of February, 1805, he appeared at the bar of the Senate and opened the case, in a speech occupying one hour and a half. The result of this novel and exciting trial is well known. During the same session, Mr. Randolph delivered his celebrated speech on the Yazoo Question, a full account of which will be found in Mr. Garland's interesting volume.

Pending the difficulties between the United States and Great Britain, in 1805-6, many plans of action were proposed both in the Senate and House of Representatives. Mr. Gregg's resolution, the prominent one in the House, suggested a prohibition of all intercourse between the two nations, until England would consent to arrange the matters in dispute on fair terms. This professed to be a peace measure; but many of its friends discussed it as a war measure; Mr. Randolph so regarded it, and on the fifth day of March, 1806, he delivered an able and eloquent speech against it. By many, this effort was regarded as his most forcible and patriotic. It caused general remark in England, where it was republished, soon after its delivery, with a comprehensive introduction by the author of the celebrated pamphlet, War in Disguise. Mr. Randolph combated, with energy and resolution, every measure that tended to weaken the bonds of peace between the United States and Great Britain. His speech on an increase in the army, delivered in the lower House of Congress, on the tenth of December, 1811, contributed to that end.

Early in April, 1812, President Madison sent in a secret message recommending an immediate embargo. The Committee of Foreign Relations, anticipating the message, had already prepared a bill, which was read twice, reported to the Committee of the Whole, referred back to the House, and immediately put on its passage. The question was asked by one of the members whether the bill was to be considered as a peace measure, or a precursor to war. He was answered that it was understood as a war measure; "and it is meant," said the member, "that it shall lead directly to it." Approbation of the message and the proposition before the House was then expressed by different members, when Mr. Randolph rose and made the following remarks:*. "I am so impressed with the importance of the subject, and the solemnity of the occasion, that I cannot be silent. Sir, we are now in conclave; the eyes of the surrounding world are not upon us: we are shut up here from the light of heaven, but the eyes of God are upon us. He knows the spirit of our minds. Shall we deliberate upon this subject with the spirit of sobriety and candor, or with that spirit which has too often characterized our discussions upon occasions like the present? We ought to realize that we are in the presence of that God who knows our thoughts and motives, and to whom we must hereafter render an account for the deeds done in the body. I hope, sir, the spirit of party, and every improper passion, will be exorcised, that our hearts may be as pure and clean as fall to the lot of human nature.

"I am confident in the declaration, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a measure of the Executive; but that it is engendered by an extensive excitement upon the Executive—* * * *

"I will appeal to the sobriety and reflection of the House, and ask, what new cause of war for the last twelve months? What new cause of embargo within that period? The affair of the Chesapeake is settled.—No new principles of blockade interpolated into the laws of nations. I suppose every man of candor and sober reflection will ask why we did not go to war twelve months ago? Or will it be said we ought to make up, by our promptness now, for our slowness then? Or will it be said, that if the wheat for which we have received two dollars a bushel had been rotting in our barns, we should have been happier and richer? What would the planter say if you were to ask him which he would prefer,-the honorable, chivalrous course advocated by the Speaker, with the consequences which must attend it, the sheriff at his back, and the excise collector pressing him? He would laugh in your face. It is not generally wise to dive into futurity; but it is wise to profit by experience, although it may be unpleasant. I feel much concerned to have the bill on the table for one hour." That privilege was not allowed, however; the bill was hurried through, and in a short time became a law. At the close of his term Mr. Randolph retired to his estate on the Roanoke River.

