sent to treat them with a few bombs and rockets; but, out of their roads they cannot keep them; and, as to driving them out of their "waters," as they term it, where have they the means of doing, or attempting, any ch thing? All their "armed vessels" put together would not be able to make head against one fifty gun ship of England. The consequence of this law, therefore, will be to prevent our ships from going into their ports; but, it will not prevent them from obtaining provisions, an abundance of which the people will carry to them, or sell to their boats along shore, in spite of a thousand such laws passed by the Congress. One of the members complains, that our officers read their proclamations and laugh at them Well they may; for, it is strange to me, if there be in this world any thing more ridiculous. The act is, however, malignant; it fully discovers the hostile mind; and it is an act of hostility, according to all the rules relating to the conduct of neutrals, which rules require a strict impartiality towards all the powers at war. This act of Congress openly avows a partiality. England is refused what is granted to France. A reward is offered for burning, sinking and destroying English vessels of war if found in the same situation which French vessels of war are to be permitted to enjoy. As far as the Congress are able to go they have made war upon us; they have joined our enemy; and, as to the provision, that this war shall cease, when "satisfaction" shall have been made agree. ably to their wish, this is the case with all wars; for, they all cease, when the parties making them have obtained what they deem satisfaction. Observe, too, that this act has been passed in mere continuation of the President's Proclaration, which was issued immediately after the searching of the Chesa peake, and, of course, before any demand of satisfaction could have reached England. This alone was quite enough to justify the king in refusing any satisfaction at all. The Americans had taken the satisfaction; to give them satisfaction under such circumstances would have been base in the extreme, even supposing it to have been, upon the original grounds, due to them. The fact is, that, with all their hypocritical caut about the blood of their citizens flowing in the Chesapeake, they were glad of the event; and eagerly seized hold of it as a ground whereon to urge demands, which we had theretofore rejected, and in which they hoped now to succeed by coupling them with this recent case. Nay, I am persuaded, that it will soon appear, that this "satisfac"tion," of the want of which they so bit

terly complain, they might, to a reasonable degree, have received from our ministers; but, that their envoy here was instructed not to enter upon any negociation upon that point, unless it was connected with other points, having, in fact, nothing to do with it, and being of a nature not to be treated upon by us. Of all this the people in America seem to be aware; and, we find the Inhabitants and Traders of Philadelphia, in a Memorial presented to the Congress against the "non-importation act" (which was to go into force on the 15th of December), com. plaining, that the President had made, upon England, unreasonable demands, and that he had shut the door against reconciliation by accompanying his demand of satisfaction with a proclamation of a nature decidedly hostile. And now, for this famous nonimportation act; but, let us first, take a look at the debate upon the memorial against it. This decate is curious, in many respects. · The reader will bear in mind, that this act was passed nearly, if not quite, two years ago; that it has been suspended from time to time; and, that the last suspension extended to the middle of December, 1807. It was, therefore, he will observe, upon other ground than that of the affair of the Chesa peake that the act was passed. To prevent it from going into effect in December it was that the memorial in question was presented; and upon this memorial the following debate took place, in the House of Representatives, on the 27th of November.

66

Mr. J. CLAY presented a Memorial from "sundry inhabitants and traders of the City "of Philadelphia, praying, that the Act prohibiting the importation of certain goods, wares, and merchandize, passed "the 18th of April, 1806, may be repealed. -MR. CLAY moved that the Memorial "be referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.--MR. RowAN hoped the petition would not be refer "red to any committee. He thought it "would be beneath the dignity of the "House to give it any consideration. Had "he been in Congress at the time 'the law passed, he would have voted against it; but as it had passed, and as we had re "ceived a fresh insult from Great Britain "in the attack on the Chesapeake, he would

"

not vote for its repeal.—Mr. J. CLAY "said, that as the petition was couched in "decent language, and involved a question "of great national importance, it could not "be inconsistent either with the dignity or "the justice of the House to refer it to the "committee of commerce and manufactures. As to the non-importation law,

"whoever would examine it would find, "that many of its provisions were very deficient, and in some cases totally nugatory. "He pointed out some of its defects, and observed, that it contained so many absurdities, that he doubted whether it could "ever go into operation. Mr. CROWN

66

INSHIELD said, that as to the non-impor"tation law, it might be obscure in some 66 parts, but there were more than a dozen "articles, on which there could be no doubt " at all. Under what circumstances had "that law passed? We had been making "demands on Great Britain for many years, "which she had refused to satisfy; and "this law had been passed to induce her to "do us justice. Since that period she had "committed the outrage on the Chesa

"

peake. The blood of American citizens "had freely flowed in that vessel.-Great "Britain had known this for some months, "and yet we had obtained no redress. He "knew indeed that the law in question was "suspended but for a short time at present; "but from the rumours which were afloat "and from what he knew of the disposition "of Great Britain, he entertained no hope "that she would do us justice. He thought "that we were sleeping at our posts. We "knew that Great Britain was making active preparations; that she was endea"vouring to decoy the Indians on our fron

tiers; that she was arming her militia in Canada and Nova Scotia; and that she had, besides, an immense navy. The late attack on Copenhagen had convinced "us that she paid no regard to justice or the "law of nations. She had in that instance "violated every principle of humanity. "Could we expect better treatment than "Denmark, a nation that had never in

jured her? Might not our cities "be wrapt in flames as well as Co"penhagen? The petitioners state that "they are alarmed at the demands of our "government: what were those demands?

