Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1832-02-23
DEBATE IN THE SENATE ON
MIR. VAN BUREN's NOMINATION,
CONTINUED.
REMARKS OF MR.. CLAY,
Of Kentucky.

Mr.. CLAY said, after the most delibe-
rate consideration, l regret that l find
myself utterly unable to reconcile with
the duty | owe to my country, vote in
favor Of this nomination. i regret it, be-
cause in all the past strife Of party, the
relations of ordinary civility and courtesy
were never interrupted between the gen
tleman whose name is before us, and my
self But l regard my obligations to the
people of the United States, and to the
honor and character oftheir government,
as paramount to every private considera-
ton. There was no necessity known to.
us for the departure of this gentleman
from the United States, prior to the sub
mission Of his name to the senate. Great
Britain was represented here by dplo-
matte agent, having no higher rank than
that of a charge des affairs We were
represented in England by one of equal
rank; one who had shed lustre upon his
country by his literary character: one
whom it may be justly said that, in no
respect, was he inferior to the gentleman
before us. Although shall not contro-
vert the right Of the president, in an eX-
traordinary case, to send abroad a pub
lie minister, without the advice and con-
sent of the senate, do not admit that it
ever ought to be done without the exis-I
tence of some special cause to be COM
municated to the senate. We have re-,
ceived no communication Of the existence
of any such special cause. This view Of
the matter might not have been sufficient
alone to justify rejection Of this nomi-
nation; but it is sufficient to authorisat us
to examine the subject with as perfect
freedom as we could have done if the
minister had remained in the United
States, and awaited the decision of the
senate. consider myself, therefore, not
committed by the separate and unadvised
act Of the present in despatching Mr.
/ Van Buren,, in the vacation of the senate,
and not very long time before it was to
assemble.
My main objection to the confirmation
of his appointment, arises out Of his in
structions to the late minister Of the Uni
ted States at the court of Great Britain.
The attention Of the senate has been al
ready called to parts ofthose Instructions;
but there are other parts Of them, in my
opinion, highly reprehensible. Speaking
Of the colonial question, he says: "In re-
viewing the events which have preceded,
and more or less contributed to a result so
much to be regretted, there will be found
three grounds on which we are most as
sailable. First, in our too long and too
tenac;ously resisting the right of Great
Britain to impose protecting duties in
| her colonies:" "and,
thirdly,in omitting to accept the terms Of
fered by the act Of parliament of July,
1926, after the subject had been brought
before congress, and deliberately acted
upon by our government. 4
| You will therefore see the propriety of
possessing yourself fully of all the explain
atory and mitigating circumstances con-
nected with them that you may be ena-
bled to obviatc, as far as practicable, the
unfavorable impression which they have
produced" And after reproaching the
late administration with setting up claims
for the first time, which they explicitly
abandoned, he says, in conclusion, 81
will add nothing as to the improperly of
suffering any feelings that find their ORR
gin in the past pretensions of this govern
ment to have adverse influence upon the
present conduct Of Great Britain"
On our side, according to MIR. Van
Buren,, all was wrong ION the British side,
all was right. We brought forward no.
thing but claims and preiensions; the Brit
ish government asserted on the other
hand clear and incontestible right.-
We erred in too tenaciously and too long
insisting upon our pretensions and not
! yielding at once to the force of their just
demands. And Mr. McLane was com
manded to avail himself Of all the circum-
stances in his power to mitigate our offence,
and to dissuade the British government
from allowing their feelings Justly incur
red by the past conduct OF the party drlv-
en- from power, to have an adverse inilu-
ence towards the American party now in
power. Sir, was this becoming language
from one independent nation to another'
Was it proper in the mouth of an Ameri-
can minister? Was it in conformity with
the high, unsullicd aud digni6ed charac-
ter of our previous diplomacy9 Was it
not, on the contrary, the language of an
humble vassal to proud and naughty
lord2 Was it not prostrating and dcgra-
ding the American eagle before the Brit
ish lion'
Let us examine little these preien-
iions which the American Government so
unjustly put forward and so pcrtinacious-
ly maintained The American Govern
mcnt contcndcd that the production Of