CONGRESSIONAL SPEECHES OF JOSIAH QUINCY. 1805-1813. SPEECHES DELIVERED IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES BY JOSIAHiQUINCY, : OF REPRESENTAT CT OF MASSACHU 1805-1813. MEMBEB OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOB THE SUFFOLK DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, EDITED BY HIS SON, EDMUND Q U I N C Y, FELLOW OP THE AMERICAN ACADEMT OF ARTS AND SCIENCES ; MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY HELD AT PHILADELPHIA, AND OF THE HISTORICAL SOCIETIES OF MASSACHUSETTS AND NEW HAMPSHIRE. BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. 1874. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by EDMUND QUTNCY, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. CAMBRIDGE: PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON. PREFACE. SEVEN years ago, September, 1867, I pub- lished a Life of my father, which had a reception from the public of the most gratifying description, far beyond my warmest hopes. Five editions were disposed of in the course of two years, and the demand has not yet entirely ceased. This success I attribute chiefly to the interest felt in my father by the many eminent and useful men in all parts of the country who gratefully remembered his influ- ence on their characters while President of the University, as well as by the newer generation who learned to know and admire him from the active part he took in the political agitations which went before the Civil War, and the Emancipa- tion which it compelled. It was, however, my opinion then, as it is now, that his permanent rep- utation, after the generation that knew him per- sonally shall have passed away, and his claim to a modest place in the history of his country, rest rather upon his action on the wider scene of national politics at Washington, at a most inter- esting and critical period of our aifairs. I there- fore made liberal extracts from his Congressional Speeches as an integral and vital portion of his PKEFACE. life, and I have reason to think that these were regarded by the best of my readers as adding largely to the interest of the book. My own opinion being thus re-enforced, I venture to offer to the public this collection of his Congressional Speeches in full, hoping that it may be regarded as an illustration, not without value, of the spirit and temper of the times when they were uttered. The passage of history to which my father's Con- gressional career belongs, lies at that precise dis- tance from the present day which makes its facts indistinct to the minds of all of our contemporaries, excepting the daily dwindling number whose memo- ries go back to those times. It is too remote for the memory of the mass of living men, and not remote enough to tempt the hand of the philosophic his- torian. The period, however, from the inaugura- tion of Washington to that of Monroe, will be found full of materials for brilliant treatment by the American historian whom we yet wait for. Part} 7 spirit has never been so fierce and malignant, passions and opinions have never clashed so furi- ously, equally honest and patriotic men have never differed more bitterly or more sincerely, than in those far-off days. The old ideas encountered the new ideas, and the collision shook civil society to the centre. Great men, too, were called for, and appeared upon the scene, whose figures are now but indistinctly discerned through the mists of time, but who will yet be displayed in their just proportions by the light to be thrown upon them by genius. John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, Fisher PREFACE. VII Ames, William Pinkney, Samuel Dexter, Timothy Pickering, James A. Bayard, will again become the household words they were three quarters of a century ago. The germs of the union of the Dem- ocratic party and the Slave Oligarchy, which gave the nation over into the hands of the Slave Power for more than half a century, to be rescued only at the fearful cost of the Civil War, will there be detected and displayed. And the mischiefs of a doctrinaire statesmanship were never better shown than in the miseries inflicted upon the whole country, but especially upon the Northern Atlantic States, by the reduction to legislation of the political reveries of an ideologue like Mr. Jefferson, in the Embargo and the Non-Intercourse and the War of 18 T2, in which these measures naturally culminated, though unforeseen and undesired by their author. It is observable that the interest and importance of the portion of our national his- tory with which these speeches of Mr. Quincy have to do, were more fully understood and set forth by the London " Spectator," and " Pall Mall Gazette," and the Paris " Revue des Deux Mondes," all of which journals had able and elaborate articles on his Life, than by some American periodicals, which inclined to regard it as an obscure and insignificant chapter in our annals. When the historian of the future shall come to treat of those events, the public utterances of public men will be among his best materials for that revivification of the passions and opinions of the men of the time which forms