sir, we have still causes of complaint against France; but it is of a different character from those against England. She professes now to respect our rights, and there cannot be a reasonable doubt, but that the most objectionable parts of her decrees, as far as they respect us, are repealed. We have already formally acknowledged this to be a fact. I, however, protest against the whole of the principles on which this doctrine is founded. It is a novel doctrine, and no where to be found out of this house, that you cannot select your antagonist without being guilty of partiality. Sir, when two invade your rights, you may resist both, or either, at your pleasure. It is regulated by prudence, and not by right. The stale imputation of partiality to France is better calculated for the columns of a newspaper than for the walls of this house. I ask, in this particular, of the gentleman from Virginia, but for the same measure which he claims for himself. That gentleman is at a loss to account for, what he calls, our hatred to England. He asks, How can we hate the country of Locke, of Newton, Hampden and Chatham; a country having the same language and customs with ourselves, and descending from a common ancestry? Sir, the laws of human affections are uniform. If we have so much to attach us to that country, powerful, indeed, must be the cause which has overpowered it.

Yes, sir, there is a cause strong enough. Not that occult, courtly affection, which he has supposed to be entertained for France; but it is to be found in continued and unprovoked insult and injury-a cause so manifest, that the gentleman from Virginia had to exert much ingenuity to overlook it. But, sir, here I think the gentleman, in his eager admiration of that country, has not been sufficiently guarded in his argument. Has he reflected on the cause of that admiration? Has he examined the reasons of our high regard for her Chatham? It is his ardent patriotism; the heroic courage of his mind, that could not brook the least insult or injury offered to his country, but thought that her interest and honor ought to be vindicated at every hazard and expense. I hope, when we are called on to admire, we shall also be asked to imitate. I hope the gentleman does not wish a monopoly of those great virtues to remain to that nation. The balance of power has also been introduced as an argument for submission. England is said to be a barrier against the military despotism of France. There is, sir, one great error in our legislation. We are ready enough to protect the interest of the states; and it should seeni, from this argument, to watch over those of a foreign nation, while we grossly neglect our own immediate concerns. This argument of the balance of power is well calculated for the British parliament, but not at all fitted to the American congress. Tell them, that they have to contend with a mighty power, and that if they

persist in insult and injury to the American people, they will com pel them to throw the whole weight of their force into the scale of their enemy. Paint the danger to them, and if they will desist from injury, we, I answer for it, will not disturb the balance. But it is absurd for us to talk of the balance of power, while they, by their conduct, smile with contempt at our simple, good-natured policy. If, however, in the contest, it should be found, that they underrate us, which I hope and believe, and that we can effect the balance of power, it will not be difficult for us to obtain such terms as our rights demand. I, sir, will now conclude, by adverting to an argument of the gentleman from Virginia, used in debate on a preceding day. He asked, Why not declare war immediately? The answer is obvious; because we are not yet prepared. But, says the gentleman, such language, as is here held, will provoke Great Britain to commence hostilities. I have no such fears. She knows well, that such a course would unite all parties here; a thing, which, above all others, she most dreads. Besides, such has been our past conduct, that she will still calculate on our patience and submission till war is actually commenced.

I fear I am about to engage in a very injudicious attempt. I fear that the patience of the committee is exhausted, and that it would be idle to hope for their attention. It was originally my wish to claim their notice at an early stage of the debate; but I found this wish was not to be effected but by a competition for the floor, and I thought such a competition not justified by the nature of the remarks which I had to submit. Under these impressions, I had made up my mind to wait until some favorable, unoccupied interval should be presented; and I should not now have presumed to anticipate other gentlemen, who seem disposed to address you, but for some extraordinary observations which have just been uttered, and which, in my opinion, demand immediate animadversion.

The object of the bill is to authorize a loan to the government of the United States. The precise proposition before you is, to declare what sum shall be borrowed; "twenty-five millions of dollars." Enormous as is the addition which is thus proposed to be made to our debts, could it be shown to be necessary to accomplish any purposes demanded by the honor and welfare of the country, it assuredly would meet with no opposition from me. Is a loan wanted, a revenue required, to enable the government to pay off its just engagements; to give security and protection to any part of our territory, or any portion of our citizens; to afford to our gallant navy-that precious relic of better days-such encouragement and extension as may enable it more effectually to vindicate our rights on the element where they have been assailed? -my voice and assistance shall be cheerfully rendered to obtain

them. Let the present proposition be withdrawn, and let it be moved to fill the blank with such sum as shall be adequate to supply any deficiency of revenue wanted for these purposes, and I will second the motion. Nay, sir, should the present proposition be rejected (for while it is pending a smaller sum cannot be moved), and none of those who are most conversant with the state of our finances, should come forward with a further proposition, I will myself undertake to move the sum which shall appear competent to effect all these objects.

