ing at universal empire; can Great Britain challenge our sympathies, when, instead of putting forth her arms to protect the world, she has converted the war into a means of self-aggrandizement; when, under pretence of defending them, she has destroyed the commerce and trampled on the rights of every nation; when she has attempted to annihilate every vestige of the public maritime code of which she professes to be the champion? Shall we bear the cuffs and scoffs of British arrogance, because we may entertain chimerical fears of French subjugation? Shall we swallow the potion of British poison, lest we may be presented with the imperial dose? Are we called upon to bow to the mandates of royal insolence, as a preparation to contend against Gallic usurpation? Who ever learned in the school of base submission, the lessons of noble freedom, and courage, and independence? Look at Spain. Did she secure her independence by submitting, in the first instance, to the dictates of imperial usurpations? No, sir. If she had resisted the first intrusion into her councils, her monarch would not at this time be a miserable victim in the dungeons of Marseilles. We cannot secure our independence of one power, by a dastardly submission to the will of another. But look at our own history. Our ancestors of the Revolution resisted the first encroachments of British tyranny. They foresaw that by submitting to pay an illegal tax, contemptible as that was in itself, their liberties would ultimately be subverted. Consider the progress of the present disputes with England. For what were we contending the other day? For the indirect colonial carrying trade. That has vanished. For what are we now deliberating? For the direct export and import trade; the trade in our own cotton, and tobacco, and fish. Give this up, and to-morrow we must take up arms for our right to pass from New York to New Orleans; from the upper country on James River to Richmond. Sir, when did submission to one wrong induce an adversary to cease his encroachments on the party submitting? But we are told that we ought only to go to war when our territory is invaded How much better than invasion is the blocking of our very ports and harbors; insulting our towns; plundering our merchants, and scouring our coasts? If our fields are surrounded, are they in a better condition than if invaded? When the murderer is at our doors, shall we meanly skulk to our cells? Or shall we boldly oppose him at his entrance?

I could wish the past were buried in oblivion. But we cannot

shut our eyes. The other day, the pretence for the orders in council was retaliation for the French edicts. The existence of these edicts was made the ground of Sir William Scott, for the condemnation of the Fox and others. It will be recollected that Sir William had delayed his sentence in the celebrated case, that proof of the repeal of the French decrees might be produced. They were produced. Nevertheless the condemnation took place. But the plea of retaliation has given way to other pretexts and other claims. To the astonishment of all mankind, the British envoy has demanded as a preliminary to the revocation of the orders in council, that the United States shall cause the continental ports to be opened for the admission of British manufactures! We are required to compel France to repeal her municipal code itself! Sir, these are some of the motives of the British hostility towards our commerce. She sickens at our prosperity; she is jealous of us; she dreads our rivalship on the ocean. If you doubt this, look at our trade in 1806. Our trade with England was twelve or thirteen millions in her favor. We bought fifty millions worth of her manufactures, and supplied the raw materials for those very manufactures. We furnished her with the necessaries of life, and in exchange, accepted her luxuries. How was our trade with France and Holland? Our exports to both these countries amounted to eighteen millions, our imports to twentyfive millions. Considering the superiority in trade with us, which Great Britain enjoyed over her rival, would she have relinquished that superiority, would she have given up her profitable trade, for the single purpose of humbling that of her antagonist? Would she have hazarded the evils of a war with this country for this object? No, sir, she sees in our numberless ships, whose sails spread upon every sea; she perceives in our hundred and twenty thousand gallant tars, the seeds of a naval force, which in thirty years, will rival her on her own element. She therefore commences the odious system of impressment, of which no language can paint my indignant execra tion; she dares to attempt the subversion of the personal freedom of our mariners. She aims at depressing our commerce, which she foresees will induce our seamen to enter her service, will impair the means of cherishing our navy, of protecting and extending our commerce, and will at the same time raise her own power.

Sir, we are told this government is not calculated to stand the shock of war; that gentlemen will lose their seats in this and the other House; that our benches will be filled by other men, who after

we have carried on the war, will make for us an ignominious peace. I cannot believe that to retain their seats is the extent of the amor patria of gentlemen in this House. Can we let our brave countrymen, a Daviess and his associates in arms, perish in manfully fighting our battles, while we meanly cling to our places? But I cannot persuade myself that the nation will be ungrateful. I am convinced that when they know that their government has been strictly impartial towards the belligerents-for surely no gentleman in this House can be so base as to ascribe partiality or other improper motives to us-when they perceive the sincere and persevering exertions of their government to preserve peace; they will continue to adhere to it, even in an unsuccessful war to defend their rights, to assert their honor, the dignity and independence of the country But my ideas of duty are such, that when my rights are invaded, I must advance to their defence, let what may be the consequence; even if death itself were to be my certain fate.