the living spirit of history. I trust that this collec- yiii PEEFACE. tion will then be considered as neither useless nor unimportant as expressing the thoughts and emo- tions which made up the inner life of no inconsid- erable portion of the American people. As to the merit of these Speeches as specimens of parliamentary oratory, it is not for me to speak. Whatever may be their force and skill, critically considered, be the same less or more, I know that they are most characteristic of the man, and very ex- pressive of the sentiments and feelings of the noble Federal party to which he belonged, and which at one time he led. I should hardly, however, have presumed to collect them in this permanent form had I not been encouraged to do so by the judg- ments of men to which my own must bow, and which more than confirmed any estimation I might have put upon them myself. Among these en- couraging counsellors I may be permitted to name my valued friends, the late Senator Sumner, and Mr. Motley, the historian of the Dutch Republic, both of whom held opinions as to my father's rank among parliamentary orators which I shall not ven- ture to repeat, and which I cannot but consider as heightened in some degree by their reverential affec- tion for his person. But, all allowances made, enough of encouragement remains, given by judges so eminent, to make it the less presumptuous in me to hope for a favorable reception for this collection from the small but enlightened class who care for matters of the sort. One thing I may be per- mitted to say of these Speeches of my father. They are his Speeches, as they came from his mind PREFACE. IX and from his lips without amendment or correction of mine. Some very eminent orators of our time have carefully revised and altered their speeches, or left them to the correction of their friends, years after they were delivered. Thus, doubtless, admi- rable literary performances have been secured to us, but they are not the speeches as they were uttered by the speakers in the heat of debate, char- acteristic of the men and of the times, and perhaps rather smell of the lamp than savor of the Senate- house. My father never cared enough about the matter to do any thing of the kind, and I consider it the part both of filial duty and of good taste to present his speeches to the public of to-day as they were addressed to the public of seventy years since. I feel that any attempt of mine to improve his style would only impair its force and injure its character- istic qualities. I have confined myself, therefore, as editor, to the correction of obvious errors of the press, or of the imperfect reporting of those times, and I have thus endeavored to print these Speeches as nearly as possible as he spoke them. I have ventured to prefix to each Speech a short introduction explaining the political circumstances under which it was delivered. I judged that some elucidation of the kind would be useful to readers who are not familiar with the history of those times. I have made them as brief as is consistent with this object. DEDHAM, MASSACHUSETTS, November 1st, 1874. CONTENTS. PAGE Speech on the Bill for fortifying the Ports and Harbors of the United States. April 15, 1806 3 Speech on the Bill for authorizing the President to suspend the Embargo under certain Circumstances. April, 1808 ... 31 Speech on the first Resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations. Nov. 28, 1808 53 Second Speech on the Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations ; in reply to the Observations of Mr. Bacon. Dec. 7, 1808 83 Speech on the Bill for raising Fifty Thousand Volunteers. Dec. 30, 1808 Ill Speech on the Bill for holding an Extra Session of Congress in May next. Jan. 19, 1809 129 Speech on the Resolution of Censure on Francis J. Jackson, the British Minister. Dec. 28, 1809 157 Speech on the Passage of the Bill to enable the People of the Territory of Orleans to form a Constitution and State Gov- ernment, and for the Admission of such State into the Union. Jan. 14, 1811 193 Speech on the Influence of Place and Patronage. Jan. 30, 1811. 227 Xll CONTENTS. PAQB Speech on the Proposition to revive and enforce the Non-inter- course Law against Great Britain. Feb. 25, 1811 . . . 247 Speech on the Enlistment of Minors. Jan. 5, 1813. . . . 277 Speech in relation to Maritime Protection. Jan. 25, 1812 . . 