"orders in council of November preceding had issued, although they were not othcially communicated to our go

vernment.

On the 11th of that month, those 'orders did actually issue, declaring that all the ports of France, of her allies, afd of any other country at war with England, and all other ports of Europe, from which, although not at war with England, the British flag was excluded, should thenceforth be considered as if the same were actually blockaded that all trade in articles of the produce or manufacture of the said countries should be deemed unlawful; and that every Vessel trading from or to the said countries, together with all goods and merchandize on board, and also all articles of the produce or manufacture of the said countries, should be liable to capture and condemnation.

These orders cannot be defended on the ground of their being intended as retaliating on account of the Berlin decree, as construed, and uniforinly executed from its date to the 18th of Sep. -1807, its construction and execution having till then infringed no neutral rights. For certainly, the monstrous doctrine will not be asserted, even by the British government, that neutral nations are bound to resist, not only the acts of belligerent powers which violate their rights, but also those municipal regulations, which, however they may injure the enemy, are lawful, and do not affect the legitimate rights of the neutral. The only retaliation to be used in such cases, must be such as will · operate on the enemy, without infringing the rights of the neutral. If solely intended as a retaliation on the Berlin decree, as executed prior to the month of September, the British orders in council should have been confined to forbidding the introduction into Great Britain, of French or enemy's merchandize, and the admission into British ports of neutral vessels, coming from a French or other enemy's port. Indeed, the ground of retaliation on account of any culpable acquiescence of neutrals in decreos, violating their rights, is a bandoned by the very tenor of the orders; their operation being extended to those countries from which the Bri tish flag was excluded, such as Austria, although such countries were neither at war with Great Britain, nor had passed any decree in any way affecting or connected with neutral rights.

Nor are the orders justifiable on the pretence of an acquiesence on the part of the United States, in the French decree as construed and executed subsequent to the 18th of Sept. 1807, when it became an evident infraction of their rights, and such as they were bound to oppose. For their minister at Paris immediately made the necessary remonstrances, and the orders were issued not only without having, ascertained whether the United States would acquiesce in the injurious alteration of the French decree, but more than one month before that alteration was known in America. It may even be asserted that the alteration was not known in England when the orders in council were issued; the instruction of the 18th of September, 1807, which gave the new and injurious construction, not having been promulgated in France, and its first publication having been made in December, 1807, and by the American government itself.

The British orders in council are, therefore, unjustifiable on the principle of retaliation, even giving to that prin ciple all the latitude which has ever been avowedly contended for.-They are in open violation of the solemn declaration made by the British minister in December, 1806; that retaliation on the part of Great Britain would depend on the execution of an unlawful decree, and on the acquiescence of neutral nations in such infraction of their rights. And they were also issued, notwithstanding the official communication made by the ministers of the United States, that the French decree was construed and executed so as not to infringe their neutral rights,and without any previous notice or intimation, denying the correctness of that statement.

The Berlin'decree as expounded and executed subsequent to the 18th of Sept. 1807, and the British orders in council of the 11th of November ensuing, are therefore, as they affect the United States, contemporaneous aggressions of the belligerent powers, equally unprovoked and equally indefensible on the presumed ground of acqiescence. These, together with the Milan decree of Dec. 1807, which filled the measure, would on the principle of self-defence have justified immediate hostilities against both nations on the part of the United States.They thought it more eligible in the first instance by withdrawing their tessels from the ocean, to avoid war, at

exclusively, one of the belligerents, would be war with the other. Considered merely as a question of profit, it would be much more eligible, at once to raise the embargo in relation to Great Britain, as we would then, at least, have the advantages of a direct market with the consumer. But the proposition can only be defended on the ground that France is the only aggressor, and, that having no just reason to complain of England, it is our duty to submit to her orders. On that in admissible supposition, it would not only be more candid, but also more dignified, as well as a more advantageous course, openly to join England. and make war against France. The object would be clearly understood, an ally would be obtained, and the meanness of submission might be better palliated. It appears unnecessary to pursue any further the examination of propositions, which the difficult situation of the United States could alone have suggested, and which will prove more inadmissible, or impracticable, as the subject is more thoroughly investigated. The alternative is painful; it is between a continual suspension of commerce, and war with both England and France. But the choice must ultimately be made between the two; and it is important that we should be prepared for either the one or the other.

The aggressions of England and France, collectively affecting almost the whole of our commerce, and persisted in, notwithstanding repeated remonstrances, explanations, and propositions the most candid and unexceptionable, arc, to all intents and purposes, a maritime war waged by both nations against the United States. It cannot be denied, that the ultimate and only effectual mode of resisting that warfare, af persisted in, is WAR. A permanent suspension of commerce, after repeated and unavailing efforts to obtain peace, would not properly be resistance: it would be withdrawing from the contest, and abandoning our indisputable right freely to navigate the ocean. The present unsettled state of the world, the extraordinary situation in which the United States are placed, and the necessity, if war be resorted to, of making it at the same time against both nations, and these the two most powerful of the world, are the principal causes of hesitation. There would be none in resorting to that remedy, however calamitons, if

a selection could be made on any principle of justice, or without a sacrifice of national independence.

On a question of such difficulty, involving the most important interests of the union, and which has not, perhaps, until lately,been sufficiently considered, your committee think the house alone competent to pronounce a decisive opinion; and they have, in this report, confined themselves to an exposition of the subject, and to such introductory resolutions, as will be equally applicable to either alternative. The first of these being merely declaratory of a determination not to submit to foreign aggressions, may, perhaps,at a first view, appear superfluous. It is, however, believed by the committee, that a pledge by the representatives of the nation, that they will not abandon its essential rights, will not at this critical moment be unacceptable. The misapprehensions which seem to have existed, and the misrepresentations which have been circulated, respecting the state of our foreign relations, render also such declaration expedient. And it may not be useless that every foreign nation should understand that its aggressions never will be justified or encouraged by any description of American citizens. For the question for every citizen now is, whether he will rally round the govern ment of his choice, or enlist under foreign banners? Whether he will be for his country, or against his country?

