Wednesday, December 7.

Mr. Say presented memorials from sundry late officers in the Pennsylvania line of the Revolutionary army, stating that, from the peculiar circumstances of the memorialists, they have been compelled to dispose of the certificates of pay and commutation granted them for military services rendered to the United States; and praying such relief in the premises as to the wisdom and justice of Congress shall seem meet.

Mr. Wharton presented a petition from sundry late officers of the Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina lines of the said Revolutionary arm, to the like effect.

The said memorials and petition were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Durell moved that the House do come to the following resolution:

The resolution was read, and, on motion of Mr. Bacon, ordered to lie on the table.

Foreign Relations.

The House then resumed the consideration of the first member of the first resolution reported on Thursday last, from the Committee of the Whole, which was depending yesterday at the time of adjournment, in the words following, to wit:

Mr. G. W. Campbell concluded his observations of yesterday, as given entire in preceding pages.

Mr. Quincy.—Mr. Speaker, I offer myself to the view of this House with a very sensible embarrassment, in attempting to follow the honorable gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Campbell)—a gentleman who holds so distinguished a station on this floor, through thy blessing, Mr. Speaker, on his talents and industry. I place myself with much reluctance in competition with this, our great political Æneas, an illustrious leader of antiquity, whom, in his present relations, and in his present objects, the gentleman from Tennessee not a little resembles; since, in order to evade the ruin impending over our cities—taking my honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) by one hand, and the honorable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Montgomery) by the other (little Iülus and wife Creusa)—he is posting away into the woods with Father Anchises and all the household gods.

When I had the honor of addressing this House a few days ago, I touched this famous report of our Committee of Foreign Relations perhaps a little too carelessly; perhaps I handled it a little too roughly, considering its tender age, and the manifest delicacy of its constitution. But, sir, I had no idea of affecting very exquisitely the sensibilities of any gentleman. I thought that this was a common report of one of our ordinary committees, which I had a right to canvass or to slight, to applaud or to censure, without raising any extraordinary concern, either here or elsewhere. But, from the general excitement which my inconsiderate treatment of this subject occasions, I fear that I have been mistaken. This can be no mortal fabric, Mr. Speaker. This must be that image which fell down from Jupiter, present or future. Surely, nothing but a being of celestial origin would raise such a tumult in minds tempered like those which lead the destinies of this House. Sir, I thought that this report had been a common piece of wood—inutile lignum—just such a piece of wood as any day-laborer might have hewed out in an hour, had he health and a hatchet. But it seems that our honorable chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, maluit esse Deum. Well, sir, I have no objections. If the workmen will, a god it shall be. I only wish, that when gentlemen bring their sacred things upon this floor, that they would blow a trumpet before them, as the heathens do, on such occasions, to the end that all true believers may prepare themselves to adore and tremble, and that all unbelievers may turn aside, and not disturb their devotions.

I assure gentlemen that I meant to commit no sacrilege. I had no intention, sir, of canvassing very strictly this report. I supposed, that when it had been published and circulated, it had answered all the purposes of its authors, and I felt no disposition to interfere with them. But the House is my witness that I am compelled, by the clamor raised on all sides by the friends of the Administration, to descend to particulars, and to examine it somewhat minutely.

My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was pleased the other day to assert:——Sir, in referring to his observations, on a former occasion, I beg the House not to imagine that I am about to follow him. No, sir; I will neither follow nor imitate him. I hang upon no man's skirts; I run barking at no man's heel. I canvass principles and measures solely with a view to the great interests of my country. The idea of personal victory is lost in the total absorption of sense and mind in the impending consequences. I say he was pleased to assert that I had dealt in general allegations against this report, without pointing out any particular objection. And the honorable chairman (Mr. Campbell) has reiterated the charge. Both have treated this alleged omission with no little asperity. Yet, sir, it is very remarkable, that, so far from dealing in general allegations, I explicitly stated my objections. The alternatives presented by the report—war or suspension of our rights, and the recommendation of the latter, rather than take the risk of the former, I expressly censured. I went further. I compared these alternatives with an extract from an address made by the first Continental Congress to the inhabitants of Great Britain, and attempted to show, by way of contrast, what I thought the disgraceful spirit of the report. Yet, these gentlemen complain that I dealt in general allegations. Before I close, sir, they will have, I hope, no reason to repeat such objections. I trust I shall be particular, to their content.

Before entering upon an examination of this report, it may be useful to recollect how it originated. By the third section of the second article of the constitution, it is declared that the President of the United States "shall, from time to time, give to Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." It is, then, the duty of the President to recommend such measures as in his judgment Congress ought to adopt. A great crisis is impending over our country. It is a time of alarm, and peril, and distress. How has the President performed this constitutional duty? Why, after recapitulating, in a formal Message, our dangers and his trials, he expresses his confidence that we shall, "with an unerring regard to the essential rights and interests of the nation, weigh and compare the painful alternatives out of which a choice is to be made," and that "the alternative chosen will be maintained with fortitude and patriotism." In this way our Chief Magistrate performs his duty. A storm is approaching; the captain calls his choice hands upon deck; leaves the rudder swinging, and sets the crew to scuffle about alternatives! This Message, pregnant with nondescript alternatives, is received by this House. And what do we? Why, constitute a great Committee of Foreign Relations, and, lest they should not have their attention completely occupied by the pressing exigencies of those with France and Great Britain, they are endowed with the whole mass—British, Spanish, and French; Barbary Powers and Indian neighbors. And what does this committee do? Why, after seven days' solemn conclave, they present to this House an illustrious report, loaded with alternatives—nothing but alternatives. The cold meat of the palace is hashed and served up to us, piping hot, from our committee room.

In considering this report, I shall pay no attention to either its beginning or its conclusion. The former consists of shavings from old documents, and the latter of birdlime for new converts. The twelfth page is the heart of this report; that I mean to canvass. And I do assert, that there is not one of all the principal positions contained in it which is true, in the sense and to the extent assumed by the committee. Let us examine each, separately:

Here is a tri-forked alternative. Let us consider each branch, and see if either be true, in the sense assumed by the committee. The first—"abject and degrading submission"—takes two things for granted: that trading, pending the edicts of France and Great Britain, is submission; and next that it is submission, in its nature, abject and degrading. Neither is true. It is not submission to trade, pending those edicts, because they do not command you to trade; they command you not to trade. When you refuse to trade, you submit; not when you carry on that trade, as far as you can, which they prohibit. Again, it is not true that such trading is abject and disgraceful, and that, too, upon the principles avowed by the advocates of this report. Trading, while these edicts are suspended over our commerce, is submission, say they, because we have not physical force to resist the power of these belligerents; of course, if we trade, we must submit to these restrictions, not having power to evade or break through them. Now, admit, for the sake of argument, (what however in fact I deny,) that the belligerents have the power to carry into effect their decrees so perfectly; that, by reason of the orders of Great Britain, we are physically disabled from going to France; and that, by the edicts of France, we are in like manner disabled from going to Great Britain. If such be our case, in relation to these powers, the question is, whether submitting to exercise all the trade which remains to us, notwithstanding these edicts, is "abject and degrading."

