I heard the gentleman with pain and mortification, I repeat it,

with pain and mortification I heard him declare that nations like

individuals should pocket their honor for money. The act is base in an

individual, in a nation infinitely worse. The gentleman was corrected

by his colleague (Mr. NELSON) on this subject. He evidently, to my

apprehension, expressed an opinion, that money was to be preferred to

honor. He told us that honor in arbitrary governments was identified

with the monarch, who went to war for his mistress; that in republics

honor consisted in the opportunities afforded to acquire wealth, and

by way of illustration said, we pocketed our honor for money in paying

tribute to the Barbary Powers, for the security of a paltry trade. Does

the gentleman mean to assimilate a tribute exacted by Great Britain

with that paid to Algiers? Or does he mean to be understood as advising

us, because we purchase peace with barbarians, involving no honorable

consideration, to barter for a pecuniary reward, with Great Britain,

our rights, our honor, and our independence? Detestable as this

inference is, it results from his arguments. Repeal the embargo, throw

open your trade to Great Britain; you can put money in your pocket

by it. I want no substitute. Sir, if my tongue was in the thunder's

mouth, then with a passion would I shake the world and cry out treason!

This abandonment of our rights, this sacrifice of our independence,

I most solemnly abjure. Astonished indeed am I, that a gentleman so

eloquent, so well qualified to uphold the honor and dignity of his

country, should so abandon them! Is it possible such doctrine should

be advocated on the floor of Congress? Has it come to this? Was it for

this the martyrs of the Revolution died? Is this great continent and

the free millions who inhabit it, again to become appendages of the

British Crown? Shall it again be held, in its orbit by the attractive,

the corruptive influence of the petty island of Great Britain? No.

Sooner may you expect the sun with all the planetary system will rush

from their shining spheres, to gravitate round a pebble. Remember,

sir, it is no longer a contest singly about the carrying trade, or

the impressment of seamen, or the insult to the national flag, but

all united with the rights and attributes of sovereignty, even to

the violation of the good old United States. You stand on the verge

of destruction, one step, one movement backwards will stamp your

character with indelible disgrace. You must now determine whether you

will maintain the high station among nations, to which the virtues,

the spirit of the people have elevated you, or sink into tributary

vassalage and colonization. By all your rights, your duties, your awful

responsibility, I charge you "choose ye this day whom ye will serve;

but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Mr. CULPEPER spoke in opposition to the report.

Mr. COOK moved to adjourn. Mr. J. G. JACKSON called for the yeas and

nays on the motion; but a sufficient number did not rise to justify the

taking them. Motion to adjourn negatived. Mr. COOK renewed the motion,

observing that he had some remarks to make, which might occupy the

House some time.--Carried, 54 to 50, and the House adjourned.

SATURDAY, December 10.

Mr. LEWIS, from the Committee for the District of Columbia, presented a

bill supplementary to the act, entitled "An Act for the establishment

of a Turnpike Company in the county of Alexandria, in the District of

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

Whole on Monday next.

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act further to amend the

judicial system of the United States," was read twice, and committed to

Mr. MARION, Mr. HOLLAND, and Mr. KELLY, to consider and report thereon

to the House.

Mr. NELSON, from the committee appointed the eleventh ultimo, on so

much of the Message from the President of the United States as relates

to the Military and Naval Establishments, presented a bill authorizing

the appointment and employment of an additional number of navy

officers, seamen and marines; which was read twice, and committed to a

Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

_Foreign Relations._

The House again proceeded to the consideration of the first resolution

of the report made by the Committee of Foreign Relations.

Mr. COOK addressed the House at considerable length.

Mr. R. JACKSON said: Mr. Speaker, not having been in the habit of

public speaking, it is with great diffidence I rise, to make any

observations on the resolutions now under consideration, after so

much has been said upon the subject. But, sir, knowing the deep stake

that the portion of citizens which I have the honor to represent, and

the United States at large, have in the present embarrassed state of

our political affairs, was I to remain silent, sir, I should feel as

if I was guilty of treachery to their interests. I shall not attempt

to follow gentlemen in their arguments who have gone before me in

the debate, but confine myself to making such observations on the

resolutions and the state of our political affairs, as appear to me to

be necessary and proper. By the first resolution we are called upon to

declare "that the United States cannot, without a sacrifice of their

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

Britain and France." Why we are called upon to make this declaration,

I cannot conceive. I do not see the use of it, unless it is considered

by the committee as a kind of test act, which they think ought to be

administered to every member of the House to ascertain whether they are

of sound principles or not. I do not like such abstract propositions;

I think them useless, as nothing can come from them in a legislative

way; no bill can be formed from it; however, I do not see anything at

present to prevent me from voting for it. By the second resolution we

are called upon to declare "that it is expedient to prohibit, by law,

the admission into the ports and harbors of the United States of all

public or private armed or unarmed ships or vessels belonging to Great

Britain or France, or to any other of the belligerents having in force

orders or decrees violating the lawful commerce and neutral rights of

the United States; and also the importation of any goods, wares, or

merchandise, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the dominions of

any of the said powers, or imported from any place in the possession of

either."

Here, sir, I shall take the liberty to dissent from the committee, for

I do not think it to be expedient to join them in such a resolution as

this. For I would ask, what are we to promise to ourselves from such

a system as this; what will be the probable effects of it? Will it

compel the great belligerent Powers to do us justice for past injuries

and secure us for the future? If I thought it would, I would most

cheerfully vote for it. But, sir, I have no reason to suppose it will,

for we have now had considerable experimental knowledge of the effects

of the embargo system, both as it respects ourselves and foreign

powers, and we have found from experience, that, as a coercive measure,

it has had no effect. It has not compelled France or England to do

us justice, or to rescind their unlawful edicts and decrees, issued

against neutral commerce. And those nations having now experienced

the effects of the embargo for nearly one year, whatever alarm it

might have given them, when first laid on, that alarm has ceased. And

we have it from high authority, that France cares nothing about it,

and that in England, owing to the great events now passing in Europe,

it is forgotten. And shall we still, with all this information and

experience, adhere to this system, and still think we can legislate

France and England into a comitance to do us justice, and bring them

to the bar of justice in this way? Far be it from me to censure any

one for the part they have taken in endeavoring to maintain the rights

of our country, and giving security to the interest of our citizens.

But, sir, I think, in the business of legislation, that the same line

of conduct ought to be pursued, that we would pursue in the common and

ordinary proceedings of life; for should any of us undertake to do any

thing, suppose it be to get a vessel afloat that had been stranded,

and the means employed were totally inadequate to its accomplishment,

should we not abandon those means and try some other? We have tried the

embargo, and found it altogether ineffectual, and we have no reason to

suppose, that by a further continuance of it, it will answer any of the

purposes for which it was intended.

I will now take some view, as it appears to me, of what has been,

and will be the effect of the embargo, if continued, as it respects

ourselves. The burden of it has already been very great, on a large

proportion of our citizens. It has been grievous, and very sore. For

how otherwise can it be, when we consider that all the navigation

business, from one end to the other of these United States, is totally

stopped, excepting a small remnant of our coasting trade, and that

remnant under very great embarrassments; and all that numerous class of

our citizens, dependent on commerce, deprived of their usual means of

gaining a livelihood, and in consequence thereof thousands of them have

been obliged to live on their former earnings, and consume that little

property they had treasured up for their future support? And if the

embargo is continued, the inevitable consequence must be, bankruptcy

to many of our merchants, and absolute distress, misery, and want, to

a large proportion of our citizens who live in the seaport towns, and

great embarrassments to all classes of citizens throughout our country.

And if this system is continued, we must incur the hazard of having

civil commotions in our country, for experience has proved, that when

great distress prevails among the people, and that distress arises from

political measures, which the people are divided in sentiment upon,

the hazard is very great that civil commotions will take place. Some

gentlemen have undertaken to show how much we have already lost by the

embargo. But I shall not go into any calculation of this sort, for I

am convinced that it defies calculation; it is impossible to follow it

into all its turnings and windings. It is enough for me to know that

the loss is immense, and that we have received such a shock by it, that

it will require a long time to come, to recover from it. Gentlemen have

also endeavored to point out such parts of the Union as they think are

suffering the most by the embargo. There is no doubt but that it does

bear harder upon some portions than on others, and that it is unequal

in its operation. But, sir, my idea is, that it bears the hardest upon

that part of our citizens where they are the most dependent on commerce

for their living; and this being the case, in nearly as great a degree,

perhaps, with the citizens of Rhode Island as in any part of the Union,

it follows that my constituents are suffering as much as any portion

of the United States.

