Hawes, Jackson, Key, Law, Lewis, Macon, M'Bryde, Milnor, Moseley, Pearson, Pitkin, Potter, Quincy, Randolph, Reed, Richardson, Ridgely, Rodman, Stanford, Stewart, Sturges, Sullivan, Taggart, Tallmadge, Tracy, Van Cortlandt, Wheaton, White, Williams, Wilson-45.

NAYS-Messi S. Alston, Anderson, Archer, Bard, Bassett, Bibb, Blackledge, Brown, Barwell, Butler, Calhoun, Cheves, Cochran, Clopton, Condit, Crawford, Davis, Dawson, Desha, Dinsmoor, Earl, Findley, Fisk, Gholson, Goodwyn, Green, Grundy, B. Hall, O. Hall, Harper, Hufty, Hyneman, Johnson, Kent, King, Lacock, Lefever, Little, Lowndes, Lyle, Maxwell, Moore, M'Coy, M'Kim, Metcalf. Mitchell, Morgan, Morrow, Nelson, New, Newbold, Newton, Ormsby, Pickens, Piper, Pleasants, Pond, Ringgold, Rhea, Roane, Roberts, Sage, Sammons, Seaver, Sevier, Seybert, Shaw, G. Smith, J. Smith, Strong, Taliaferro, Troup, Turner, Whitehill, Winn, Wright-77.

The said report was then, on motion of Mr. Calhoun, ordered to lie upon the table. Mr. Calhoun, from the same committee, on leave given, presented a bill declaring war between Great Britain and her dependencies, and the United States and their territories, which was read the first time.

And opposition being made thereto by Mr. Randolph.

The question was taken in the form prescribed by the rules and orders of the House, to wit shall the bill be rejected?"

And determined in the negative, Yeas 45, Nays 76.

The Yeas and Nays being demanded by one fifth of the members present.
Those who voted in the affirmative are;

YEAS. Messrs. Baker, Bartlett, Bleecker, Boyd, Breckenridge, Brigham, Champion, Chittenden, Cooke, Davenport, Ely, Emott, Fitch, Gold, Goldsborough, Hufty, Jackson, Key, Law, Lewis, M'Bryde, Metcalf, Milnor, Mitchill, Moseley, Newbold, Pearson, Pitkin, Potter, Quincy, Randolph, Read, Ridgely, Rodman, Stanford, Stewart, Sturges, Sullivan, Taggart, Tallmadge, Tracy, Van Cortlandt, Wheaton, White, Wilson.-45.

Those who voted in the negative are,

NAYS. Messrs. Alston, Anderson, Archer, Bard, Bassett, Bibb, Blackledge, Brown Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, Cheves, Cochran, Clopton, Condit, Crawford, Davis, Dawson, Desha, Dinsmoor, Earle, Findley, Fisk, Gholson, Goodwyn, Green, Grundy, B. Hall, O. Hall, Harper, Hawes, Hyneman, Johnson, Kent, King, Lacock, Lefever, Little, Lowndes, Lyle, Macon, Maxwell, Moore, M'Coy, M'Key, M'Kim, Morgan, Morrow, Nelson, New, Newton, Ormsby, Pickens, Piper, Pleasants, Pond, Richardson, Ringgold, Rhea, Roane, Roberts, Sage, Sammons, Seaver, Sevier, Seybert, Shaw, G. Smith, J. Smith, Strong, Taliaferro, Troup, Turner, Whitehill, Williams, Wright.-76.

The said bill was then read the second time and committed to a committee of the whole house to day.

The House resolved itself into a committee of the whole House on the said bill; and after some time spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair and Mr. Bassett reported that the committee had according to order had the said bill under consideration and made some progress therein, and had directed him to ask leave to sit again.

Ordered, That the committee of the whole House have leave to sit again on the said bill.

And then the House adjourned until to-morrow morning 11 o'clock.

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1812.

A motion was made by Mr. Milnor, that the doors be now opened. And the question being taken, it was determined in the negative.

The House then resolved itself into a committee of the whole House on the bill declaring war between Great Britain and her dependencies and the United States and their territories; and after some time spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the shair and Mr. Bassett reported that the committee had according to order had the said bill under consideration and made no amendment thereto.

A motion was then made by Mr. Quiney, to amend the said bill by adding thereto a new section, as follows:

"Sec. And be it further enacted, That from and after passage of this act, that the act entitled "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies and for other purposes," passed the 1st day of May, 1810, and also the act entitled" An act supplementary to the act entitled "An act concerning the commercial int

between the

United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies and for other purposes," passed the 2d day of March, 1811. And also, the act entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the Unit ed States for a limited time," passed the 4th day of April, 1812, be and the same hereby are repealed.”