In 1816, he again took his seat in Congress, where he distinguished himself by a strong oppo

* Life of John Randolph of Roanoke, by Hugh A. Garland. Vol. I. page 298.

sition to the Bank of the United States. He opposed it as unconstitutional, inexpedient, and dangerous. "I declare to you, sir," said he, "that I am the holder of no stock whatever, except live stock, and had determined never to own any-but, if this bill passes, I will not only be a stockholder to the utmost of my power, but will advise every man over whom I have any influence, to do the same, because it is the creation of a great privileged order of the most hateful kind to my feelings, and because I would rather be the master than the slave. If I must have a master, let him be one with epaulettes-something that I can fear and respect, something that I can look up to-but not a master with a quill behind his ear." Mr. Randolph was equally strong and vehement in his opposition to the "revenue bill," of this session.

During the summer of 1816, after his return to Roanoke, Mr. Randolph's health, which for some time had been declining, became more feeble, and the following winter he suffered extremely. An anecdote of this period of his life, is related by Mr. Roane, who was a member of Congress from Virginia during the session of 1816-17. "I remember," says he, "that one morning Mr. Lewis came into the House of Representatives and addressed Mr. Tyler and myself, who were the youngest members from Virginia, and said we must go to Georgetown to Mr. Randolph. We asked for what; he said that Mr. Randolph had told him that he was determined not to be buried as beau Dawson had been, at the public expense, and he had selected us young bloods to come to him and take charge of his funeral. We went over immediately. When we entered Mr. Randolph's apartments he was in his morning gown. He rose and shook us by the hand. On our inquiries after his health, he said, 'Dying! dying! dying! in a dreadful state.' He inquired what was going on in Congress. We told him that the galleries were filling with people of the District, and that there was considerable excitement on the re-chartering of the batch of banks in the District. He then broke off, and commenced upon another subject, and pronounced a glowing eulogium upon the character and talents of Patrick Henry. After sitting for some time, and nothing being said on the business on which we had been sent to him, we rose and took our leave. When we got to the door, I said, 'I wish, Mr. Randolph, you could be in the House to-day.' He shook his head-Dying, sir, dying!' When we had got back to the House of Representatives, Mr. Lewis came in and asked how we had found Mr. Randolph. We laughed, and said as well as usual-that we had spent a very pleasant morning with him, and had been much amused by his conversation. Scarcely a moment after, Mr. Lewis exclaimed, 'There he is!' and there to be sure he was. He had entered by another door, having arrived at the Capitol almost as soon as we did. In a few moments he rose and commenced a speech, the first sentence of which I can repeat verbatim.-' Mr. Speaker,' said he, 'this is Shrove Tuesday. Many a gallant cock has died in the pit on this day, and I have come to die in the pit also.' He then went on with his speech, and after a short time turned and addressed the crowd of hungry expectants,' as he called them-tellers, clerks, and porters in the gallery." Mr. Randolph continued his legislative duties until the spring of 1821, when he obtained leave of absence, and sailed for England in search of health. On his arrival, he met a flattering and distinguished reception. "The plainness of his appearance," says a London paper, "his republican simplicity of manners, and easy and unaffected address, attracted much attention." After travelling extensively in England and Scotland, he returned to the United States in November, 1822, and the following December took his seat in Congress. Here he remained until the close of the session, but never took part in the debates.

At the opening of the eighteenth Congress, Mr. Randolph appeared at his place, and entered zealously into the various discussions of the day. He opposed Mr. Webster, Mr. Clay, and others in the debate on the Greek Question; delivered an elaborate speech against a contemplated scheme of internal improvements, which originated with Mr. Monroe, and was supported by Mr. Clay, and combated the Tariff in all its stages. After he had given up all hope of success in his efforts against the latter measure, he wrote thus to a friend: "I am satisfied (now) that nothing can avail to save us. Indeed, I have long been of that opinion. 'The ship will neither wear nor stay, and she may go ashore, and be,' as Jack says."

Shortly after the adjournment of Congress, Mr. Randolph again visited Europe, spending the latter part of the summer of 1824 among the mountains of Switzerland. He returned to New

York the same year, and in April of the year following was re-elected to the House of Representatives. Being detained at home by his private affairs, he did not reach the seat of Government until after Christmas, 1825. In the mean time, he was elected to fill a vacancy in the United States Senate. About this time he fought a duel with Mr. Clay. He continued in the Senate until March, 1827, participating largely in the debates of that body. The following April he was again returned to the House of Representatives.

