that is, rescued it from a court of justice; and of intercourse with France, "replied that no such "having placed it in a situation more favorable than communication would be made at Paris, but that that of many other vessels and cargoes which conti- Mr. Serrurier would be fully instructed on this nned in a kind of mortemain, by the suspension o head." The house would recollect how much had all proceedings in regard to them." And this letter been expected from Mr. Serrurier on his arrival, and and case is adduced as proof of the repeal of the how much had been obtained. An ex-secretary of Berlin and Milan decrees, on the 1st of Novem-state even had the temerity to charge the president ber, 1810! with having compelled him to desist from putting It is true that in a postscript dated the 5th of any interrogatories to the French minister on his July (a month subsequent to the date of the let arrival. But be that as it may, one thing is certain, ter to which it is appended, and seven months after that application having been made to the minister, his remonstrance to the French government) Mr. at the requisition of the senate, during the present Russell states that orders had been given to cancel session, he had declared an entire ignorance of every the bond in question. But surely this is no proof thing relating to the subject. of the revocation of the decrees Let us see what To dissipate the last shadow of doubt on the queshe says on the 15th of that month. Although Ition of the repeal of the French decrees, Mr. Ser. was fully impressed with the importance of an early rurier, in his letter of July 23, 1811, to the secredecision in favor of the captured vessels, none of tary of state, expressly declares, that "the new which had been included in the list above men- dispo itions of our government, expressed in the tioned"-[" of sixteen American vessels whose car supplementary act of the 2d of March last, having goes had been admitted by order of the emperor" been officially communicated to his court, his improbably under license] yet I deemed it proper to perial majesty, as soon as he was made acquainted wait for a few days, before I made an application with them, directed that the American vessels seon the subject. On the 11th, however, having questered in the ports of France since the 2d of Nolearnt at the council of prize, that no new order vember, should be released; orders were at the had been received there"-(that on the 11th July same time to be given to admà American vessels, 1811, the French admiralty court had no notice of laden with American produce!” the repeal of the decrees) "I judged it to be my du ty no longer to remain silent. I therefore, on that day addressed to the duke of Bassano my note, with a list of American vessels captured since the first of November. On the 15th, I learnt that he had laid this note with a genera! report, before the emperor, but that his majesty declined making any decision with regard to it before it had been sub mitted to a council of commerce." Under these circumstances, whatever difference of opinion might exist as to the propriety of the president's proclamation in the first instance, there could be none as to its revocation. As soon as it was ascertained, not only from the proceedings of her cruizers on the high seas, but of her courts of law, and of her government, that France had acted, mala fide, towards this country, it surely became the duty of the president to recal that proclamation. The house would take into consideration the dis. He could have no doubt of his constitutional power tinction between the council of prizes, an admiralty over the subject, having already exercised it in a court bound to decide according to the laws of the case not dissimilar-[Erskine's arrangement.]— empire, and the council of commerce, which was That proclamation was the dividing line of our poof the nature of a board of trade; charged with the licy; the root of our present evil. From that fatal general superintendance of the concerns of com- proclamation we are to date our departure from that merce; occupied in devising regulations, not ex-neutral position to which we had so long and so pounding them; an institution altogether political, tenaciously adhered, and the accomplishment of the by no means judicial., His majesty then determin designs of France upon us. In issuing it, the presied to consult his council of commerce, whether dent had yielded to the deceitful overtures of France; from motives of policy he should, or should not and it was worthy of observation,how different a congrant a special exemption from the operation of his struction had thereby been put upon the act of nonlaws. In the same letter, learning from the duke of intercourse (as it was commonly called) from that Bassano that the case of the brig Good Intent, of May, 1810-although the words of the two acts must be carried before the council of prizes," Mr. were the same. In the first case, a modification of Russell wishes to secure this case from this "in auspicious mode of proceeding: that is, from the that they found cerders of the belligerents, so as In the second, other mater. operation of the law. Why? if the law, so dreaded, was alone required. was blended with them, although the words of the was repealed? This grew out "I had from time to time (he continues) inform two acts were identically the same. ed myself of the proceedings, in regard to the cap- of the insidious letter of the duke of Cadore, the tured vessels, and ascertained the fact that the duke terms of which were accepted, with the conditions of Bassano had made a report in relation to them."annexed, by the president of the United States.