[Here follow six articles.] The ordinance declares that which follows the declaration to be unalterable, but by common consent; it follows of consequence that that which precedes the declaration is alterable. Independent of this reasoning, which cannot be refuted, at every session since we have been a Territory, there have been laws passed altering the ordinance in some shape or other. For example, the ordinance requires two judges to hold a court; and, in a variety of instances, Congress has legislated with respect to the form of government of the Territory. I had supposed that the articles of agreement between the United States and Georgia had become obsolete, with respect to the imagined necessity of the consent of Georgia to legislation on the subject of the Territory. It was urged at the last session with all the eloquence which the gentlemen from Georgia are in so great a degree possessed, and disregarded; for it was decided by both Houses that the United States had a right to rule the Territory without the consent of Georgia.

The Constitution of the United States says that Congress shall "have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." Can an agreement arising from the exercise of this power, supersede the right of exercising the power expressly delegated by the constitution itself? Certainly not.

On the ground of policy I presume that there is no gentleman who will contend that the power of which I wish to deprive the Governors, ought to be retained. The gentleman from Georgia himself says, that if he were about to frame an original ordinance, he would not think of such a power. As the opinion of Judge Tucker has been referred to on one subject, I will refer to it on the subject of prerogative. Let it be recollected, that the power to prorogue and dissolve is one of the highest prerogatives of the King of England: that it crept into the governments of his colonies, and thence into this ordinance, previous to the adoption of the constitution. It now remains for the United States to say, whether they will copy after Great Britain, and because it is a high prerogative, give the Governors of the Territories of the United States the same powers as she gives to her Territorial Governors. I trust it will be expunged.

This is the opinion of Judge Tucker. Is not this sufficient to induce us to take away from Governors this prerogative? Is not this feature modelled after the feature in the Government of England? Certainly; and that it is transferred from her Colonial Government, I can show by the present ordinance for the government of Canada, [to which Mr. P. referred.] It is the same principle, and we have copied it.

I will not object to retain this power, if any gentleman can show any advantage to be gained by it. I will suppose an extreme case; that any of the Territories designed to commit treason, and the Legislature were to pass an act giving it their sanction; (and they have shown less treasonable disposition than some of the elder States, if we may judge from occurrences of a few years past)—could not the Governor put his negative on this law? There could be no such law without his consent. It is therefore entirely unnecessary, in any possible case, to give the Governor the arbitrary power of dissolving the Legislature.

There is a special reason which has operated upon my mind as forcibly as the general reason in favor of the bill on the table. In the Territory which I have the honor to represent, we have been nearly twelve months without any Legislature. The Governor thought proper to dissolve the Assembly without any reason given, for the ordinance does not bind him to assign reasons for his acts. Within a few days, a new Council has been chosen, which may again be dissolved as soon as it meets, and the Territory again left without a Legislature, and no reason assigned for the procedure. Is it possible that this Government will sanction such arbitrary practices? If it does, it will be the first case since the Revolution in which such a procedure has been sanctioned. I beg leave to refer gentlemen to the glorious year 1776. I beg them to revert to that instrument, in which all the sins of our political father, George III., were delineated, and they will find that one of the charges against him was that he permitted his Governors to dissolve the Legislatures from time to time. Are we prepared to ingraft these arbitrary principles into our constitution, and cherish them when practised in so arbitrary a manner? Instead of this ordinance being passed with deliberation, it must have passed originally sub silentio, and been adopted for all the new Territories without any discussion at all; for, if the principle had been investigated, it would never have been enacted into a law. In the Declaration of Independence it is stated that "he (George III.) has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people." Here we see that, at that day, we complained of the arbitrary exercise of power, and I hope that, at this day, we shall give it a death-blow. If any gentleman wishes to retain it, let him show a single possible case in which it can properly be exercised—never, but to gratify the ambition or caprice of an individual. The people elect Representatives and send them to legislate; if they do not please the Governor, he can say, "gentlemen, go to your homes—I dissolve you." Can there be any necessity for this? But I will not detain the House longer, except to express a hope that the committee will not rise, unless it be to report the bill.

Mr. Troup said he would state, in as few words as he could, his objections to the passage of the bill. It was only the day before yesterday that this bill had been introduced into the House, proposing to alter one part of the ordinance. To-day, a petition came from another territory to alter another part of it. Before they adjourned, it was ten thousand to one that not a remnant of the ordinance would be left, with their good will.

I have before stated it as my opinion, said he, that the articles of the ordinance are a compact between the people of the States and of the territories, unalterable but with the consent of both parties. With the permission of the House, I will read the opinion of Judge Tucker on this subject:

In this case there are not only two but three parties to the articles—the United States, the State of Georgia, and the people of the Territories. You will recollect, as my colleague properly stated to you, that the right of soil and jurisdiction of this territory was originally in the people of Georgia. Of course Georgia had power to prescribe for the territory what form of government she pleased, provided it was republican. By the articles of cession, the right of soil and jurisdiction was ceded to the people of the United States, on the express condition that the articles of the ordinance should form the government of the Mississippi Territory, and that they should not be governed otherwise. The inference inevitably is, that the State of Georgia would not have ceded but upon the express condition; and this inference is the more inevitable, inasmuch as, in this clause, Georgia has made an express exception to a particular article in the ordinance;[3] from which, I say that Georgia intended that no other alteration should be made.

What was the policy of the ordinance, and what the object of its framers? Why, assuredly, to render the governments of the Territories dependent on the Government of the United States. And how was it to be effected? By making the Territorial Legislature in a great degree dependent on the Governor, and him absolutely dependent on the Federal Executive. The moment we make the Legislature of a Territory independent of its Executive, we make it independent of the Federal Government.

And again, as my colleague has correctly told you, if you have a right to repeal one part of the ordinance, you have a right to repeal another part, and so overturn the whole system at a blow. If so, what will be the effect on the articles of cession and agreement between you and Georgia? I will tell you. By the articles of cession you reserve to yourself the right of disposing of the territory; you also agree to pay Georgia one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars out of the product of the first sales of the land. Suppose you transferred to the independent Legislature of the Mississippi Territory the right to dispose of this Territory, what security has Georgia for the payment of her one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars? Moreover, I feel every disposition to treat with respect the people of the Mississippi Territory, and particularly as I perceive that they approve of that course of our Government, in which I most heartily concur; yet I must say that a large majority of the people have a landed interest distinct from that of the Government of the United States. Take away from the Governor his power to prorogue and dissolve, leave him the veto, and there will soon be collision. The Legislature passes an act; the Governor puts his veto on it. The Legislature stands out, and the Governor will not yield, and eventually you may, perhaps, have to decide the question of territorial property by the sword. Recollect, that upward of six thousand people have gone over in the present year, with every apparent intention to force a settlement against your interest and that of Georgia. I am very glad that the military have received orders to disperse them. I trust that they will be dispersed, and that every man who stands forth in resistance will be put to the sword.

