Mr. TROUP said he rose but for the purpose of stating facts which

struck him as being applicable to the subject before the House. He

referred chiefly to an extract of a letter written to himself and

published in the paper of to-day. [Mr. T. then read the extract which

appeared in the National Intelligencer on the 9th instant.] In addition

to these facts, letters had been received, in the course of this

morning, containing further particulars, which he begged leave to state

to the House. After the officer (commander of a British armed vessel)

had been forced on board his vessel, and while lying in our waters and

within our jurisdiction, he had fired several shots at pilot-boats,

passing and repassing, had been very abusive, and threatened the town

with what he called vengeance; and, in addition to these facts, letters

had reached Savannah from Liverpool, giving satisfactory information

that vessels of fifteen or twenty guns had been fitted out for the

purpose of forcing a cotton trade with South Carolina and Georgia.

This information, Mr. T. said, came from unquestionable authority.

And it was because he was unwilling that the people of this country

should longer submit to the abuse of British naval officers; because

he was unwilling that they should be exposed to the insolence of

every British commissioned puppy who chose to insult us; because he

was unwilling that armed vessels should force a cotton trade, when

every man knew that nine-tenths of the people of Georgia would treat

as traitors the violators of the embargo; it was for this reason that

he was disposed to vote for the amendments from the Senate. The great

objection which had been taken to them was the expense which they would

produce. Economy, Mr. T. said, was a good thing in time of peace; but

if this contracted spirit of economy predominated in our war councils,

if we were forced into a war, so help him God, he would rather at

once tamely submit our honor and independence than maintain them in

this economical way. If we went to war, we ought not to adopt little

measures for the purpose of executing them with little means; neither

should we refuse to adopt great measures, because they could not be

executed but with great means. It was very true that, in war as well as

in peace, calculation to a certain extent was necessary; but, if they

once resolved on an object, it must be executed at whatever expense.

He was no advocate for standing armies or navies, generally speaking;

but, in discharging his duties here, he must be governed by the

circumstances of every case which presented itself for his decision,

and then ask himself, Is it wise, politic, and prudent, to do this or

omit that? He said he would never go back to yesterday to discover what

he had then said or done, in order to ascertain what he should now do

or say. Political conduct must depend on circumstances. What was right

yesterday might be wrong to-day. Nay, what was right at the moment he

rose to address the House, might, ere this, be palpably wrong. Conduct

depended on events, which depended on the folly or caprice of men;

and, as they changed, events would change. It might have been a good

doctrine long ago that this country ought to have a navy competent to

cope with a detachment of the British navy; it might have been good

doctrine then, but was shocking doctrine now.

At that time England had to contend with the navies of Russia, Denmark,

France, Holland, Spain, &c. Now England was sole mistress of the ocean.

To fight her ship to ship and man to man, and it was impossible that

gentlemen could think of fighting her otherwise, if they fought her

at all, we must build up a huge navy at an immense expense. We must

determine to become less agricultural and more commercial; to incur

a debt of five hundred or a thousand million of dollars, and all the

loans and taxes attendant on such a system, and all the corruption

attendant on them. He should as soon think of embarking an hundred

thousand men for the purpose of attacking France at her threshold, as

of building so many ships to oppose the British navy. It was out of the

question; no rational man could think of it. But that was not now the

question. It was, whether we would call into actual service the little

navy we possessed. It was not even a question whether we would have a

navy at all or not. If that were the question, he would not hesitate

to say that even our present political condition required a navy to

a certain extent, to protect our commerce against the Barbary Powers

in peace, and in time of war for convoys to our merchantmen. He only

meant a few fast-sailing frigates, such a navy as we have at present,

for the purpose of harassing the commerce of our enemies also. He

therefore thought our present naval force ought to be put in service.

As far as the appropriation ($400,000) would go, it would be employed;

but if Congress should hereafter see cause to countermand or delay the

preparation, they would have it in their power to do so by refusing a

further appropriation.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said it was his misfortune to differ with gentlemen

upon all points on the subject of the navy. He was opposed to it from

stem to stern; and gentlemen who attempted to argue in favor of it as a

matter of necessity, involved themselves in absurdities they were not

aware of. When money had been appropriated for fortifications, there

had been no intimation that it would be necessary to prop them up with

a naval force. If our towns could not be defended by fortifications, he

asked, would ten frigates defend them? The gentleman from Massachusetts

(Mr. STORY) had even gone so far as to say that a single gunboat could

sweep one-half of our harbors. If a single gunboat could now sweep

most of our harbors, Mr. W. said he should like to know what eleven

hundred and thirty vessels of war could do, even when opposed by our

whole force of ten frigates! The gentleman from Massachusetts had said

it would be cheaper to keep these vessels in actual service than in

their present situation. Mr. W. said he supposed that the gentlemen

meant that they would rot faster in their present situation than if

they were at sea. He said he was for keeping them where they were, and

would rather contribute to place them in a situation where they would

rot faster. Mr. W. combated the arguments that employing the navy would

afford relief to our seamen, and that the maintaining a navy on our

coast would be more expensive to an European power than the support of

a larger naval force by us. And he said we should never be able to man

any considerable fleet except the constitution were amended to permit

impressments, following the example of Great Britain.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. STORY) had said that except we

begun with this bill, and got his fast-sailing frigates, we should

never regain our rights. If that were really the case, Mr. W. said he

was ready to abandon them. He considered that the sort of maintenance

of our rights adverted to by the gentleman from Massachusetts, would be

destructive to those rights. Gentlemen must have forgotten that when

Hamburg was in the greatest state of prosperity, she did not possess

even a single gunboat. Why! there was not wealth enough in this whole

nation, if every one were to carry his all, thus to maintain our rights

against the navy of Great Britain. If we were carried into a war, and

every thing really seemed to be tending that way, we must rely upon

the enterprise of our citizens; and that, when set at liberty, would

be found more desperate than the navy of any country. When we arrived

at the end of the Revolutionary war we had but one frigate, and the

best thing we ever did was to give that one away. The State of South

Carolina had not yet got clear of the curse. She embarked one frigate

in the general struggle, and she had not rid herself of the debts

incurred by it yet. Private enterprise must be depended upon. The

people from the Eastward had shown in the last war what they would do.

When vessels were loaded with sugar they would fight like bull-dogs for

it. He recollected a story, he said, of one of our privateers being

beat off by a Jamaica man, whom they attacked. The captain not liking

to lose the prize, and finding his crew disheartened, told them she was

full of sugar. "Is she?" said they, "by G--d; let us at them again."

They scarcely ever failed in their enterprises.

In allusion to the case at Savannah, Mr. W. regretted that an insult

should be offered to the people of the country. The insult at Savannah

had by this time been redressed, he had no doubt. He had no information

to induce him to believe so, but the knowledge that the sloop-of-war

Hornet was stationed off Charleston, and of course cruised near the

place. The Hornet was perfectly adequate to drive any vessel of twenty

guns out of our waters. She was one of the best vessels of the United

States, and as well officered as any. [Mr. TROUP observed that the

Hornet was off Charleston. Now, he wanted a frigate at Savannah.]

Mr. W. said that Savannah was the very place where gunboats would

be perfectly effectual. He meant to make no reflection against the

proposer of the gunboat system, but he did against those who had

only given one-half of the system, and omitted the other--the marine

militia. And now, when an attack was menaced at Savannah, gentlemen

wanted a frigate! If nine-tenths of the people were opposed to the

evasions of the embargo law, Mr. W. said it would not be evaded. The

evaders would be considered as traitors--as the worst of traitors. As

to preparing a force for the protection of navigation, the gentleman

from Georgia must well know that the whole revenue of the United States

would not be competent to maintain a sufficient number of vessels to

convoy our merchantmen.

Mr. W. concluded by saying, that he wished the nation to be protected,

and its wrongs to be redressed; but when he reflected that at Castine

the soil had been most abominably violated, he could not view the

insults in our waters as being equal to it; for, said he, touch the

soil and you touch the life-blood of every man in it.

Mr. DURELL considered the present subject as one of the most important

which had been introduced at this session. It would indeed be

difficult to reason gentlemen into a modification of a principle to

which they were opposed throughout; but he trusted that this House was

not generally so disposed. He believed that a large majority of the

House were at the present moment in favor of embargo or war, because

the House had been so distinctly told by a committee on our foreign

relations, that there was no alternative but submission; and almost

every gentleman who had the honor of a seat within these walls, had

committed himself on the subject, either to persevere in the embargo

or resort to war. What would be the object of a war? Not the right of

the soil, not our territorial limits, but the right of navigating the

ocean. Were we to redress those wrongs, those commercial injuries, on

the land? Not altogether, he conceived. Would it be good policy, he

asked, to let our means of carrying on war on the ocean rot in our

docks, and not make use of them? These vessels would also be useful as

a defence. Why then should they not be manned and put in readiness for

service? It was said that we could not cope with the British navy. Mr.

