nification of every term that we think we perceive.

The next subject of opposition was the paragraph which speaks of the misunderstanding with the bloody Gallican Republic. In the reported answer it stood thus: "We have ever concurred " with you in the most sincere and uniform dis" position to preserve our mutual relations invio" late, and it is, of course, with anxiety and deep

"

66

regret we hear that any interruption of our harmony with the French Republic has occurred; " for we feel with you, and with our constituents, "the cordial and unabated wish, to maintain a per"fectly friendly understanding with that nation. "Your endeavours to fulfil that wish cannot fail "therefore to interest our attention. And while

"

we participate in the full reliance you have expressed on the patriotism, self-respect and "fortitude of our countrymen, we cherish the " pleasing hope, that a spirit of justice and mo"deration will ensure the success of your perse"verance."

This was certainly tame enough, after all the outrages and insults of France. The desire to reestablish harmony is expressed, as Mr. Ames observed, with little less ardour than the requests of a supplicating lover; and the confidence in the spirit of the country, in case of an appeal to arms, is disguised with as much care, as if it were a crime to be courageous in opposing the violence and resenting the indignities of a horde of base-born grovelling tyrants.

How different from this hesitating tone was that of the Senate : "We are," say they, "not un" mindful of the situation in which events may " place us, nor unprepared to adopt that system of " conduct, which, compatible with the dignity of a " respectable nation, necessity may compel us to pur

"sue."

" sue." This manly answer does infinite honour to the man who penned it, and let the insolent Convention recollect, that it was approved of by him with whom they will in future be obliged to

treat.

The answer of the Senate was all that could be wished, but it should have been surpassed in warmth by those who call themselves the immediate representatives of the people. Language that may be extremely proper, at such a crisis, from cool and dispassionate Senators, whose business is rather to check than to encourage the ardour of the public spirit, may be poor and cold when coming from the Representatives. Every sentence from them should have smoked with indignation at the insupportable insolence of the French, they should have declared, that they were ready with their lives to defend that independence, which had been so openly attacked, and to support the government in every energetic measure it should take to obtain satisfaction for the indignities that had been heaped on it. Yet, so far from this was the conduct of the House, that even the paragraph above quoted was not humble enough for them: not content with expressing their anxiety and deep regret at the interruption of harmony, and their unabated wish to maintain a perfectly friendly understanding, with the nation who had robbed, despised, and openly insulted them and their country, they must needs add another sentence, wishing for the restoration of that harmony and affection, which had hitherto so happily subsisted. Not content with amplifying their tremulous accents till the quaver had lost the sound of manhood, they must needs begin da capo and repeat the faltering tune. Nay, the last sentence of the paragraph, which speaks of a spirit of justice and moderation, could not pass without being crammed with the word mutual. Mr. Giles indeed, wished

U4

wished to tack another phrase; viz, " on the part

of the Republic," to the end of this word mutual. He seemed to think that the answer would be incomplete without a little nonsense." That a mutu"al spirit of justice and moderation on the part of "the Republic will ensure the success of your per" severance."-If you can go to the Sunday Schools round the city, and find me a boy out of his primer, stupid and illiterate enough to compose a sentence like this, I will be bound to find you men in Virginia, who shall vote him into Congress." The "Republic," too. What Republic? Is not America a Republic as well as France? The French King forbade his subjects to address him, or speak of him, under any other name than simply that of the King, as if there were but one king in the world; just as we speak of the Sun or the Moon. The despots who have cut his throat, seem to have taken possession of his vanity as well as of his houses, his gardens, his coaches and his jewels. They call their poor beggared enslaved country the Republic. But other kingdoms never observed this style of eminence towards the French monarch, nor will it be observed towards the French Republic, I trust, by any other Republic, or any other mortal except Mr. Giles. It would seem that the gentleman forgot where he was, and looked upon himself as a representative of the swarthy French, instead of the more humane and more enlightened, though sooty, citizens of the ancient dominion.

The imagination of this man, and of all those who voted with him, appears to have been upon the rack to find out terms expressive of their dependance on the generosity and magnanimity of the insulting foe, and of their want of confidence in the people of this country. Was this what the President expected, when he complained to them of the aggressions of the French, and of the threats he

he had received from their minister? Was this what the people expected, when that insolent minister appealed to them from their government ? No; they expected no such milksop tautology. They expected a good, plain, and resolute tone, calculated to convince the treacherous French, that their independence was not a mere name, and that, while a desire of peace dwelt in their breasts, fear of a war found no place there.

It was said by those who opposed the introduction of that redundancy of affection, which now dishonours the answer, that the first draught was dictated by a spirit of accommodation; and, indeed, this was evidently the case, for no one who knows Messrs. Ames and Sitgreaves, and reads their animated speeches in the debate, will believe that this draught was dictated by their feelings. My complaisance, however, would not have carried me so far; I would have stood alone in the House; I would have opposed every sentence, every word, and every syllable, that savoured of tameness, that indicated a reliance on the justice and moderation of the French, or a fear of encountering their displeasure.

The third subject of opposition was, that sentence in the answer which styles the people of America "the freest and most enlightened in the world;" and who could help being surprized that the adorer of the people should take the lead here also! One would imagine, that to be proper objects of adoration, they should at least be the most free and enlightened in the world; unless we suppose that Mr. Giles adored them for their purity and virtue, which there is very little reason to do.

These words were at last changed for, " a free " and enlightened people." The cause of this (with shame be it spoken), was, fear of offending the French Convention, an assembly that every worthy

American

American longs to spit upon; an assembly whose approbation is a mark of dishonour ten thousand times greater than standing in the pillory or being burnt in the hand. Talk of writing scoundrel in the forehead! I would sooner bear the word scoundrel as a motto round the pupils of my eyes, than be blasted with the approving grin of a gang of assassins.

That the cause of the opposition was what I have stated it, must be clear to every one who recollects the language of the members who took a part in it, on other occasions. There is hardly a people in Europe, except the French, whom they have not, at different times, since the present war, represented as buried in slavery and brutal ignorance. They insisted that the House had no right to cast reflections on foreign nations; what right had Mr. Giles, then, to cast reflections on the government and parliament of Britain? What right had another member to call the Empress of Russia a she bear, another the King of Great Britain a robber, and another, all kings in general a herd of crowned monsters? "The fact may be true," said they, " but we have no right to step beyond the " boundaries of our own country to contrast it " with any other." Now, what did the pretty Mr. Livingston, who was one of these inoffensive and modest gentlemen, do last session ?" Great Bri"tain," said he, "was once free; but now Great " Britain, and all Europe, France excepted, is in "chains!"-Was this stepping beyond the boundary line? This was not being content with eulogium on America, but was openly insulting every nation of Europe, except the French, the free and enlightened heroes of the Bloody Buoy. But, why need we go back to past sessions, when in the present one, and even in this debate, and on this very question, we hear the delicate Mr. Parker exclaim -" Kingcraft