A motion was thereupon made by Mr. Nelson, that the bill and the proposed amendment be recommitted to a commitee of the whole House.

And the question being taken thereon,

It passed in the negative.

The question was then taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. Quincy.
And passed in the negative-Yeas 42-Nays 82.

The Yeas and Nays being demanded by one fifth of the members,

Those who voted in the affirmative, are

YEAS-Messis. Baker, Bleecker, Breckenridge, Brigham, Champion, Cheves, Chittenden, Cooke, Davenport, Davis, Ely, Emott, Fitch, Gold, Goldsborough, Jackson, Key, Law, Lewis, M'Bryde, Milnor, Mosely, Nelson, Pearson, Pitkin, Potter, Quincy, Randolph, Reed, Richardson, Ridgely, Rodm.n; Stewart; Sturges, Sullivan; Taggart; Tallmadge, Tracy, Van Cortlandt, Wheaton, White, Wilson.-42. Those who voted in the negative :

NAYS.--Messrs. Alston, Anderson, Archer Bard, Bartlett, Bassett, Bibb, Blackledge, Boyd, Brown, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, Carr, Cochran, Clopton, Condit, Crawford, Dawson, Desha, Dinsmoor, Earl, Findley, Fisk, Cholson, Goodwyn, Green, Grundy, B. Hall, O. Hli, Harper, Hawes, Hufty, Hyneman, Johnson, Kent, King, Lacock, Lefever, Littie,Lowndes, Lyle, Macon, Maxwell, Moore, M'Coy, M'Kee, M'Kim, Metcalf, Mitchill, Morgan, Morrow, New, Newbold, Newton, Ormsby, Pickens, Piper, Pleasants, Pond, Ringold, Rhea, Roane, Roberts, Sage, Sammons. Seaver, Sevier, Seybert, Shaw, G. Smith, J. Smith, Stanford, Strong, Taliaferro, Troup, Turner, Whitehill, Williams, Widgery, Winn, Wright.-82. No other amendment being proposed to the bill, the question was taken, that it be engrossed and read a third time:

And passed in the affirmative-Yeas 78, Nays 45.

The Yeas and Nays being demanded by one fifth of the members present,
Those who voted in the affirmative are,

YEAS-Messrs. Alston, Anderson, Archer, Bard, Bassett, Bibb, Blackledge, Brown, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, Carr, Cheves, Cochran, Clopton, Condit, Crawford, Davis, Dawson, Desha, Dinsmoor, Earle, Findley, Fisk, Gholson, Goodwyn, Green, Grundy, B. Hall, O. Hall, Harper, Hawes, Hyneman, Johnson, Kent, King, Lacock, Lefever, Little, Lowndes, Lyle, Macon, Moore, M'Coy, M'Kee, M'Kim, Mitchill Morgan, Morrow, Nelson, New, Newton, Ormsby, Piper, Pleasants, Poud, Richardson, Ringgold, Rhea, Roane, Roberts, Sage, Seaver, Sevier, Seybert, Shaw, G Smith, J. Smith, Strong, Talliaferro, Troup, Turner, Whitehill, Williams, Widgery, Winn, Wright-78.

Those who voted in the negative are,

NAYS.-Messrs. Baker, Bartlett, Bleecker,, Boyd, Breckenridge, Brigham, Champion, Chittenden, Cook, Davenport, Ely, Emott, Fitch, Gold, Goldsborough, Hufty, Jackson, Key. Law, Lewis, Maxwell, M'Bryde, Metcalf, Milnor, Mosely, Newbold, Pearson, Pitkin, Potter, Quincy, Randolph, Reed, Ridgeley, Rodman, Stanford, Steward, Sturges, Sullivan, Taggart, Tallmadge, Tracy, Van Cortlandt, Wheaton, White, Wilson.-45.

Ordered that the said bill be read a third time this day.

The said bill was engrossed and read the third time accordingly and the question stated that the same do pass ?

Whereupon,

A motion was made by Mr. Randolph that the farther consideration of the said bill be postponed until the first Monday in October next.

And the question thereon being taken.

It was determined in the negative-Yeas 42, Nays 81.

