most ample freedom of public discussion, as to the most, and indeed, only efficacious restraint, on the dangerous excesses to which a party-majority is ever prone. They looked to it, as to the source from which the people were to derive, the best means of forming a sound judgment, concerning the wisdom and general tendency, of the measures pursued by their favorites; inasmuch as those who are placed by the side of the latter, and devoted equally to the management of the national concerns, can best appreciate and explain the motives, and character of their proceedings. The framers of the constitution knew well that, this would be, for the same reasons, the quarter from which, the errors of judgment, into which the people are led by party sophistry and falsehood, might, if ever they could, be dispelled, before they were rectified by that "tamer of the human breast,"-adversity. From these considerations it is manifest, that every practice or rule of either house of congress, which, whether singly, or connected with others, places it in the power of the majority, to deprive the minority in all cases, of the privilege of public debate, or,— what is worse,-to seal their lips entirely, is abhorrent from the spirit of our institutions, and in fact, destructive of general freedom.

.

Such a doctrine as that advanced generally, by the speaker of the house of representatives, in his late extraordinary appeal to the public, in answer to Mr. Randolph's address to his Constituents, would be deemed monstrous,-as would also the application of the previous question, according to our manner, in the British house of commons, the model as to forms of proceeding, of our own deliberative assemblies. Mr. Randolph has justly stated, in his able and convincing reply, to the speaker's appeal, that "there is no mode in the British parliament, analogous to the one lately devised and set up here, of preventing a member from bringing forward a motion, on any subject, for legislative discussion, and illustrating and enforcing it by every argument in his power." Did there exist such a mode, and were it allowed, or ever imagined to apply the previous question in our way, we should scarcely hear of such motions and speeches as those, by which Sir Francis Burdett so often outrages the feelings, and buffets the patience of the House of Commons: nor would the ministry suffer their strength to be wasted by discussions, prolonged throughout many nights in succession, on questions of which, oftentimes, the sole purport on the side of the opposition, is to criminate their conduct, and destroy their influence. We can attest with Mr. Randolph, from a most assiduous attendance on the de

bates of the British parliament, during several sessions, that the "tyranny" of which he speaks, "would not there be borne;"-that it would not be there endured, "that a member of the opposition should be repeatedly interrupted upon the same plea of order, and by the same member of the courtparty, after repeated decisions in his favour." With the same high authority, we add, that it remains to be seen, whether an American congress shall be justified by the public sentiment, in outstripping a British house of commons in ministerial devotion. And to this, we subjoin on our own part, what, doubtless, he will sanction;-that it cannot be, that the American people will long permit, that the freedom of speech should flourish in greater latitude and security, in the parliament of the British monarchy, than in the Congress of their Republic.

The authors of the address under consideration, state, besides the motives furnished by the conduct of the body, to which they belong, another reason for appearing thus before the public, which deserves the attention of the reader. "A measure of this kind," say they, "has appeared to the undersigned to be more imperiously demanded, by the circumstance of a message and manifesto being prepared, and circulated, at public expense, in which the causes for war were enumerated, and the motives for it concentrated in a manner suited to agitate and influence the public mind." The only observation we shall now make on this manifesto, which is no more than a report from three of the members, of the committee of foreign relations, and the message, of which we may speak more fully in the sequel, relates to the absence of any declared concurrence in them, on the part of the senate.

It is usual, and eminently proper, when war is declared, that it should be preceded by a manifesto or exposition of motives, emanating from the quarter where the power to declare it, is lodged. Now, with us, this power is vested in the three branches of the government, jointly; and of course, since to use the phraseology of the peace address," a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" has not propelled the two houses of congress, to unite in announcing the reasons, or motives, for their declaration of war, we have, properly speaking, no regular manifesto, or full expression of the sense of the government. The silence of the senate is rendered the more remarkable, by the separate philippics of the president, and the house of representatives. We shrewdly suspect, from the whole tenor of their proceedings on the subject, that several of that body,

who finally voted for war,-particularly such of them as endeavoured to substitute for it, letters of marque and reprisal against both belligerents,-would have been exceedingly unwilling, to subscribe their names, to the pieces justificatives of the other branches of the government. If we mistake not, they entered upon this "sad founderous road" of war, with much less alacrity, than the committee of foreign relations in the lower house, and oftener called to mind that fatal disgrace, which, according to a very profound observer, rarely fails to attend folly ending in misfortune.

The authors of the address, after touching on the general importance of peace to the United States, and the proper system of defence for our interests, proceed to discuss at large, the chief motives to war, as enumerated by the president in his message. The solidity of these motives in themselves,although not the only, or the most important aspect, under which the question of war is to be considered, nor the principal criterion by which the conduct of our administration should be tested,-could not however but be regarded, as a point to be thoroughly investigated. In a war like the present, assuming, from the peculiar circumstances of our own country, and of the world, a character altogether extraordinary, and, at the best, exceedingly ambiguous, the American people had a right to expect from their government, the most complete justification of the measure. It was eminently due to the nation, in reference not only to her domestic prosperity, but to her reputation with her contemporaries, and with posterity, that her rulers, besides making the abstract justice of their cause, as clear as the noon-day, should likewise have kept it free, from the adulteration of any frivolous or unsubstantial allegation.