But, sir, its pressure is upon the whole country, and it carries

misery throughout our land; and if continued, the distress occasioned

by it must still be much greater than it has been, and will become

intolerable in some parts of the Union, and the consequences may be

dreadful to the nation. And as to its effects on France or England, for

myself, I am of opinion, that the Emperor of France and King of Italy

is well pleased with it, for, as it is observed by Mr. Canning, "it

certainly comes in aid" of his grand design of destroying the commerce

of the English, and trying to give that nation the consumption of the

purse; and, until he is satisfied with that speculation, he will wish

us to keep on the embargo. And since Spain and Portugal have refused

any longer to be under the control of Bonaparte, and have bid him and

all his hosts defiance, and have connected themselves with the English,

I believe the English care nothing about the embargo, but would give us

their free leave to keep it on forever; for, sir, it gives the greatest

activity to their colonies of Canada and Nova Scotia, and must be

the means of increasing their settlements with astonishing rapidity.

Experience has already proved to them, that their colonies in the West

Indies can be maintained without us, and Spain and Portugal and their

colonies having become open to them, to vend their manufactures, and

with what can be smuggled into the continent and into our country, in

spite of all the laws that can be made against it, will furnish them

market enough; and our navigation being all laid up, and out of the

way, their ships will obtain great freights from Spain and Portugal to

the colonies, and from the colonies back to the mother country; and

in consequence of our retiring into a state of dignified retirement,

as it has been called, they will have nearly the whole trade of the

world in their own hands. And it appears to me, sir, in every point

of view that I can place the subject, if we continue the embargo, it

will operate to distress ourselves a hundred times more than it will

anybody else. I will now, as I have heard the call so frequently made,

that, if you do not like this system, point out a better, and if it

appears so, we will adopt it--I will, therefore, point out what appears

to me a better line of conduct for the United States to pursue, and if

I am so unfortunate as not to find a man in this House of my opinion,

I cannot help it, for I feel myself constrained, from a sense of duty

to my suffering constituents, to inform this House and the nation,

that I wash my hands of it, and protest against it. I therefore, sir,

with great deference to superior abilities, propose that the law

imposing an embargo on all ships and vessels of the United States,

and all the laws supplementary thereto, be immediately repealed, and

that we authorize our merchants to arm their vessels, under proper

regulations, in defence of our legitimate and lawful commerce; that

the Government from time to time afford the commerce of the country

such protection as may be found necessary and prudent. If this was

done, I have no doubt but that the citizens of the United States would

soon be relieved from their present embarrassments and distress. This,

sir, would produce a circulation in the body politic, our planters and

farmers would immediately find a sale for their surplus produce, our

merchants would find employ for their vessels, and all that numerous

class of citizens who have heretofore been engaged in the active and

busy scenes of commerce, would again find employ in our seaports. In

lieu of beholding dismantled ships covered with boards and mats, we

should see in them spars and rigging aloft, and the ports whitened

with their sails, and again hear the cheering sound of industry. But

it has been said that if the embargo was removed and our merchants

should send their vessels to sea, most of the property would be taken

by one or other of the great belligerent powers, and thus be lost to

our country; and that we have so little trade left that it is not worth

our notice. But let us examine this, and see if it be so. Could we not,

sir, in the present state of the world, trade to England, Scotland, and

Ireland, to Sweden, Spain, and Portugal, to some of the islands in the

Mediterranean, and some of the Turkish ports on that sea; to nearly all

the ports in the East and West Indies, to both sides of the continent

of South America, and some other places, and have the obstruction

occasioned by the embargo laws removed from our own coast? Is all this

trade of no importance to trading people? Gentlemen have gone into

statements to show, from our former trade, how much of our domestic

produce could be exported to the different parts of the world, under

the present embarrassments, occasioned by the great belligerent powers;

but for myself I put no confidence in such statements. I consider trade

may in some measure be compared to water; if the channel it has been

used to run in becomes obstructed, it will find new channels to vent

itself in. For instance, sir, suppose we should adopt the resolution

offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. MUMFORD). He mentioned

that we could trade to the little Swedish island of St. Bartholomews,

in the West Indies. Now suppose we should look over our former exports

to this island in any one year, what should we find the amount to be?

I do not know, sir, perhaps one hundred thousand dollars, but double,

triple it if you please, and what comparison would it bear with the

amount that would be shipped there under his system? Would it not

immediately become a distributing point for the whole of the West

India Islands, and the amount increased to an astonishing degree, when

compared with what used to be exported there? And so it would be in

other parts of the world. The articles will go where they are wanted,

in a greater or less degree; and if they cannot be carried directly,

they will find their way in an indirect manner. And as to the danger

of the property being captured and confiscated, I think our merchants

and underwriters are the most competent to judge of that. They do not

wish the Government to become guardians for them in this respect. All

they wish for Government to do is to let them manage their own affairs

in their own way; and the Government to afford the commerce of the

country as much protection as shall be for the real interest of the

whole nation. Have we not seen, in the summer past, with what eagerness

the merchants in the United States availed themselves of the special

permission granted to fit their vessels in ballast, and go abroad to

collect debts? And was not every old and obsolete claim hunted up that

existed in the country, to make out the amount necessary to avail

themselves of this permission? Is not this proof that the merchants

did not consider the risk very great? And were not several hundred

sail of vessels fitted out under this permission; and have they not

nearly all returned back to the United States in safety? Many of these

vessels were insured to the West Indies, out and home, at premiums

of about eight and nine per cent., and this in the midst of the

hurricane season. This proves that the underwriters did not estimate

the political risk at more than two or three per cent., for the natural

perils in time of profound peace would be considered equal to six per

cent. And the calculation of the underwriters has proved correct, for

they have made money by the business. And was our embargo removed, I am

of opinion that the premiums of insurance would not be more than six

or seven per cent. to any port in Great Britain, and about the same to

Spain and Portugal. This, if correct, proves that the political risk

is not considered to be very great by those who are the best judges of

it. But, sir, it appears to me there are many gentlemen in this House

who think it will not do to trade, until all political risk is removed

out of the way. If we wait for this, we shall never trade any more, for

the natural perils of traversing the ocean always exist, and always

remain nearly the same, allowing for the variation of the seasons. And

the political perils always exist, but they vary according to the state

of political affairs among the nations of the world. But, sir, I have

repeatedly heard it said, and the same thing is expressed in the report

of the committee, that our situation is such, that we have no other

alternative than a war with both Great Britain and France, submission,

or a total suspension of our commerce.

The committee have, sir, after a long statement, brought our affairs

up to this point, and I do not like any of the alternatives out of

which they say we must make a choice, for I do not believe that we are

reduced to this dilemma; and I will not agree to go to war with both

England and France, nor will I agree to submit, or to totally suspend

our commerce. But I will agree to give our merchants liberty to arm

their vessels, under proper regulations, in defence of our legitimate

commerce, and leave it to them to send their vessels for trade where

they please; and if any of them are so unwise as to trust their

property to France, or to any ports in Europe where the French control,

let them fight their way there if they choose. I see no other course,

sir, that we can pursue, that will be so much for the interest and

honor of our country, as the one pointed out. The American people are a

cool, calculating people, and know what is best for their interest, as

well if not better than any nation upon earth, and I have no idea that

they will support the Government in a ruinous war with England, under

the present existing circumstances, nor in measures depriving them of

all trade and commerce.

Mr. MUMFORD then offered a few observations in answer to the remarks

of Mr. GHOLSON of Virginia. During the discussion, six different

motions were made for an adjournment, the last of which, offered by Mr.

GARDENIER, was carried--yeas 58, nays 48.

TUESDAY, December 13.

On motion of Mr. THOMAS,

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the

expediency of dividing the Indiana Territory; and that they have leave

to report by bill or otherwise.

_Ordered_, That Mr. THOMAS, Mr. KENAN, Mr. BASSETT, Mr. TAGGART, and

Mr. SMILIE, be appointed a committee pursuant to the said resolution.

On motion of Mr. THOMAS, the resolutions of the House of

Representatives of the Indiana Territory, which were read and ordered

to lie on the table on the fourteenth ultimo, were referred to the

select committee last appointed.

Mr. MARION, from the committee to whom was referred, on the tenth

instant, the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act further to

amend the Judicial System of the United States," reported the bill to

the House without amendment: Whereupon the bill was committed to a

Committee of the Whole to-morrow.

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of

Andrew Joseph Villard," was read twice and committed to a Committee of

the Whole to-morrow.

On motion of Mr. ALEXANDER,

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether any, and

if any, what farther provision ought to be made by law, prescribing

the manner in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings

of one State, shall be proved and given in evidence in another State,

and the effect thereof; and that they have leave to report by bill or

otherwise.

_Ordered_, That Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. DAVID R. WILLIAMS, Mr. JOHN G.