--The emperor, it appears, however, still wished for These conditions presented two alternatives: "That - the decision of his "council of commerce.' England should revoke her orders in council and What! to know if his decrees of Berlin and Milan abolish those principles of blockade which France were revoked? Was his majesty ignorant of the alledged to be new, or that the United States should fact? Can stronger evidence be adduced that they cause their flag to be respected by the English"were in force; or can the release (not by the courts in other words should become parties to the war on of law, but by special executive interference) under the side of France. In order to know what these peculiar circumstances, and after a long detention principles were, the renunciation of which we were for violating those decrees, of a single vessel, estab to require at the instigation of France, it would be lish the fact of their repeal? On the contrary, ought not the solitary exception (granting it to be one) to fortify the general rule? In passing, it is well worthy of remark, that the French mini-ter, being interrogated by Mr. Russell on the subject of our future commercial necessary to attend to the language of the Frencia decrees. By these it would not be denied that priaciples, heretofore unheard of, were attempted to he interpolated into the laws of nations"-Principles diametrically adverse to those which the govern ment of the United States had repeatedly recogniz 66 ed, in their correspondence with foreign powers as of blockade against which Mr. Monroe did not rewell as in their public treaties, to be legitimate and monstrate, of which there was no mention in the incontestible. The French doctrine of blockade subsequent arrangement of Mr. Erskine, which being the only branch of the subject embraced in did not stand in the way of that arrangement, of the duke of Cadore's letter of the 5th of August, which no notice was taken in our proposition to 1810, would alone be noticed. These required that England for a mutual abandonment of our embargo the right of blockade should be restricted "to for and her orders in council, is now by French device tified ports, invested by sea and by land. That it and contrivance to be made a sine qua non, and inshould not extend to the mouths of rivers, harbors dispensable preliminary to all accommodation with or places not fortified." Great Britain. Under such definition the blockade of May, 1806, Mr. R had heard with sincere satisfaction mang otherwise called Mr. Fox's blockade, stood con- respectable gentlemen in the house and out of it exdemned-but Mr. Randolph had no hesitation in press a wish, that by a revocation of the orders in affirming that blockade to have been legal, agreea- council, the British ministry would put it in the bly to the long established principles of national power of our government to come to some adjust. Jaw, sanctioned by the United States. In Mr.ment of our differences with England. The posiFoster's letter of the 3d of July last, to Mr. Mon- tion which he was about to lay down, and the proof roe, he says "the blockade of May, 1806, was of which the course of his argument had compelled notified by Mr. secretary Fox on this principle him in some degree to anticipate, however it might ["that no blockade can be justifiable or valid unless startle persons of this description, was nevertheless it be supported by an adequate force destined to susceptible of the most direct and positive evidence. maintain it and to expose to hazard all vessels at- Little did those gentlemen dream, but such was the tempting to evade its operation"] nor was that indisputable fact, that the orders in council had not blockade announced, until he had satisfied himself stood in the way of accommodation, and that their by a communication with the board of admiralty, removal at this moment would not satisfy our admithat the admiralty possessed the means, and would nistration. In lord Wellesley's letter to Mr. Pinkemploy them, of watching the whole coast from ney of Dec. 29, 1810, he says "If nothing more Brest to Elbe, and of effectually en orcing the had been required of Great Britain, for the purpose of securing the continuation of the repeal of our "The blockade of May, 1806, according to the orders in council, I should not have hesitated to dedoctrine maintained by Great Britain, was just and clare the perfect readiness of this government to lawful in its origin because it was supported both in fulfil that condition. On these terms the British intention and fact by an adequate naval force." In government has always been seriously disposed to a subsequent part of the same letter it is distinctly repeal the orders in council. It appears, however, averred that "that blockade was maintained by a not only by the letter of the French minister, but sufficient naval force," and the doc rine of paper by your explanation, that the repeal of the orders in Blockade is every where expressly disclaimed in the council will not satisfy either the French or Amecorrespondence, here as well as at London. "If can governments. The British government is fur(says Mr. Foster) the orders in council should be abrogated, the biockade of May, 1806, could not continue under our construction of the