tentous as a portion of this reign has been, when a deviation from the established laws of nations might naturally be expected, and degraded as the power and condition of Spain is represented to be, I am willing to stake the whole controversy upon the reciprocal conduct of these governments to each other. Of all wars, one with Spain is the most popular in England, from the opportunities it affords for maritime spoliation, and lucrative enterprize. For the same reasons it is anxiously deprecated by Spain; and it has even grown into a Spanish proverb, "Peace with England, and war with the world." Notwithstanding the preponderating force of Great Britain, the allurements of popularity and cupidity, her great and extraordinary acquisition of maritime power, and the martial temper which has marked her character during the present reign-we find the very power, with whom we are now called upon to measure swords, meeting her propositions for negociation or arms on the ground of perfect equality, maintaining a steady posture, and an erect attitude, passing through her collisions with unspotted reputation and unsullied dignity, and teaching us an instructive lesson, that while we ought never to bend into degrading compliances, we are not to expect that a nation, which has not yielded improperly to the power in the world most able to injure her, will tamely submit to the insulting and imperious measure recommended so earnestly to our adoption. Six controversies have occurred between Great Britain and Spain during the reign of the present king; three have terminated amicably by negociation, and three have resulted in war. In 1761, when Great Britain was at war with France, a memorial was presented by the French ambassador at London to the English minister, which implicated some demands of Spain upon Great Britain, and which gave great offence to her ministry. A negociation took place, which being attended with an insolent demand for a sight of a treaty concluded between France and Spain, and which being very properly re

fused, a war ensued. Notwithstanding the conduct of Great Britain, in the course of this transaction, was precipitate and unjust, negociation was attempted before an appeal to arms: and the future disclosure of the real transaction furnished her with a salutary lesson; for it was afterwards found, that the treaty did not refer to the existing state of the belligerent powers, but that the guarantee, it contained, was not to operate until the termination of the war.

In the year 1770, the remarkable case of the Faulkland Islands occurred. Six years before, a settlement was made and a fort erected by the British government on one of them, with a view to accommodate navigators in refitting their ships and furnishing them with necessaries previous to their passage through the Straits of Magellan, or the doubling Cape Horn. This settlement gave great umbrage to Spain, not only on account of its interference with her claim of sovereignty to almost the whole southern continent of America, and the adjacent islands, but also on account of the facility it would afford, in case of a future war, to an attack upon her South Sea territories. Ineffectual remonstrances were made on the part of Spain, and at last, notwithstanding the claim of Great Britain by discovery and occupancy, an armed force was sent, the fort was taken, the settlement was broken up, and the honor of the British flag violated by the taking off of the rudder of a king's ship, and detaining it on shore twenty days. What course did the British pursue on this occasion? In this case the insult was flagrant; the honor of their flag, the dignity of the crown, and the commerce of the nation were implicated. Was the sword immediately unsheathed, and the door to peace effectually closed? No: negociations ensued: a convention was formed. Spain disavowed the violence, and engaged to restore the possessions, but with an express declaration, that the restitution should not effect the question concerning the prior right of sovereignty. The islands were also evacuated three years

afterwards by Great Britain, in consequence of a sccret agreement.

In 1779, Spain declared war against Great Britain, alleging unredressed depredations on her commerce, and that she was insulted in an attempt to negociate between France and Great Britain. It is evident that this step on the part of Spain was in pursuance of the family compact; and was not justifiable by the laws of nations. It appears, however, that previous to taking this measure, she had attempted to attain her objects by negociation.

In 1786, the long disputes, respecting the English settlements on the Mosquito shore and the coast of Honduras, were settled by negociation. The English abandoned their Mosquito settlements, and many hundreds of families, who had inhabited them under the protection and faith of the British government, were peremptorily compelled to evacuate that country. The boundaries of the English Honduras settlements were enlarged, but in such a manner as to leave Spain in full possession of her territorial rights and exclusive domin

ion.

In 1790, the controversy about Nootka Sound arose. Two years before, a settlement was made there, by an association of British merchants, on land purchased from the natives with a view to carry on the fur trade. This interfering with the chimerical rights of Spain, a Spanish frigate was despatched by the viceroy of Mexico, which seized the fort, and captured the English vessels trading there. A negociation took place, the vessels were restored, and the settlements agreed to be yielded back: but there was an express reservation, on the part of Spain, of the right of sovereignty for ulterior discussion. In 1796, Spain, in pursuance of a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive with France, declared war against Great Britain.

From this short narrative it will appear, that in almost every case negociation was attempted, even when indignity and violence had been committed;

that in many instances it was successful; that in two of the three cases, where hostilities were commenced, Spain was unequivocally the aggressor; that in most of her adjustments she stood upon ground at least equal, and in some, superior to Great Britain; that in all of them she maintained a high sense of character and independence, and that, in points affecting the most delicate considerations of national honor, interest and right, and where occurrences of a very irritating nature had taken place, and more aggravated than the one of which we justly complain, the path of negociation was deemed the path of honor by two of the great nations of Europe.

The practice of our government has been uniformly conformable with the principles I have endeavored to establish, and I trust I shall be excused for bestowing particular consideration on this subject. We have heard much of the policy of Washington; it has been sounded in our ears from all quarters, and an honorable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. White,) has triumphantly contrasted it with that adopted by the present administration. I am not disposed to censure it in this case; on the contrary, I think it a high and respectable authority: but let it be properly understood, in order to be rightly appreciated, and it will be found, that the United States, under his administration, and that of his successor, have received injuries more deleterious, insults more atrocious, and indignities more pointed than the present, and that the pacific measure of negociation was preferred. If our national honor has survived the severe wounds it then received, it may surely outlive the comparatively slight attack now made upon it; but if its ghost only now remains to haunt the consciences of the honorable gentlemen, who were then in power, and who polluted their hands with the foul murder, let them not attempt to transfer the odium and the crime to those who had no hand in the guilty deed. They then stood high in the councils of their country; the reins of government were in their hands; and if the course they at that time pursu

ed, was diametrically opposite to that they now urge for our adoption, what shall we say of their consistency? What will they say of it themselves? What will their country say of it? Will it be believed, that the tinkling sounds and professions of patriotism, which have been so vehemently pressed upon us, are the emanations of sincerity, or will they be set down to the account of juggling imposture? Although but an infant nation, our career has been eventful and interesting. We have already had very serious collisions with three of the most powerful nations of Europe, who are connected with us by treaty, by neighborhood, and by commerce. Great Britain, France and Spain, have successively committed very great aggressions upon our national rights. In stating these, I have no intention of reviving feelings which, I trust, have ceased with the causes which gave them birth, nor of aspersing the characters of nations who certainly hold the most important and respectable station in the civilized world. Our differences with Great Britain were coeval with the treaty of peace. The detention of the western posts was a direct violation of that treaty: it diverted a considerable portion of the fur trade from the United States, and disabled us from bridling the hostile Indians, which was a source of immense injury. This evil continued for twelve years,_under every circumstance of aggravation and insult. British soldiers issued from those forts into parts of our territory, where we exercised jurisdiction, and seized the persons of deserters, without the aid or sanction of the authorities of the country; and these possessions served as asylums for the savages who were in hostile array against us, and as storehouses and magazines to supply them with arms, ammunition and provisions. The seat of government of Upper Canada was also held for a time at Niagara, in the state of New Yorkan indignity of the most marked character. Many thousands of negroes were also carried off in violation of the treaty, and a very serious injury was thereby inflicted on the agricultural pursuits of our southern ci