Page images
PDF
EPUB

Supplemental Journal.—Additional Military Force.

A question was made and taken, whether the provisions contained in the bill were of such a nature as to require secrecy in the discussion, and passed in the affirmative-yeas 71, nays 34, as follows:

YEAS-Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, Wm. Blackledge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, William Crawford, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, William Findley, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefever, Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, William Piper, James Pleasants, jun., Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie, Geo. Smith, William Strong, John Taliaferro, Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, William Widgery, Richard Winn, and Robert Wright.

NAYS-Stevenson Archer, William W. Bibb, Abijah Bigelow, Harmanus Bleecker, Adam Boyd, Jas. Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion, John Davenport, jun., William Ely, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Richard Jackson, jr., Joseph Kent, Philip B. Key, Lyman Law, Nathaniel Macon, Archibald McBryde, Jonathan O. Moseley, Joseph Pearson, Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, William Rodman, Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, and Thomas Wilson.

nezer Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, John Smith, William Strong, John Taliaferro, Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Whitehill, and David R. Williams.

NAYS-John Baker, James Breckenridge, Elijah Matthew Clay, William Ely, Asa Fitch, Jacob Hufty, Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., Archibald McBryde, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges, Leonard White, Jonathan O. Moseley, Josiah Quincy, Daniel Sheffey, Thomas Wilson, and Robert Wright.

Ordered, That the title be, "An act in addition to the aet, entitled 'An act to raise an additional military force,' passed on the eleventh of January, 1812."

Messrs. CALHOUN and WILLIAMS were appointed a committee to carry the said bill to the Senate, and to inform them that the House of Representatives have passed the same, in confidence, and to desire their concurrence therein. The doors were then opened.

FRIDAY, April 3.

On motion of Mr. GRUNDY, the House was cleared, and the doors were closed.

A motion was then made by Mr. GRUNDY, that the House do come to the following resolu

tion:

whether there has been any, and, if any, what, violaResolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire tion of the secrecy imposed by this House during the Present session, as to certain of its proceedings, and that the said committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

And the question thereon being taken, it passed in the affirmative-yeas 106, nays 3, as follows: YEAS-Willis Alston, jun., William Anderson, Ste

The House then resolved itself into a Com-venson Archer, Ezekiel Bacon, John Baker, David mittee of the Whole on the said bill; and, after some time spent therein, the bill was reported without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time to-day.

The said bill was accordingly engrossed, and read the time; and, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative-yeas 73, nays 20, as follows:

Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, Abijah
Bigelow, William Blackledge, Harmanus Bleecker,
Adam Boyd, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham,
Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler,

John C. Calhoun, Epaphroditus Champion, Langdon Cheves, Martin Chittenden, Matthew Clay, John ClopDavis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Saml. Dinsmoor, ton, William Crawford, John Davenport, jun., Roger Elias Earle, William Ely, James Emott, William YEAS-Willis Alston, jun., William Anderson, Ste- Findley, James Fisk, Asa Fitch, Peterson Goodwyn, venson Archer, Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Burwell Thomas Gholson, Thomas R. Gold, Isaiah L. Green, Bassett, Wm. W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Adam Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. HarBoyd, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William per, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Butler, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, John Richard Jackson, junior, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Clopton, William Crawford, Roger Davis, John Daw- Kent, Philip B. Key, William R. King, Abner Lacock, son, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, Lyman Law, Joseph Lefever, Joseph Lewis, jr., Peter William Findley, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Pe- Little, Robert Le Roy Livingston, William Lowndes, terson Goodwyn, Thomas Gholson, Isaiah L. Green, Aaron Lyle, Archibald McBryde, Alexander McKim, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Har- Samuel McKee, Arunah Metcalf, Jonathan 0. Moseper, Aylett Hawes, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. ley, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner La- Israel Pickens, William Piper, Timothy Pitkin, jun., cock, Joseph Lefever, Peter Little, William Lowndes, James Pleasants, jun., Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Por Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, Alexander McKim, ter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, Arunah Metcalf, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jeremiah Mor- John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, William row, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Rodman, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, John SeStephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, William Piper, Jas. vier, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, Daniel Sheffey, Pleasants, junior, Benjamin Pond, John Rhea, John John Smilie, Richard Stanford, George Smith, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, William Rodman, Ebe-Smith, Philip Stuart, Silas Stow, Lewis B. Sturges,

Supplemental Journal.-Embargo Bill.

Samuel Taggart, John Taliaferro, Uri Tracy, Benjamin Tallmadge, George M. Troup, Chas. Turner, jr., Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, William Widgery, Thomas Wilson, and Richard Winn.