law of nations. unless that blockade should be maintained by a due application of an adequate naval force." The same admission will be found in marquis Wellesley's cor respondence with Mr. Pinkney. blockade. ther required by the letter of the French minister to renounce those principles of blockade which the French government alleges to be new." This fact is placed beyond a doubt, by Mr. Pinkney's answer of the 14th January, 1811. * If I comprehend the other parts of your lordship's let ter," says he, "they declare in effect that the BriThe coast of France from Brest to Calais is what tish government will repeal nothing but the orders in seamen call an iron bound coast. It had been block (council”—and again, "It is certainly true that the aded in every war during the last century, that American government has required, as indispenshort period of the American war excepted, when sable in the view of its acts of intercourse and nonEngland lost the mastery of the channel. No Briintercourse, the annulment of the British blockade tish minister would be suffered to hold his place who of May, 1806" should fastest, her principal naval arsenal, pro-ed to repeal its orders in council, a question entire Thus, whom the British government stood pledg truded out into the Atlantic ocean, confessed the ly distinct has been dextrously mingled with it in want of suitable harbors for ships of war in the our discussions with England; the renunciation of channel: while from Plymouth, Portsmouth and the right of blockade in the face of Mr Madison's the mouth of the Thames, the opposite coast is ea construction of the non intercourse law, and of sily watched and overawed. From Calais to the Mr. Smith's instructions to general Armstrong of Elbe the coast is low, flat and shelving, difficult of July 5th, and 2d o November, 1810, has been deaccess, affording few good inlets, indeed none exclared indispensable in the view of that act, and cept the Scheldt. The blockade of this coast is as there is the fullest admission that more than the reeasy as that of Carolina. But it must not pass un peal of the orders in council was required, viz, of noticed that the blockade was in point of fact, (as that blockade, against which we had not lifted our appears from Mr. Monroe's letters to Mr. Madison voice, until required to do so by France, which of the 17th and 20th of May, 1806,) limited to the Mr. Monroe, (so far from remonstrating against it, small extent of the coast between Havre and Os-which it would have been his duty to have done if tend; neutrals being permitted to trade, freely, east-illegal,) considers "as highty satisfactory to the ward of Ostend, and westward of the mouth of the commercial interests." A blockade as legal as would Seine, "except in articles contraband of war and be that of the ports of Chesapeak, with a sufficient enemies property which are seizable without block-force stationed in Lyn Hoven Bay. What is a legal ade." And Mr. Monroe, in announcing this ve-blockade? A blockade with such a force as renry blockade of May 16, 1806, to his own governders the approach of merchant vessels dangerous. ment, speaks of it as a measure highly satisfactory Mark the wonderful facility with which M. Pinkto the commercial interests, And yet the removal ney not only blends the question of the blockade of May 1806, with the repeal of the orders in coun- mittees of congress? "That the return of the cil; but shews the disposition to go, if he could, Hornet should be conclusive as to our relations with the whole length of the French doctrine of block France. That if Mr. Barlow should not succeed ade: a doctrine unheard of before the reign of Bo-in attaining the most complete redress for the past naparte. "It is by no means clear that it may not and assurances for the future, we would take the fairly be contended on principle and early usage, same stand as against Great Britain: that any uncer that a maritime blockade is incomplete, with regard tainty as to his success, would be equivalent to certo states at peace, unless the place which it affects tainty of his failure." Such was the language held is invested by land as well as by sea." And yet in the until the fact occurred, that no'satisfaction had been, same letter he says, "you imagine that the repeal is or was likely to be obtained. Indeed for some days not to remain in force, unless the British govern-after the arrival of the Hornet, these opinions had ment, in addition to the revocation of its orders in been maintained. They had however gradually died council, abandon its system of blockade. I am not away and it was only within 48 hours past, that & Was it necessa conscious of having stated, as your lordship seems different language had been held to think, that it is so, and I believe in fact that it isy to remind the house of the shuffling conduct and otherwise. Even if it were admitted, however, the policy of France towards us? Of the explanation orders in council ought nevertheless to be revoked." attempted by Dacres, the minister of Marine in re The American doctrine of blockade is expressly lation to the Berlin decree, and the subsequent an laid down in Mr. Smith's letter to commodore Pre nunciation of his government to Mr. Armstrong, ble of the 4th of February, 1804. "Whenever, with true French sang froid, that as there was therefore, you shall have thus formed a blockade of no exception of the United States in the terms of the port of Tripoli (so as to create an evident