cutive, and judicial branches of the Government, accompanied by indications, in different modes, of a concurrence of the general will of the nation."

Mr. Chairman, nine-and-forty years have passed away since the foundation of this Republic. During forty of those years a national bank has existed. It has received the deliberate sanction of many of the framers of the Constitution. I know not that any one of them has ever perseveringly and consistently opposed it. It has received the official signature both of Washington and of Madison, and the latter declared more than twenty years ago that its constitutionality was even then, in his opinion, no longer a matter of question. And yet, Sir, we are now gravely told that such an institution is not constitutional, never was constitutional, and never will be constitutional, and are soberly invited to enter anew upon an abstract original argument upon this point. For one, I decline that invitation at once and altogether. Had I the logical powers of Hamilton and Marshall and Madison and Webster conjoined, and without them one could in vain expect to put the subject even in as clear a light as that in which it already stands on the pages of these great constitutional statesmen, I should regard it as not only a wasteful, but as an unworthy employment of those powers to argue such a question. It seems to me too much like arguing the constitutionality of the Constitution itself; too much like going behind the Constitution to interpret the mysterious terms of some original compact or divine right; too much, in short, like open and outright nullification. Having confined myself, therefore, to a merely historical view of the subject, and being satisfied that any one who is not convinced by that would be convinced by nothing, I turn to the last topic of my remarks.

The gentleman from Gloucester has again and again during this and other debates, taken occasion to allude to the party names of the day, and has more than once summed up his opinion of their propriety in the elegant exclamation—" American Whiggery is British Toryism." He has not indeed been entirely and at all times consistent in this cry. The expression, on one occasion, that conservatism had grown rife here, the declaration, on another, that he was defending the institutions of pro

perty from a destructive majority in this House, and the allusion, on a third, to the old joke of Dr. Johnson, that the first Whig was the Devil, - have been edifying episodes. But the main burthen of his song has still been-" American Whiggery is British Toryism."

If I remember right, Sir, the first time this expression was heard in the House, it was used in a relation somewhat personal to myself, and therefore it is, that I feel a greater disposition and a greater liberty to notice it. It was during a debate on a point of order which it was my fortune to be called on to decide soon after my election to the Chair,- and in deciding which I referred, as an authority, to a similar point which had been decided in the British Parliament about five-and-twenty years ago. Upon that point there was no division in the House of Commons, and of course there is nothing upon record to show who was for, or who was against, the decision. But the sharp optics of the gentleman from Gloucester, seeing things not to be seen, have discovered that it was altogether and exclusively the work of a Tory majority, and that the Whigs of that assembly were to a man opposed to it. And hence, "American Whiggery is British Toryism."

Now, Sir, I do not propose to argue that point of order over again. Having twice decided it, and twice given my reasons at length, and twice been sustained by an overwhelming majority of the House, I should have no desire, even were it pertinent to the present issue, to enter upon it anew. Let me say, however, that it is one thing to follow a Tory precedent in favor of the rights of the people and of their title to representation, and a very different thing to follow such a precedent when it leads in an opposite direction. If the right of a Representative to his vote, or rather the right of the people to the vote of their Repre sentatives, were esteemed too precious and too sacred, even in the rotten-borough system of the British Parliament five-andtwenty years ago, to be set aside upon any indefinite allegation of personal interest, how much more should it be held inviolable upon such a ground, under the free and equal system which we here enjoy! Let me add, Sir, that, whether this be a Tory precedent or not, and there is nothing but gratuitous assertion to

show what it is, it is the only precedent on the record of Parliamentary proceedings on either side of the ocean; - I should rather say that it is the latest of a series of precedents all bearing upon the same point, and all sustaining the same decision, and with whose conspiring authority I have found nothing in reason, and nothing upon record, to conflict. But enough, and more than enough, of this digression.

The charge of British Toryism against the American Whigs, and the corresponding claim of British Whiggism in behalf of American Tories, have not been confined to the circumstances of this case or to the principles of this decision. They have been applied to the whole political character and conduct of both parties, and with particular reference to the great financial questions upon which they are now divided. Now it would be no difficult undertaking, I am inclined to think, Sir, to prove both the charge and the claim, whether in their broader or more restricted application, to be utterly unfounded and false. I have already alluded to the fact that the joint stock banking system, which it is the design of this Sub-Treasury scheme to annihilate, has grown up and greatly extended itself under the late liberal policy of the British Government. A still greater extension of that system has been recently demanded by the British Whigs, and some of the more radical of them have even been clamoring, not for a metallic currency, like the radicals of our own land, but for downright irredeemable paper. A free circulation, they declare, is the only mode of making trade prosperous and wages high, and, though I by no means agree with them in this last mode of making the circulation free, their declaration is undeniably correct.