But the gentleman from Mississippi Territory is certainly mistaken as to one point. He seems to consider the Constitution of the United States as giving to the people of the Territories the same rights as the people of the States. It is a mistaken idea, neither warranted by the letter or spirit of the constitution. For although the constitution has declared that the people of one State are entitled to all the rights and privileges of another, yet it has not declared that the people of the Territories have the same rights as the people of the States. In another part of the constitution it is, indeed, expressly declared that Congress shall make all laws for the disposal of the Territories; but there is a salvo, that all acts done and contracts made previous to the adoption of the constitution, shall be as binding as if done afterward. The articles of the ordinance were enacted previously, and are consequently binding under the constitution. It cannot be controverted, that they were wisely adopted, and have been salutary in their operation. They were framed by the Congress of '87, composed of men whose integrity was incorruptible, and judgment almost infallible. These articles, from that time to this, have remained unaltered, and carried the Territories through difficulties, almost insuperable, to prosperity. And now, for the first or second time, an alteration is proposed, the consequence of which cannot be foreseen, without any evidence that it is either necessary or expedient.

The population of every new country must necessarily be composed of a heterogeneous mixture of various tempers, characters, and interests. In a population thus composed, it would be highly ridiculous to expect that love of order and obedience to law would always predominate. Therefore the old Congress wisely reserved to itself the right to control them; to give the Governor power, when a Legislature became disorderly, to dissolve them; and for the exercise of this power he is accountable to the General Government.

The gentleman from Mississippi wishes us not to treat the Territories as children, whose wild extravagances may require correcting by the indulgent hand of their parents, but as the equals of the States, without any other reason than that which he states to be the situation of the people of his Territory. They will next wish us to admit them into the Union before their population will authorize it; tell us that that Territory does not grow fast enough, and we must demolish the system for their convenience.

Mr. T. adverted to the representation made by Mr. Poindexter, of the state of things now existing in the Mississippi Territory. If such were the situation of the Territory, and Mr. T. said he sincerely regretted it, he could put the gentleman in a way of settling the dispute in a regular and constitutional way, and which would be the most prudent and advisable. Certainly, in this dispute, one of the parties must be right and the other wrong. They had nothing to do but prefer their complaints before the proper authority, and, if they were there substantiated, they would obtain redress of their wrongs. If, on the contrary, the people were wrong and the Governor right, the wisdom of this part of the ordinance would be proved beyond question.

Mr. Poindexter observed that the gentleman from Georgia had set out with telling the House that if the Legislature were made independent of the Governor, they could pass any law they pleased respecting land titles. The gentleman could not have looked at the ordinance, for there was an express provision that the Legislature should "never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil," &c. Independent of this, it is control sufficient if the Governor have a veto on the laws. The gentleman has told you, said Mr. P., that these articles are unalterable but with common consent. When up before, I read that part which is unalterable. It is the articles of ordinance and not the form of government; and to this Judge Tucker refers when he speaks of it. The gentleman has said, that the situation of the people would not be bettered by taking away the power, if the veto were left. In my opinion it would be ameliorated. Let the Governor retain his veto, but let them remain in session, and pass laws, that the General Government may see whether such laws are worthy of rejection or of approbation. Now, if the Governor discovers them about to pass a law or do an act he does not like, he sends them home. Lop off a little of this Executive power, and let the Legislature pass laws which he may negative, and the General Government will have an opportunity of seeing that the Governor will not consent to proper laws. Trust your Executive and distrust the people, and you sap the foundation of the Government. Whatever leads to the conclusion that the people are always wrong and the Executive right, strikes at the root of republican institutions.

The gentleman has spoken of the wildness and extravagance of the people of the Mississippi Territory. Does he recollect the invasion of the Spaniards two years ago? That, at a few days' notice, at the requisition of the Commander-in-chief, a detachment of two hundred and fifty militia were sixty miles on their march? When an arch traitor from the East designed to sever the Union, the people of the Territory, without call, assembled near the city of Natchez, and arrested the traitor. These proceedings cannot be exceeded even by the spirit or prudence of the State of Georgia. I hope the indignation of this House will be displayed at these insinuations against the motives of people who have manifested the greatest patriotism. In respect to the late measures of the General Government, no people feel them more severely than the people of Mississippi, and no people better support them. There may be symptoms of wildness and extravagance, but they show a submission to the laws and measures of the Union.

The gentleman talks of tender parents. If he considers the State of Georgia as one of our tender parents, I protest against it. Although she be one of our parents, there has been no proposition ever made on this floor, for the good of the Territory, which has not met the opposition of that State. But these are subjects on which I will not dwell.

The gentleman has stated that a number of people have gone over to the Mississippi Territory to settle lands, against the express provisions of the law. That, under the pretext of a purchase from an Indian, named Double Head, people have gone over to settle lands, is true; but from where? From Georgia. They are citizens of Georgia; people nurtured by this tender parent into a state of manhood, and unwilling to participate longer in the tender cares of the State of Georgia. They have been, very properly, ordered to be driven off by military force, because they have infringed a law of the United States. But these things do not touch the present question. I now propose to take away a power which has been, by mistake, incorporated into the constitution of a free people.

Mr. Bib said that the State of Georgia had never undertaken to legislate for the Mississippi Territory; but there was a compact existing between the United States and Georgia, and he called upon the United States to adhere to it. They dared not violate it, except they could violate the most solemn compact—the constitution.

Mr. Troup observed that it had been said this power of the Governor was a badge of slavery copied from the British Constitution. That in many things they had been copied too far, he agreed; but as to this prerogative, it was no such badge of slavery, and was found not only in the articles of the ordinance, but in the constitutions of various States, qualified in a greater or less degree. Mr. T. quoted the constitutions of New York and Massachusetts, both which States had been considered republican. Massachusetts, to be sure, was a little wavering now, but he hoped she had not quite gone over to the enemy yet. These constitutions gave a qualified prerogative to the Governor of the State.

