The continuance of our measures may be productive of another

consequence, attended with more serious mischief than all others

together--the diversion of trade from us to other channels. Look at

both sides of the case. If Great Britain holds on, (and my predictions

are not fulfilled, or she will persevere,) she will look for other

resources of supply, that, in the event of a war, she may not be

essentially injured. She will endeavor to arrange her sources of

supply, so that no one nation refusing to deal with her shall have

it in their power materially to impair her interests. As to cotton,

large quantities of this article were formerly drawn from the West

Indies. The destruction of the sugar estates in St. Domingo gave a

new direction to cultivation. They ceased to grow in many of the

West India islands that article which they formerly had raised to

a considerable extent, (cotton,) and which, if the increased labor

employed in the sugar estates, now adequate to the supply of Europe, be

not profitable, they will again cultivate. The Brazils will assist to

take a sufficient quantity for consumption, (and, as well as my memory

serves me, they produce seventy or eighty thousand bags annually;) and

South America will add her supplies. I grant that we can now undersell

these countries; but I beg gentlemen to pause before they drive England

into a change of commercial habits, which in the hour of future peace

may never be fully restored, and thus inflict deep and lasting wounds

upon our prosperity. Sir, we are told that we are to produce great

effects by the continuance of the embargo and non-intercourse with this

nation. Do gentlemen who were in the majority on the subject of the

embargo when laid (for I was anxious then that at least foreign nations

might come and give us what we wanted in exchange for our product)

recollect their argument against permitting foreign vessels to come

and take our produce; that it was privilege all on one side; that it

would be nominal to France, while England would be the sole carrier?

Now, sir, as to the non-intercourse system--how does that operate?

France has no commerce--cannot come here--and therefore is not injured

by her exclusion from our ports. It operates solely on England. If the

argument was then correct, to avoid the measure because it operated to

the sole benefit of England, what shall we think of the non-intercourse

measure which operates solely against her? In a commercial view,

therefore, and in point of interest, this country will be deeply

benefited by a removal of the embargo.

But, gentlemen say that the honor of the country is at stake; that

a removal of the embargo would be submission to Great Britain, and

submission to France. How is our honor affected by removing it? We say

we will not trade--with whom? With them alone? No, sir; the embargo

says we will not trade with anybody. All nations, when they find it

convenient, can pocket their honor for profit. What is it we do for a

license to go into the Mediterranean? Do we not pay an annual tribute

to Algiers for liberty to navigate the sea safer from its corsairs?

Have we not an undoubted right to navigate the Mediterranean? Surely;

and yet we pay annually a tribute for permission to do it--and why?

Because the happiness and interest of the nation are promoted by it.

In a monarchy, the Prince leads his subjects to war for the honor of

his mistress, or to avenge a petty insult. But, what best consults

the honor of a Republican Government? Those measures which maintain

the independence, promote the interest, and secure the happiness of

the individuals composing it. And that is the true line of honor

which, if pursued, shall bring with it the greatest benefits to the

people at large. I do not know, sir, strictly speaking, whether the

destruction of any commercial right is destructive to the independence

of the country; for a nation may exist independent, and the happiness

of the people be secured, without commerce. So, that the violation of

commercial rights does not destroy our independence. I acknowledge

that it would affect the sovereignty of the country and retard its

prosperity. But, are not the measures which have been adopted,

submission? No train of argument can make more clear the fact, that,

withdrawing from the ocean for a time is an abandonment, instead of

an assertion, of our rights. Nay, I think I have the authority of

the committee for it, for I speak of submission as applicable to the

measure recommended by the committee. They say, that "a permanent

suspension of commerce, after repeated and unavailing efforts to obtain

peace, would not properly be resistance; it would be withdrawing from

the contest, and abandoning our indisputable right freely to navigate

the ocean." If a permanent embargo, after repeated offers of peace,

would not properly be resistance, but an abandonment of our rights,

is not a temporary embargo--and this has been a year continued--an

abandonment for the time? Unquestionably it is. So long as it

continues, it does abandon our rights. And now I will show that it is

submission, and not resistance. I maintain that the embargo, aided by

the second and third resolutions of the committee, does complete an

abandonment of our maritime rights, and is a submission to the orders

and decrees.

Of what nature are the rights in contest? They are maritime rights,

and not territorial; and, to be used, must be exercised exterior to

the limits of our territory. Whatever measures are confined within our

territorial limits, is not an assertion or enjoyment of our exterior

rights. Their enjoyment must be abroad, consisting of the actual use of

them. If, then, all our measures be confined within our jurisdictional

limits, they cannot amount to an enjoyment of the rights exterior to

those limits. I will illustrate this, to every man's comprehension.

There is a street in Georgetown, through which every one has a right

to pass--it is a highway. A merchant, with whom I have dealt for many

years, because I purchase some articles of another merchant, says I

shall not go through that street. I cross over, and his enemy says

I shall not pass by him. I retire home and call a consultation of

my friends. I tell them that I have entered into resolutions, first,

that, to submit to this will be an abandonment of my right to pass and

repass. Well, what then, say my friends? Why, I declare I will neither

go nor send to either of their houses--have no intercourse with them.

Well, what then? Why, I will buy a broadsword and pair of pistols,

and lock my door and stay at home. And do I enjoy my right of walking

the street by making myself a prisoner? Surely not, sir. Now, this is

precisely our case, under these resolutions. We say, that to submit,

would be a wound on our honor and independence. We call a consultation.

What is the result of it? We say we will have no intercourse with the

nations injuring us, nor with any other; and, lastly, that we will arm

and defend ourselves at home. And, I ask, is this resistance? Is it an

enjoyment of our rights, or a direct, full submission? Is it not an

abandonment of those rights to which we are entitled?

It has been said, that the little portion of commerce which would

remain unaffected by the belligerent edicts, would belong to us as a

boon from England, were we to prosecute it. I do not understand it in

this light. Our right to navigate the ocean is inherent, and belongs

to us as a part of our sovereignty; but, when interdicted from any one

place, if we go to another, we certainly do not accept that commerce

as a boon. I might as well say, if a man interdicted me from going

down one street in Georgetown, that I accept a boon from him in going

down another. This is certainly not the case. The trading to these

places is exercising our original right, not interfered with; and, so

far as those orders and decrees do not operate, we could carry on a

legitimate trade, flowing from our indisputable right, as a sovereign

nation, to navigate the ocean. It does seem to me then, sir, that the

residue of our trade might be carried on without submitting to the

belligerent edicts. But, an honorable gentleman (Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL)

asked me, yesterday, if we were to permit our enemies to take any part,

whether they would not take the remainder? This, like the horse's

tail in Horace, would be plucked, hair by hair, till it was all out.

True, sir, this might possibly happen. But, what have we done? Why,

we have cut the tail off, for fear all the hair should be taken out.

We have ourselves destroyed all that portion of our trade which the

belligerents have not interdicted.

Taking the whole into view, then, I think that the continuance of the

embargo, as an assertion of our rights, is not an efficient mode of

resistance.

But gentlemen say, in a crisis like the present, when each individual

ought to contribute his mite, it is very easy to find fault; and they

ask for a substitute. I want no substitute. Take off the embargo. That

is what I want. But when called upon in this manner, I cannot help

looking around me to the source whence I expected higher and better

information. The crisis is awful. We are brought into it by the means

recommended by the head of our foreign relations. I think the President

advised the embargo. If he did not, he certainly advised the gunboats

and the additional military force. In these minor measures, which have

been in their consequences so interesting, there was no want of advice

or responsibility. Why then, in this awful crisis, shall we not look to

the same quarter? The responsibility is left on us. We anti-embargoists

show that things would not have been thus, had our advice been taken;

and, not being taken, we have little encouragement to give more. Our

advice is on the journals. We said, let us have what commerce we can

get, and bring home returns to stimulate our industry. I believe the

declarations of gentlemen when they say that they are friendly to

commerce; but their fondness for it is the embrace of death. They say

they will protect it; but it is strange that they should begin to

protect it by abolishing it. I contend that their measures have not

answered the purposes of protection, but on the contrary they have

been prejudicial to it; and I trust in their candor that they will

join us in giving elasticity to commerce, and removing this pressure.

The interests of commerce and agriculture are identified; whenever

one increases, the other extends. They progress _pari passu_. Look

at your mercantile towns; and wherever you find one, like a pebble

thrown into water, its influence extends in a circle more or less

remotely, over the whole surface. Gentlemen from the agricultural

country vote to support commerce, because it increases the value of

their own product; they are not so disinterested as they suppose, and

I believe the best way is to consider the two inseparable. As I am at

present disposed, could I not obtain a total repeal, I would prefer a

resolution laid on the table by a gentleman (Mr. MUMFORD) from one of

the largest commercial cities in the Union, and who must be supposed to

know the opinion of commercial men. I can scarcely with my knowledge

or understanding point out any thing; but if I have not capacity to be

one of the _ins_, I can readily perceive whether the present system be

adequate or not. I would let our vessels go out armed for resistance;

and if they were interfered with, I would make the dernier appeal. We

are able and willing to resist; and when the moment arrives, there

will be but one heart and hand throughout the whole Union. All will be

American--all united for the protection of their dearest rights and

interests.