D. said this argument proved too much, if it proved any thing. If he

did not feel perfectly comfortable in a cold day, should he therefore

divest himself of all clothing? Why send out the sloop of war Hornet,

alluded to by the gentleman last up--why rely upon it for redressing

the insult at Savannah, if naval force was useless? It was no reason,

because Great Britain had more vessels than we, that we should not

use what we had. Indeed, those gentlemen who objected to naval force,

appeared to be mostly from the interior, and of course could not

properly estimate its value.

Mr. SAWYER was wholly opposed to the amendments from the Senate. The

objection to this particular increase of naval force on the score

of expense, was not to be disregarded. He called the attention of

gentlemen to the state of the Treasury. The expense of this system

would be three millions; and when this sum was added to other sums

which would be requisite if measures now pending were adopted, it would

render it necessary for Congress now to borrow money on the credit

of posterity. The expedient of direct taxation would not be resorted

to. It had already been the death-blow to the political existence of

one Administration. This Government, he said, was founded on public

opinion, and whenever the approbation of the people was withdrawn, from

whatever cause, the whole superstructure must fall.

Mr. S. dwelt at some length on the disadvantage of loans. He said,

if this nation was destined to raise a navy for the protection of

commerce, it should have begun earlier, in the year 1793, when such

outrageous violations had been committed on our commerce. The expense

of such an establishment would have far exceeded the amount in value

of captures made since that period. He concluded, from a number of

observations which he made on this subject, that, on the score of

the protection of trade, it would not be proper to fit out a navy.

This proposition, he said, was the mere entering-wedge. The system

was either unnecessary, or would be wholly futile in practice. Our

seamen would cost us at least double of what is the expense of her

seamen to Great Britain; and it required her utmost exertions to

pay the interest of the enormous debt with which her unwieldy navy

had saddled her. He therefore certainly thought that an attempt to

justify it on the score of profit would not succeed. He deprecated the

extension of Executive patronage, which would result from an increase

of the Naval Establishment. Need he go back, he asked, to the time

when the black cockade was necessary, in some parts of the country, to

secure a man from insult from the officers of the navy? He wished to

limit the Executive patronage; to adhere closely to the maxims of our

forefathers. By sending out a navy, too, he said, we should volunteer

to support the ascendency of the British navy, become the mere jackals

of the British lion. Mr. S. went at some length into an examination of

the former Administration in relation to a navy. There was nothing, he

observed, in the nature of our Government, or of our foreign relations,

to require a navy. If we could not carry on foreign commerce without

a navy, he wished to have less of it and more of internal commerce,

of that commerce which the natural advantages of the country would

support between different parts of it. If we were to build a navy for

the protection of foreign commerce, we should throw away our natural

advantages for the sake of artificial ones. He was in favor of the

embargo at present. There was more virtue in our barrels of flour as

to coercion than in all the guns of our navy; and we had lately given

our adversaries a supplementary broadside, which he hoped would tell

well. Mr. S. stated the origin and progress of navies at some length,

commencing with the Republic of Genoa. Our chief reliance as to defence

must be on our militia. So little did Great Britain now rely on her

navy for defence of her soil, that she had called upon every man in

the country to be at his post, if danger came. Other nations might

be justified in supporting a naval force, because they had colonies

separated from them by the sea, with whom they were obliged to have

means of intercourse, but we had not that apology for a navy. Mr. S.

concluded his observations, after speaking near an hour, not, he said,

that he had gone through the subject; but, as it was late in the day,

he yielded the floor to some other gentleman.

Mr. J. G. JACKSON said, that gentlemen should not be influenced,

in discussing the present question, by a belief that they were now

discussing the propriety of raising a naval force for offensive

purposes. This was not the question. It was only whether, at this

crisis, the House would employ a little force for the purpose of

resisting attacks made on our territory at home. The gentleman from

South Carolina (Mr. WILLIAMS) had said that an attack on the soil

touched the life-blood of every man in it. Yes, Mr. J. said, it did;

whether the invasion was on our jurisdiction, on land or water, it

touched equally the life-blood of the nation. He would as soon resist

an attack on our territorial jurisdiction on sea as on land. It made

no difference with him whether a foreign frigate came up to the piles

of Potomac bridge and fired over into the town, or whether its crew

came on shore and assaulted us with the bayonet. The territory, he

said, was equally invaded in either case. Were we not to resist Great

Britain because of her 1,130 sail of armed vessels? This would amount

to a declaration that we must succumb to her, because she could at

any time send a squadron sufficient to destroy our naval force at a

single blow. This was the tendency of the argument. Mr. J. said it

would be more honorable to fight, while a single gun could be fired,

notwithstanding her overwhelming force. This mode of reasoning had a

tendency to destroy the spirit of the people. He would never consent

to crouch before we were conquered; this was not the course of our

Revolutionary patriots, and he trusted it was one which we should not

follow. He would rather, like the heroic band of Leonidas, perish in

the combat, although the force of the enemy was irresistible, than

acknowledge that we would submit. This naval force was not, however,

intended to cope with the navy of Great Britain, but to chastise the

petty pirates who trespassed on our jurisdiction; pirates, he called

them, because the British Government had not sanctioned their acts.

It had not justified the murder of Pierce, or asserted the right of

jurisdiction claimed by an officer within the length of his buoys, &c.,

because, if she had, it would have then been war. For this reason he

wished our little pigmy force to be sent on the ocean, notwithstanding

the giant navy of Great Britain. Some gentlemen had opposed this on the

score of expense. Our most valuable treasure, Mr. J. said, was honor;

and the House had almost unanimously declared that it could not submit

without a sacrifice of that honor.

SATURDAY, January 21.

_Extra Session._

On motion of Mr. SMILIE the House resolved itself into a Committee of

the Whole on the bill to alter the time of the next meeting of Congress.

Mr. J. G. JACKSON moved to strike out the "fourth" Monday in May, and

insert the "last," stating as a reason, that as the Virginia elections

took place in April, the Representatives could not arrive here in time.

Mr. MACON wished a division of the question so as first to strike out,

with a view to insert "September," instead of May. The motion to strike

out was negatived--62 to 35. It was supposed that this question tried

the principle of the bill.

The committee rose and reported the bill.

Mr. D. WILLIAMS moved to strike out May for the purpose of inserting

"September."

Mr. MILNOR hoped the motion would not be agreed to. If the new Congress

could commence its session on the 4th day of March next, he said

he should think it extremely proper that it should do so. And, if

he could think that the majority would fix an earlier day than the

fourth Monday of May for the meeting, he should vote for the present

motion. He agreed with gentlemen that this was a momentous crisis;

that the country was in a situation of extreme difficulty and danger.

It appeared to him, therefore, that Congress, who were the guardians

of the public welfare; to whom were confided the destinies of the

nation, so far as the nation could control them, should be constantly

in session, till a more favorable state of affairs took place. It was

possible, but was it probable that any event would occur to alter our

situation for the better? There was no hope that the belligerents

would recede from their injurious restrictions on our commerce. It

was not probable that any thing would occur which would do away the

necessity of an extra session. The present Congress having determined

to persevere in the embargo and the present system of measures a while

longer, the peace and welfare of the country required that a different

system should be adopted. The present had been sufficiently tested, and

would never produce those effects anticipated from it. It was proper

that an early opportunity should be given to the next Congress to

approve the present system, or give it up and adopt some other in its

stead.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said he was opposed to Congress coming here at the

time proposed. Why should they come here then? He wished some one to

answer, and let him understand why they were coming. In his opinion

there was every possible objection to such a procedure. On the fourth

day of March, a new President comes into power. Is it not presumable

that the President would choose to have some communication with our

Ministers abroad before the meeting of Congress? Could any man say that

it was not proper that he should have it? Mr. W. said he hoped that

the President would send special messengers, unfashionable as that

policy was. If you are willing to wait for a declaration of war till

the fourth Monday in May, will there be any necessity of declaring it

before the first Monday in June or July? You have suffered the public

mind to assuage in its resentment, and I very much doubt, that before

a full experiment be made of the embargo, it will be wholly allayed.

It has been said through the nation, and indeed avowed on this floor,

that the Administration does not wish for peace. Having failed to take

hold of the affair of the Chesapeake for a declaration of war, you have

nothing now to give the people that interest which I hope they always

will have in a declaration of war. Suppose you were to send special

Ministers, and they were to be treated as our Ministers to France were

under a former Administration, would not this treatment make every man

in the nation rally around you? Would it not prove beyond doubt that

the Administration was sincere in its wishes for peace? Undoubtedly it

would. Why are your Ministers now loitering in foreign Courts? With a

hope of accommodation, sir, I would send other Ministers there, and if

they failed of immediate accommodation, would order them all home. If

they are compelled to return, you will have the whole nation with you,

which you must have when you go to war.