JACKSON, Mr. KEY, and Mr. QUINCY, be appointed a committee, pursuant to

the said resolution.

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

passed a bill, entitled "An act supplemental to an act entitled 'An act

for extending the terms of credit on revenue bonds, in certain cases,

and for other purposes;'" also, a bill, entitled "An act to change the

post route from Annapolis to Rockhall, by Baltimore to Rockhall;" to

which they desire the concurrence of this House.

_Foreign Relations._

The following is Mr. GARDENIER'S speech entire:

Mr. Speaker: I had intended to defer the delivery of my sentiments upon

the second resolution, until that resolution should come before the

House. But the course which the debate has taken, has produced a change

in my original intention.

That the first resolution is an unnecessary one, because no clear,

definite, practical results can flow from it, appears to me

self-evident. Are the people of this country suspected of an intention

to abandon their rights or their independence? Indeed, sir, they are

not. Why then is it, that we are called upon to make a new declaration

of independence? Or was the Administration conducted in such a manner

as to make the firmness and patriotism of the nation itself doubted

abroad? Even I, sir, who am not suspected of a blind confidence in our

rulers, will not advance such a charge.

The true question is not, Is the matter expressed in this abstract

proposition true? But, Is it necessary that a resolution containing

it should be passed by this House? I agree with the gentleman from

Tennessee (Mr. CAMPBELL) that it would be no less ridiculous to pass

this resolution than to pass one that the sun shines. Allowing both to

be true, both are equally unnecessary to be embodied in a resolution of

this House. Begin this system of abstract legislation, and where are

you to stop? Sir, it partakes too much of the character of disturbed,

revolutionary times. To such a blasphemous height was this notion of

voting abstract propositions, or declarations, or truisms (call them

what you will) carried at one time in France, that their Convention

very gravely decreed "that there was a God!" This was a self-evident

truth; and being so could not become more so by being decreed. And

if the edicts of Great Britain and France go to the destruction of

our "rights, honor and independence," our voting that such is their

operation, makes it neither more nor less true.

But, it is said, a select committee have placed the resolution before

us, and we are bound to vote whether the assertions it contains are

true or false. Why, sir, if I should offer a resolution that at this

moment the sun shines, and some one should second me, would it be

contended that this House ought gravely to proceed to the question?

and if any member should say, "I vote against this resolution because

it is too true to be made more so; and because, therefore, I think it

unnecessary to be passed," that he, sir, should be considered blind?

Again, gentlemen, some too with whom I am in the habit of acting,

say, at the worst, the resolution is harmless--it ties you down to

no specific course, and therefore you may as well vote for it; that

to vote against it, will afford a handle against our popularity--that

the resolution itself is an artful one--a trap set to catch the

Federalists, as it will hold them up to suspicion, if they vote against

it--for the vote will appear upon the Journals, when the argument is

not to be found there. Well, sir, if it be in truth a trap to catch

poor Federalism in, I, for one, sir, am willing to be caught. I never

deceived the people whom I have the honor to represent, either by

giving a vote to the propriety of which my judgment was opposed, or by

professing opinions which I did not entertain; and, sir, I trust in God

I never shall. The applause of my constituents is dear to me. But I

would rather strive to deserve it--than, not deserving it, to receive

it. Yes, sir, my course shall be always a plain one--a straightforward

course. I have not acquired the confidence of my constituents by

increasing their delusions. I have always labored to disperse them.

At my first election to this House, a decided majority of them were

opposed to my politics. The thought has often distressed me. But the

cause of that distress exists no longer. And, therefore, sir, I will

go on discharging my duty with the most scrupulous obedience to my

judgment, and where the weight of a hair ought to turn the scale, it

shall turn it.

But if I had no other objection against this abstract "harmless"

resolution, there is one which would be decisive: I would reject it on

account of "the company it keeps." The committee, for reasons which

I shall not stop to disclose, have thought it important to introduce

this, by way of propping the second one. That second one, sir, the

undoubted object and inevitable tendency of which my whole soul recoils

from, which I abhor and deprecate, as fatal to the prosperity and

happiness of my country--as the grave of its honor--and I fear I do

not go too far when I add, of its independence! that resolution is not

alone submission to France; but, under the pretence of resisting her

infractions of the laws of nations, her violations of the sacred rights

of hospitality, her laughing to scorn the obligation of treaties--it

makes us submit to all--to encourage a perseverance in all. Nay, sir,

it throws the whole weight of our power into her scale, and we become

not only the passive, but, to the whole extent of our means, the

active instruments of that policy which we affect to abhor. This, sir,

unhappily, is capable of the most clear demonstration; and, in the

proper place it shall appear so. I enter now upon the discussion of

the second resolution. And although I am aware how little professions

of sincerity and embarrassment are generally regarded, and, indeed,

how little they ought to be regarded, yet I cannot approach this awful

subject without declaring that I feel as if I was about to enter

the sanctuary of our country's independence; and I tremble with the

same fearful distrust of my powers, the same distressing perplexity

which would embarrass me if I had entered the labyrinth in which was

concealed the secret of that country's honor, prosperity and glory. I

do feel, sir, that we should enter upon the discussion of this question

divested of all the prejudices and passion of party--no less than all

foreign predilections and animosities--with clean hearts, sir; yes,

hearts seven times purified, to prepare them for the discharge of the

sacred, the holy duties of this awful crisis. He who can come to this

debate with other motives than to save his country, placed as it is on

the brink of a dreadful precipice, deserves to be heard nowhere but in

the cells of the Inquisition. The sound of his voice should never be

suffered to pollute the Hall of the Representatives of the American

people. But he who, thinking that he has traced the causes and the

progress of our misfortunes, and that he may, perhaps, point the nation

to a path which may lead it back to the prosperous position it has been

made to abandon, would be a traitor to the State, if any considerations

could keep him silent.

In my view, sir, we have gone on so long in error--our affairs have

been suffered to run on, year after year, into so much confusion, that

it is not easy to say what should be done. But if it is magnanimous to

retract error, certainly it is only the performance of a sacred duty,

which their servants owe the people, to abandon a system which has

produced only disappointment and disasters hitherto, and promises only

ruin and disgrace in future.

The time, sir, has been, when the Government was respected at home and

abroad, when the people were prosperous and happy, when the political

body was in high, in vigorous health; when America rejoiced in the

fulness of her glory, and the whole extent of the United States

presented a scene unknown in any other country, in any other age.

Behold now the mournful contrast, the sad reverse! We are "indeed

fallen, fallen from our high estate!" The nation is sick--sick at

heart. We are called upon to apply a remedy; and none will answer which

shall not be effectual. No quack prescriptions will answer now. And

the cure, to be effectual, must not persevere in a course which has

not only produced no good, nor promises any; but which has brought the

patient (if I may use the figure of the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.

NELSON) to his present forlorn condition. Such a perseverance may seem

to argue great hardihood, or, if you please, spirit; but, after all, it

is nothing but the desperate frenzy of a losing, half-ruined gamester.

It becomes, therefore, at last, indispensable to take a retrospective

view of our affairs. And, if in taking this view, we should find the

cause of our disasters, we must not fear to contemplate it, to hold it

up; and, having grown wise by experience, we must not be prevented by

false pride, from profiting by it; we must not shrink from the exercise

of a virtue because it is also an imperious duty. And I hope that no

gentleman who hears me is unwilling to sacrifice the popularity of the

Administration to the salvation of the country.

Permit me then, sir, to go back to that period in our history which

immediately preceded the adoption of our present form of Government.

What was then our condition? The people were poor--for there was no

commerce to assist agriculture--there was no revenue for general

objects. Many States were hardly able to collect enough for State

purposes. And, of course, there was no such thing as public credit,

although there was an immense floating debt. We had no reputation

abroad--there was no confidence even at home. But, sir, we had a

WASHINGTON, and we had the pupils of WASHINGTON, men whom he knew to

be faithful in the Cabinet, for he had found them faithful in the

darkest stages of the Revolution. The nation, happily, had not been

deluded--they knew their friends by their deeds--they had not yet

yielded to the sweet fascination of the seductive popular declamations

of these latter times. Men were known by what they did, not by what

they said. These men, sir, had the sagacity to discover the secret

springs of our prosperity and happiness and glory. And they were able

to strike them with a powerful hand, and with a powerful hand they did

strike them; and, instantly, as if by enchantment, the scene changed.

Suddenly, agriculture raised her drooping head, for commerce beckoned

her to prosperity. Your people began to pay their debts and to become

rich. Public credit was restored; the Treasury began to fill readily.

Sources of revenue were explored, certain of continually increasing,

equally certain of being never exhausted, except by folly and madness.

