alliance? No-animated with the spirit, warmed with the soul of freedom, we threw our oaths of allegiance in the face of our sovereign, and committed our fortunes and our fate to the God of battles. We then were subjects. We had not then attained to the dignity of an independent republic. We then had no rank among the nations of the earth. But we had the spirit which deserved that elevated station. And now that we have gained it, shall we fall from our honor?

Sir, I repeat to you that I wish for peace; real, lasting, honorable peace. To obtain and secure this blessing, let us, by a bold and decisive conduct, convince the powers of Europe that we are determined to defend our rights; that we will not submit to insult; that we will not bear degradation. This is the conduct which becomes a generous people. This conduct will command the respect of the world. Nay, sir, it may rouse all Europe to a proper sense of their situation. They see, that the balance of power, on which their liberties depend, is, if not destroyed, in extreme danger. They know that the dominion of France has been extended by the sword over millions who groan in the servitude of their new masters. These unwilling subjects are ripe for revolt. The empire of the Gauls is not, like that of Rome, secured by political institutions. It may yet be broken. But whatever may be the conduct of others, let us act as becomes ourselves. I cannot believe, with my honorable colleague, that three fourths of America are opposed to vigorous measures. cannot believe that they will meanly refuse to pay the sums needful to vindicate their honor and support their independence. Sir, this is a libel on the people of America. They will disdain submission to the proudest sovereign on earth. They have not lost the spirit of '76. But, sir, if they are so base as to barter their rights for gold-if they are so vile that they will not defend their honor-they are unworthy of the rank they enjoy, and it is no matter how soon they are parcelled out among bet

ter masters.

I

My honorable friend from Pennsylvania, in opening this debate, pledged himself and his friends to support the executive government if they would adopt a manly conduct. I have no hesitation to renew that pledge. Act as becomes America, and all America will be united in your support. What is our conduct? Do we endeavor to fetter and trammel the executive authority? Do we oppose obstacles? Do we raise difficulties? No. We are willing to commit into the hands of the chief magistrate the treasure, the power and the energies of the country. We ask for ourselves nothing. We expect nothing. All we ask is for our country. And although we do not believe in the success of

treaty, yet the resolutions we move, and the language we hold, are calculated to promote it. I have now performed, to the best of my power, the great duty which I owed to my country. I have given that advice which in my soul I believe to be the best. But I have little hope that it will be adopted. I fear that, by feeble councils, we shall be exposed to a long and bloody war. This fear is, perhaps, ill founded; and, if so, I shall thank God that I was mistaken. I know that, in the order of his providence, the wisest ends frequently result from the most foolish measures. It is our duty to submit ourselves to his high dispensations. I know that war, with all its misery, is not wholly without advantage. It calls forth the energies of character; it favors the manly virtues; it gives elevation to sentiment; it produces national union, generates patriotic love, and infuses a just sense of national honor. If, then, we are doomed to war, let us meet it as we ought; and when the hour of trial comes, let it find us a band of brothers.

Sir, I have done, and I pray to Almighty God that this day's debate may eventuate in the prosperity, the freedom, the peace, the power and the glory of our country.

SPEECH OF JOHN RANDOLPH,

MARCH 5, 1806,

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

ON

MR. GREGG'S RESOLUTION TO PROHIBIT THE IM-
PORTATION OF BRITISH GOODS INTO
THE UNITED STATES.

I AM extremely afraid, sir, that so far as it may depend on my acquaintance with details connected with the subject, I have very little right to address you, for in truth I have not yet seen the documents from the treasury, which were called for some time ago, to direct the judgment of this house, in the decision of the question now before you; and, indeed, after what I have this day heard, I no longer require that document or any other document -indeed I do not know that I ever should have required it-to vote on the resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. If I had entertained any doubts, they would have been removed by the style in which the friends of the resolution have this morning discussed it. I am perfectly aware, that on entering upon this subject, we go into it manacled-handcuffed and tongue-tied. Gentlemen know that our lips are sealed, on subjects of momentous foreign relations, which are indissolubly linked with the present question, and which would serve to throw a great light upon it, in every respect relevant to it. I will, however, endeavor to hobble over the subject, as well as my fettered limbs and palsied tongue will enable me to do it. I am not surprised to hear this resolution discussed by its friends as a war measure. They say (it is true) that it is not a war measure; but they defend it on principles which would justify none but war measures, and seem pleased with the idea that it may prove the forerunner of war. If war is necessary-if we have reached this point-let us have But while I have life, I will never consent to these incipient war measures, which, in their commencement, breathe nothing but peace, though they plunge us at last into war.

war.