In the first place, I observe, that submission is not, to beings constituted as we are, always "abject and degrading." We submit to the decrees of Providence—to the laws of our nature. Absolute weakness submits to absolute power; and there is nothing in such submission shameful or degrading. It is no dishonor for finite not to contend with infinite. There is no loss of reputation if creatures, such as men, perform not impossibilities. If then it be true, in the sense asserted by some of the advocates of this report, that it is physically impossible for us to trade with France and Great Britain and their dependencies, by reason of these edicts, still there is nothing "abject or degrading" in carrying on such trade as these edicts leave open to us, let it be never so small or so trifling; which, however, it might be easily shown, as it has been, that it is neither the one nor the other. Sir, in this point of view, it is no more disgraceful for us to trade to Sweden, to China, to the Northwest coast, or to Spain and her dependencies—not one of which countries is now included in those edicts—than it is disgraceful for us to walk, because we are unable to fly; no more than it is shameful for man to use and enjoy the surface of this globe, because he has not at his command the whole circle of nature, and cannot range at will over all the glorious spheres which constitute the universe.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Campbell) called upon us just now to tell him what was disgraceful submission, if carrying on commerce under these restrictions was not such submission. I will tell that gentleman. That submission is "abject and disgraceful" which yields to the decrees of frail and feeble power, as though they were irresistible; which takes counsel of fear, and weighs not our comparative force; which abandons the whole, at a summons to deliver up a part; which makes the will of others the measure of rights, which God and nature not only have constituted eternal and unalienable, but have also endued us with ample means to maintain.

My argument on this clause of the report of the committee may be presented in this form: either the United States have or they have not physical ability to carry on commerce in defiance of the edicts of both or of either of these nations. If we have not physical ability to carry on the trade which they prohibit, then it is no disgrace to exercise that commerce which these irresistible decrees permit. If we have such physical ability, then, to the degree in which we abandon that commerce which we have power to carry on, is our submission "abject and disgraceful." It is yielding without a struggle; it is sacrificing our rights, not because we have not force, but because we have not spirit to maintain them. It is in this point of view that I am disgusted with this report. It abjures what it recommends; it declaims, in heroics, against submission, and proposes, in creeping prose, a tame and servile subserviency.

It cannot be concealed, let gentlemen try as much as they will, that we can trade, not only with one, but with both these belligerents, notwithstanding these restrictive decrees. The risk to Great Britain against French capture scarcely amounts to two per cent.; that to France against Great Britain is unquestionably much greater. But, what is that to us? It is not our fault, if the power of Britain on the ocean is superior to that of Bonaparte. It is equal and exact justice between both nations for us to trade with both, as far as it is in our power. Great as the power of Britain is on the ocean, the enterprise and intrepidity of our merchants are more than a match for it. They will get your products to the Continent in spite of her navy. But suppose they do not; suppose they fail, and are captured in the attempt; what is that to us? After we have given them full notice of all their dangers, and perfect warning, either of our inability or of our determination not to protect them, if they take the risk, it is at their peril. And, upon whom does the loss fall? As it does now, through the operation of your embargo, on the planter, on the farmer, on the mechanic, on the day-laborer? No, sir; on the insurer—on the capitalist—on those who in the full exercise of their intelligence, apprised of all the circumstances, are willing to take the hazard for the sake of the profit.

I will illustrate my general idea by a supposition. There are two avenues to the ocean from the harbor of New York—by the Narrows, and through Long Island Sound. Suppose the fleets, both of France and Great Britain, should block up the Narrows, so that to pass them would be physically impossible, in the relative state of our naval force. Will gentlemen seriously contend that there would be any thing "abject or disgraceful," if the people of New York should submit to carry on their trade through the Sound? Would the remedy for this interference with our rights be abandoning the ocean altogether? Again: suppose, that instead of both nations blockading the same point, each should station its force at a different one—France at the mouth of the Sound, Britain at the Narrows. In such case, would staying at home, and refusing any more to go upon the sea, be an exercise of independence in the citizens of New York? Great philosophers may call it "dignified retirement," if they will. I call it, and I am mistaken if the people would not call it, "base and abject submission." Sir, what in such a case would be true honor? Why, to consider well which adversary is the weakest, and cut our way to our rights through the path which he obstructs. Having removed the smaller impediment, we should return with courage, strengthened by trial and animated by success, to the relief of our rights, from the pressure of the strongest assailant. But, all this is war; and war is never to be incurred. If this be the national principle, avow it; tell your merchants you will not protect them; but, for Heaven's sake, do not deny them the power of relieving their own and the nation's burdens, by the exercise of their own ingenuity. Sir, impassable as the barriers offered by these edicts are in the estimation of members on this floor, the merchants abroad do not estimate them as insurmountable. Their anxiety to risk their property, in defiance of them, is full evidence of this. The great danger to mercantile ingenuity is internal envy—the corrosion of weakness or prejudice. Its external hazard is ever infinitely smaller. That practical intelligence which this class of men possesses, beyond any other in the community, excited by self-interest—the strongest of human passions—is too elastic to be confined by the limits of exterior human powers, however great or uncommon. Build a Chinese wall, and the wit of your merchants, if permitted freely to operate, will break through it or overleap it, or undercreep it.

The second branch of the alternatives under consideration is equally deceptive—"War with both nations." Can this ever be an alternative? Did you ever read in history, can you conceive in fancy, a war of two nations, each of whom is at war with the other, without a union with one against the other immediately resulting? It cannot exist in nature. The very idea is absurd. It never can be an alternative, whether we shall find two nations each hostile to the other. But it may be, and if we are to fight at all, it is a very serious question, which of the two we are to select as an adversary. As to the third branch of these celebrated alternatives, "a continuance and enforcement of the present system of commerce," I need not spend time to show that this does not include all the alternatives which exist under this head—since the committee immediately admit, that there does exist another alternative, "partial repeal," about which they proceed to reason.

The report proceeds. "The first" (abject and degrading submission) "cannot require any discussion." Certainly not. Submission of that quality which the committee assume, and with the epithets of which they choose to invest it, can never require discussion at any time. But, whether trading under these orders and decrees be such submission, whether we are not competent to resist them in part, if not in whole, without a total abandonment of the exercise of all our maritime rights, the comparative effects of the edicts of each upon our commerce and the means we possess to influence or control either, are all fair and proper subjects of discussion; some of which the committee have wholly neglected and none of which have they examined, as the House had a right to expect.

The committee proceed "to dissipate the illusion" that there is any "middle course," and to reassert the position before examined, that "there is no other alternative than war with both nations, or a continuance of the present system." This position they undertake to support by two assertions. First, that "war with one of the belligerents only, would be submission to the edicts and will of the other." Second, that "repeal in whole or in part of the embargo, must necessarily be war or submission."