Indeed, sir, so perfect was the financial machinery that it admitted

of no improvement. It required no more skill in the successors of the

illustrious Hamilton to make this instrument "discourse most excellent

music," than it would a child to play a hand-organ. An end was put to

our Indian wars; our Algerine captives were redeemed--our reputation

was established abroad, and the United States assumed their just rank

among the nations of the earth! This was, indeed, a work worthy of

the illustrious patriots who achieved it. It was the result of that

profound practical wisdom, which, never yielding to the deception

of brilliant theory, saw the public interest with a clear eye, and

pursued it with a firm and steady step; and it was no wonder that it

was successful. Let me add, too, that all this was accomplished without

taxation being felt by the people.

But this great prosperity was not without interruption. It received a

stroke, sir, deep and dangerous, and almost mortal, from the tremendous

system of spoliations commenced by Great Britain in 1793. Misfortunes

cast themselves across the path of nations as well as individuals.

They are often unavoidable, and no nation can hope to be always exempt

from them. The wisdom of the human mind is displayed in putting an

end to them in private affairs, and in public that statesman only is

great who can overcome and disperse them, who, though he cannot avert

the bolt, can prevent the ruin it threatens. At the period of which

I speak, we had such statesmen. Yes, sir, the alarm was depicted on

every countenance--though the nation staggered to its centre under the

severity of the blow it had received, yet was the Administration equal

to the dreadful emergency--it had brought the nation into existence

and prosperity, and it was equal to the preservation of both. And they

showed it not by venting their rage in idle reproaches, but by applying

efficient remedies to the diseases of the country.

Let it be remembered that justice was to be obtained from Great

Britain; from that power which is now represented and held up to our

indignation as "proud, unprincipled, imperious, and tyrannical;" and

which certainly was at least as much so then; for then she had on her

side all Europe engaged in combination against France, and France

was alone as England is now. In short, she was then on the continent

of Europe what France is now. Yet, from this same country did our

Government succeed in obtaining not only reparation for the spoliations

committed, but a surrender of the Western posts also. I repeat, sir,

all this was accomplished when Great Britain was not less imperious in

disposition, but more formidable in power than she is now. And surely

all this ought to appear strange and wonderful indeed to those who have

been deluded into the idea that, when Great Britain was struggling,

gasping for existence, the same thing was impossible: that has with

ease, and under more inauspicious circumstances, been accomplished,

which the men now in power pretend they have attempted in vain. Still

strange as it may seem to them, it is a fact--it is history. Well, sir,

how was this miracle brought about? By a process very plain and simple.

The Administration was sincerely desirous of peace; and that single

object in their eye, they exerted their abilities to obtain it and

consequently did obtain it. The instructions of the Minister breathed

a desire of peace--of reconciliation upon terms compatible with the

honor of both nations. The Administration did not send with their

Minister a non-importation act, a proclamation, or a permanent embargo,

by way of exhibiting their love of peace. The refinement in diplomacy

which sends with the negotiator a new cause of quarrel for the purpose

of accelerating the adjustment of an old one, was not yet invented.

No, sir, Mr. Jay, (and the name of that stern, inflexible patriot and

Republican, I always repeat with delight and veneration, because he is

a patriot and a Republican)--

[Here Mr. UPHAM took the advantage of a pause made by Mr. G. to observe

that, as the gentleman appeared considerably exhausted, &c., he would

move an adjournment, which was taken by ayes and noes and lost--ayes

47, noes 65--Mr. G. voting in the affirmative.]

Mr. G. continued.--Mr. Jay had no disposition to bully the British

Government into justice; he had no objection that they should have all

the merit of returning voluntarily to a sense of justice, provided his

country might have the benefit of substantial reparation. The stern

sage of the Revolution became the courteous ambassador, and, appealing

"to the justice and magnanimity of His Britannic Majesty," he demanded

redress and he obtained it. The British Government saw that ours was

sincerely disposed to be at peace with them, and, pursuing the natural

direction of their interests, there was no difficulty in making peace.

Our plundered merchants were compensated--paid, sir, _bona fide_. We

did not purchase redress; we did not pay for the surrender of the

Western posts, which were our right, and out of the purchase money

indemnify a portion of our own citizens. No; the payment was to all;

and in right old-fashioned "British gold," all counted down on the

nail. I wish that I could, with equal truth, say the same thing of more

modern treaties.

And now, sir, compensation being made by Great Britain for the

spoliations on our commerce, the Western posts being surrendered, a

commercial treaty being established, the dark cloud which obscured our

prospects being dispersed, the sun of our prosperity once more burst

forth in all its radiance, and again all was well.

I care not what were the objections of the day, begotten in the brain

of faction, and cherished in mobs; under the treaty we were prosperous

and happy, and that one fact is enough for me. Bad as the treaty was

represented to be, and the worst feature of it most probably was,

that it was a British Treaty--bad as it was, the continuance of its

existence has been precisely co-extensive with the progress of our

prosperity--it made our people rich and happy; and, bad as it was, they

would have cause to rejoice indeed if the present Administration had

furnished them with just such another.

France saw with uneasiness the return of a good understanding between

America and Great Britain. And she, in her turn, let loose her plunders

upon our commerce. Again the wisdom of our Government was called into

action, and again it produced the most happy result. What did they

do? An embassy was despatched to France, redress was demanded, but

the Ministers were not received, nor could be, till a _douceur_--a

tribute--was paid. From a nation which returned such an answer, redress

could not be expected; and there was an end of negotiation. Britain

and France had acted toward us with equal injustice--the disposition

of our Government, its desire of peace, was the same with both. Its

conduct was the same to both, but France would not even hear our

demands. The American Government were at no loss how to act. The

case was a plain one. One nation robs another--that other demands

reparation--prevarication is the reply. It requires no skill to

see, in such a case, that, to coax the offender into reparation is

impossible. Accordingly, our Government did not hesitate as to the

course it should pursue; they did not wait to be spurred on by any

Government to an assertion of their rights; they would not leave it

one moment doubtful whether they had the disposition and the courage

to assert them. They proceeded immediately to annul the French Treaty,

to pass non-intercourse laws; they built ships of war, and sent them

upon the ocean, to protect our commerce. They were not so obstinate but

that they could receive instruction, even from the author of the "Notes

on Virginia," who, in that work, so judiciously recommends a navy.

Our little armament picked up the French cruisers, great and small;

the coast, the sea, was soon cleared of them. And our commerce again

visited every clime in safety.

I will here remark, sir, that, during all this time, the staple

commodities (particularly of the Northern States) suffered no

diminution, but an increase in price. Well, sir, France very soon

discovered that she had nothing to gain, and we nothing to lose by

such a state of things. Even then, when she had some naval power, she

discovered this. She was, therefore, very soon disposed to change it. A

treaty was patched up, in the end, and something like the appearance of

redress provided for.

Now, sir, for the result. A former Administration were able to settle

our differences with Great Britain, although she governed all Europe,

although she was unjust, haughty, and imperious. Now the same thing is

said to be impossible! A former Administration were able, after a fair

negotiation had failed, to bring France, who had then some maritime

power, on her marrow-bones. And now, when she has none, again the

same thing is impossible! How happens all this? Sir, I am afraid your

Administration have committed most capital mistakes. They have been

unwilling to learn wisdom from the experience and success of their

predecessors. I do fear, and I shall be obliged to prove, that, on

the one hand, they have been actuated by, certainly they have never

(following the example of a former Administration) manifested a sincere

disposition to accommodate our difficulties with Great Britain. And,

on the other hand, they have in no instance shown to France that bold

front which, in more unpromising times, brought the terrible Republic

to her senses. These two errors, these wilful, wanton aberrations from

established policy, are the true causes of all our misfortunes. It is

owing to them that we have, if we believe the Administration sincere,

two enemies who are already at war with each other, and we, the only

instance of the kind since the creation of the world, are to step out a

third and distinct belligerent, a sort of Ishmaelite belligerent; our

hand against every nation, and every nation's hand against us. We are

in a situation which defies hope, one in which we have but a single

miserable consolation, that though it promises nothing but ruin, yet

it is so ridiculous, so ludicrous, that we can but smile at it.

These remarks are extorted from me a little out of their order. I

return to the period of the restoration of peace between the United

States and France.

The Administration now (1801) passed into the hands of other men. They

received a country, rich, prosperous, and increasing in prosperity.

A people contented and happy; or discontented only with those who

had been the authors of their prosperity. They received a Treasury

full and overflowing, giving a vigor and a spring to public credit

almost unknown before, and to the reputation of the country a dignity

unsullied; they found us in peace and friendship with all nations,

our commerce whitening every sea, and rewarding agriculture for all

its industry, and every one sitting in peace under his own vine and

fig tree. Our country presented to the animated philanthropist one

uninterrupted display of liberty, of gaiety, and of felicity. Oh!

happy, happy period of our history--never, never, I fear to return.