Mr. LYON opposed the report in a speech of an hour.

Mr. DESHA said he had been particularly attentive to the whole of the

debates during the very lengthy discussion of this important subject,

and, said he, I am at a loss how to understand gentlemen, or what

to conclude from their observations. Am I to conclude that they are

really Americans in principle? I wish to do so; and I hope they are;

but it appears somewhat doubtful, or they would not tamely give up

the honor of their country by submitting to French decrees and British

Orders in Council--that is, by warmly advocating the repeal of the

embargo, without proposing something as a substitute. Do gentlemen

mean an abject acquiescence to those iniquitous decrees and Orders in

Council? Do gentlemen mean that that liberty and independence that

was obtained through the valorous exertions of our ancestors, should

be wrested from our hands without a murmur--that independence, in the

obtaining of which so much virtue was displayed, and so much blood

was shed? Do they mean that it should be relinquished to our former

masters without a struggle? Gentlemen assign as a reason why the

embargo should be removed, its inefficacy--that it has not answered

the contemplated purpose. I acknowledge that as a measure of coercion

it has not come entirely up to my expectations. It has not been as

efficient as I expected it would have been. But what are the reasons

why it has not fully come up to the expectations of its supporters, as

a measure of coercion? The reasons are obvious to every man who is not

inimical to the principles of our Government, and who is not prejudiced

against the present Administration. Was it not for want of unanimity

in support of the measure? Was it not in consequence of its having

been wantonly, shamefully, and infamously violated? and perhaps winked

at by some who are inimical to the principles of our Government; but

who have had address and ingenuity sufficient to procure themselves

to be appointed to office, and in which situation they have obtained

a certain influence, and by misrepresentations as well as clamorous

exertions have, in many instances, led the unwary astray, and caused

the measure to become unpopular in some parts of the country? By

improper representations and fallacious statements of certain prints,

apparently, and I might add, undoubtedly, hostile to civil liberty

and free Government, and advocates of British policy; by the baneful

opposition of British agents and partisans, together with refugees

or old tories, who still recollect their former abject standing, and

who have never forgiven the American independence, and who, in all

probability, are doing all in their power at this time to assist their

master George the Third in bringing about colonization and vassalage

in this happy land--by keeping up party spirit to such a height,

that the tyrant of the ocean was led to believe that he had a most

powerful British party in the bosom of our country--and that, by an

extraordinary opposition made to the embargo, we would become restless,

and could not adhere to a suspension of commerce--consequently would

have to relax, and fall into paying tribute, under the Orders of

Council, to that corrupt Government, Britain. These are part of the

reasons why the embargo, as a measure of coercion, has not proved

completely efficacious; and had it not been for this kind of conduct,

our enemies would have been brought to a sense of justice, an amicable

adjustment of differences would have taken place. By this iniquitous

conduct they have tried to wrest from the hands of Government an

engine, the best calculated of all others that could have been

imagined, to coerce our enemies into a sense of justice, and bring

about reciprocity of commerce, that most desirable object, a system of

all others the best suited to the peaceful genius of our Government.

But if it has not been entirely efficacious as a measure of coercion,

it has been particularly serviceable in many instances--by keeping us

out of war, which is at all times to be deprecated by civilized men,

by preserving our citizens from becoming victims of British tyranny

on board their war ships, and securing an immense amount of American

property that was sailing on the ocean, supposed to amount in value to

between sixty and a hundred millions of dollars, the principal part

of which would inevitably have fallen into the voracious jaws of the

monster of the deep, or into the iron grasp of the tyrant Napoleon--by

which, if we are involved in war, we have preserved the leading sinews,

wealth; and above all, for preventing us from becoming tributary to

those piratical depredators, whose inevitable determination is to

monopolize the whole trade of the world, by which they rob us of our

inherent rights. If gentlemen had come forward with propositions to

adopt any thing as a substitute for the embargo, that would have

prevented us from the degradation of submission, or from falling into

the hands of those monsters of iniquity, they no doubt would have met

with support. The friends of this measure are not so particularly

attached to it, but what they would willingly exchange it for one that

was less sorely felt, less oppressive, and one that would preserve

national honor, and bring about a redress of grievances; as it was with

extreme regret that they had to resort to the measure of the embargo,

and which could only be warranted by the necessity of the case. I am as

anxious for the repeal of the embargo as any gentleman in this House,

or perhaps any man on the continent, whenever it can be done consistent

with the honor and welfare of the nation. The citizens of Kentucky,

whom I have the honor to represent, feel its effects in common with

their fellow men throughout the continent; but their patriotism is such

that they bear it with cheerfulness, and magnanimity, and very justly

consider it as a preventive of greater evils. I think that a retrograde

step at this time would have the appearance of acquiescence, and be

calculated to mark the Government with pusillanimity; therefore I

deprecate war, believing as I do, that in a Government constructed like

ours, war ought to be the last alternative, so as to preserve national

honor. As such it would perhaps be advisable to adopt something like

the second resolution that is under consideration, which, in addition

to the embargo, would amount to a complete non-intercourse--which if

systematically adhered to must produce the desired effect. If it

should not, it will at least give time to make preparations for a more

energetic appeal, which may probably have to be the result. But let it

not be understood, because I am for avoiding war, as long as it can be

avoided upon honorable terms, that I am against going to war when it

becomes actually necessary. No, sir, my life and my property are at all

times at my country's command, and I feel no hesitation in saying that

the citizens of Kentucky, whom I have the honor to represent, would

step forward with alacrity, and defend with bravery that independence

in which they glory, and in the obtaining of which some of the best

blood of their ancestors was spilt; for the degradation of tribute

they would spurn with manly indignation. I would even agree to go

further. From my present impression, I would agree to a recall of

our Ministers from both England and France, and to a discharge of

theirs; and have no intercourse with the principal belligerents until

they learned to respect our rights as an independent nation, and laid

aside that dictatorial conduct which has for years been characteristic

of those European despots; for I am almost certain, under existing

circumstances, that our Ministers in neither England nor France can do

us any possible service, and that their Ministers here can, and in all

probability do a great deal of harm, by fomenting division and keeping

up party spirit, at a time, too, when unanimity is of the utmost

consequence.

As to our commerce being driven from the ocean, I am not disposed to

take a lengthy retrospect, or to examine minutely in order to discover

which of our enemies, England or France, was the first aggressor; it

is sufficient for me that both France and England have done nearly

all in their power to harass and oppress us in every imaginable way.

I am not the apologist of either France or England. I am an American

in principle, and I trust whenever it is thought necessary to call my

energies into action I shall prove myself to be such, by defending

and protecting the rights and independence of my own country, from

any encroachments, let them come from what quarter they may. By those

iniquitous decrees of France, all vessels bound to or from England

are deemed lawful prize, and if spoken by an English ship they were

condemned in the prize courts of France. When a ship arrived in any

of the French ports, bribery and corruption was practiced; in order

to succeed in her condemnation, a separate examination of the crew

would be resorted to, as to the events that happened on the voyage;

offers made of one-third of the ship and lading as their portion of

the prize money, if they would give information of their vessel having

touched at any of the ports of England, or that any English cruiser

had visited her on the voyage. Consequently, by the French decrees,

all property afloat belonging to the Americans was liable to seizure

and condemnation. Are gentlemen, possessing the feelings of Americans,

prepared to submit to such degradation? Are they prepared to say the

embargo shall be raised, while our commerce is subjected to this kind

of depredation? I trust not.

As respects the British Orders in Council, all American vessels bound

to French ports, or to any of the allies of the French, are considered

good prize in the courts of Britain. England says you must not carry

on any trade to any of the places that I have interdicted, without

obtaining my leave--pay me a duty, and then you shall be permitted to

go to any port--by paying me a tribute you may trade to any port you

please. Degrading to freemen! Britain in her goodness says, you shall

have the liberty to bring flour from the United States of America to

England, land it, and re-export it, by paying two dollars on every

barrel into my coffers. On cotton, which is certainly a very important

article, a duty is charged on its exportation of about nine pence per

pound sterling; nearly equal to the full value of that article in the

parts of America where it is raised, exclusive of the import duty,

which is two pence in the pound. Therefore, if our traders wish to go

to the Continent of Europe, the condition is, a tribute must be paid

nearly equal to the value of the cargo, exclusive of the insurance and

risk. If I mistake not, about two-thirds of the cotton exported from

this country is made use of in England; on the balance a tribute must

be paid of about nine pence sterling per pound, which is about twenty

millions of pounds--on a calculation the sums will be found to be

enormous--purely for the liberty of selling cotton; as also high and

oppressive duties on other articles. If these impositions are submitted

to, I pronounce your liberties gone--irretrievably lost--a blot made

in the American political character, never to be obliterated. No man

possessing an American heart will submit to the degradation of paying

tribute to any nation on earth, nor suffer the freemen of America to be

taxed without their consent. Will gentlemen say the embargo law must be

repealed, and suffer our commerce to flow in its usual channel, while

the decrees of France and the British Orders in Council are enforced,

by which they would not only be liable to seizure and condemnation,

but what is more degrading, pay a tribute of many millions of dollars

annually, too degrading to be thought of with patience? We received

liberty in its purity from our heroic ancestors--it is a duty incumbent

on us to transmit it to posterity unsullied, or perish in the

undertaking.

