5th DECEMBER.

THIS day the Congress met, and, a quorum being formed, it was agreed, on the 6th, to inform the President that the two Houses were ready to receive such communications as he might have to make to them.

7th DECEMBER.
The President went to the Representatives' chamber, in the usual manner, where, the two Houses being assembled, he delivered the follow­ing address.

IN recurring to the internal situation of our country since I had last the pleasure to address you, I find ample reason for a renewed expression of that gratitude to the [Page 6] Ruler of the Universe, which a continued series of pros­perity has so often and so justly called forth.

The acts of the last session, which required special ar­rangements, have been, as far as circumstances would ad­mit, carried into operation.

Measures calculated to ensure a continuance of the friendship of the Indians, and to preserve peace along the extent of our interior frontier, have been digested and adopted. In the framing of these, care has been taken to guard on the one hand, our advanced settlements from the predatory incursions of those unruly individuals, who cannot be restrained by their tribes; and on the other hand, to protect the rights secured to the Indians by trea­ty; to draw them nearer to the civilized state; and in­spire them with correct conceptions of the power, as well as justice of the government.

The meeting of the deputies from the Creek nation at Coleraine, in the State of Georgia, which had for a princi­pal object the purchase of a parcel of their land by that State, broke up without its being accomplished; the na­tion having, previous to their departure, instructed them against making any sale; the occasion however has been improved, to confirm by a new treaty with the Creeks, their pre-existing engagements with the United States; and to obtain their consent to the establishment of trading houses, and military posts within their boundary; by means of which their friendship and the general peace may be more effectually secured.

The period during the late session, at which the appro­priation was passed, for carrying into effect the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, between the United States and his Britannic Majesty, necessarily procrastinated the reception of the posts stipulated to be delivered, be­yond the date assigned for that event.

As soon however as the Governor General of Canada could be addressed with propriety on the subject, arrange­ments were cordially and promptly concluded for their [Page 7] evacuation, and the United States took possession of the principal of them, comprehending Oswego, Niagara, De­troit, Michilimackinac and Fort Miami, where such re­pairs and additions have been ordered to be made as ap­peared indispensable.

The commissioners appointed on the part of the United States and of Great Britain, to determine which is the ri­ver St. Croix, mentioned in the treaty of peace of 1783, agreed in the choice of Egbert Benson, Esq of New-York, for the third commissioner. The whole met at St. Andrew's, in Passamaquody Bay, in the beginning of Oc­tober, and directed surveys to be made of the rivers in dis­pute; but deeming it impracticable to have these surveys completed before the next year, they adjourned, to meet at Boston in August 1797, for the final decision of the question.

Other commissioners appointed on the part of the Unit­ed States, agreeably to the seventh article of the treaty with Great-Britain, relative to captures and condemna­tion of vessels and other property, met the commissioners of his Britannic majesty in London, in August last, when John Trumbull, Esq was chosen by lot, for the fifth com­missioner. In October following, the board were to pro­ceed to business. As yet, there has been no communica­tion of commissioners on the part of Great-Britain, to unite with those who have been appointed on the part of the United States, for carrying into effect the sixth article of the treaty.

The treaty with Spain required that the commissioners for running the boundary line between the territory of the United States, and his Catholic Majesty's provinces of East and West Florida, should meet at the Natchez before the expiration of sixth months after the exchange of the rati­fications, which was effected at Aranjuez on the twenty-fifth day of April; and the troops of his Catholic Majes­ty, occupying any posts within the limits of the United States, were within the same period to be withdrawn.— The commissioner of the United States, therefore, com­menced his journey for the Natchez in September, and [Page 8] troops were ordered to occupy the posts from which the Spanish garrisons should be withdrawn. Information has been recently received of the appointment of a commis­sioner on the part of his Catholic Majesty, for running the boundary line; but none of any appointment for the ad­justment of the claims of our citizens, whose vessels were captured by the armed vessels of Spain.

In pursuance of the act of Congress passed in the last ses­sion, for the protection and relief of American seamen, agents were appointed, one to reside in Great Britain, and the other in the West-Indies. The effects of the agency in the West-Indies are not yet fully ascertained; but those which have been communicated afford grounds to believe the measure will be beneficial. The agent des­tined to reside in Great-Britain declining to accept the appointment, the business has consequently devolved on the minister of the United States, in London, and will com­mand his attention, until a new agent shall be appointed.

After many delays and disappointments arising out of the European war, the final arrangements for fulfilling the engagements made to the Dey and Regency of Al­giers, will, in all present appearance, be crowned with success; but under great, though inevitable disadvantages in the pecuniary transactions, occasioned by that war▪ which will render a further provision necessary. The actual liberation of all our citizens who were prisoners in Algiers, while it gratifies every feeling heart, is itself an earnest of a satisfactory termination of the whole ne­gociation. Measures are in operation for effecting trea­ties with the Regencies of Tunis and Tripoli.

To an active external commerce, the protection of a naval force is indispensable. This is manifest with regard to wars in which a state is itself a party. But besides this, it is in our own experience, that the most sincere neutrality is not a sufficient guard against the depredations of nations at war. To secure respect to a neutral flag, requires a naval force, organized and ready to vindicate it from in­sult or aggression. This may even prevent the necessity of going to war, by discouraging belligerent powers from [Page 9] committing such violations of the rights of the neutral party, as may, first or last, leave no other option. From the best information I have been able to obtain, it would seem as if our trade to the Mediterranean, without a pro­tecting force, will always be insecure; and our citizens exposed to the calamities from which numbers of them have but just been relieved.

These considerations invite the United States to look to the means, and to set about the gradual creation of a navy. The increasing progress of their navigation pro­mises them, at no distant period, the requisite supply of seamen; and their means, in other respects, favour the undertaking. It is an encouragement likewise, that their particular situation will give weight and influence to a moderate naval force in their hands. Will it not then be advisable to begin without delay to provide and lay up the materials for the building and equipping of ships of war; and to proceed in the work by degrees, in propor­tion as our resources shall render it practicable without inconvenience; so that a future war of Europe may not find our commerce in the same unprotected state in which it was found by the present?

Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, di­rected their attention to the encouragement of manufac­tures. The object is of too much consequence not to en­sure a continuance of their efforts in every way which shall appear eligible. As a general rule, manufactures on public account are inexpedient. But where the state of things in a country leaves little hope that certain branches of manufacture will for a great length of time obtain; when these are of a nature essential to the fur­nishing and equipping of the public force in time of war; are not establishments for procuring them on public ac­count, to the extent of the ordinary demand for the public service, recommended by strong considerations of national policy, as an exception to the general rule? Ought our country to remain in such cases dependent on foreign sup­ply, precarious, because liable to be interrupted?

[Page 10]If the necessary articles should in this mode cost more in time of peace, will not the security and independence thence arising, form an ample compensation? Establish­ments of this sort, commensurate only with the calls of the public service in time of peace, will, in time of war▪ easily be extended in proportion to the exigencies of the govern­ment; and may even perhaps be made to yield a surplus for the supply of our citizens at large, so as to mitigate the privations from the interruptions of their trade. If adopt­ed, the plan ought to exclude all those branches which are already, or likely soon to be established in the country; in order that there may be no danger of interference with pursuits of individual industry.

It will not be doubted, that with reference either to individual or national welfare, agriculture is of primary importance. In proportion as nations advance in popula­tion, and other circumstances of maturity, this truth be­comes more apparent; and renders the cultivation of the soil more and more an object of public patronage. Institu­tions for promoting it, grow up supported by the public purse: and to what object can it be dedicated with greater propriety? Among the means which have been employed to this end, none have been attended with greater success, than the establishment of Boards, composed of proper cha­racters, charged with collecting and diffusing information, and enabled, by premiums and small pecuniary aids, to en­courage and assist a spirit of discovery and improvement.— This species of establishment contributes doubly to the in­crease of improvement; by stimulating to enterprize and experiment; and by drawing to a common centre the re­sults every where of individual skill and observation, and spreading them thence over the whole nation. Experi­ence accordingly has shewn, that they are very cheap in­struments of immense national benefits.

I have heretofore proposed to the consideration of Con­gress, the expediency of establishing a National Universi­ty; and also a Military Academy. The desirableness of both these institutions, has so constantly increased with every new view I have taken of the subject, that I cannot [Page 11] omit the opportunity of once for all, recalling your atten­tion to them.

The assembly to which I address myself, is too enlight­ened not to be fully sensible how much a flourishing state of the arts and sciences contributes to national prosperity and reputation. True it is, that our country, much to its honor, contains many seminaries of learning highly respec­table and useful; but the funds upon which they rest, are too narrow to command the ablest professors in the diffe­rent departments of liberal knowledge, for the institution contemplated: though they would be excellent auxiliaries.

Amongst the motives to such an institution, the assimila­tion of the principles, opinions and manners of our coun­trymen, by the common education of a portion of our youth from every quarter, well deserves attention. The more homogeneous our citizens can be made in these particulars, the greater will be our prospect of permanent union; and a primary object of such a national institution should be, the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing on its legisla­ture, than to patronise a plan for communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?

The institution of a military academy, is also recom­mended by cogent reasons. However pacific the general policy of a nation may be, it ought never to be without an adequate stock of military knowledge for emergencies. The first would impair the energy of its character, and both would hazard its safety, or expose it to greater evils when war could not be avoided. Besides, that war might often not depend upon its own choice. In proportion as the observance of pacific maxims might exempt a nation from the necessity of practising the rules of the military art, ought to be its care in preserving and transmitting by proper establishments, the knowledge of that art. What­ever argument may be drawn from particular examples, superficially viewed, a thorough examination of the sub­ject will evince, that the art of war is at once comprehen­sive [Page 12] and complicated; that it demands much previous study; and that the possession of it, in its most improved and perfect state, is always of great moment to the security of a nation. This, therefore, ought to be a serious care of every government; and for this purpose, an academy, where a regular course of instruction is given, is an ob­vious expedient, which different nations have successfully employed.

The compensations to the officers of the United States, in various instances, and in none more than in respect to the most important stations, appear to call for legislative revision. The consequences of a defective provision are of serious import to the government. If private wealth is to supply the defect of public retribution, it will greatly contract the sphere within which the selection of character for office is to be made; and will proportionally diminish the probability of a choice of men, able as well as upright. Besides that it would be repugnant to the vital principles of our government, virtually to exclude from public trusts, talents and virtue, unless accompanied by wealth.

While in our external relations, some serious inconve­niencies and embarrassments have been overcome, and others lessened, it is with much pain, and deep regret, I mention, that circumstances of a very unwelcome nature have lately occurred. Our trade has suffered, and is suf­fering extensive injuries in the West-Indies, from the cruizers and agents of the French republic; and communi­cations have been received from its minister here, which indicate the danger of a further disturbance of our com­merce by its authority; and which are, in other respects, far from agreeable.

It has been my constant, sincere and earnest wish, in conformity with that of our nation, to maintain cordial harmony, and a perfectly friendly understanding with that republic. This wish remains unabated; and I shall per­severe in the endeavour to fulfil it, to the utmost extent of what shall be consistent with a just, and indispensable regard to the rights and honour of our country: nor will I easily cease to cherish the expectation, that a spirit of jus­tice, [Page 13] candor and friendship, on the part of the republic, will eventually ensure success.

In pursuing this course, however, I cannot forget what is due to the character of our government and nation; or to a full and entire confidence in the good sense, patriotism, self-respect and fortitude of my countrymen.

I reserve for a special message, a more particular com­munication on this interesting subject.

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives,

I have directed an estimate of the appropriations neces­sary for the service of the ensuing year, to be submitted from the proper department; with a view of the public receipts and expenditures to the latest period to which an account can be prepared.