291 Speech on the Relief of Sundry Merchants from Penalties inno- cently incurred. Dec. 14, 1812 331 Speech on the Invasion of Canada. Jan. 5, 1813 357 SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR FORTIFYING THE PORTS AND HARBORS OF THE UNITED STATES. APRIL 15, 1806. SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR FORTIFYING THE PORTS AND HARBORS OF THE UNITED STATES. APRIL 15, 1806. [THE state of affairs, domestic and foreign, at the beginning of 1806 was briefly this. Of the sympathies and antipathies of the Federal and Democratic parties in relation to France and Eng- land, I have given some account in the preface to this volume. For the quarter of a century, from the beginning of the French Revolution to the battle of Waterloo, the hopes, the fears, the passions, and the politics of the United States were indissolubly connected with those of Europe. We were, during those years, in continual danger of being drawn into the wars which, with brief intervals of truce, occupied the nations of Europe. It was against this peril that the warning voice of Washington was raised in his Farewell Address when he admonished his country- men to beware of " entangling alliances " with foreign powers. These were no superfluous words of caution, and it is likely that it was our poverty rather than our will that restrained us from taking a part, most disastrous to ourselves, on one side or the other of those fateful conflicts, according as sympathy with France or with England had the ascendant in the public opinion of the time. Previous to 1805, these wars had indeed been of direct benefit to the United States. Being the only neutral power of any maritime importance, the carrying-trade was almost entirely in American hands. All the colonial productions of France and 4 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING Holland ami of Spain, since her alliance with France, were first brought to some American port and thence reshipped to the respective mother countries. The American ship-owners, thus having the advantage of double freights, carried on an im- mensely profitable business; and large fortunes, as they were esteemed in those simple days, were made in it. The English government at last discerned that this system gave France the benefit of the trade of her own colonies and those of her allies almost as fully as in time of peace. So the Courts of Admiralty revised the old doctrines of International Law, and confiscated several American cargoes on the ground that our fiag was used as the cover of a fraudulent transaction, the property having never really belonged to the American merchant, having been landed in the neutral port merely for reshipment to a hostile one. These decisions, destroying as they did a most lucrative trade, created great dissatisfaction ; and they were the beginning of those unfriendly relations between the two countries which finally culminated in the War of 1812. And, although the neu- trality of the United States was vitally beneficial to France and Spain, they could not resist the temptation our rich merchant- vessels offered to their cruisers, which often seized them on small pretexts, or none at all, and thus gave rise to the French and Spanish claims of our later history. Besides these compli- cations, we were in a condition of very dubious friendship with Spain, which had then some remains of her former pride and power. In 1803 Bonaparte sold Louisiana to the United States under circumstances which colored our whole history for two generations, and of which we shall give an account by and by. Spain had ceded back to France, in 1800, this territory which she had received from that power, in 17G2, in compensation for her losses in the war which ended in the conquest of Canada. Whatever motives induced this action, it was certainly without the expectation that tin's territory would be almost immediately handed over to a growing republic conterminous with her other North American possessions. Had she been strong enough it might even have been made a casus belli. As it was, she pro- THE POETS AND HARBORS. 5 tested energetically against the treaty of 1803; actually occu- pied posts within our undoubted boundaries ; and her minister, Irujo, treated President Jefferson with insolent contempt. Our foreign relations being in this queasy condition, .when a slight and unforeseen contingency might bring a fleet upon our coasts and into the harbors of our cities, it seemed as if some kind of preparation should be made against such a possibility. Mr. Jefferson did not deny this, and he urged the neces- sity of preparation against possible hostilities. But, in his morbid fear of spending money, he limited his suggestion to the equipping of gun-boats to lie in wait for the enemy and issue from their ambush on his approach, and to a classification of the militia, by which, on the approach of danger, the younger men should forsake the plough and the work-bench and rush to the rescue. The Federalists, and especially those representing the commercial States, thought these precautions quite insufficient. As the commerce of the country furnished almost the entire sup- port of the government, and had provided the fifteen millions required for the purchase of Louisiana and the two millions for that of Florida, they deemed it but reasonable that a moderate proportion of the money they supplied should be spent in the fortification of the Atlantic cities. During the seventeen years of our national existence, only seven hundred and twenty-four thousand dollars had been spent for the fortification of the nine chief commercial cities ! By the bill, during the discussion of which the following speech was delivered, one hundred and fifty thousand dollars was appropriated for the defence of New York, and a motion to substitute five hundred thousand was treated with contempt and received only twenty-seven votes. All