I must apologize for having trespassed so long upon the patience of the Committee. I trust that I have fully established these three positions: that the quantum of the force proposed by the bill is not too great-that its nature is such as the contemplated war calls for; and that the object of the war is justified by every consideration of justice, of interest, of honor, and love of country. Unless the object is attained by peaceful means, I hope that war will be waged before the close of the session.

ON THE INCREASE OF THE NAVY.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 22, 1812.

[A BILL providing for the general repair and increase of the Navy, the purchase of timber, ordnance, stores, &c. &c., in view of the approaching collision with Great Britain, having been reported to the House, and the section providing for new frigates, leaving a blank for the number, Mr. CHEVES of S. C. moved to fill the blank with ten. Mr. RHEA of Tenn. moved to strike this section out of the Bill. The motion to strike out was advocated by Messrs. RHEA, (mover,) SMILIE of Pa., BLACKLEDGE of N. C., and Boyd of N. J., and opposed by Messrs. CHEVES, NEWTON of Va., CLAY of Ky., and MITCHELL of N. Y., and was rejected by a vote of 52 to 47. Mr. CLAY spoke as follows:]

As I do not precisely agree in opinion with any gentleman who has spoken, I shall take the liberty of detaining the committee a few moments, while I offer to their attention some observations. I am highly gratified with the temper and ability with which the discussion has hitherto been conducted. It is honorable to the House, and, I trust, will continue to be manifested on many future occasions.

On this interesting topic a diversity of opinion has existed almost ever since the adoption of the present government. On the one hand, there appear to me to have been attempts made to precipitate the nation into all the evils of naval extravagance, which have been productive of so much mischief in other countries; and on the other, strongly feeling this mischief, there has existed an unreasonable prejudice against providing such a competent naval protection for our commercial and maritime rights as is demanded by their importance, and as the increased resources of the country amply justify.

The attention of Congress has been invited to this subject by the President, in his Message delivered at the opening of the session. Indeed, had it been wholly neglected by the Chief Magistrate, from the critical situation of the country, and the nature of the rights proposed

to be vindicated, it must have pressed itself upon our attention. But the President in his message observes: "Your attention will, of course, be drawn to such provisions on the subject of our naval force as may be required for the service to which it is best adapted. I submit to Congress the seasonableness also of an authority to augment the stock of such materials as are imperishable in their nature, or may not at once be attainable." The President, by this recommendation, clearly intimates an opinion that the naval force of this country is capable of producing effect; and the propriety of laying up imperishable materials was no doubt suggested for the purpose of making additions to the navy, as convenience and exigences might direct.

It appears a little extraordinary, that so much unreasonable jealousy should exist against the naval establishment. If we look back to the period of the formation of the constitution, it will be found that no such jealousy was then excited. In placing the physical force of the nation at the disposal of Congress, the convention manifested much greater apprehension of abuse in the power given to raise armies than in that to provide a navy. In reference to the navy, Congress is put under no restrictions; but with respect to the army-that description of force which has been so often employed to subvert the liberties of mankind-they are subjected to limitations designed to prevent the abuse of this dangerous power. But it is not my intention to detain the committee by a discussion on the comparative utility and safety of these two kinds of force. I wish, however, to be indulged in saying, that I think gentlemen have wholly failed in maintaining the position they assumed, that the fall of maritime powers is attributable to their navies. They have told us, indeed, that Carthage, Genoa, Venice, and other nations, had navies, and notwithstanding were finally destroyed. But have they shown by a train of argument, that their overthrow was, in any degree, attributable to their maritime greatness? Have they attempted even to show, that there exists in the nature of this power a necessary tendency to destroy the nation using it? Assertion is substituted for argument; inferences not authorized by historical facts are arbitrarily drawn; things wholly unconnected with each other are associated together— a very logical mode of reasoning, it must be admitted! In the same way I could demonstrate how idle and absurd our attachments are to freedom itself. I might say, for example, that Greece and Rome had forms of free government, and that they no longer exist; and, dedu