NAYS-Nath'l Macon, John Randolph, Wm. Strong. Messrs. GRUNDY, TROUP, ROBERTS, BRECKENRIDGE, and TALLMADGE, were appointed the committee.

Mr. PORTER, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, presented a bill authorizing the President of the United States to appoint additional Brigadier Generals, in certain cases; which was read the first time: When a message was received from the Senate, by a committee of that body, appointed for the purpose, consisting of Messrs. BIBB and CAMPBELL, of Tennessee, notifying the House that the Senate have passed the bill, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, for a limited time," with amend ments; in which they desire the concurrence of the House.

On motion of Mr. PORTER, the bill reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations, this day, was ordered to lie on the table.

The House proceeded to consider the amendments of the Senate to the bill, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States;" and the said amendments being read at the Clerk's table, a motion was made by Mr. Lewis, that the said bill and amendments be postponed indefinitely. Mr. QUINCY expressed in strong terms his abhorrence of the measure. He said that if he believed it to be a preparation for war, he should have a less indignant sense of the injury than he felt now, as he deemed it pure, unsophisticated, reinstated embargo. The limitation of sixty or ninety days gave little consolation or hope to him, because he knew how easily the same power which originated could continue this oppressive

An embargo, as preparatory to war, presuppcses some new and hidden danger, not known to the mercantile community. In such case, when the Government sees a danger of which the merdeparture of property until the nature and extent chant is unapprized, it may be wise to stay the of it can be explained, but not a moment longer. For, let the state of things be that of war or peace, the principle is precisely the same. The interest which the community has in the property of individuals is best preserved by leaving its management to the interest of the immediate proprietor, after he is made acquainted with all the circumstances of the times which have a tendency to increase its exposure.

The reason of an embargo, considered as an incipient step to war, is either to save our property from depredation abroad, or keep property which we want at home. Now it happens that the nature of the great mass of our exports is such that that there is little danger of depredation from the enemy we pretend to fear abroad, and little want of the articles most likely to be exposed at home. The total export of last year amounted, as appears by the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, to $45,000,000. It also appears by that report, our exports to Great Britain and her dependencies. and also to those of Spain and Portugal, were $38,500,000. Nearly seven-eighths in value of our whole exports have been, and continue to be, to the dominions of that very Power from which so much is pretended to be apprehended. Now, it is well known that these articles are of very great necessity and importance to her, and whether, even in the case of actual war between our countries, Great Britain would capture them, might be questionable. But that she would capture them on the mere preparation, before one really hostile act was committed on our part, is not only unreasonable, but absolutely absurd to expect. This very commerce which by the passing of this bill you indicate it is her intention to prohibit or destroy, it is her obvious He said that his objection was, that it was not and undeniable policy to unite and cherish; bewhat it pretended to be; and was what it pre-sides, the articles are in a very great proportion tended not to be. That it was not embargo pre-perishable, which, by this embargo, are to be proparatory to war; but, that it was embargo as a hibited from going to market. Which is bestsubstitute for the question of declaring war. It to keep them at home, to a certain loss and probwas true that it was advocated as a step incipient able ruin, or adventure them abroad to a possible to a state of war, and by way of preparation for loss and highly probable gain? Ask your merit, by gentlemen whose sincerity he was bound to chant. Ask common sense. respect. He could not, however, yield the conviction of his senses and reflections to their asseverations; nor declare, in complaisance to any, let them be as respectable as they might, that he saw in this measure more or less than its features indicated.

measure.

Is this embargo what it pretends to be preparation for war? In the first place, no sudden attack is expected from Great Britain. It is not suggested that we have a tittle of evidence relative to any hostility of her temper which is not possessed by the whole community. The President has not communicated to us one document or reason for the measure. His Message merely notifies to us his will and pleasure.

12th CoN. 1st SESS.-51

[ocr errors]

But it is said "we must protect our merchants." Heaven help our merchants from embargo-protection! It is also said that "the present condition ' of things has been brought upon the country by the merchants; that it was their clamor, in 1805 ' and 1806, which first put Congress upon this system of coercive restriction, of which they now so much complain." It is true that, in those years, the merchants did petition; not for embargo, not for commercial embarrassment and annihilation, but for protection. They, at that time, really thought that this national Government was formed for protection, and that it had at heart the prosperity of all the great interests of the country. If "it was a grievous fault, griev

[ocr errors]

Supplemental Journal -Embargo Bill.

ously have the merchants answered it." They asked you for relief, and you sent them embarrassment. They asked you for defence, and you imposed embargo. They "asked bread, and you gave them a stone." They "asked a fish, and you gave them a serpent." Grant that the fault was great, suppose that they did mistake the nature and character of the Government, is the penalty they incurred by this error never to be remitted? Permit them once to escape, and my word for it, they will never give you an apology for this destructive protection. If they do, they will richly deserve all the misery which, under the name of protection, you can find means to visit upon them. Your tender mercies are cruelties. The merchants hate and spurn this ruinous defence.