The committee now rose—58 to 36.

Mr. Troup moved that the further consideration of the bill be postponed indefinitely—[equivalent to rejection.]

Mr. Poindexter calling for the yeas and nays on the motion, it was decided—yeas 57, nays 52, as follows:

So the bill was postponed indefinitely.

Monday, November 21.

Another member, to wit, John Boyle, from Kentucky, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Naturalized British Subjects.

Mr. Howard presented a petition of sundry inhabitants of the State of Kentucky, stating that the King of Great Britain having, by his proclamation of the sixteenth of October, one thousand eight hundred and seven, claimed the allegiance of all persons who may have been born in his dominions, and were not inhabitants of the United States of America at the period of their Revolution, and disregarding the laws of naturalization in other countries, hath authorized the impressment into his service of his pretended subjects, and treated as traitors such as may have taken up arms against him in the service of their adopted country; the petitioners being, at the present time, precluded from the privilege of following commercial pursuits on the high seas in safety, therefore pray that such measures be adopted by Congress as may effectually resist the unjust assumption of power claimed and exercised by a foreign nation; and pledging themselves to support with their lives and fortunes whatever steps may be taken, or acts passed, by the General Government, for the welfare of the Union.—Referred to Mr. Howard, Mr. John Morrow, and Mr. Harris, to examine the matter thereof, and report their opinion thereupon to the House.

Miranda's Expedition.

Mr. Love, from the committee to whom was referred, on the sixteenth instant, the petition of thirty-six citizens of the United States now confined at Carthagena, in South America, under sentence of slavery, made a report thereon; which was read, and ordered to be referred to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

The report is as follows:

Tuesday, November 22.

Two other members, to wit: from New York, Philip Van Cortlandt, and from South Carolina, Richard Wynn, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Additional Revenue Cutters.

Mr. Newton called for the order of the day on the bill authorizing the President to employ twelve additional revenue cutters.

The House having resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole,

Mr. Newton rose to state that the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures had understood, from the proper authorities, there was a necessity for the proper execution of the revenue laws, that the force under the direction of the Treasury Department should be considerably increased.

Mr. Dana inquired whether any written information touching the necessity there might be for twelve revenue cutters had been received by the committee—any letter from the Secretary of the Treasury? He thought it was necessary, if so, that it should be submitted to the House.

Mr. Newton replied that there had been no written communication from the proper Department to the committee. They had not thought it essential, having also understood that the Secretary of the Treasury was particularly occupied. However, he had taken the shortest method, by waiting upon the Secretary himself, and had received the information before alluded to. He had understood that the probable expense of each cutter would be about $10,000, or $120,000 for the whole, each cutter to carry about twenty men.

Mr. Quincy thought that the correct mode of proceeding would require other than mere verbal information. Respect for themselves should induce gentlemen not to act without official communication upon the subject. They could not, upon any other conditions, agree to so great an augmentation of the force under the direction of the Treasury Department. There had, heretofore, been but ten cutters employed. There were never more than ten when commerce was at its height and the revenue flourishing. But now, the House was called upon to vote twelve additional cutters, when we are without revenue, without commerce, and there is no information of an official nature before the House upon which it might act.

Mr. Newton could not see that it was of any consequence to the House, whether there had been a written communication to it upon the subject, so that the information came through the proper organ, from the proper authority. It was necessary, in times of difficulty like the present, to act with spirit and promptitude. The laws should be executed with the greatest strictness; and it was always wise to take time by the forelock.

Mr. Blackledge said that the expense of building the cutters would be defrayed by the detection of goods attempted to be smuggled. There had already been many condemnations. They were taking place every day. And it was to support the laws that these cutters had been called for.

On the motion of Mr. Newton, that the committee rise and report the bill, it was carried—yeas 47, nays 46.

Thursday, November 24.

Another member, to wit, Barent Gardenier, from New York, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Monday, November 28.

Another member, to wit, Matthew Lyon, from Kentucky, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Foreign Relations.

On the motion of Mr. Campbell, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report of the committee on the subject of our foreign relations.

The first resolution, in the following words, having been read:

Mr. Campbell opened the debate. He said that ill health had hitherto prevented and might hereafter prevent him from giving that attention to the subject which the all-important crisis would seem to require; it was, however, his duty to bring the subject before the House. The committee having in their report presented to the House the view in which they had considered the subject referred to them, and the reasons generally which induced them to present these resolutions to the House, he said it was not his intention at this time to enter into a discussion of their merits. Those reasons had been deemed sufficient by the committee to justify them in presenting these resolutions to the House; and as the objections to this, if any there were, could not be foreseen, he would not attempt to anticipate them. According to the view which he himself had taken of the first resolution, it could require no discussion, it was too clear to require demonstration, and too self-evident to need proof of its propriety. It might indeed seem to require an apology from the committee for presenting a proposition which every American must long since have determined for himself. When the question had been first presented to his consideration, it had appeared to him that it was totally superfluous, and to be doing little more than announcing to the world that the United States were still independent; but on further consideration, it had been deemed by the select committee of some importance that in the present critical situation of the United States, they should fix on some point at which all would meet. After a perusal of the documents laid before the House at the opening of the session, Mr. C. said it had been supposed that no one would hesitate in declaring his indignation at the flagrant violations and encroachments on our rights by the belligerent powers, while it had been supposed that some difference of opinion might exist as to the mode of resistance. After it was once determined that they would not submit, that they would repel aggression, it had been supposed that they might, with greater probability of unanimity, discuss the course proper to be pursued. With a view to this the committee had presented this resolution to the House. It was expected that all would unite in it and prove to the world that the Representatives of every portion of the American people were determined to maintain their rights, for the belligerent powers really seemed to suppose that the American people had forgotten them, and had therefore assumed the right of prescribing the course of conduct which we should pursue. To submit to regulations of foreign powers, which limited the conduct of the American people, and prescribed the rules by which they were to be governed, which pointed out the very ports to which they should or should not go, which fixed the tribute or tax which they should pay, would be not only to abandon their dignity and honor, but to surrender, shamefully surrender our independence. Mr. C. said he would not take up the time of the committee in showing that the Orders of Council of Great Britain and the Decrees of France, were, on the part of those nations, an assumption of power to give laws to this country, in direct violation of our neutral rights, and an encroachment on our sovereignty. This would require no argument. The real question is, said he, shall we govern ourselves or be controlled by the will of others; shall we become tributary or not, shall we submit or be independent? And to the committee he cheerfully left the decision of this question.

