lips are closed in eternal silence. If it were al- But the outrages and injuries of Englandbred up in the principles of the revolution, I can never palliate, much less defend them. I well remember flying with my mother and her new-born child from Arnold and Philips-and we were driven by Tarleton and other British Pandours from pillar to post, while her husband was fighting the battles of his country. The impression is indelible on my memory: and yet, (like my worthy old neighbor, who added seven buckshot to every cartridge at the battle of Guilford, and drew a fine sight at his man,) I must be content to be called a tory by a patriot of the last importation. Let us not get rid of one evil, (supposing it possible,) at the expense of a greater: "mutatis mutandis," suppose France in possession of the British naval power -and to her the trident must pass, should England be unable to wield it--what would be your condition? What would be the situation of your seaports, and their seafaring inhabitants? Ask Hamburg, Lubec! Ask Savannah! What! sir, when their privateers are pent up in our harbors by the British bull-dogs, when they receive at our hands every rite of hospitality, from which their enemy is excluded; when they capture in our own waters, interdicted to British armed ships, American vessels; when such is their deportment towards you, under such circumstances; what could you expect if they were the uncontrolled lords of the ocean? Had those privateers at Savannah borne British commissions; or had your shipments of cotton, tobacco, ashes and what not, to London and Liverpool, been confiscated, and the proceeds poured into the English exchequer my life upon it, you would never have listened to any miserable wire-drawn distinctions between "orders and decrees affecting our neutral rights," and "municipal decrees," confiscating in mass your whole property: you would have had instant war! The whole land would have blazed out in war. And shall republicans become the instruments of him who has effaced the title of Attila to the "scourge of God!" Yet, even Attila, in the fall ing fortunes of civilization, had, no doubt, his advocates, his tools, his minions, his parasites in the very countries that he overrun; sons of that soil, whereon his horse had trod; where grass could never after grow. If perfectly fresh, instead of being as I am, my memory clouded, my intellect stupefied, my strength and spirits exhausted, I could not give utterance to that strong detestation which I feel towards (above all other works of the creation) such characters as Gengis, Tamerlane, Kouli-Khan or Bonaparte. My instincts involuntarily revolt at their bare idea. Malefactors of the human race, who have ground down man to a mere machine of their impious and bloody ambition! Yet under all the accumulated wrongs, and insults, and robberof the last of these chieftains, are we not, in point of fact, about to become a party to his views, a partner in his wars? But before this miserable force of ten thousand men is raised to take Canada, I beg gentlemen to look at the state of defence at home; to count the cost of the enterprise before it is set on foot, not when it may be too late; when the best blood of the country shall be spilt, and nought but empty coffers left to pay the cost. Are the bounty lands to be given in Canada? It might lessen my repugnance to that part of the system, to granting these lands, not to these miserable wretches who sell themselves to slavery for a few dollars, and a glass of gin, but in fact, to the clerks in our offices, some of whom, with an income of fifteen hundred or two thousand dollars, live at the rate of four or five thousand, and yet grow rich; who, perhaps at this moment, are making out blank assignments for these land rights. I beseech the House, before they run their heads against this post, Quebec, to count the cost. My word for it, Virginia planters will not be taxed to support such a war-a war which must aggravate their present distresses; in which they have not the remotest interest. Where is the Montgomery, or even the Arnold, or the Burr, who is to march to the Point Levi? I call upon those professing to be republicans, to make good the promises held out by their republican predecessors, when they came into power; promises which, for years afterwards, they honestly, faithfully fulfilled. We have vaunted of paying off the national debt; of retrenching useless establishments; and yet have now become as infatuated with standing armies, loans, taxes, navies and war, as ever were the Essex Junto. What republicanism is this? Mr. Randolph apologized for his very desultory manner of speaking. He regretted that his bodily indisposition had obliged him to talk perhaps sometimes wildly; yet he trusted some method would be found in his madness. AN EXTRACT.