But, sir, it has been said that the people of the East would not bear

the continuance of the embargo any longer--that they would force their

way in trade; hinting, I presume, that they would openly rebel against

your laws if they were not allowed to pursue their usual course in

commerce, by which they subscribe to those nefarious Orders in Council,

which is tribute of the most degrading kind. Who are these people of

the East that have the hardihood to insinuate any thing like rebellion

against the laws of the land, or that would wish to degrade themselves

so far as to pay tribute? It cannot be the descendants of the heroes

of '76, that bravely stepped forth and fought against a tyrant for

liberty! It cannot be the descendants of those brave fellows that

struggled on the brow of Bunker's Hill for independence! No. It must

be the descendants of refugees or old tories, or otherwise it must be

British agents or partisans; for no man possessing the feeling that

an American ought to feel, would throw out such threats, or degrade

himself by coming under tribute. If patriotism has left the land of

freedom--if it has taken its flight from the mild and peaceful shores

of Columbia--if foreign influence and corruption has extended itself

so far that the people are disposed to rebel against the Government of

their country--if the dissemination of foreign gold has had the baneful

effect of suppressing all noble and patriotic sentiments, it is indeed

time that foreign intercourse should cease. If the spirit of commercial

speculation and cupidity had surmounted all patriotism, it is time that

more energetic measures should be resorted to, in order that the chaff

might be separated from the wheat; in a word, that traitors might be

known.

Mr. NELSON said it was with very considerable reluctance that he rose

to make a few remarks on this subject, after the very lengthy and very

eloquent discourse of the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. KEY.) I did not

intend, said he, to have troubled the House upon this question; but as

I am a man who generally speaks off-hand, it is necessary for me to

answer the arguments of any gentleman promptly, if I intend to do it

at all. For this reason I rise to do away some false impressions which

may have been made by the gentleman's eloquence on the House, and on

the by-standers, in the galleries, for I must say that his speech was

better calculated for the galleries than for the sober members of this

House. The gentleman commenced his argument with stating, what I do not

believe, with due submission, is true in point of fact, that, although

at their last session the Legislature of Maryland passed resolutions

approving the embargo, yet another election having taken place, the

present Legislature have passed contrary resolutions.

Mr. KEY said he had spoken of the House of Representatives of Maryland,

and not of the Legislature.

Mr. NELSON said the House of Representatives have, to be sure, passed

resolutions bottomed on the same principles as those on which the

gentleman himself has spoken, and which I have heard echoed in the

electioneering campaign from almost every stump in the district in

which I live. Whilst the gentleman was on this subject, I wish he

had told us of the philippic these resolutions got from the Senate

of Maryland. The fact is not, as I understood the gentleman to say,

that the Legislature of Maryland have passed resolutions disapproving

the measures of the Government. But the gentleman intimates that the

politics of Maryland have undergone a great change, and that the party

formerly uppermost, is now under. Sir, the question which turned out

the old members of the Legislature in the county where I live, was

not the embargo system, but a question as to a State law. The militia

system was the stumbling-block which caused many of the old members

to be turned out, and thus the opposite party got the ascendency in

one branch of the Legislature of Maryland. But, since that election,

another has taken place for members of Congress; and how has that

turned out? Why, sir, that gentleman and two other anti-embargoists

are elected, whilst six men, who have always approved of it, are also

returned; making six to three. Does this prove a change? No, sir. But

we have had another election since that. Out of eleven electors, nine

men are returned as elected who have approved this system of measures.

Does this prove that the embargo was the cause of the change of the

politics of the Maryland Legislature? I think not, sir.

But the gentleman has said that the embargo, and not the Orders in

Council and decrees, has destroyed the commerce of this country. I do

not know, after all the arguments which I have heard, if the gentleman

listened with the same attention as I did, how he could make such an

assertion. When our ports are blockaded, and all the world is against

us, so that, if the embargo was raised, we could go nowhere with

perfect freedom, can gentlemen say that the embargo has ruined our

commerce? Is it not these acts which have shut us out from a market?

The gentleman says we may trade to England. Yes, sir, we may, provided

we will pay all such duties as she chooses, and go nowhere else. And

would not the doing this place us in precisely the same situation as

we were in before the Revolution? England says we may trade with her,

paying heavy import and export duties, but says we shall go nowhere

else. If you go anywhere else, she says you shall go by England,

take a license, and pay a duty, and then you may trade. Is it to be

supposed that the people of the United States will agree to this? Are

they reduced to that situation, that they will become the vassals of a

foreign power--for what? Why, sir, for the prosecution of a trade with

that foreign power, who, if her present impositions be submitted to,

may cut up our trade in any manner she pleases; for, through our trade,

she will raise a revenue to almost an equal amount with the value of

your whole produce carried hence. She levies a higher tribute on some

articles than the article itself is worth, and this trade the gentleman

wants to pursue. He wants no substitute; "take off the embargo," says

he, "and let us trade." Sir, if we could trade upon equal terms, I,

too, should say, "take off the embargo, and let us trade." But if we

cannot trade, except under the license of a foreign power, I say it

would be ruinous to us. And has it come to this, for all the arguments

go to this, that the American people, for the sake of pounds,

shillings, and pence, for the sake of hoarding up a few pence, are to

give up their independence, and become vassals of England and France?

I hear nothing from the gentleman about the _honor_ of the nation. It

would appear as if gentlemen on the other side of the House are willing

to sell their country if they can put money in their pocket. Take off

the embargo, they cry--for what? money. Pay tribute--for what? money.

Surrender your independence--for what? all for money, sir. I trust

the people have a different feeling from these gentlemen. The people

love money, sir; but they love liberty and independence much better.

If money had been the sole object, the Revolution would never have

happened; and if that be our sole object now, the blood spilt and money

spent in our Revolution was all in vain. But the gentleman says, that

our honor is not concerned; that Republics have none; that their honor

is to pursue that course by which they can make the most money.

Mr. KEY said that he did not say that the honor of the nation was

money; but that the line of conduct was most honorable which best

secured the happiness and independence of the people.

Mr. NELSON.--I ask pardon of the gentleman if I misrepresented him;

because the gentleman's argument was quite vulnerable enough, without

my making it more so than it really was. I did understand the gentleman

to say, and had he not contradicted me, should still believe so,

that the honor of the Republic is precisely that which brings the

most riches to the nation. But I ask, whether the line of conduct

recommended by that gentleman be such a one as would be proper to

secure and take care of the independence of the people? Is it to secure

the independence of the people, to suffer a foreign nation to impose

upon them any terms which it thinks proper? Is it for the honor or

happiness of this nation that we should again pass under the yoke of

Great Britain? Is it for the honor of the nation to remove the embargo,

without taking any other measure, and to bear with every indignity? No,

sir; and yet the gentleman tells you, "take off the embargo, I want

no substitute." I did not suppose, sir, that gentlemen who oppose our

measures (for I have great charity for them) would openly tell us to

take off the embargo, and trade as foreign nations choose to dictate.

But the gentleman talks about the pressure of the embargo. That it does

press hard is beyond doubt. It is an evil thing in itself; something

like the dose a doctor gives us; it is a disagreeable thing in itself,

but it cures your complaint. Thus the embargo is a disagreeable thing;

but if we swallow it, however disagreeable, it may bring the political

body to health. The gentleman gilds the pill he would give us; but it

is a slow poison that would creep upon us, and bring on a distemper

heretofore unknown to us, that sooner or later would carry us to the

grave. We take off the embargo, and trade on their terms; what will be

the consequence? Will they not forever hereafter compel us to trade as

they please? Unquestionably. And is it not better to submit to some

inconveniences, eventually to insure a free trade?

The gentleman says that, if produce be offered for sale, on condition

that the embargo be raised, it will bring a higher price than if on a

certainty that the embargo is to be continued. No doubt, sir, when the

embargo is taken off, a momentary spur will be given to exportation;

but how long will it continue? It will last but a very few weeks.

Produce will soon be reduced to its proper level in the market. Take

flour, for instance, the principal article raised for exportation in

the gentleman's district and mine. It would rise, on a removal of

the embargo, to ten or twelve dollars; and how long would that price

last? It would be a thing of a day, and to the people who live in our

districts of no sort of consequence; it would be of no benefit but to

those who have flour at the market; to the merchants who have bought

it up at a low price. Before the honest farmer can bring his produce

to market, the great price will be all over; and though no embargo

affects it, will be down to its present price, of four or five dollars;

so that, although a removal of the embargo would reduce the price

of produce at first, I cannot see how gentlemen would make that an

argument for taking off the embargo. If the gentleman can show that the

price will continue, and that we can traffic without dishonor, then,

sir, would I cordially join hands with him to take off the embargo.