Mr. Mumford next addressed the Committee of the Whole. He observed, that although he had the honor of being one of the Committee of Foreign Relations, who framed the report under consideration, he dissented from that report in some respects. We had now arrived at a momentous crisis in the affairs of our country, and he hoped the House would deliberate with that firmness and moderation which became the Representatives of the free and independent people they had the honor to represent on this all interesting concern. However they might differ on smaller points of minor importance, yet when the best interest of the country was at stake, he hoped they would unite in some mode to secure our rights and promote the interests of the United States. The proposition which he had the honor to move a few days ago, was consonant in some degree to the instructions offered by our Ministers to Great Britain and France, offering to remove the embargo in relation to either that should rescind their obnoxious decrees. Neither of them having receded, Mr. M. said he would continue the embargo in relation to them both. Nay, further, he would inflict the severest penalties on any one who should receive a license or voluntarily pay tribute to either of them. He considered them both alike. He wished to see the country placed in a complete posture of defence; but he could not see any good reason why we should not trade with those nations who were willing to receive us on friendly terms, and to trade with us on the principles of reciprocity and mutual interests. This would not compromit the honor of the nation. Even admitting that it might possibly lead to war, which he doubted, he was convinced that the citizens of this country would rise en masse in support of that commerce which neither France nor England had any right to interdict. He did presume, with all the zeal of some gentlemen for irritating measures, it was not seriously contemplated to declare war against all mankind; he was for having at least a few friends in case of need. What was our situation now? The President of the United States had told them, after speaking of France and England, that "our relations with the other powers of Europe had undergone no material change since the last session." This being the case, our commerce was open with them all except France and Great Britain and their dependencies.

Mr. Quincy.—Mr. Chairman, I am not, in general, a friend to abstract legislation. Ostentatious declaration of general principles is so often the resort of weakness and of ignorance, it is so frequently the subterfuge of men who are willing to amuse, or who mean to delude the people, that it is with great reluctance I yield to such a course my sanction.

If, however, a formal denunciation of a determination to perform one of the most common and undeniable of national duties, be deemed by a majority of this House essential to their character, or to the attainment of public confidence, I am willing to admit that the one now offered is as unexceptionable as any it would be likely to propose.

In this view, however, I lay wholly out of sight the report of the committee by which it is accompanied and introduced. The course advocated in that report is, in my opinion, loathsome; the spirit it breathes disgraceful; the temper it is likely to inspire neither calculated to regain the rights we have lost, nor to preserve those which remain to us. It is an established maxim, that in adopting a resolution offered by a committee in this House, no member is pledged to support the reasoning, or made sponsor for the facts which they have seen fit to insert in it. I exercise, therefore, a common right, when I subscribe to the resolution, not on the principles of the committee, but on those which obviously result from its terms, and are the plain meaning of its expressions.

I agree to this resolution, because, in my apprehension, it offers a solemn pledge to this nation—a pledge not to be mistaken, and not to be evaded—that the present system of public measures shall be totally abandoned. Adopt it, and there is an end of the policy of deserting our rights, under pretence of maintaining them. Adopt it, and we can no longer yield, at the beck of haughty belligerents, the right of navigating the ocean, that choice inheritance bequeathed to us by our fathers. Adopt it, and there is a termination of that base and abject submission, by which this country has for these eleven months been disgraced, and brought to the brink of ruin.

That the natural import and necessary implication of the terms of this resolution are such as I have suggested, will be apparent from a very transient consideration. What do its terms necessarily include? They contain an assertion and a pledge. The assertion is, that the edicts of Great Britain and France are contrary to our rights, honor, and independence. The pledge is, that we will not submit to them.

Concerning the assertion contained in this resolution I would say nothing, were it not that I fear those who have so long been in the habit of looking at the orders and decrees of foreign powers as the measure of the rights of our own citizens, and been accustomed, in direct subserviency to them, of prohibiting commerce altogether, might apprehend that there was some lurking danger in such an assertion. They may be assured there can be nothing more harmless. Neither Great Britain nor France ever pretended that those edicts were consistent with American rights; on the contrary, both these nations ground those edicts on the principle of imperious necessity, which admits the injustice done at the very instant of executing the act of oppression. No gentleman need to have any difficulty in screwing his courage up to this assertion. Neither of the belligerents will contradict it. Mr. Turreau and Mr. Erskine will both of them countersign the declaration to-morrow.

With respect to the pledge contained in this resolution, understood according to its true import, it is a glorious one. It opens new prospects. It promises a change in the disposition of this House. It is a solemn assurance to the nation that it will no longer submit to these edicts. It remains for us, therefore, to consider what submission is, and what the pledge not to submit implies.

One man submits to the order, decree, or edict of another, when he does that thing which such order, decree, or edict commands; or when he omits to do that thing which such order, decree, or edict prohibits. This, then, is submission. It is to take the will of another as the measure of our rights. It is to yield to his power—to go where he directs, or to refrain from going where he forbids us.

If this be submission, then the pledge not to submit implies the reverse of all this. It is a solemn declaration that we will not do that thing which such order, decree, or edict commands, or that we will do what it prohibits. This, then, is freedom. This is honor. This is independence. It consists in taking the nature of things, and not the will of another, as the measure of our rights. What God and Nature has offered us we will enjoy, in despite of the commands, regardless of the menaces of iniquitous power.