But, sir, this enormous sum is wanted not for these purposes; it is avowedly not necessary, except to carry on the scheme of invasion and conquest against the Canadas. To this scheme I have never been a friend; but to its prosecution now, I have invincible objections, founded on considerations of justice, humanity, and national policy. These objections I wish to explain and enforce, and thus avail myself of an opportunity of discussing some of the most interesting topics which grow out of the alarming state of the nation. I fear that all I can do will avail nothing. But, sir, representing a respectable portion of the American people, who are suffering with peculiar severity from the pressure of this unfortunate and mismanaged war; who, with me, believe no good is to grow out of it, and who apprehend, from its continuance, evils, compared with which, all they have yet suffered are but trifles light as air, I should be unfaithful to them and myself, if I did not interpose my best efforts to arrest the downhill career of ruin.

In performing this duty, I shall certainly say the things I do think. Endeavoring to use such language only as is consistent with self-respect and decency towards those who differ from me in opinion, I mean freely to exercise the right which belongs to my situation. Right! did I say, sir? The expression is inaccurate. Once, indeed, there did exist in this house the right of free discussion. It was once deemed a constitutional privilege for every member to bring forward any proposition he deemed beneficial to the country, and support it by whatever arguments he could adduce; to offer amendments to the propositions of others, so as to render them, in his judgment, more unexceptionable; and to state the reasons of his dissent from any measure on which he was called to vote, and endeavor to impress his opinion on others. No doubt, a vast portion of the good people of this republic yet believe that such is the course of proceedings here. Little do they dream of the complicated machinery, by means of which every privilege, except that of thinking, is made to depend on the pleasure of the country, the whim of the majority. By certain interpolations into our practice, but which no where show their hideous front in our written code, the system of suppressing the liberty of speech is brought to a degree of perfection that almost

astonishes its authors. A gentleman wishes to bring forward an original proposition-he must first state it, and obtain permission from a majority of the house, to let it be considered, before he can show the propriety of adopting it, or ask even for a decision upon it. Thus is annihilated the right of originating a proposition. But a proposition is originated by others, it is passed through the ordeal of consideration, and he is desirous of amending its defects, or of exposing its impropriety. This is, perhaps, deemed inconvenient by the majority. It may give them trouble, or bring forward a discussion which they do not wish the people to hear, or detain them too long from their dinners-a new species of legerdemain is resorted to. The "previous question," utterly perverted from its original and legitimate use, is demanded; the demand is supported by a majority. In an instant all the proposed amendments disappear; every tongue is so fettered, that it can utter but ay or no, and the proposition becomes a law without deliberation, without correction, and without debate. And this process is called legislation! And the hall, in which these goodly doings are transacted, is sometimes termed the temple of liberty! Sir, this procedure must be corrected, or freedom is rejected from her citadel, and wounded in her very vitals.

Inconveniences also result to the majority, from this tyrannical exercise of power, sufficient, perhaps, to counterbalance all the benefits which can be derived from it. Gentlemen often complain, that the minority do not pursue the practice which is adopted by minorities elsewhere. In England, say they, the opposition address the house and the nation only on great fundamental questions, involving disputed principles, and do not hang on the skirts of every bill, fighting the ministry through all the details of their measures. Why is not the same course pursued here? The answer is obvious. Here the minority are not allowed to bring forward these great fundamental questions; they have no opportunity of showing their views, except such as may be casually afforded by some measure of the majority, on which they are good natured enough to allow debate. Unless they avail themselves of such a bill in every stage of it, as a peg on which to hang their observations, they must be utterly mute. Thus it happens, too, that there is frequently not any discernible connection between the topics discussed, and the subject supposed to be under debate.

Perhaps the very course I am pursuing is an apt illustration of these facts. Some weeks since I submitted to the house a resolution, which I thought eminently deserving of attention-a resolution, "that pending our negotiation with Great Britain, it is inexpedient to prosecute a war of invasion and conquest of the Canadas." This resolution could not be discussed, for the house would not vouchsafe to it a consideration. But as, on the propo