Mr. J. G. JACKSON replied to Mr. WILLIAMS. The gentleman had asked

emphatically why Congress should convene here in May. Occurrences of

every day, said Mr. J., are presenting themselves in such a way as

to render it highly important and necessary that some other ground

should be taken. Are we to adhere to the embargo forever, sir? I have

said, and again say, that a total abandonment of the ocean would be

submission. I think, by passing this bill, we give the nation a pledge

that it shall be the _ne plus ultra_, which shall give to foreign

nations time to revise their conduct towards us, and will give them

time to consider whether or not they will have war with us. The

gentleman wants a special mission. Sir, are we to continue in this

state any longer? Shall negotiation be spun out further? No man can

doubt the capacity of our Ministers abroad, and their disposition to

represent their Government correctly. The doors are shut in the face

of our Minister at the Court of St. James, and worse than shut at the

Court of St. Cloud--for, from the latter, contemptuous silence is all

the answer we have received, if indeed silence can convey an answer.

Are we to renew negotiation, then, when every circumstance manifests

that it would be useless? Need I refer to what took place the other

day--I allude to the publication of a letter by Mr. Canning, in a

highly exceptionable manner, through Federal presses, or presses more

devoted to the interests of that country than any other? One universal

burst of indignation accompanied the publication of that letter in this

House. And are we, under such circumstances, to renew negotiation by

extra missions? I conceive that the cup of negotiation and conciliation

is exhausted to the dregs, and that we should but further degrade

ourselves by sending further extra missions. It has been stated to me

that a proposition had actually been reduced to writing by a member of

this House the other day for sending away foreign Ministers and calling

our Ministers home, and I am sorry that the proposition was not offered

to the House, for, under present circumstances, it might not have been

improper to have adopted it.

Mr. SMILIE said, if there were no other reason, the present suspension

of commerce, and discontents at home, were sufficient reasons for

calling Congress earlier than the first Monday in December. When the

new Administration should come into office, it was proper that they

should have an opportunity of meeting Congress as early as possible. It

was his opinion that, at the next session, a change of measures would

take place. What would be the substitute for the present measure he

could not say; but, at this time, he must say that he could see no way

of avoiding war. With regard to extra missions, he really had no idea

of a measure of that kind. If there should be any other means to secure

the interest and honor of the nation but war, he hoped in God that it

would be adopted, but he did not now see any such prospect.

Mr. RHEA, of Tennessee, said it was of no importance in the

consideration of the present question what the next Administration

should think or do. He wished that there could be an understanding with

foreign nations for our good, but he much doubted such a result. He

would not undertake to say whether war, or what other measure, ought to

be adopted at the extra session; but, it was his opinion, that Congress

ought to meet, and he should vote against every proposition going to

defeat the object of the bill. Although this nation had not immediately

retaliated the attack on the Chesapeake, would any man rise on this

floor and say that the act of dishonor was done away because the House

refused immediately to avenge it? He believed not; and, as long as

it remained unatoned, it was cause for this nation to act. The only

question for the House now to determine was this: Are there reasons to

induce gentlemen to believe that a meeting of Congress is necessary on

the fourth Monday of May next? As it appeared to him that such reasons

did exist, he said he was bound on his responsibility to vote for the

bill.

Mr. DURELL asked if gentlemen meant to continue the embargo forever. He

believed somewhat in the doctrine that an explosion might take place

under it in a certain portion of the country. Gentlemen said an extra

session was, therefore, necessary to save the nation. Mr. D. asked

if the nation was to be saved by long speeches? He had seen almost

two whole sessions of Congress pass away, the one of six months, the

other of three, and the nation in the same situation still, and still

told, in long stories, from day to day, that it was in a critical

situation. He had no idea that the nation was to be saved by much

speaking. He did firmly believe, that more than forty-eight hours would

not be necessary to pass all laws to meet the impending crisis. If a

declaration of war was thought proper, this would be sufficient time

for it; if an extraordinary mission, as suggested by the gentleman from

South Carolina, forty-eight hours would be time enough for the House to

decide on recommending it. The present was a state of suspense, from

which the nation ought to be removed, and he was unwilling to prolong

this state by the passage of the bill.

Mr. BURWELL said he was one of those who would vote for an earlier

meeting of Congress than usual. In Great Britain, in whose government

there were some features approximating to ours, there was always an

uneasiness, lest the Parliament should not meet often enough. Whence

could be the objection to Congress meeting at an earlier day? If

the public sentiment was not then prepared for war, it would not be

adopted. It appeared to him that an early session, instead of producing

mischief, would essentially contribute to tranquillize the minds of

the people. If peace was attainable, we must have peace; but if not,

we have no choice but war. The gentleman from South Carolina suggests

the propriety of sending a special mission, said Mr. B. Let me ask him,

if Administration should not take this course, whether it would not

be perfectly proper that Congress should be in session? Certainly it

would. With respect to a special mission, Mr. B. said he was perfectly

at a loss to conceive what could be the nature of any proposition which

could be made to Great Britain. A proposition had already been made to

her, in effect, to go to war with her against France, and insultingly

refused; for no other interpretation could be made of the offer to

suspend the embargo, if she would rescind her Orders in Council, except

Mr. Canning chose to misunderstand everything that could be said.

Unless gentlemen would point out some new proposition, which could

be made to Great Britain or France, he could not see the propriety

of the course recommended. As to the continuance of the embargo, Mr.

B. said it seemed to be perfectly well understood by every man, that

when the Government determined on that course, it did not determine to

persevere in it eternally. If it could be made manifest to him that any

particular favorable consequence would be produced by postponing the

session beyond the fourth Monday in May, he might be induced to accede

to it. As to the disposition of the Administration to preserve peace,

could the gentleman conceive it possible to remove the impressions of

those who were determined not to be convinced? This nation had sued for

peace, but in vain; they had offered to give up almost every thing in

contest, if Great Britain would yield a thing which neither Mr. Canning

nor any other member of the British Government ever said they had a

right to do, and which was only justified on the ground of necessity.

There was therefore no plausibility in the assertion that peace had not

been earnestly sought for.

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL said that if nothing occurred between this time and

the time proposed by the bill for the next meeting of Congress, which

would particularly render a change necessary, he was yet of opinion

that it would be then necessary to change our situation; for this

reason: that at that period, time sufficient would have elapsed to give

us information as to what ground Great Britain would take, after she

had heard of the position which Congress had maintained. After that

ground was taken, Congress would know how to act. I never voted for

the embargo as a permanent measure, said Mr. C., nor did I ever use an

expression which would authorize such a supposition; nor do I suppose

that any other gentleman entertained such an idea. As to a special

mission, I should as soon think of sending a special messenger to the

moon as to Great Britain or to France, for the cup of humiliation is

exhausted already, and I will never put it in their power to offer us

another cup.

Mr. MACON said he had not intended to have said any thing, but that the

gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BURWELL) had broached a doctrine which he

did not approve--that this Government was like that of Great Britain.

Mr. BURWELL explained that he had said that the Governments were, in

some of their features, alike.

Mr. MACON said that the reason of the fear in Great Britain that the

Parliament would not meet often enough, was extremely obvious. The only

voice which the people had was in the House of Commons, and they wanted

them to be always in session, to keep the King and nobility off from

them. In Great Britain the King dissolved Parliament at his pleasure.

Here, he said, there was no power to dissolve Congress. Indeed, there

was no similarity in the two Governments. He said he had no fear of any

mischief being done by Congress meeting earlier; but he was opposed

to their meeting earlier, because they would do more good by staying

away. Could any man say what would take place between this day and the

third of March? And yet the House were now called on to determine on

an extra session. He was for giving such time, after the deliberations

of the present session closed, as that Great Britain might see what

we had done, and consider whether she would retract or go to war, for

if she did not retract, war must be the consequence. Mr. M. said he

would give every opportunity for peace; he would not be for hurrying

the matter. He had no opinion that Congress being in session would have

any effect on the people. The cry of an intention to destroy commerce

was not to make him do a single thing which he would not otherwise do.

No man can believe that we who raise produce should wish it to lie on

our hands, as is now our situation. It is maritime rights for which we

contend. For these we planters are making sacrifices, and we know it.

As to the grower it is immaterial in point of interest into what ship

or wagon his produce goes; but he is contending for the interests of

his mercantile brethren. A great deal has been said about repealing

the embargo to put an end to discontents. Let gentlemen beware of it,

lest in trying to please everybody, they please nobody. Let us do what

is right, that is the only ground for us to take. Whenever we begin to

temporize, that principle is abandoned. I disagree with the gentleman

from Tennessee as to the expediency of continuing the embargo; I do not

believe that it would be inexpedient to try it beyond May. I believe

we ought to try it beyond September. This is my opinion. What effect

do gentlemen expect that the embargo will have had in May? Not more

than at this moment. While every day from that time till September, it

will be more and more effectual. I never voted for it as a permanent

measure; but my opinion was, as I stated it, that it might be necessary

to hold on to it for one, two, or three years. I might be wrong, but

this was my opinion then, and I have not changed it. As to an extra

session, I have never thought of it; but I am willing to leave it to

the Executive. It has been so suddenly suggested, however, that I would

not undertake to decide positively on the subject. I should rather

incline to let them send to us now; we have sent to them long enough.