As to the first assertion, it is a miserable fallacy, confounding coincidence of interest with subjection of will; things in their nature palpably distinct. A man may do what another wills, nay, what he commands, and not act in submission to his will, or in obedience to his command. Our interest or duty may coincide with the line of conduct another presumes to prescribe. Shall we vindicate our independence at the expense of our social or moral obligations? I exemplify my idea in this way. Two bullies beset your door, from which there are but two avenues. One of them forbids you to go by the left, the other forbids you to go by the right avenue. Each is willing that you should pass by the way which he permits. In such case, what will you do? Will you keep house forever, rather than make choice of the path through which you will resume your external rights? You cannot go both ways at once, you must make your election. Yet, in making such election, you must necessarily coincide with the wishes and act according to the commands of one of the bullies. Yet who, before this committee, ever thought an election of one of two inevitable courses, made under such circumstances, "abject and degrading submission" to the will of either of the assailants? The second assertion, that "repeal in whole or in part of the embargo must necessarily be war or submission," the committee proceed to maintain by several subsidiary assertions. First—"a general repeal without arming would be submission to both nations." So far from this being true, the reverse is the fact; it would be submission to neither. Great Britain does not say, "you shall trade with me." France does not say, "you shall trade with me." If this was the language of their edicts, there might be some color for the assertion of the committee, that if we trade with either we submit. The edicts of each declare you shall not trade with my adversary. Our servile knee-crooking embargo says, "you shall, therefore, not trade." Can any submission be more palpable, more "abject, more disgraceful?" A general repeal without arming, would be only an exercise of our natural rights, under the protection of our mercantile ingenuity, and not under that of physical power. Whether our merchants shall arm or not, is a question of political expediency and of relative force. It may be very true that we can fight our way to neither country, and yet it may be also very true, that we may carry on a very important commerce with both. The strength of the national arm may not be equal to contend with either, and yet the wit of our merchants may be over-match for the edicts of all. The question of arming or not arming, has reference only to the mode in which we shall best enjoy our rights, and not at all to the quality of the act of trading during these edicts. To exercise commerce is our absolute right. If we arm, we may possibly extend the field beyond that which mere ingenuity would open to us. Whether the extension thus acquired be worthy of the risk and expense, is a fair question. But, decide it either way, how is trading as far as we have ability, made less abject than not trading at all?

I come to the second subsidiary assertion. "A general repeal and arming of merchant vessels, would be war with both, and war of the worst kind, suffering the enemies to plunder us, without retaliation upon them."

I have before exposed the absurdity of a war with two belligerents, each hostile to the other. It cannot be true, therefore, that "a general repeal and arming our merchant vessels," would be such a war. Neither if war resulted, would it be "war of the worst kind." In my humble apprehension, a war, in which our enemies are permitted to plunder us, and our merchants not permitted to defend their property, is somewhat worse than a war like this; in which, with arms in their hands, our brave seamen might sometimes prove too strong for their piratical assailants. By the whole amount of property which we might be able to preserve by these means, would such a war be better than that in which we are now engaged. For the committee assure us, that the aggressions to which we are subject, "are to all intents and purposes a maritime war, waged with both nations against the United States."

The last assertion of the committee, in this most masterly page is, that "a partial repeal must from the situation of Europe, necessarily be actual submission to one of the aggressors, and war with the other." In the name of common sense, how can this be true? The trade to Sweden, to Spain, to China, is not now affected by the orders or decrees of either belligerent. How is it submission, then, to these orders for us to trade to Gottenburg, when neither France nor Britain command, nor prohibit it? Of what consequence is it to us what way the Gottenburg merchant disposes of our products, after he has paid us our price? I am not about to deny that a trade to Gottenburg would defeat the purpose of coercing Great Britain, through the want of our supplies, but I reason on the report upon its avowed principles. If gentlemen adhere to their system, as a means of coercion, let the Administration avow it as such, and support the system, by arguments, such as their friends use every day on this floor. Let them avow, as those friends do, that this is our mode of hostility against Great Britain. That it is better than "ball and gunpowder." Let them show that the means are adequate to the end; let them exhibit to us, beyond the term of all this suffering, a happy salvation, and a glorious victory, and the people may then submit to it, even without murmur. But while the Administration support their system only as a municipal regulation, as a means of safety and preservation, those who canvass their principle are not called upon to contest with them on ground, which not only they do not take, but which, officially, they disavow. As partial repeal would not be submission to either, so, also, it would not be war with either. A trade to Sweden would not be war with Great Britain; that nation is her ally, and she permits it. Nor with France, though Sweden is her enemy, she does not prohibit it. Ah! but say the committee, "a measure which would supply exclusively one of the belligerents, would be war with the other." This is the State secret; this is the master-key to the whole policy. You must not only do what the letter of these orders prohibits, but you must not sin against the spirit of them. The great purpose is, to prevent your product from getting to our enemy, and to effect this you must not only so act as to obey the terms of the decrees, but keeping the great purpose of them always in sight, you must extend their construction to cases which they cannot, by any rule of reason, be made to include.

Sir, I have done with this report. I would not have submitted to the task of canvassing it, if gentlemen had not thrown the gauntlet with the air of sturdy defiance. I willingly leave to this House and the nation to decide whether the position I took in the commencement of my argument is not maintained; that there is not one of the principal positions contained in the 12th page, the heart of this report, which is true, in the sense and to the extent assumed by the committee.

It was under these general impressions that I used the word "loathsome," which has so often been repeated. Sir, it may not have been a well chosen word. It was that which happened to come to hand first. I meant to express my disgust at what appeared to me a mass of bold assumptions, and of illy-cemented sophisms.

I said, also, that "the spirit which it breathed was disgraceful" Sir, I meant no reflection upon the committee. Honest men and wise men may mistake the character of the spirit which they recommend, or by which they are actuated. When called upon to reason concerning that which, by adoption, is to become identified with the national character, I am bound to speak of it as it appears to my vision. I may be mistaken. Yet, I ask the question: is not the spirit which it breathes disgraceful? Is it not disgraceful to abandon the exercise of all our commercial rights, because our rivals interfere with a part; not only to refrain from exercising that trade which they prohibit, but for fear of giving offence, to decline that which they permit? Is it not disgraceful, after inflammatory recapitulation of insults, and plunderings, and burnings, and confiscations, and murders, and actual war made upon us, to talk of nothing but alternatives, of general declarations, of still longer suspension of our rights, and retreating farther out of "harm's way?" If this course be adopted by my country, I hope I am in error concerning its real character. But to my sense, this whole report is nothing else than a recommendation to us of the abandonment of our essential rights and apologies for doing it.

Before I sit down, I feel myself compelled to notice some observations which have been made in different quarters of this House on the remarks which, at an early stage of this debate, I had the honor of submitting to its consideration. My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was pleased to represent me as appealing to the people over the heads of the whole Government, against the authority of a law which had not only the sanction of all the legislative branches of the Government, but also of the Judiciary. Sir, I made no such appeal. I did not so much as threaten it. I admitted, expressly, the binding authority of the law. But I claim a right, which I ever will claim, and ever will exercise, to urge, on this floor, my opinion of the unconstitutionality of a law, and my reasons for that opinion, as a valid ground for its repeal. Sir, I will not only do this, I will do more. If a law be, in my apprehension, dangerous in its principles, ruinous in its consequences, above all if it be unconstitutional, I will not fail in every fair and honorable way to awaken the people to a sense of their peril; and to quicken them, by the exercise of their constitutional privileges, to vindicate themselves and their posterity from ruin.