dan the decrees, so there was no reason for excepting ger of entering it') you will have a right to capture them from their operation " Have we forgotton for adjudication any vessel that shall attempt to en Champagny's declaration of war in our name? ter with a knowledge of the blockade." The very War exists then in fact between England and same doctrine against which, at the instigation of the United States and his majesty considers it is France, we are now about to plunge into war. declared." In short for years past France had reMr. Randolph said he was compelled to omit ma. quired us to make war with England as the price of ny striking proofs of the truth of his positions, undefined commercial concessions from her. We from absolute weakness and inability to read the had been told that we ought to tear to pieces the voluminous extracts from the documents before act of our independence-that we were more depen him. If the offer should be made of the repeal of dent than Jamaica-that we were without just the orders of council, which our people at home, political views, without energy, without honor, good easy souls, supposed to be the only obstacle, and that we must at last fight for interest, after havthe wound, as after the accommodation of the affair ing refused to fight for honor." 39 of the Chesapeake, would still remain incurable. France, whilst you required of her as a prelimi He had not touched upon the subject of impress-nary to further accommodation, the restitution of ment, because notwithstanding the use which had her plunder decoved into her ports, required from been made of it in that house and in the public prints, vou, as a preliminary, a war with England. Mr. it did not constitute, according to the shewing of Barlow has now been ten months in France, danc. our own government, an obstacle to accommoda ing attendance on her court without being able to tion; (the orders in council and question of block-obtain an answer to a few plain questions. Are your ade being the avowed impediments) and because it deerees repealed? It is considered as improper to appears from Mr. Monroe's letter of the 28th Fe make the enquiry. Instead of the edict, rescript, bruary 1808 "that the ground on which the inter- the instrument of repeal, by whatsoever name it be est was placed by the paper of the British com called, he sends us the strictures of the French go. missioners of November 8, 1806, and the expla-vernment upon the proceedings of the American nation which accompanied it, was both_honourable congress, and a remonstrance to the duke of Basand advantageous to the United States. That it con sano, that the repeal of the decrees in which he is tained a concession in their favor on the part of compelled to feign a belief, because the president's Great Britain, on the great principle in contesta-proclamation is the sole evidence of the fact) has tion, never before made, by a formal obligatory act not been given in charge to the French eruizers, of the government, which was highly favorable to but that the public ships of war (Nymph and Metheir interests." dusay continue to Lunn our Bassano term on the high seasIn fact the rejection of Mr. Monroe's treaty had And what does the duke of alone prevented the settlement upon honorable ply? The same old story of Champagny to general terms, of this, as well as every other topic of differArmstrong-"The United States will be entirely ence between the two governments. satisfied on the pending questions, and there will be He called the attention of the house to Mr. Smith's no obstacle to their obtaining the advantages they letter to Mr. Armstrong of July 5, 1810, requiring have in view, if they succeed in making their flag in the name of the president restitution of our plun-safe!" In other words, make war with England, dered property as "a preliminary to accommodation and you will be satisfied [and not until then] on the between the two governments" "As has been pending questions. And what are they? On one heretofore stated to you, a satisfactory provision for of them, the required compensation for plunderrestoring the property lately surprised and seized your minister after waiting for months for an oral "this is dull work, hard to begin, by the order or at the instance of the French gov-answer, tells you, ernment must be combined with a repeal of the French and difficult to execute." This is the claim too re edicts with a view to a non-intercourse with Great quired by Mr. Secretary Smith, under the presi Britain; such a provision being an indispensable dent's order, to be satisfied as to the acceptance of evidence of the just purpose of France towards the the overture of August 5, 1810. It is possible, the United States!" Yet no restitution had been made: Wasp may bring out something, juste hush up "that affair is settled by the law of reprisal." What complaints until we are airly embarked in war: in had been the language held on this floor and by mi to which if we enter, it will be a war of submission. nisters of state in official communications to com to the mandates of a foreign despat-the basest The Speaker (who had resumed the chair) said, that unquestion to be submitted in writing, because it was made the duty of the ably in the opinion of the chair, the proposition might be required chair to require the application of observations made on the floor to the subject debated; and this duty certainly could not be par formed unless the chair was apprised of the