« AnteriorContinuar »
H. OF R.
Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain.
not permit me to indulge my resentment; being Ezra Darby, John Davenport, junior, John Dawson, persuaded that nations, as well as individuals, are James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William governed by interest, I am led to hope that the Ely, William Findley, James Fisk, John Fowler, Anmeasures contemplated in the resolution on your drew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamtable will have a favorable effect on our negotia-ilton, Seth Hastings, William Helms, David Hough, tions now pending with Great Britain. I shall John G. Jackson, James Kelly, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight, Duncan MacFarland, Patrick Magrugive my vote in favor of the resolution. der, Robert Marion, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely, Gurdon S. Mumford, Jeremiah Nelson, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin, Timothy Pitkin, jun., John Pugh, Josiah Quincy, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Thomas W. Thompson, Uri Tracy, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Winn, Josepn Winston, and Thomas Wynns.
Mr. GREGG said, he did not feel in the least hurt by the motion made by the gentleman from Georgia. When he had laid the resolution on the table, his wish was that it might receive a fair discussion; and he had undertaken to assign his reasons in favor of it. He should consider a discharge of the Committee of the Whole as equivalent to a rejection of the resolution. He should not consider the friends of the measure involved in disgrace if this motion should prevail. They had done their duty, and he did not think there was any disgrace in being in a minority. The world, the nation, would judge whether their decision was right or wrong. He felt perfectly satisfied that the resolution he had proposed was the most proper, and ought to be adopted. Entertaining these ideas his conscience told him to vote for it, and he was ready to discharge that sacred duty.
Mr. FINDLEY observed, that when a resolution on a similar subject was before the third Congress, which was considered as occupying too high ground, it was disposed of by being ordered to lie on the table. He thought this was the course which ought to be pursued in the present case.
Mr. BLACKLEDGE.-Although I am opposed to the resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, under the belief that it will be more injurious to us than others, yet, when I see the friends of this measure willing to unite with those who are for milder measures, I am of opinion that we ought to meet them. In this stage of a discussion, involving the first interests of the nation, shall we be disunited by an altercation as to the mode of proceeding, when we agree in the substance? For this reason, and believing it of importance that the measures which we may take may be adopted by a strong vote, I am against discharging the Committee of the Whole from this resolution.
The yeas and nays were then taken on discharging the Committee of the Whole from the further consideration of Mr. GREGG's resolution, and were-yeas 24, nays 101, as follows:
YEAS-Burwell Bassett, John Campbell, Levi Casey, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Elias Earle, Peter Early, John W. Eppes, James M. Garnett, Charles Goldsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Michael Leib, Joseph Lewis, jr., Josiah Masters, Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, Thomas Sandford, Thomas Spalding, Philip R. Thompson, Daniel C. Verplanck, and David R. Williams.
The question was then taken on discharging the Committee from Mr. SLOAN's resolution, by yeas and nays-yeas 26, nays 98, as follows:
YEAS-Burwell Bassett, John Campbell, Levi Casey, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, Elas Earle, Peter Early, John W. Eppes, James M. Garnett, Charles Golsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Michael Leib, Joseph Lewis, jr., Josiah Masters, Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, Thomas Sandford, John Smith, Thomas Spalding, Philip R. Thompson, Daniel C. Verplanck, and David R. Williams.
NAYS-Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, Barnabas Bidwell, William Blackledge, John Blake, junior, Thomas Blount, James M. Broom, Robert Brown, John Boyle, George W. Campbell, John Chandler, Martin Chittenden, John Claiborne, George Clinton, jun., Frederick Conrad, Orchard Cook, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, Ezra Darby, John Davenport, jun., John Dawson, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William Ely, William Findley, James Fisk, John Fowler, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey,
John Hamilton, Seth Hastings, David Hough, John G. Jackson, James Kelly, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight, Duncan MacFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Gurdon S. Mamford, Jeremiah Nelson, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin, Timothy Pitkin, jun., Josiah Quincy, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman, EbNAYS-Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson, David enezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, John C. Bard, Joseph Barker, George M. Bedinger, Silas Bet- Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanton, Barnabas Bidwell, Phanuel Bishop, William ford, Joseph Stanton, William Stedman, Lewis B. Blackledge, John Blake, junior, Thomas Blount, James Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, SamM. Broom, Robert Brown, John Boyle, George W. uel Tenney, David Thomas, Thomas W. Thompson, Campbell, John Chandler, Martin Chittenden, John Uri Tracy, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van RensClaiborne, Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jun., Fred- selaer, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, Matthew erick Conrad, Orchard Cook, Leonard Covington, Ja-Walton, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, Eliphalet cob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana,
Wickes, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan Williams, Al
Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain.