Let us apply these correct and undeniable principles to the edicts of Great Britain and France, and the consequent abandonment of the ocean by the American Government. The decrees of France prohibit us from trading with Great Britain. The orders of Great Britain prohibit us from trading with France. And what do we? Why, in direct subserviency to the edicts of each, we prohibit our citizens from trading with either. We do more; as if unqualified submission was not humiliating enough, we descend to an act of supererogation in servility; we abandon trade altogether; we not only refrain from that particular trade which their respective edicts prescribe, but, lest the ingenuity of our merchants should enable them to evade their operations, to make submission doubly sure, the American Government virtually re-enact the edicts of the belligerents, and abandon all the trade which, notwithstanding the practical effects of their edicts, remain to us. The same conclusion will result, if we consider our embargo in relation to the objects of this belligerent policy. France, by her edicts, would compress Great Britain by destroying her commerce and cutting off her supplies. All the continent of Europe, in the hand of Bonaparte, is made subservient to this policy. The embargo law of the United States, in its operation, is a union with this continental coalition against British commerce, at the very moment most auspicious to its success. Can any thing be more in direct subserviency to the views of the French Emperor? If we consider the orders of Great Britain, the result will be the same. I proceed at present on the supposition of a perfect impartiality in our Administration towards both belligerents, so far as relates to the embargo law. Great Britain had two objects in issuing her orders. First, to excite discontent in the people of the continent, by depriving them of their accustomed colonial supplies. Second, to secure to herself that commerce of which she deprived neutrals. Our embargo co-operates with the British views in both respects. By our dereliction of the ocean, the continent is much more deprived of the advantages of commerce than it would be possible for the British navy to effect, and by removing our competition, all the commerce of the continent which can be forced is wholly left to be reaped by Great Britain. The language of each sovereign is in direct conformity to these ideas. Napoleon tells the American Minister, virtually, that we are very good Americans; that, although he will not allow the property he has in his hands to escape him, nor desist from burning and capturing our vessels on every occasion, yet that he is, thus far, satisfied with our co-operation. And what is the language of George the Third, when our Minister presents to his consideration the embargo laws? Is it Le Roi s'avisera? The King will reflect upon them. No; it is the pure language of royal approbation, Le Roi le veut. The King wills it. Were you colonies he could expect no more. His subjects as inevitably get that commerce which you abandon as the water will certainly run into the only channel which remains after all the others are obstructed. In whatever point of view we consider these embargo laws in relation to these edicts and decrees, we shall find them co-operating with each belligerent in its policy. In this way, I grant, our conduct may be impartial; but what has become of our American rights to navigate the ocean? They are abandoned, in strict conformity to the decrees of both belligerents. This resolution declares that we shall no longer submit to such degrading humiliations. Little as I relish, I will take it, as the harbinger of a new day—the pledge of a new system of measures.

Wednesday, November 30.

Foreign Relations.

Mr. Richard M. Johnson.—I am more than astonished to see this House inundated by every mail with publications, from the East, declaring that we have no cause of complaint against Great Britain; that we should rescind the proclamation of interdict against British armed vessels; that we should repeal the non-importation law; that the embargo should be taken off as to Great Britain; that we should go to war with France; that punctilio prevents a settlement of our differences with Great Britain; inviting the people to violate and disregard the embargo, to put the laws and the constitution at defiance, and rise in rebellion.

These considerations induced me to examine this matter, and to prove to every honest American, what we all believe in this place, that the object of one power, is to destroy our neutrality and involve us in the convulsing wars of Europe; and the object of the other, a monopoly of our commerce, and the destruction of our freedom and independence. Let evidence as conclusive as holy writ put the enemies of this insulted country to shame. We are informed by our Minister in London, (Mr. Monroe,) in a communication dated August, 1807, that a war party of powerful combination and influence existed in Great Britain, who wanted to extend their ravages to this country; that we could not make calculations upon the justice of Great Britain; that in her many assumptions of power and principle she would yield but from the absolute necessity. Who is this war party? The British navy, to whom we have opened our ports, and extended all the hospitalities of a generous nation; while in the enjoyment of which that very navy waged war against our unoffending citizens. The ship owners, the East and West India merchants, and what cause have they for war? The enterprising citizens of the United States have been their rivals and superiors in a lawful and profitable commerce; and, lastly, political characters of high consideration. These compose this war party. In January, 1804, in an official communication of Mr. Madison, Mr. Monroe is charged with the suppression of impressment as his primary object; 2d, the definition of blockade; 3d, the reduction of the list of contraband; 4th, the enlargement of our trade with hostile colonies. The negotiation opens, and what is done? With industry and exertion our Minister was unable to bring the British Cabinet to any amicable arrangement. Lords Hawkesbury, Harrowby, Mulgrave, and Mr. Fox, succeeded each other, and every attempt to negotiate was in vain. Each of them brings expressions of good will and good disposition towards the United States, and a wish for amicable arrangement. But these professions and dispositions evaporate in invitations to the country and the city—in promises and procrastinations. To-day we are amused with a conversation at the foreign office, which animates with a lively hope—to-morrow hope is swallowed up in despair—and the third day announces some new injury. Affairs on the continent now call the attention of the British Ministry, and with every disposition of good will there must be a pause. In this amicable pause business required that our Minister should go to Old Spain; but upon his return to England, what astonishment seized his mind at the sad spectacle the changing scenes presented. Under the old rule of '56, and other interpolations upon public law, our merchant vessels are swept from the bosom of the ocean without notice, by British cruisers, and carried into British ports for condemnation. But why this change? A coalition had been formed in the North against France. British gold effected it. Russia and Austria had combined against France, and here the hopes of England rested.

But we all know her hopes were blasted. This is the reason why the blow was aimed, and your commerce sacrificed. The remonstrances of our Minister could not keep pace with new aggressions. This temporizing policy of England, and the destruction of our commerce, buried party spirit in America for the moment, and produced an indignant protest against her conduct from the great commercial cities in the Union, in which their lives and their property were pledged to support the Government in measures of just retaliation. And on this occasion the merchants of Boston requested the President to send a special Envoy to England, to give a greater solemnity to our claims of indemnity and future security. The cause of the merchants became a common cause, and the non-importation law was enacted, and Mr. Pinkney sent as a special Minister, agreeably to request. Let the commercial interest cease to complain. It is for them principally that we now suffer. These deeply-inflicted wounds upon the commerce of America, ingulfed for a moment the consideration of the primary object of Mr. Monroe's mission—the impressment of seamen—and it would seem, that when our Minister pressed one great subject of complaint, some greater outrage was committed to draw our attention from the former injury. Thus the unavailing exertions of our Minister for upwards of two years at the Court of St. James, eventuated in an extraordinary mission, and the non-importation law; a measure of retaliation, and which rendered us less dependent upon a foreign Government for such articles as can be manufactured at home. To bring further evidence of British hostility, let us attend a little to the Administration of Mr. Fox. He came into office about the 1st of February. On the 31st of May, information was received in London of the extra mission of Mr. Pinkney. Mr. Monroe, therefore, had an opportunity of about four months with Mr. Fox to settle our differences, without any interruption, not even the ideal one which has been suggested, as giving a temporary stay to the negotiation, viz: the waiting the arrival of Mr. Pinkney. The United States had a right to expect something like justice from this able Minister, because he entertained a sincere desire to conciliate the friendship of this nation by acts of justice. But in this just expectation we were disappointed. The hostility of other members of the Cabinet with whom he was associated, was the real cause of difficulty, joined perhaps with his sudden indisposition and death. Mr. Fox acknowledged our right to the colonial trade; he promised to stop the capture and condemnation of our merchant vessels; but when pressed to answer our complaints in writing, he promised, but broke that promise, and ultimately refused to give any orders with respect to the capture and condemnation of our vessels. Thus the golden apple was presented to our grasp, and then snatched forever from our sight.

