of each of the two countries, residing in the other, shall have time to remove with their effects, &c. which is in every respect proper.

The twenty-seventh article provides for reciprocally giving up certain fugitives from justice, which is not objectionable.

The twenty-eighth article respects the time of the duration of the treaty.

Having examined the treaty at large, with candor, and with the best judgment I possess, I find in it so much to condemn, and so little to applaud, and some of the objectionable parts are so formidable in themselves, that it is wonderful to me, that the treaty should have found an advocate upon its merits, in the United States. Viewing the subject as I do, and believing it my duty to exercise my discretion upon it, nothing, contained in it, can justify me in giving my vote for the necessary provisions to give it efficacy.

[Mr. Giles, after apologizing for the time he had already consumed, proceeded to consider the probable consequences of refusing, or giving efficacy to the treaty.]

Gentlemen in favor of making the provision have suggested two consequences resulting from a refusal, of a very serious nature. The one, what is termed by them the hostility of departments of government, which would necessarily eventuate in a total dissolution of the government itself. The other, a war with Great Britain. If either of these consequences would result, I would vote for the necessary provisions, although the vote would be more against my feelings than any vote I ever before gave. Whether either of these consequences will result, cannot be positively ascertained, but by experiment. The subject, however, like all others, is susceptible of a certain degree of reasoning and calculation.

It should be recollected, that the House is now engaged in the exercise of its constitutional rights. It is called upon to make provision for carrying into ef

fect the British treaty. Two things naturally present themselves to its consideration. The one, the expediency of the object of expenditure itself, for which the appropriation is required; the second, the ways and means of raising the money. It has been settled by the House, that both are within the constitutional discretion of the House. The President would deprive the House of the right of judging of the expediency of the expenditure, and limit its discretion to the ways and means of furnishing the supplies. This point being previously settled, I shall not enlarge upon it. I propose to give the history of the rise and progress of the treaty. I will be correct as to facts, and precise as to dates. Very shortly after Great Britain became a party to the war against France, the President proclaimed the United States to be in a state of impartial neutrality. The proclamation was dated 22d of April, 1793. An attempt had been made, and was at that time continued, to terminate the differences, which subsisted between the United States and Great Britain, growing out of the inexecution of the treaty of peace. This attempt proved unsuccessful. On the 16th of June, 1793, Great Britain issued an order, which affected the rights of neutral vessels. This order, and the acts committed under it, served to increase the causes of dispute between the two countries.

On the meeting of Congress, in the succeeding fall, the President communicated to them all the negociations which had taken place between the two countries, intimated, that negociation did not promise a favorable issue, and that it was left with Congress to say, what further was to be done. In this critical situation of affairs, Congress took the subject into consideration. Great Britain was, at that time at least, considered as the aggressing nation. The first measure of self-protection proposed, was a restriction of the commerce of Great Britain with the United States: this measure was objected to, as being too strong as a commercial measure, and too weak as a political one.

As far, however, as a vote was taken upon it, a majori ty of the house appeared in favor of that proceeding. On the 6th of November, 1793, an additional order was issued, the purport of which was, to take and bring to legal adjudication all neutral vessels bound to French ports. This additional evidence of hostility gave rise to three other measures; the one was an embargo for a limited time, which was effected; the second was the suspension of commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain; the third, a sequestration, or rather the arrestation of debts due to British subjects. The proposition for the arrestation of debts, was moved the 27th of March: the proposition for the suspension of intercourse, 7th of April, 1794. On the 4th of April, 1794, the President laid before the House a communication from Mr. Pinckney, minister from the United States to Great Britain, containing a conversation between Mr. Pinckney and Lord Grenville, of a very extraordinary nature, which always appeared to me to be the ground work of the change, which shortly afterwards took place in the conduct of the Executive of the United States towards the House of Representatives.

The part of the communication alluded to, is in the following words.-Extract of a letter from Mr. Pinckney to the secretary of state, dated 9th of January, 1794.

"Lord Grenville answered, that the only reason for renewing them was, lest the present instruction, being a revocation of that of the 6th of November, might also be deemed to revoke the articles which were connected with it. His lordship then explained the motives which had induced this government to issue the present instruction. The first, he said was the sincere desire of administration to maintain the best * understanding and harmony with the United States. The second was, what he could not mention to me officially, but what he still thought it right, I should be apprized of, that no misconception of their motives might be entertained; that he was aware of the delica

cy of speaking to a foreign minister concerning the internal state of his country, neither could he expect an answer from me on the subject; but that their second reason was, by this conduct, to take away every pretext, from evil disposed persons among us, who according to the intelligence he had received, were endeavoring to irritate our people against Great Britain, as well as to oppose the measures of our own government, and, in short, to reduce us to the present situation of France; a misfortune, which they deprecated, as well for our sakes, as for the common welfare and tranquillity of mankind. He further took occasion to observe, with respect to the conduct of our government, in maintaining our neutrality, that although there were some matters, with which this government was not perfectly satisfied, (and to which, for the same reason, they refrained from giving that opposition they thought they would be justified in doing,) yet, from the general tenor of the conduct of our government, they were convinced, it was their desire to maintain a full neutrality, which was an additional motive for their present conduct."

It is to be remarked, that on the 8th of January, the revocation of the hostile order of the 6th of November took place, and on the next day, after an apology for the acknowledged indelicacy of interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign government, Lord Grenville modestly undertakes to intermeddle with the affairs of the United States. It has always been matter of surprise to me, that the American minister should have listened to such a communication, and still more surprising, that it should have met with a favorable reception in the United States. But the fact is, that on the 19th of April, 1794, the chief justice was taken from the exercise of his judicial duties, and nominated envoy extraordinary to Great Britain, during the pendency of two of the beforementioned propositions in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives proceeded to pass the bill for the suspension

of commercial intercourse on the 25th of April, by an uncommonly large majority, and on the 27th of April, the bill was negatived by the senate upon the casting vote of the vice-president. The effect of this vote was a discontinuance of the embargo, and an abandonment of all the other measures proposed for self-protection. In these acts will be seen, the commencement of what gentlemen call the hostility of departments; but what I shall term the due exercise of the checks, provided by the constitution. And, if it is to be traced to this source, the House of Representatives will evidently appear not to be the aggressor. The House, viewing their measures defeated by the constitutional check, acquiesced in the decision without a murmur. Now we are told, if the House should exercise its constitutional check, a dissolution of the government would necessarily ensue. This conclusion seems to me without foundation, and ought not to be brought into calculation, in estimating the present question.

The treaty itself was concluded on the 28th of October, 1794. It was communicated to this House, the 1st of March, 1796, having on the same day been promulgated by proclamation declaring it to be obligatory.

The treaty originated from an intimation of lord Grenville, which has always excited my apprehension; it was commenced against the known sense of the House of Representatives, and every step of its progression seems to have been marked with peculiar coercion.

When a British minister undertakes to declare, that the motive for the revocation of a hostile order was, to take away every pretext from evil disposed persons among us, who, according to the intelligence he had received, were endeavoring to irritate our own people against Great Britain, as well as to oppose the measures of our own government, &c., and to assign the same reason, for refraining from giving that opposition to some exceptionable measures of our government, which he otherwise might have done; and when the