prop- ositions to increase the amount, or to leave a blank sum to be used at the discretion of the President, were laughed to scorn. ED.] MR. CHAIRMAN, Gentlemen seem disposed to treat this subject lightly, and to indulge themselves in pleas- antries, on a question very serious to the commercial cities and to the interest of those who inhabit them. It 6 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING may be sport to you, gentlemen, but it is death to us. However well disposed a majority of this House may be to treat this bill ludicrously, it will fill great and influ- ential portions of this nation with very different senti- ments. Men, who have all that human nature holds c l ear friends, fortunes, and families concentrated in one single spot on the sea-coast, and that spot exposed every moment to be plundered and desolated, will not highly relish or prize at an extreme value, the wit or the levity, with which this House seems inclined to treat the dangers which threaten them ; and which are sources to them of great and just apprehensions. I do not rise, Mr. Chairman, merely to support the motion made by the gentleman from New York. It is not the fortification of this or that particular city which I mean to advocate. I should have preferred a general appro- priation, leaving it to the discretion of the executive to apply it to those ports and harbors which are either most exposed or most important. And if, by any thing that shall occur in the course of the discussion, the House shall be induced to change what at present seems to be its disposition, I hope the augmented ap- propriation will be made in that form. It is to the general duty which is incumbent upon this legislature to protect the commercial cities, that I would call its attention. This duty is so plain and imperious, that, in my opinion, an awful weight of responsibility rests upon this House. Every class and collection of citizens have a right to claim from government that species of pro- tection which their situation requires, in proportion to their exposure, and to the greatness of the stake which society has in their safety. Our obligation to protect THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 7 the commercial cities does not result from the particular exigency which at present impends over our nation, but from the nature of those cities. The duty is perma- nent and ought to be fulfilled by a permanent system. A regular course of annual appropriations may in a very few years put all our capital cities in a state of reason- able security, and, at no very distant period of time, without any additional imposition on the people, give every city on our coast an adequate defence. It is in this light that I consider the question now before the committee to be important. Not that any sum which may be inserted will be immediately sufficient for all the objects for which we have to provide. But that any augmentation of the appropriation will be a pledge to the nation of the disposition of this House to com- mence a system of defence for our cities : any evidence of which will give just satisfaction, to great masses of your citizens, as an appearance of a want of it will fill them with no less discontent and dismay. In this point of view I ask the indulgence of the committee to a few observations on the importance of fortifications, their utility and practicability. As to the importance of the objects for which we ask a defence, it seems to me either not understood or not realized. Almost all who have spoken on the sub- ject have dwelt chiefly, if not altogether, on the amount of revenue drawn from the commercial cities ; as if their value was to be appreciated, and our duty to defend them measured, by the annual produce they yield. This, it is true, makes a natural part of the estimate of their worth, but, as I apprehend, by no means the most important. Their situation, the number of the inhab- 8 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING itants, the great portion of the active and fixed capital of society which they contain, are, in a national view, standards much more just and more elevated by which to ascertain their value and our obligations. I ask, sir, what is the amount of the capital of this nation which is invested in the single city of New York ? The annual product it yields to our revenue is three mil- lions of dollars. Now suppose the average of import duties is only ten per cent ad valorem (a sum certainly below the real average), the annual amount of capital deposited in imports is then thirty millions of dollars. The amount of value in exports cannot be estimated at less than twenty millions. If to these be added the capital of its banks, the amount of stock always on hand, that of its shipping and other personal property, all of which no one can rate below another fifty millions, the result is that there is in annual deposit, within the city of New York alone, one hundred millions of the active capital of this nation. I know how far this is below the real estimate, but I state this sum that no one may hesi- tate to admit my position. I ask, then, what is it worth