My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was also pleased to refer to me, "as a man of divisions and distinctions, waging war with adverbs, and dealing in figures." Sir, I am sorry that my honorable colleague should stoop "from his pride of place," at such humble game as my poor style presents to him. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot but confess that, "deeming high" of the station which I hold; standing, as it were, in the awful presence of an assembled people, I am more than ordinarily anxious, on all occasions, to select the best thoughts in my narrow storehouse, and to adapt to them the most appropriate dress in my intellectual wardrobe. I know not whether, on this account, I am justly obnoxious to the asperity of my honorable colleague. But, on the subject of figures, sir, this I know, and cannot refrain from assuring this House that, as on the one hand, I shall, to the extent of my humble talents, always be ambitious, and never cease striving to make a decent figure on this floor; so, on the other, I never can be ambitious, but, on the contrary, shall ever strive chiefly to avoid cutting a figure like my honorable colleague.

The gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Troup,) the other day, told this House that, if commerce were permitted, such was the state of our foreign relations, none but bankrupts would carry on trade. Sir, the honorable gentleman has not attained correct information in this particular. I do not believe that I state any thing above the real fact, when I say that, on the day this Legislature assembled, one hundred vessels, at least, were lying in the different ports and harbors of New England loaded, riding at single anchor, ready and anxious for nothing so much as for your leave to depart. Certainly, this does not look much like any doubt that a field of advantageous commerce would open, if you would unbar the door to your citizens. That this was the case in Massachusetts I know. Before I left that part of the country, I had several applications from men, who stated that they had property in such situations, and soliciting me to give them the earliest information of your probable policy. The men so applying, I can assure the House, were no bankrupts; but intelligent merchants, shrewd to perceive their true interests; keen to pursue them. The same honorable gentleman was also pleased to speak of "a paltry trade in potash and codfish," and to refer to me as the Representative of men who raised "beef and pork, and butter and cheese, and potatoes and cabbages." Well, sir, I confess the fact. I am the Representative, in part, of men, the products of whose industry are beef and pork, and butter and cheese, and potatoes and cabbages. And let me tell that honorable gentleman, that I would not yield the honor of representing such men, to be the Representative of all the growers of cotton and rice, and tobacco and indigo, in the whole world. Sir, the men whom I represent, not only raise those humble articles, but they do it with the labor of their own hands, with the sweat of their own brows. And by this, their habitual mode of hardy industry, they acquire a vigor of nerve, a strength of muscle, and spirit of intelligence, somewhat characteristic. And let me say to that honorable gentleman, that the men of whom I speak will not, at his call, nor at the invitation of any man or set of men from his quarter of the Union, undertake to "drive one another into the ocean." But, on the contrary, whenever they once realize that their rights are invaded, they will unite, like a band of brothers, and drive their enemies there.

The honorable gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Johnson,) speaking of the embargo, said, that this was the kind of conflict which our fathers waged; and my honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) made a poor attempt to confound this policy with the non-intercourse and non-importation agreement of 1774 and 1775. Sir, nothing can be more dissimilar. The non-intercourse and non-importation agreement of that period, so far from destroying commerce, fostered and encouraged it. The trade with Great Britain was indeed voluntarily obstructed, but the enterprise of our merchants found a new incentive in the commerce with all the other nations of the globe, which succeeded immediately on our escape from the monopoly of the mother country. Our navigation was never suspended. The field of commerce at that period, so far from being blasted by pestiferous regulations, was extended by the effect of the restrictions adopted.

But let us grant all that they assert. Admit, for the sake of argument, that the embargo, which restrains us now from communication with all the world, is precisely synonymous with that non-intercourse and non-importation which restrained us then from Great Britain. Suppose the war, which we now wage with that nation, is in every respect the same as that which our fathers waged with her in 1774 and 1775. Have we from the effects of their trial any lively hope of success in our present attempt? Did our fathers either effect a change in her injurious policy or prevent a war by non-intercourse? Sir, they did neither the one nor the other. Her policy was never changed until she had been beaten on our soil, in an eight years' war. Our fathers never relied upon non-intercourse and non-importation, as measures of hostile coercion. They placed their dependence upon them solely as means of pacific influence among the people of that nation. The relation in which this country stood at that time with regard to Great Britain, gave a weight and a potency to those measures then, which in our present relation to her, we can neither hope nor imagine possible. At that time we were her Colonies, a part of her family. Our prosperity was essentially hers. So it was avowed in this country. So it was admitted in Great Britain. Every refusal of intercourse which had a tendency to show the importance of these then colonies to the parent country, of the part to the whole, was a natural and a wise means of giving weight to our remonstrances. We pretended not to control, but to influence, by making her feel our importance. In this attempt we excited no national pride on the other side of the Atlantic. Our success was no national degradation, for the more we developed our resources and relative weight, the more we discovered the strength and resources of the British power. We were the component parts of it. All the measures of the Colonies, antecedent to the Declaration of Independence, had this principle for their basis. As such, non-importation and non-intercourse were adopted in this country. As such, they met the co-operation of the patriots of Great Britain, who deemed themselves deviating from none of their national duties, when they avowed themselves the allies of American patriots, to drive, through the influence of the loss of our trade, the ministry from their places, or their measures. Those patriots did co-operate with our fathers, and that openly, in exciting discontent, under the effect of our non-intercourse agreements. In so doing, they failed in none of their obligations to their sovereign. In no nation can it ever be a failure of duty to maintain that the safety of the whole depends on preserving its due weight to every part. Yet, notwithstanding the natural and little suspicious use of these instruments of influence, notwithstanding the zeal of the American people coincided with the views of Congress, and a mighty party existed in Great Britain openly leagued, with our fathers, to give weight and effect to their measures, they did not effect the purposes for which they were put into operation. The British policy was not abandoned. War was not prevented. How then can any encouragement be drawn from that precedent, to support us under the privations of the present system of commercial suspension? Can any nation admit that the trade of another is so important to her welfare, as that on its being withdrawn, any obnoxious policy must be abandoned, without at the same time admitting that she is no longer independent? Sir, I could indeed wish that it were in our power to regulate not only Great Britain, but the whole world, by opening or closing our ports. It would be a glorious thing for our country to possess such a mighty weapon of defence. But, acting in a public capacity, with the high responsibilities resulting from the great interests dependant upon my decision, I cannot yield to the wishes of lovesick patriots, or the visions of teeming enthusiasts; I must see the adequacy of means to their ends. I must see, not merely that it is very desirable that Great Britain should be brought to our feet, by this embargo, but that there is some likelihood of such a consequence to the measure, before I can concur in that universal distress and ruin which, if much longer continued, will inevitably result from it. Since, then, every dictate of sense and reflection convinces me of the utter futility of this system, as a means of coercion, on Great Britain, I shall not hesitate to urge its abandonment. No, sir, not even although, like others, I should be assailed by all the terrors of the outcry of British influence.