As to the people being tired of the embargo, whenever they want war in

preference to it, they will send their petitions here to that effect.

When gentlemen from the Eastern States say, that the people there

are tired of it, perhaps they speak correctly. As to all the talk of

insurrections and divisions, it has no effect on me. When the sedition

law was passed under the former Administration, it was said that the

people would not bear it. I thought then as now, that the elections

would show their disapprobation, and that they would manifest it in

that way alone. When the people are tired of the embargo, as a means

of preserving peace, they will tell you so, and say, "Give us war!"

But none have said so; and yet, sir, I know well that myself and some

others are blamed for our adherence to this measure. I can only say,

that it is an honest adherence. I do believe that the continuance

of that measure, with the addition of a bill now on your table,

(non-intercourse bill,) is the best thing you can do; and if I thought

that Congress would declare war in May, I should be much more averse to

meeting then than I am now; but I do not believe it will.

The question was now taken on the motion of Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS to

strike out the words "fourth Monday in May," and lost.

No other amendment being offered to the bill, it was ordered to be

engrossed for a third reading. The bill being brought in engrossed, a

motion was made that the same be read the third time to-morrow: and the

question being put thereupon, it passed in the negative.

A motion was then made by Mr. SMILIE, that the bill be now read the

third time; and the question being taken thereupon, it was resolved in

the affirmative.

The said bill was, accordingly, read the third time: Whereupon, Mr.

SPEAKER stated the question from the chair, that the same do pass? And,

the question being taken, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 80,

nays 26.

MONDAY, February 6.

_Presidential Election._

Several petitions having been presented, in addition to those

heretofore stated, against the mode in which the late election in the

State of Massachusetts was conducted--

Mr. BACON offered the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the Clerk of this House do carry to the

Senate the several memorials from sundry citizens of the

State of Massachusetts, remonstrating against the mode in

which the appointment of Electors for President and Vice

President has been proceeded to on the part of the Senate

and House of Representatives of said State, as irregular and

unconstitutional, and praying for the interference of the

Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, _for

the purpose of preventing the establishment of so dangerous a

precedent_.

Mr. J. G. JACKSON said he saw no objection to the resolution, or even

to going farther than it proposed. The constitution had declared that

the election of Electors in each State should be held in such manner

as the Legislature should direct; and, he said, he never could consent

to the doctrine that any set of men, without the authority of law,

could make an election of Electors. He believed that the case was not

provided for; and as the present case could not vary the general result

of the Presidential election, gentlemen appeared not to be disposed to

interfere in it. But, he hoped it would operate on the House to induce

them to consider the propriety of providing some mode of hereafter

distinguishing between legal, and illegal or surreptitious election.

Mr. VAN HORNE moved to strike out the words in _italic_, as he

understood them as committing the House to express an opinion on the

subject of the petitions. Motion lost--yeas 18.

_Opening and Counting the Electoral Votes for President and Vice

President._

Mr. NICHOLAS offered the following order:

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them

that this House is now ready to attend them in opening the

certificates and counting the votes of the Electors of the

several States, in the choice of a President and Vice President

of the United States, in pursuance of the resolution of the two

Houses of Congress of the 7th instant; and that the Clerk of

the House do go with the said message.

Mr. RANDOLPH said it had sometimes been the case, he did not say it

had been the practice, that this House had met the other branch of the

Legislature in their Chamber, for the purpose of counting the votes; in

which cases, very properly indeed, this House being in the Chamber of

the Senate, the President of that body had taken the chair. Mr. R. said

he now understood that it was proposed, without any vote of this House

for the purpose, that the President of the Senate was to take the chair

of this House; that the Speaker was to leave the chair, to make way

for the President of another body. To this, he, for one, could never

consent. I conceive, said he, that such a proceeding would derogate,

very materially, from the dignity, if not from the rights of this body.

I can never consent, Mr. Speaker, that any other person than yourself,

or the Chairman of the Committee of the whole House, should take the

chair, except by a vote of the House. I hope, therefore, that this

matter may be well understood. I conceive it to be a respect which we

owe to ourselves, and to the people, whose immediate representatives we

are, never to suffer, by a sort of prescriptive right, the privileges

of this House to be in anywise diminished, or its dignity to fade

before that of any other assembly of men whatever.

Mr. NICHOLAS said he was as unwilling as any other gentleman to

surrender the privileges of the House. When assembled as the House

of Representatives, he agreed that none but the Speaker should take

the chair; but, on the occasion of counting out the votes, he did not

consider the House of Representatives to be formed as a distinct body.

In meeting on this occasion, he said, it always had been usual, since

the establishment of the Government, for the Vice President of the

United States, or the President _pro tempore_ of the Senate, to take

the chair. There was, also, a propriety in this course, because, by

the constitution, the Vice President is to open the votes. For twenty

years the practice had been that the President of the Senate presided

in joint meeting.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved, in order to do away any difficulty in this case,

that when the members of the Senate were introduced, the Speaker should

relinquish the chair to the President of the Senate.

Mr. DAVENPORT supported this motion. He had no doubt of the propriety

of the President of the Senate presiding at a joint meeting, more

especially, as he was the person designated by the constitution for

counting out the votes.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that if this course were taken, the Senate ought to

be notified of this act of courtesy on the part of the House; if not,

it might appear that the President of the Senate took the chair as a

matter of right. He said he knew that, to many persons, matters of this

sort appeared to be of minute importance, but in every thing touching

the privileges of this House, as it regarded the claims of the other

co-ordinate branches of the Government, he would stickle for the ninth

part of a hair. It was well known that, in England, the privileges of

the Commons had been gained inch by inch from the Kings and Nobles by

a steady perseverance; and that man must have very little knowledge of

mankind, indeed, who was not persuaded that those privileges might be

lost, as they were gained, by gradual and imperceptible encroachment on

the one hand, and tacit yielding on the other. This was not a matter of

great consequence in itself; but power always begot power. It was like

money, he said; any man could make money who had money. So any man, or

body of men, who had power, could extend it. I have no objection, said

Mr. R., very far from it, to the constitutional exercise of the powers

and privileges of the Senate. Let their President count the votes, sir;

there is a very good chair for him in which the Clerk now sits. But,

on what principle is he to come into the House with the consciousness

that he has a right to throw you out of the chair, sir, and take

possession of it? I have no idea of suffering a man to come through

those folding-doors with such a sentiment. If he comes into this House,

he comes from courtesy, and cannot assume your chair, Mr. Speaker, as

a matter of right, but as a favor. And, if the President of the Senate

takes possession of your chair as a favor, it ought to be announced to

the Senate as such; for, the mere vote on our side amounts to nothing,

provided that he, and the body over whom he presides, come into this

House under the knowledge, (without an intimation from us,) that you

are to leave your chair, and he is to take possession of it.

Mr. SMILIE observed that there was no fear of the privileges of this

body being encroached upon by any other, for there was a written

constitution, prescribing the powers of each body; and, at the same

time that it was proper to be careful of their own rights, he said

the House should be careful not to infringe on the rights of the

other body. In respect to this question, there was a case in point.

In one instance while Congress sat at Philadelphia, the Senate had

come into the Representatives' Chamber to count out the votes, and

the President of the Senate had taken the chair as a matter of right.

We, said Mr. S., are sitting as a convention of the two Houses, for

a special purpose, viz: to count out the votes. Who is properly the

presiding officer in this case? Unquestionably the officer directed by

the constitution to open the votes. And I consider the Speaker of the

House, on this occasion, as acting in the same capacity as any other

member of the House.

After some further observations on the subject from Messrs. MASTERS,

LYON, and MACON, the motion of Mr. NICHOLAS was agreed to--yeas 98.

Mr. RANDOLPH then moved that the Senate be acquainted, by message, of

this arrangement. Agreed to--yeas 73.

The resolution first offered by Mr. NICHOLAS was then agreed to.

On the suggestion of Mr. VAN DYKE, it was agreed that the members

should receive the Senate standing and uncovered.

The time for counting the votes having arrived, the members of

the Senate, preceded by their Sergeant-at-Arms, entered the

Representatives' Chamber, Mr. MILLEDGE, the President _pro tempore_,

took the Speaker's chair, and the members took their seats on the right

hand of the chair. The tellers were ranged in front, and the Clerks

of each House on the right and left of the tellers. The President of

the Senate opened the electoral returns, one copy of which was handed

to the teller of the Senate, Mr. S. SMITH, who read it; the tellers

of the House, Messrs. NICHOLAS and VAN DYKE, comparing the duplicate

returns handed to them.

When this business, which occupied about two hours, was concluded, the

tellers handed their report to the President of the Convention, who was

proceeding to read it, when

Mr. HILLHOUSE observed that the returns from one of the States appeared

to be defective, the Governor's certificate not being attached to it.

He thought that this might be as proper a time to notice it as any.

Nothing farther being said on the subject, however, the President of

the Senate read the following statement of the votes, as reported by

the tellers:

(For the statement of the votes see Senate proceedings of the

same day, _ante_, p. 27.)