to insure this sum against the risk of an invasion, not on calculations on the great national scale, but on a mere insurance-office arithmetic? I have been told that to insure that city against such a risk, for one single year of war with any of the great maritime nations of Europe, would be worth five per cent. That is the in- surance for a single year of war would repay the expense of fortifications, even should they cost five millions of dol- lars. But, suppose this calculation extravagant, can any one doubt that such an insurance in time of peace, against the double risk of Avar and of attack in case of THE PORTS AND HARBORS. war, is worth one-half per cent? Even at this premium, six years of insurance in time of peace would repay the expenditure of three millions, a sum more than adequate to the defence of that city. In making this statement, I .would not be understood to pretend or to propose such an appropriation : it is not asked. My object is to call gentlemen to consider what is the mar- ket worth of security, and that they may not deem the moneys they apply to these objects as they seem will- ing to deem them absolutely thrown away. This great mass of the national wealth, thus concentrated on the bank of one of the most exposed harbors in the world, is liable to the insult and depredation of the most despicable force. Two seventy-four gun- ships may, at this moment, lay that city under contribu- tion or in ashes with impunity. They might make it the interest of the inhabitants of that city to pay an amount equal to the whole annual revenue we derive from it, rather than to submit to the hazard and mis- eries of bombardment and conflagration. For in such case the mere destruction of property is but an item in the account of anticipated misfortune. The shock to credit ; the universal stagnation of business ; the terror spread through every class, age, and sex ; the thousands who have no refuge in the country, but must take the fate, and be buried under the ruins, of their city, all these circumstances would enter into consideration, and make the pecuniary sacrifice, however great, appear trifling in 'comparison. I have used the city of New York only by way of example. The same observations are applicable to every other commercial city in the United States in proportion to its magnitude and the 10 SPEECH OX FORTIFYING nature of its situation. Two seventy-fours might sweep the coast from Savannah to Portland, and levy an amount equal to the whole annual revenue of the United States. It would be better for any city volun- tarily to pay a contribution equal to its proportion of that amount, rather than to take the alternative of that destruction to which, on refusal, it would be obliged to submit. Is such a state of things as this a light and trifling concern ? Are such portions of the wealth of the community to be left exposed to the caprice of every plunderer ; and are propositions to protect them to be treated with contempt or ridicule? Can any duty be more solemn or imperious than that which has for its object a rational degree of security for those ports in the United States which are beyond all others exposed to hostile attack, at the same time that they comprise, within the smallest possible compass, immense masses of the national wealth and population ? The importance, then, of the objects to be defended will be admitted. But the utility of fortifications, as a means of defence, and their practicability in certain ports and harbors, are denied. With respect to the gen- eral utility of fortifications, I ask, by whom is it denied ? By men interested in that species of defence ? By the inhabitants of cities ? By those the necessity of whose situation has turned their attention to the nature of fortifications and their efficacy ? No, sir : these men solicit them. They are anxious for nothing so much. They tell you, the safety of all they hold dear, their wives, their children, their fortunes, and lives are staked upon your decision. They do not so much as ask for- tifications as a favor : they claim them as a right. They THE PORTS AND HAKBOKS. 11 demand them. Who are they, then, that deny their utility? Why, men from the interior. Men who in one breath tell you they know nothing about the subject, and in the next pass judgment against the adop- tion of any measures of defence. It is true, sir, to men who inhabit the White Hills of New Hampshire, or the Blue Ridge of Virginia, nothing can appear more abso- lutely useless than appropriations for the defence of the sea-coast. In this, as in all other cases, men reason very coolly and philosophically concerning dangers to which they are not themselves subject. All men, for the most part, bear with wonderful composure the mis- fortunes of other people. And, if called to contribute to their relief, they are sure to find, in the cold sugges- tions of economy, apologies enough for failure in their social duties. The best criterion of the utility of forti- fications is the practice and experience of other nations. Now, I ask, was there ever a nation which did not defend its great commercial deposits, by either land