terms of the prope Mr. Calhoun. I then call upon the gentleman to submit his pre position. the most unqualified, the most abject submission. In the celebrated case of insult by implication, or insinuation, offered by Mr. Jackson, there existed in the archives of the country, a monument (such as it was) of the sensibility of this house to that insult. you, Mr. Speaker, unquestionably have. My proposition is one Mr. Randolph. The gentleman has no right to call upon me; respecting our relations with the two great belligerents, and goes to affect the question of peace or war. Whilst up, sir, permit me to observe, that if I were wide of the mark, I might have been per mitted to go on chair having decided that his motion must be submitted before fur The Speaker. The gentleman will please to take his seat, the ther debate. Mr. Randolph said he had not understood the Speaker as making any such decision. The Speaker said he certainly had so decided. Mr. Randolph. My proposition is, that it is not expedient at thir time to resort to a war against Great Britain. The Speaker. Is the motion seconded? Mr. Randolph, or some other gentleman, expressed his surprise that a second in such a case as this should be required. The Speaker said he conceived that every motion must receive a second before it could be announced from the chair. He also re quired that the motion be reduced to writing. Mr. Randolph. I then appeal from that decision. The Speaker stated the grounds of his decision, and read the rules requiring motions when made to be seconded before put to the vote, and when demanded to be reduced to writing. facing a motion by remarks was almost the last vestige of the freeMr. Randolph said he would only remark that this right of pre It under such circumstances, without having re ceived any shadow of indemnity for the past, or security or the future-if indeed security could be given by the French emperor-the United States become virtually a party to the war in his behalf, it must confirm beyond the possibility of doubt every surmise that has gone abroad, however gross, how eve injurious to the honor or the interests of this government--that there exists in our councils an undue, a fatal French bias. After the declarations of official men, after the language uttered on thisdom of debate; if it were destroyed, there would be none left unfloor, if the United States become parties to the der the permission of the majority. war with France against her rival it must establish as clearly as the existence of the sun above us--Goldsborough) embrace the substance of the argument against the The following observations of one of these gentlemen (Mr. thi even has not happened, and God forbid it speaker's decision. should--but if it does, the conclusion will be irre sistible, and this government will stand branded to the latest posterity, (unless the press should perish in the general wreck of human liberty) as the panviction of his judgment as to the incorrectness of the decision of dors of French despotism-as the tools, the minions, sycophants, parasites of France. It was to secure the country from this opprobrium, that the propo sition was about to be submitted. Messrs. Pitkin, Goldsborough, and Key, spoke to the question of order, and against the Speaker's decision. Mr. Goldsborough said, that, on all occasions of appeal from the decision of the speaker on a question of order, the first impulse so in all doubtful cases. In the present instance, however, the con of his mind was to support the chair, and it was his practice to do he should be compelled to declare so by his vote. The substantial the honorable speaker was so clear and conclusive to himself, that question submitted to the house by this appeal was, "whether a motion for consideration, had, or had not a right to precede his mo member rising in bis place, and declaring his intention to subnut a tion with such explanatory remarks, such prefatory specch, keep necessary on the occasion and pertinent to the proposition ining hims: If within the bounds of general de corum, as he might durin tended to be offered." The chair had, in effect, determined against this right, and on that ground had prohibited the gentleman from said he could not concur, and he should take the liberty to go into Virginia from proceeding in his speech. In this opinion, Mr. G. short examination of its correctness. In support of it the chair had orders: "when a motion is made and seconded, it shall be stated read the following rule of the house, from the printed rules and by the speaker, or being in writing, it shall be handed to the chair, and read aloud by the clerk, before debated." a This is not like a war for a Spanish succession or a Dutch barrier; for the right of cutting logwood on a desart coast, or fishing in the Polar sea. It a war unexampled in the history of mankind-a war-separated as we are from the theatre of it by a wide ocean-from which it behoves us to stand aloof--to set our backs to the wall, and await the eo ing of the enemy--instead of rushing out at midnight in search of the disturbers of our rest, ply to the case. This rule directs the course of proceeding when It was perfectly evident, Mr. G. said, that this rule did not ap when a thousand daggers are pointed at our hosoma inotion is made and seconded. But in the case under considera But it is said we must fight for commerce-a wa Virginia had only expressed his intention to make a motion, and tion, no metion had been made or