that when the peace of 1782 took place, he never thought that he should have lived, or that the British parliament should have lived to see the day when a proposition should be made to tax America!" And when a similar suggestion was made in the house of commons, what was Mr. Canning's reply? Did he deny the object? No, sir: but begged the gentlemen in the opposition not to tell the secret to the Americans! Hush, gentlemen, was, in substance, his reply. Thus adding indignity and insult to the arrogant pretension. Upon this part of the subject, I shall make no comment! It is impossible to improve the eloquence of this parliamentary language! It must strike deep into the heart of every true American!

The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Hillhouse,) says, no tribute will be paid, because there will be no inducement to pay it. France will not receive vessels into her ports, which have submitted to such a disgrace. It is admitted that the tribute is imposed; and to avoid the payment of it, we are to look to France: to give up our national character and our national honor to the safe keeping of the French emperor. [The gentleman rose to explain. He protested against making any such inference.] This was admitted.

He only stated the facts, and I supplied the inference. The inference from the facts I deem irresistible. I despise, sir, this miserable subterfuge. Let us act like a nation of freemen. Let us be the conservators of our own honor and character. We should be the gainers by it upon the most economical calculation, in pounds, shillings and pence. Our national character is now worth more than the delusive gains held out by this miserable commerce, and would sell for more in every market: submit to this disgraceful tribute, it would not be worth a cent, and would not sell for it in any market.

The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Hillhouse,) says, that the embargo is submission to the mandates of both France and Great Britain, and therefore dis

honorable. He makes this statement. France says, you shall not trade with Great Britain; Great Britain says, you shall not trade with France; and we say, we will not trade with either, and, therefore, gratify both. The fallacy of this argument consists in the misstatement. France says, you may trade with me, and I am anxious you should do so, but you shall not trade with Great Britain; we say, we will not trade with you, nor with Great Britain. Now, sir, is this yielding to the mandate, or gratifying the wish of France? Certainly not. Great Britain uses the same language, and meets with the same reply. Now I contend, that we have neither yielded submission, nor gratified the wish of either; but have resisted the wishes and mandates of both; and I have no doubt that both are astonished at the honorable and dignified attitude we have assumed and hitherto persisted in.

But, sir, the gentleman intimates, that the government of the United States, has suspended a rod over the head of Great Britain, and asks, whether any American would negociate with a rod suspended over his head? Let me ask in turn, sir, if the gentleman's proposition, is not submission; not indeed, while the rod is suspended over our heads; but while it is applied, with the most unrelenting severity, to our backs? I was really hurt, sir, to see that any gentleman could make an observation which would bear the most distant tint of an apology for Great Britain; and I cannot conceive how any gentleman can reconcile it to himself, when he reflects upon the many outrages committed by Great Britain against the United States, before even any attempt was made to do ourselves justice-and that these outrages were increased, in proportion to our patience under them.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Lloyd,) expresses his fears of some design for the destruction of commerce. He tells us, our commerce has grown to an enormous size, and warns us, that it is not to be trifled with. The gentleman from Connecticut, too,

tells us, that the avowed, was not the real object of the embargo laws, and that he so prophesied at the time of passing them; that their real object was to encourage manufactures, at the expense of commerce. This charge of insincerity is a serious one. It is of a nature to impose a restraint upon the feelings, against making the merited reply. It has excited my surprise more than any thing I ever heard fall from that gentleman; and the only apology, I can find for it, is, that he unfortunately prophesied it. It is a painful effort of the mind to admit ourselves false prophets. By this time, it is impossible, but the gentleman must be convinced, that this was a false prophecy. He reminds me of two lines in Hudibras:

"A man convinc'd against his will,
Is of the same opinion still."

The gentleman must be convinced, but retains the same opinion. Sir, whether it be a suspicion, or a jealousy, or whatever delusion the gentleman is laboring under, I peremptorily deny the existence of the fact he has insinuated. How has it happened, that the commerce of the United States has become so enormous, but from the fostering and protecting influence of the federal government? What act of hostility against commerce, has ever been shown by the government? I challenge the gentleman to name one, or a single act from the southern members unfavorable to our commercial prosperity. On the other hand, have we not always concurred in the stimuli given to commerce by discriminating duties, both on tonnage and merchandize, by the drawback system, and many other acts not material now to mention? It has been from these causes, added to the enterprize of our people, that commerce has arrived to such a pitch of prosperity. They certainly do not warrant the charge brought against the government.

But what has excited my surprise, more than any thing else, respecting this suggestion, is, that the de

lusion upon the gentleman's mind should be so strong, as to banish his recollection of the local interests of the different states in the union. He seems to suppose, that the southern are manufacturing states. This is not the fact. The fact is, that the commercial are, also, the manufacturing states. The southern states are agricultural and commercial, not manufacturing, except in the household way; and that is not the species of manufacturing that has excited the gentleman's alarm. The peculiar organization of society in the southern states, will, for a long time, forbid large establishments of domestic manufactures. This is the kind which gives the gentleman so much alarm; and, in this kind, the southern states have no local interests whatever. They have, however, an essential interest in commerce, although, generally, the merchants carrying it on, may not reside within them. The agriculturists know, that a prosperous commerce is essential to good prices; and, therefore, they have always contributed to its protection and prosperity. In this state of facts, the gentleman may find a perfect security against his extravagant and unfounded jealousies. But the gentleman is alarmed because he has discovered, in the President's replies to sundry addresses from the manufacturers, expressions of satisfaction at their prosperity and improvement in the manufacturing system. But the President has nowhere expressed an intimation, or a wish, that this improvement or prosperity, should be encouraged and promoted at the expense of commerce. And if he were to indulge so extraordinary an inclination, he could not expect to get a vote south of Potomac, in favor of the system. Suppose the merchants had addressed the President, in the days of their prosperity, would he not have expressed his satisfaction at the circumstance? And would such expression have been just ground. or any ground of alarm and jealousy to the manufacturer? Certainly not, sir. Every patriot must rejoice at the prosperity of each, and every class of citizens. In

deed, sir, did not the gentleman himself, in the course of his observations, with a laudable animation, express his high satisfaction at the doings of his own legislature giving encouragement to colonel Humphries, in his attempts at introducing manufactures into the state of Connecticut? Proceedings highly honorable, both to the legislature and colonel Humphries; and which I have also seen with great satisfaction. But, sir, would it be correct to infer from this circumstance, that commerce is to be assailed and prostrated? Such an inference would be as idle and absurd in this case, as it is in relation to the views of the general government. Indeed, sir, I concur perfectly with the gentleman in the opinions he has expressed upon the manufacturing system, in relation to the commercial. I have taken more pains in repelling this extraordinary jealousy or suspicion, in the hope, that, in correcting the public sentiment in this respect, it would, at the same time, dissipate a great portion of the objections to the embargo laws, which seem to me, at this time, to be imperiously demanded by the extraordinary crisis of our foreign relations.

I am now approaching a part of this subject, Mr. President, which fills me with regret. I know its delicacy, sir, and deeply regret the necessity which impels the examination of it. It is, however, rendered indispensable, perhaps, by exterior events; but certainly by observations made in the course of this debate. I allude, sir, to the execution of the embargo laws; or, rather, sir, to the suggested incapacity of the government to enforce their observance. The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Hillhouse,) tells us directly, that the government has not power to enforce the execution of these laws. The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Lloyd,) even points out the mode of resistance. He tells us they may be resisted, first, by town meetings, then by petitions, then by legislative resolutions, and, finally, by insurrections and rebellion.

[Mr. Lloyd rose to explain. He said, "he did not say that this would be the course of events. He only