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,

12_s._ 6_d._ sterling per cwt.; on indigo, 2_s._ per lb.; pork, 17_s._

6_d._ per cwt.; cotton, 9_d._ 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.

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:

_Resolved_, That it be the duty of the Clerk of this House to

furnish the Representatives in Congress from each State in the

Union, for the time being, and the Delegates from each of the

Territories thereof, with one copy of every public document,

including the laws and journals printed by order of the House,

to be by them transmitted to the principal seminary of learning

in each State and Territory, respectively.

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:

"_Resolved_, That the United States cannot, without a sacrifice

of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late

edicts of Great Britain."

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:

"Your committee can perceive no other alternative but abject

and degrading submission, war with both nations, or a

continuance and enforcement of the present suspension of our

commerce."

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.

------------"mille adde catenas

Effugiet tamen, hæc sceleratus vincula Proteus."

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:

"_Resolved_, That the United States cannot, without a sacrifice

of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late

edicts of Great Britain."

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.