But, Mr. Chairman, I will not suffer myself to be diverted, by the ingenuity of the gentleman from Gloucester, from the true issue as to the propriety of these party names. It was no hard-money doctrines, it was no financial schemes, that gave rise to the renewal of the old Revolutionary titles. No, Sir, but the means by which those doctrines were inculcated, and the acts by which those schemes have been enforced. It was that series of Executive assumptions and usurpations, that succession of vetoes and circulars and orders, to which I have already alluded, —

and of which, let me add, that had they resulted in the unmingled prosperity of the country, instead of in its present depressed and disastrous condition, they would have no less deserved the rebuke and condemnation of a free people, it was these arbitrary and tyrannical acts, and the gentleman cannot have forgotten it, which called back into political service the old appellations of Whig and Tory. And by these measures, and not by any abstract opinions upon currency or credit, is the propriety of those appellations to be determined.

But the Maysville Veto was a self-denying ordinance, the gentleman tells us. This is a new name, certainly, for an exercise of that high kingly prerogative. But it is a good name notwithstanding, Sir, and I thank the gentleman for teaching me its use. A self-denying ordinance! Where did that phraseology come from, and what did it originally designate? The self-denying ordinance, Mr. Chairman, was the first of those subtle and hypocritical pieces of policy by which Oliver Cromwell ultimately obtained the mastery of the British Empire. It was an ordinance by which every body was denied but himself, and every will but his own will. And the Maysville Veto, too, was the first in that series of vetoes by which the will of General Jackson obtained supremacy in this Union, and by which the will of the people has been so frequently and fatally denied and nullified. Certainly, Sir, it was a self-denying ordinance. And the veto of Mr. Clay's Land Bill was another. And the veto of the Massachusetts Interest Bill was another. And the veto of the Bank Charter was another. And the veto of the Bill repealing the Treasury Order was another. Selfdenying ordinances all, Sir, and worthy of going down to posterity on the same page with their great original. And a pretty ample page they would require. It is a well known fact that General Jackson resorted to this self-denying process at least twice, and I rather think, three times as often, during his single administration, as all our other Presidents together. Indeed, this sort of self-denial has been his leading characteristic through life, and hence, doubtless, even his private mansion has always been denominated the Hermitage!

And then, Mr. Chairman, the ways and means by which this

self-denial has been manifested! What shifts and subtleties, what tricks and contrivances have been left untried, by which the just and constitutional responsibility of a veto could be evaded or avoided! In some cases, we know, no reasons at all have been rendered, but the objectionable bill has been permanently withheld from the further action of Congress. In other instances, the veto message has been sent to a different Congress from that which passed the bill. And in still another instance, the bill, instead of being returned to Congress with the objections of the President, was sent to the office of the Secretary of State with the objections of the Attorney-General. And then that Veto-Extraordinary and Message-Plenipotentiary the Protest-despatched to the National Senate on the passage of a resolution declaring "that in the late Executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, the President has assumed a power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." That doubtless was a self-denying ordinance also! Its pointed rebuke and proscription of the four members who held their seats, as much more than four of the administration members of the Senate now hold theirs, in opposition to the latest declaration of the will of their constituents, where will a precedent be found for that proceeding since Charles the First complained to the House of Commons of John Hampden and the rest, or, certainly, since Cromwell himself gave leave of absence to an uncomplying Parliament? Its extraordinary declaration that the President himself was the only direct representative of the American people, where will a precedent be found for such a doctrine as that, since Louis XIV. exclaimed, "I am the State?" Its final and legitimate consummation, by which the Journals of the Senate were mutilated, and the obnoxious resolution expunged, I where has there been such a prostitution of the public records to the will of an Executive, since James the First tore out an offensive vote of the Commons with his own hand?

I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that it was these arbitrary and ty rannical doctrines, these arrogant assumptions of powers not granted, these outrageous abuses of powers granted, this consolidation of all departments into one department, and this