ON MR. VAN BUREN'S NOMINATION AS

MINISTER TO ENGLAND.

IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 24, 1832.

[DOUBTLESS there was just cause, as shown in the following speech, of dissatisfaction in the Senate and in the country, to this nomination of Mr. Van Buren to the Court of St. James; but was it expedient for the Senate to reject it? The sequel showed, that this act of rejection made Mr. Van Buren vicepresident first, and president next. General Jackson's power over the minds of the majority of the American people, was irresistible, and the opposition of the Senate in this case, probably augmented that power. That Mr. Clay, Mr. Calhoun, and others, opponents of this nomination, should not have foreseen a result of this kind, or adopted a policy based upon it, must be ascribed, one would think, to the single purpose of doing present justice to the nominee, rather than of regarding consequences. The Senate were equally divided in this vote, and the rejection of Mr. Van Buren required the casting vote of the vice-president, Mr. Calhoun, which was given. The injunction of secrecy having been removed, the speeches and votes of this executive session of the Senate were all made public, and afterward used, with great effect, by the Jackson party, to advance the interest of Mr. Van Buren, first as candidate, this very year, 1832, for the vice-presidency, and afterward, 1836, as candidate for the presidency, in both of which he was successful. With the majority of the American people, this opposition of the Senate was not ascribed to patriotic motives, but to a spirit of revenge. Mr. Calhoun, who gave the casting vote, certainly had reasons for revenge; for Mr. Van Buren had ruined all his chances for the succession, by disclosing to General Jackson the fact, that he (Mr. Calhoun), while a member of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, had moved a censure on General Jackson, for his conduct of the Seminole War, and it is quite probable that this state of personal feeling had an influence in producing Mr. Cal

houn's casting vote against Mr. Van Buren. It would almost seem morally impossible that it should be otherwise.

As to the grounds of Mr. Clay's opposition, they are presented in the following speech, in a manly and statesman-like manner, and no one can fail to appreciate their strength. But still one can not but feel that he might as well have passed over the matter in silence, and allowed Mr. Van Buren to stay in London. But as Mr. Clay did not study expediency, personal to himself, in his speech on the Seminole war, so neither did he do it in this case. He was not the man to do it in any case. With him it was simply a question of truth and of patriotic duty, though he might, and in this instance we think he did, partly misjudge. Mr. Van Buren doubtless had talent enough for the mission to London, and it was not likely that he would there prove so unpatriotic as Mr. Clay has demonstrated in his speech that he did while acting as Secretary of State. It was simply a question, whether Mr. Van Buren's rejection would open a wider door for what Mr. Clay would regard as his pernicious influence at home. The decision of the Senate opened that door most ef fectually. Mr. Van Buren was rejected; he came home; and was immediately put in nomination and elected as vice-president. Next he succeeded to the presidency, and in 1840, having run down the commercial prosperity of the country to the lowest ebb by his policy, he was superseded by the election of General Harrison. The Senate of the United States, by rejecting him as minister to London, gave him full sweep at home, till the people arrested his career.]

MR. PRESIDENT-I regret that I find myself utterly unable to reconcile with the duty I owe to my country a vote in favor of this nomination. I regret it, because in all the past strife of party the relations of ordinary civility and courtesy were never interrupted between the gentleman whose name is before us and myself. But I regard my obligations to the people of the United States, and to the honor and character of their government, as paramount to every private consideration. There was no necessity known to us for the departure of this gentleman from the United States, prior to the submission of his name to the Senate. Great Britain was represented here by a diplomatic agent, having no higher rank than that of a chargé des affaires. We were represented in England by one of equal rank; one who had shed luster upon his country by his high literary character, and of whom it may be justly said, that in no respect was he inferior to the gentleman before us. Although I shall not controvert the right of the president, in an extraordinary case, to send abroad a public minister

without the advice and consent of the Senate, I do not admit that it ever ought to be done without the existence of some special cause, to be communicated to the Senate. We have received no communication of the existence of any such special cause. This view of the matter might not have been sufficient alone to justify a rejection of this nomination; but it is sufficient to authorize 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. I consider myself, therefore, not committed by the separate and unadvised act of the president in despatching Mr. Van Buren in the vacation of the Senate, and not a very long time before it was to assemble.

My main objection to the confirmation of his appointment arises out of his instructions to the late minister of the United States at the court of Great Britain. The attention of the Senate has been already called to parts of those instructions, but there are other parts of them, in my opinion, highly reprehensible. Speaking of the colonial question, he says, "in reviewing 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 assailable. First, in our too long and too tenaciously resisting the right of Great Britain to impose protecting duties in her colonies." * * * 66 "And, thirdly, in omitting to accept the terms offered by the act of Parliament of July, 1825, after the subject had been brought before Congress, and deliberately acted upon by our government. * * * You will, therefore, see the propriety of possessing yourself of all the explanatory and mitigating circumstances connected with them, that you may be enabled to obviate, as far as practicable, the unfavorable impression which they have produced." And after reproaching the late administration with setting up claims and for the first time, which they explicitly abandoned, he says, in conclusion, "I will add nothing as to the impropriety of suffering any feelings, that find their origin in the past pretensions of this government, to have adverse influence upon the present conduct of Great Britain."