And, if ever truth dropped from the lips of man, it was when the

nation was declared to be in "the full tide of successful experiment."

Never were the destinies of a nation in more wonderful prosperity

committed to men. That prosperity had been acquired at a price no less

unparalleled, at the expense of the destruction and disgrace of those

whose wisdom and energy had produced it.

The new men, sir, were not required to bring order out of confusion;

that had been done already.

They were not called upon to lay the deep and strong foundations of

national prosperity and happiness; that had been done already.

They were not enjoined to "multiply" the talents committed to their

stewardship; that was unnecessary--they were merely commanded to

preserve them undiminished.

They were not required to create a paradise--but to keep uninjured that

which was committed to their guardianship.

They promised, indeed; they were so rash, in the fulness of their

exultation, as to promise to do more; but folly alone could believe

them; and for breaking this promise I forgive them, for to do more

was impossible. And if they had but preserved unimpaired, if they had

not totally destroyed the inestimable treasures intrusted to them, I

would have endeavored to overcome my resentment, my indignation, and my

despair.

In performance of their lofty promises, in disregard of sacred duties,

what have they done? In what condition do they leave the country,

which, eight years since, "in the full tide of successful experiment,"

fell into their hands? They present to us, sir, the gloomy reverse of

all it was. The people discontented and distressed--all becoming daily

more and more poor--except, indeed, that class of rich speculators,

whose wealth and whose hearts enabled them to prey upon the wants of

their countrymen. The despair and dismay of 1786 are returned! The

prosperity of twenty years is annihilated at one stroke! The sources

of revenue are dried up. The Treasury, indeed, may be now full--but it

must continually diminish--and, without its usual supply, it must soon

be empty. We have still some credit. But how long, sir, can that be

maintained, when it is known that we have no longer the means, allowing

us to possess the disposition, to fulfil our pecuniary engagements?

When you cannot collect a cent upon imposts, and dare not lay a

direct tax, how far you will be able to obtain money on loan, is, to

say the least of it, very questionable. But, I will hasten to finish

the contrast I was about to make. Commerce, sir, has perished, and

agriculture lies dead at her side--for these twin sisters must flourish

or die together. No nation in the world is our friend--our paradise is

becoming a wilderness; our soil is stained with the blood of our own

citizens; and we look around us, in vain, for one solitary benefit to

compensate us for all the dreadful effects of the present system.

Perhaps, sir, I may be answered: "Though all you have said be true,

though our former prosperity exists no longer, it is ungenerous, it

is unjust to impute the change to the agency of the Administration.

What has happened could not be prevented." Though such a rebuke were

reasonable, I will still insist that the Administration, if they

deserve no censure, are certainly entitled to no praise, and can ask

for no confidence. If they have not been the authors of the public

calamities, they have not, like their predecessors, discovered the

ability to prevent them from coming thick upon us. If their hearts are

honest, their heads have not discovered much soundness. No set of men,

however ignorant, however stupid, could have placed the country in a

worse or a more deplorable situation. The truth is plain and palpable.

Judging of the wisdom of the Administration by the result of its

measures, I cannot sing praises to them for their skill and ingenuity

in diplomacy. No, sir; I delight in that diplomacy which makes the

poor rich; which makes industry prosperous; which spreads contentment

through the land, and happiness among the people. I delight in the

diplomacy, whose skill and wisdom can be read in the countenance of

my countrymen, and makes the face of my country the evidence of its

prosperity. I like not, I abhor that diplomatic skill which can be

found only in a book! which has produced nothing but calamity, and

whose praise is written in the blood of my countrymen.

But, sir, how happens it that we still remain under the distresses

occasioned by the belligerents? Is there, indeed, a physical

impossibility of removing them? From Great Britain, and that, too, when

she had the whole continent on her side, we could once obtain justice,

not only for the past, but security for the future. From France, too,

we could once obtain justice, but now we can gain justice from neither.

What change, sir, has occurred in the state of things to produce this

strange impossibility? Our commerce is more an object to Great Britain

now, than it was formerly--and France can oppose to us no resistance

on the ocean. And yet no remedy can be found for our calamities! Sir,

I will not be the dupe of this miserable artifice. What has been done

once can be done again by employing the same means.

The Administration have committed greater errors. They have conducted

all their affairs in such a style as to leave Great Britain no room

to doubt that, when they asked for peace, they wanted it not. To this

cause may be traced all our difficulties, so far as they proceed from

that power. As it regards France, I fear that they have not acted the

proper, the manly part. In short, sir, they have not pursued toward

England the policy which saved us in 1795, nor toward France the policy

which was successfully opposed to French rapacity and French obstinacy

in '93.

I think an error was committed, when, affecting to desire an amicable

arrangement with Great Britain, instead of treating with her as a

nation not to be intimidated, much less bullied, the non-importation

act was passed. For, sir, if she was so proud, so haughty, so

imperious, as some gentlemen delight to describe her, then to bring her

to justice by assuming an attitude of menace, was evidently impossible.

When, therefore, you passed the non-importation act, under a pretence

that it would be a successful auxiliary to friendly negotiation, what

could you expect but to alarm the pride, and the haughtiness, and

imperiousness of that nation? And, doing that, how could you expect an

amicable result? No, sir, it was not, and it could not be expected.

You obtained a treaty indeed--but it was from a Fox Ministry. Yet such

as it was, it was not so good as a Jay's Treaty, and the Executive

rejected it without so much as laying it before the Senate.

In support of the embargo system, gentlemen say, if we suffer our

commerce to go on the ocean, or wherever it goes, it will be crippled

either by France or Great Britain. Although this is not true in the

extent laid down, yet it will hold tolerably true as respects the

European seas. From what gentlemen are pleased to represent as the

impossibility of sailing the ocean with safety, result (say they) the

propriety and necessity of the embargo system. And they say, it is

not the embargo, but the decrees and orders which are the true cause

of all we suffer; that the embargo, so far from being the cause of,

was advised as a remedy for the evils we endure. Well, sir, for the

sake of the argument, be it as they say. Has the embargo answered? Is

there any probability, the slightest indication, that it will answer?

Has it operated, to any perceptible extent, except upon ourselves,

during the twelvemonth it has been in existence? If, then, neither the

remembrance of the past, nor the prospect of the future, gives the

least encouragement to hope, why will gentlemen persist in the system?

And that too, sir, at an expense to their own country so enormous

in amount? Will they go on obstinately amid all the discontents, or

clamors (as gentlemen in very anti-republican language call the voice

of the people) in the Eastern and Northern States? And that from mere

obstinacy--an obstinacy not encouraged by the least glimmering of hope?

If I could be pointed to a single fact, produced by the operation of

the embargo, which would prove that it had any other effect on the

disposition of Great Britain than to irritate--or any other on France

than to please, than to encourage her to a perseverance in that system

of injustice which we pretend to oppose, but to the policy of which

we give all our support with an infatuated wilfulness, and which,

therefore, increases the hostility Great Britain has felt from the

measure--if they could show me, sir, that the embargo will bring either

to terms, I would abandon the opposition at once, and come heart and

hand into the support of your measures. The other day, the gentleman

from South Carolina (Mr. WILLIAMS) almost persuaded me that it ought to

operate upon Great Britain; but I looked and I found it did not, and I

was convinced it would not.

But, have gentlemen reflected that, if all the evils were drawn from

Pandora's box, to vex Great Britain, you could have hit on none so

well calculated to call out all her resistance, and all her obstinacy,

as this same expedient, the embargo! If she yields to us, under the

pressure of such a system, she discloses to us the secret of her

independence! Sir, the embargo is war; it was intended as such against

Great Britain. And she understands its meaning and its character too

well for us to disguise it, under a pretence of its being a mere

precautionary municipal measure. Its efficacy as a coercive measure has

been too often and too loudly boasted of in this House, to make its

real object a secret to her. Nay, in so far as the great and prominent

feature of war is coercion; in so far as war is always intended to

make the adversary yield that which he will not yield voluntarily;

in so far, are the embargo and the non-importation act WAR. Each was

intended to coerce Great Britain to yield to us points which it had

been ascertained she would not yield voluntarily. It was a system of

coercion, a new-fangled sort of philosophical experimental war; novel,

to be sure, in its character, but, to all substantial purposes, war.