THURSDAY, February 9.

_Non-Intercourse._

Mr. TAYLOR said it would be recollected that, in the course of the

public business of this session, a resolution reported by a committee

on our foreign relations arising out of a motion of a member from North

Carolina, for the purpose of interdicting commercial intercourse with

such belligerents as had in force decrees or edicts against the lawful

commerce of the United States, had been agreed to and referred to the

same committee, who had reported a bill for non-intercourse. This bill

in fact, however, comprised but one-half of the whole subject embraced

by the words "non-intercourse." The bill as reported to this House

provided for the non-importation of the goods, wares, and merchandise,

the growth and manufacture of these particular countries. That (said

he) may be readily accounted for, from the circumstance that the House

was then actually engaged in passing a law for the enforcement of the

embargo, the committee therefore having only in view the other part of

the question, so as to complete a non-intercourse. After that bill was

reported, a gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. RHEA,) in order that the

whole might be incorporated into one, offered a resolution for that

purpose. I did think it unnecessary at that time; but as the course of

business seems to look towards a repeal of the embargo, in order that

the whole subject of non-intercourse may be incorporated in the bill

before the House, I move that the Committee of the Whole be discharged

from the consideration of the bill, and that it may be referred to a

committee, in order that it may be made in fact what the title imports

it to be, completely, a bill for non-intercourse between this country

and those nations having in force decrees affecting our neutral rights.

The Committee of the Whole was discharged from the further

consideration of the bill, ayes 72.

The effect of the votes of this day, is to refer to the Committee on

Foreign Relations, composed of Messrs. G. W. CAMPBELL, NICHOLAS, BACON,

TAYLOR, FISK, J. MONTGOMERY, MUMFORD, CHAMPION, and PORTER, the several

propositions for the repeal of the embargo, for arming the merchant

vessels, for non-intercourse, for excluding armed vessels from our

waters, and for declaring the first capture made in violation of the

neutral rights of the United States to be a declaration of war, &c.,

with leave to report by bill.

The chief argument in favor of this general reference was, that these

propositions might be merged in one bill which should present a general

system, and thus render less complicated the proceedings of the House

on these resolutions. The main arguments against it were, that it would

destroy all that had already been done in Committee of the Whole, and

probably present a system at length to the House which would not be

approved, and thus produce no other effect at this late period of the

session than to protract discussion; and also that it would encourage

that speculation now going on in the mercantile towns, and be ruinous

to many men of moderate capitals who had embarked their all in the

purchase of produce, in the certainty that the embargo would be raised

on the 4th of March.

TUESDAY, February 14.

_Additional Duties._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill

for imposing additional duties on all goods, wares, and merchandise

imported into the United States.

[This bill provides "that an additional duty of ---- per centum on the

permanent duties now imposed by law upon goods, wares, and merchandise,

imported into the United States from foreign ports or places, shall

be laid, levied and collected upon all goods, wares, and merchandise,

which shall, after the thirty-first day of January, 1809, be imported

into the United States from any foreign port or place; _and a farther

addition of ten per centum shall be made to the said additional duty

in respect to all goods, wares, and merchandise, imported in ships or

vessels not of the United States_; and the duties imposed by this act

shall be levied and collected in the same manner, and under the same

regulations, mode of security, and time of payment, respectively, as

are already prescribed by law, in relation to the duties now in force

on the importation of articles imported from any foreign port or place.

That this act shall continue in force until the first day of April,

1810, and no longer: Provided that the additional duties laid by this

act, shall be collected on such goods, wares and merchandise, as shall

have been imported previous to the said day."]

WEDNESDAY, February, 15.

_Non-Intercourse._

On motion of Mr. NICHOLAS, the House resolved itself into a Committee

of the Whole on the bill for interdicting commercial intercourse

between the United States and Great Britain and France, and for other

purposes.

Mr. MILNOR moved to strike out the first section of the bill, with a

view to try the principle of the non-intercourse system. In support of

this motion, he alleged the impossibility of carrying the system into

effect; for he conceived that the embargo had been ineffectual from the

impossibility of carrying it into complete effect, and the proposed

system would be as difficult to enforce. He thought that it would be

impossible to carry a non-intercourse system into effect, as long as

vessels were permitted to go to sea. He had many other objections to

this bill, among which were these: that, although it raised the embargo

only in part, the permission to vessels to go out, would render the

provision for a partial embargo nugatory; that, if the bill were to

pass in its present shape, it was to be doubted whether any revenue

officer of the United States would understand the duty enjoined on

him by it; that a time only two days previous to the meeting of the

next Congress was fixed upon as the day upon which the non-importation

should go into operation, and thus the bill appeared to manifest a

distrust of that Congress, who certainly would be more competent than

the present Congress to decide on its propriety at that time; that a

non-intercourse between these countries, would but compel our citizens

to pay a double freight to and from the entrepôt, without producing

any other effect than injuring our own citizens; that goods from these

countries, although their importation were interdicted by law, would be

introduced nevertheless; that the extent of the territory and seacoast

of the United States was so great that all efforts to interdict the

importation of goods must be ineffectual, for they would be introduced

contrary to law; thus depriving the United States of the revenue which

would be derived from them, if their importation were permitted by

law. Rather than accept this system, Mr. M. thought it would be better

that this country should remain yet longer under the pressure of the

embargo, which he had no doubt must be repealed early in the next

session.

Mr. QUINCY entered at considerable length into an examination of

the system of coercion on foreign nations, by means of commercial

restrictions. The idea of the efficacy of this system, he traced to

a deeper root than any Administration under this Government. It was

an error of the American people, originating in a period antecedent

to the Revolution; it grew out of our colonial regulations. It began

to be a favorite belief with the people, antecedent to the year 1760,

and was then fostered by the patriots of that day, the idea being

also encouraged by the patriots of England. Mr. Q. entered into a

comparative statement of the exports from and imports to Great Britain

from America at two different periods, viz: the nine years preceding

the year 1775, and the nine years succeeding it, with a view to show

that the average imports into Great Britain from all the world,

during the nine years' peace with this country, amounted to about

one-thirteenth more than the average imports during the same period of

war; and the exports diminished, nearly in the same proportion. From

his statements on this head and a comparison of the present relative

situation of the two countries, Mr. Q. drew the inference that this

supposed means of coercing the European powers, did not exist. He

deemed it peculiarly unfortunate that a confidence in this power of

coercion had so long existed, as it had prevented the United States

from making preparations which they otherwise might have made. He hoped

the idea would now cease. In relation to our present situation, he

recommended a plain remedy, comprised in two words: "Follow nature."

What did she first dictate for remedying any complaint? The removal

of all obstructions on her operations. Mr. Q. therefore recommended

the removal of the embargo, the repeal of the non-importation act,

and the abandonment of the non-intercourse system. He wished "peace

if possible; if war, union in that war;" for this reason, he wished

a negotiation to be opened unshackled with those impediments to it

which now existed. As long as they remained, the people in the portion

of country whence he came, would not deem an unsuccessful attempt at

negotiation to be cause for war; if they were moved, and an earnest

attempt at negotiation was made, unimpeded with these restrictions,

and should not meet with success, they would join heartily in a war.

They would not, however, go to war to contest the rights of Great

Britain to search American vessels for British seamen; for it was a

general opinion with them that if American seamen were encouraged,

there would be no occasion for the employment of foreign seamen. A

removal of the embargo, without adopting any other measure, until the

event of negotiation had been tried, Mr. Q. said, would first prevent

any collision with the belligerents which might tend to embarrass

negotiation; and, secondly, would give an opportunity to the country

to ascertain what would be the practical operation of these orders and

decrees, on our commerce; and give an opportunity to the next Congress

to shape its measures according to their actual effect. If commerce did

not suffer, the knowledge of this fact would supersede the necessity

of any other measure, and peace would follow of course; if, on the

contrary, a general sweep was made of all the property afloat, it would

unite all parties in a war. Mr. Q. concluded a speech of two hours in

length, by lamenting the state of the country, and invoking the spirit

which "rides the whirlwind and directs the storm," to guide the nation

to a happy result.

Mr. NICHOLAS replied to the observations of Mr. QUINCY on the subject

of the legal opposition to the embargo laws in Massachusetts. He said

if the laws of the nation were to be resisted in the manner in which

he lamented to say that he saw it contemplated in one part of the

community, it became the duty of this Legislature to meet it; it was

not compatible with their duty to shrink from it. He could not consent

that thirteen or fourteen States should submit to one. As men vested

with certain powers by the constitution, Congress could not transfer

the powers to any State Legislature or to any town. In relation to

negotiating with measures of coercion in existence, Mr. N. asked, when

did the violations of our rights commence? So long ago that the precise

time could not be fixed. When did our coercive measures commence? In

1806. Mr. N. noticed the negotiators during whose Ministry abroad these

injuries had commenced, and continued. Mr. King, Mr. Monroe, and Mr.