Did they know them? He knew not, although a member of that House; "and yet the petitioners are " alarmed" at "them. Mr. C. then moved that the pe"tition lie on the table,Mr. MILNER "could not see any impropriety in referring "the petition. He was acquainted with "the characters who had signed it, and he "knew them to be men of the highest

they were British subjects residing among us: if he were certain that such was the fact, he would move to have the Petition "thrown under the table, without taking "any further notice of it; but as he was not certain of it, he was willing to let it "lie on the table.Mr. J. CLAY said, "that with respect to the assertion of his "colleague (Mr. Smilie), he would merely

remark, that there was a man's name "signed to that Petition, with whom he "was immediately acquainted, who, he "knew, did as much good for this country "as his colleague, notwithstanding his si"tuation. The gentleman from Massa"chusetts (Mr. Crowninshield) had made "a long harangue on the subject of the "Non-Importation Law, and had said that "it would not embarrass the merchants. "But so extremely ridiculous was some of "the provisions of that law, that it was "doubtful whether a gold watch could be

rr

" he understood them or not.——Mr. ELLIOT spoke in favour of referring the "Petition, and against the insinuation of a "British party. He said that he feared "there might soon be two watch words "established to vote down any measure "which might be disagreeable-and these "were "Confidence in the Executive," "and" British Party," Mr. NELSON "was opposed to referring the Petition to "any Committee. He thought the House "ought not hesitate a moment about "throwing under the table all applications "for a repeal of the law in question; par"ticularly now, when we were, he feared, "on the eve of a war, and after the British "Government had boasted that we dared "not put it in force, as she would consider "it as a declaration of war. -Mr. RHEA "spoke against referring the Petition. He

observed, that when these Colonies pre"sented Petitions to the British Parliament "for a redress of grievances, they were "thrown under the table. He thought "that would be the most proper course on "the present occasion. Mr. Fisk con"tended, that the Petition was disrespectful

to the House, inasmuch as it conveyed "a distrust of the measures taken by Go"vernment.Several other Members "spoke on the subject, when Mr. "RANDOLPH observed, that attempts had "been made to denounce his friend from "Pennsylvania,-(Mr. J. Clay)-a man, " he said, 'whom he would not disgrace by. comparing, either in regard to talent or "patriotism, with any of his denunciators "[Mr. Crowninshield rose to explain; but "he was twice called to order by Mr. Ran

dolph. He said that it was the indubi"table right of the Citizens of this Coun"try to present their Petitions to this "House; and a refusal to refer those Pe"titions was 3 refusal to consider them. "He never expected to hear the conduct of "the corrupt and hireling majority of Lord "North brought forward to justify a simi"lar conduct in that House. We had exer"cised the right of Petitioning the British "Parliament, and they had pursued the

very conduct which was now recommend"ed here our Petitions were treated with "derision and contempt. If the prayer of "the petitioners was improper, would it "not be better to expose their errors in a "masterly report from a Committee, than "to slain the door in their faces, and, affecting all the airs of an Asiatic sovereign, "refuse to hear them? We were, he be"lieved, on the eve of a War with Great “Britain, and we were treading in the

very footsteps of the British Ministry on "the eve of the American War, and on "the eve of the French War. Even the "commanding genius of Mr. Fox, would "not be listened to in the House of Com"mons-he was obliged to go out-and "what was the consequence?-He was "called by the unanimous voice of the na"tion to correct those very mischiefs to

expose which he was refused a hearing "when he first raised his voice against

them. But it was said, that the language "of the petitioners was disrespectful :-"What do they say? That they do not "wish us to make any sacrifice of our na "tional honour and independence. And "what is the great bulwark of our national,

honour and independence? Why, a mi-. " serable non importation law! The "House, Mr. R. said, had now been "in session five weeks; and, on the 68 eve of a war, they were discussing "whether we should import locks with "brass nobs or locks with iron knobs; they.

were sitting there looking at one another, "reading newspapers, writing letters, re"ceiving bank checks, and counting their

money; and the nation was precisely in the same situation as it was when the "House first assembled. If we were to "have a war with Great Britain, as he "believed we were, it would become the "House at the outset to conciliate those by "whom that war was to be carried on: he

meant by those," the great body of "the American people, and not the rich "merchant more than the landholders, but "not less. The House were beginning a

war on the same principles as Mr. Pitt did his war with France,-by proscribing every man who dared to question one "tittle of its motives. But he trusted if it began in the same way, it would not "have a similar end. Mr., CROWNINSHIELD hoped the House would do him "the justice to believe that he did not wish