Mr. Q. then took notice of an intimation which had been thrown out in relation to an express, sent off on the day preceding the Message of the President, giving notice that the embargo would be proposed the ensuing day. He said that there was no necessity of speaking of that matter by distant allusions, as if there was anything that sought concealment. That is not an affair, said Mr. Q., that shuns the light. I had the honor and the happiness, in conjunction with another member of this House, from the State of New York, (Mr. EMOTT.) and a Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. LLOYD,) to transmit that intelligence to Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, by an express which started on Tuesday afternoon. In doing this, we violated no obligation, even of the most remote and delicate kind. The fact that the Committee of Foreign Relations had decided that an embargo should be proposed on Wednesday, was openly avowed here on Tuesday, by various members of that committee, to various members of this House. Among others, I was informed of it. I shall always be grateful to the gentleman who gave me that information. Indeed, the whole commercial community are under great obligations to the Committee of Foreign Relations for their feeling and patriotism in resolving on that disclosure. It enabled us, by anticipating the mail, to give an opportunity for great masses of property to escape from the ruin our Cabinet was meditating for them. Yes, sir; to escape into the jaws of the British lion, and of the French tiger, which are places of refuge, of joy and delight, when compared with the grasp and fangs of this hyena embargo. What was the effect of this information? When it reached Philadelphia, the whole mercantile class was in motion, and all that had it in their power were flying in all directions from the coming mischief, as if it were a plague and a pestilence. Look, at this moment, on the river below Alexandria, and the poor seamen, towing down their vessels against wind and tide, anxious only to escape from a country which destroys under the mask of preserving.

It is said that this embargo is " mere notice" to the merchant. If this were the case, why all these pains and penalties? Why these grievous bonds, imposed on our coasting trade? If you really intend war, if this measure is timely prep

aration, and not a substitute for it, lay your embargo; but let it be mere general prohibition, without penalty. You will then have done your duty. If they go, and are captured, they have no cause of complaint. But it is said "shall we feed our enemies?" That question unravels the whole plot. It is an embargo for coercion, and not for preparation. In reply, I say, yes. Feed your enemies, if they are in no danger of being reduced by famine, and if you do not want the article of food, and it will perish without a market.

The gentlemen who advocate this bill seem to be much offended that some of us do not believe that it is their intention to declare war at the end of the time limited. They treat the suggestion as a reflection on their personal veracity. I question not either the sincerity or veracity of the gentlemen who make these declarations; but those gentlemen must excuse me if I prefer to reason, concerning future events, rather from the nature of things than from the state of their minds. I make no suggestions concerning the intentions of the gentlemen on this floor; but, concerning the intentions of our Cabinet, and concerning their ability in relation to actual war, I shall not hesitate both to make suggestions and to state reasonings; and I shall not deem myself precluded from the use of my understanding concerning the result of any measures, because my statements contradict any man's declared intentions. The public has little concern about what you may intend. It has much in what you can execute.

I say, then, distinctly, I do not believe that this embargo is preparation for war, but I do believe that it is a refuge from the question of declaring war. My reason tells me that war is not intended, because of your want of preparation, and of your neglect of it. If war were intended, would the men at the helm have employed the five months past in a way so utterly inefficient, and inconsistent with such an anticipated state? What have you done during this long session to put this country into that "armor and attitude" so ostentatiously recommended at the opening of it? What have you done? Why, you have thirty-five thou sand men upon paper; and in five months you have added about one thousand new recruits to the old establishment. That is to say, you have six thousand men now on your Army rolls. You have officers in abundance, but where are the soldiers? We were told last December that on the first day of April, we should be before Quebec. And where were we on that day? Why, retiring behind embargo. What prospect is there that your enlistments will be so rapid as will enable you to raise more men in the ninety days which are to come, than in the one hundred and fifty days which have passed? I know there is on the carpet, a grand scheme of augmenting the chance of enlistments by reducing the time of service from five years to eighteen months. how does this prognosticate as to the efficiency of the force? This proposition is perfectly char acteristic. You want an embargo army, and not a fighting army. Ever since you appointed a col

But

Supplemental Journal.-Embargo Bill.

lector of a Northern seaport Major General, I have been satisfied that what you intended was, an army to fight smugglers, and not Canadians. You prepare to go to war for commercial rights in ninety days? Where? How? A navy is out of the question. And, as to the purpose of arming our merchantmen, although that resolution was passed with as much, I believe more unanimity than any other of all those proposed by the Committee of Foreign Relations, it has been laid asleep in the Committee, and not a man has ventured to suggest even that it was to be put into Parliamentary form, much less that it was to be carried into effect.

