Plenipotentiary at Paris and the French government will speedily enable Congress to decide, with greater advantage, on the course due to the rights, the interests, and the honor of our country. JAMES MADISON.

Washington, June 1, 1812.

The Committee on Foreign Relations to whom was referred the Message of the President of the U. States of the 1st of June, 1812,

REPORT

That after the experience which the U. States have had of the great injustice of the British government towards them, exemplified by so many acts of violence and oppression, it will be more difficult to justify to the impartial world their patient forbearance, than the measure to which it has become necessary to resort, to avenge the wrongs, and vindicate the rights and honor of the nation. Your committee are happy to observe on a dispassionate reveiw of the conduct of the U. States, that they see in it no cause for censure.

If a long forbearance under injuries ought ever to be considered a virtue in any nation, it is one which peculiarly becomes the U. States. No people ever had stonger motives to cherish peace-none have ever cherished it with greater sincerity and zeal.

But the period has now arrived, when the U. States must support their character and station among the nations of the earth, or submit to the most shameful degradation. Forbearance has ceased to be a virtue. War on the one side, and peace on the other, is a situation as ruinous as it is disgraceful. The mad ambition, the lust of power, and commercial avarice of G. Britain, arrogating to herself the complete dominion of the ocean, and exercising over it an unbounded and lawless tyranny, have left to neutral nations an alternative only, between the base surrender of their rights, and a manly vindication of them. Happily for the U. States, their destiny, under the aid of heaven, is in their own hands. The crisis is formidable only by their love of peace. As soon as it becomes a duty to relinquish that situation, danger disappears. They have suffered no wrongs, they have received no insults, however great, for which they cannot obtain redress.

More than seven years have elapsed, since the commencement of this system of hostile aggression by the British government, on the rights and interests of the U. States. The manner of its commencement was not less hostile, than the spirit with which it has been prosecuted. The U. States have invariably done every thing in their power to preserve the relations of friendship with G. Britain. Of this disposition they gave a distinguished proof, at the moment when they were made the victims of an opposite policy. The wrongs of the last war had not been forgotten at the commencement of the present one. They warned us of dangers, against which it was sought to provide. As early as the year 1804, the minister of the U. States at London was instructed, to invite the British government to enter into a negociation on all the points on which a collision might arise between the two countries, in the course of the war, and to propose to it an arrangement of their claims on fair and reasonable conditions. The invitation was accepted. A negociation had commenced and was depending, and nothing had occurred to excite a doubt that it would not terminate to the satisfaction of both the parties. It was at this time, and under these circumstances, that an attack was made, by surprise, on an important branch of the American commerce, which affected every part of the U. States, and involved many of their citizens in ruin.

The commerce on which this attack was so unexpectedly made, was between the U. States and the colonies of France, Spain, and other enemies of G. Britain. A commerce just in itself-sanctioned by the example of G. Britain in regard to the trade with her own colonies-sanctioned by a solemn act between the two governments in the last war; and sanctioned by the practice of the British government in the present war, more than two years having then elapsed, without any interference with it.

The injustice of this attack could only be equalled by the absurdity of the pretext alledged for it. It was pretended by the British government, that in case of war, her enemy had no right to modify its colonial regulations, so as to mitigate the calamities of war to the inhabitants of its colonies. This pretension, peculiar to G. Britain, is utterly in compatible with the right of sovereignty, in every independ ent state. If we recur to the well established and univer

sally admitted law of nations, we shall find no sanction to it, in that venerable code. The sovereignty of every state is co-extensive with its dominions, and cannot be abrogated, or curtailed in its rights, as to any part, except by conquest. Neutral nations have a right to trade to every port of either belligerent, which is not legally blockaded-and in all articles which are not contraband of war. Such is the absurdity of this pretension, that your committee are aware, especially after the able manner in which it has been heretofore refuted, and exposed, that they would offer an insult to the understanding of the House, if they enlarged on it, and if any thing could add to the high sense of the injustice of the British government in the transaction, it would be the contrast which her conduct exhibits in regard to this trade, and in regard to a similar trade by neutrals with her own colonies. It is known to the world, that G. Britain regu lates her own trade, in war and in peace, at home and in her colonies, as she finds for her interest-that in war she relaxes the restraints of her colonial system in favor of the colonies, and that it never was suggested that she had not a right to do it--or that a neutral in taking advantage of the relaxation violated a belligerent right of her enemyBut with G. Britain every thing is lawful. It is only in a trade with her enemies that the U. States can do wrong.. With them all trade is unlawful.