"Moral duty," says the address, "requires that a nation, before it appeals to arms, should have been not only true to itself, but that it should have failed in no duty to others." This too it was incumbent upon our administration, to show undeniably, in their own case, as well as to purge themselves from all suspicion, of sinister motives, or unhallowed passions. It should have been made manifest, also, that the most strict impartiality had been observed towards both nations;-that our neutral obligations had been, in every instance, religiously fulfilled; that we had uniformly displayed the most sincere dispositions to preserve peace; that we had exacted no ruinous concessions from our enemy;-that we had fully exhausted all the expedients of negotiation and compromise,

which the law of nature and nations prescribes, before proceeding to the last resort.

Proof of all this, the American people would, indeed, be entitled to require from their government, at the commencement of any war, which they might be called upon to wage;but how much more particularly, in one like the present, of which the tendency is to second the designs of a monstrous despotism, that threatens to enslave and barbarize the human race? It is not even enough, that we should stand acquitted before God, and our own consciences. To save us from eternal disgrace, and the hatred of the world, we should be able to vindicate ourselves, from all reproach, at the tribunal of man. If our government has not put itself in a condition to do this for us, before it enlisted us on the side of France, it has betrayed its trust. We shall see, in the course of the ensuing inquiry, what it has done.

"It appears to the undersigned," says the address, "that the wrongs of which the United States have to complain, although in some respects, very grievous to our interests, and in many humiliating to our pride, were yet of a nature which in the present state of the world, either would not justify war, or which war would not remedy." Such is truly the case as regards our relations with Great Britain. The proposition is satisfactorily established, in the view taken of the three leading subjects of governmental complaint: impressments; particular blockades; and the orders in council. We do not think it necessary, to enter fully into the argument on these points. Admitting the privileges of blockade and impressment to be unjust in an eminent degree, as they are now exercised by the British, yet in our opinion the war would be but little less exceptionable; the administration equally worthy of that sentence of condemnation and exclusion, which we trust they will receive from the people. The men and their measure are to be tried upon different grounds. We shall however follow the authors of the address, in the order in which they themselves proceed, and extract from their disquisition what we think most material for our purpose.

And first as to impressments. They have set this question in a light in some respects new, and well fitted to open the eyes of any candid person. They profess to sympathize in the sufferings, of such of our unfortunate seamen, as have fallen victims to the abuses of the practice, and who is it, possessing, like them, a truly American heart, that does not? Who not more, than an administration, which while affecting the keenest

sensibility, for the condition of our countrymen in British ships, appears wholly indifferent concerning a body of them, scarcely less numerous, that have been, from time to time, confined in French prisons and dungeons, under circumstances of still greater suffering and more flagrant injustice? What are we to think of the patriotism and the sympathy, which are roused almost to fury, by wrongs coming from one quarter, but which slumber in perfect serenity, over similar outrages yet heavier, and devoid of all colour of right, committed in another?

The pretensions of the British and American governments, with respect to impressments, are, in theory, utterly irreconcileable. The question of right is inexplicable and endless. It is admitted, that, in the case of the full exercise of the claim of either party, injury would accrue to the opposite side. There can be no doubt, but that if our flag were to enjoy the complete immunity, which we demand for it, the British. might suffer material prejudice. At least this is the firm, unalterable conviction of that nation. Her situation and dispositions are justly represented by the authors of the address. "The doctrine of allegiance for which she contends is common to all the governments of Europe. It has been maintained for centuries. When Britain is at war, and the United States neutral, the merchant service of the United States holds out to British seamen temptations almost irresistible. That England whose posture is insular, who is engaged in a war apparently for existence, whose seamen are her bulwark, should look upon the effect of our principle upon her safety, with a jealous eye, is inevitable, that she will not hazard the consequences of its unregulated exercise is certain."*- The reason why

66

દર

* The following passage to the same purport, from the able speech made by Mr. Bayard of the senate, on his motion to postpone the war until November, deserves, also, the attention of our readers. "The question as to the impressment of our seamen, did not present insuperable difficulties. Britain never contended for a right to impress American seamen. The right she "claims is to take her own subjects, found in our merchant vessels. She ex"ercises the right in relation to her own private vessels. This right she never will, nor can give up. If our merchant flag were a secure protection "to British seamen, who sailed under it, the British navy must be unmanned "by desertion; while our merchants can, and do pay, a dollar for every shil"ling, a sailor can earn in the naval service of his country.-Can it be ex"pected that a nation which depends for its existence upon its naval strength, "would yield a principle threatening its maritime power? No war of any du"ration, or however disastrous, will ever extort this concession:-She may "as well fall with arms in her hands, as to seal quietly the bond of her "ruin."