seconded. The gentlemen from for commerce deprecated by all the commercial was offering to the house such explanatory observations as he judg portion of our country, by New England and Newed proper, in relation to it. His right to adopt this course was not York, the great holders of our navigation and capital to be sought for in the books of written ruls of the house. It was, Mr. G. said, a prescriptive right, supported by the uniform usage and practice of the house from the beginning, he believed, of im political existence. He had, certainly, never known it called in Mr. Choun rising and signifying his intention to make a ques-qacation before, for he well recollecte d'instances where gentlemen tion of order. Mr. Randolph took his s. at. Mr. Calhoun then said the question of war was not before the country; it was not before the house; and the gentle man was therefor speaking, as he conceived, contrary to ruk, and without ator ling to others an opportunity to reply. predatory to motions which, they stated it to be their intention had made long speeches, probably of one, two or three hours, as to make, and which motions, it was evident, were intended for no other purpose than to afford an opportunity for the speech, as they It was decided from the speaker's chair (then filled by Mr. Bibb, fore known this privilege disturbed. The house had always ac were never afterwards called up by the mover. He had never be the speaker having casually vacated it for a moment) that the ob quiesed in the right, and the member been indulged with the fectio was not valid, as the gentleman from Virginia had amoune-occupancy of the floor for so long a speech as he choose to make. el has intention to make a motion, and it had been usual in such ca- This privilege, sanctioned as it certainly is, by usage-by what ses to permit a wide range of debate. 4. Randolph thanked the gentleman from South Carolina for ed as founded in principles of great propriety, in reference to frequently termed the common law of the house, Mr. G. consider the respite which he had winter tionally given him, and which in other rules and practices of this house. It was an established rule his exhausted situation was ingly grateful. This war for commer- of practice, of the propriety of which he would now say nothing, cial rights is to be waged against the express wish (constitutionally that no question could be brought before the house by a member, pronoimed, spoken in language which cannot be misunderstood) however important he might suppose it, without the vote of a ma of the great commercial section of the United States-a war which jority to consider it. What chance was there, he would ask, of must cut up commeres by the roots, which in its operation must obtaining such a vote, in favor of a naked proposition, unsupport nessari!, drive population and capital beyond the mountainsMr. Colhoun again rose-As the gentleman had expressed his satister st the house in its favor, or even to attract their attention to it! ed by any elucidation from the mover, to explain its object, to in faction at the rest afforded him by the former call to order, he would It is, indeed, a point of respect to the understanding of the house give him another opportunity to rest himself. He asked that the to adopt this course-and hence it is invariably done. Admitting, gentleman from Virginia should submit to the chair the proposition he intended to make, that the house might judge of the correct ness of the course he took. If the course now taken were parlia mentary, if the practice now attempted were permitted to succed, it would be in the power of any member at any time to embarrass the proceedings of the house. then, the general propriety of this course-admitting the existence of the right at all, as sanctioned by the usage of the house, the only limit to its exercise must be the nature of the subject of the motion, and the judgment or inclination of the mover. If he has a right to offer explanatory remarks, to make a prefatory speces at all, he must equally have a right to regulate the length of jate Mr. Randolph resumed, having asked and obtained the assens of the chair to his proceeding in the debate on the questionWhen Mr. Nelson enquired if it were in order, after a resolution was presented to the house, to debate it before the house had agreed to consider it. The Speaker said he had not before adverted to the imperative terms of the rule which required a previous question of considera tion, and which rule, on further reflection, he was of opinion applied to this case. speech by his own sense of duty and propriety. There cannot be day other rational rule, any other proper guide as to the extent or the length of his speech." Admit the right to exist at all, (and hel would venture to say, not a motion had been made even in this session, on any important subject, without the exercise of it) to what other rule than the discretion of the mover can we resort to regulate its exercise? Shall any individual member interrupt the enjoyment of this important and invaluable privilege? And shall the feelings, the whim, or the policy of the majority, restrain or defeat its exerejse? Shall their caprice or their irritation stop the Mr. Randolph appealed from this decision of the chair. He callspeaker at the moment when his remarks begin to bear hard up-ed the attention of the house to the fact that the operation of the on some favorite plan of their doctrine or their policy? Reason