It is with satisfaction I am able to inform you, that the revenues of the United States continue in a state of pro­gressive improvement.

A reinforcement of the existing provisions for discharg­ing our public debt, was mentioned in my address at the opening of the last session. Some preliminary steps were taken towards it, the maturing of which will, no doubt, en­gage your zealous attention during the present. I will only add, that it will afford me a heartfelt satisfaction to concur in such further measures, as will ascertain to our country the prospect of a speedy extinguishment of the debt. Posterity may have cause to regret, if from any mo­tive, intervals of tranquillity are left unimproved for acce­lerating this valuable end.

Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of Representatives,

My solicitude to see the militia of the United States placed on an efficient establishment, has been so often, and so ardently expressed, that I shall but barely recall the sub­ject to your view on the present occasion; at the same time that I shall submit to your inquiry, whether our har­bours are yet sufficiently secured.

[Page]The situation in which I now stand, for the last time, in the midst of the representatives of the people of the U­nited States, naturally recalls the period when the admi­nistration of the present form of government commenced: and I cannot omit the occasion to congratulate you, and my country, on the success of the experiment; nor to re­peat my supplication to the Supreme Ruler of the uni­verse, and Sovereign Arbiter of nations, that his provi­dential care may still be extended to the United States; that the virtue and happiness of the people may be pre­served; and that the government, which they have insti­tuted for the protection of their liberties, may be perpe­tual.

12th DECEMBER.
The Senate presented to the President the fol­lowing answer to his address of the 7th.

WE thank you, Sir, for your faithful and detailed ex­posure of the existing situation of our country: and we sincerely join in sentiments of gratitude to an over-ruling Providence, for the distinguished share of public prosperi­ty, and private happiness, which the people of the United States so peculiarly enjoy.

We are fully sensible of the advantages that have re­sulted from the adoption of measures (which you have successfully carried into effect) to preserve peace, cultivate friendship, and promote civilization, among the Indian tribes, on the western frontiers;—feelings of humanity, and the most solid political principles, equally encourage the continuance of this system.

We observe with pleasure, that the delivery of the mi­litary posts, lately occupied by the British forces, within the territory of the United States, was made with cordi­ality, and promptitude, as soon as circumstances would ad­mit; and that the other provisions of our treaties with Great-Britain and Spain, that were objects of eventual [Page 15] arrangement, are about being carried into effect, with en­tire harmony and good faith.

The unfortunate, but unavoidable difficulties that op­posed a timely compliance with the terms of the Algerine treaty, are much to be lamented; as they may occasion a temporary suspension of the advantages to be derived from a solid peace with that power, and a perfect security from its predatory warfare; at the same time, the lively impressions that affected the public mind, on the redemp­tion of our captive fellow-citizens, afford the most laudable incentive to our exertions, to remove the remaining obsta­cles.

We perfectly coincide with you in opinion that the im­portance of our commerce demands a naval force for its protection against foreign insult and depredation, and our solicitude to attain that object will be always proportionate to its magnitude.

The necessity of accelerating the establishment of cer­tain useful manufactures, by the intervention of legislative aid and protection, and the encouragement due to agricul­ture, by the creation of Boards, (composed of intelligent individuals) to patronize this primary pursuit of society, are subjects which will readily engage our most serious at­tention.

A national university may be converted to the most useful purposes—the science of legislation, being so essenti­ally dependent on the endowments of the mind, the public interest must receive effectual aid from the general diffusion of knowledge; and the United States will assune a more dignified station, among the nations of the earth, by the successful cultivation of the higher branches of literature.

A military academy may be likewise rendered equally important. To aid and direct the physical force of the na­tion, by cherishhing a military spirit, enforcing a proper sense of discipline, and inculcating a scientific system of tactics, is consonant to the soundest maxims of public poli­cy: connected with, and supported by such an establish­ment, [Page 16] a well regulated militia, constituting the national defence of the country, would prove the most effectual, as well as economical, preservative of peace.

We cannot but consider, with serious apprehensions, the inadequate compensations of public officers, especially of those in the more important stations. It is not only a violation of the spirit of a public contract, but is an evil so extensive in its operation, and so destructive in its conse­quences, that we trust it will receive the most pointed le­gislative attention.

We sincerely lament, that whilst the conduct of the United States has been uniformly impressed with the cha­racter of equity, moderation, and love of peace, in the maintainance of all their foreign relationships, our trade should be so harrassed by the cruisers and agents of the republic of France, throughout the extensive departments of the West-Indies.

Whilst we are confident that no cause of complaint ex­ists, that could authorise an interruption of our tranquilli­ty, or disengage that republic from the bonds of amity, cemented by the faith of treaties, we cannot but express our deepest regrets, that official communications have been made to you, indicating a more serious disturbance of our commerce. Although we cherish the expectation, that a sense of justice, and a consideration of our mutual inte­rests will moderate their councils; we are not unmindful 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 pursue.

We cordially acquiesce in the reflection, that the Uni­ted States, under the operation of the federal govern­ment, have experienced a most rapid aggrandizement and prosperity, as well political, as commercial.

Whilst contemplating the causes that produce this aus­picious result, we much acknowledge the excellence of the constitutional system, and the wisdom of the legislative [Page 17] provisions;—but we should be deficient in gratitude and justice, did we not attribute a great portion of these ad­vantages, to the virtue, firmness and talents of your ad­ministration; which have been conspicuously displayed in the most trying times, and on the most critical occasions. It is, therefore, with the sincerest regret, that we now receive an official notification of your intentions to retire from the public employments of your country.

When we review the various scenes of your public life, so long and so successfully devoted to the most arduous services, civil and military,—as well during the struggles of the American revolution, as the convulsive periods of a recent date, we cannot look forward to your retirement, without our warmest affections and most anxious regards accompanying you; and without mingling with our fel­low citizens at large, the sincerest wishes for your personal happiness, that sensibility and attachment can express.