Now let the committee attend to the chapter of negotiation, which produced the rejected treaty. First, the subject of blockade is proposed, and a definition demanded. We denied the doctrine of paper breastworks, spurious and illegitimate blockades, to be executed in every sea by the British Navy, of which our neutral rights were the victims. Such as the blockade of the coast of Europe from the Elbe to Brest, of the Elbe, the Weiser and Ems. The whole coast of Old Spain, of the Dardanelles, and Smyrna, and of Curaçoa. Upon this subject, Great Britain would yield nothing.

2. No duty can be laid upon American exports, but Great Britain imposes a duty of four per cent. upon her exports to the United States, under the name of a convoy duty; by which duty the citizens of the United States pay to Great Britain an annual amount of $1,300,000; but upon this unfriendly discrimination she will yield nothing.

3. Upon the search of merchant vessels she would yield nothing.

4. Upon the colonial trade she imposed new restrictions. She would yield nothing; a trade which produced the United States revenue to the amount of $1,300,000 per annum; and furnished exports from the United States of $50,000,000 annually.

5. Upon the West India trade she would yield nothing, and upon the East India trade she imposed new restrictions.

6. Upon the impressment of seamen, the subject was too delicate; she was fighting for her existence; she would yield nothing.

7. Upon the mutual navigation of the St. Lawrence, so important to the Northern States, they would yield nothing; but would demand a monopoly of the fur trade, and influence over the Indians within our own limits. Thus ended the chapter of negotiation.

I turn with indignation from this to a new species of injury, involving the events connected with and preceding the President's proclamation interdicting the armed vessels of Great Britain from our waters. I allude to the conduct of the officers of the British navy, and the evident connivance of the British Government. I will only mention three prominent cases:

1st. The Cambrian, and other British cruisers, commanded by Captain Bradley, who entered the port of New York, and in defiance of the Government arrested a merchant vessel, and impressed into the ships of war a number of seamen and passengers, refused to surrender them upon demand, and resisted the officers, served with regular process of law for the purpose of arresting the offenders.

2d. The case of the Leander, Capt. Whitby, with other British armed vessels, hovering about New York, vexing the trade of that port, arresting a coasting vessel of the United States by firing a cannon, which entered the vessel and killed John Pierce. The murder of Pierce, a fact so notorious, could not be proved in a sham trial in England, though the most unexceptionable characters are sent as witnesses from the United States; and not even an explanation is made to satisfy this country for the murder of a citizen. Call upon the citizens of New York, who saw the body of their slaughtered countryman; ask the mourning relatives of the murdered Pierce, whether he was slain or not! But from this tragic scene we must turn to one of a deeper hue.

3d. The attack upon the Chesapeake. This vessel had just left the shores of Virginia, leaving the British ship of war, the Leopard, enjoying the hospitalities of our laws. The Chesapeake was bound to the Mediterranean in defence of our rights. One hundred and seventy American tars were on board, who had undertaken this honorable enterprise. Unsuspicious of harm, while their rough cheeks were bedewed with tears in parting from their friends and country, their powder-horns empty, rods mislaid, wads too large, guns not primed—all was confusion. In this unhappy moment the messenger of death comes. The unfortunate Barron refuses to permit his men to be mustered by any but an American officer. His Government had given the command. This is the provocation. The vessel is attacked, and, without resistance, eight are wounded, three are killed, and four taken and carried into British service, one of whom has been hung as a malefactor in Nova Scotia. It has been said that the Goddess of Liberty was born of the ocean. At this solemn crisis, when the blood of these American seamen mingled with the waves, then this sea nymph arose indignant from the angry billows, and, like a redeeming spirit, kindled in every bosom indignation and resentment. A nation of patriots have expressed their resentment, and the sound has reached the utmost bounds of the habitable world. Let a reasoning world judge whether the President's proclamation was too strong for this state of things, and whether it should be rescinded without atonement.