Pinkney, all honorable men, had successively represented the United

States in Great Britain. And could any thing be gathered from any thing

they had ever written or said, to induce a belief that this Government

had not acted with sincerity? There was the most conclusive evidence

to the contrary. Mr. N. said, he would ask nothing of Great Britain or

France that would tend to sacrifice their honor; and he wished, when

gentlemen dwelt so much on the regard of foreign nations for their

national character, that they would respect a little the character of

our own country.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said he had been decidedly in favor of issuing

letters of marque and reprisal at once; he believed it would have cut

off all that fungus matter now deteriorating the body politic--for the

people of New England were as patriotic as any, and when the choice

was between their own and a foreign country, they would cling to their

own. It was the hot-bed politicians who stirred them up; and it was

necessary to do something promptly to put an end to their intrigues.

Mr. W. disliked the non-intercourse system throughout. If he could

not get war, or a continuance of the embargo, he wished, inasmuch as

Great Britain and France had each interdicted us from going to the

other, to declare that neither their armed nor unarmed ships should

contaminate our waters. This was a system which required no exertion

of patriotism to carry into effect, which could excite no animosities

between the North and South. In relation to the non-intercourse, he

believed that it could not be enforced, and used a variety of arguments

to show that it could not. If it could be enforced, he believed it

would be prodigiously partial. If the embargo was to be taken off, and

war not to be substituted; if the nation was to submit, he wished to

do it profitably. If the embargo were raised as to a single spot, it

was raised entirely to all effectual purposes. Then let your vessels

go, said he, without let or hindrance; let them go and be burnt; your

merchants will then feel that the embargo was a shield spread over

them, and will come back to your protection, like the prodigal son,

and unite like brethren in the common cause. Mr. W. said, his plan was

to interdict the entrance of our ports to belligerent vessels, armed

or unarmed, and lay a tax of fifty per centum on their manufactures.

Great Britain must, then, either go to war or treat with us. If she was

inclined to go to war in preference to revoking her Orders in Council,

let her do so. But he was inclined to believe that she would treat.

If she seized our vessels, however, the effect would be inevitable.

Division amongst us would be done away, all would unite heart and hand

in war. Mr. W. replied to a number of the observations of Mr. QUINCY,

particularly in relation to his position that all obstructions ought to

be removed with a view to negotiation. He asked, what security had the

United States, if they did all this, if they submitted to such abject

humiliation, that Great Britain would treat? Was it to be expected that

she would treat more liberally with us, when we solicited as slaves,

than she would while we magnanimously contended for our rights? The

gentleman from Massachusetts, when repeating his creed, had forgotten

a part, viz: "Unfurl the banners of the Republic against the imperial

standard!" This would complete a project he had lately seen proposed

from the East; and, as to its application, coinciding with the wishes

over the water, would be just such a project as Mr. Canning might

dictate. "Revoke your proclamation, remove the embargo," and "unfurl

the republican banners against the imperial standard." Mr. W. concluded

a speech of an hour and a half in length, with giving notice that he

should move to amend the bill, when the present motion was decided,

by striking out all that part of it relating to non-intercourse, and

inserting a provision interdicting the entrance of our harbors to any

vessels of Great Britain and France, and imposing an additional duty on

all goods imported from those countries.

When Mr. W. concluded, the committee rose, and obtained leave to sit

again.

THURSDAY, February 16.

_Additional Duties._

The House resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, on the

bill for imposing additional duties on all the goods, wares, and

merchandise, imported into the United States.

The bill was amended so as to take effect "from and after the passage

thereof."

The proposition offered by Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, when the bill was before

under consideration, was withdrawn.

Mr. COOK renewed the proposition, viz: to confine the duties to be

increased, to goods imported from Great Britain and France, and the

colonies of either; and spoke an hour and a half in support of his

motion, and in opposition to the non-intercourse system. He was

in favor of discriminating duties, because he was opposed to the

non-intercourse, which he considered the best means of depressing

our navigating interest and advancing that of Britain; because the

produce of the United States would be carried to some place of depot

in the vicinity, and thence be carried to Europe in British bottoms,

while a large proportion of American shipping would be inactive. He

thought that, under the arming system, we could trade with at least as

much honor and with much more profit than under the non-intercourse

system. He contended that the non-intercourse system was precisely

calculated to destroy that moral principle which had heretofore so

strictly enforced our revenue laws; that the system of restriction

was partial, operating so equally on the people of the South, that no

individuals particularly suffered from it, while in the North and East

individuals were ruined by it, and thus a general distress produced;

that it would be the most discouraging act to the mercantile interest,

ever passed by the Government, for it would throw the trade in all

the produce kept in the country by the embargo into foreign hands at

the expense of the American merchant; that the system could not be

enforced with so extensive a frontier and seacoast as we possess; that

it was a measure calculated to produce irritation on foreign nations,

without having the least coercive effect; that it was a political

suicide, without the consolation of company in it. Mr. C. was, with his

constituents, in favor of further negotiation, and a firm assertion of

our rights, which, if refused to be acknowledged, he would maintain. It

was high time to abandon visionary schemes and impracticable projects,

and to pass good, plain, common sense laws. He believed that this

discrimination of duties and arming our merchant vessels would be such

a law. He spoke more than an hour and a half.

Mr. C.'s motion was negatived by a very large majority. The committee

then rose, and reported the bill.

The amendments made in Committee of the Whole were severally agreed to

by the House; and, on the question that the bill be engrossed for a

third reading, Mr. LIVERMORE called for the yeas and nays. There were

for it 85, against it 27.

_Non-Intercourse._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the

bill for interdicting commercial intercourse.

Mr. MILNOR'S motion for striking out the first section being under

consideration--

Mr. NICHOLAS rose and addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: I shall not conceal or disguise my opinion; it has been

and continues to be, that when the embargo shall cease, war will be

the only proper and honorable course for this country to pursue, if

reparation shall not have been made for the injuries we have received.

Under this conviction, I proposed a resolution limiting the duration

of the embargo, and authorizing, at the same time, the issuing of

letters of marque and reprisal. I trust, sir, I shall be pardoned for

expressing the deep regret and affliction I feel for the failure of

a measure so important in my judgment, to the best interests of my

country. I voted for the embargo as a precautionary and as a coercive

measure. In its first character, its wisdom must be admitted by

all. Its effects as a coercive measure would, I believe, have been

equally certain, if the misconduct of some of our own people, and

the revolution in Spain, had not impeded its action. Unless we were

determined to persevere in our claims for redress, and to assert our

rights, the embargo, even as a measure of precaution, was unnecessary.

It gave no protection to our property abroad, it gave it no security

on its way home, it only preserved it after its return. When the

injuries of which we complain were inflicted, our choice was between

submission and resistance. We determined to resist, and commenced our

resistance by laying an embargo, with the hope that it might of itself

induce the belligerents to do us justice; and if this expectation were

disappointed, that we might prepare for war, by preserving in our own

possession our essential resources--men and money. If resistance was

not our determination, I do not hesitate to say, that the embargo was

unwise and unnecessary. If we intended ultimately to abandon our rights

without another effort, we should have suffered less both in reputation

and in property, by immediate submission, than by now receding from the

ground we have taken. I do not believe that a single supporter of the

embargo looked to it as the last resort of this country. For myself,

I disclaim the impression, and declare that I was ready to abandon it

for war, when its primary objects should be attained, and its coercive

power fairly tested. I have stated that I considered the return of our

citizens, the security of our property, and the employment of time

in preparation for war, as the great and more certain effects of the

embargo. All these advantages we have derived from it. I believe it

is time to change our measures, and to place our future reliance upon

Providence, and upon the energies and valor of our citizens. Upon this

point, however, I think with a minority. There has been a vote of this

House against immediate war. Under these circumstances what ought I to

do? I must either vote against every expedient which falls short of

what I deem the most proper course, or assent to that which accords

most with what I think right. If it were my individual concern, I

should certainly rely upon my own judgment: but when every thing dear

to my country is at stake, I cannot justify to myself a pertinacious

adherence to a proposition already rejected by a great majority, which

would hazard the loss of a measure, the best, in my opinion, that

can be obtained. After having offered what I thought the best, and

seen it rejected, I think with the gentleman from South Carolina,

that I am at liberty, and that it is my duty, to unite with others in

support of attainable measures which appear to me to be conducive to

the interest of the country. The bill upon your table appears to me to

be such a measure. It maintains our attitude towards the belligerents

better than any measure which I have heard proposed, and if it be not

the most effectual resistance, at least, it is not submission. It

continues our solemn protest against their violations of our rights;

it takes new, and in some respects, stronger grounds against them.