But the gentleman says, that the pressure is so very great that some

of the States have passed laws for suspending executions. I know not

what has been done in other States on this subject, nor what has been

done in my own. If the gentleman has any information on the subject,

I should like to hear it. A bill was before the House of Delegates

for that purpose, but I did trust in God that it would be unanimously

rejected. That such a law would pass in Maryland I never had an idea,

because it is totally unnecessary. There are fewer men confined in jail

for debt on this day than there ever were before for sixteen years that

I have been in the practice of the law in that State. No man has gone

to jail but those who, to use an emphatic expression, have _broken into

jail_, who were too idle to work to pay their debts; who would get a

friend to put them into jail, if they could get no other; and who stay

there awhile, and then come out new men. This being the case, there can

be no reason for shutting the courts of justice there.

On the subject of revenue, I can only say, that at present there

appears to be no deficiency of money in the Treasury. It is very

certain that if this embargo and non-intercourse system be continued

long, our Treasury will run short, and we shall have no means of

filling it but by loans or direct taxation. But I trust and hope that

before the money already in the Treasury is fairly expended, if we

pursue our object we shall get over our embarrassments. Rather than

pursue this subject much further, I would not only arm our merchantmen

at sea, but our citizens on the land, and march to the North and East,

and see if we could not do them some injury in return for all that we

have received from them, even if we should do ourselves no good by it.

It would do me some good to be able to do them some injury. I confess

I do not like this Quaker policy. If one man slaps another's face, the

other ought to knock him down; and I hope this will be our policy.

But the gentleman says that the President recommended this measure

to Congress as a measure of precaution. I do believe that, at the

time the embargo was laid, it was done as a measure of precaution,

and the President viewed it in that light. After its having answered

every purpose as a measure of precaution, I am for continuing it as a

measure of coercion. For, whatever gentlemen say about turning sugar

plantations into cotton-fields, if the embargo be rigidly enforced,

that we shall distress the West Indies very considerably, I do believe.

I am unwilling to involve this country in a war if I can avoid it,

but I am still more unwilling to take off the embargo and embrace the

proposition of my colleague: for I have no idea of a free trade being

permitted to us. In any country a war is to be deprecated; in this

country particularly, where every thing depends on the will of the

people, we ought to be well aware that war meets the approbation of the

people. We might make many declarations of war without effect, unless

the people follow us. We try every method to obtain honorable peace;

and if we do not succeed, the people will go with us heart and hand to

war.

I shall enter into no calculations on this subject, sir. When the great

question is presented to us whether we will submit or maintain our

independence, we must determine either to do one or the other: that

nation is not independent which carries on trade subject to the will

of any other power. Then, to my mind, the only question is, shall we

defend ourselves, or shall we submit? And on that question I will make

no calculations. If a man submits, of what use are calculations of

money, for it may be drawn from him at the pleasure of his master? Let

us have as much trade as we may, if we can only carry it on as others

please, we need not calculate about money. We shall be poor, indeed;

and, having lost our independence, we shall not even have money in

return for it. But this nation will not submit, sir, nor will any man,

who is a real American, advocate such a doctrine.

As to the embargo, Mr. N said he was not wedded to it. If any better

system were devised, he would give up the present system and embrace

the better one, let it come whence it would.

The House adjourned without taking a question.

FRIDAY, December 9.

Mr. LEWIS presented a petition of the President and Directors of the

Washington Bridge Company, praying a revision and amendment of an act

passed at the last session of Congress, entitled "An act authorizing

the erection of a bridge over the river Potomac within the District of

Columbia."--Referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia.

Mr. JEREMIAH MORROW, from the Committee on the Public Lands, presented

a bill to revive and continue the authority of the Commissioners of

Kaskaskia; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the

Whole on Monday next.

An engrossed bill to authorize the President to employ an additional

number of revenue cutters was read a third time: Whereupon, a motion

was made by Mr. DURELL that the said bill be recommitted to the

Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, farther to consider and report

thereon to the House: it passed in the negative.

The main question was then taken, that the said bill do pass, and

resolved in the affirmative--yeas 90, nays 26, as follows:

YEAS.--Evan Alexander, Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jun.,

Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett,

William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, John Blake, jun., Thomas

Blount, Adam Boyd, John Boyle, Robert Brown, William Butler,

Joseph Calhoun, George W. Campbell, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,

Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Josiah Deane, Joseph Desha, Daniel

M. Durell, William Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin,

Francis Gardner, Thomas Gholson, jun., Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin

Gray, Isaiah L. Green, John Harris, John Heister, William

Helms, James Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin Howard, Reuben

Humphreys, Daniel Ilsley, Richard M. Johnson, James Kelly,

Thomas Kenan, Philip B. Key, William Kirkpatrick, John Lambert,

Edward Lloyd, John Love, Robert Marion, William McCreery,

William Milnor, Daniel Montgomery, jun., John Montgomery,

Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow,

Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton,

Wilson C. Nicholas, John Porter, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John

Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Matthias Richards, Samuel

Riker, Benjamin Say, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw, Dennis

Smelt, John Smilie, Jedediah K. Smith, John Smith, Samuel

Smith, Richard Stanford, Clement Storer, Peter Swart, John

Taylor, John Thompson, George M. Troup, James I. Van Allen,

Archibald Van Horne, Daniel C. Verplanck, Jesse Wharton, Robert

Whitehill, Isaac Wilbour, Alexander Wilson, and Richard Wynn.

NAYS.--John Campbell, Martin Chittenden, John Culpeper, John

Davenport, jun., James Elliot, William Ely, Barent Gardenier,

William Hoge, Richard Jackson, Robert Jenkins, Joseph Lewis,

jun., Edward St. Loe Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, Josiah

Masters, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jun., John

Russell, James Sloan, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges,

Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Jabez Upham, Philip Van

Cortlandt, David R. Williams, and Nathan Wilson.

_Resolved_, That the title be, "An act to authorize the President to

employ an additional number of revenue cutters."

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have

passed a bill, entitled "An act farther to amend the judicial system of

the United States;" to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

_Foreign Affairs._

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business

depending yesterday at the time of adjournment--the report of the

committee still under consideration.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said: It has become very fashionable to apologize to

you, sir, for every trespass which a gentleman contemplates making on

the patience of the House, and I do not know but in ordinary cases it

may be very proper; but the present question is certainly such a one

as exempts every gentleman from the necessity of making any apology

whatever. I shall offer none, and for the additional reason, that I

have given to every member who has spoken the utmost of my attention.

Upon this question, which presents itself in every point of view too

clear to admit of a single doubt; equally unsusceptible of sophistical

perversion or misrepresentation; a question which involves a political

truism, and which is undenied; a debate has grown out of it, embracing

the whole foreign relations of this country. I shall not attempt

to follow the gentlemen in the course which they have pursued, but

will confine my observations to a justification of the embargo, and

to the proof, that the orders and decrees of the belligerents, and

not the embargo, as was said by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr.

KEY,) have produced the present embarrassments. Bad as our situation

was at the close of the last session, it has now become infinitely

worse. The offer to suspend the embargo laws, for a suspension of the

Orders in Council, made in a sincere spirit of conciliation, has been

contemptuously rejected, those orders justified, and an extension of

their operation threatened: this is a state of things insufferable.

At a crisis of this sort, the importance of which every gentleman

acknowledges, I deem it proper that every man who feels an ardent love

of country should come forward to save that country, to rescue his

sinking parent from the jaws of pollution. The effort should be, who

shall render our common country the most good; who will be foremost

in the ranks; we should not shrink behind the irresponsible stand of

doing nothing, ready to raise ourselves upon the mistakes of others;

perhaps, the virtuous misfortunes of our political brothers. I am

willing to take my share of the responsibility of asserting the wisdom

of the original imposition of the embargo, and the correctness of its

present and future continuance. Gentlemen have been frequently called

upon, while they make vehement declamation against the embargo, to

say what they wish in its stead; they declare the utmost hostility to

the measure, and yet they offer no substitute. Can they for one moment

forget, that upon this question as upon every other national subject,

we must all hang together or be hung separate! It inevitably follows

from the organization of our Government, that this is the fact.

I consider the original imposition of the embargo, as wise in a

precautionary point of view; and notwithstanding all that has been

said, and eloquently said, by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. KEY,)

I believe it was called for by the most imperious public necessity.

Every one must know, that had it not been for the embargo, millions

of property, and (what is worse) thousands of our seamen, must have

fallen a sacrifice to the cupidity of belligerent cruisers. No need

of calculations on this subject--I shall not stop to enter into one.

I appeal to the common sense of the nation and of this House, whether

or not the orders and decrees were calculated to have swept from the

ocean all our floating property and seamen. But, no, say gentlemen,

the seamen are not saved; and here we are amused with the old story,

new vamped, of the fishermen running away. The seamen gone, sir!

This is a libel on their generous and patriotic natures. Where are

they gone? Every man who ventures such an allegation, is bound to

prove it; because it is, if true, susceptible of proof. Surely, sir,

the assertion, or even proof, that British or other foreign seamen

have left your service, does not establish that American seamen have

deserted their country. The British seamen gone! I am glad of it, sir.