Do the wrongs of this nation end with this outrage? No. Clouds thicken upon us; our wrongs are still increased; during the sensibility of this nation, and without atonement for the attack upon the Chesapeake, on the 16th October, 1807, a proclamation issues from the British Cabinet respecting seafaring persons, enlarging the principles of former encroachments upon the practice of impressment. This proclamation makes it the indispensable duty of her naval officers to enter the unarmed merchant vessels of the United States, and impress as many of the crew as a petty and interested naval officer may without trial point out as British subjects. The pretension is not confined to the search after deserters, but extended to masters, carpenters, and naturalized citizens of the United States—thus extending their municipal laws to our merchant vessels and this country, and denying us the right of making laws upon the subject of naturalization. The partners of British and Scotch merchants can cover their property and their merchandise from other nations under the neutral flag of the United States to Leghorn, Amsterdam, Hamburg, &c. But the patriotic Irishman or Englishman who has sought this protecting asylum of liberty, are not secured by our flag from the ruthless fangs of a British press-gang. And at this very moment our native citizens and adopted brethren, to a considerable number, are doomed to the most intolerable thraldom in the British navy by this degrading practice. There the freedom of our citizens depends upon the mercy of naval officers of Great Britain; and, upon this subject, every proposition for arrangement is trampled down by these unjust pretensions. Information was just received of the execution of the Berlin Decree, when the papers from every quarter announced the existence of the British Orders in Council, making a sweeping dash at our rightful commerce. Something must be done. The events which been have retraced, all pressed upon us. The treatment of our Minister, and his unavailing exertions; the result of the negotiation which gave birth to the rejected treaty; the memorials of the merchants; the outrageous conduct of the British naval officers upon our seaboard; the connivance at their conduct by the British Government; the proclamation of October 16, 1807; the execution of the Berlin Decree, and the Orders in Council. These considerations required the arm of Government, and at this inauspicious period, when the clouds which had so long threatened and darkened our political horizon gathered to a thick and horrible tempest, which now seemed about to burst upon our devoted nation, the embargo snatched our property from the storm, and deprived the thunderbolt of its real calamities. The effects of this measure at home and abroad, notwithstanding its inconveniences, will best attest the wisdom of the measure, which will be increased in its efficacy by a total non-importation law. As a measure of coercion upon other nations, I not only have the strongest hopes, but also a rational confidence in it, founded upon the most conclusive evidence. The misrepresentations in this country, the violations of the embargo, and the hope of changing the parties in the United States, or of producing a separation of the States; these miscalculations have destroyed entirely the efficacy of this measure, and been a main cause why Great Britain has not relaxed in her injustice towards America. And if we can rigidly enforce this system, my confidence is undiminished, my faith strong, that the United States will have reasonable terms offered to them. Yet the violators of your laws have been the great cause why the present state of things has been protracted. They are as infamous as the cowboys in the Revolution, who embodied themselves to feed our enemies with the only cow of a weeping widow, or a poor soldier who was fighting for his country. The commerce of the United States with the West Indies, the Continent of Europe, and Great Britain, will present to this committee the evidence upon which this faith is bottomed. The United States have furnished the West Indies with the essentials of existence, and also have afforded a market for the colonial produce of those islands. In fact, they cannot live without provisions from the United States in the present state of the world. These islands have been reduced to wretchedness and want already, notwithstanding the violations of the embargo, and flour, we learn, has been as high as $20, $30, $40, $50, and $60 per barrel. The vast importance of these possessions alone, to the mother country, might have been sufficient to have produced a settlement of our differences, if other considerations had not prevented. Attend to the trade with England and the continent previous to the Orders in Council. The annual exports of British manufactures to the United States amount to twelve million pounds sterling. In exchange for these manufactured articles, Great Britain receives to the amount of four million pounds sterling in tobacco, cotton, wheat, and the substantials of life. The eight millions which remain due must be paid in money or bills. To raise this money, the American merchants carry to the Continent of Europe produce of the United States to the amount of this eight millions, which is sold, and the amount remitted to the merchants in London to pay the debts of our merchants. This trade is now destroyed by the Orders in Council, and not the embargo—for this very measure has saved our vessels from capture, our merchandise from condemnation, and our seamen from impressment.

Thursday, December 1.

Another member, to wit, Thomas Moore, from South Carolina, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Jesse B. Thomas, the delegate from the Indiana Territory, returned to serve in the room of Benjamin Parke, who hath resigned his seat, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Tuesday, December 6.

Foreign Relations.

The report of the Committee on Foreign Relations being again before the House, and the question still on the first resolution—

Mr. Gholson said: Mr. Speaker, were I to yield to my embarrassment on the present occasion, I should not trespass on your indulgence. But when I reflect upon the great national importance of the question now before the House, and upon the high responsibility which its decision must attach to me as one of the Representatives of the people; I am impelled, from considerations of duty, to assign to you the reasons by which I am influenced.

It has been said, sir, with great truth, that the present is an extraordinary crisis. It seems indeed to have been reserved for the age in which we live, to witness a combination of political events unparalleled in the annals of time. Almost the whole civilized world has been within a few years convulsed by wars, battles, and conquests. Kingdoms and empires have been revolutionized; and we behold a vast continent assuming a new aspect under a new dynasty. Those laws which from time immemorial have prescribed and limited the conduct of nations, are now contemptuously prostrated, innocent neutrality is banished from the ocean, and we hear a grim tyrant asserting himself the sovereign of the seas. Thus the most essential part of the globe is attempted to be partitioned between two domineering rival belligerents. Sir, it would have been a subject of the sincerest felicitation if our happy country could have been exempt from this universal concussion. But we are fated to share evils in the production of which we have had no participation. In inquiring, Mr. Speaker, into the causes of these evils and the policy by which we are to be extricated from them, I am conscious of two things—of my utter incompetency to the elucidation of so great a subject, and of the unavoidable necessity of touching upon ground already occupied by gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate.

When, sir, I recur to the resolutions reported by the Committee of Exterior Relations, I find one which proposes resistance to the edicts of Great Britain and France; and another which recommends a system of non-intercourse between the United States and those countries.

In hearing the first resolution treated as an abstract proposition, my astonishment has been not a little excited. I have always understood an abstract proposition to be the assertion of some general principle without any specific application. Here is a distinct position, with a direct reference to particular orders and decrees. The resolution therefore is itself specific and appropriate, to use the apt terms of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dana). But before we can determine upon the propriety or impropriety of the resolutions, to me it appears indispensable that we should examine attentively and minutely, not only the situation of this country in relation to France and Britain, but also the injuries and aggressions they have committed upon our neutral rights.

In doing this I regret extremely that I shall wound the delicate taste and exquisite sensibility of my learned colleague (Mr. Randolph), who addressed you yesterday. I shall take no pleasure in the retrospection which seems so much to disgust that gentleman; but I do not know how else to find justification for the measures we, I trust, shall pursue, and to expose the profligacy of our enemies. The regular discussion of the first resolution would seem naturally to lead us to a review of the edicts of Great Britain and France. When we say we will not submit to their edicts; it cannot be amiss, although I acknowledge, sir, the undertaking is an unpleasant one, to inquire into the nature and extent of those edicts; I therefore will endeavor, within as narrow limits as possible, to exhibit to the view of the indignant American, the various wanton aggressions which have been committed by both these powers upon his commercial rights. And, sir, whenever we look for the chief source of our difficulties, we must turn towards Great Britain. Then let us examine the principal items in her account.

On 8th June, 1793, the British Government issued an Order of Council to stop and detain for condemnation, vessels laden with corn, flour, or meal, and bound to France, whose people were then almost in the act of starving, and of course we were deprived of an excellent market for those articles.

On 6th November, 1793, an order issued to stop and detain ships laden with the produce of, or carrying provisions to, the colonies of France.