H. OF R.
exander Wilson, Richard Winn, Joseph Winston, and have no weight with us? Will they, under these Thomas Wynns. circumstances, go into Committee, to grope in the The House then resolved itself into a Commit-dark, to catch at something, on a subject of which tee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The Chairman put the question on considering Mr. GREGG's resolution, on which the Committee divided-yeas 47, nays 70.
they know little-in relation to the events of which, they know less? No! This is not the moment to act. The Committee have declared that that moment has not arrived. They have, in their capacity of a House, refused to discharge them from the resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and have, in the same capacity, re
Mr. J CLAY moved to consider the resolution offered by himself, and that of his friend from Maryland, (Mr. NICHOLSON.) Mr. SMILIE moved to consider the latter reso-fused to act upon it. And what does this prove, lution.
but that the moment for action has not comeunless, indeed, this venerable Assembly will condescend to become the wet nurse of the bantling of the two gentlemen from Pennsylvania, who, provided they can maintain it at a distance, hope their indiscretion will be overlooked-a faux pas, which, if it can be kept in an obscure farm-house, may be smothered over? I, however, am not disposed to offer it the pap-spoon; still less am I disposed to be disturbed by its cries, or those of its brethren.
It must be obvious to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is not the fit time to decide on our British relations. That, while there is a pending negotiation with her, all such discussion must be premature. These resolutions are the production of a political hot-bed. They are not the growth of a genial sun, but reared in a forcing-house. And I will tell gentlemen, that politics bear forcing as little as the physical productions of nature,
Mr. J. RANDOLPH said he would make a superseding motion, which was, that the Committee should rise, and he would assign his reasons for this motion. I am well aware, said Mr. R., and I consider it the happiest and fairest feature of our policy, that in a deliberate body a majority must govern. This is a position which has often been enforced on me, and which I have sometimes enforced on others; but I hope no majority will be indisposed to act honestly. Though a majority ought to govern, it should not be on motives of caprice, freak, or passion, but wisely; and it ought not, at this time of day, to feel power, and forget right. The reason why I am in favor of the Committee rising, is the same which I advanced the other day against the resolution of the gentle man from Pennsylvania-a reason which, it is astonishing to my mind, does not operate on every member of the Committee-the state of things here and abroad. Is there a member prepared to A gentleman from Massachusetts, whom I now vote for the resolution of my excellent friend see in his place, offered some days ago, to this from Pennsylvania, (Mr. J CLAY,) or of my wor- Committee, a string of observations, which, he thy friend from Maryland? (Mr. NICHOLSON.) I declared, were not intended either for a resolution believe not. I, for one, am not prepared. The not then before the Committee, or for that offered other day, when I said I was disposed to treat with by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Now, the Great Britain for the very reason that I was indis- Committee having determined not to discuss the posed to treat with her in 1793, I perceived a sneer resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennon the faces of gentlemen, and that they scouted sylvania, and as those remarks were not offered the idea. But what is the fact? The gentleman on the subject then before the Committee, they from Massachusetts quoted the Message of the may have been left to guess they were intended President, showing that this business is still pen- for the subject now under consideration; and as I dente lite. What information does the President, believe they were full as applicable to this, as any in that Message give us? That he had tried ne- other question, I hope to be indulged in making gotiation and failed? That, as in another quarter, a few remarks relative to them. But, at the same our Minister had been shoved neck and shoulders time, I disclaim the preface that gentleman preout of the Cabinet? No! That negotiation is fixed to his remarks, viz.: that he did not mean to still pending between our Minister and the Min-examine the question before the Committee. I do ister of Britain. Can then, gentlemen, while the business is re infecta, feel disposed to act, either on the resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, or that of the gentleman from Maryland?