When I see such a palpable failure in all the means natural and necessary for carrying on the war; when I see the actual military force, instead of being increased in efficiency, in fact, reduced; neither promises, nor asseverations, nor oaths, shall make me believe that you will go to war at the end of ninety days. Opposuit naturæ. Nature has decided against you. Instead of that feast of war, to which we were invited at the beginning of the session, we have served up to us the old dish of restrictions. There is no need of the spirit of prophecy to tell the result. At the end of ninety days, you will find that your preparation is not sufficient. The horrors of war will be preached up very assiduously during the recess. Familiarity with embargo will diminish its dread. The restrictive system becomes identified with some personal, local, paltry interest. The navigating States are sacrificed, and the spirit and character of our country are prostrated in the dust by fear or by avarice.

This embargo will not serve the American people. But I will tell you whom it may serve; it will serve the French Emperor. His interest is apparent. It operates on his enemy by denying our produce to her armies. But where is the American interest? Coercion on Great Britain is not pretended. If war with this Power be really its purpose, then much of this very property ought to be got out of the country. It is useless, and must perish if it remain in it; and the resources of the country, and its ability for war, are augmented by the whole amount of the returns which its sales would produce.

kind that you intend to conciliate affection, or excite confidence? Will it not be said that your own products being sold, you were indifferent what became of ours?

Let me not be understood as objecting to this embargo as a preparation for war, although, even as such, its utility is dubious. I object to it because it is not efficient preparation; because it is not a progress towards honorable war, but is a subterfuge from this question. If we must perish, let us perish by any hand except our own. Any fate is better than self-slaughter.

Mr. GOLD. The first object with a wise Legislature is, Is the law expedient? The second object, which should never for a moment escape attention, Can the law be executed? Under the first head, the advocates of embargo, disclaim the measure as appertaining to the odious restriction system: they present it as the old fashioned, legitimate precursor of war, as the provident measure of Government to protect your merchants against reprisals resulting from meditated hostilities.

In this view can you be prepared for war at the expiration of the embargo? Will you open your campaign at mid-summer? Whatever appearance this measure may now assume, the country have grounds to fear a relapse into the old system-you will go again back into Egypt.

But, on the second head, can your law be executed? Does the history of the past in our own, or any other country, warrant such an expectation? Can you watch the extended line, of fortyfive degrees north, for hundreds of miles, so as to prevent a transit for commercial exchange, indispensable to the necessities of the country? No, sir, it is a vain expectation; your army of 25,000 could not prevent the intercourse: their sympathies would rather lead them to connive at what they could not fail to see. Great Britain, with a canvass that whitens every sea, her revenue boats always in motion, and tide waters at every inlet or avenue, has not been able to prevent the smuggling in of about one half the tea consumed in that Kingdom. Such is the conviction of English writers! It may be found in the appendix to McCartney's Embassy, and in the life of the second Pitt. Where men have expended their In every point of view, I look on this measure substance in purchasing and collecting an article as a cruel abandonment of our national rights; as for export, under the subsisting faith of your impolitic; as deceptive; as calculated to impress laws permitting such export, it is not mere inon the American people an idea that it is your justice, but cruelty in the Government towards intention to maintain commercial rights, which its citizens to arrest such a commerce by an ex its true effect is to abandon. Here is another ef-post facto law, and consign those concerned to feet which it is calculated to produce, and which, the prison walls, and their families to beggary. of all others, ought, at a crisis of this kind, to be Nothing short of the most imperious necessity, the avoided. Its tendency must be, to raise a jealousy safety of the community, can justify so severe a between the Southern, and the Eastern, and Mid- proceeding. But, sir, with a single exception of dle States. The flour and produce of the South-timber, the commerce between the northern ern States have had, during the whole winter, an open trade and free market. Those of the Middle and Eastern States have been restrained by climate and winter. Nature is just opening for our relief, and the palsying hand of Government is now to be extended, to give a death-blow to our hopes. Is it by a course of policy of this

frontiers and Canada, will, for the ninety days of this embargo, be httle else than the mere exchange of articles indispensably necessary to the poor frontier settlers. How are they to be supplied with the article of salt? Believe me, sir, the morality of no part of the United States, or of any nation on earth, will restrain persons under

Supplemental Journal.-Embargo Bill.

such circumstances from eluding the laws. Does any man believe that this frontier traffic is not as beneficial to us as to our enemies? Can your law fail of producing more injury and loss to the United States, than benefit? Have you not witnessed, sir, that while you was exercising paternal care in enacting an embargo by water, for the seaboard, that our merchants and navigators, roused as by a shock of thunder, escaped from your shores, with their vessels, as from a destroying angel-from pestilence and death!

