He said, we must now oppose the farther encroachments of Great Britain by war, or formally annul the declaration of our independence, and acknowledge ourselves her devoted colonies. The people whom I represent will not hesitate which of the two courses to choose; and if we are involved in a war to maintain our dearest rights, and to preserve our independence, I pledge myself to this House, and my constituents to this nation, that they will not be wanting in valor nor in their proportion of men and money to prosecute the war with effect. Before we relinquish the conflict I wish to see Great Britain renounce the piratical system of paper blockade; to liberate our captured seamen on board her ships of war; relinquish the practice of impressment on board our merchant vessels; to repeal her orders in council; and cease in every other respect to violate our neutral rights, to treat us as an independent people. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has objected to the destination of this auxiliary force; the occupation of the Canadas and the other British possessions upon our borders, where our laws are violated, the Indians stimulated to murder our citizens, and where there is a British monopoly of peltry and fur trade. I should not wish to extend the boundary of the U. States by a war, if Great Britain would leave us to the quiet enjoyment of independence; but considering her deadly and implacable enmity, and her continued hostility, I shall never die contented until I see her expulsion from North America and her territories incorporated with the United States. Strange that the gentleman would pause before he would refuse this force, if destined to keep the negroes in subordination, who are not in a state of insurrection as I understand, and he will absolutely refuse to vote this force to defend us against the lawless aggressions of Great Britain—a nation in whose favor he has said so much.

But he has a dislike to the Canadian French; French blood is hateful to him. I have no doubt but the Canadian French are as good citizens as the Canadian English or the refugee tories of the revolution, nor have I any doubt but a great majority of that vast community are sound in their morals and in their politics, and would make worthy members of the United States.

But open the sacred pages of the journals of the Congress of 1774 and 1775, who commenced and conducted to victory, the American revolution-pages 54 and 100 of the first volume, and we shall find letters addressed to the inhabitants of Canada and the province of Quebec-containing in many pages the language of affectionate respect, and in the warmth of patriotism inviting them to unite against British tyranny, to make the cause of quarrel common, and inviting them into the union of the States, upon the principles of equality.The encroachments of Great Britain were dictated in the most vivid colors, and then they say, "we shall consider the violation of your rights a violation of our own, and you are invited to accede to the confederacy of the States." Thus the patriots of the revolution stiled the inhabitants of the British provinces friends and fellow suffer

ers in 1774, although they were a handful of men compared to their present numbers, and only ten years had elapsed from their first incorporation with the British dominions, and nothing but the want of physical power and means prevented their independence in '76. The misfortunes of our arms at Quebec, and in that quarter, are well known. These overtures of the old Congress did not stop here; after the articles of confederation had been adopted the door was left open for the reception of the Canadas and the hope was not lost until British arms rivetted the chains of slavery upon them, which at that time could not be broken. Now, sir, these people are more enlightened, they have a great American population among them, and they have correct ideas of liberty and independence, and only want an opportunity to throw off the yoke of their task masters.

Let us not think so meanly of the human character, and the human mind. We are in pursuit of happiness, and we place a great value upon liberty as the means of happiness. What, then, let me ask, has changed the character of those people, that they are to be despis ed? What new order of things has disqualified them for the enjoyment of liberty? Has any malediction of Heaven doomed them to perpetual vassalage? Or will the gentleman from Virginia pretend to more wisdom and more patriotism, than the constellation of patriots who conducted this infant Republic through the revolution? In point of territorial limit, the map will prove its importance. The waters of the St. Lawrence and the Missisippi interlock in a number of places; and the Great Disposer of human events intended those two rivers should belong to the same people.