Really, Mr. Speaker, I know not how to express the shame and disgust with which I am filled, when I hear language of this kind cast out upon this floor, and thrown in the faces of men, standing justly on no mean height in the confidence of their countrymen. Sir, I did, indeed, know that such vulgar aspersions were circulating among the lower passions of our nature. I knew that such vile substances were ever tempering between the paws of some printer's devil. I knew that foul exhalations like these daily rose in our cities, and crept along the ground, just as high as the spirits of lampblack and saline oil could elevate; falling, soon, by native baseness, into oblivion, in the jakes. I knew, too, that this species of party insinuation was a mighty engine, in this quarter of the country, on an election day, played off from the top of a stump, or the top of a hogshead, while the gin circulated, while barbecue was roasting; in those happy, fraternal associations and consociations, when those who speak, utter without responsibility, and those who listen, hear without scrutiny. But little did I think, that such odious shapes would dare to obtrude themselves, on this national floor, among honorable men;—the select representatives, the confidential agents of a wise, a thoughtful and a virtuous people. I want language to express my contempt and indignation at the sight.

So far as respects the attempt which has been made to cast such aspersions on that part of the country which I have the honor to represent, I beg this honorable House to understand, that so long as they, who circulate such insinuations, deal only in generals and touch not particulars, they may gain among the ignorant and the stupid a vacant and a staring audience. But when once these suggestions are brought to bear upon those individuals who in New England have naturally the confidence of their countrymen, there is no power in these calumnies. The men who now lead the influences of that country, and in whose councils the people on the day when the tempest shall come will seek refuge, are men whose stake is in the soil, whose interests are identified with those of the mass of their brethren, whose private lives and public sacrifices present a never-failing antidote to the poison of malicious invectives. On such men, sir, party spirit may indeed cast its odious filth, but there is a polish in their virtues to which no such slime can adhere. They are owners of the soil; real yeomanry; many of them men who led in the councils of our country in the dark day which preceded the national independence; many of them men who, like my honorable friend from Connecticut on my left, (Mr. Tallmadge,) stood foremost on the perilous edge of battle; making their breasts in the day of danger a bulwark for their country. True it is, Mr. Speaker, there is another and a much more numerous class, composed of such as through defect of age can claim no share in the glories of our Revolution; such as have not yet been blest with the happy opportunity of "playing the man" for their country; generous sons of illustrious sires; men, not to be deterred from fulfilling the high obligations they owe to this people by the sight of foul and offensive weapons. Men who, with little experience of their own to boast, will fly to the tombs of their fathers, and questioning, concerning their duties, the spirit which hovers there, will no more shrink from maintaining their native rights, through fear of the sharpness of malevolent tongues, than they will, if put to the trial, shrink from defending them through fear of the sharpness of their enemies' swords.

When Mr. Quincy had concluded, the House adjourned without taking a question.

Thursday, December 8.

On motion of Mr. Newton, that the unfinished business of yesterday, depending at the time of adjournment, do lie on the table; and that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the amendatory bill authorizing the President to employ an additional number of revenue cutters: and the question being taken thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the said committee; and, after some time spent therein, the bill was reported without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time to-day.

Foreign Relations.

The House then resumed the consideration of the first member of the first resolution reported on Thursday last from the Committee of the Whole, which was depending yesterday at the time of adjournment, in the words following, to wit:

Mr. Key said that it was with much regret that he had seen the course which the debate on the first resolution had taken; as the propositions contained in that resolution met his entire and full approbation, he could have wished that instead of the discussion which had taken place, a silent, dignified vote, the spontaneous effect of feeling and judgment, had at once passed. It would have been a better course, would have had a better effect, and kept the American mind from the impression which the protraction of the discussion must have occasioned, when taken in connection with the subject. A view however of the embargo had been gone into in respect to its past effects at home, and its probable future effects at home and abroad. As that course had been adopted, he said he should find an apology for the time which he should occupy, in the present eventful crisis, and the interest it universally excited.

I did myself believe (said Mr. Key) that the first resolution was an abstract proposition, and I still think so, although gentlemen consider it special; but surely a special proposition may be an abstract one. That which I consider an abstract proposition, is one out of which no future legislative proceedings can grow; but I agree that the crisis well warrants an expression of the public voice.

I shall take up the report and resolutions as a system, not with a view to condemn the report at all, for I take it as gentlemen wish it to be considered. I understand the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) as stating that the committee on our foreign relations had said nothing of the embargo. It was not necessary, Mr. Speaker, that they should, for the embargo law continues in operation until repealed. But surely it must be recollected that the Committee on Foreign Relations in their resolutions seemed to consider the system which they recommend, as including a continuance of the embargo; and I trust I meet the committee on fair and firm ground, when I consider their assent to be implied to the continuance of the embargo, and that it is their opinion that the measures which they recommend, united with the embargo, form an efficient system proper for the American people to adopt at this time. I shall necessarily therefore endeavor to answer gentlemen who have considered the embargo as a wise measure for the American people; that they are competent to bear it; and that it will, if guarded more sedulously, yet work out the political salvation of our land.

That the embargo is a measure severely felt by our country at large, and by some portions of it to a very eminent degree, cannot be denied. I did not expect to hear its effects contradicted; but they have been in some measure softened by the honorable chairman of the committee. I think the pressure of this measure great, and in some places requiring all the exertion of patriotism to support it. And as a proof of it, the members on this floor from different parts of the Union have only contended which section suffered most. A member from Massachusetts, (Mr. Quincy,) because he conceives that thirty millions of dollars have been lost to the Eastern country by the measure, hence concludes that the Eastern country suffers most. The gentlemen from the Southern country say that they raise seventy millions of pounds of cotton, of which but ten millions are consumed at home, and the whole of the residue remains on hand; and that having seven-tenths of their produce unsold, conceive that they most sensibly feel the weight of this affliction in their country. A member from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) will not yield the palm of oppression to either. "I live (said the gentleman) in the centre of the tobacco country, whether you draw the line from East to West, or from North to South. We are not less pressed than others, for we have no vent for this article so obnoxious in itself, but which the taste of mankind has rendered necessary." Now, with great deference to all these gentlemen, I say that my country suffers most. The Southern country possesses its staples, which but remain on hand; their value only diminished by the non-export. Tobacco and cotton may be preserved without material injury for a length of time. We know that at the close of the Revolutionary war tobacco bore a greater price than previous to its commencement, and amply remunerated the holders. But I represent an agricultural country. What can resuscitate wheat devoured by the fly? What restore flour soured in the barrel? Our produce perishes, the subject is destroyed. So far therefore as I represent an extensive and fertile farming district, I will not yield the palm of pressure to the cotton and tobacco country. So great has been the feeling of the people that it has wrought a wondrous change in the State which I have the honor to represent; not in men who are either deluded or deceived, as intimated by the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Campbell,) but men who, by the pressure of the embargo itself, have been driven to reflection, and by reflection removed the film from their eyes, and thereby seen their true interests more distinctly. In the course of the last Winter, the Legislature of the State of Maryland, believing that the Orders in Council justified the embargo, and that it was a wise measure, approved of it. Succeeding elections have taken place, and the present House of Representatives tells you that it is most ruinous and oppressive. Such certainly are its effects in the State of Maryland; and I should illy represent my own district, if I did not so declare. Gentlemen will say that I should rather be pleased with the change than regret it; but, so help me God, Mr. Speaker, I am much less anxious what description of citizens administers the affairs of the country, than that they should be well administered; that it should protect the liberty, give to labor its just reward, and promote the happiness and prosperity of the citizens.