I wish there had never been one in our service; and if there is an

American tar who would, in the hour of peril, desert his country, that

he would go also. The thing is impossible sir; every vessel which has

sailed from the United States since the imposition of the embargo, has

passed under such a peculiar review before the officers of the revenue,

that had any number of American seamen shipped themselves, proofs of

their departure might, and certainly would, have been had. Read the

intelligence from Nova Scotia; it informs us that none but English

sailors have arrived there. I call upon gentlemen then to show how,

where, and when, an American seaman has left his country, except in the

pursuit of his ordinary vocation.

If the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. KEY) will apply to his political--I

beg pardon--to his mercantile barometer, the insurance offices, he

would find that, after the operation of the Orders in Council was

known, insurance could not have been effected at Baltimore to the

Continent of Europe for 80 per cent., and not at London, on American

property, for 90 guineas per cent. The proof of this is before me.

Does not this prove that so much danger existed on the ocean that

it was next to impossible to pass without seizure and condemnation?

And surely he will not contend that this advance of premium was

caused by the embargo? If the embargo then has saved any thing to

the country--and that it has there can be no doubt--exactly in the

proportion that it has saved property and seamen to you, it has

lessened the ability of the enemy to make war upon you, and what is

primarily important, lessened the temptation to war. The rich plunder

of your inoffensive and enlarged commerce, must inevitably have gone to

swell the coffers which are to support the sinews of war against you.

The reaction thus caused by the embargo, is in your favor, precisely

to the amount of property and men which it has saved to you from your

enemies.

But we are told that the enterprising merchant is deprived of an

opportunity--of what? Of ruining himself and sacrificing the industry

of others. Has any capitalist said he would venture out in the present

tempest which blackens the ocean? No, sir, they are your dashing

merchants; speculators, who, having nothing to lose and every thing to

gain, would launch headlong on the ocean, regardless of consequences.

No commerce can be now carried on, other than that which is subservient

to the Orders in Council. I appeal to the gentleman from Rhode Island

(Mr. JACKSON)--no man is better informed on this subject--would he

venture his property on the ocean in a trade contravening those orders?

I would ask him further, would Brown and Ives, merchants, as remarkable

for their prudence as for their enterprise, and for their capital as

either; would they send their vessels to the Continent of Europe? I

believe their opinion would corroborate the opinion of Mr. Gray.

The mercantile distresses have been described, with every possible

exaggeration, as insufferable. The real distress, sir, is quite

sufficient, without any undue coloring. I regret extremely, indeed,

sir, from my heart and soul, I lament that the embargo should be

considered as falling heavier on the merchant than on the planter.

If I know my own heart I would share with them to the last loaf. But

compare their situation now with what it would have been if their whole

property had been swept away. Compare their present situation with that

which must have been the necessary consequence of the seizure of all

the floating, registered tonnage of the United States, and which would

have happened, but for the embargo. Their vessels are now in safety;

if the embargo had not been laid they would have lost both vessel and

cargo. They must have either imposed an embargo on themselves, or

exposed their capital to total destruction.

Another reason why I approve of the embargo, and which, really to my

mind, is a very consolatory reason, is, it has at least preserved us

thus far from bloodshed. I am one of those who believe the miseries of

this life are sufficiently numerous and pressing without increasing

either their number or pungency by the calamities inseparable from war.

If we had put the question to every man in the nation, the head of a

family, whether we should go to war or lay an embargo, (the only choice

we had,) nineteen out of twenty would have voted for the embargo. I

believe, sir, the people of the United States confiding their honor

and national character to your guardianship, would this day decide

the same question in the same way. The people have nothing to gain by

war, nothing by bloodshed; but they have every thing to lose. From

this reason results another, equally satisfactory; we are still free

from an alliance with either of the belligerents. Upon a loss of peace

inevitably follows an alliance with one of those two powers. I would

rather stake the nation on a war with both, than ally with either.

No, sir, I never will consent to rush into the polluted, detestable,

distempered embraces of the whore of England, nor truckle at the

footstool of the Gallic Emperor.

But the embargo has failed, it has been triumphantly asserted on one

side of the House, and echoed along the vaulted dome from the other. If

it has, it is no cause of triumph; no, indeed, sir; but it is a cause

of melancholy feelings to every true patriot, to every man who does

not rejoice in the wrongs of his country. Why has the measure failed

of expected success? The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. KEY) used an

argument incomprehensible to me, as an argument in his favor; on my

side it is indeed invincible. He has established it was the evasion

of the laws which prevented their being effectual. He tells you that

certain evaders of the laws have so risen up in opposition to them,

that the President of the United States was obliged to issue his

proclamation in April last; that this proclamation told the British

Cabinet the people had rebelled against the embargo--but I will pass

over the subject; it imposes silence on me, because it must speak

daggers to the hearts of some men.

My friend from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) urged one argument against the

embargo, which, to be sure, is a most serious one. He asked if we

were prepared to violate the public faith? I hope not, sir. I beg to

be excused for asking him (for I know he scorns submission as much as

any man) if submission will pay the public debt? To that gentleman's

acute and comprehensive mind, the deleterious consequences of the

present system of the belligerents to our interests, must be glowing,

self-evident. He will see that their present measures carry destruction

to the most valuable interests, and are subversive of the most sacred

rights of the people; and if they are submitted to, every thing dear

to an American must be afflicted with the slow, lingering, but certain

approaches of consumption. I had rather go off at once. I have no

opinion of a lingering death. Rather than the nation should be made to

take this yoke, if so superlative a curse can be in store for us, may

the hand of Heaven first annihilate that which cannot be nurtured into

honor. I had much rather all should perish in one glorious conflict,

than submit to this, so vile a system.

But we are told, that the embargo itself is submission. Indeed, sir!

Then, with all my heart, I would tear it from the statute book, and

leave a black page where it stood. Is the embargo submission? By

whom is it so called? By gentlemen who are for active offence? Do

these gentlemen come forward and tell you that that the embargo is

submission? No such thing, sir. My memory deceives me, if any man who

voted for the embargo thinks it submission. They are the original

opponents of the embargo who call it submission, and who, while they

charge you with the intention, are by every act and deed practising it

themselves. It is incorrect, sir. Every gentleman who has spoken, and

who has told you that the embargo is submission, has acknowledged the

truth of the resolution under consideration; it has not been denied by

a single individual. Suppose then we were to change its phraseology,

and make it the preamble to a resolution for repealing the embargo, it

will then read: "whereas the United States cannot without a sacrifice

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

Great Britain." Therefore resolved, that the embargo be repealed, and

commerce with Great Britain permitted. Do these two declarations hang

together, sir? That, because we cannot submit to the edicts of the

belligerents, we will therefore open a free trade with them? The first

part of the proposition is true, no man has denied it; the addition

which I have made to it then, is the discordant part, and proves the

embargo is not submission. I wish to know of gentlemen, whether trading

with the belligerents, under their present restrictions on commerce,

would not be submission? Certainly, sir. Is then a refraining from so

doing, submission? In a word, is resistance submission? Was the embargo

principle considered submission in the days of the stamp act? Did the

nation call it submission when it was enacted under General Washington?

Was it so considered by the Republicans, when resorted to for redress

against the primary violations in 1793? Or was it ever contended that

had not the embargo been raised, the terms of Jay's treaty would have

been worse? Do gentlemen of the "old school" undertake to say that the

Father of their country submitted then to George III.? I hope not,

sir. If the embargo was not submission under George Washington, it is

not under Thomas Jefferson. Again, I ask, were the principles of the

embargo submission in 1774-'5-'6? But it has been replied, it is not

meet that the remedies of that day should be applied to the present

case. Why not, sir? The disease was the same; and lest gentlemen have

forgotten what it was, I will tell them how the old Congress described

it: "You exercised unbounded sovereignty over the sea, you named the

ports and nations to which alone our merchandise should be carried, and

with whom alone we should trade." Draw the parallel, sir, and if the

remedy of that period will not suit the present crisis, let us look

out for others. I will not stop here; I am willing to go further; I

would carry fire and sword into the enemy's quarters; but I would first

exhaust every means to preserve peace.

You will excuse me, sir, for giving an opinion in this place, which,

perhaps, some gentlemen may think does not result from the subject

immediately before us. I will tell you what description of people in

the United States are most anxious that the embargo should not be

repealed. It is a new sect, sir, sprung up among us--ultra-federalists.

They are the persons, in my belief, who are most desirous the embargo

should be continued. They see that upon its removal a war with Great

Britain follows. An alliance with her is the object nearest their

hearts--not a resistance of the wrongs and insults practised by her.

If this embargo be submission, if non-intercourse be submission, if

a prompt preparation for war be submission, I ask them what is it to

sit still and do nothing? Do you mean to submit? Come out and tell the

nation whether you will or will not resist the Orders in Council--let

us know it--it is desirable that we should know it--it will conduce to

the public weal.