The most effectual consolation that can offer for the loss we are about to sustain, arises from the animating reflec­tion, that the influence of your example will extend to your successors, and the United States thus continue to enjoy, an able, upright, and energetic administration.

16th DECEMBER.

The following answer of the House of Represen­tatives was presented to the President.

This answer, on which there was a pretty long and warm debate, is somewhat different from that which was first proposed by the committee ap­pointed to draw it up. Some members were op­posed to almost every part of it, but their opposi­tion was more directly levelled against three par­ticular points; the compliment to the President, the paragraph respecting the misunderstanding with the French Republic, and the expression of the free and enlightened state of the American peo­ple.

That a compliment to the President, or rather a faint acknowledgement of his virtues and ser­vices (for on this subject any acknowledgement must be faint,) should be opposed in the Congress of the United States, would be cause of great mor­tification to every generous and grateful mind, [Page 21] were it not accompanied with the consoling reflec­tion, that Mr. Giles was at the head of the oppo­sition. There are certain persons, whose applause we shun with as much solicitude as we seek for that of others, and I must confess, there are few men in the world whose praises I should dread more than those of the Virginian Giles, and I dare say the President is very happy to think that he has escaped them.

The answer expresses a grateful conviction of the President's wise, firm, and patriotic admini­stration, and regrets his departure from office. To all this the virtuous and upright Mr. Giles objected. He said, that ‘the President's admini­stration had been neither wise nor firm; and as to his departure from office, he felt not the least regret on account of it. He hoped he would retire to his country seat, and live comfortably there. He believed the government of the United States would go on without him. The people were competent to their own government. That for those, who had opposed some of the principal measures of the President, to vote for the answer in its present form, would be writing scoundrel on their foreheads.’

It would be useless to take up mine and my read­er's time in a justification of the compliment to which Mr. Giles was opposed. The people of the United States, from one end of the Union to the other, have unequivocally expressed, what this gentleman is afraid to express, lest thereby he should write scoundrel on his forehead. If the reader will look back to the Censor for April last, he will find this same patriot declaring, that he adored the voice of the people, and yet he has [Page 22] now the temerity to doubt its infallibility, to re­fuse obedience to it, even to mutiny against and offer resistance to its awful commands. If ever I derived an extraordinary degree of satisfaction from the embarrassment of others, it was on seeing Mr. Giles and his brother patriots, the votaries of the popular voice, reduced to take the unpopular side of a question. The leader seems to have been sensible of the awkwardness of his situation, when he said that ‘the people are competent to their own government.’ This was a kind of palliative, it was shifting the ground of opposition, it was a poor miserable attempt to preserve consistency, and betrayed either a total want of discernment in the speaker, or a consummate contempt for the understandings of the people: for, if the people are competent to their own government, they are certainly competent to form a judgment of the conduct of the President, and as they have declar­ed his administration to be wise, firm and patrio­tic, how dared their zealous and pious adorer to say they are mistaken?

As to writing scoundrel on his front, of which Mr. Giles seemed to entertain such unnecessary fears, if the approving of the compliment in ques­tion would produce this effect, all the members of the state legislatures, and nine-tenths of their constituents, had already taken the hideous in­scription. What a scoundrelly god, then, does Mr. Giles adore? If an obstinate opposition to all the most important measures of an administra­tion, which the answer approves of in the aggre­gate, was calculated to imprint the terrific word, voting for the answer could do no more than ren­der legible what was already written; as charac­ters in certain liquids remain imperceptible till [Page 23] drawn forth by the fire. Mr. Giles and his fel­low labourers prudently shrank from the ordeal; but they will excuse us, if our imaginations should supply its place. Read we assuredly shall, and it will be nothing very extraordinary if we should extend the signification 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 dis­position to preserve our mutual relations invio­late, and it is, of course, with anxiety and deep 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 perfectly 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 moderation will ensure the success of your per­severance.’

This was certainly tame enough, after all the outrages and insults of France. The desire to re-establish 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 [Page 24] 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 un­mindful 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 pursue.’ 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 [Page 25] 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 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 mutual spirit of justice and moderation on the part of the Republic will ensure the success of your perseverance.’—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 [Page 26] 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 de­pendence 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 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 milk-sop 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 [Page 27] 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 surprised 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 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 [Page 28] 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 Britain, 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 and priestcraft have too long governed the world with an iron rod: more enlightened times, I trust, are approach­ing, and I hope ere long republicanism will cover the earth.’—Like the universal deluge I suppose.

It is pretty clear from this sally of Mr. Parker, that no nations were to be excepted but those who are, or call themselves, republics. This might have done very well, and the answer might have been thus amended with some little consistency, but poor Mr. Parker has a short memory, and being pressed hard by Mr. William Smith, who truly asserted that fear of giving umbrage to the [Page 29] French, was at the bottom of the opposition, he tacked short about, and ran headlong into the most monstrous contradiction that ever bemired a poor orator.—"No;" said he, ‘I have not the French republic, or any other nation in view; the Swiss Cantons have shown themselves more enlightened than we.’—All was well yet, but Mr. Parker, like most other eloquent men, is very fond of enumeration, and he unfortunately added the Danes and the Swedes. These nations also, he said, were more enlightened than the people of America, though, in the same speech, he declared that King-craft had too long govern­ed the world with an iron rod, and hoped that more enlightened times were at hand, and that republicanism would soon cover the earth! He could not be so very ignorant, or at least I should suppose so, as not to know that Denmark and Sweden are governed by kings; but he was hem­med up in a corner, and did not know where to look for more enlightened republics than his own, except France.—A legislator should always un­derstand geography and astronomy, and then "his eye in a fine fit of frenzy rolling," might, as Doctor Ruth says Rittenhouse did, find out re­publics in the moon. However, a very little study of the former science, might have led Mr. Parker, in his jump from Switzerland to Den­mark, to perceive the dear sister republic of Ba­tavia. Here he might have found a triumphant comparison. Republicanism has enlightened the Dutch with a vengeance. The sans-culottes have worn them down till you may read a newspaper through their ribs. Geneva too, which was so near him when he was got among the Swiss, might, one would have thought, have claimed a [Page 30] preference to Denmark and Sweden; particularly as the cheering rays of republicanism have been communicated to it by the great luminary which seems to be the sole object of his admiration.