Again, must we not every day expect information from Europe; and ought not this information to have an influence on this Assembly, if, indeed, we are a deliberative assembly? Surely it ought. On political empirics, who prescribe the same medicine to every disease, this information may have no effect. But on the minds of sober men, it ought to have, it must have, an effect. The situation of the Powers with whom we have these momentous discussions may have been materially changed by the events of the last ninety days. Will gentlemen undertake to say that motives which influenced the mind of a Bernstoff, ought to 9th CON.-25
mean to examine that question, to show why this is not the proper time for acting on this subject, to show that all discussion on it is premature, and, that we ought to abstain from acting upon it until we have heard from the other side of the Atlantic.
As well as I remember, the gentleman set out by recalling the attention of the House to the Message of the President, of the 17th of January last. Yes, sir, he began in the style of old timesinfandum renovare dolorem-to call the House back to the Message of the 17th of January. To what part of it? To that part which is public, or to that part which is locked up in the escrutoire of the clerk-or is in his breeches pocket, for aught I know-that part which it is his busi ness to keep from the eyes of the nation? Now, what is our situation? A brave Senator, with
H. OF R.
Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain.
any man) in bad weather, to go below, and leave the management of the ship to the cook and cabinboy. The nation expects to know, they believe they do know, the opinion of the Executive. But do they know it? Where have they got it? Does it appear in this string of resolutions? Have we the opinion of the President? Have we his Constitutional recommendation? No! you have nothing. Let the Clerk produce the budget! But, we shall be told that this House has a right to give a direction to the President. This is the last refinement on courtly flattery. Shall the House act on information neither official or Constitutional— on the stale pretext of giving the Executive a direction, when they believe they are acting on what gentlemen get up, and give us reason to believe are the secret wishes of the Executive? It is out of the question for any persons, who are men of standing, to condescend, under such circumstances, to do the work of the Cabinet or the such tools, such work will be, as it has been uniformly committed. I do not only say they must be, but that they have been found. But, at the threshold of everything I can offer, I am met by these Nestors of the land, by these old coachmen, who love the smack of the whip, who talk of old times, of the stamp act, of the non-intercourse, and other Revolutionary acts. But, let me tell gentlemen, this is all violence and declamation. You would not suppose that the maxims of Chesterfield had been studied by the gentleman from Pennsylvania-and yet, the fact is, that manner is everything. But, I beg you to compare the matter I have offered, with the mild, meek, and peaceable sentiments of gentlemen. Because one gentleman has delivered his sentiments in a voice that freezes before it reaches this quarter of the House, and another mumbles out, "confiscate the national debt," does that affect the principle at issue? And because another man, with some warmth, recommends a different course, are you, therefore, to stone and crucity him?