I, for one, sir, will vote to continue the embargo, because I do still

consider it a coercive measure--as the most deadly weapon we can use

against Great Britain. I am induced to consider it so, when I take

a view of what is the nature of our products--what is the nature of

her exports and imports--what is the nature of her wants, and what

her capacity and means of supply. Look at the West Indies, where the

embargo has a decided ascendency over every other measure you can

adopt. You will find that her colonial and navigation system has, in

that quarter, never been maintained since the Revolution. Perhaps

I ought, in presuming to speak further about the West Indies, to

apologize to the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. KEY,) not indeed for

his very courtly conduct, because if a man is ignorant, he does not

like to be told of it. The gentleman will be pleased to pardon me,

if I blunder on in my ignorant way, and talk a little more of that

part of the world. [Mr. KEY explained that he had not intended any

reference to the gentleman from South Carolina in his remarks.] I am

extremely obliged to the gentleman for his explanation. Entertaining

great respect for his talents, I am happy to find, upon such authority,

the charge is neither applicable nor intended. The colonial system has

been always regarded as essential to all the vital interests of Great

Britain. Every relaxation of that system has excited murmurs and great

discontent in the mother country, and yet they have been constantly

produced by the wants of the colonies. Would they have been permitted

in favor of the United States, could those wants be supplied from any

other quarter? I must contend, then, that their profitable existence

depends upon an intercourse with the United States, notwithstanding

every thing which has been said to the contrary. I do not mean to

involve the idea of absolute starvation; much less to insinuate that

the embargo is so coercive as to humble Great Britain at our feet;

far from it--but I do say, from the nature of their products, their

profitable existence depends upon us. There are not contained within

the whole British empire at this time, whatever they may have been

previous to the American Revolution, supplies for the home and colonial

consumption. Will gentlemen tell us from whence they are to procure

the principal articles of provisions and lumber? I might rest the

argument in safety on these articles alone; these are essential, and

of our produce. All the evasions of the embargo have been made with

a view to that supply; enforce it, and from whence will they procure

the article of lumber? It bears a higher price and is more scarce in

Great Britain, even in ordinary times, than in the West Indies. The

opinion that Nova Scotia and Canada were adequate to that supply, has

been long since abandoned. The articles of their produce require a

constant supply of our materials, some of them cannot be procured from

any other part of the world; of the lumber received, we have heretofore

furnished ninety-nine parts out of one hundred. But we are told they

can raise corn. Who denies it? I will grant to gentlemen all they ask

on that point, and add, too, that their corn is actually more valuable

per bushel than that of this country; but when their labor and industry

is directed to that object, what becomes of their cotton, sugar, and

coffee cultivation? What becomes of the immense revenues derived from

those sources? Gentlemen must not forget that at least one-third of

her revenue accruing from commerce, is derived from the West India

trade alone. I do not know that I should be wrong, if I were to say

from coffee and sugar only. If you drive them to the cultivation of

corn for subsistence, they must necessarily abandon the cultivation of

their most valuable staples. And do gentlemen believe Great Britain is

willing to sacrifice all these considerations to a refusal to do you

justice? We do not require justice, for all we ask of her is to abstain

from plundering us. We say to her "hands off;" we wish not to come into

collision with you; let us alone. These sacrifices will not be much

longer hazarded, unless indeed she is deluded into a belief that she

has sufficient influence, in this country, to excite disaffection and

insurrection, and thereby remove the cause of pressure.

Another objection with me to removing the embargo is, it will betray a

timid, wavering, indecisive policy. If you will study the sentiments

contained in Mr. Canning's note, you will find they afford a lesson

of instruction which you ought to learn and practise upon: "To this

universal combination His Majesty has opposed a temperate, but a

determined retaliation upon the enemy; trusting that a firm resistance

would defeat their project; but knowing that the smallest concession

would infallibly encourage a perseverance in it." I beg the House to

draw instruction from this otherwise detestable paper--it preaches

a doctrine to which I hope we shall become proselytes. A steady

perseverance in our measures will assist us almost as much as the

strength of them.

I conceive the supplies necessary for the maintenance of the war with

Spain and Portugal will fairly come into the calculation. It has become

the duty and interest of Great Britain to maintain the cause of Spain

and Portugal--she has made it so. Where will those supplies be drawn

from? Does she produce them at home? Certainly not; for it cannot be

forgotten that the average importation of flour alone at Liverpool is

ninety thousand barrels annually. The Baltic is closed against her.

The demand must be great; for Spain and Portugal in times of peace

have regularly imported grain for their own consumption. And here I

will observe, there is no attribute in my nature which induces me to

take sides with those who contend for a choice of masters. So far as

they are fighting for the right of self-government, God send them

speed; but at this peculiar crisis I think it extremely important

that our sympathies should not be enlisted on the side of either of

the contending parties. I would, therefore, from Spain and Portugal

withhold our supplies, because through them we coerce Great Britain.

But that pressure which Great Britain feels most, is most alive to, is

at home. The last crop is short, and injured in harvesting; wheat is

fourteen shillings the bushel, and rising. Her millions of poor must be

supplied with bread, and what has become almost equally important, she

must furnish employment for her laborers and manufacturers. Where can

the necessary supply of cotton be procured? For, thank God! while we

are making a sacrifice of that article, it goes to the injury of Great

Britain who oppresses us, and whose present importation is not equal to

one-half her ordinary consumption. If the manufacturer is to be thrown

out of employ, till that raw material which is now the hypothesis of

the day, is produced from Africa, the ministry who are the cause of

it will not long rule the destinies of that nation. No, sir, I am not

alarmed about supplies of cotton from Africa. Nor am I to be frightened

out of the embargo by a fear of being supplanted in the market, from

that quarter; they must be but little read indeed in political economy,

who can dread a competition with barbarians, in the cultivation of the

earth.

Another strong inducement with this House to continue and enforce the

embargo is, that while it presses those who injure us, it preserves

the nation in peace. I see no other honorable course in which peace

can be maintained. Take whatever other project has been hinted at,

and war inevitably results. While we can procrastinate the miseries

of war, I am for procrastinating; we thereby gain the additional

advantage of waiting the events in Europe. The true interests of

this country can be found only in peace. Among many other important

considerations, remember, that moment you go to war, you may bid

adieu to every prospect of discharging the national debt. The present

war of all others should be avoided; being without an object, no man

can conjecture its termination; for as was most correctly observed

by my friend, (Mr. MACON,) the belligerents fight everybody but one

another. Every object for which the war was originally begun and

continued to 1806, has since that time become extinct. The rupture

in the negotiations of that day was made not on points affecting

directly the British interest, but grew out of the indirect concern

she felt in maintaining those urged by Russia, which Power, having

since declared war against Great Britain, has obliterated the then only

existing object of the war. Embark in it when you please, it will not

procure you indemnity for the past; and your security for the future

must ultimately depend on the same promises, which you can obtain by

peaceable means. I have no disposition, sir, to hazard the interest of

my country in a conflict so undefined, so interminable!

But, say gentlemen, it is certainly not submission to trade to those

ports which the edicts of the belligerents have not prohibited us from

trading with. Granted--I will not enter into a calculation on the

subject, as to how much importance the trade would be of to us. The

chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has told you it would be

contemptible in amount; but, sir, I say this, because I consider it

expedient to continue the embargo, to withhold our supplies from those

who need them, I will not permit you to go to those countries. Repeal

the embargo in part! No, sir. Give merchants one single spot anywhere

out of the jurisdiction of your own country, as large as the square

of this House, and they would carry away the whole of our surplus

produce. Give them a little island on which to place the fulcrum of

their lever, and Archimedes-like, they will move your whole trade.

Let them go to Demarara, to Gottenburg, or any other burg, and it is

to the whole world. But the trade to Spain and Portugal has been held

up as highly profitable to the merchants of the United States. The

gentlemen who venture this opinion have not, perhaps, considered the

subject with all the attention it is entitled to. It appears to me to

be demonstrable from the documents, and the knowledge of circumstances

which we possess, that Great Britain, with the extension of plunder

the Orders in Council warranted, is not satisfied. She was not content

that she had laid a snare whereby she intercepted our whole commerce

to Europe. She then permitted us (no doubt from extreme moderation)

to trade with the French colonies, taking care, at the same time, to

force a direction of that trade in a channel which could not fail to

yield a tributary supply to her exchequer. She has now interdicted, by

orders secretly issued, that commerce also. The language of Cochrane's

proclamation cannot be misunderstood. What a harvest he would have

reaped from the robbery of your merchantmen, had the embargo been

raised, as was expected by the British Cabinet, at the commencement of

the session. The Orders in Council would have taken all your property

going to continental Europe, and those of the Admiralty would have

swept the West India traders. I believe the idea of enjoying a free

trade to Spain and Portugal is altogether illusory. Mr. Canning has

told us, not _in totidem verbis_, but certainly in effect, that we

should be permitted to trade with those countries, only under the

Orders in Council. In answer to the proposition made by Mr. Pinkney

to suspend the embargo as to Great Britain, for a suspension of the

Orders in Council as to the United States, the British Minister replied

in the most peremptory manner possible. Here let me observe, that had

that suspension been agreed to, the embargo would have co-operated with

the Orders in Council against France. It would have been even much

more efficacious than those orders, inasmuch as our own regulations

would have interdicted all commerce with France. The professed object

of the Orders in Council, retaliation on the enemy, cannot therefore

be real--they originated, as they have been executed, in a spirit of

deadly hostility against us. That the operation of those orders would

be extended to Spain and Portugal, should the embargo be repealed in

part, I infer from this positive assertion of the British Secretary:

"It is not improbable, indeed, that some alterations may be made in

the Orders in Council, as they are at present framed; alterations

calculated not to abate their spirit or impair their principle, but

to adapt them more exactly to the different state of things which has

fortunately grown up in Europe, and to combine all practicable relief

to neutrals with a more severe pressure upon the enemy." Here is not

only a denial of suspension, but a threat that alterations will be

made, (no doubt in tender mercy to us,) not to abate their spirit,

but to adapt their operation more extensively to our ruin. What is

the state of things alluded to? Let every gentleman who seeks after

truth, candidly inquire for himself, what is the state of things which

Mr. Canning considers has so fortunately grown up in Europe. Can it

be any thing but the revolutions in Spain and Portugal? If the Orders

in Council are not to be impaired, but their operation rendered more

applicable to the present state of things, _a fortiori_, you are to be

cut off from the South of Europe, in the same manner as you are from

France and her dependencies. And are you ready to repeal the embargo

under such a threat as this? This note, sir, is sarcastic to the last

degree; in it I read insult added to the atrocious injuries my country

has received; there is but one part of it which can be looked at with

patience, and that is the valuable admonition I have read.

Some gentlemen have gone into a discussion of the propriety of

encouraging manufactures in this country. I heard with regret the

observations of the gentleman from Virginia on this subject. I will

be excused by him for offering my protest against those sentiments.

I am for no high protecting duties in favor of any description of

men in this country. Extending to him the equal protection of the

law, I am for keeping the manufacturer on the same footing with the

agriculturist. Under such a system, they will increase precisely in

that proportion which will essentially advance the public good. So far

as your revenue system has protected the interests of your merchants,

I am sincerely rejoiced; but I can consent to no additional imposition

of duty, by way of bounty to one description of persons, at the expense

of another, equally meritorious. I deplore most sincerely the situation

into which the unprecedented state of the world has thrown the

merchant. A gentleman from Massachusetts has said, they feel all the

sensibility for the mercantile interest, which we feel for a certain

species of property in the Southern States. This appeal is understood,

and I well remember, that some of their representatives were among the

first who felt for our distressing situation, while discussing the bill

to prohibit the importation of slaves. I feel all the sympathy for

that interest now, which was felt for us then; but I ask if it is not

sound policy to encourage the patriotism of our merchants to support

still longer the sacrifices, which the public exigencies call for, with

spirit and resolution? If they should suffer most from our present

situation, it is for their immediate advantage that we are contending.

I must be allowed in continuation to say, that, although I do not

profess to be one of the exclusive protectors of commerce, I am as

willing to defend certain rights of the merchant, as the rights of the

planter. Thus far I will go; I will assist in directing the physical

strength of the nation to the protection of that commerce which

properly grows out of the produce of the soil; but no further. Nor am

I therefore disposed to limit the scene of his enterprise. Go up to

Mocha, through the Dardanelles, into the South seas. Search for gums,

skins, and gold, where and when you please; but take care, it shall be

at your own risk. If you get into broils and quarrels, do not call upon

me, to leave my plough in the field, where I am toiling for the bread

my children must eat, or starve, to fight your battles.

It has been generally circulated throughout the Eastern States, in

extracts of letters, said to be from members of Congress, (and which I

am certainly sorry for, because it has excited jealousies, which I wish

to see allayed,) that the Southern States are inimical to commerce.

So far as South Carolina is concerned in the general implication, I

do pronounce this a gross slander, an abominable falsehood, be the

authors who they may. The State of South Carolina is now making a most

magnanimous sacrifice for commercial rights.

Will gentlemen be surprised when I tell them, South Carolina is

interested, by the suspension of our trade, in the article of cotton

alone, to an amount greater than the whole revenue of the United

States? We do make a sacrifice, sir; I wish it could be consummated. I

should rejoice to see this day all our surplus cotton, rice, flour and

tobacco burnt. Much better would it be to destroy it ourselves, than

to pay a tribute on it to any foreign power. Such a national offering,

caused by the cupidity and oppression of Great Britain, would convince

her she could not humble the spirit of freemen. From the nature of her

products, the people of South Carolina can have no interest unconnected

and at variance with commerce. They feel for the pressure on Boston,

as much as for that on Charleston, and they have given proofs of that

feeling. Upon a mere calculation of dollars and cents--I do from my

soul abhor such a calculation where national rights are concerned--if

South Carolina could thus stoop to calculate, she would see that she

has no interest in this question--upon a calculation of dollars and

cents, which, I repeat, I protest against, it is perfectly immaterial

to her whether her cotton, rice, and tobacco, go to Europe in English

or American vessels. No, sir, she spurned a system which would export

her produce at the expense of the American merchant, who ought to

be her carrier. When a motion was made last winter for that kind of

embargo which the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. KEY) was in favor of;

for he says he gave his advice to do that very thing, which if adopted

would cut up the navigation interest most completely, (an embargo on

our ships and vessels only;) South Carolina could have put money in

her pocket, (another favorite idea with the gentleman,) by selling her

produce to foreigners at enormous prices; her representatives here

unanimously voted against the proposition; and her Legislature, with

a magnanimity I wish to see imitated throughout the United States,

applauded that vote--they too said they would unanimously support

the embargo, at the expense of their lives and fortunes. She did not

want an embargo on our ships, and not on produce. No, sir; she knows

we are linked together by one common chain--break it where you will,

it dissolves the tie of union. She feels, sir, a stroke inflicted on

Massachusetts, with the same spirit of resistance that she would one

on Georgia. The Legislature, the representatives of a people with whom

the love of country is indigenous, told you unanimously, that they

would support the measures of the General Government. Thank God, that

I am the Representative of such a State, and that its representatives

would not accept of a commerce, even at the advice of a gentleman

from Maryland, which would profit themselves at the expense of their

Eastern brethren. Feeling these sentiments, I cannot but say, in

contradiction to what fell from the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr.

GHOLSON,) I should deplore that state of things which offers to the

merchant the lamentable alternative, beggary or the plough. I would

say to the merchant, in the sincerity of my heart, bear this pressure

with manly fortitude; if the embargo fails of expected benefit, we will

avenge your cause. I do say so, and believe the nation will maintain

the assertion.

It is with reluctance I feel compelled, before I resume my seat, to

make a few observations in reply to what fell from the gentleman from

Maryland (Mr. KEY) yesterday. The gentleman commenced his address by

contradicting the statements made by a gentleman from Massachusetts,

and my worthy friends from Virginia and Georgia, (Messrs. RANDOLPH and

TROUP.) He told you their districts could not feel the embargo most,

as it was in his the sufferings were most severe. I shall not waste

the time of the House by an inquiry into the truth of this assertion;

nor, sir, will I enter into a competition of this sort. I aim at a

distinction far more glorious. The State I represent in part, bears

the embargo the best. This it is my pride to boast of. There, sir,

there are no murmurs, no discontent at the exertions of Government

to preserve the rights of the nation. And as long as respect for the

honor, and a hope of the salvation of the country exists, so long will

they bear it, press as hard as it may.

The gentleman told you, in speaking of the Maryland elections, that the

film is removed from the eyes of the people, and that in discerning

their true interests, they saw it was the embargo, and not the Orders

in Council, which oppresses them. He must feel confident indeed in the

knowledge that he is two years in advance of his constituents, or he

would not have ventured such an assertion. [Mr. KEY explained that he

had said the film was removed, and the people saw that their distress

arose more from the embargo than from the Orders in Council.] Mr.

WILLIAMS continued: I have no intention to misrepresent the gentleman,

but I understood him to say that the Orders in Council did not affect

the continental market, but the Berlin decree; that the embargo caused

all the pressure at home; that the Orders in Council had no part in

producing that measure, and therefore I infer as his opinion, that

the Orders in Council have not injured us. [Mr. KEY said that the few

observations which he had made on this subject, were in reply to the

gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL,) that the people should

be no longer deluded. In answer to this Mr. K. said he had observed

that the people were not deluded--that the film was removed from their

eyes, and that he then had gone on to show that the depression of

produce arose from the embargo. But that he never had meant to say that

the Berlin decree and Orders in Council were not injurious, because

they lopped off a large portion of our commerce.]

I understood the gentleman to say (observed Mr. W.) that it was very

strange we would not trust our merchants upon the subject of the

embargo, who were the best judges. I wish to represent the gentleman's

sentiments correctly, and shall not consider him impolite, if I have

misstated him, should he again stop me. Why, sir, is it strange? Are

the merchants the guardians of the public honor? This I conceive to

be the peculiar province of Congress, because to it alone has the

constitution confided the power to declare war. Will the gentleman

trust the merchants with the guardianship of his own honor? No, sir,

he chooses to protect it himself. And would he advise the nation to

pursue a course disgraceful, and to which he would not expose himself?