But it is alleged, by the honorable chairman of the committee, (Mr. Campbell,) that this is a delusion; that the people do not comprehend the subject; for that it is the Orders in Council which have produced our embarrassments, and not the embargo. Here then, sir, I am precisely at issue with that learned and honorable gentleman. I contend that the pressure on the people is caused by the embargo, and not by the Orders in Council. However speculative theorists may reason, there is proof abroad, and stubborn facts to contradict their reasoning. Test the market from Boston to Savannah, as to the price which you may get at ninety days credit, the embargo being continued, or on condition that the embargo be repealed in thirty days. Is there no difference in the price under these circumstances? I know well from experience, and the whole country knows, that if the embargo be now taken off, the price of every species of produce will rise fifty per cent. The depreciation in price then flows from the embargo. Remove it and they will give you more; keep it on and they will give you less. These are stubborn facts, and every man who has gone to the market will attest their correctness. You may reason as you please; but there is not a farmer that can be reasoned out of his senses, especially when they are sharpened a little by necessity. I hold these facts to be more conclusive than any abstract reasoning to prove that the embargo does work a diminution in the value of the articles which we have for sale. If this be the case, it results, sir, that we must ascribe to the operation of that measure the loss our country now so greatly feels. Our citizens are not so uninformed as the gentleman from Tennessee imagines. He thinks, and I agree with him, that the public voice will be generally right when the people are well informed. They have seen all the official communications which have been published, and are competed to judge whether the Orders in Council justified the embargo, and whether, if the embargo had not been laid, they would have wrought that effect which we now so sensibly feel. Instead of being deluded, sir, their eyes are open, and the film removed; and they see that the embargo was not justified by necessity, and as far as their opinion has been expressed, that it was impolitic and unwise.

The gentleman seems to think that the country cannot feel much because it feeds well; but we may feel and feed at the same time. It is plenty that we complain of. Our surplus is touched by this torpedo, the embargo, and is thereby rendered useless. But gentlemen say that if the embargo were now taken off, we could not trade; and a calculation has been entered into by the gentleman from Tennessee in opposition to one made by me at the last session. I have not seen my calculation for months, sir; it is before the public—the gentleman's statement will go to the same tribunal, and I am willing to commit my slender reputation to the country for the accuracy of mine, and let the people judge between us. The gentleman tells you that we have no commerce to resort to which would be either safe or profitable. It is strange we cannot confide the decision of this question to commercial men—for what commercial man would undertake a voyage which shall be attended with certain ruin? I had thought that men of great experience and information, and whose knowledge was sharpened by interest, might be safely confided in. But merchants, whose habits of life have led them to calculate, whose information extends to every part of the world, are not to be trusted with the prosecution of their own interest, but we must kindly take it in hand for them! Sir, I contend that commerce had better be left free for merchants to find a market, which every one knows they would do, from their eagerness now to ship. If they could not export with safety, or profit, they would lay a voluntary embargo, ten thousand times better than a coercive one; the very necessity of coercion shows that our merchants would sail, were it not for the embargo. I contend that the embargo is ruinous and oppressive. Need I say any thing further on the subject? Look at the country. The courts of justice shut in one of the Southern States; executions suspended in a State contiguous to this; and Maryland reduced to the same necessity, from the circumstance of there being no market for our produce. So great is the pressure that the people have it not in their power to pay their ordinary debts; and how eloquent is the fact that in a moment of peace (for certainly there is not war) we are compelled to arrest the current of justice. The legislative acts depict the situation of the country more strikingly than volumes of argument. The State Legislatures know the inability of their citizens to pay, and hold out a kind hand to assist them.

In point of revenue how does it work? The honorable chairman of the committee, (Mr. Campbell,) in a speech of great learning and investigation, told us that the Treasury never was more full. I wish the documents were before the House to convince us of it. But did an atom of it flow in from the operation of the embargo? If there be such a surplus, it only shows the beneficial operation of the system pursued anterior to the embargo. What is to fill your Treasury now, if the people cannot sell their products? What will in this case become of your source of wealth in the Western country? The people can neither buy lands, nor buying, pay for them. Where is the impost duty which has supported the Government, and sunk to a considerable degree the national debt? The moment you prevent all importation, there is an utter extinction of impost revenue; and at home a physical inability to produce any from the people at large. We are a rich country, abounding in the necessaries of life; we have money's worth, but no money. Nor can our people by any practical means raise money to defray the expenses of State Governments, much more of that of the United States. I am in the country, sir; I cannot collect my rents, my neighbors cannot sell wheat or tobacco. All is stopped. I ask then what physical ability we have to discharge the State taxes, or any other? We have no other way of getting money but through the sale of our produce. Gentlemen say that our revenue would fall just as short, supposing the embargo to be raised. That is begging the question, sir. They assume that for a truth which they ought to prove in the first instance. Leave commerce open, and you will soon have money in return for our produce, or that which will procure it. Revenue is the life of Government, and let me suppose gentlemen to be sitting here thirteen months hence, on the first of January, 1810. Where is your revenue then to come from? You have dried up every source of the national wealth. What must you do? Either borrow or raise money by direct taxation. There is no doubt what must be resorted to; and it was touched with great ability, though slightly touched, by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) as to the consequences which must grow out of such a system of direct taxation. This species of taxation is consonant to the genius of the country, to the habits of our people—it comes too close to the pocket of the agriculturist, and is besides a source of revenue which ought to belong exclusively to the States. I hold it as a political truism, that upon the sovereignty and independence of each State, as guarantied by the constitution, do our liberties depend. I know that some of the ablest men in America opposed the adoption of the Federal Constitution on this ground: that the General Government being raised and supported on external matters only, if the time should ever arrive at which foreign commerce should cease, and internal taxes be resorted to, that great would be the conflict between the officers of the State and General Governments, which would ultimately end in the prostration of State rights. Gentlemen call the embargo, in silken phrase, a temporary suspension of commerce. I will call it by its own name; it is better known to the people by it. I contend that the embargo now laid is a perpetual embargo, and no member of this House can constitutionally say it is otherwise; for the immediate Representatives of the people have so played the game as to leave the winning trump out of their own hands, and must now have a coincidence in opinion both of the Senate and of the President of the United States to effect its repeal. If the whole of this body were to consent to a repeal, and a majority of the Senate, yet the President might resist them both. Is there any limitation to the law on the statute book? No; but there is a power given to the President to suspend it in the whole or in part, in the event of certain contingencies. Have those contingencies happened? Are they likely to happen? No, sir; and these are the views which I take of the subject. America, anxious to get red of this burden, has proffered to take it off, if either of the two belligerents would relax their edicts in our favor in relation to such one, keeping it on in relation to the other. What says the sarcastic British Minister? Why, sir, that they have no cause of complaint; that it was laid by the President as a precautionary measure; and they were told by our Minister that it was not to be considered as a hostile measure. What says France? She gives us no answer, say gentlemen. Aye, sir—and is that true? Have we indeed received no answer? I think we have one that wounds our feelings as deeply as the answer of Mr. Canning. It is the situation of our Minister abroad, who says he dare not ask for an answer, because the asking it might be injurious to our cause. What, have we a Minister abroad, and is he afraid or unwilling to make a proposition to the Government where he is resident? Surely, sir, that state of things furnishes as definite an answer as any that could be given. We have no hopes that either will remove its edicts. Sir, I consider the embargo as a premium to the commerce of Great Britain. Gentlemen say that she is a great power, a jealous power, and possessed of a monopolizing spirit. If these views be correct, by annihilating our commerce, do we not yield the seas to her, and hold out an inducement to her forever to continue her orders in force? What prospect is there that the embargo will be removed? It cannot now be got rid of by a vote of this House. We are saddled with it. If we cast our eyes to proceedings elsewhere constitutionally held on the same subject, we shall find that it is to remain still farther to oppress and burden the people of this country with increased rigor.