our doors open, calls the attention of the House to an amphibious and ambiguous Message, part secret and part public. And is this the situation in which gentlemen would put us? Are we thus to be knocked down with the hammer of Executive infallibility? I hope not. When that Message came, on the 17th of January, how long had we been in conclave? I believe a fortnight? When did the despatches arrive? I undertake to say, because I know it, it was prior to the 20th of December, because I made proper inquiry at the office of the Secretary of State, where I had myself received despatches from London. What are the contents of those despatches? Did they advocate the course this House has pursued, or a course totally different? And yet that very Message has been quoted, under the idea that no man could say to the contrary, and that we would sink beneath the weight of its authority. Those despatches came to this country before the 20th day of December. On that day I returned from Bal-water-closet. No! tools must be found; and to timore, and received a communication from their author of a contemporaneous date. I have called at the office of the Secretary of State, and was informed, by the head of that Department, that they had both arrived at the same time. And it was when I discovered that the head of the second Department under the Government did not know they were in existence, much less that his opinion on them had not been consulted, that I declared, what I repeat, that there is no Cabinet. You have no Cabinet. What! the head of the Treasury Department-a vigorous and commanding statesman, a practical statesman, the benefit of whose wisdom and experience the nation fondly believes is always obtained before the great measures of the Government are taken-unacquainted with, and unconsulted on, important despatches, and yet talk of a Cabinet! Not merely unconsulted, but ignorant of the documents! Well, the act passed, and on the 16th of January, was sent to the other House, and on the 17th, despatches came which might have materially changed the decision of the House. And am I, feeling this. The gentleman from Massachusetts, to whom and knowing the House had been trifled with, to I have alluded, has told us what the question bebe denounced for telling you, if you had had the tween this country and Great Britain is. He says necessary information, your decision would have it does not respect enemy's property, but the colbeen different from what it was? I know this; onial trade. He says that the tobacco and flour, for many gentlemen who voted for the measure the rice and cotton, transported by our vessels, adopted, told me their votes would have been dif- come as much within the question quo ad enemy ferent, had they had the necessary information. I property, as the colonial trade. But is there any say, the decision of the House, if we had known presumptive evidence that the rice, the cotton, the what we ought to have known, and which had tobacco, or any other articles of American growth been received four weeks before, would have been that are carried by our vessels, are enemy's propdifferent; and I have no hesitation in saying, there erty? There is none. Now take the other side is no Cabinet, when I see a man, second to none of the question. Recollect that Holland, France, for vigorous understanding, and practical good and Spain, have not a ship on the ocean; that the sense, ousted from it. I say, as I have said before, coffee, sugar, and cotton, of their colonies, which if the Executive wants our confidence, let him find their way to Europe, must go there under the give us his. But, when we are excluded from his cover of a neutral flag. What is the presumption? confidence, let him not demand ours. I will not That a large part of those productions, thus transgive mine on these terms, and I have no hesita-ported, are relatively to Britain enemy property. tion in saying so. Yes, sir, I now say, with open doors, what I said when your doors were shut, and what I believe, that it is not for the master and mate (and I speak it without disparagement to
How is a discrimination to be made between those products which are, and those which are not the property of an enemy? Is it not a fact that a few disreputable neighbors will bring a stigma on a
Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain.
whole neighborhood? Will any man deny the 3 fact? Are the French and Spanish colonies independent? And what is the fact? That under the neutral flag the whole of the immensely valuable productions of those colonies find a conveyWhat do we say? That we have a right to carry those productions from the colonies to the belligerent nations? No-we say, the bringing them to the United States and paying duties on them, neutralizes the property. But do they? Indisputedly not. The moment you concede the point that you cannot carry on a direct trade, it becomes a question no longer of principle-but a question on which you must treat on the ground of expediency. And you must treat-you will treat-relative to it. There is one consideration, which, whether it has or has not engaged the attention of gentlemen, ought not to be lost sight of, and that is, that our bulky productions can be carried by only two Powers in the world-by ourselves or Great Britain. No other nation possesses the tonnage. Go then into war with Great Britain, and where will you find the tonnage to carry your products? You cannot find it. But, on the other hand, the British fabrics may be brought in Danish bottoms. There will be neutral tonnage enough to bring to your doors the productions of Britain. But where will you find the neutral tonnage to carry your produce abroad?
We are told that this is not a war measure; that Grotius and Puffendorf, and other distinguished civilians, have decided that it is a pacific measure. But it unfortunately happens that great statesmen, on the theatre of active life, will not suffer themselves to be dictated to by the mumblers of antiquity; and gentlemen, who will not be governed by circumstances, who exclaim fiat justitia ruat cœlum, must be content with making diagrams in their closets, while these active statesmen are deciding the destiny of nations. They tell us they have Grotious and Puffendorf at their backs; but I would rather have at my back the posse comitatus of the ten miles square, weak and inefficient as I know it to be. Yes, it is too true, the gentlemen will not listen for a moment to circumstances. It is in vain that we say Great Britain is armed that she has a fleet in the West Indies-that she has a ship over every square league in the ocean. They will not consider the propensity of an armed nation to strike. They will listen only to newspapers and pamphlets, and circular letters. Putting all these things out of consideration, they are for playing the part of Bobadil. They will not reflect that circumstances always govern political men-they persist in their abstract theories. These Laputian and Lilliputian politics will not do. What are gentlemen about? While they are disputing whether the egg shall be broken at the big or little end, and whether the Committee shall be discharged from the resolution in the House, or the House shall first go into committee, and the resolution be there discharged, they are pursuing measures which will be felt in Britain, and which will forcibly re-act on ourselves. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. CROWNINSHIELD) has told us what he would, and what he would not do,