The Yeas and Nays being demanded by one-fifth of the members present;

Those who voted in the affirmative are,

Messrs. Baker, Bartlett, Bleecker, Boyd, Breckenridge, Brigham, Carr, Champion, Chittenden Cooke, Davenport, Ely, Emott, Fitch, Gold, Goldsborough, Hufty, Jackson, Key, Law, Lewis, M'Bryde, Milnor, Mosely, Newbold, Pearson, Pitkin,

Potter, Quincy, Randolph, Reed, Ridgley, Rodman, Stanford, Stewart, Sturges,
Taggart, Tallmadge, Tracy, Van Cortlandt, Wheaton, White, Wilson-42.
Those who voted in the negative are,

Messrs. Alston, Anderson, Archer, Bard, Bassett, Bibb, Blackledge, Brown, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, Cheves, Cochran, Clopton, Condit, Crawford, Davis, Dawson, Desha, Dinsmoor, Earle, Findley, Fisk, Gholson, Goodwyn, Green, Grundy, B. Hall, O. Hall, Harper, Hawes, Hyneman, Johnson, Kent, King, Lacock, Lefever, Little, Lowndes, Lyle, Macon, Maxwell, Moore, M'Coy, M'Key, M'Kim, Metcalf, Mitchill, Morgan, Morrow, Nelson, New, Newton, Ormsby, Pickens, Piper, Pleasants, Pond, Richardson, Ringgold, Rhea, Roane, Roberts, Sage, Seaver, Sevier; Seybert; Shaw, Smilie; G. Smith, J. Smith, Strong, Talliaferro; Troup; Turner; Whitehill; Williams, Widgery; Winn; Wright-81.

A motion was then made by Mr. Stow that the farther consideration of the said bill be postponed until to-morrow.

And the question thereon being taken;

It was determined in the negative-yeas 48-nays 78.

The yeas and nays being demanded by one-fifth of the members present,
Those who voted in the affirmative are;

Messrs. Avery; Baker; Bartlett; Bleecker; Boyd; Breckenridge, Brigham; Champion; Chittenden; Cooke; Davenport; Ely; Emott; Fitch; Gold; Goldsborough; Hufty, Jackson; Kent; Key; Law; Lewis; Maxwell; M'Bryde; Milnor; Mosely; Newbold, Pearson, Pitkin; Potter; Quincy;' Randolph; Reed; Ridgely; Rodman; Sammons; Stanford; Steward; Stow; Sturges; Sullivan, Taggart, Tallmadge; Tracy; Van Cort landt; Wheaton, White; Wilson-48,

Those who voted in the negative are,

Messrs. Alston, Anderson, Archer, Bard, Bassett, Bibb, Blackledge, Brown, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, Carr, Cheves, Cochran, Clopton, Condit, Crawford, Davis, Dawson, Desha, Dinsmoor; Earl; Findley; Fisk; Gholson; Goodwyn; Green; Grundy; B. Hall; O. Hail; Harper; Hawes, Hyneman; Johnson; King; Lacock; Lefever; Little; Lowndes; Lyle; Macon; Moore; M'Coy; M'Kee; M'Kim; Mitchill; Morgan; Morrow; Nelson; New; Newton; Ormsby; Pickens; Piper; Pleasants; Pond; Richardson; Ringgold; Rhea; Roane; Roberts; Sage; Seaver; Sevier; Seybert; Shaw; Smilie; G. Smith, J. Smith; Strong; Talliaferro; Troup; Turner; Whitehill; Williams; Widgery; Winn, Wright-78.

A motion was then made by Mr. Goldsborough; that the House do now adjourn. And the question thereon being taken.

It was determined in the negative-Yeas 43-Nays 82.

Tile yeas and nays being demanded by one-fifth of the members present.
Those whe voted in the affirmative are,

Messrs. Avery; Baker; Bleecker; Breckenridge; Brigham; Champion; Chittenden; Cooke; Davenport; Ely; Emott; Fitch; Gold; Goldsborough, Jackson; Key; Law; Lewis; Maxwell; M'Bryde; Milnor; Mosely; Newbold; Pearson; Pitkin; Potter; Quincy; Randolph; Reed; Ridgely; Rodman, Sammons; Stanford; Stewart; Stow, Sturges; Taggart; Tallmadge; Tracy; Van Cortlandt; Wheaton; White; Wilson-43. Those who voted in the negative are;

Messrs. Alston; Anderson; Archer; Bard, Bartlett; Bassett; Bibb; Blackledge; Boyd; Brown; Burwell; Butler; Calhoun; Carr; Cheves; Cochran; Clopton; Condit; Crayford; Davis; Dawson; Desha; Dinsmoor; Earle; Findley; Fisk; Gholson; Goodwyn; Green; Grundy; B. Hall; O. Hall; Harper, Hawes; Hufty; Hyneman; Johnson; Kent; King; Lacock; Lefever; Little; Lowndes; Lyle; Macon; Moore; M'Coy; M'Kee, M'Kim; Metcalf; Mitchell; Morgan; Morrow; New; Newton; Crmsby; Pickens; Piper; Pleasants; Pond; Richardson; Ringgold; Rhea; Roane; Roberts; Sage; Seaver, Sevier; Seybert; Smilie; Shaw; G. Smith; J. Smith; Strong; Talliaferro; Troup; Turner; Whitehill, Williams; Widgery, Winn, Wright-82. The question was then taken that the said bill do pass ?

