turned the tables and gave chase. After sunset on May 13, an exchange of shots and broadsides occurred in which the Little Belt was badly riddled. The account of the fighting leaves one in doubt as to the responsibility for the firing of the first shot, for each captain disclaimed ordering it. An official investigation by the United States exonerated Captain Rodgers, and Great Britain found it convenient to adopt this conclusion.1

In spite of the great inferiority of the Little Belt to the President, the Americans generally exulted in the affair, looking upon it in some measure as a fair retribution for the outrages which had been inflicted upon American vessels, especially in the case of the Chesapeake. The action of the two governments, even though they did not agree in fixing the responsibility, soon removed the episode from the field of discussion.

While negotiations with Great Britain were taking place, during the spring and summer of 1811, Napoleon was renewing vigorous measures for excluding English goods from European markets. One difficulty which he had encountered was the illegal use of the American flag, as the flag of a neutral nation, by those who were forbidden to trade with ports of the continent--for example, by British merchants and the allies of Great Britain in the Baltic waters. As a war measure, Napoleon's attack upon the commerce of his enemy was entirely

1 Niles' Register, I., 33 et seq. (official documents).

legitimate, and his enforcement of his own decree against ships really English could not be complained of by the Americans so long as their own commerce was left undisturbed. But the use of neutral flags by British ships made it difficult to maintain fair discrimination in favor of neutrals, and Napoleon `was never scrupulously careful in his regard for neutral rights, nor did he withhold his hand from sweeping and inconsistent measures. "As for England, commercial relations with her must cease," Napoleon declared to a deputation from the French Council of Commerce in March, 1811. "I am armed cap-a-pie to enforce my orders and frustrate her intentions in the Baltic." "The decrees of Berlin and Milan are the fundamental laws of my empire. for neutral navigation, I regard the flag as an extension of territory; the Power which lets it be violated cannot be considered neutral. The lot of American commerce will soon be decided. I will favor it if the United States conform to those decrees. In the contrary case their ships will be excluded from the ports of my empire."1

As

When the emperor received a copy of the act of March 2, 1811, indorsing the procedure of the president in executing the act of May, 1810, he appeared to be satisfied that affairs were moving in the right direction in America, and condescended to signify his pleasure. But no satisfaction would he give

1 Napoleon, Correspondence, XXI., 484; Thiers, Consulat et l'Empire, XIII., 26–33; Adams, United States, V., 398, 399.

Madison on the one point which most needed specific statement—viz., a formal and categorical declaration that the decrees were revoked. The nearest to this desideratum which Madison ever got was the brief note of May 4, 1811, which by its silence on critical questions added to the contention, and left the principles of the decrees still in force. "I hasten to announce to you," wrote Bassano to Jonathan Russell who was then in charge of the legation in Paris, "that his Majesty the Emperor has ordered his Minister of Finance to authorize the admission of American cargoes which had been provisionally placed in deposit on their arrival in France. I have the honor to send you a list of the vessels to which these cargoes belong; they will have to export their value in national merchandise, of which two-thirds must be in silks." The Americans thus received back their goods, but this message was very poor proof to offer to Great Britain as evidence that the French decrees were actually repealed as Madison asserted.1

The year 1811 ended without progress in the negotiations with France and Great Britain beyond the point just mentioned. The only new note in the discussion seems to be the revival of interest on the part of the United States in the matter of impressments, and even in this the newspapers rather than the administration took the lead. If any remedy was to be found, warlike or peaceful, it

ས..

1 Am. State Paps., Foreign, III., 505; Adams, United States,

404-407.

would be through Congress; Madison was incurably committed to "peaceful warfare." Niles wrote in the Weekly Register for November 2, 1811, a vigorous editorial in which he set forth his views on impressments and the public indifference to this national insult. "We are so accustomed to hear of British impressment that the acuteness of feeling so natural on account of it, has become blunted, and our sailors have begun to make a kind of calculation upon it. How base and degrading! How inconsistent with our pretensions to sovereignty and independence! But there are thousands in the United States who justify or palliate the practice; and to this turpitude must be attributed, in some degree, the want of energy in the government on behalf of injured society. . . . I do not believe there is a single British vessel of war upon the ocean that is not partly manned with impressed Americans, many of whom have been detained for eight or ten or twelve years. . . . I am not disposed to imitate the conduct of the 10th or 11th Congress. I hope the 12th will act." 1

1 Niles' Register, I., 147.

THE

CHAPTER IV

NEW ELEMENTS IN CONTROL

(1811-1812)

HE twelfth Congress met in extra session, November 4, 1811. In the elections for this Congress in 1810, constituencies in several states impulsively chose young men of fresh courage and high quality, whose possibilities were not yet perceived, though one of these men, Henry Clay, had been sent to the United States Senate even before he was of legal age for election to that body. An on-looker familiar with the public men of previous Congresses would have been struck by the change of personnel in the Congress meeting now for the first time. Several of the well-known Federalist figures were gone, and in the Senate this party could muster only six out of thirty-four members, while in the House the number was thirty-seven out of one hundred and forty-two.

The new Congress soon developed a new spirit as well as new members and new leaders. Far more than the old faces had been put away, and the contrast between the old and the new grew daily more striking. In the very beginning, the House, by a