66

to derogate from the character of his "friend Mr. Clay, he had always enter"tained the highest esteem for that Gentle.

man, and he always should. He had "stated that the tanguage of the petition "was disrespectful, and he wished it to lie on the table; but that was surely not

rejecting it. He had since, however, "discovered a sentiment in the Petition "which had escaped him before, and which "confirmed him in his opinion of it. The

petitioners say, "they hope the peace of "the country will not be endangered by an "adherence to doubtful or unsettled prin

ciples." Was it an unsettled principle

"that a national vessel could not be search"ed? He thought not. He always con"sidered a national vessel as national ter-. "ritory, and that it should be maintained "inviolate. He had formerly been of

στ

opinion that it would be better to pass a "total non-importation law; but for the "sake of conciliating Great Britain, he had "voted for a partial non-importation. "Mr. RANDOLPH said, that the Gentleman "from Mas. (Mr. C.) had grossly misun "derstood him. He did not allude to that "Gentleman as denouncing his friend from "Pennsylvania (Mr. J. Clay); the denun "ciations had been heard by the House, at "least they had been by him (see above). "But he had said that the Gentleman had "endeavoured to make this a party ques"tion; he still thought so, and his calling "for the Yeas and Nays proved it. He "would call the attention of the House to a period when men of different political "sentiments held the reins of Government; "petition after petition had been presented against the Sedition Law, and yet they "had always been received and heard;

66

although, he said, it was almost impossi"ble to couch such petitions in respectful "language. He contended that the mer"chants did not allude to the rights of the "words which the Gentleman (Mr C.) had

quoted; but they said that doubts were "entertained that other subjects had been "connected with that. And had they not

a right to doubt? He thought if the Gen"tleman (Mr. C) would exchange a few "of his certainties for some of their doubts, "he would not be a worse man or a less "efficient politician. He believed it to be

a novel thing in legislation, that because "the House differed in opinion from a pe"titioner, the petition should be rejected.

-The question was then taken for referring the petition to a Committee of the "whole House and it was lost. Ayes 50 "Nays 80."Mr. Clay's description of the talkative propensity of his brethren, and Mr. Randolph's of their amusements and employments, while in the House, are strikingly characteristick. They all talk; and talk for a long while too. The old vulgar hyperbole of "talking a horse's hind leg off," if ever it be verified, will find its verification in the American Congress. Our people, at St. Stephen's, write letters too; but I never saw any of them actually counting their money in the House; though it is pretty generally believed, that they know how to count, whether money or noses, as well as most people. But, the American Law-givers have a desk, with pen, ink,

and paper, before each of them, and each keeps the key of his own desk. At those desks merchants read their invoices and lawyers their cases and briefs, while the trade of law-giving is, at the same time, going prosperously on -The only part of this debate that appears to have attracted the attention of our news-writers, is, Mr. Randolph's expressions, so often repeated, about being upon the eve of a war;" and, from which expressions, these writers conclude, that a majority of the Congress are for war. A most erroneous conclusion indeed; for, the point decided upon, suppos. ing it to include the final fate of the nonimportation act, was merely whether that measure should be tried, as a means of inducing England to submit to their terms.

-We have before discussed the effects of a non-importation act upon us, and it has, I think, in the articles referred to above, been clearly proved, that such an act could. not possibly do us any harm, supposing it to be practicable. I have, however, insisted, that it is impracticable; and the Philas delphia memorialists seem to be of my opinion. But, what is this act? What does this mighty threat amount to? What is this thing, which is to awe England into submission? A non-importation act. An act to prohibit the importation of all English goods? No not an act to prohibit the importation of English cloth, Irish linen, or English hardware; not an act to prohibit the importation of coats, waistcoats, breeches, shirts, cravats, stockings, caps, handkerchiefs, petticoats, blankets, sheets, swaddling cloths and shrowds; not an act to prohibit the importation of knives, forks, scissars, razors, buttons, locks, keys, and candlesticks; all these things must be had from us, or from no country upon earth. Therefore, the Congress, in its wisdom, has thought it adviseable not to include them (making, in amount, four-fifths of all the goods imported) in the articles prohibited. Weil done, “ King Cong," under which appellation your feats have heretofore been so admirably celebrated. And does your Majesty really imagine, that we are to be frightened by an act like this? The truth is, an' it please you to hear it, your Majesty thought, that, here in England, there was an American faction, consisting of merchants, manufacturers, fundholders, and admirers of American liberty, able to force the government to give way; to force it to yield any point of great and permanent national interest, rather than run the risk of producing an interruption of the traffic of the said merchants, manufacturers,