It excludes from our waters, ports, and harbors, all their vessels,

public and private; it excludes from our country all their products

and manufactures; and forbids our citizens to debase and degrade their

country by a commercial intercourse which would stain and pollute them

with the payment of an ignominious tribute to a foreign nation. It

reserves the great question to be decided by the next Congress, which

will be informed of the wishes of the American people; who can best

determine how far they will submit to have their rights trampled on,

at the will and pleasure of foreign nations. By keeping the question

open for their discussion, I have the utmost confidence that our

rights, honor, and independence, will be maintained. The gentleman from

Pennsylvania asked yesterday, why not repeal the embargo laws, and

provide for the enforcement of this system by a new law? In addition

to the reasons I have stated, I will mention another, which has great

weight. We are told that one of the States of this Union is about to

pass a law, imposing penalties on persons employed in the execution

of those laws within that State. I will never consent, under these

circumstances, to adopt any measure which might wear the aspect of

yielding to a threat like this. No man laments more sincerely than I

do, that the Legislature of any State should take such a step, but I

think it of the utmost importance that the Government of the United

States should maintain its authority, and that it should be ascertained

whether its measures may at any time be embarrassed by the Legislatures

of one or more States, or its laws annulled by their authority. Such

could not, I believe, have been the impression either of the people

or of the States when the General Government was formed; and if this

conduct be persevered in or submitted to, it will, in effect, supersede

the Government, and must speedily terminate in its dissolution. I

hope and trust that the wisdom and patriotism of the Legislature of

Massachusetts will not permit such a law to be enacted. Otherwise,

I do not doubt that the people at the Spring elections, will choose

men solicitous to heal, by every means within their power, the wounds

inflicted on the constitution. It is a painful duty to notice this

subject. I have ever been devoted to the Union of the States. I would

cherish and support it at every hazard, and would sacrifice to its

preservation every thing but the rights and liberties of one section,

in compliance to the wishes of another. On such conditions it would

be vassalage, not union. To yield in the present instance, would be

yielding the Government to a minority. It is not practicable, however,

to act upon the subject during the present session, nor do I wish it.

I have the utmost confidence in the people of Massachusetts, and have

no doubt but that their good sense will apply the proper corrective. If

they do not, it will then remain for the other States, after giving to

the subject the solemn and deliberate consideration which it merits, to

decide whether they have a Government or not, whether it is compatible

with their happiness and interests to preserve a Government whose acts

are binding on them only who are willing to obey them; whether they

will submit that the public officers of the United States shall be

punished for the faithful performances of their duty.

I have confined my observations within as narrow limits as possible.

It is not now necessary to speak of our injuries, of the necessity of

resistance, nor even of the superior advantages of any particular mode

of resistance; for it is, I believe, a very prevalent opinion in this

House, as well as with the nation, that we have already deliberated

enough, and that it is incumbent on us to act. I will, therefore, very

briefly notice some objections I have heard to the bill. It is urged

that our products will find their way to Great Britain and France,

but certainly to Great Britain, by circuitous routes, and that we

shall derive less profit from them on that account, than if a direct

intercourse were permitted. This cannot be denied, nor is there a man

who would not prefer a free trade with the whole world, if it could

be enjoyed upon equal and honorable terms, to a commerce so limited

and shackled as ours is at this time by the belligerent edicts. The

question is not now how we can most advantageously avail ourselves of

a momentary commerce, but how we can assert the national sovereignty,

and best secure the permanent interests of the United States. No

gentleman, I presume, will contend that it is better for us to permit

a disgraceful intercourse with any nation, than to endure a temporary

privation, until we can trade on fair and honorable terms. Gentlemen

cannot delude themselves with any expectation of advantage from the

commerce now allowed to us. The two most valuable products of this

country must ruin and beggar those interested in their culture--I mean

cotton and tobacco. It is well known that the quantity of tobacco

annually produced, is fully equal to the annual consumption, and that

we have now two crops on hand; while the edicts of Great Britain and

France are continued, it would be folly to cultivate this plant, and it

is more or less true of every other product of our soil. If we were at

war with these nations, our products would reach them through the same

circuitous channels into which they will be forced by this law, but

certainly that consideration would not be deemed a good argument for

permitting direct intercourse with our enemies. As to the difficulty

of excluding their products and manufactures, it is very possible that

we may not be able to do it entirely, but I am satisfied that we shall

do it essentially. The great avenue through which British goods can be

most easily smuggled into this country is Canada, and that, I doubt

not, will soon be closed if the edicts be not rescinded. The present

state of things cannot long continue; I have no hesitation in saying

that it ought not, and that the next Congress must either abandon the

contest, or resort to more effectual means for the maintenance of our

rights than commercial restrictions and prohibitions. The gentleman

from South Carolina, whose eloquence I admire, and whose patriotism

I honor, speaks of this measure as submission, and considers that

which he proposed as resistance--not indeed as the measure of his

choice, but as the one which is next to it in his estimation. It

must be obvious to the House, and I am sure it will be equally so to

the gentleman himself, that if his system would be resistance, the

course indicated by the bill has in that view superior merit. The

gentleman acknowledges the principal advantage of his plan to consist

in this, that it would deprive British vessels of the transport of

our produce; if it can be shown that this object will be accomplished

more effectually by the bill in its present form than by the proposed

alteration, it is fair to expect for it his support. If this plan were

adopted, Great Britain would regain her full share of the transport of

our produce by augmenting the duties in favor of her own bottoms to

an amount that would be an indemnity for a short voyage, by opening

the port of Halifax, and another port at St. Mary's, to our vessels,

and all that would then remain to our own vessels would be the profits

of the coasting trade from our harbors to those ports of deposit.

If I believed this course the most honorable and effectual mode of

resisting, I would willingly embrace it; but, sir, I can never consent

to any plan by which a direct commercial intercourse is to be produced

between this country and Great Britain and France, while their edicts

continue in force. Nor will I ever abandon the hope and belief that

my countrymen possess the manly spirit of independence, the honorable

pride and character which will disdain to barter for gold, or for a

miserable fragment of commerce, those rights which were purchased by

the valor and the blood of their fathers.

The question was taken on striking out the first section of the bill

and negatived--yeas 24.

SATURDAY, February 18.

Another member, to wit, MARMADUKE WILLIAMS, from North Carolina,

appeared and took his seat in the House.

_Clarkson's History of Slavery._

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from Thomas P. Cope,

offering to the acceptance of Congress, in behalf of the American

Convention for promoting the abolition of slavery and improving

the condition of the Africans, lately assembled in the city of

Philadelphia, a book, entitled "Clarkson's History of Slavery," which

is requested to be deposited in the Library of Congress. The said

letter was read; whereupon a motion was made by Mr. MILNOR, that the

House do come to the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the Speaker be requested to acknowledge the

receipt and acceptance of "Clarkson's History of Slavery,"

presented by the American Convention for promoting the

abolition of slavery, and improving the condition of the

Africans; and that the said work be deposited in the Library.

And the question being put thereupon, it was resolved in the

affirmative--64 to 16.

_Non-Intercourse._

Mr. CLOPTON said: Mr. Chairman, being one of those who are not willing

to exchange the embargo for the system of non-intercourse now proposed,

I move you to strike out this section of the bill. In making this

motion, sir, I cannot say that I entertain much hope of success,

although indeed I do sincerely wish that the motion may prevail. It has

been uniformly my opinion, sir, and still is, that the embargo ought

to be adhered to until a majority of the great body of the people of

the United States should prefer war itself to a longer continuance of

it. I cannot perceive any middle course between those two alternatives,

which can truly maintain the honor of the nation; and shall this

nation descend from that ground to any degree of submission, either

openly or covertly, to any nation on earth? God forbid, sir. Forbid it

every thing that is dear and valuable to us as members of a free and

independent nation!

Long indeed has our country sought the establishment of neutrality, but

sought it honorably. The great and prominent object with the United

States, as to their exterior relations, always has been to maintain

peace--but to maintain it honorably and consistently with the rights

of the nation. In pursuit of this object Great Britain will receive

the principal benefit of the trade, notwithstanding the prohibitions

of this bill. If American vessels are permitted to go out at all, most

of them will go, if not to British ports, to some particular ports,

as has been observed, from whence Great Britain will finally receive

their cargoes; and in a short time, perhaps, upon cheaper terms than

they could be obtained for in our own ports; and I do not know what is

to secure them from capture when bound to other ports, if they fall in

with British cruisers, unless indeed they should go into British ports,

pay the detestable tribute and accept licenses; and the law will be

abundantly evaded by smuggling into the country articles of British

manufacture--and no doubt, many of French manufacture too. Besides,

sir, the consequence of this measure very probably will be war at last,

and at no distant period; a war, too, which will commence under great

disadvantages to our own country.

In this situation of things, Mr. Chairman, under this accumulation of

injuries, the measure of embargo was resorted to--a measure having

in view a counteraction to the whole system of aggression carried on

against the United States--a measure which has been pursued as a means

of bringing about a relinquishment of that atrocious system on the

part of the belligerents, and a redress of injuries inflicted on us,

together with the preservation of peace. This measure has been thus

far pursued for these great purposes; and it has been patiently borne

with to this day, by the nation at large, the partial discontents which

have appeared in some particular parts of the country only excepted.