Mr. Parker moved for striking out the words, "freest and most enlightened." This Mr. Chris­tie proposed to amend, by inserting, ‘free-est, and amongst the most enlightened;’ but still Mr. Swanwick thought the word "amongst" should come before, instead of after ‘free-est; because nothing could tend more to preserve the peace of the country, than treating others with re­spect;’ and in this opinion he was joined by Messrs. Coit and Dayton, the latter of whom most humbly thought, that ‘the amendment very much softened the terms, and rendered them more palatable.’—At last, after these four words had undergone just as many changes as can be rung upon four bells, the peal was closed with, "free and enlightened people."

Gracious heaven! and have I lived to hear the American Congress, men whose brow I had been taught to believe independence had made its chosen seat, haggling three whole days about four words of compliment to their country, and at last ex­punge them, lest they should give offence to a foreign nation! Mr. Livingston and the news-monger Brown may dun us as long as they please about the slavery of Britons, but if a member of their House of Commons were timid enough to express his sears at calling his nation the free-est and most enlightened in the world, I flatter my­self he would never dare show his face again in that assembly. For a nation, which dares not pass on itself whatever compliment or encomium [Page 31] it pleases, to call itself free and independent, is an abuse of words that nothing can be a sufficient punishment for, except the consciousness of be­ing, and of being thought, exactly the contrary of what it strives to appear.

That the amendment should be adopted at all, is a circumstance in itself sufficiently humiliating; but, when we consider that it was adopted for fear of giving umbrage to France; when we consider that the representatives of the people thought it unfitting to declare them more free and enlighten­ed than the base, the willing slaves, the brutishly ignorant and illiterate wretches left in the French territory, we feel our superiority insulted, and despise the man who would shrink from the de­claration.

In that free country, France, the parent dares not yield protection to his child, nor the child to his parent, without the previous consent of some petty understrapping despot. Man possesses no­thing; his property belongs to a mob of tyrants, who call themselves the nation, who hold his la­bour and his very carcass in a state of requisition. If his griefs break out into complaint, he is dragged to a tribunal, where no evidence is required. A shrug, a look, a tear, or a sigh, betrays him. To repine at the cruelty of his fate is to be sus­pected, and to be suspected is death.

We need not stretch our view across the At­lantic for specimens of French liberty; we may see enough without quitting our own country, or even our houses. The cockade proclamation of Citizen Adet is at once an insult to the United States, and an act of abominable tyranny on the [Page 32] unfortunate French who have taken a refuge in them. They must not only suffer shame for their country, but must bear about them the sign of its disgrace, the livery of the infamous Orleans. They must not only be despoiled of their wealth, and driven from their homes and their families, but must drag their chains into distant lands. It is not enough that they should be branded with the name of slave; they must wear the symbol of their slavery, and that, too, exactly where other men wear the symbol of courage and of honour!— Will not the people of America blush to think, that their representatives were afraid to assert, that they enjoyed a degree of freedom superior to this?

Of the enlightened people, now called the French nation, not one out of five hundred can spell his own name. As to religion, four years ago they were seen kneeling with their faces prone to the earth, blubbering out their sins, and be­seeching absolution from the men whom, in a year afterwards, they degraded, insulted, muti­lated and murdered. After changing the catho­lic worship, at the command of one gang of tyrants, for a worship that was neither catholic nor protestant; at the command of another, they abandoned all worship whatsoever, and publicly rejoiced that ‘the soul of man was like that of the beast.’ A third gang orders them to be­lieve that there is a god: instantly the submissive brutes acknowledge his existence, and fall on their knees at the sight of Robespierre, proclaim­ing the decree, with as much devotion as they formerly did at the elevation of the sacred host.

[Page 33]Politically considered, they are equally enlight­ened. Every successive faction has been the ob­ject of their huzzas, in the day of its power, and of their execrations in that of its fall. They crowded to the bar of the Convention to felici­tate Robespierre on his escape from the poignard of a woman; and, in less than six weeks after­wards, danced round his scaffold, and mocked his dying groans.—First they approve of a con­stitution with a hereditary monarch, whose person they declare inviolable and sacred, and swear to defend him with their lives. Next they murder this monarch, and declare themselves a republic, to be governed by a single chamber of delegates. This second constitution they destroy, and frame a third, with two chambers and five co-equal kings.—After having spent five years in mak­ing war, in the name of liberty and equality, upon arms, stars, garters, crosses, and every other exterior sign of superiority of rank, they very peaceably and tamely suffer their masters to dub themselves with what titles they please, and ex­clusively to assume garbs and badges of distinc­tion far more numerous than those which former­ly existed in France.

But, the circumstance best calculated to give a just idea of their baseness of spirit and swinish ignorance, is, their sanctioning a constitution, which declares that they shall elect the members of their assemblies, and then submitting to a de­cree, obliging them to choose two-thirds of the number out of the Convention. Nor was this all; the Convention, not content with ensuring the re-election of these two-thirds, reserved to itself the power of rejecting such members of the other third as it might not approve of!—And yet [Page 34] the wise Mr. Parker calls the French "a free and enlightened people," and very piously wishes that King-craft may be done away, and that repub­licanism may enlighten the whole earth!—The House of Representatives were afraid even to hint that this nation of poor, cajoled, cozened, bullied, bamboozled devils, were less enlighten­ed than the people of America!

