regret that I cannot present my thoughts fully on this important subject. It will more than indemnify the country for all of its losses. I believe no country, however valuable its staples, can reach a state of great and permanent wealth, without the aid of manufactures. Reason and experience, Our internal strength and greatly increased.

I conceive, support this position. means of defence are, by them, War, when forced on us hereafter, will find us with ample means; and will not be productive of that distressing vicissitude which follows it, where the industry of the country is founded on commerce, and agriculture dependent on foreign markets. Even our commerce, in the end, will partake of the benefits. Rich means of exchange with all the world will be furnished to it; and the country will be in a much better condition to extend to it efficient protection. I have merely suggested the topics for argument on this important branch of our political economy; and conclude by expressing the hope, that, on some future occasion, they will receive a suitable discussion.

SPEECH

On the repeal of the Embargo and Non-Importation Act, delivered in the House of Representatives, April 6th, 1814.

[NOTE.-April 4th, 1814. The unfinished business being postponed with that view, Mr. Calhoun, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a Bill, "To repeal an Act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, and so much of any act or acts, as prohibits the importation of goods, wares and merchandise, of the growth, produce and manufacture of Great Britain and Ireland, &c.," which having been twice read,

was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Wright of Maryland objected to this reference, because, the Bill coupled two objects, which ought to be kept separate; and moved a recommittal to the same committee, with instructions to report two separate bills. This motion was overruled by the Speaker, and the question, on referring the Bill to the Committee of the Whole, was carried by a large majority. On Wednesday, April 6th, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on this Bill, when Mr. Calhoun made the following speech in support of it. There were numerous amendments offered which were negatived, and the Bill was ordered to a third reading and passed the next day, by a vote of 115 to 37.]

IN order, Mr. Chairman, to judge of the propriety of the measure embraced by the bill, it will be necessary to go back to the nature and character of the war in which this country is engaged. It is, as has been emphatically and correctly stated, a war for Free Trade and Sailors' Rights; and such must be the character of every war in which we may engage. We are so far removed from European contests, that we shall never enter into the struggles for continental power in that quarter of the world. Not that we should be indifferent spectators of the events in Europe-because the changes there may have a considerable bearing on the affairs and interests of this country; but the interest we feel in them is not of such a character, as to make us a primary party in any of their contests. But one circumstance always accompanying European struggles, will, more or less, involve the rights of this country. Of such a character is the British commercial or maritime policy, which, in its effects, tends to destroy the free trade of this country, and also to infringe the rights of our seamen. In this point of view, it is a matter of great importance that we should duly reflect on the character of the present contest, to decide what part this country ought to act, and what principles should now govern our conduct.

The policy of Britain, which is to contract and limit neu

tral rights, and which if not resisted must annihilate them, will always have a strong bearing on the United States. But that policy will not stop here; it will affect the interests of every country in Europe, and place them, more or less, on the side of this country in resistance to it. It then becomes a matter of policy to unite those countries, interested in the cause of free trade, in the struggle which we are obliged to make against the usurpations of the enemy. In this point of view, the most liberal and generous policy ought to be pursued by us as to the other countries of Europe, and particularly to the great Northern powers of Sweden and Russia. But it may be said, our past measures contradict this leading principle of policy. I think not. The restrictive system sprang from an unusual state of things: it was a pacific policy arising from the extraordinary state of the world, at the time we embarked in it; and, of course, was a temporary, rather than, a permanent policy. On looking back to its origin, gentlemen will find it to be such as I have stated. It originated at a moment when every power on the continent of Europe was arrayed against Great Britain, and not one of them was then interested in the support or defence of neutral rights. There was scarcely a port in Europe, which, at the commencement of our restrictive system, was not occluded to British commerce. In this state of things the United States, in order to avoid war (not having taken the resolution, at that time, to declare war), resorted to the restrictive system-resorted to it because the extraordinary state of the European world presented a prospect, that the strong pressure of this system on Great Britain might save the country from the contest into which we have since been reluctantly drawn. Such was the character of the Embargo measure, originating from the posture of the world at that day, when it was resorted to without the prospect of its producing an impression on neutral powers-for there were then no neutrals. Gentlemen may say, that in this view of the restrictive system, it ought to have terminated

at the commencement of the war. To be candid, that was my opinion; and when a motion was made by a gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Richardson) to that effect, I advocated it on the ground, that the restrictive policy was opposed to the war. That motion was not successful; but it was rejected by a majority of one vote only,-so many members of the republican party agreeing with me in that opinion, as almost to have carried the question at that time. But why was the system not then terminated? The reasons will be obvious to all who revert to the circumstances of the period. The state of the world which originally induced us to adopt the system-which gave great energy to it, remained unchanged. All Europe was still occluded to British commerce; the war between Russia and France had not then broken outRussia had not then opened her ports to British commerce.

This, then, is the governing motive which prevented the repeal of that system. Had the state of the world been then what it now is; had all the European world, France excepted, been open to British commerce; had there existed. neutral nations on the continent of Europe, of power and influence;-had this state of things then existed, there is the strongest reason to believe, from the small majority against the resolution of the gentleman from Massachusetts, to which I have alluded, that the restrictive system would have been terminated by the war. As to my own views of the system, I thought it ought to have terminated in war earlier than it did. In this respect I disagreed with gentlemen on the other side of the House, with whom I then voted. They wished for neither war nor restriction.

But let us now attend to the present state of the world. What is the condition of England? As between us and Great Britain, there are many nations of great power now in a neutral condition: Russia, Sweden, all Germany, Denmark, Prussia, Spain (for even she may be considered neutral), and perhaps Holland. Under the entire change of

the circumstances of Europe, ought not the restrictive system to terminate? Indubitably-indubitably ;-because all the reasons which justified and recommended its continuance have now ceased. It was originally resorted to as a pacific measure. War having been declared, as a war measure it was continued -as a measure of force, because all Europe was shut against our enemy. All Europe being now open to her, that reason has ceased. Suppose we persist in the measure. Does any one believe that England will feel its effects as she did when the continent was shut? Certainly not. But in addition to this consideration, the fact is, that we are now contending for free trade, and ought to propitiate, as much as possible, every nation which has the same interest as ourselves in its maintenance in one word, it is our interest to attach the friendship of Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and of all nations who have a deep interest in free trade, to our cause. I have a strong impression, that if we open our ports to them, and the maritime usurpations of Britain continue, they will, in time, make common cause with the United States; that, in time, their weight will be thrown into the scale with us to counteract her policy. It will not be decorous or wise for the United States, standing up for the freedom of trade, to pursue a course of policy calculated to irritate those nations with whom they may have common cause. What said the Emperor of Russia in relation to our war with Britain, when apprised of it? He expressed his solicitude for the trade with America, and regretted that our difference with Great Britain would interrupt it. This sentiment he expressed at the moment when France and her allies were marching against him, and he did not know how soon they would plant their standard in his capital. That sentiment must have still greater influence with him now, when his enemy is repelled. The same feeling which governed the Emperor of Russia in this respect, must, in a greater or less degree, govern every nation on the continent of Europe,