But it has been denied that Britifh influence had any agency in the late dreadful conflict and maffacre upon the Wabash; and this is faid to vindicate the British nation from fo foul a charge. Sir, look to the book of the revolution; fee the Indian favages in Burgoyne's army urged on every occafion to use the fcalpinge knife and tomahawk, not in battle, but against old men, women and children; in the night, when they were taught to believe an omniscient eye could not fee their guilty deeds; and thus hardened in iniquity, perpetrated the fame deeds by the light of the fun, when no arm was found to oppofe or protect; and when this crying fin was oppofed by Lord Chatham in the Houfe of Lords, the employment of thefe Indians was juftified by a speech from one of the miniftry. Thus we fee how the principles of honor, of humanity, of christianity were violated, and juftified in the face of the world. Therefore I can have no doubt of the influence of British agents in keeping up Indian hoftility to the people of the United States, independent of the ftrong proofs on this occasion; and I hope it will not be pretended that these agents are too moral or too religious to do the infamous deed.-So much for the expulfion of Great Britain from her dominions in North America and their incorporation in the United States of America.

The gentleman from Virginia fays we are identified with the British in religion, in blood, in language, and deeply laments our hatred to that country who can boaft of fo many illuftrious characters. This deep rooted enmity to Great Britain arifes from her infidious policy, the offspring of her perfidious conduct towards the U. States-her difpofition is unfriendly, her enmity is implacable, the fickens at our profperity and happiness. If obligations of friendfhip do exift, why does Great Britain rend thofe ties afunder, and open the bleeding wounds of former conflicts? Or does the obligation of friendship exift on the part of the U. States alone? I have never thought that the ties of religion, of blood, of language and of commerce would juftify or fanelify insult and injury-on the contrary, that a premeditated wrong from the hand of a friend created more fenfibility, and deferved the greater chaftisement and the higher execration. What would you think of a man, to whom you were bound by the most facred ties, who would plunder you of your fubftance, aim a deadly blow at your honor, and in the hour of confidence endeavor to bury a dagger in your bofom? Would you, fir, proclaim to the world your affection for this mifcreant of fociety, after this conduct, and endeavor to intereft your audience with the ties of kindred that bound you to each other? So let it be with nations, and there will be neither furprife nor lamentation, that we execrate a government fo hoftile to our independence for it is from the government that we meet with fuch multiplied injury, and to that object is our hatred directed; as to individuals of merit, whether British or French, I prefume no perfon would accufe the people of the United States of fuch hatred to them, or of defpifing individuals, who might not be inftrumental in the maritime defpotifm which we feel-And this accounts for the veneration we have for Sidney and Ruffel, ftatefmen of whom the gentlemen has fpoken; they are fatal examples why we fhould love the British government. The records of that government are now ftained with the blood of thefe martyrs in freedom's caufe, as vilely as with the blood of American citizens, and certainly we fhall not be called upon to love equally the murderer and the victim. For God's fake let us not again be told of the ties of religion, of laws, of blood and of cuftoms which bind the two nations together, with a view to extort our love for the Englifh government and more efpecially, when the fame gentleman has acknowledged that we have ample caufe of war againft that nation-let us not be told of the freedom of that corrupt government whofe hands are wafhed alike in the blood of her own illuftrious ftatefmen, for a manly oppofition to tyranny, and the citizens of every other clime. But I would enquire into this love for the British government and British inflitutions, in the grofs without any difcrimination. Why love her rules? Why kifs the rod of iron which inflicts the ftripes without a caufe? When all admit we have juft cause of war, such attachments are danger

ous, and encourage encroachment. I will venture to say, that our hatred of the British government is not commenfurate with her depredations and her outrages on our rights, or we fhould have waged a deadly war againft her many years paft. The fub ject of foreign attachments and British hatred has been examined at confiderable length. I did not intend to begin that difcuffion, but I will purfue it, and tho' I make no charge of Britith attachments, I will at all times at every hazard defend the administration and the republican party against the charge of foreign partialities, French or Spanish or any other kind, when applied to the measures of our government. This foreign influence is a dangerous enemy; we thould deftroy the means of its circulation among us-like the fatal tunic, it deftroys where it touches. It is infidious, invifible, and takes advantage of the moft unfuf pecting hours of focial intercourfe. I would not deny the good will of France nor of Great Britian to have an undue influence among us. But Great Britain alone has the means of this influ ence to an extent dangerous to the United States. It has been faid that Great Britain was fighting the battles of the world-that the ftands againft univerfal dominion threatened by the arch find of mankind. I fhould be forry if our independence depended upon the power of Great Britain. If, however, the would act the part of a friendly power towards the United States, I thould never with to deprive her of power, of wealth, of honor, of profperity. But if her energies are to be directed against the liberties of this free and happy people, against my native country, I fhould not drop a tear if the fat anchored ifle would fink into the waves, provided the innocent inhabitants could efcape the deluge. and find an afylum in a more favored foil. And as to the power of France, I fear it as little as any other power. I would oppofe her aggreffions under any circumftances as soon as I would Britifh outrages.

