do well in argument in a popular as sembly; but it was neither suited to the dignity of those to whom it was addressed, nor those from whom it proceeded. The destruction of the commerce of Great Bri tain was the avowed object of the enemy. To produce this, he obtains almost an universal interdict against your commerce. He creates such a combination against you as never before existed. One nation, fortunately beyond