As a measure of finance it has laid the axe to the root. The tree is down that bore the golden fruit, and will not again grow till we ease ourselves of this measure. In a fiscal point of view I cannot then for my life think it a wise or provident measure. But as a preparation for war, it is still worse; because it produces a deficiency of that out of which war alone cannot be sustained. Instead of having money for your surplus produce, it rots upon your hands; instead of receiving a regular revenue, we have arrested its course, and dried up the very source of the fountain. As to preparation at home, which is the only preparation contemplated to make, what or whom is it against? Against France? She cannot come here. Or against England, who, with the monopoly of commerce which you leave her to enjoy, has no object further to annoy you? I believe, as a preparation for war, the best expedient would be to get as much money as we could, to send out our surplus produce and bring back the supplies necessary for an army if to be raised at all—to arm and discipline the militia. A raising of the embargo would be a preparation for war—it would bring us articles of the first necessity for our surplus. But on a continuation of the embargo, things must progress from bad to worse.

Another thing, sir; I do not now mean to take a constitutional view of the subject—but will not gentlemen pause and reflect on the continuance of the embargo? It is well known that the General Government grew out of a spirit of compromise. The great authors of that instrument were well acquainted with the term embargo. A temporary embargo for the purpose of sending out a squadron or concealing an equipment, was well understood. But I ask every one who hears me, if a question had been agitated in convention to give Congress a power to lay an embargo for one or two years, if the Eastern or commercial States would have agreed to it? Does any man believe it? No man who knows the country can believe it. With what sedulous anxiety did they say, in a negative provision of the constitution, that Congress should not lay an export duty! You are prohibited the minor power of taxing exports, and yet you stop exports altogether for an indefinite term. It is utterly inconceivable, that the States interested in commerce should have given their assent to any such powers so self-destructive. If they had given them, they ought to be most clear; not by implication, but most manifest. The exercise of powers counteracting principles most dear to every part of the community, ought to be assumed with the utmost caution. Under that view, except the measure be most wise in itself and its effects most clear, the Government ought not to continue the embargo. But why is it to be continued? We have taken some view of its effects at home. Let us see what effects may be expected to be produced by it abroad. An honorable gentleman told us an hundred millions were saved by having the embargo, a sum nearly equal to the whole exports of the United States for one year, excluding the capital employed. The first two or three seizures of vessels, sir, would have sent an alarm abroad, and the danger been so imminent, they would have voluntarily retired from destruction. There are no reasonable data from which to infer that one hundred millions of our property could at any one time have fallen a prey. Some few vessels might have been taken, but the rest would have escaped the grasp of the power which harassed them.

I will now examine the character of this measure; for upon my word, sir, it seems a political nondescript, though we feel its effects so severely. The President tells you it is a measure of precaution only; and yet we are told by the gentlemen that it is a species of war, which America can best use to coerce the two greatest powers on the earth, commanding land and sea, to truckle at our feet. I know not how gentlemen can place our connection with foreign nations in such a predicament; whilst the President officially holds out to the world that the embargo was a peaceful measure, gentlemen now say that it is a coercive one, a sort of quasi war. I recollect a gentleman at the last session making an estimate of the West Indies being worth an hundred millions to Britain, and predicting that before the measure was ninety days known in the West Indies, it would bring that nation to our feet, that it would act as a great political lever, resting its fulcrum on Jamaica, and move all Europe to our wishes. Double the number of days have elapsed, and they hold out insulting language. How then can we trust to the future predictions of gentlemen? Their error arises from a want of knowledge of the country; a little experience is worth all the theory in the world. In the years 1774-'5, an honorable feeling adopted a non-exportation and non-importation agreement, more faithfully executed by patriotism than any law since made or enacted; for every family refused to use an article which was not raised within the bosom of its own country. Did it produce starvation in the West Indies? No, sir; the politicians of that day did not so calculate. They knew the resources of those islands, and told them that if they would convert a part of their sugar plantations into corn-fields, they would not suffer. We are now in the habit of overvaluing ourselves and undervaluing our enemies. Come the day when it will, we shall have no ignoble foes to meet.

In the Revolutionary war how did England stand—how her islands? For several years she was at war with America, with Holland, with Spain, with France, whose fleets in the East and West Indies were often equal, sometimes superior to her own, and an armed neutrality in the North—during this period a French fleet blockaded the Chesapeake, and aided the capture of Cornwallis, and threatened the British islands—but how was this conflict with the world sustained? Were the islands starved during these years? did they fall? No, sir; the British nation braved the storm, and was only conquered by her sons—America was victorious and independent; but Europe retired discomfited. Sir, America can again prove victorious, but it must be by other measures than embargoes—destructive only at home and without effect abroad.

It is said that one reason why the embargo has not pressed so hard on Great Britain as it might, is, that it has not been so tightly drawn as it may be; that our citizens have evaded it. And, sir, if I have not any geographical knowledge of the country, tighten the cords as you may by revenue cutters and gunboats on the seaboard, and collectors and military on land, they will escape both. Interest, ever alert, will avail itself of our extensive coast and elude the law.