* The talent for government lies in these two things-sagacity to perceive, and decision to act. Genuine statesmen were never made such by mere training; แ nascuntur non fiunt:" education will form good business men. The maxim, "nascitur non fit," is as true of statesmen as it is of poets. Let a house be on fire, you will soon see in that confusion who has the talent to command. Let a ship be in danger at sea, and ordinary subordination be destroyed, and you will immediately make the same discovery. The ascendency of mind and of character rises and rises as naturally and as inevitably where there is fair play for it, as material bodies find their level by gravitation. Thus, a great logician, like a certain animal, oscillating between the hay on different sides of him, wants some power from without, before he can decide from which bundle to make trial. Who believes that Washington could write a good book or report as Jefferson, or make an able speech as Hamilton? Who is there that believes that Cromwell would have made as good a judge as Lord Hale? No, sir; these learned and accomplished men find their proper place under those who are fitted to command, and to command them among the rest. Such a man as Washington will say to Jefferson, do you become my Secretary of State; to Hamilton, do you take charge of my purse, or that of the nation, which is the same thing; and to Knox, do you be my master of horse. All history shows this; but great logicians and great scholars are, for that very reason, unfit to be rulers. Would Hannibal have crossed the Alps, when there were no roads-with elephants-in the face of the warlike and hardy mountaineers, and have carried terror to the very gates of Rome, if his youth had been spent in poring over books? Would he have been able to maintain himself on the resources of his own genius for sixteen years in Italy, in spite of faction and treachery in the Senate of Carthage, if he had been deep in conic sections and fluxions, and the differential calculus, to say nothing of botany and mineralogy, and chemistry? "Are you not ashamed," said a philosopher to one who was born to rule; are you not ashamed to play so well upon the flute?" Sir, it was well put. There is much which becomes a secondary man to know-much that it is necessary for him to know, that a first-rate man ought to be ashamed to know. No head was ever clear and sound that was stuffed with book learning. You might as well attempt to fatten and strengthen a man by stuffing him with every variety and the greatest quantity of food. After all, the chief must draw upon his subalterns, for much that he does not know and cannot perform himself. * From Mr. Randolph's speech on Retrenchment, delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, on the first day of February, 1828. WILLIAM B. GILES. WILLIAM B. GILES was born in Amelia County, Virginia, on the twelfth of August, 1762. Of his early years little is known. He acquired his classical education under the guidance of Samuel Stanhope Smith, LL. D., an eminent divine, and for several years the President of Princeton College, and studied law with the celebrated George Wythe of Williamsburg, in his native State. After practising at Petersburg a few years, and finding the profession unsuited to his inclinations, he abandoned it and entered the arena of politics, in which he soon became distinguished. In August, 1790, he was elected to the House of Representatives of the United States for an unexpired term, and continued in that body by re-election until the second day of October, 1798, when he resigned and returned to Virginia. During the discussion of the bill relating to the establishment of the United States Bank, in December, 1790, Mr. Giles first gave evidence of his extraordinary abilities as a debater. He opposed the measure, as unnecessary and unconstitutional, in an able and eloquent speech. With Madison and Gallatin, and in conformity with the opinions of a majority of his constituents who were of the democratic party, he resisted the passage of the laws necessary for carrying into effect the treaty of 1794, between Great Britain and the United States. His speech on this subject, which is considered as one of his ablest efforts, will be found in the selections in this volume. A short time subsequent to his retirement from Congress, in 1798, he was chosen to represent his native county in the House of Delegates of Virginia, and continued in that office until 1800, when he was again elected to the lower House of Congress. At this time he had become one of the most conspicuous members of the democratic party, and in all the measures originated during the sessions of 1800, 1801, 1802, he took an active part. In 1803 he declined a re-election to Congress, and was succeeded by Mr. Eppes. The Executive Council of Virginia, delegated him to the Senate of the United States, in August, 1804. Here he remained until after the close of the second war with Great Britain, in the latter portion of that period, the acknowledged leader of his party in the Senate, and throughout the whole of his career repeatedly distinguishing himself in the debates which arose on the important questions that came before that body. On the twenty-third of November, 1815, he resigned his seat in the Senate, giving his reasons for that step in the following letter to the Governor of Virginia. A period has at length arrived when our beloved country, after successfully passing through the trials of a just and honorable war, against a powerful nation, is enjoying all the blessings of peace, with the fairest prospects, under the guidance of wise counsels and the divine protection, of their long continuance. This fortunate and happy condition of the country affords me a favorable opportunity of indulging myself in a desire, I have long felt, of retiring altogether to the scenes of domestic life. This consideration however would not, of itself, furnish a sufficient motive to induce me to