On our side, according to Mr. Van Buren, all was wrong; on the British side, all was right. We brought forward nothing but claims and pretensions. The British government asserted, on the other hand, a clear and incontestable 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 commanded to avail himself of all the circumstances in his power to mitigate our offense, and to dissuade the British government from allowing their feelings, justly incurred by the past conduct of the party driven from power, to have an adverse influence toward 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 American minister? Was it it in conformity with the high, unsullied, and dignified character of our previous diplomacy? Was it not, on the contrary

the language of an humble vassal to a proud and haughty lord? Was it not prostrating and degrading the American eagle before the British lion?

Let us examine a little those pretensions which the American government so unjustly put forward, and so pertinaciously maintain. The American government contended, that the produce of the United States ought to be admitted into the British West Indies, on the same terms as similar produce of the British American continental possessions; that without this equality our produce could not maintain in the British West Indies a fair competition with the produce of Canada, and that British preference given to the Canadian produce in the West Indies would draw from the western part of New York, and the northern part of Ohio, American produce into Canada, aggrandizing Montreal and Quebec, and giving employment to British shipping, to the prejudice of the canals of New York, the port of New York, and American shipping.

This was the offense of the American government, and we are at this moment realizing the evils which it foresaw. Our produce is passing into Canada, enriching her capitals, and nourishing British navigation. Our own wheat is transported from the western part of New York into Canada, there manufactured, and then transported in British ships in the form of Canadian flour. We are thus deprived of the privilege even of manufacturing our own grain. And when the produce of the United States, shipped from the Atlantic ports, arrives at the British West Indies, it is unable, in consequence of the heavy duties with which most of it is burdened, to sustain a competition with British or colonial produce, freely admitted.

The general rule may be admitted, that every nation has a right to favor its own productions, by protecting duties, or other regulations; but, like all general rules, it must have its exceptions. And the relation in which Great Britain stands to her continental and West India colonies, from which she is separated by a vast sea, and the relations in which the United States stand to those colonies, some of which are in juxtaposition with them, constitute a fit case for such an exception.

It is true, that the late administration did authorize Mr. Gallatin to treat with Great Britain on the basis of the rule which has been stated, but it was with the express understanding, that some competent provision should be made in the treaty to guard against the British monopoly of the transportation of our own produce passing through Canada. Mr. Gallatin was informed, “that the United States consent to the demand which they have heretofore made of the admission of their productions into British colonies, at the same and no higher rate of duty as similar productions are chargeable with when imported from one into another British colony, with the exception of our produce descending the St. Lawrence and the Sorell."

There was no abandonment of our right, no condemnation of the previous conduct of our government, no humiliating admission, that we had put forth and too tenaciously clung to unsustainable pretensions, and that Great Britain had all along been in the right. We only forbore for the

present to assert a right, leaving ourselves at liberty subsequently to resume it. What Mr. Gallatin was authorized to do was, to make a temporary concession, and it was proposed with this preliminary annunciation: "But, notwithstanding, on a full consideration of the whole subject, the president, anxious to give a strong proof to Great Britain of the desire of the government of the United States to arrange this long-contested matter of the colonial intercourse in a manner mutually satisfactory, authorizes you," etc. And Mr. Gallatin was required "to endeavor to made a lively impression on the British government of the conciliatory spirit of that of the United States, which has dictated the present liberal offer, and of their expectation to meet, in the progress of the negotiations, with a corresponding friendly disposition."

Now, sir, keeping sight of the object which the late Secretary of State had in view, the opening of the trade with the British colonies, which was the best mode to accomplish it-to send our minister to prostrate himself as a suppliant before the British throne, and to say to the British king, we have offended your majesty! the late American administration brought forward pretensions which we can not sustain, and they too long and too tenaciously adhered to them! your majesty was always in the right; but we hope that your majesty will be graciously pleased to recollect, that it was not we who are now in possession of the American power, but those who have been expelled from it, that wronged your majesty, and that we, when out of power, were on the side of your majesty; and we do humbly pray, that your majesty, taking all mitigating circumstances into consideration, will graciously condescend to extend to us the privileges of the British act of Parliament of 1825, and to grant us the boon of a trade with your majesty's West India colonies-or to have presented himself before the British monarch in the manly and dignified attitude of a minister of this republic, and, abstaining from all condemnation or animadversion upon the past conduct of his own government, to have placed the withdrawal of our former demand upon the ground of concession in a spirt of amity and compromise?

But the late Secretary of State, the appointed organ of the American people to vindicate their rights with all foreign powers, and to expose the injustice of any unfounded demands which they might assert, was not content to exert his own ingenuity to put his own country in the wrong, and the British government in the right. He endeavored to attach to the late administration the discredit of bringing forward unfounded pretensions, and by disclaiming them, to propitiate the favor of the British king. He says that the views of the present administration upon the subject of the colonial trade "have been submitted to the people of the United States, and the counsels by which your conduct is now directed are the result of the judgment expressed by the only earthly tribunal to which the late administration was amenable for its acts. It should be sufficient, that the claims set up by them, and what caused the interruption of the trade in question,