On the accession of General Jackson to the Presidency, he announced his determination to retire from public life, and declined to be a candidate for any office. But he was obliged to sacrifice this determination. In October, 1829, he was a member of the Virginia Convention to amend the Constitution of that State; and, in May of the next year, was sent, by President Jackson, on a mission to Russia.

He returned to his native country in the fall of 1831, much reduced in health. Ah, sir," said he to a friend who met him on his landing, "I am going at last; the machine is worn out; nature is exhausted, and I have tried in vain to restore her." From this time his energies continued to waste away, and after a long period of intense suffering, he died (June 24th, 1833) at Philadelphia, whither he had gone to take passage to England.*

SPEECH ON MR. GREGG'S RESOLUTION.

This speech, on a motion for the non-importation of British merchandise, offered by Mr. Gregg in the House of Representatives, in 1806, during the dispute between Great Britain and the United States, was made by Mr. Randolph, on the fifth day of March of that year.t

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

*An interesting and valuable account of the life and ser

vices of Mr. Randolph, has been written by Mr. Hugh A. Garland, to which those who desire a more particular history

of that celebrated man, are referred.

+ Mr. Gregg offered his resolution on the 29th of January, 1806. It was as follows:-"Whereas Great Britain impresses citizens of the United States, and compels them to serve on board her ships of war, and also seizes and condemns vessels belonging to the citizens of the United States, and their cargoes, being the bona fide property of American citizens, not contraband of war, and not proceeding to places besieged or blockaded, under the pretext of their being engaged in time of war in a trade with her enemies, which was not allowed in time of peace:

"And whereas the government of the United States has repeatedly remonstrated to the British government against these injuries, and demanded satisfaction therefor, but with

out effect: Therefore-Resolved, That until equitable and

satisfactory arrangements on these points shall be made between the two governments, it is expedient that, from and after the day of next, no goods, wares or merchandise, of the growth, product or manufacture of Great Britain, or any of the colonies or dependencies thereof, ought to be imported into the United States; provided, however, that whenever arrangements deemed satisfactory by the President of the United States shall take place, it shall be lawful for him by proclamation to fix a day on which the prohibition aforesaid shall cease."-History of Congress.

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 upon entering on this subject, we go into it manacled, handcuffed, and tonguetied. 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 on 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.

But

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. have reached this point, let us have war. If war is necessary; if we 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. 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

I confess, however, I have no desire to see the senators and the 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 those 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.

itself in 1806. Let me ask, too, if the situation | make a conquest of Canada and Nova Scotia. of England is not since materially changed? Indeed? Then, sir, we shall catch a Tartar. Gentlemen, who, it would appear from their language, have not got beyond the horn-book 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 over-match 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 strait 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 these shall be settled affirmatively, the manner in which we can, with the greatest effect, re-act upon and annoy our adversary.

Now the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Crowninshield), has settled at a single sweep, to use one of his favorite expressions, 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 countinghouse 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 that 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, to profit by privateering, but you will be able to

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, 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 honestest, ministers that England ever produced. I mean Sir Robert Walpole, who said that the country gentlemen, poor, meek souls! came up every year to be sheared; that they laid mute and patient whilst their fleeces were taking off; but that if he touched a single bristle of the commercial interest, the whole stye 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 vindicate 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 United States, not your new-fangled country over the Mississippi, but the good old United States-part of Georgia, of the old thirteen states, where citizens have been taken, not from our ships, but from our actual territory. When gentlemen have taken the padlock from our mouths, I

shall be ready to tell them what I will do rela- | Good Hope (or now doubling it) to capture tive to our dispute with Britain, on the law of nations, on contraband, and such stuff.