AND RESOLVED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE-yeas 79--nays 49.

Ordered, That the bill be "An act declaring War between Great Britain and ber dependencies, and the United States and their territories."

DOCUMENTS

LAID BEFORE CONGRESS 5TH JUNE.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States,

I tranfmit, for the information of Congrefs, copies of a correfpondence of the Minifter Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, with the Secretary of State.

June 4th, 1812.

JAMES MADISON.

MR. FOSTER TO MR. MONROE.

Washington, May 30, 1812. SIR-Notwithstanding the difcouraging nature of the conver fation which I had the honor to have with you a few days fince at your office, and the circumftance of your continued filence in regard to two letters from me furnishing additional proof of the existence of the French decrees, nevertheless there does now appear fuch clear and convincing evidence in the report of the duke of Bassano, dated the 10th of March, of the present year, of thofe decrees having not only never been refcinded, but of their being recently extended and aggravated in the re publication of them contained in that inftrument, that I cannot but imagine it will feem most important to the prefident that it fhould be communicated to congrefs without delay, in the prefent interefting crifis of their deliberations, and therefore haften to fulfil the inftructions of my government in laying before the government of the United States, the enclofed Moniteur of the 16th of laft March, in which is contained that report as it was made to the ruler of France and communicated to the confervative fenate.

This report confims, if any thing were wanting to confirm, in the most unequivocal manner, the repeated affertions of Great Britain that the Berlin and Milan decrees have never been revoked, however fome partial and infidious relaxations of them may have beenmade in a few inftances as an encouragement to A merica to adopt a fyftem beneficial to France and injurious to G. Britain, while the conditions on which alone it has been declared that thofe decrees will ever be revoked are here explained and amplified in a manner to leave us no hope of Bonaparte having any difpofition to renounce the fyftem of injuftice which he has purfued fo as to make it poffible for Great Britain to give up the defenfive measures fhe has been obliged to refort to.

I need not remind you, fir, how often it has in vain been urged by Great Britain that a copy of the inftrument fhould be produced by which the decrees of Bonaparte were faid to be repealed, and how much it has been defired that America fhould explicitly ftate that he did not adopt the conditions on which the repeal was offered.

It is now manifeft that there was never more than a conditional offer of repeal made by France which we had a right to complain that America fhould have afked us to recognize as absolute, and which if accepted in its extent by America, would only have formed fro fh matter of complaint and a new ground for declining her demands.

America muft feel that it is impoffible for Great Britain to refcind her orders in council, whilft the French decrees are officially declared to remain in force against all nations not fubfcribing to the new maritime code promulgated in thofe decrees, and alfo without fomething more explicit on the part of America with regard to her understanding as to the conditions annexed by France to the repeal of t cofe decrees. For after what bas paffed, unless a full and fatisfactory explanation be made on both these points. Great Britain cannot relinquish her retaliatory fft magainft France, without implying her confent to the admiffibility of the conditions in queftion.

Thefe obfervations will, I am fure, appear fufficiently obvious to you, fir, on perufing the incle fed paper.

It will be at once acknowledged that this paper is a re-publication of the Berlin and Milan decrees, in a more aggravated form, accompanied as it is with an extenfion of all the obnoxious doctrines which attend thofe decrees, inflamed by a declaration that Bonaparte has annexed to France every independent ftate in his neighborhood which had eluded them; and that he was proceeding against all other maritime ports of Europe on the pretence that his fyftem could not be permanent and complete, fo long as they retained their liberty with regard to it.

The outrageous principle here avowed, connects itself obvioufly with the propofition too much countenanced by America, that the continental fyftem of Bonaparte, as far as it operates to the confiscation of neutral property on fhore, on the ground of fuch property being British produce or manufacture, is a mere municipal regulation which neutral or belligerent nations have no right to refent, because it does not violate any principle of the law of nations. It is unneceffary to recur to the various arguments by which it has been thewn that this fystem does not partake of the character of municipal regulation, which neutral or belligerent nations have no right to ref nt, becaufe it does not violate any principle of the law of nations; but that it is a mere war meafure, directed with the most hoftile fpirit against Great Britain; and in order to extend this fystem on the principle of municipal regulation, all the rights of independent neutral nations are to be violated, their territories to be seized without any oth er caufe of war whatever, but that they may be incorporated with the French nation, and thence becoming fubject to her rights of dominion, receive the continental fyftem as a municipal regulation of France, and thus the mere poffibility of non-compliance with the whole of the fyftem is made the ground for the occupa.