The war was declared because Great Britain arrogated to herself the pretension of regulating our foreign trade, under the delusive name of retaliatory orders in council—­a pretension by which she undertook to proclaim to American enterprise, “thus far shalt thou go, and no further”—­orders which she refused to revoke after the alleged cause of their enactment had ceased; because she persisted in the practice of impressing American seamen; because she had instigated the Indians to commit hostilities against us; and because she refused indemnity for her past injuries upon our commerce.  I throw out of the question other wrongs.  So undeniable were the causes of the war, so powerfully did they address themselves to the feelings of the whole American people, that when the bill was pending before this House, gentlemen in the opposition, although provoked to debate, would not, or could not, utter one syllable against it.  It is true, they wrapped themselves up in sullen silence, pretending they did not choose to debate such a question in secret session.  While speaking of the proceedings on that occasion I beg to be permitted to advert to another fact which transpired—­an important fact, material for the nation to know, and which I have often regretted had not been spread upon our journals.  My honorable colleague (Mr. McKee) moved, in committee of the whole, to comprehend France in the war; and when the question was taken upon the proposition, there appeared but ten votes in support of it, of whom seven belonged to this side of the house, and three only to the other. * * *

It is not to the British principle (of allegiance), objectionable as it is, that we are alone to look; it is to her practice, no matter what guise she puts on.  It is in vain to assert the inviolability of the obligation of allegiance.  It is in vain to set up the plea of necessity, and to allege that she cannot exist without the impressment of her seamen.  The naked truth is, she comes, by her press-gangs, on board of our vessels, seizes our native as well as naturalized seamen, and drags them into her service.  It is the case, then, of the assertion of an erroneous principle, and of a practice not conformable to the asserted principle—­a principle which, if it were theoretically right, must be forever practically wrong—­a practice which can obtain countenance from no principle whatever, and to submit to which, on our part, would betray the most abject degradation.  We are told, by gentlemen in the opposition, that government has not done all that was incumbent on it to do, to avoid just cause of complaint on the part of Great Britain; that in particular the certificates of protection, authorized by the act of 1796, are fraudulently used.  Sir, government has done too much in granting those paper protections.  I can never think of them without being shocked.  They resemble the passes which the master grants to his negro slave:  “Let the bearer, Mungo, pass and repass without molestation.”