and, as each of the belligerents rested the apology for its injurious edicts upon the law of retaliation and self-defence, a neutral, that could present to one of them no better proof of the sincerity and good faith of its adversary than that French declaration, had but a weak practical ground on which to depend, however strong might be the argument against the inherent illegality and wrong of the whole system on which the edicts. were justified by either of the two powers. discloses two remarkable facts: one, that the President still clung to the idea that the French Decrees were not enforced against us after August 5, 1810, notwithstanding our vessels were still remaining under sequestration, and no redress could be obtained; the other, that the President had at length penetrated the design of the French Government, namely, not to have the English Orders in Council repealed. But we had gone too far in the direction in which France wished us to go to retrace our steps, although the President's private opinion of her conduct and designs did not now differ much from that entertained by the Federalists. What his opinion was will appear further by an extract from a private letter which he wrote to Mr. Barlow under date of August 11, 1812: "The conduct of the French Government, explained in yours of the on the subject of the decree of April, 1811, will be an everlasting reproach to it. It is the more shameful as, departing from the declaration to General Armstrong [August, 1810], of which the enforcement of the non-importation was the effect, the revoking decree assumes this as the cause, and itself as the effect; and thus transfers to this Government the inconsistency of its author-" -(Ibid., p. 540.) Yet, when this subject was brought before Congress at the next session, not only did the Secretary of State argue that the conduct of France had deprived Great Britain of all reasonable pretext for continuing her Orders, but the whole force of the Administration was exerted on the floor of the House in support of that view, as the splendid abilities of Mr. Pinkney had been exerted previously in London in the same line of argument. As we now know the private feelings and convictions of Mr. Madison, the opponents of his Administration ought to be relieved of the charge of factiousness, even if they did maintain that the conduct of France 1 had been animated by a purpose to lead us into a war with England. There is a judgment of Sir William Scott, pronouncing condemnation in 1811 of certain American vessels under the Orders in Council, in which that most able judge employed his acute and powerful intellect in framing a justification for those orders upon the doctrine of retaliation. The question had been presented to him in the argument, what would be his duty as an admiralty judge, under Orders in Council that were repugnant to the law of nations. After admitting that his court was bound to administer the law of nations to the subjects of other countries in their relations with Great Britain, he parried the question that had been pressed upon him by saying that the king in council had legislative authority over the court; that the law of nations constituted the unwritten law, and the king's Orders in Council the written law of the court; and that there was in this instance no repugnance between these two laws, because the king's orders and instructions were to be presumed, under the given circumstances, to conform themselves to the principles of the unwritten law. But as it could not escape a mind of such penetration that this led directly to the consequence that the legislative will of a single belligerent may dictate what the law of nations is, so as to bind the judicial action of a tribunal that sits to administer that law between its own sovereign and the subjects of other countries, he proceeded to say, further, that the Orders in Council which he had then to enforce were not repugnant to the law of nations, because they were retaliatory. This was at least an admission that the doctrine of presumption was not quite sufficient, and that it was necessary to find in the law of nations itself some principle that would make the orders conformable to what a belligerent may lawfully do. Не The British Orders in Council were repealed on the 23d of June, 1812, professedly upon the ground that the French Decrees had been repealed on the 28th of April, 1811. When the answer of our Secretary of State to Mr. Webster's resolutions was received in the House of Representatives, on the 12th of July, 1813, it was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which Mr. Calhoun was chairman, with an order to print five thousand copies of it. Mr. Webster, who had remained for some time longer than he had intended, waiting for the answer of the secretary, had then left Washington on his return home, supposing that the subject would not be again brought before the House during that session. On the day fol the present day there would be very little hesitation on the part of this country in saying to any two belligerents, that this doctrine of retaliation has limits which must be respected. That we did not at that time so act toward both England and France, without complicating ourselves in efforts to make one of them recede in order to remove the other's claim of retaliation, must be imputed to our comparative weakness. Those who opposed the war with England would have preferred to have our Government deal at once with the original and inherent wrong in the conduct of both the belligerents, especially as they felt that the insults heaped upon us by France were even more aggravated than the injuries done to us by England; and, if we had been then what we are now, it is probable that the nation would have tolerated no selection of either adversary, but would have left each to choose for itself our friendship or our hostility. As it was, we were led, by a variety of causes, some of which our Administration could not control, to choose for ourselves the hollow and contemptuous friendship of France and the open enmity of England. (I have not been able to find this judg ment of Sir William Scott in the regular reports of his court. But a copy of it was transmitted by our chargé at London to our Secretary of State, in June, 1811, and it is given in the annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, 1811-'12, Appendix, p. 