There is not a true American, and I love to believe that a very great majority of the people of these states are of that description, who does not reject with scorn the idea of being upon a level with the regenerated French; not only in understanding, but in any respect whatever. Their very friends, the Democrats, nay their best paid hirelings, despise them in their hearts, as much as a prostitute despises her cully.

After having contemplated the modest and humble tone of the Antifederal members towards France, it may not be amiss to contrast it with their language towards Great Britain, on an oc­casion somewhat similar.—It was reported, that His Britannic Majesty had issued instructions for seizing American vessels, contrary to the law of nations. It was, indeed, well known that many vessels were seized; but it was not known that the seizure was authorised by these instructions. They were equivocal, and therefore left room to hope that they were misconstrued, by interested individuals, and that an indemnification would be obtained by a manly and temperate represen­tation of the injury. This hope, which was then entertained by the friends of the federal govern­ment, has since been completely realized. But, what was the tone of Mr. Madison, Mr. Clarke, [Page 35] Mr. Dayton, and all those who are now for soften­ing their language towards France, till it surpasses in effeminacy the pipe of a sickly girl? What were the measures they then proposed? Lay a double duty on their goods, said one; Prohibit all trade with them, said another; and Mr. Dayton offered a resolution for ‘sequestrating all debts due from the citizens of the United States to the subjects of the king of Great Britain.’— Thus, without waiting a moment to inquire whe­ther the king's instructions were misinterpreted, or whether an indemnification was likely to be obtained, the seizure was to be regarded as a commencement of hostilities; reprisals were im­mediately to be made, and that, too, in a mode that every honourable and honest man turns from with scorn.—Was this very "palatable," Mr. Dayton?

It was during this memorable debate, that Mr. Smith from Maryland, modestly exclaimed:— ‘Let us adopt the resolution. It will arrest twenty millions of dollars in our hands, as a fund to reimburse the three or four millions, which we have been stripped of by that piratical nation, Great Britain, according to the instruc­tions of that king of sea-robbers, that Leviathan who aims at swallowing up all that swims on the ocean, that monster, whose only law is power, and who respects neither the rights of nations, nor the property of individuals.’— Was this decent and honest speech very "palat­able?"—These political cooks seem to be very skilful in distinguishing the difference be­tween the palates of Britons and that of the soupe-maigre, frog-eating French, who can re­lish nothing that is notbien cuit, or coddled to [Page 36] mummy, except the flesh and blood of aristo­crats.

Striking as this contrast is, it is not seen in its proper light, till accompanied with a compara­tive view of the injuries received from the two nations. The British, when they were called pirates, sea-robbers, and monsters, by a member of Congress, had unlawfully seized on American property, to the amount of ‘three or four mil­lions of dollars.’ The French, even at that time, were guilty of the same aggressions, and of this the Congress could not plead ignorance, as it was stated to them by order of the President, in the same report that complains of the conduct of the British. At the present epoch it is ac­knowledged that the depredations of the French are double in amount to those of the British, be­fore any indemnification was obtained. But, to avoid all dispute on this subject, let us suppose that the loss from both nations to be of exactly the same amount, and confine our remarks to the vast difference in their anterior situation and sub­sequent conduct with respect to this country. Great Britain had no treaty, either of amity or commerce, with America; her conduct towards us, therefore, was subject to no rule but that prescribed by the general law of nations, the principles of which, often leaving room for mis­interpretation, give a scope to an abuse of power, that does not, if reparation be demanded and obtained, fix the stigma of cowardice or depen­dence on the injured nation. The situation of the French was quite different. The depreda­tions committed by them are in direct violation of a solemn contract, voluntarily entered into with America. Great Britain excused herself by [Page 37] declaring (whether truly or not is no matter) that her orders had been misconstrued, that she was ready to make restitution, and it is well known that she has made good this declaration, by pay­ing the full value of the cargoes and vessels ille­gally seized. But, the conduct of the French leaves no room for an excuse. They cannot plead a misconstruction of their orders, their spoliations have not taken place under an ambiguous instruc­tion, but are warranted by a decree of their tyran­nical assembly; and, to deprive America of the hope of indemnification, and even of the ap­pearance of maintaining her rights, they have hurled this decree in our teeth. The British un­lawfully seized on the property of Americans, or, if you will, in the polite language of Maryland Mr. Smith, that nation of "monsters" robbed them; but the minister of these "monsters" did not pro­claim the plundering order in this country, and in­sult the people whom they had robbed, by telling them that it was the fault of their own Executive. The French have done all this and ten times more: they have trampled upon the indepen­dence of Americans, braved them, scoffed at them; they have done every thing but kick the President from his chair and take possession of the government: and yet Mr. Dayton, the ener­getic Mr. Dayton, says not a word about seques­tration; he is even afraid to compliment his con­stituents on their freedom and understanding, lest it should be unpalatable to this insidious, treache­rous and insolent nation. Not a word do we now hear about ‘pirates and sea-robbers, and levia­thans, and monsters:’ all breathes a desire to cultivate ‘harmony, perfect friendship, and affec­tion.’ In speaking of the depredations of the [Page 38] British, "nothing," it was said, ‘was to be ex­pected from the justice of a nation who had robbed us;’ but now, behold, every thing is to be left to the "justice and moderation" of the French, after we are not only well assured that their robberies have far surpassed those of the British, but after their minister as contemptuously told us, that those robberies are sanctioned by his government; that it has given orders for vio­lating the treaty, and is determined to continue in the violation. Thus, one nation is spoken of with approbation, esteem and affection; is even flattered and caressed, after loading us with inju­ries a thousand times greater than those which drew down on another nation the indecent and opprobrious terms of "pirates and monsters." Is this a proof of the candour or of the obstinate pre­judice, of the wisdom or folly, of the House of Representatives? Is it a proof of the indepen­dence of America on Great Britain, or of its ab­ject dependence on France?