The committee concluded by proposing the following resolutions: mit the following resolutions : The committee respectfully sub

1. Resolved, That the United States cannot without a sacrifice of their rights, honour, and independence, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain and France.

2. Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit by law the admission into the ports and harbours of the United States of all public or private armed or unarmed ships or vessels belonging to Great Britain or France, or to any other of the belligerent powers having in force orders or decrees violating the lawful commerce, and neutral rights of the United States; and also the importation of any goods, wares, of

merchandize, the growth, produce or manufacture of the dominions of any of the said powers, or imported from any place in the possession of either.

8. Resolved, That measures ought to be immediately taken for placing the country in a more complete state of defence.

FOREIGN RELATIONS.

Dec. 1.-The house again in committee of the whole. The first resolation under consideration in the following words;

Resolved, That the United States cannot without a sacrifice of their rights, honour and independence, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain and France.

The question was taken on the resolution and carried nem. con. The second resolution having been read in the following words:

Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit by law, the admission into the ports of the United States all public or private armed or unarmed ships or vessels belonging to Great Britain or France or to any other of the belligerent powers having in force orders or decrees violating the Jawful commerce and neutral rights of the United States; and also the importation of any goods, wares or merchandize the growth, produce or manufacture of the dominions of any of the said powers, or imported from any place in the possession

of either.

Mr. Randolph called for a division of the resolution, taking the question on each clause, of it separately.

The question was taken on the first clause, ending with the words "United States." Carried without opposition.

The second clause was agreed to by the committee, 84 to 21.

The third resolution in the following words having been read; Resolved that measures ought to be immediately taken for placing

the country in a more complete state of defence

The resolution was agreed to without opposition.

The committee then rose, and reported the resolutions to the house.

The first resolution was read.

Mr. Dana moved to insert between the words to and the in the third line of the resolution the words "abandon the navigation of the ocean in consequence of the"-Negatived by yeas and nays 90 to 26. A discussion arose on a point of order, which occupied the house till four o'clock, when they adjourned.

The majority of the representatives from the state of Massechusetts in the American congress, have published an address to their countrymen on the subject of the embargo laws; in which amongst various other just remarks, they state as follows:

"Our subsequent observation of the course of events which are taking place in Europe, our reflexions upon the present tumultuous and unsettled state of the nations of the world, and the uncertain prospects which still hang over the future destiny of most of them, have afforded to us abundant sources of satisfaction and selfgratulation, that the American nation has been enabled, through the wisdom and moderation of her public councils, to withdraw herself for a season from the scene of those convulsions, which have rocked Europe to her centre, torn up the established foundations of states and kingdoms, and left us almost the only remaining monument of independence, freedom, and self-government, which is not swept from it's base, and swallowed up in the surge of one or the other of the great belligerents. If we must, at last, in vindication of our national rights and insulted sovereignty, put our fortunes afloat on the warring elements of the world,

it could not well have been at a more threatening hour, nor on a more troubled ocean. There was at least an equal chance, that it might hereafter be under a more serene sky, or with elements less agitated by an universal conflict. As yet, we have seen nothing in the suspension of our commerce which reconciles us to the opinion, that we should probably before this time have obtained our just purposes, with less injury and distress to our country, by the alternative of war. And we have certainly seen in it nothing which could compare for a moment with the degrading attitude

of unqualified submission and colonial vassalage, and with the loss of that national character which, when once tarnished, is ruined beyond redemption.

"We trust that the late expression of the sentiments and firmness of a vast majority of the American nation, through the medium of their elective franchise, hus at length dissipated the delusive expectations entertained by foreign governments, that the American people would not maintain with constancy, firmness, and energy, those laws which their public councils had constitutionally pronounced, until they are constitutionally repealed."

THE BAR.

To the Editor.

I was much pleased with reading the, observations of a correspondent in your last number, on the licence of tongue at the bar, and feel obliged to him for so able and just a reprehension of a practice, which is a disgrace to our courts of law. The liberty which counsel sometimes take in the examination of witnesses, as well as in their addresses to the jury, are so devoid of feeling, and of that courtesy which one gentleman expects from another, that it loudly calls for the censure of every honest man and good citizen.

I have sometimes been quite astonished to read in reports of trials, the impertinent and unhandsome questions that have been put to rerespectable witnesses, gentlemen who have simply attended to give evidence to plain matter of fact. What can we think of that advocate, who, in order to brow-beat a witness, whom he knows to be a most respectable tradesman, and of unblenished integrity, asks him in open

made public, if he has never taken up his abode in Newgate? or, let me see, Sir, did not you once stand in the pillory?

The law is ranked among the li beral professions, and those who practice it, have no doubt received a liberal education: but the licence of tongue at the bar, is perhaps the most illiberal conduct that can be mentioned: it is a wilful and unprovoked attack upon a man's cha racter, which the injured party has seldom or never an opportunity effectually to repel. The judge who presides has a most unquestionable authority to defend the witness from such cruel attacks, and to me it is matter of no little surprise, that we do not oftener hear of the interference of the bench on such occasions.

With regard to the question whe ther an action can be brought against a counsel, for gross misre presentation of a man's character in court, it appears from Blackstone, that under certain limitations it can. Com. Vol. 3. p. 29. it is said: "It hath been holden that a coun