But gentlemen say they are not accountable for the failure in England, from another cause—the language of the public papers and pamphlets of the anti-embargoists. The enemy, we are told, has been induced to hold out under the idea that America will yield. Sir, would Great Britain rely for her oracles on the newspapers or pamphlets of this country? Have those causes wrought on her a perseverance in her measures? I wonder, sir, that, in the anxiety to find causes, gentlemen never cast their eyes to official documents—to a very important State paper issued on this side the Atlantic—saying that the marshals and civil force were not adequate to enforce the embargo. When the President's proclamation arrived in England, no doubt could have remained of the effect of the embargo. Another public record accompanied it—an act of one of the States arresting executions for debt during the continuance of the embargo, and for six months afterwards. With these public documents before them, the British nation would be more apt to judge, and more correctly judge, of the internal situation of the country, than from all the periodical publications of the day put together. Pamphlets also have been written in this country, of which it is said the British Ministry have availed themselves, to induce their people to believe that the United States are not capable of suffering. I believe we are. The people of America are as patriotic as any on earth, and will respect the laws, and must be made to respect them. They will obey them from principle; they must be made to obey them if they do not; for, while a law is in existence, it must be enforced. But I am somewhat surprised that gentlemen who talk of opposition publications in this country, as influencing England, should derive all their political data from British newspaper publications or opposition pamphlets. British opposition papers and pamphlets are with them the best things in the world; but nothing said here must be regarded there as correct. Even Mr. Baring has been quoted, who is a commission merchant, to the greatest extent perhaps known in the world. The Louisiana purchase of fifteen millions was nothing to him as a commission merchant. The next writer referred to, is Mr. Brougham, brought before Parliament, to assert the rights of a body of merchants confined almost exclusively to the continental trade. He came forward on their account, and the fact was demonstrated, notwithstanding his exertions, that the Orders in Council did not, but the prior French decrees did, curtail that commerce. So the majority thought and acted on that supposition. If the continuance of the embargo, then, does not produce a change in the policy of Great Britain, by its operation on the West Indies, if they resort to documents in this country, or even to speeches on this floor, they will probably continue the conflict of suffering as long as we are able to endure it, and continue our measures. For my opinion is, sir, that the extent of our seaboard affords such opportunities for evasion, that, unless we station cutters within hail of each other, on our whole coast, they will not be competent to carry our laws into effect. It will be benefiting the British colonies at the expense of our own country.

The continuance of our measures may be productive of another consequence, attended with more serious mischief than all others together—the diversion of trade from us to other channels. Look at both sides of the case. If Great Britain holds on, (and my predictions are not fulfilled, or she will persevere,) she will look for other resources of supply, that, in the event of a war, she may not be essentially injured. She will endeavor to arrange her sources of supply, so that no one nation refusing to deal with her shall have it in their power materially to impair her interests. As to cotton, large quantities of this article were formerly drawn from the West Indies. The destruction of the sugar estates in St. Domingo gave a new direction to cultivation. They ceased to grow in many of the West India islands that article which they formerly had raised to a considerable extent, (cotton,) and which, if the increased labor employed in the sugar estates, now adequate to the supply of Europe, be not profitable, they will again cultivate. The Brazils will assist to take a sufficient quantity for consumption, (and, as well as my memory serves me, they produce seventy or eighty thousand bags annually;) and South America will add her supplies. I grant that we can now undersell these countries; but I beg gentlemen to pause before they drive England into a change of commercial habits, which in the hour of future peace may never be fully restored, and thus inflict deep and lasting wounds upon our prosperity. Sir, we are told that we are to produce great effects by the continuance of the embargo and non-intercourse with this nation. Do gentlemen who were in the majority on the subject of the embargo when laid (for I was anxious then that at least foreign nations might come and give us what we wanted in exchange for our product) recollect their argument against permitting foreign vessels to come and take our produce; that it was privilege all on one side; that it would be nominal to France, while England would be the sole carrier? Now, sir, as to the non-intercourse system—how does that operate? France has no commerce—cannot come here—and therefore is not injured by her exclusion from our ports. It operates solely on England. If the argument was then correct, to avoid the measure because it operated to the sole benefit of England, what shall we think of the non-intercourse measure which operates solely against her? In a commercial view, therefore, and in point of interest, this country will be deeply benefited by a removal of the embargo.

But, gentlemen say that the honor of the country is at stake; that a removal of the embargo would be submission to Great Britain, and submission to France. How is our honor affected by removing it? We say we will not trade—with whom? With them alone? No, sir; the embargo says we will not trade with anybody. All nations, when they find it convenient, can pocket their honor for profit. What is it we do for a license to go into the Mediterranean? Do we not pay an annual tribute to Algiers for liberty to navigate the sea safer from its corsairs? Have we not an undoubted right to navigate the Mediterranean? Surely; and yet we pay annually a tribute for permission to do it—and why? Because the happiness and interest of the nation are promoted by it. In a monarchy, the Prince leads his subjects to war for the honor of his mistress, or to avenge a petty insult. But, what best consults the honor of a Republican Government? Those measures which maintain the independence, promote the interest, and secure the happiness of the individuals composing it. And that is the true line of honor which, if pursued, shall bring with it the greatest benefits to the people at large. I do not know, sir, strictly speaking, whether the destruction of any commercial right is destructive to the independence of the country; for a nation may exist independent, and the happiness of the people be secured, without commerce. So, that the violation of commercial rights does not destroy our independence. I acknowledge that it would affect the sovereignty of the country and retard its prosperity. But, are not the measures which have been adopted, submission? No train of argument can make more clear the fact, that, withdrawing from the ocean for a time is an abandonment, instead of an assertion, of our rights. Nay, I think I have the authority of the committee for it, for I speak of submission as applicable to the measure recommended by the committee. They say, that "a permanent suspension of commerce, after repeated and unavailing efforts to obtain peace, would not properly be resistance; it would be withdrawing from the contest, and abandoning our indisputable right freely to navigate the ocean." If a permanent embargo, after repeated offers of peace, would not properly be resistance, but an abandonment of our rights, is not a temporary embargo—and this has been a year continued—an abandonment for the time? Unquestionably it is. So long as it continues, it does abandon our rights. And now I will show that it is submission, and not resistance. I maintain that the embargo, aided by the second and third resolutions of the committee, does complete an abandonment of our maritime rights, and is a submission to the orders and decrees.

Of what nature are the rights in contest? They are maritime rights, and not territorial; and, to be used, must be exercised exterior to the limits of our territory. Whatever measures are confined within our territorial limits, is not an assertion or enjoyment of our exterior rights. Their enjoyment must be abroad, consisting of the actual use of them. If, then, all our measures be confined within our jurisdictional limits, they cannot amount to an enjoyment of the rights exterior to those limits. I will illustrate this, to every man's comprehension. There is a street in Georgetown, through which every one has a right to pass—it is a highway. A merchant, with whom I have dealt for many years, because I purchase some articles of another merchant, says I shall not go through that street. I cross over, and his enemy says I shall not pass by him. I retire home and call a consultation of my friends. I tell them that I have entered into resolutions, first, that, to submit to this will be an abandonment of my right to pass and repass. Well, what then, say my friends? Why, I declare I will neither go nor send to either of their houses—have no intercourse with them. Well, what then? Why, I will buy a broadsword and pair of pistols, and lock my door and stay at home. And do I enjoy my right of walking the street by making myself a prisoner? Surely not, sir. Now, this is precisely our case, under these resolutions. We say, that to submit, would be a wound on our honor and independence. We call a consultation. What is the result of it? We say we will have no intercourse with the nations injuring us, nor with any other; and, lastly, that we will arm and defend ourselves at home. And, I ask, is this resistance? Is it an enjoyment of our rights, or a direct, full submission? Is it not an abandonment of those rights to which we are entitled?