In the year 1798, an attack was made by the British government on the same branch of our neutral trade, which had nearly involved the two countries in war. That difference, however, was amicably accommodated. The pretension was withdrawn, and reparation made to the U. States, for the losses which they had suffered by it. It was fair to infer from that arrangement, that the commerce was deemed by the British government lawful, and that it would not be again disturbed.

Had the British government been resolved to contest this trade with neutrals, it was due to the character of the British nation that the decision should be made known to the government of the U. States. The existence of a negociation which had been invited by our government, for the purpose of preventing differences by an amicable arrangement of their respective pretensions, gave a strong claim to the noification, while it afforded the fairest opportunity for it.

But a very different policy animated the then cabinet of England. The liberal confidence and friendly overtures of the U. States, were taken advantage of to ensnare them. Steady to its purpose, and inflexibly hostile to this country, the British government calmly looked forward to the moment, when it might give the most deadly wound to our interests. A trade, just in itself, which was secured by so many strong and sacred pledges, was considered safe.Our citizens with their usual industry and enterprise had embarked in it a vast proportion of their shipping, and of their capital, which were at sea, under no other protection than the law of nations, and the confidence which they reposed in the justice and friendship of the British nation. At this period the unexpected blow was given. Many of our vessels were seized, carried into port, and condemned by a tribunal, which, while it professes to respect the law of nations, obeys the mandates of its own government. Hundreds of other vessels were driven from the ocean, and trade itself in a great measure suppressed. The effect produced by this attack on the lawful commerce of the U. States, was such, as might have been expected from a virtuous, independent, and highly injured people. But one sentiment pervaded the whole American nation. No local interests were regarded-no sordid motives felt. Without looking to the parts which suffered most, the invasion of our rights was considered a common cause, and from one extremity of our Union to the other, was heard, the voice of an united people, calling on their government to avenge their wrongs, and vindicate the rights and honor of the country.

From this period the British government has gone on in a continued encroachment on the rights and interest of the U. States, disregarding in its course, in many instances, obligations which have heretofore been held sacred by eivilized nations.

In May, 1806, the whole coast of the continent, from the Elbe to Brest, inclusive, was declared to be in a state of blockade. By this act, the well established principles of the law of nations, principles which have served for ages as guides, and fixed the boundary between the rights of belligerents and neutrals, were violated; by the law of nations, as recognized by G. Britain herself, no blockade is lawful, unless it be sustained by the application of an adequate

t

force, and that an adequate force was applied to this blockade, in its full extent, ought not to be pretended. Whether G. Britain was able to maintain, legally, so extensive a blockade, considering the war in which she is engaged, requiring such extensive naval operations, is a question which is not necessary at this time to examine. It is sufficient to be known, that such force was not applied, and this is evident from the terms of the blockade itself, by which, comparatively, an inconsiderable portion of the coast only was declared to be in a state of strict and rigorous blockade. The objection to the measure is not diminished by that circumstance. If the force was not applied, the blockade was unlawful, from whatever cause the failure might proceed. The belligerent who institutes the blockade, cannot absolve itself from the obligation to apply the force under any pretext whatever. For a belligerent to relax a blockade, which it could not maintain, it would be a refinement in injustice, not less insulting to the understanding, than repugnant to the law of nations. To claim merit for the mitigation of an evil, which the party either had not the power, or found it inconvenient to inflict, would be a new mode of encroaching on neutral rights. Your committee think it just to remark, that this act of the Bri tish government does not appear to have been adopted in the sense in which it has been since construed. On consideration of all the circumstances attending the measure, and particularly the character of the distinguished statesman who announced it, we are persuaded that it was con ceived in a spirit of conciliation, and intended to lead to an accommodation of all differences between the U. States and G. Britain. His death disappointed that hope, and the act has since become subservient to other purposes. It has been made by his successors, a pretext for that vast system of usurpation, which has so long oppressed and harrassed

our commerce.

The next act of the British government which claims our attention is the Orders in Council of Jan. 7, 1807, by which neutral powers are prohibited trading from one port to another of France or her allies, or any other country with which G. Britain might not freely trade. By this order the tension of England, heretofore claimed by every other power, to prohibit neutrals disposing of parts of their cargoes at

pre