they underrate us-which I hope and believe-and that we can affect the balance of power, it will not be difficult for us to obtain such terms as our rights demand.

I, Sir, will now conclude by adverting to an argument of the gentleman from Virginia, used in debate on a preceding day. He asked, why not declare war immediately? The answer is obvious: because we are not yet prepared. But, says the gentleman, such language as is here held, will provoke Great Britain to commence hostilities. I have no such fears. She knows well that such a course would unite all parties here-a thing which, above all others, she most dreads. Besides, such has been our past conduct, that she will still calculate on our patience and submission, until war is actually commenced.

SPEECH

On the Petition of the Citizens of Albany to repeal the Embargo, delivered in the House of Representatives, May 6th, 1812.

[NOTE. On the 4th of April, 1812, a bill, on the recommendation of the President, was passed by Congress, laying an embargo, for sixty days, on all vessels then in port, or thereafter arriving. Soon after its passage, petitions were presented from various parts of the Union for its repeal or modification. Among these, was one from the citizens of Albany, presented by Mr. Bleecker of New-York, praying a repeal of the act. Motions were made to postpone it indefinitely, and to refer it to the Committee on Foreign Relations. On these motions, a debate of considerable interest ensued, involving the whole course of policy recommended by the Executive, and pursued by the majority during the session. The principal speakers for the postponement were, Messrs. Calhoun, Rhea of Tennessee, Johnson of Kentucky, Grundy of Tennessee, and Wright of Maryland. In opposi

tion, were Messrs. Randolph of Virginia, Bleecker of New-York, and Fisk of Vermont. On the motion to postpone indefinitely, Mr. Calhoun submitted the following remarks.]

MR. SPEAKER-It is not my intention to discuss the merits of the embargo law, or to follow the gentleman from Virginia in that maze of arguments and assertions through which he has thought proper to wander. The House must be wearied, and can receive no additional light on a subject which, through the zeal of some gentlemen in opposition, has been so frequently dragged into discussion. I cannot suppose that our opponents, in their importunity, are governed by an expectation that a change will be made in the opinions of any individual of the majority. This, they must see, is hopeless. The measure has been too recently adopted, and after too much deliberation, to leave to the most sanguine any hope of change. To reply, then, to the arguments of gentlemen on the general merits of the embargo, would be an useless consumption of time, and an unwarranted intrusion on the patience of the House. This, as I have already stated, is not my intention; but it is my object to vindicate the motion now under discussion from unmerited censure, and to prove that it cannot be justly considered as treating the petitioners with contempt. I am aware that the right to petition this body is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that it is not less our interest than our duty to receive petitions expressed in proper terms, as this is, with respect.

Two propositions have been made relative to the disposition of the petition now before us: one, to refer it to a committee; the other-that now under consideration-to postpone the further consideration to a day beyond the termination of the embargo. It is contended, not by argument, but assertion, that the former would have been more respectful to the petitioners; but the reasons have been left to conjecture. I ask, then, why would it be more respect

ful? Would it present stronger hopes of success, or admit as great latitude of discussion on its merits? Gentlemen know that it would not; they well know, when the House wishes to give the go-by to a petition, it has been usual to adopt the very motion which, in this instance, they advocate. On a motion of reference, debate on the merits is precluded; and, when referred, the committee, where there are no hopes of success, usually allow it to sleep. But, Sir, I ask what is the necessity for referring this petition to a committee? What are the objects of a reference? I conceive them to be two one to investigate some matter of fact, and the other when a subject is much tangled with detail, to digest and arrange the parts, so the House may more easily comprehend the whole. This body is too large for either of those operations, and therefore a reference is had to smaller ones. In the present case, neither of these furnishes a good reason for the reference asked for. The facts are not denied, and as to detail, there is none; it ends in a point-the repeal of the embargo law-and it has been so argued in opposition. This House is as fully competent to discuss its merits now, as it would be after the report of any committee, and the motion to postpone admits of the greatest latitude of discussion on its merits. This, the speech of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has proved. He has argued not only on the merits of the petition, but on the embargo, and almost every subject, however remotely connected. I know that the motion is tantamount to that of rejection, in the present instance. In fact, it has been vindicated by the mover on that ground. He has justly said: as we cannot grant the relief prayed for, we ought to act with promptitude and decision, so that the petitioners may know what to expect. This motion has that character; it leaves no expectation where there can be no relief. I know, Sir, we might have acted very differently we might have spun out the hopes of the petitioners. Some may think that it would be

sound policy; but, in my opinion, it would be unworthy of this House. Candor, in our government, is one of the first of political virtues. Let us always do directly, what we intend shall finally be done.

Since there can be no objection to the motion now before the House, it remains to be considered whether the relief prayed for ought to be granted. I am sensible that the maxim is generally correct, that individual profit is national gain; and that the party interested is the best judge of the hazard and propriety of a speculation. But there are exceptions; there are cases in which the government is the best judge; and such are those where the future conduct of government is the cause of the hazard. It certainly is the best judge of what it intends; and, in those cases, where it foresees a hazard, it ought, in humanity to the party interested, to restrain speculations. Such is the present case. Many of our merchants labor under a delusion as to the measures of government nor can this seem strange, since some gentlemen, even in this House, have taken up such mistaken views of things. With such conceptions of the course of events, as the gentleman from New-York (Mr. Bleecker) entertains, I am not surprised that he should advocate the prayer of the petition. He believes that the embargo will be permitted to expire without any hostile measure being taken against Great Britain; and that, in the present state of our preparations, it would be madness to think of war in sixty days, or any short period. When I hear such language on this floor, I no longer wonder that merchants are petitioning you to aid them in making speculations, which in a short time must end in their ruin. I ask the gentleman from New-York, who are the true friends to the petitioners-the majority who, foreseeing the hazard to which they would be exposed, restrain them from falling into the hands of British cruisers,or the minority, who, by suppressing the evidences of danger, induce them to enter into the most ruinous speculations ?

By the one, the merchants still retain their property, depreciated, it is true, in a small degree; by the other, it will be lost to themselves and their country, and will go to augment the resources of our enemy. For, Sir, let me assure the gentleman that he makes a very erroneous estimate of our preparations, and of the time at which we will act. Our army and measures are not merely on paper, as he states. And were this the proper time and subject, it could be shown that very considerable advances have been made to put the country into a posture of defence, and to prepare our forces for an attack on our enemy. We will not, I hope, wait the expiration of the embargo to take our stand against England— that stand which the best interests and honor of this country have so loudly demanded. With such a prospect, I again ask, would it be humanity or cruelty to the petitioners to grant their prayer, and, by relaxing the embargo in their favor, to entice them to certain destruction?

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) stated,— to induce us to repeal the embargo law, and to make it odious, I suppose, with the community,-that it operated less severely on the merchant than on the farmer and miller. He did not prove very distinctly how this unequal pressure was produced. But I understood him to say, that eastern vessels could be had with so much facility to make shipments to any European port, and that flour had risen so much already in consequence of the embargo, that the rise in price nearly compensated for the additional risk and costs of exportation. I observe the gentleman shakes his head in disapprobation of the statement. I suppose I misunderstood him. However, I could not mistake the conclusion which he drew,that the merchants, by eluding the embargo, had prevented the depreciation of the price of wheat and flour on hand. This, Sir, is sufficient for my purpose. The gentleman from Virginia must know that, from the character of trade, the profit of such trade, if it really exists, cannot be confined to

VOL. II.-2