The ties of religion, of language, of blood, as it regards Great Britain, are dangerous ties to this country, with her prefent hoftile difpofition. Inftead of pledges of friendship, they are ufed to paralyze the frength of the United States in relation to her aggreffions. There are other ties equally efficacious. The number of her commercial traders within our limits, her agents, &c. the vast British capital employed in our commerce and our monied inftitutions, connected with her language, ancestry, customs, habits and laws. Thefe are formidable means for eftranging the affections of many from our republican inftitutions, and produc ing partialities for Great-Britain. Now I fhall attend to the charge of partiality in our measures towards France. It is an infinuation not founded in fact, and can only exift in the imagination of thofe who may infinuate it. We are not driven to mere declara. tions the truth of the affertion is bottomed upon the ftatute records of the United States, and we appeal to the character of every measure relative to foreign relations fince the adoption of the

embargo, in confequence of the violation of neutral rights upon the high feas. The direct object of the Berlin and Milan decrees was the ruin of all trade to British ports-and the object_of the orders in council was the deftruction of all commerce to French ports and ports from which the British flag was excluded.

The laws laying an embargo, which was the first precautionary measure on the part of the U. States, contained a provifion by which the Prefident was authorifed to fufpend its operation as to Great-Britain upon a repeal of the orders in council and as to France upon an extinguifhment of the Berlin and Milan decrees. The authority was precifely the fame to either power, the inftructions to our minifters were precifely the fame, the offer to fufpend the embargo was tendered to both belligerents upon the felf fame conditions. This offer was rejected by both nations, and their aggreffions continued. Congrefs, yielding to the clamors of the difaffected, repealed the embargo and fubftituted the non-intercourfe, which alfo contained a diplomatic provision vefting the Prefident with power to fufpend its operation as to the belligerents when they fhould ceafe to violate our neutral rights. The offer was made-it was rejected by France, and her dep redations increased-Great-Britain accepted the offer, which produced the arrangement with Mr. Erskine.

Erskine's arrangement was executed with fidelity on the part of the executive of the United States. The proclamation which announced the arrangement fufpended the non-intercourfe as to Great Britain, and it continued as to France. Under thefe circumftances Congrefs convened an extra feffion. It was a new era for oppofition. The day of jubilee was announced-no gloom, every countenance fmiled, every heart feemed glad; parties were forgotten; war with France and peace with England dawned upon us. We were all Americans; and the gentleman from Virginia introduced a refolution approbating the fidelity of the Prefident in difcharging his high duties to the nation. A real friend to that individual who prefides over our deftinies by our confent, I was happy to find his political enemies acknowledging his wifdom, his impartiality, and his integrity. I knew the Prefident had discharged his truft faithfully. Though I followed in the rear ranks, I did not interrupt this new order of things. But our retrograde movement from the embargo to the nonintercourfe and Erskine's arrangement went to London at nearly the fame time; the English miniftry perfidiously rejected that arrangement which had been executed on our part, and which was fo advantageous to Great Britain; the orders in council, fo good a fhield for plunder, were confidered of more value than our nonintercourfe. I will not dwell upon the scene this difavowal produced, nor upon the attempt to cenfure the President for the punic faith of Great Britain, by those who had approbated his conduct. The folid column was again broken, and we have never had the pleasure fince of feeing an undivided front oppofed