To what are we to ascribe the immeasurable difference between the daring and insulting tone formerly assumed towards Britain, and the poor, piping, pusillanimous language, that is now held towards France. Is it because one is a monarchy, and the other calls itself a republic? I have heard, or read, of a fellow that was so accustom­ed to be kicked, that he could distinguish, by the feel, the sort of leather that assailed his posteriors. Are our buttocks arrived at this perfection of sen­sibility? And do we really find that a republican shoe wounds our honour less than a monarchical one? Is an injury from a nation on whom we heaped every term of abuse, and for whose anni­hilation we, and even some of our parsons, de­voutly [Page 39] prayed, less calculated to rouse our feel­ings, than the accumulated injuries and insults of another nation, whom we distinguished by every sign of partiality, for whose misfortunes we put on mourning, and for whose victories we mocked and insulted heaven with thanksgiving? Is a single slap on the cheek from a power, with whom we had no connection, less offensive than reiterated blows from an ally? Finally, is the commerce of Britain less necessary to America than that of France, or is the power of the latter more to be dreaded than that of the former?—This last question is the only one that requires to be examined: the rest, I trust, are already answered in the mind of the reader.

The necessity of a commercial connection be­tween Great Britain and America, is so loudly and unequivocally asserted by the unerring voice of experience, that nothing but the blindest ig­norance, or the most unconquerable prejudice, could possibly have called it in question. Imme­diately after the suspension of this commerce, caused by the revolutionary war, it was on both sides resumed with more ardour than ever, not­withstanding all the arts that France and her par­tizans employed to prevent it. In vain did poor Louis issue edicts to encourage his people to sup­plant their rivals, in vain did he take off his du­ties and offer premiums; in vain did friend Bris­sot coax the Quakers, and citizen Madison speech­ify the Congress: in spite of all their fine pro­mises, cajoling, and wheedling; in spite of the mortification of Britain, and the more powerful prejudice of America, no sooner was the obstacle removed by the return of peace, than, without a treaty of friendship or commerce, without any [Page 40] other stimulus than mutual interest, confidence and inclination, the two countries rushed together like congenial waters that had been separated by an artificial dyke.

It is this natural connection with Britain, the British capital, which a confidence in the stability of the government invites hither, together with the credit that the merchants of that country give to those of this, a credit which British merchants alone are either willing or able to give, that forms the great source of American wealth. Mr. Smith from Maryland, the polite Mr. Smith, who called the British "sea-robbers and monsters," incauti­ously acknowledged, in the same breath, that these "monsters" gave a stationary credit to this country amounting to twenty millions of dollars. Grateful gentleman!—A very great part of this credit is given for a twelve-month at least; so that the simple interest on it amounts to one million two hundred thousand dollars annually; an advantage to this country that might have merited in return something "more palatable" than "sea-robbers and "monsters."

If America could obtain what she stands in need of (which she cannot) from any other coun­try than Britain, from what country on earth could she obtain them on terms like these? The capacity of France, in the brightest days of her commercial prosperity, was fairly tried. Cor­respondencies were opened with her merchants; but what was the result? The total ruin of them and of all those who were concerned with them. They are no more; they are forgotten. Their trade could be equalled in shortness of duration by nothing but the wear of their merchandise.

[Page 41]To say, as some of the French faction have done, that America does not want the manufactures of Britain, is an insult on the national discernment little short of the Blunderbuss of my old friend Citizen Adet. Let any man take a view of his dress (when he is dressed like a man), from head to foot, from the garments that he wears to sea, to plough, to market or to church, down to those with which he steps into bed; let him look round his shop, and round the shops of his neighbours; let him examine his library, his bed-chamber, his par­lour and his kitchen, and then let him say how great a part of all he sees, of all that is indis­pensable, useful or convenient; let him say how great a part of all this comes from Great Britain, and how small a one from France or any other country; and then, if he be fool enough, let him say with the Gallican faction, that we stand in no need of the manufactures of Britain.

The commercial connection between this coun­try and Great Britain is full as necessary as that between the baker and miller, while the connec­tion between America and France may be com­pared to one between the baker and the milliner or toyman. France may furnish us with looking glasses; but without the aid of Britain we shall be ashamed to see ourselves in them, unless the sans­culottes can persuade us that thread-bare beggary is a beauty. France may deck the heads of our wives and daughters (but by the bye, she shan't those of mine) with ribbons, gauze, and powder, their ears with bobs, their cheeks with paint, and their heels with gaudy party-coloured silk, as rotten as the hearts of the manufacturers; but Great Britain must cover their and our bodies. When the rain pours down and washes the rose [Page 42] from the cheek; when the bleak north-wester blows through the gauze, then it is that we know our friends. Great Britain must wrap us up warm, and keep us all decent, snug and comfortable, from the child in swaddling cloths to its tottering grand­sire. France may send us cockades, as she does (or has done) in abundance; but Great Britain must send us hats to stick them in. France may furnish the ruffle, but Great Britain must send us the shirt; and the commerce of the latter nation is just as much more necessary to this country than that of the former, as a good decent shirt is more necessary than a paltry dishclout of a ruffle.

As, then, the importance of a trade, with any nation, must be the standard whereby to measure the embarrassment and distress that its suspension would produce, it is evident that a war with Great Britain would, in this respect, have been productive of infinite calamities to America, while a war with France would hardly be felt. The dangers, therefore, to be apprehended from mi­litary operations only, remain to be considered.

By going back to the epoch when the hostile tone was assumed towards Great Britain, I could represent her as in possession of the Western Posts, and consequently as in a situation to arm and sup­port the Indians, to harrass that frontier, and by those means find employment for an army of the United States, and that a very expensive one too. But, I shall decline this advantage, shall consider things in their present state; I shall even suppose all inroads from Canada impossible, shall turn my eyes to the sea only, and there take a view of [Page 43] what might be reasonably feared from a war with Great Britain, and what from a war with France.