It has been

well observed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania behind me (Mr. J. Clay), that the situation of this nation, in 1793, was in every respect different from that in which it finds itself in 1806. Let me ask, too, if the situation of England is not since materially changed. Gentlemen, who, it would appear from their language, have not got beyond the hornbook of politics, talk of our ability to cope with the British navy, and tell us of the war of our revolution. What was the situation of Great Britain then? She was then contending for the empire of the British channel, barely able to maintain a doubtful equality with her enemies, over whom she never gained the superiority until Rodney's victory of the 12th of April. What is her present situation? The combined fleets of France, Spain, and Holland are dissipated; they no longer exist. I am not surprised to hear men advocate these wild opinions, to see them goaded on by a spirit of mercantile avarice, straining their feeble strength to excite the nation to war, when they have reached this stage of infatuation that we are an overmatch for Great Britain on the ocean. It is mere waste of time to reason with such persons. They do not deserve any thing like serious refutation. The proper arguments for such statesmen are a straight waistcoat, a dark room, water gruel, and depletion.

It has always appeared to me that there are three points to be considered, and maturely considered, before we can be prepared to vote for the resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. First. Our ability to contend with Great Britain for the question in dispute. Secondly. The policy of such a contest; and Thirdly, in case both of these shall be settled affirmatively, the manner in which we can, with the greatest effect, react upon and annoy our adversary.

Now the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Crowninshield) has settled, at a single sweep-to use a favorite expression of late, -not only that we are capable of contending with Great Britain on the ocean, but that we are actually her superior. Whence does the gentleman deduce this inference? Because, truly, at that time when Great Britain was not mistress of the ocean, when a North was her prime minister, and a Sandwich the first lord of her admiralty, when she was governed by a counting-house administration, privateers of this country trespassed on her commerce. So, too, did the cruisers of Dunkirk. At that day Suffrein held the mastery of the Indian seas. But what is the case now? Do gentlemen remember the capture of Cornwallis on land, because De Grasse maintained the dominion of the ocean? To my mind no position is more clear, than if we go to war with Great Britain, Charleston and Boston, the Chesapeake and the Hudson, will be invested by British squadrons. Will you call on the count De Grasse to relieve them, or shall we apply to admiral Gravina, or

admiral Villeneuve to raise the blockade? But you have not only a prospect of gathering glory, and what seems to the gentleman from Massachusetts much dearer, profit, by privateering, but you will be able to make a conquest of Canada and Nova Scotia. Indeed? Then, sir, we shall catch a Tartar. I confess, however, I nave no desire to see the senators and representatives of the Canadian French, or of the tories and refugees of Nova Scotia, sitting on this floor, or that of the other house; to see them becoming members of the union, and participating equally in our political rights. And on what other principle would the gentleman from Massachusetts be for incorporating these provinces with us; or on what other principle could it be done, under the constitution? If the gentleman has no other bounty to offer us for going to war, than the incorporation of Canada and Nova Scotia with the United States, I am for remaining at peace.

What is the question in dispute? The carrying trade. What part of it? The fair, the honest, and the useful trade, that is engaged in carrying our own productions to foreign markets, and bringing back their productions in exchange? No, sir;—it is that carrying trade which covers enemy's property, and carries the coffee, the sugar, and other West India products, to the mother country. No, sir; if this great agricultural nation is to be governed by Salem and Boston, by New York and Philadelphia, and Baltimore and Norfolk and Charleston, let gentlemen come out and say so; and let a committee of public safety be appointed from those towns to carry on the government. I, for one, will not mortgage my property and my liberty to carry on this trade. The nation said so seven years ago-I said so then, and I say so now. It is not for the honest carrying trade of America, but for this mushroom, this fungus of war-for a trade which, as soon as the nations of Europe are at peace, will no longer exist; it is for this that the spirit of avaricious traffic would plunge us into war. I am forcibly struck on this occasion by the recollection of a remark made by one of the ablest (if not the honestest) ministers that England ever produced;-I mean sir Robert Walpole, who said that the country gentlemen (poor, weak souls!) came up every year to be sheared-that they lay mute and patient whilst their fleeces were taking off-but if he touched a single bristle of the commercial interest, the whole sty was in an uproar. It was indeed shearing the hog-"great cry and little wool."

But we are asked, Are we willing to bend the neck to England; to submit to her outrages? No, sir; I answer that it will be time enough for us to tell gentlemen what we will do to avenge the violation of our flag on the ocean, when they shall have told us what they have done, in resentment of the violation of the actual territory of the United States by Spain; the true territory of the