1742. It was pronounced on the 30th of May, 1811, preparatory to a decree condemning the brig Fox and a large uumber of other American vessels which had At been seized under the Orders in Council.) found this principle in the doctrine of It lowing the reference, Mr. Calhoun made a report, which took the ground that the pressure of our measures and the determination of Congress to redress our wrongs by arms, and not the repeal of the French Decrees, had broken down the Orders in Council. The report closed with recommending the passage of a resolution approving the conduct of the Executive in relation to the various subjects embraced in Mr. Webster's resolutions. Several efforts were subsequently made to have this report considered, but the House refused to act upon it at this session. On the 2d of August, Congress adjourned until the first Monday in the ensuing December.' Although Mr. Webster had been present in this Congress out for a few weeks, he had already become a marked man. He had taken his stand as one of the leading opponents of the war, and had at the same time shown to the House and to the country what the character of his opposition was to be. His firmness in carrying this inquiry through the House had satisfied every one that he was not a person to be turned from his purpose in any matter in which he believed the honor of the country to be involved; while it was equally apparent that he intended to hold the Administration to nothing but its just degree of responsibility to public opinion in respect to the course of its action previous to the war. In future sessions, it was to become his duty to oppose measures connected with the conduct of the war, which he believed to be in conflict with the fundamental rights of the citizen, or in contravention of a sound public policy. The temper of the public mind in this country at the time of the adjourn ment may be learned from Mr. Madison's private letter to Mr. Barlow, already referred to, which was written in the same month: "In the event of a pacification with Great Britain, the full tide of indignation with which the public mind here is boiling will be directed against France, if not obviated by a due reparation of her wrongs. War will be called for by the nation almost una voce. Even without a peace with England, the further refusal or prevarications of France on the subject of redress may be expected to produce measures of hostility against her at the ensuing session of Congress. This result is the more probable, as the general exasperation will coincide with the calculations of not a few, that a double war is the shortest road to peace."—(Writings of Madison, vol. ii., p. 541.) CHAPTER V. 1813-1814. MR. WEBSTER'S LIFE AT PORTSMOUTH-BIRTH OF DANIEL FLETCHER GREAT FIRE IN THE TOWN CONGRESS OF 1813-'14-RESOLUTIONS ON FRENCH DECREES-MILITARY TRIALS FOR TREASONENCOURAGEMENT OF ENLISTMENTS—MODIFICATION OF THE EMBARGO-REPEAL OF THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM-DOMESTIC MANUFACTURES-PRACTICE IN SUPREME COURT RETURNS HOME. MR. R. WEBSTER reached his home in Portsmouth, from the special session of 1813, at about midsummer, and immediately resumed his usual avocations. His children were now two-Grace, who has been mentioned in the last chapter, and Daniel Fletcher, who was born July 23, 1813. Of his life at this time, we have already had some reminiscences from the pen of Mr. Ticknor. The summer and autumn passed on as usual, but in December he was again on his way to attend the regular session of Congress, leaving Mrs. Webster and the children at home. While he was on this journey, a great conflagration swept over a considerable part of the town of Portsmouth, and his house was burnt, with others. The house had been purchased by Mr. Webster a short time before, for the sum of six thousand dollars. In addition to its furniture, his library was also lost; and, as there was no insurance on any part of the property, all that he had of worldly goods was completely gone. Mrs. Webster and the children found a temporary Home in the family of Mr. Mason. In the mean time, the news of the fire, which had been attended with some appalling circumstances, had reached Washington, where Mr. Webster, on his arrival, first met the account. Before he could open his letters, his firmness was put to a great trial, by the somewhat exaggerated statements of those who hastened to give him information. But a cheerful letter from his wife, advising him not to return, reassured him; and "finding nothing lost," he says, "but house and property,' and considering how critical were the public affairs, he commended his little family to their friends, and remained at Washington through the winter. The war, There was, indeed, no little need for such men, even if they were not political friends of the Administration. although there had been some brilliant successes on the Lakes and one important victory on the ocean, had not been prosperous on the land. In Europe, the star of Bonaparte was no longer in the ascendant-disaster had overtaken him; and England, at the head of the great combination that was now closing around him, was not unlikely to be in a situation to carry on her contest with us more vigorously than before. Our Administration, not a strong one, was in want of both men and money. Perplexed, and not sure of an undivided support from its own party, it was in danger of following counsels insufficiently weighed. It was conducting the first important war that had been undertaken since the establishment of the Constitution; and on that war the sentiments of the people were by no means unanimous. New measures were to be brought forward, new powers were to be exercised, which might subject the Constitution to a severe test. These measures were to undergo the ordeal of discussion by the representatives of a people who had been accustomed to the utmost freedom of debate and criticism; who had not learned to surrender that freedom to the demands of official judgment; and who would be certain to insist that the hitherto untried powers of war, embraced in the Constitution, should not be pressed to its injury and its possible overthrow. If the war was to go on, its policy was to be settled; and perhaps there never has been a war conducted by a constitutional government and in behalf of a free people, in which the restraining influence of a vigilant and |