Instead of bloodshed, there was to be ink shed--instead of bayonets,

pens--instead of the bloody arena, huge sheets of paper! Whenever Great

Britain shall yield to the coercion of the non-importation, embargo, or

non-intercourse system, she virtually tells the people of the United

States, "we are in your power whenever you choose to make a claim

upon us, whether just or unjust; threaten us with an embargo and a

non-intercourse, and you bring us to your feet." Does any gentlemen

believe, even allowing the pressure of the embargo to be great upon

her, that she can yield, that she can afford to yield? That she can

admit that we have her always perfectly in our power? Sooner would she

give up in battle--sooner would she see her soldiers retreating before

our bayonets; sooner would she see her armies perish under our valor,

than acknowledge herself the slave of this magic wand. Her children

might grow to be men, and she might try the fortune of another day; the

hair of Samson might grow on again, and his strength be renewed; but

in yielding to the chance of the embargo, she places her existence in

our hands, and becomes dependent upon our will for the existence of her

sovereignty. Sir, the King of England cannot, he dare not, yield to our

embargo.

But, sir, he has not told us that he considers our embargo hostile

to him; nor has our Government ever told him that it was; such a

declaration has never been put to paper. No, sir; when you look into

the correspondence, it would seem that the embargo was never intended

as a coercive measure, nor even understood so by Great Britain. Every

thing on both sides is conceived in a sincere spirit of "friendship."

Our non-importation act, our proclamation, our embargo, are all

acts of friendship and kindness toward Great Britain, for aught we

find there. And Great Britain issues her Orders in Council in a

reciprocating spirit of amity toward us. She is not offended with our

non-importation act, nor our embargo. Not at all. Her orders are not

intended to harm us. She means nothing in the world, but simply to

retaliate upon France--and she is sorry that almost the whole force

of the blow falls upon us, but it is unavoidable. She, by the laws

of nations, has as perfect a right to retaliate upon France as we

have to make our innocent municipal regulations--and she is full as

sorry that her retaliation system should wound us, as we are that

our municipal regulations should incommode her. Sir, this diplomatic

hypocrisy (begun, I acknowledge, by us) is intolerable. Sir, there

is not one word of truth in the whole of it, from beginning to end.

The plain state of the case is this: Anterior to the non-importation

act, the British Treaty had expired--there were points of dispute,

particularly concerning the impressment of seamen, which could not

be adjusted to the satisfaction of our Government. In this state of

things, either we ought to have gone to war, or we ought not. If we

had intended to do so, stronger measures should have been resorted to

than a non-importation act. If we had not intended to do so, the act

should never have been passed. Those who passed it could have but one

of two objects in view; either to coerce Great Britain to the terms we

demanded--or, by vexing and irritating her, to raise up in due time

an unnecessary fictitious quarrel, which (as this country is known to

be extremely sensitive of British aggression) might ultimately end

in a real old-fashioned war. No men could have been so weak as to

calculate upon the first result. As to the other, the wisdom of the

calculation is pretty strongly proved by the situation in which we

now find ourselves. Sir, this is the whole mystery--and it must be

explored--it must be exposed. We must understand the real character of

our controversy with Great Britain--the real character, intent, and

aim, of the different measures adopted by us and by her, before we

can hope to heal the wounds our peace has received, or to restore the

prosperity we have been unnecessarily made to abandon. I know, sir, how

difficult it is to overcome matured opinions or inveterate prejudices;

and I know, too, that, at this time, the individual who shall venture

to lay open "the bare and rotten policy" of the time, makes himself the

butt of party rancor, and strips himself to the unsparing "lacerations

of the press." But these are considerations too feeble to deter me from

my duty.

[Mr. G. appearing much exhausted, and Mr. QUINCY having intimated to

the House that Mr. G. suffered under a pain in the side, moved for an

adjournment. The SPEAKER inquired whether Mr. G. yielded the floor? Mr.

G. replied, he had himself little inclination to continue his remarks,

but the House appeared so eager to hear him, (a laugh,) he hardly knew

what answer to make. However, he said, he would give the floor. The

House then adjourned.]

The object, sir, of our present deliberations is, or ought to be, to

relieve our country from the distresses under which it groans; to do

this, we should be prepared to legislate with a single eye to the

welfare and happiness of the nation. It is of the first necessity that

we should deliberate with calmness, if we mean to apply an effectual

remedy to the diseases of the State. In the remarks which I had the

honor to make yesterday, I was constrained to draw a contrast between

the measures and prosperity of former times and those of the present

times. Under circumstances of the same character, we were formerly

able to overcome our misfortunes. Now we are not. And I did this for

the purpose of impressing upon the House an opinion, that if the

Administration had practised upon the principles of their predecessors,

all had been well; or, that if retracing their steps, or relinquishing

the path of error and misfortune, they would still be the learners of

wisdom and experience, it would not even now be too late to retrieve

the affairs of the country. If I know my own heart, I did not make the

comparison from any invidious purposes; but merely to turn the minds of

gentlemen back to former times; that they might reflect upon the perils

and calamities of those times, and the means by which an end was put

to them; but in doing this, I could not avoid paying the tribute of

deserved praise and of sincere gratitude to the men under whose agency

we prospered abundantly. In contrasting the conduct of the present with

that of the former Administration, I meant to subserve no purposes of

party. Nay, sir, I could have much desired to have been spared the

necessity of presenting that contrast before the nation. I could have

wished to have avoided these references, lest I might excite party

feeling in others; lest I might appear to be governed by them myself.

But truth could not be attained by any other course, and I have been

compelled to take it.

The first resolution, contained in the following words, was divided, so

as to take the question first on the part in italic:

"Resolved, _That the United States cannot, without a sacrifice

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

edicts of Great Britain_--and France."

The question was then taken on the first clause of this resolution, and

carried--yeas 136, nays 2.

The question being about to be put on the remaining part of the

resolution, viz: on the words "and France"--

The question then recurred on the second member of the first

resolution; and the same being taken, it was resolved in the

affirmative--yeas 113, nays 2.

The main question was then taken that the House do agree to the said

first resolution as reported to the Committee of the Whole, in the

words following, to wit:

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

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

of Great Britain and France:"

And resolved in the affirmative--yeas 118, nays, 2.

SATURDAY, December 17.

A division of the question on the resolution depending before the House

was then called for by Mr. DAVID R. WILLIAMS: Whereupon, so much of the

said resolution was read, as is contained in the words following, to

wit:

"_Resolved_, That it is expedient to prohibit, by law, the

admission into the ports of the United States of all public or

private armed or unarmed ships or vessels belonging to Great

Britain or France, or to any other of the belligerent powers

having in force orders or decrees violating the lawful commerce

and neutral rights of the United States."

The question then recurring on the first member of the original

resolution, as proposed to be divided on a motion of Mr. D. R.

WILLIAMS, and hereinbefore recited, a division of the question on the

first said member of the resolution was called for by Mr. GARDENIER,

from the commencement of the same to the words "Great Britain," as

contained in the words following, to wit:

"_Resolved_, That it is expedient to prohibit, by law, the

admission into the ports of the United States of all public or

private armed or unarmed ships or vessels belonging to Great

Britain."

The question being taken that the House do agree to the same, it was

resolved in the affirmative--yeas 92, nays 29.

A farther division of the question was moved by Mr. ELLIOT, on

the said first member of the resolution, on the words "or France,"

immediately following the words "Great Britain," hereinbefore

recited: And the question being put thereupon, it was resolved in the

affirmative--yeas 97, nays. 24.

And on the question that the House do agree to the second member of the

said second resolution, contained in the words following, to wit:

"Or to any other of the belligerent powers having in force

orders or decrees violating the lawful commerce and neutral

rights of the United States:"

It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 96, nays 26.

The question then being on the residue of the said resolution contained

in the following words:

"And, also, the importation of any goods, wares, or

merchandise, the growth, produce, or manufacture, of the

dominions of any of the said powers, or imported from any place

in the possession of either:"

The question was taken, and resolved in the affirmative--yeas 82, nays

36.

The main question was then taken that the House do agree to the said

second resolution, as reported from the Committee of the whole House,

and resolved in the affirmative--yeas 84, nays 30, as follows:

YEAS.--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 A. Burwell, William

Butler, Joseph Calhoun, George W. Campbell, Matthew Clay,

Joseph Clopton, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Joseph Desha,

Daniel M. Durell, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, Jas. Fisk,

Meshack Franklin, Francis Gardner, Thomas Gholson, jun.,

Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, John Heister,

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

Reuben Humphreys, Daniel Ilsley, John G. Jackson, Richard M.

Johnson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, William Kirkpatrick, John

Lambert, John Love, Nathaniel Macon, Robert Marion, William

McCreery, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thos. Moore,

Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Roger Nelson, Thos. Newbold,

Thomas Newton, Wilson C. Nicholas, John Porter, John Rea of

Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Matthias

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

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

Southard, Richard Stanford, Clement Storer, John Taylor, George

M. Troup, James I. Van Allen, Archibald Van Horne, Daniel C.

Verplanck, Jesse Wharton, Robert Whitehill, Isaac Wilbour,

David R. Williams, Alexander Wilson, and Richard Wynn.