The mighty difference in the maritime power, skill and courage of the two nations, is so univer­sally known, and has undergone so many and so convincing proofs during the present war, that any comparison in this respect would be superflu­ous. The hirelings of France, do, however, pre­tend that she could eat us up alive, crack us as a squirrel does a nut, while we could boldly bid de­fiance to her rival. I shall not suppose it possible for Great Britain to bombard our towns and burn our shipping, I shall look upon all our harbours as completely defended; I shall even suppose it impossible for her to make a landing on any part of our coast, to carry off a single sack of flour or head of cattle; and only insist, that, with thirty detached frigates and a squadron of twenty ships of the line, she could completely block up every principal port in the United States, in defiance of the French and their new allies, Holland and Spain. If I am told to look back to what she was able to do, in this way, last war; I reply, that the commerce, the foreign relationships, of this country, are not now what they were then, nor would the species of war, carried on by Britain, be the same. Then she had armies on the land, on which the operations of her fleet were depen­dent. It had garrisons to supply, convoys to es­cort, and transports to conduct from one state to another. Those who look to France and her al­lies for relief, forget that during this war France has lost thirty-nine ships of the line, with a pro­portionate number of frigates; that the remnant of her shattered fleet is now blocked up in her own ports, and that her petty armaments skulk [Page 44] about from harbour to harbour, as if their only object was to keep out of sight. They forget that the Dutch dare not peep out of the Texel, and that the Spaniards, after mustering their all together, are stationed before a place of refuge in the Mediterranean. In this situation of things nothing could prevent Great Britain from totally cutting off the commerce of America, exports as well as imports, trebling the price of every ar­ticle of foreign manufacture, and rendering the produce of the land a drug; destroying the re­venue of the country at the very moment that a tenfold augmentation of it would be necessary.

From the French and their allies, on the contrary, America has little, nay nothing to fear. When we are told about their demolishing our towns and invading our country, it seems to be forgotten that they must cross the sea to come to us. Fear seems to have deranged the trembling wretches who hold this language. They talk and think about the prowess of the barbarian armies, till they imagine us divided from them by a river only, or that it is as easy for a hundred thousand of them to be shipped off and landed in America, as for them to cross the Rhine; they imagine that a fleet of three hundred transports and fifty ships of the line as easily erected as a bridge of boats. And, during this terrific reverie, it never once strikes them that Great Britain is at war with the French, or that her fleets would blow them to atoms, before they could approach our coast. Mr. Giles, and all those who talk about the dan­ger of incurring the displeasure of the French, delight in representing her as ready to make an attack on us in conjunction with the Spaniards. This is true, and we are informed that they have [Page 45] already set these their "natural allies," to seize and confiscate our vessels ^*. There is no doubt but both nations would willingly co-operate in such an enterprize; but I would ask Mr. Giles seriously, whether he thinks America would stand singly in the war; whether he thinks the govern­ment or the people so incorrigibly blind and stupid, as, while they see the French calling in all hell to their aid, to refuse the only assistance capable of repulsing the infernal host.—Oh, Lord! says Mr. Giles, what are you talking about! ‘I dislike extremely any intimate connec­tion betwixt this country and Britain, notwith­standing pecuniary advantages may arise from it^†.’—So says Citizen Adet, and so says every Frenchman as well as Mr. Giles. Yes; this is what they "dislike," this is the thing, and the only thing, they are afraid of, and it is for that very reason that it ought to take place.

But, I should be glad to know on what Mr. Giles founds his "dislike" to this connection, in case of a war. He acknowledges its "pecuniary advantages," and that is one great point gained; for you well know, Mr. Giles, that in connec­tions [Page 46] with foreign nations nothing goes on cheerly without money. What, then, can be the objection? Because America is a Republic and Britain a Mo­narchy? This was the old objection to the treaty of amity and commerce with Great Britain; but it very luckily happened that, just before that treaty was concluded, the Republic of France had made a similar treaty with the king of Prussia; and now, as if on purpose to give us a second ex­ample, she has concluded a treaty offensive and defensive with the king of Spain, and has called that nation her "natural allies."—Now, Mr. Giles, rub that forehead of yours a little, and tell me sincerely, without any quibbling or subterfuge, whether you think the Spaniards are more natu­rally allied to the French than the Americans are to the British.

Surely no nation was ever so completely duped as America has been by the French and their par­tizans! By a sincere and hearty alliance with Great Britain, she would not only place herself in a situation to make a peremptory demand of indemnification from France, but, in case of re­fusal, would be able to strip both France and Spain of every inch of territory they possess in this hemisphere. There is no danger of any other nation taking umbrage at this. America and Great Britain might bid defiance to the world. The map of this continent and its islands lies open before them: they might cut and carve for themselves, and sit down in the quiet enjoy­ment of their conquests. The very mention of such an alliance would scare the Dons at the bot­tom of their mines, and would make the seven hundred and five tyrants tremble on their thrones. Yet the hirelings of France tell us that this alli­ance [Page 47] must not be formed, because, forsooth, Bri­tain is a monarchy! Poor, paltry objection! France avails herself of all the rascally aid she can rake together; she forms treaties with all the monarchies she can find base enough to join her, and calls them her natural allies; but, if Ameri­ca makes a treaty with a monarchy, be it merely for the purposes of adjusting disputes and regulat­ing trade, France, "terrible France," takes of­fence at it, calls it an unnatural connection, seizes our vessels as a punishment for it, and (with shame be it spoken!) is justified by some of those who are chosen to preserve the honour and inde­pendence of the country!—All the world are the natural allies of France; republics, aristocracies, monarchies and despotisms; Dutch, Genoese, Spaniards, Turks and Devils; but poor America has no natural ally at all, except France herself; and if she chooses, with the aid of her allies, to rob and insult her, America must accept of no one's assistance, but must stand and be pillaged and kicked till the by-standers cry shame.—Ho­nourable Independence! "Glorious Revolution." —If this must be the case, let us hear no more boastings and rejoicings. Let the fourth of July be changed from a festival to a fast, or rather, let it be effaced for ever from the calendar.