carry this purpose into effect, during the present senatorial term; but another circumstance has taken place, which I conceive ought to have its influence upon any determination in this respect. In consequence of an absence from home, for a portion of each year, during a period of nearly five-and-twenty years, in which I have been engaged in serving the people in the representative character, my private concerns have become materially deranged; and in my judgment, a strong obligation is therefore imposed on me, to give my personal attention to their establishment. These considerations united, have determined me to withdraw from public service at this time." Mr. Giles remained in retirement until the year 1826, when he was again brought forth as a candidate by the people of the county of Amelia, and elected to the House of Delegates. In this assembly he delivered a powerful speech in opposition to the Tariff acts, in reply to Mr. Clay's celebrated speech in Congress of the session of 1823-1824. His correspondence with Mr. Clay, together with a report of his speech on this occasion, was published in 1827. A short time after the publication of that work, he was elevated to the gubernatorial chair of his native State, and held that position until a short time before his death, which took place on the fourth of December, 1830. No extended biography of him has been published. The laborious author of the Thirty Years View, in referring to his death, speaks of him as one of the most conspicuous in the early annals of Congress. "He had that kind of talent," he continues, "which is most effective in legislative bodies, and which is so different from set-speaking. He was a debater; and was considered by Mr. Randolph to be in our House of Representatives what Charles Fox was admitted to be in the British House of Commons: the most sccomplished debater which his country had ever seen. But their acquired advantages were very different, and their schools of practice very opposite. Mr. Fox perfected himself in the House, speaking on every subject; Mr. Giles, out of the House, by talking to every body. Mr. Fox, a ripe scholar, addicted to literature, and imbued with all the learning of all the classics in all time; Mr. Giles neither read nor studied, but talked incessantly with able men, rather debating with them all the while; and drew from this source of information, and from the ready powers of his mind, the ample means of speaking on every subject with the fulness which the occasion required, the quickness which confounds an adversary, and the effect which a lick in time always produces. He had the kind of talent which was necessary to complete the circle of all sorts of ability which sustained the administration of Mr. Jefferson." He always exhibited a fondness for controversial discussion, and mingled zealously in the conflicts of party; while he won many admirers, he doubtless made some enemies; but in private society, he was kind, affectionate and estimable. BRITISH TREATY. Mr. Giles delivered the following speech, on the British Treaty, in the House of Representatives of the United States, on the eighteenth of April, 1796.* MR. CHAIRMAN: It is much to be regretted that all the information which could throw light upon the subject of discussion, should not be before the committee. A sense of responsibility arising from the peculiarly delicate nature of the question, has induced the House to take every step with more than a common degree of caution. Before we proceeded to deliberate upon the expediency or inexpediency of providing for carrying the treaty into effect, we made a request to the President for the papers which attended the negotiation. This request has *See introduction to Mr. Gallatin's speech at page | been refused; not because the call itself contained any thing unconstitutional; not because the contents of the papers called for are of such a nature as to render the disclosure thereof at this time improper-neither of these causes being intimated in the message-but because, principles were advocated by individual gentlemen in the course of the argument inducing the call, which the President thought not warranted by the constitution. I do not propose to animadvert upon the conduct of the executive, in departing from the resolution itself, and in noticing the arguments of individual members; nor upon any other part of the proceedings of the executive relative to the call of the House and his refusal. I only mean to remark, that being perfectly convinced of the propriety of the call itself, of the utility of the information embraced by it; and not being satisfied, by the arguments of the President, of the propriety ante: See also the speeches of Mr. Ames and Mr. Madison, of witholding the papers called for, I should in the first volume of this work. myself have been willing to have suspended all further proceedings respecting the provision for the treaty, until the papers should be laid before the House. I would have firmly placed myself on that ground; and in that position hazarded my responsibility. The extreme sensibility excited on the public mind by the agitation of the treaty question, I had supposed, would have furnished an irresistible argument in favor of complying with the request of the House; provided no inconvenience would have attended the disclosure; and in my opinion, under all circumstances of the case, the