Such, sir, without distinction of parties, is the opinion of your proffered protection by embargo. If, then, this law cannot be executed on the frontiers, what is to be its effect: full as it is with biting penalties? I answer, it will let loose upon the land a host of licensed spies and informers, overwhelm your citizens with seizures and vexations, and fill your courts with oppressive suits. No innocence, no circumspection, will afford a shield of protection against those harpies of the Treasury; you not only punish for exporting, but for an "attempt," without defining or specifying the act to constitute such attempt. If you drive your team to the north, or even off your farm, you will be exposed for an attempt.

In a survey of what is passing on the interesting theatre about us, we may say, with great truth, that we have seen strange things in our days! While an open, licensed trade is carried on, to a great extent, between enemies, (France and Great Britain,) the United States, at peace with all the world, has for years, with some intermission, been deprived of foreign commerce by her own Government. There is something rotten in our Denmark! Would two hundred millions of dollars make good to this country its losses under our wasting system of restrictions? I cannot see these things without concern; I cannot dwell upon them without a pang for my country!

Mr. BLEECKER, in a speech of about twenty minutes, made an able, solemn, and impressive address to the House, urging them to ponder, and desist from the dangerous course they were pursuing, and forewarned them of the calamitous consequences that would inevitably result.

flict. He has no prejudice against them. He there received his education. He has lived in North and South Britain. From actual resi dence, he knows them from the Grampian Hills to Dover. He knows them, however, to be a proud, overbearing nation. From former resi dence, and also, from recent intelligence, (and that within a few days, by late arrivals,) he knows that they consider us a sort of a generation whom they have a right to despise. We are viewed in this unworthy, degraded situation, not on account of our want of resources, or population; but because they believe we cannot stand together-that we have no confidence in ourselves that we cannot lead armies into their countries. Their object has been, since the year 1806, to divide and distract us, and to prevent our taking efficient measures. Sir, what has been the cause of our present condition? It is well known that, in 1806, he was made the organ of his constituents, as other gentlemen were for Salem and other commercial places, to present to Congress their plaints and wailings, on account of the grievances they suffered upon the subject of carrying colonial produce, and the continuity of voyage. The archives of this House will prove this. They declared they should be ruined if the British doctrine should be countenanced. The Government were goaded by these applications for relief. The Government began, and continued pacific measures, until we have got into our present situation.

Mr. M. said, he would aver, there was never a time when there was more internal good, more real practical independence, more what the heart desires and can enjoy, in any civilized nation, than we enjoy. A population of seven millionsthe arts and manufactures flourishing in a high degree-are we then to be frightened-to listen to the notes of political screech-owls? We are the happiest nation on earth. He could, to be sure with a melancholy countenance, go into any family, and give a lecture on the weakness of the flesh, on the calamities of human life, and a mis serable exit. But how much better are we of than any other people? Our lot has fallen to us in a pleasant place, and we have a goodly

He said he recollected when he was a boy, tha he and his companions would get round the fire side, of a Winter's evening, and talk of ghosts till they were all afraid to go to bed-and lugu brious anticipations of the danger of a war with England, he thought, was of a piece with th childish apprehension alluded to.

Mr. MITCHILL said, in viewing political sub-heritage. jects and dangers, some are inclined to look through political miscroscopes, which diminish them; others, misled by their imaginations, look through political telescopes, and are apt to magnify and enhance them. He, for one, was for viewing our situation with his naked optics-for looking at it as it really is. He could not be considered as less alive to the interests and happiness of the inhabitants of that city, respecting whom so much sensibility has been expressed, than any other gentleman. There were his intimate friends, connexions, and what little property he possessed. No one could feel more for their sufferings under commercial restrictions, or in case of an assault upon it by the enemy. And if he was to consult only his personal sensibilities, they were all in favor of the people of that country, with whom we are to enter into a con

With regard to the nation with whom we ar to contend, and whose prowess is so terrible i the opinion of some, he is proud to see gentleme around him, who dared in 1774, to enter into th conflict, when we had a population of only thre millions. He did not think any one would be afrai to face a nation whose head is of such a charac ter-one who was, some years since, expelled jockey club, and who was lately turned out doors for his unworthy conduct to his neighbor wife. The Power with which we are to co

« PreviousContinue »