NAYS.--Evan Alexander, John Campbell, Epaphroditus Champion,

Martin Chittenden, John Culpeper, Samuel W. Dana, John

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

John Harris, Richard Jackson, Robert Jenkins, James Kelly,

Philip B. Key, Joseph Lewis, jun., Matthew Lyon, Josiah

Masters, William Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin,

jun., Josiah Quincy, John Russell, James Sloan, L. B. Sturges,

Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Jabez Upham, Philip Van

Cortlandt, and Killian K. Van Rensselaer.

And on the question that the House do concur with the Committee of

the Whole in their agreement to the third resolution, in the words

following, to wit:

_Resolved_, That measures ought to be immediately taken for

placing the country in a more complete state of defence:

It was unanimously resolved in the affirmative.

On motion of Mr. GEORGE W. CAMPBELL,

_Ordered_, That the second resolution be referred to the committee

appointed on so much of the Message from the President of the United

States, at the commencement of the present session, as respects our

relations with foreign powers, with leave to report thereon by way of

bill or bills.

On motion of Mr. GEORGE W. CAMPBELL,

_Ordered_, That the third resolution be referred to the committee

appointed, on the 8th ultimo, on so much of the said Message from the

President of the United States as relates to the Military and Naval

Establishments, with leave to report thereon by bill, or bills.

MONDAY, December 19.

_Miranda's Expedition._

Mr. LOVE called for the order of the day on the report of the committee

on the subject of the thirty-six persons confined in Carthagena, South

America. The following is the resolution reported by the committee:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be

_requested to adopt the most immediate and efficacious means

in his power to obtain_ from the Viceroy of Grenada, in

South America, or other proper authority, the liberation

of thirty-six American citizens, condemned on a charge of

piracy, and now held in slavery in the vaults of St. Clara, in

Carthagena, and that the sum of ---- dollars be appropriated to

that purpose.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS moved to postpone the consideration of the subject

indefinitely. Negatived--50 to 36.

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the subject--39 to

33.

Mr. LOVE moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words in

italics, and inserting "authorized to request."--Carried, ayes 54.

Those gentlemen who supported this resolution in the debate were

Messrs. LOVE, LYON, BACON, NELSON, SLOAN, and WILBOUR. Those who

opposed it were Messrs. D. R. WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, SMILIE, MACON, and

SOUTHARD.

The gentlemen who opposed the resolution, among other objections,

contended that an agreement to the resolution would but involve the

Government in difficulty without answering any good purpose; that

it would in fact be aiding the attempt of a certain party to prove

that the General Government had some connection with this expedition

originally, which it certainly had not; that the facts set forth in

the petition were wholly unsupported by evidence; that these persons

had engaged themselves in a foreign service; that they had become weary

of the privileges of freemen, and had entered into a hostile expedition

against a foreign country, and, in so doing, had been taken, condemned

for piracy, and immured as a punishment for that offence; that the

British Government, having been at the bottom of this business, was

the proper power to release these persons, and indeed had applied

to the Spanish commander for the purpose; that even were the United

States bound by the laws of justice or humanity to intercede for these

persons, they knew not to whom to make application, and would probably

meet with a refusal, perhaps a rude one, if any judgment could be

formed from the present situation of our affairs with Spain; that if

gentlemen wished for objects on which to exercise their humanity, they

might find them in the lacerated backs of our impressed seamen, without

extending it to criminals. In reply to an observation of Mr. LYON,

that if we did not get these men Great Britain would do so, and employ

them to extend her naval force, Mr. MACON replied, if she did, she was

welcome to keep them; but she was in the habit of supplying her navy

with seamen from our vessels, without the trouble which the acquisition

of these men might occasion her.

In reply to these objections, and in support of the resolution, the

humanity of the House was strongly appealed to. It was urged that the

Government could in nowise be involved by an appeal to the generosity

of the provincial government; that these men had not wilfully committed

piracy, but had been deluded under various pretences to join the

expedition; that they had joined it under a belief that they were

entering into the service of the United States; that, even admitting

them to have been indiscreetly led to join the enterprise, knowing

it to be destined for a foreign service, yet, that they had been

sufficiently punished by the penalty they had already undergone; that

it was wholly immaterial what inference any persons might draw from

the conduct of the United States in this respect, as to their concern

with the original expedition; that such considerations should have no

weight with the House; that if these poor fellows were guilty, they had

repented of it; and Mr. NELSON quoted on this point the Scriptures,

to show that there should be more joy over one sinner that repenteth,

than over ninety and nine who have no need of repentance. In reply to

an intimation that it was not even ascertained that they were American

citizens, Mr. BACON observed that one of them had been born in the same

town in which he was, and was of a reputable family.

The resolution was negatived by the committee--49 to 31.

The committee rose and reported the resolution, which report the House

agreed now to consider--ayes 57.

The question of concurrence with the committee in their disagreement to

the resolution, was decided by yeas and nays, 50 to 34.

On motion, the House adjourned.

TUESDAY, December 20.

A new member, to wit, JOSEPH STORY, returned to serve in this House,

as a member for the State of Massachusetts, in the room of Jacob

Crowninshield, deceased, appeared, produced his credentials, was

qualified, and took his seat in the House.

WEDNESDAY, December 21.

_Captain Pike's Expedition._

On motion of Mr. J. MONTGOMERY, the House resolved itself into a

Committee of the Whole, on the bill making compensation to Z. M. Pike

and his companions.

[The first section of this bill grants to Captain Pike and his

companions a certain quantity of land. The second section allows them

double pay during the time they were engaged in exploring the western

country.]

Mr. STANFORD moved to strike out the first section of the bill; which

was negatived--53 to 38.

The second section was stricken out--42 to 35.

A considerable debate took place on this bill, in which Messrs.

MONTGOMERY, LYON and ALEXANDER supported the bill, and Messrs. MACON,

DURELL, STANFORD and TALLMADGE opposed it.

The bill being gone through, was reported to the House.

SATURDAY, December 31.

_Division of the Indiana Territory._

Mr. THOMAS, from the committee appointed on the thirteenth instant, to

inquire into the expediency of dividing the Indiana Territory, made a

report thereon; which was read, and committed to a Committee of the

Whole on Monday next. The report is as follows:

That, by the fifth article of the ordinance of Congress for

the government of the Territory of the United States Northwest

of the river Ohio, it is stipulated that there shall be formed

in the said Territory no less than three, nor more than five

States; and the boundaries of the States, as soon as Virginia

shall alter her act of cession, and consent to the same, shall

become fixed and established, as follows:

The Western State shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the

Ohio, and Wabash rivers; a direct line drawn from the Wabash

and Post Vincennes, due north, to the Territorial line between

the United States and Canada, and by the said Territorial line

to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi.

The middle State shall be bounded by the said direct line, the

Wabash, from Post Vincennes to the Ohio; by the Ohio, by a

direct line drawn due north from the mouth of the Great Miami,

to the said Territorial line, and by the said Territorial line.

The Eastern State shall be bounded by the last-mentioned direct

line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said Territorial line:

_Provided, however_, and it is further understood and declared,

that the boundaries of these three States shall be subject so

far to be altered, that if Congress shall hereafter find it

expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States

in that part of the said Territory which lies north of an east

and west line drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of

Lake Michigan. And whenever any of the said States shall have

sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be

admitted by its delegates into the Congress of the United

States on an equal footing with the original States, in all

respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent

constitution and State Government: _Provided_, the constitution

and government so to be formed shall be republican, and in

conformity to the principles contained in these articles;

and, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest

of the Confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an

earlier period, and when there shall be a less number of free

inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand.

By the aforesaid article, it appears to your committee that the

line fixed as the boundary of the States to be formed in the

Indiana Territory is unalterable, unless by common consent;

that the line of demarcation, which the Wabash affords between

the eastern and western portion of said Territory, added to

the wide extent of wilderness country which separates the

population in each, constitute reasons in favor of a division,

founded on the soundest policy, and conformable with the

natural situation of the country. The vast distance from the

settlements of the Wabash to the present seat of Territorial

government, renders the administration of justice burdensome

and expensive to them in the highest degree. The superior

courts of the Territory are, by law, established at Vincennes;

at which place suitors, residing in every part of the

Territory, are compelled to attend with their witnesses, which,

to those who reside west of the Wabash, amounts almost to a

total denial of justice. The great difficulty of travelling

through an extensive and loathsome wilderness, the want of food

and other necessary accommodations on the road, often presents

an insurmountable barrier to the attendance of witnesses;

and, even when their attendance is obtained, the accumulated

expense of prosecuting suits where the evidence is at so remote

a distance, is a cause of much embarrassment to a due and

impartial distribution of justice, and a proper execution of

the laws for the redress of private wrongs.