House would have been completely justified in suspending all further proceedings upon the question of providing for the treaty, until they received that information which they deemed necessary to guide their deliberations. But as the House has thought proper to take a different course, and has proceeded to the consideration of the question, with such lights as they possess, I will explain the motives which will probably finally influence my vote. I shall discuss the subject in two points of view. I will first examine the contents of the treaty itself, and then the probable consequences of refusing, or of giving it efficacy. In examining the contents of the instrument itself, I propose to go through it, article by article, unless the task prescribed to myself should exceed the bounds usually allowed to members for the delivery of their sentiments. I shall do this because I wish to treat the subject with the utmost candor, and to avoid any possible imputation of intending to exhibit the bad, and avoid the good parts of the treaty, if any such there are. I mean, however, to state merely the purport of many of the articles, without any animadversion, and to dwell only upon such as appear to me to be the most material. The first object of the negotiation respects the inexecution of the treaty of peace. The preamble professes to waive the respective complaints and pretensions of the parties, as to the inexecution of the former treaty, and of course establishes a princip.e, as the basis of the present treaty, that either both parties were equally culpable or equally blameless, in respect to the inexecution of the treaty of peace. I do not mean to remark upon the propriety or impropriety of this admission on the part of the United States. I will observe, however, and I think with great force, that the stipulations in the present treaty do not correspond with the principle professed as its basis. On the part of Great Britain, two articles have been unexecuted the restoration of certain property in possession of the British at the close of the war, and the surrender of the Western posts. On the part of the United States, one article is said to remain unfulfilled; it respects the promise, that no legal impediments should be thrown in the way of the recovery of debts due to British subjects. The claim of compensation for the property carried away in contravention of the treaty of peace, is wholly abandoned, and the value of the surrender of the posts very much lessened, by the annexation of conditions which made no part of the stipulations of surrender in the treaty of peace. The United States are more than bound to fulfil the article heretofore unfulfilled by them; for, instead of continuing the courts open for the recovery of debts in the usual way, as was the promise in the treaty of peace, they are made to assume the payment of all debts interests and damages in cases of insolvencies, and a mode of adjustment is proposed for ascertaining the amount, which furnishes the greatest latitude for frauds against the United States which could be devised. This will appear in the further examination of the subject. Hence it is obvious, that the stipulations of the treaty abandon the very principle of adjustment assumed by a gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Swift, in replying to a remark to this effect, made by a gentleman from Virginia: he observed, that he believed if an inquiry were to be made into the first breach of the treaty of peace, it would not issue favorably to the United States; and he proceeded to argue upon the presumption, that the first breach was properly imputable to the United States. I think it requires very strong assurances to justify an imputation of this sort against the United States, such as I believe the present occasion does not afford. In the first place, the treaty itself disavows the imputation; all claims and pretensions arising from the first breach are disclaimed; of course it is unnecessary, if not improper, to defend the treaty on a ground disclaimed by itself. But upon what ground does the gentleman place his admission of the first breach of the treaty of peace upon the United States? The gentleman denies the uniform construction put upon the article for the restoration of certain property which was carried away from the United States at the close of the war, and asserts that the article never was intended to bear that construction. If the gentleman can establish his assertion, and extend it to the other article, unfulfilled by Great Britain, he may probably establish his position. I will first premise, that if the article does not intend the restoration of property mentioned in it, the insertion of it in the treaty is not only unnecessary, but mischievous: as it will necessarily produce embarrassment to the parties to the instrument. The British army at the termination of the war, was at New York; the negroes which constitute the species of property in question, were in the Southern States, so that if the article does not include the species of property taken in the course of the war, and in the possession of the British at the close of it, it is worse than nonsense. It never could have been supposed, that upon the first dawn of peace, the British would have left New York and invaded the Southern country, for the purpose of plundering the inhabitants of their negroes. The peace |