The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-04-18
Scat of Gaorr,,;,;ent.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Friday, March :.
DEBATE on MIR. GskcG's Re/aiution.
CMr. Find2z's Dpeeeb esuelnaed.l

deemed war mcclure! Not at any time we
know of by Britai1, the u. S. or probably any
other marion. The Britit! treaty recognizes it
as meafure of pea,e. While we were vet CO.
louies we had recdirie to non-importation BY
voluntary agreemen, in order 70 induce Britain
to repeal the ftampkd after other methods had
been exhauted. Itkvas not coniidercd or treat
ed as war meafur by either party, but by af-
tecting the manufacturing Dteref, &c. in Bri-
tam 1t proc ured the epcll ofthe tamp act The
lame meatnre procuted the repeal in part OF the
revenue acts, what OF them remained unrepeal-
| ed as pledge of the t;aeregu right of the Bri-
tiih parliament to egiflate for the colonies.
produced the war which e&abliihed our inde.
pendence.
During the frt feflion Of the third Conrrefs,
information of The Britifh orders of the sth of
June 1898, and the aggref,ionS in purfuance of
thete orders committed on our commerce, were
offlclaily communicated to Congress by the Pre-
ldent. In comequence of which, MIR. Madfon
| unlimited certain refolutons that are now in
| the hands Of the members, but before any final
decifon on them had taken place, information
was received Of the orders of the 9th of Nov.
l79S, which authorized higher degree of az
greiiion than lad been heretofore committed
Neither the o'ders of June or November were
otherwiie known but by their execution, until
after great damage had been fuitained. In con-
dations an embargo for 80 days was laid after
two days conflltation with an interval between.
with hut doors. The embargo was foon after
extended for 80 days longer.
The embargo however was not intended as
A permanent neaiure, nor expected to have any
permanent eftett, it could not have great ef-
iett except on the Brtiih Wet Indies which
depended on rs for their neceifary fupplies.
The embargo however fecured what was vet in
our harbors until Congrets might have time to
deliberate, and Britain did not treat it as war
meafure.
The firft refut of that elaboration was re-
toution for tequeitrating the debts due to Brit
iih fubjects by citizens of this country, which
was at this time Z large amount. After this had
been conhdered for comfortable time and af-
forwards dlicuiiec, it was dropped, and A refn-
luton for non-inIercourfe with the Britilh do
mnions tubmittedto the Houfe. This refo!u-
ton was with frequent intervals a fubiett of de-
liberation for fome weeks before the HOMIE of
Representatives, and in all its ftages was fup-
ported by majority. While this fubiec was
before the HoUfe and before bill was ordered
to be reported, information received that
Britain on the sth of January, had favoraby
reverted the orders of the 9th of Nov preced-
ing, and that our commerce was again admitted
to be conducted on fuch footing as we have
iince acquIetced in with little complaint. But
the progreis OF the non-intercourfe bill was not
therefore Popped; the Britiih court had inued
orders on one principle in June, and upon ano-
| Their principle in Nov. and third principle in
March. Three orders eiIentially different from
each other in feven months and might probably
nave made another change before this informa-
ton arrived, the bill therefore pafed the Houle
by greater majority than it is believed any o.
Their commercial mesiure during that felton, Il
,a1 alT 10 h
rty till the order for the lart reading, when the
votes being equal the bill was refuied the laft
reading by the Vice-Prelident's vote. The pre-
iident had recently nominated Mr.. Jay envoy
extraordinary to the court of London, this in
| duced number ofthe members of the Senate
| to believe that 1t was not necefidry to pars the
non-intercourfe bill into law.
Mr. +. fad, he had iutficient ground TO be-
Ieve that the PRECEDENT delayed the nomination
of an envoy for comfortable time, waiting for
the progreis Of the bill and that he did not no.
inmate the envoy with an intention to defeat
the lait vote on the bill, but rather to correC
| pond with 1T. Thus far he well recolleGted
that on the day that the non-intercourC. reColu.
ton was fubmitted to the Houfe. in converfa-
tion with one of the heads of departments on
the lubiect of the Preiident Tending an envoy
which was then much talked of, the gentleman
! iaid that the PRECEDENT would fend an envoy as
! foon as Congrefs had flrenghened his hand:
with any fufficent expreGon of the public will
that Madifon's refolutions appeared fuitable ear.
! ly in the FELTON, was generally admitted, but tbey
were dropped perhaps as not corresponding &c
the encreafed aggrefiions ince Nov. The re.
iolution for fequeftration, he faid, he did moi
approve, but the refoution for non-intercourft
then fubmitted to the Houfe by Mr. Clark Of
New-J erfey, he tho't would anfwer the pur
pofe, and that if it pa1ed Congrefs, the Pref.
dent would fend an envoy. 1t did pats the
Houfe of Representatives. by large majority
and the fecond reading in the Senate before III,
envoy was nominated by the Prefident. Theft
circumstances are mentioned to demonarat,
that at no period heretofore, either before OF
fnce the declaration of Independence, was re
fuing to import or confume the produce o.
manufactures ofany country deemed war mea
fure; il cannot be 70 unlefs fome treaty is there
by broken. The Britih treaty fecurcs thi
right TO both parties.
Mr.. F. faid it was true that not only on tht
locations aforementioned, but on the iifcufi
on of the refolution fubmitted by Mr.. Madifop
ON the refolution for All embargo and the oppo
fiton TO the Britilh treaty being ratified, Their
were members and Others who declared theft
meaiures would lead TO war, &c. 1t was par
tiCut1rivr e, xvter he &C 81,