On 21st March, 1799, she issued a proclamation declaring the United Provinces in a state of blockade, and thereby excluding neutral commerce without any actual investment.

On 16th May, 1806, a proclamation declaring the blockade of the coast from the Elbe to Brest, inclusive.

On 7th January, 1807, an order prohibiting neutral vessels from trading from one port to another of the enemy or his allies.

On 11th May, 1807, a proclamation declaring the blockade of the coast between the Elbe, Weser, and Ems.

On 11th May, 1807, a proclamation declaring the blockade of the Dardanelles and Smyrna.

In October, 1807, a proclamation, ordering British officers to impress from American vessels all such of their crews as might be taken or mistaken for British subjects.

On 11th November, 1807, Orders in Council were issued interdicting all neutral commerce to any port of Europe from which the British flag was excluded; directing that neutrals should trade to such ports only, under British license and with British clearances—that all ships destined before the issuing of the orders to any of the said ports, should go into a British port, and that all vessels having "certificates of origin" should be lawful prize.

On 11th November, 1807, an Order in Council was issued, declaring void the legal transfer of vessels from the enemies of Britain, to neutrals or others.

In 1808, various acts of Parliament have been passed, carrying the orders of the 11th of November, 1807, into execution. They impose a specific tax on a variety of articles of American merchandise allowed to be re-exported to the continent of Europe, for example, on tobacco, 12s. 6d. sterling per cwt.; on indigo, 2s. per lb.; pork, 17s. 6d. per cwt.; cotton, 9d. per lb.; and on all other articles not enumerated in the act, a duty of forty per cent. is exacted on re-exportation.

On 8th January, 1808, a proclamation issued declaring the blockade of Carthagena, Cadiz, and St. Lucar, and all the ports between the first and last of these places.

In the Autumn of 1808, in order that plunder might commence from the very moment of the expected repeal of the embargo, the French West India islands were declared in a state of blockade.

I will forbear, sir, at this time from commenting on the habitual impressment of American citizens, by Great Britain; the illegal condemnation of American vessels under what they call the rule of 1756; the spurious blockades of British commanders, and the consequent spoliations on our commerce. Nor will I detain the House by relating the story of Captain Bradley, commander of the Cambrian, who in the face of the city of New York, and in contempt of the civil authority of the United States, dragged your citizens into slavish captivity. The case too of the British ship Leander may remain untold—the enormity of that transaction is written in indelible characters, with the blood of our countrymen. The invitation of the British Ministry to your merchants to violate the embargo, and the burning of a friendly ship of war (the Impetueux) in your own waters, are circumstances too light to be noticed. I feel no disposition, either, to portray the affair of the Chesapeake. The ghosts of the murdered are yet unavenged for that horrid and perfidious deed!

I will now advert, sir, to the principal injuries committed by France on the neutral commerce of the United States. They consist in the execution of three decrees, to wit:

The Berlin decree of the 21st November, 1806, declaring the British islands in a state of blockade, and that no vessel having been at or coming directly from England or her colonies, shall enter at a French port.

The Milan decree of the 17th December, 1807, declaring lawful prize every vessel that has suffered the visit of an English vessel, submitted to an English voyage, or paid duty to the English Government; and also, every vessel coming from the ports of England and her colonies.

The Bayonne decree of April, 1808, which subjects, as it is said, and I believe not doubted, all American vessels found upon the high seas since the embargo, to capture and confiscation.

Here, Mr. Speaker, I will end the black catalogue of iniquitous outrages and restrictions upon neutral commerce—restrictions which are acknowledged to depend for their support upon no other ground than that of retaliation. Whilst I protest against the principle of retaliating upon an enemy through the medium of a friend, yet these orders and decrees have no claim even to that principle. Because France and Britain both agree that the right of retaliation does not accrue before the neutral has acquiesced in the aggressions of the enemy. We have never acquiesced in the aggressions of either, and therefore, upon their own reasoning, ought not to be liable to the operation of the principle for which they unjustly contend. But, sir, can we quit this subject without looking more particularly at the consequences which result from this series of injuries?

In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain towards this country, we perceive a continuation of encroachments, designed only for the utter destruction of our commerce. This disposition is manifest in every order and proclamation she has issued since the year 1793. If this were not her object, why such a continued system of illegitimate blockades? Why so many vexatious restrictions upon neutral trade, tending to destroy competition on our part in the continental markets? I might trace the scheme a little further back, and ask, whence the outrages? the orders of June and November, 1793, which produced Jay's treaty? A treaty which I am sorry to say, did not guarantee to us mutual and reciprocal rights, and which was no sooner ratified than violated by British perfidy. But, sir, I will not speak of trivial matters, like these; they are of no consequence when we reflect upon other topics. The pretended blockade of almost every port upon the Baltic; the blockade of the eastern and southern coasts of the North Sea, unaccompanied by any naval force; the nominal investment of the ports on the south of the British channel, and on the European coast of the Mediterranean sea; the occlusion of the Black Sea, by the blockade of the Dardanelles and Smyrna, and in fine the blockade of all the places from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Arctic Ocean, are acts which, notwithstanding their unexampled enormity in themselves, sink into perfect insignificance, when we consider the base attempts meditated by the orders of November, 1807, and the consequent statutes of Parliament, to reduce this country again to a state of colonial slavery! Sir, at the very thought of these infamous orders and acts of the British Government, I feel emotions of indignation and contempt, to repress which would be dishonorable. What, sir? American vessels to be arrested in a lawful commerce, upon "the highway of nations;" to be forcibly carried into British ports, and there either condemned, or else compelled before they can prosecute their voyage to take British clearances and pay a British tax! And if the owner of the cargo shall be unable to pay the amount of tax, he has the consolation left him of seeing his property burnt! Sooner would I see every vessel and every atom of our surplus produce make one general conflagration in our own country. For what purpose was the Revolution, in which the blood and treasure of our ancestors were the price of independence, if we are now to be taxed by Britain? The highest authority in the Union cannot constitutionally tax the exports, which are in part the products of the labor of the American people; yet the British Government has presumptuously undertaken to do it. I, sir, for one must protest against any thing like submission to this conduct. But let us see what we should get by submission. So far from gaining, it will be easy to demonstrate, that if we were to submit, we should be only remunerated with disgrace and ruin.