I will not trust the merchants in this case, nor any other class of

men; not being responsible for the national character, they will trade

anywhere, without regard to principle. So true is this, Dessalines felt

no uneasiness when informed of the law prohibiting all intercourse

with St. Domingo; he replied, "hang up a bag of coffee in hell, and

the American merchant will go after it." I am not sure that, in the

evasions of the embargo, some of them have not already approached

near its verge: certain I am, that, in a fair commerce, such is the

enterprise and perseverance of their character, they will drive their

trade as far as it can be driven. No, sir, I will not trust the

merchant now, because he would do the very thing which the gentleman

seems to wish, trade under the Orders in Council.

The embargo should be removed, because, says the gentleman, it has

operated as a bounty to the British trade. I should be disposed to

doubt this, if for no other reason than a knowledge of who advocates

its removal. Before the embargo was laid, agricultural labor in the

British West India islands, particularly on sugar estates, could

scarcely support itself. I refer the gentleman to the documents printed

by order of Parliament, and the memorials of the agent of Jamaica. He

will find that the planters are in a distressed situation, not from

their failure in the cultivation of the soil, but from the enormous

duties on their produce in the mother country. Are the extravagant

prices of articles of the first necessity, superadded to their former

embarrassments, to operate as a bounty on their trade? I should be

extremely gratified if the gentleman will inform us what would have

been the amount of bounty on the trade, if evasions of the embargo

had not taken place. If the price of flour has been sixty dollars per

barrel, and other articles in proportion, what would have been the

price had there been no evasions of the law? They could not have been

procured at all: and yet we are told the embargo is a bounty on British

trade! When the gentleman was, I had like to have said, justifying

the Orders in Council, he should have favored us with a vindication

of the _smuggling_ proclamation also. Such a degree of corruption and

of immorality never before, in any one paper, disgraced a civilized

nation. The citizens of a country, at peace and in amity, enticed to

evade their own laws! Is such an act calculated to induce the belief

that the embargo operates as a bounty on British trade?

I shall not enter upon another question stirred by the gentleman,

the constitutionality of the embargo law; the subject has become so

stale, that even he could scarcely make it interesting. It has been

laid asleep--a solemn adjudication has taken place and put it at

rest. But the gentleman will excuse me for observing he made a most

unfortunate allusion in the course of his argument. He said it was

strange that, not having the power delegated to us to tax exports, we

should undertake to prohibit them. The Orders in Council, which if the

gentleman did not justify, he was certainly very tender of, do exercise

that very power of taxing our exports, which by the constitution we are

prohibited, and that too when they are destined to a government equally

sovereign and independent with that of Great Britain.

We have been referred by the gentleman to the history of the

Revolution, and after a kind of encomium on the resources of Great

Britain, the triumphs of her navy and her present imperious attitude,

he demanded to know if we can expect she will yield to us now, when

during the Revolution she maintained a war against the whole world, at

the same time that she kept us at bay seven years and succeeded with

every nation but her own sons--will she truckle at our feet now? The

gentleman knows we do not seek to make her truckle at our feet; we wish

her no injury; we ask of her no boon whatever; we only entreat her to

let us alone; to abstain from wanton, unprovoked acts of oppression.

What is the object of this language? Is it to tell us she never will

redress our wrongs; or is it to divert us from a prosecution of our

rights? The contest was very different with her at that time from

what it is now. She then contended against the dismemberment of her

Empire. Will the gentleman say she values the principles of the Orders

in Council, as she did the sovereignty of her colonies? What will the

gentleman discover, by examining the history of the period he referred

to? England, at that time, when France, Spain, Holland, and the United

States, were opposed to her, when the armed neutrality in the north of

Europe assailed her, when all these brought the principle of embargo

to bear upon her, was nearer ruin than she ever was before or since. I

refer him to Playfair's tables for the year 1781; there he will find

the very principle proven, for which we are now contending. Does Great

Britain now prize the plunder of your merchantmen, the impressment

of your seamen, insult to your national flag, as much as she did the

sovereignty of the soil? Certainly not; and yet she must, precisely the

same, or she will not hold out now as she did then. When I recollect

that her necessary annual expenditure is greater than the gross rent

of all the landed property in her kingdom; that the armed neutrality

affected her so materially, that the same principle is brought into

operation again; that by withholding our custom, our supplies, our raw

materials, we must necessarily destroy a large portion of her revenue,

I cannot but hope she will see her own interest in redressing our

injuries. This is all we contend for, allow the experiment to be made;

if not, at least propose some better remedy.

But said the gentleman, at the close of the Revolutionary war we alone

triumphed over the arms of Great Britain; defeat befell all the rest of

the world. I will not contest that point with him, as he is old enough

to speak from experience.

We were informed by the gentleman, that it was the Berlin decree, and

not the Orders in Council, had destroyed our trade to the Continent

of Europe. Here too we are directly at points. The gentleman has not

made himself master of his case, or has totally mistaken his evidence.

I hold a document in my hand which, perhaps, the gentleman may object

to, as coming from the opposition party in Great Britain; it is the

depositions of sundry merchants of great wealth and respectability,

taken before the British House of Lords, on the subject of the Orders

in Council. Here Mr. W. read from the depositions the following

questions and answers:

"If the American embargo were removed, and the Orders in

Council still continued in force, in that case would the

witness resume his shipments?

"To a very small amount.

"For what reason?

"Because I do conceive, that there would be such great

impediments, indeed a total annihilation of trade from the

United States of America to the Continent of Europe, that

I could not expect to receive any returns for the goods I

sent out; and another reason would be my apprehension that a

war between the United States and this country would be the

consequence of those Orders in Council.

"What is the reason that the Orders in Council prevent the

witness sending our cotton goods in ships in ballast?

"I believe I stated my apprehension that they might produce

a war between the two countries; another reason was, I could

not expect to get remittances, and a total annihilation of the

trade between the United States of America and the Continent

of Europe, from whence a great part of my remittances must be

derived.

"If the American embargo in general were taken off, and the

Orders in Council to be continued, would his trade in that case

revive?

"I certainly should feel no inducement to export goods to

America while the orders continued.

"Why not?

"I should apprehend that hostilities between this country and

America would be the consequence of continuing the Orders in

Council.

"Would the Orders in Council have any other effect as to

discouraging the trade?

"They would have considerable effect in regard to our

remittances.

"In what manner?

"By bringing all the produce of America to this country, they

must occasion such a vast glut in the market, that the produce

would be worth little or nothing.

"In what degree would it affect the dealers in those

commodities brought to this country, as to their remittances to

this country?

"The consequence I apprehend would be, that great parts of the

bills must go back protested; because the produce, for which

the bills are drawn, would sell for scarcely the value of the

freight and charges.

"Does the witness conceive, from his knowledge of the

American trade, that if the whole of the American produce,

which according to an average of years had been carried to

the Continent of Europe, and to Great Britain, was now to be

imported into Great Britain alone, and the Orders in Council

to continue; whether it would be possible to export from Great

Britain to the continent, so much of the American produce as

should prevent a glut of the American produce remaining in the

market?

"I think it would be impossible.

"Have you lately written to your correspondents in America

respecting shipments of American produce to this country?

"I have.

"To what effect have you so written?

"I have written that in case of submission to these Orders of

Council, in case such a thing should take place, to suspend all

operations.

"Did you give this advice to your American correspondents, upon

the supposition that America would acquiesce in the Orders in

Council?

"Certainly not, I stated it as a thing by no means likely; but,

as there is nothing impossible in this world, that if it were

so, not to move; that in case they were acquiesced in, not to

attempt any business."

Considering (continued Mr. W.) these are the sentiments (delivered

under the sacred obligation of an oath) of that very description of men

who the gentleman believes are the best judges and ought to be trusted,

I am warranted in saying, they prove his position wholly unfounded. The

gentleman's project last year was to lay the embargo on our ships and

vessels, and to dispose of our produce, the effect of which would have

been destruction to our own vessels, constant encouragement to those of

Great Britain. I beg him to remember, that if two or three years hence,

he should not stand as high with the American merchants as he could

wish, it may be fairly attributed to this friendly protection of their

immediate interests, which he would have extended to them.

The gentleman was equally unfortunate in saying, the destruction of

St. Domingo had caused such a demand for sugar, that the cultivation

of cotton in the British West India islands had been abandoned; he is

not well versed on the subject, the fact not being as he has stated it.

However great an impetus the destruction of St. Domingo may have given

to the cultivation of sugar and coffee, in the British West Indies,

it certainly had no effect in any way on that of cotton, the quantity

of that article formerly exported from thence being too small to have

any influence whatever. Our cotton will never be supplanted from that

quarter. Could the sugar estates be converted to cotton plantations,

so depressed has been their situation, that conversion would have been

long since effected. Nor, sir, is it true that the cultivation of

cotton in the British West India islands has been abandoned; on the

contrary, it has been regular though slow in its increase, compared

with that of coffee. Crops of that kind are frequently precarious,

owing to a natural enemy of the plant in those islands, and therefore

the cultivation has not kept pace with the demand.