H. OF R.
if he was a citizen of the Republic of St. Marino. We would suppose from this declaration that he was an inhabitant of Blefusco, abut to carry on war with Lilliput. Such a man may be celebrated as a seamen, and may be able to make an able first Lord of the Admiralty over a fleet of privateers; but as a politician he is a Lilliputian delegate.
But we are told again, that this is a peace measure, and that we ourselves are the belligerent parties, who style it a war measure. One of the profoundest statesmen told Joseph the Second, one of your gimcrack men, that if he should attempt to force the navigation of the Scheldt, the fort would fire upon him. What said Joseph? I will not stoop to time and circumstances-he talked of natural rights, and go he would-the Dutch would never dare to fire. Compare the relative situation of the little Republic of Holland when her days of glory have passed away, when she has fallen into the hands of a conquerer-compare her present situation with that she enjoyed before the wings of her power were clipped by France. The Emperor Joseph sent out his fleets, and the only intelligence he received of their fate, was that the Dutch had fired. He deemed it impossible-he could not believe that the little Republic of Holland should fire on the Austrian Eagle. He thought as gentlemen think, and he was deceived; and you will be deceived too. For this commercial principle is not a principle of peace, but of war. tlemen may go to Carthage, if they please, stop at Genoa, and pass on to London, and they will invariably find it so; and they will find each of those nations commercial in proportion as they were warlike, and warlike in proportion as they were commercial. And why do commerce and war go hand in hand, but because commerce always disposes the nation to go to war, which is not disposed to give up a lucrative trade? The idea of the pacific tendency of commerce is a mere ignis fatuus. We find Holland ceased to be a great commercial Power, when she ceased to be able to fight the combined fleets of France and England.
But I shall be told, whithersoever it may lead us, this spirit of commercial monopoly ought never to be extinguished-I shall be told it is a base principle to crouch even in necessity; that we ought to set not only reason and common sense at defiance, but likewise necessity, which knows no law, but prescribes law to all. Well, I am free to confess, if this assertion is not beyond my comprehension, I have for the first time in my life found the reason of the planter's servant, who, on being asked what was the matter with his horse, said he was ashamed because he was dead. The poor animal had ingloriously crouched to the base principle of necessity, and had given up the ghost, when he ought to have kept the field. And this is what we are called upon to do by gentlemen who will not acknowledge the law of necessity, and who scout it as a principle which it does not become us to act upon. If these notions are to prevail, let us take Don Quixotte as our first minister of State, and Sancho Panza as the second in command. These are the natural hands to hold the reins of Government, in case all regard to the principle of
H. OF R.
Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain.
necessity is disclaimed. I hope gentlemen, who hold this doctine, never mean to die, to sleep, or to weep at the distresses of their fellow men, or in any other respect acknowledge the base principle of necessity. But I, who profess to yield a compliance not only to the laws of necessity, but of probabilities, and who consider politics as only a science of probabilities, can no longer find a medium between myself and those who disclaim all regard to the laws of necessity, and am obliged to confess that I am among the number of those who would negotiate with Great Britain.
ever charged us with this?