The nation at large has cheerfully acquiesced in the privations,

the inconveniences, and the difficulties incident to such a state

of things. It has exhibited a memorable example of self-denial in

sustaining this situation, with a view to obtain redress of wrongs

and recognition of its maritime rights, without a sacrifice of peace.

With this object, fair and honorable negotiation has been resorted

to from time to time for a series of years. By this means redress of

wrongs has been repeatedly sought, and sought in vain. By this means

the Government of the United States has exercised itself to procure

relinquishment of outrages and violation of our neutral rights; but as

often have all its efforts proved unavailing. No wrong redressed--no

cessation of outrage yet appeared: on the contrary more numerous and

more aggravated ones followed in quick succession. A long series of

injurious acts, the offspring of new and (if possible) more atrocious

principles than what constituted the pretended ground of former

outrages, were pressed with accumulating weight into the train of

former outrages, insomuch that those which followed after, taken

along with those which had preceded, made up a combined system which

threatened to sweep from the ocean almost every particle of canvas, and

all the floating property of this great Republic.

These, sir, are the objects for which this measure has been thus far

and so patiently pursued. Great and momentous objects, and worthy of a

great and magnanimous nation! Why, then, should it be now determined

at all events to abandon this measure? Why should it be so determined,

at a period of all others most propitious to the embargo, if continued

and executed--a period, of all others, I think, best calculated

to give it effect by this House manifesting a firm disposition to

adhere to it? For, sir, I consider this as the most critical period,

which could possibly arrive, as to the real effect of the embargo.

I consider it as the most important period, at which the conduct of

this House might render that measure effectually coercive, if it

ever can be made so at all--and why, sir, do I think so? Because,

in the first place, I conceive it cannot even be a question whether

the British Government has not calculated on the discontents, which

appeared in some particular parts of the Union, so as to derive at

least some expectation therefrom that those discontents might make such

impression on Congress as to induce them to raise the embargo in the

course of this session. Those discontents, no doubt, excited grateful

expectations of its removal. It is perfectly natural to suppose that

such events taking place in any part of this country must have produced

calculations of that sort. I cannot but believe, sir, that they have

looked forward to the period of this session, with anxious solicitude,

to mark the temper of Congress in relation to this very interesting

subject; and, as they must have presumed that Congress could not view

such serious events with indifference, some expectation that the effect

might be so strong as to induce a repeal of the system could scarcely

fail to be the conclusion. Such conclusion was to be expected, even if

the extent of dissatisfaction had been fairly reported to them--even

had it been in no degree misrepresented. But, sir, there are a thousand

chances to one that the reports, which conveyed the information to that

country, greatly exaggerated the facts--that the picture was drawn in

much stronger colors than were consistent with the real truth--that

the instances of discontent were stated not only to have been deeper

in their nature than they really were, but that a much larger number

of persons had partaken of it than really did--that a spirit of

disaffection had spread itself far and wide. Not a shadow of doubt

rests on my mind, sir, that, in all respects whatever, the unpleasant

occurrences to which I have alluded, were greatly magnified. With these

circumstances others have combined to render the embargo inefficacious

as yet, or at least to prevent it from having its full effect. It is

to be recollected, sir, that very soon after the law laying an embargo

was passed efforts were made to render it unpopular and to excite

dissatisfaction. Dissatisfactions were not only excited; but many

unprincipled persons found means to evade the law and make exportations

contrary to its provisions. Under a combination of circumstances,

then, so encouraging to the hopes of the British Government as those

must have appeared to them, the continuance of their Orders in Council

until the temper of Congress, during this session, could be known to

them, is not much to be wondered at. The hope of ultimate success in

rendering our commerce tributary to them, which those circumstances, no

doubt, contributed not a little to inspire, with such a government, was

of itself sufficient ground to induce a continuance of those orders.

Long experience of British policy, which the United States have had,

justifies this opinion. Long experience of a systematic design in that

government to shackle our commerce and subject it to their arbitrary

restrictions, leaves no room to doubt of their disposition to pursue

that design until the conduct of this Government should convince them

of its total inefficacy to produce the object sought for. The slightest

prospect of succeeding in their design, however delusive that prospect

might be, keeps up their hopes until the delusion vanishes. It remains,

then, for the Congress of the United States, at this very interesting

crisis, to dispel that delusion by a firm adherence to this measure,

and thus to disperse every gleam of hope which may have resulted from

the circumstances of discontent which had appeared, and the evasions

of the law which took place in the country. At this truly critical

period, to which their anxious attention has been directed, let this

body manifest an inflexible perseverance, and demonstrate to them

that all their hopes, founded on those or any other circumstances,

are vain indeed. Let it be demonstrated to them that this Government

cannot only resolve upon, and carry into effect, measures of energy,

though attended with inconveniences and difficulties, but that it

can pursue such measures so long as they shall be deemed expedient

for the object in view. Let every declaration and every conception

concerning the American character, as a nation, in respect to its

cherishing an overweening attachment to gain, so as to be willing to

submit to indignities for the sake of it, be completely falsified. Let

it be demonstrated, beyond a possibility of doubt, that there exists

not in the great body of the people of this country any love of gain

comparable to the love of real national independence and freedom;

that this love of national independence and freedom animates the true

American soul far beyond any other sentiment, and that, in support of

it, the greatest sacrifices of interest are cheerfully acquiesced in.

But, sir, what will be the inference drawn from this measure proposing

a repeal of the embargo, as it does, after it shall have been adopted.

Will it not justify assertions, that this Government has not stability

or firmness enough to carry into effect energetic measures, or such

as check the current of wealth for any considerable time from flowing

into the country? Such assertions, or assertions to that effect, have,

I believe, been frequently made; and they have been often repelled by

words as slanderous reproaches on the Government. Sir, let us not take

from them the demerit of being slanderous, by affording any ground for

the justification. But I fear, sir, I greatly fear, that a repeal of

the embargo laws, as now proposed, will go far towards justifying such

assertions.

This is a period of our political existence, Mr. Chairman, which

renders firmness in the councils of the nation peculiarly requisite.

The crisis is vastly momentous and trying, and attended with

circumstances, both from within and from without, which strongly call

for decision in the Legislature. The existence of the Government seems

almost to depend upon their firmness and decision. Whilst the members

of this body respect the rights of individuals, let them consider

the consequence of being driven from a measure of great importance by

the conduct of a small part of the community. It is the duty of each

part equally to respect and obey the laws; and if apprehension of the

consequence of a faction, clamoring against the acts of the Government,

should deter it from pursuing its course, such would be an alarming

manifestation of its weakness. Sir, I fear for the Government, almost

to trembling. I feel emotions which I cannot express. It is at a point

of awful trial and responsibility. The system which, it appears, is

about to be abandoned, will be exchanged for a miserable one, which, on

our return to our homes, will not draw on us many smiles.

The motion of Mr. CLOPTON was negatived, 59 to 35.

Mr. MILNOR moved to amend the same section so as to strike out the

exception, and making the repeal of the embargo total.

Mr. VARNUM supported this motion. If the non-intercourse system

was to prevail, he thought it made much more intelligible to the

revenue officers by repealing the embargo laws, and enacting the

non-intercourse as a new system throughout. He spoke in favor of the

repeal of the embargo laws, stating the evasions which had taken place,

and that these evasions had not been confined to any particular section

of the Union. He observed that a partial repeal of the embargo would

destroy all the coercive effects of the measure, inasmuch as produce

would be let out, and would find its way to every quarter of the world.

Mr. V. observed that were the amendments agreed to, he should be ready

to go with gentlemen in any other practicable measure which they would

select for maintaining our rights.

The motion of Mr. Milnor was negatived, 57 to 53.

The committee then rose and reported the bill; and the House adjourned

without considering the report.

FRIDAY, March 3.

_Adjournment._

A message was received from the Senate, stating that they had appointed

a committee in conjunction with such committee as should be appointed

by the House, to wait on the President of the United States, and inform

him that they had concluded the business pending before them, and were

ready to adjourn. A committee was appointed on the part of this House

to join the committee of the Senate.

Mr. SMILIE offered the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the thanks of this House be presented to

JOSEPH B. VARNUM, in testimony of their approbation of his

conduct in the discharge of the arduous and important duties

assigned to him whilst in the Chair.

Mr. ROWAN moved that it be postponed indefinitely. Messrs. ROWAN and

LYON supported the motion; and Messrs. EPPES and JACKSON opposed it.

The resolution passed, 68 to 9.

The SPEAKER returned his acknowledgments to the House for this tribute

of their approbation, as follows:

_Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

The kind expression of your approbation of my conduct, in the

discharge of the duties which you have been pleased to assign

me as Speaker of the House, affords me that consolation which

an approving conscience alone can surpass. You will please,

gentlemen, to accept my thanks for the liberality and candor

which you have uniformly manifested towards me: and be assured,

that the friendly aid which I have experienced from you in

the discharge of my official duty, has made a deep impression

on the affections of my heart, which length of time cannot

eradicate.

Mr. CUTTS, from the committee appointed to wait on the President,

reported that they had performed that duty, and that the President had

informed them that he had no further communication to make.