decision for reducing the motion to writing and requiring a second, and justice certainly forbid this resort, as the necessary, or at least was to deprive the person speaking of his ancient, prescriptive the probable result of it would be an instability and favoritism: (he had almost said constitutional) right of delivering his senti wholly inconsistent with that equality of rights which attaches to mets in some manner or other to the house. This privilege was every member of this house. For these reasons, Mr. G. said he the last vestage of the liberty of speech enjoyed in this house eould not give his assent to the honorable Speaker in this question except at the absolute will of the majority. The question of con of order; but should, by his vote, support the affirmative of this sideration itself was always of the nature of a previous question position, that a member, who is about to submit a proposition to and went to take from a member of this house that privilege, pro the consideration of the house, has a right to preface his motion vided the house chose to exercise its power, viz. the privilege of with such decorous remarks, and with such length and detail of offering his sentiments, and if you will his grievances to the cons explanation, as he may think proper. sideration of the house and the people. The incanest beggar has a Mr. right said, that the gentleman from Virginia, having been right to come here and state his grievances, and to be heard; called to order, and it having been decided by the speaker that he and yet a member of the house has no such right, except at the was out of order, from which decision he having appealed, the absolute will of the majority. If the decision be confirmed, we question now to be decided by the speaker is, was Mr. Randolph out shall have entirely departed fron every principle heretofore re of order? In order, sir, to a correct understanding of the subject spected in this assembly and among those people from whom we by the house, it will be proper to revise his remarks, as well as the sprung. It appears to me we have not got the old-fashioned liber circumstances under which they were ushered into the house. Sir. ty. When I compare the liberty of speech in the English parlia every gentleman has a right to be heard on a subject fairly before ment with late usages here, I am struck with consternation, grief the house, after the house had determined to consider it. But by and dismay. I once, sir, had the honor of being under the federal positive rule of the house, declared by the speaker, no question regime, in what was called the reign of terror-I then enjoyed the can be received until it is made and seconded, and, if required, re-liberty of speech. I had a right to protest against the acts of the duced to writing-nor after it is received can any question be de-men in power. These new discoveries in the construction of the bated, until the house agree to consider it. Therefore, the re-rules of the house were, were happily for the then minority, unquiring the question to be made and seconded and committed to known and unheard of. The present secretary of the treasury writing, is perfectly a matter of right, and the attempt to argue was attempted to be stopped in debate on the rule which required the question thus made and seconded, and committed to writing, that no member should speak more than once to any question. before the house had agreed to consider it, was in direct violation That great man-and great let me call him-laughed in derision of the rule, and therefore out of order. But sir, had it have been at the attempt. But not even in the year '98 was an attempt fairly before noticed, had the house agreed to consider this case, I, made to prevent a man from speaking at all. The doctrine is sir, should contend that this gentleman's remarks were themselves new; it has come in under a new reign and a new race. out of order-have we not been denounced as legislating under come to this, sir, that members of the house shall grow grey in the French influence? Yes, sir, we have. service, and in proportion to their experience become ignorant of the rules of proceeding, and receive the construction from those who have never been familiar, with them? After having been fourteen years on this floor, is a man to be told he knows nothing of the rules of the house? Mr. Randolph called the gentleman to order. He said he had spoken hypothetically; he said, if war did take place, it would be confirmation strong as proof from holy writ, of an undue French bias. Has it The Speaker said that the question of order submitted involved The Speaker requested the gentleman to confine his remarks to a matter of fact, that is, whether the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. the question whether or not the decision of the chair was correct. R.) did or did not use the words ascribed to him by the gentleman Priority of seat, on this floor, said the speaker, gives to the senior from Maryland (Mr. W.) conveying an imputation of French in-members of the house no right to which the junior are not equally fluence, which (not having been in the chair) he could not decide. entitled. He could only say, that if the gentleman did use such words, they Mr. R. said he only desired that the senior members should have were highly improper: if he did not, the gentleman from Mary-equal rights with the junior. The decision of the chair, said he, I land (Mr. W.) was out of order in attributing them