[Mr. RANDOLPH here made an allusion, which from the noise in the House was not heard, to a misconception by Messrs. SUMTER and MARION of a previous remark made by him relative to militia generals-and then asked-Is there a man that would disdain to sit aside of such men? The allusion I made was fully understood; but those, whom it fitted, were willing to shift it from their own shoulders on those, whom it did no fit.]
no imputation to any man or party of men-are we the advocates of Federalism? Does the Administration, and especially the Department of the Navy, or does it not, administer the Government on the principle of Federalism? Has that Department ever been administered, or can it be administered on principles more Federal? There is another department-the Post Office Department-the sweetest engine ever put into the hands of an unprincipled man. Are we for administering the Government on principles of Burrism? This is a delicate subject-I speak with a full conI am perfectly aware of the tedious time the sciousness that it is. Now for the last ism, Yazoo0Committee must have had in listening to my re-ism. Are we Yazoo men? Have our enemies marks-not more so, I assure you, to them than to myself. I am aware of the arguments offered directly out of doors, and indirectly in this House, against the course which I believe it is for the interest of this nation to pursue. One of the first causes of surprise which presented itself to me on coming to the seat of Government was, that, while the people of the United States thought all eyes were fixed on the shores of the Atlantic, all eyes were in fact fixed on the half-way house between this and Georgetown-that the question was not what we should do with France, or Spain, or England, but who should be the next President. And at this moment, every motion that is made-I do not mean, in the parliamentary sense of the word, at this place is made with a view to the occupation of that House. And it is for this reason that certain men are to be put down, and certain men are to be put up. As I have said before, I have conceived it the greatest happiness attendant on the Government of this people, that all their political relations, the different parties and their connexions and bearings and effects, could be debated in the face of the nation. Now, we are told from good authority, that there is a certain party called the Federal party, and that there are other parties in the United States, called Republican parties. Well, sir; certain gentlemen have been held up as willing to court the attention and support of the Federal party-men by whom no villain has been spared, let him belong to what party he maymen by whom no villany has been spared, to whatever party it may have attached. So much for Federalism. There is another question relative to what is generally called quiddism. I am willing to meet gentlemen on that ground. If we belong to the third party, be it so. I am willing to meet them on other ground.
I am really sorry, Mr. Speaker, for the time I have occupied. When I came into the House yesterday, it appeared to me as if the proposition before us was to appoint a board of commissioners to settle the account current of every member with the House. We heard a great deal of palaver and blarney; but of that description which can never take me in. I abjure it. I raise my hand against it-I will never become its dupe. I am willing to allow that in the heat of debate, expressions improper for me to use, but not improper in their application to those to whom they referred, may have escaped me—the verba ardentia of an honest mind. I scorn to retract them. They were made in the presence of the nation, and in their presence I will defend them. I will never snivel, whatever may be the result. I have moved that the Committee rise, with a perfect knowledge of the existing circumstances. I knew the moment we adjourned over on Saturday, that the old story would be repeated, that gentlemen would seek the Lord-agree upon some given principle, that all might go together. And I have not been disappointed. But it is for you to say, whether at this moment, when you are watching your daily and nightly mails for news from Europe, when you are oscillating between Bonaparte and the coalition you are prepared to decide ultimately on [There was here a loud call to order, in which this subject. I feel for one that I am not. As to Mr. THOMAS joined. The SPEAKER decided that the accusation of being the apologist of Britain, Mr. RANDOLPH was in order. An appeal was it is the idlest charge that ever was made. When I taken to the House, who confirmed his decision.] first took a seat in this House I was denounced Mr. RANDOLPH proceeded. I am obliged to the with being a French partisan, because I opposed gentleman for the respite he has given me, as I those men who then held the reins of Government really felt much exhausted. I knew where the in their hands in their measures for carrying us shoe pinched. I will take gentlemen on ano- into war with that nation; and now that I am for ther principle on the principle of Burrism, as it pursuing the same course towards Great Britain, is called. Will gentlemen attack us on that ground? which I was then in favor of pursuing towards Will they say we are the rotten part of the Re-France, I am charged with being the apologist of publican party-the go-between of any sects-the solicitors of any office-the tools of any faction? Now, sir, on the subject of Federalism-I mean
Britain. To this denunciation I am willing to submit, which all men must submit to who are not willing to risk the peace of their country.