In addition to the above considerations, your committee

conceive that the scattered situation of the settlements over

this extensive Territory cannot fail to enervate the powers of

the Executive, and render it almost impossible to keep that

part of the Government in order.

It further appears to your committee, that a division of

the said Territory will become a matter of right under the

aforesaid article of the ordinance, whenever the General

Government shall establish therein a State Government; and

the numerous inconveniences which would be removed by an

immediate separation, would have a direct tendency to encourage

and accelerate migration to each district, and thereby give

additional strength and security to those outposts of the

United States, exposed to the inroads of a savage neighbor,

on whose friendly dispositions no permanent reliance can be

placed.

Your committee have no certain data on which to ascertain the

number of inhabitants in each section of the Territory; but,

from the most accurate information they are enabled to collect,

it appears that west of the Wabash there are about the number

of eleven thousand, and east of said river about the number of

seventeen thousand, and that the population of each section is

in a state of rapid increase.

Your committee, after maturely considering this subject,

are of opinion that there exists but one objection to the

establishment of a separate Territorial Government west of the

river Wabash, and that objection is based on the additional

expense which would, in consequence thereof, be incurred by

the Government of the United States. But, it is also worthy of

observation, that the increased value of the public lands in

each district, arising from the public institutions which would

be permanently fixed in each, to comport with the convenience

of the inhabitants, and the augmentation of emigrants, all of

whom must become immediate purchasers of these lands, would far

exceed the amount of expenditure produced by the contemplated

temporary government.

And your committee, being convinced that it is the wish of

a large majority of the citizens of the said Territory that

a separation thereof should take place, deem it always just

and wise policy to grant to every portion of the people of

the Union that form of government which is the object of

their wishes, when not incompatible with the constitution of

the United States, nor subversive of their allegiance to the

national sovereignty.

Your committee, therefore, respectfully submit the following

resolution:

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to divide the Indiana

Territory, and to establish a separate Territorial Government

west of the river Wabash, agreeably to the ordinance for the

government of the Territory of the United States northwest of

the river Ohio, passed on the 13th day of July, 1787.

Mr. THOMAS, from the same committee, presented a bill for dividing the

Indiana Territory into two separate governments; which was read twice

and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

A motion was made by Mr. WYNN, that when this House adjourns, it will

adjourn until Tuesday morning, eleven o'clock: And the question being

taken thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 60, nays 45.

MONDAY, January 9, 1809.

Another member, to wit, JOHN ROWAN, from Kentucky, appeared, and took

his seat in the House.

_Naval Establishment._

The amendments of the Senate to the bill sent from the House for

employing an additional number of seamen and marines, were taken up.

[The amendments propose the immediate arming, manning, &c., all the

armed vessels of the United States.]

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL expressed a hope that the House would disagree to

the amendments. The President was already authorized by law to fit out

these vessels, whenever, in his opinion, the public service should

require it; and the expense which would attend them was a sufficient

argument against it, if no urgent occasion existed for their service,

which he believed did not.

Mr. STORY entertained a very different opinion from that of the

gentleman from Tennessee. In case of war there must be some ships of

war of one kind or other; and it would take six months at least to

prepare all our ships for service. At present they were rotting in

the docks. If it were never intended to use them, it would be better

to burn them at once than to suffer them to remain in their present

situation. He believed if out at sea they might be useful and would be

well employed. Why keep them up at this place, whence they could not

get out of the river perhaps in three weeks or a month? He believed

that a naval force would form the most effectual protection to our

seaports that could be devised. Part of our little navy was suffered

to rot in the docks, and the other part was scarcely able to keep the

ocean. Could not a single foreign frigate enter almost any of our

harbors now and batter down our towns? Could not even a single gunboat

sweep some of them? Mr. S. said he could not conceive why gentlemen

should wish to paralyze the strength of the nation by keeping back our

naval force, and now in particular, when many of our native seamen

(and he was sorry to say that from his own knowledge he spoke it)

were starving in our ports. Mr. S. enumerated some of the advantages

which this country possessed in relation to naval force. For every

ship which we employed on our coasts, he said, any foreign nation must

incur a double expense to be able to cope with us. The truth was, that

gentlemen well versed in the subject, had calculated that it would

require, for a fleet competent to resist such a naval force as the

United States might without difficulty provide, four or five hundred

transport ships to supply them with provisions, the expense of which

alone would be formidable as a coercive argument to Great Britain. He

wished it to be shown, however small our naval force, that we do not

undervalue it, or underrate the courage and ability of our seamen.

Mr. COOK followed Mr. STORY on the same side of the question. He

compared the nation to a fortress on which an attack was made, and

the garrison of which, instead of guarding the portal, ran upon the

battlements to secure every small aperture. He thought their attention

should first be directed to the gates, and that a naval force would be

the most efficient defence for our ports.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS called for the yeas and nays on the amendments.

Mr. SMILIE said that raising a naval force for the purpose of resisting

Great Britain, would be attacking her on her strong ground. If we were

to have a war with her on the ocean, it could only be carried on by

distressing her trade. Neither did he believe that these vessels of

war would be of any effect as a defence. They did not constitute the

defence on which he would rely. If we had a navy, it would form the

strongest temptation for attack upon our ports and harbors. If Denmark

had possessed no navy, Copenhagen would never have been attacked. The

only way in which we could carry on a war on the ocean to advantage,

Mr. S. said, would be by our enterprising citizens giving them

sufficient encouragement. Were we to employ a naval force in case of

war, it would but furnish our enemy with an addition to her navy. He

hoped the House would disagree to the amendments of the Senate and

appoint a committee of conference.

Mr. DANA said that the amendments sent from the Senate presented a

question of no small importance to the nation. Without expressing

any opinion on the question, it appeared to him to be at least of

sufficient importance to be discussed in Committee of the Whole. Coming

from the other branch of the Legislature, and being so interesting to

the nation, he wished that it might be discussed fairly and fully; and,

therefore, moved a reference to a Committee of the Whole.

Messrs. DANA, TALLMADGE, and STORY, urged a reference to a Committee of

the Whole on account of the great importance of the subject, on which a

full discussion would be proper; and Messrs. MACON, G. W. CAMPBELL, and

HOLLAND opposed it, because the seamen proposed by the original bill

were now wanted, and the subject of the amendment was already referred

to a Committee of the Whole in a distinct bill. Motion lost, 58 to 55.

Mr. MACON observed, that the immediate expense of this arrangement, if

agreed to, would be at least five or six millions of dollars, and but

four hundred thousand were appropriated by the bill. When he compared

this bill with the report of a select committee made to the House of

Representatives, he said he was astonished. A part of that report was

a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, in which the very number

(two thousand) contained in the bill as it went from this House, was

desired. Mr. M. adverted to the observation of Mr. STORY, that it would

cost Great Britain as much to keep one frigate as it would cost us to

keep two. He thought the expense would be about equal. The expense

of the transportation of provisions would be counterbalanced by the

difference of expense between the pay of the British and American

seamen, the latter being double of the former generally. He objected

to this bill from the Senate because no estimate accompanied it. He

thought they would go far enough if they gave the departments all that

they asked. This House had indeed as much right to judge of the force

requisite, as any other department; but he did not wish to be called

upon to supply a deficit in the appropriation, which never failed to

occur even in the ordinary appropriations for the Navy Department.

Give the four hundred thousand dollars asked for, and the deficit in

the appropriation will be at least ten times the amount of the sum

appropriated.

Mr. COOK contended strenuously in favor of a naval force. He detailed

the advantages which would accrue to the nation from a few fast

sailing frigates. He said they were essentially necessary to defence.

He expatiated on the difficulty with which any foreign power could

maintain a force on our coast.

Mr. HOLLAND did not profess to have much knowledge on this subject, but

he said it did not require much to overthrow the arguments of gentlemen

on the subject. What defence a few frigates would be to the extensive

coast of this country, he could not understand. There certainly never

had been a time when this country should rely on a maritime force as a

sufficient protection. Indeed, he said, if we had fifteen or twenty or

more sail-of-the-line, he should hesitate much before he would go to

war with Great Britain, because these would undoubtedly be lost. Our

power of coercion was not on the ocean. Great Britain had possessions

on this continent which were valuable to her; they were in the power

of the United States, and the way to coerce her to respect our rights

on water, would be attacking them on land. He said he certainly did

not undervalue the disposition and prowess of our seamen; and it was

because he valued them, that he did not wish them to go into an unequal

contest, in which they must certainly yield. Gentlemen might understand

naval matters; but it was no reason that they should therefore

understand the efficiency of a naval force. There was sufficient

evidence in history to warn the United States against it.