to him. contend is incorrect in so far as this: that there has heretofore ex Mr. Wright quoted the words used by Mr. Randolph, to which isted what was called the freedom of debate, which late rules and he contended his observations applicable. Sir, said he, could these late restrictions have taken away. We are in danger of losing the reimarks of the gentleman be in order? I protest against them; liberty of speech entirely. If the decision of the chair be supported, they are unfounded as to myself, and I have no doubt, as to every it will indeed be the last dying speech of the liberty of specch.Hember of this house. The black catalogue of wrongs sustained This was the only mode left to a member in which he could, without by the outrages of Great Britain are such, that no man, not de-asking per.nission to do it, present hims If to the house and to the voted to that nation, can, in my judgment, be at a loss for a just nation. If this be taken away, sir, a seat in this house is not worth ⚫ause of war, and such as no independent nation ought to sub- the having-at least to those who do not find favor in its sight. mit to Mr. Randolph again called the gentleman to order, because diseussing a subject winch the speaker had declared should not be debated. The Speaker declared said he did not perceive the direct appli cation of the gentleman's remarks, but he appeared to be speaking in explanation of the expressions, for using which, he had before been called to order. Mr. Wright continued. Sir, said he, I do not admire the doctrine of recrimination, nor will 1 charge the honorable gentleman with being under British influence, although we see the British licensed spies within this hall, to hear this understood debate Mr. Johnson spoke in reply to Mr. Randolph and in defence of the majority and of the house, which never ought to be subjected to the caprice of any i. dividual, as it would be if the gentleman's appeal was sanctioned by the house. Mr. Macon rose to speak to the question of order. He said he had no doubt the present decision of the speaker was correct; but it was equally clear to him that his first decision was a wrong one. Mr. Randolph said, out of respect to his friend's opinion he would withdraw his appeal from the speaker's decisiUffi The Speaker said, that he would take the occasion to remark that at the commencement of the s ssion, he had doubted the propriety of the rule requiring a previous determination of the house to consider a proposition, before it could be debated and decided. But he was then informed that it had been the practice of the house, and to that usage he had conformed. Whatever doubts he had entertained originally of its utility, had been removed by sub Mr. Randolph said the gentleman was again out of order. The Speaker. The gentleman from Maryland will please to take his seat. If the chair understood him correctly, he is certainly out of order. If he meant to say that there was an understanding between a member of this house and a foreign agent out of it, in resequent experience. Lation to proceedings to take place in the house, he was undoubted- In regard to the decision requiring a second to a motion before ly out of order. it was received, of which there was some complaint, he understood Mr. Wright disclaimed having so meant to state; he meant to it to be the established practice of the British parliament. As to the say, that from the attendance of these persons, on the gentleman's alleged violation of the freedom of debate he remarked, that he arguments, it might be fairly inferred, that they were apprised of should be extremely sorry, if any decision which it became his his intention to bring this subject before the house. But he hop-duty to make should produce unnecessarily its abridgment. He ed the privilege of these spies would in a few days be arrested. was a great friend to a legitimate and decorous freedom of de However, he should always be prepared to submit his conduct to bate. And whether, by the house, or any determination of his, its the good sense and patriotism of the American people, without a liberty had been infringed, in the instance of any member, and fear of its being ascribed to French or any other improper influ- particularly in reference to the gentleman from Virginia, the dis cussions and proceedings of the house during the present session will illustrate and attest. ✔nce. The question was then taken, to wit: "Is the decision of the 67 Mr. Randolph. Then, sir, I am compelled to submit my motion writing, and under that compulsion I offer it. The Speaker. There is no compulsion in the case; because the gentleman may or may not offerit, at his option, The motion was then read from the chair in the following words: * Resolved, That mier existing circumstances it is inexpedient to resort to war against Great Britain.” The right to regulate its own proceeding, he observed was ● right inherent in every pubiic deliberative body. It was a right necessarily attaching to every body, composed of human beings independent of positive pr scription. It was a right, without the existence and exercise of which, it would be impossible to proceed business at all, or to arrive at any conclusion. But strong as was the natural basis upon which this right stands, it did not de pend upon that alone. The constitution had expressly secured to each branch of the national legislature the power to regulate its Town proceeding. Whilst in this place with which he was honored |