fortifications or sea batteries? All history does not exhibit such an instance. Are we wiser, then, than all other nations ; or are we less exposed than they ? Are we alone to escape the common lot of humanity ? Can we expect to be rich, and not tempt the spirit of ava- rice ? To be defenceless amid armed pirates, and in no danger of robbery or insult ? I ask again, sir, how is the inutility of fortifications proved ? Suppose, for the sake of argument, it should be admitted which, how- ever, I deny that they cannot be erected in sufficient force to defeat very great armaments ; yet is it nothing to prevent he piratical attempts of single ships? Is it nothing to deter an invader ? Nothing even to delay an 12 SPEECH OX FORTIFYING attack? Is it worth nothing to have the chance of crippling an assailant? The only argument I have heard urged against the utility of fortifications is, that the whole coast cannot be fortified ; so that, protect as stronglv as you will particular points, the invader will land somewhere else. Sir, this is the very object of fortifications. No man ever thought of building a Chi- nese wall along all the indentations of our shore, from the St. Mary's to the St. Croix. The true object of fortifications is to oblige your enemies to land : it is to keep them at arm's length. If they cannot reach your cities with their batteries, and would attack, they must come on shore. They are then only a land force, and our militia will find no difficulty in giving a good account of them. The only remaining arguments in the possession of this House, against the utility of fortifica- tions, are the opinions of various gentlemen, delivered on this floor ; and that of the secretary at war, as stated in his report. As to the former, they certainly do not merit a serious refutation, because no gentleman who has spoken has pretended to a practical or even theo- retical knowledge of the subject ; but, on the contrary, most, if not all of them, have candidly confessed their ignorance. It is of more importance to consider the opinion of the secretary at war. That part of his report which relates to the harbor of New York con- tains his general opinion against the practicability of defending such a harbor by land batteries, and two facts in support of that opinion. Now, as to the gen- eral opinion of the secretary, I am willing to allow it whatever weight any gentleman may choose to attach to it ; but certainly it ought not to be conclusive in an THE POETS AND HARBORS. 13 affair of such immense importance ; especially when it is contradicted by the tenor of the applications on your table, and by the opinions of other individuals of as high militar}^ and scientific reputation as the secretary. Much less does this his opinion claim from us an implicit confidence ; since the only two facts he has chosen to adduce are very far from being a sufficient basis for the broad opinion he has built on them. The first fact is one which occurred in the harbor of New York in 1776. A British ship of forty guns passed the batteries on the Hudson, under circumstances favorable to the effect of the batteries, and sustained " a tremendous fire " without being sensibly " incommoded." Allowing this fact its full force, it can weigh but little against the utility or practicability of fortifications. That was the second year of the war. Our batteries were erected on a sudden emergency. Our artillerists had probably little experience. Will it be pretended that the bat- teries this nation, in its present state of affluence and experience can erect, will not exceed, both in location and power, those which at that time protected the Hudson ? Besides, to draw from a particular instance a general conclusion is contrary to all rules of just logic. Various circumstances, altogether accidental, might have occurred to have produced that result, which might never occur again. If this instance be a good argument against the validity of land fortifications, there is an equally strong argument in the history of our revolution against the fashionable mode of defence by gun-boats. I take the fact only from verbal infor- mation ; and, if I am incorrect, there are gentlemen on this floor who can set me right. During the war, a 14 SPEECH ON FORTIFYING British frigate of forty-four guns, called the " Roebuck," took ground in the DelaAvare ; and though we had gun- boats quantum sufficit, who pelted her to their hearts' con- tent, during one whole tide, she received no manner of injury, tit least none of any importance. If I have this fact correctly, it is just as strong against the efficacy of gun-boats as that produced by the secretary is against land batteries. One word here concerning this mode of defence by gun-boats, which seems to concentrate all the naval affections of our rulers, and to have on freight all their military hopes. It is not denied that these are weapons of considerable effect ; or that in certain situa- tions they are useful ; or that, in aid of other and heavier batteries, they may not sometimes be important. It is only when they become the favorites, to the total exclu- sion of more powerful modes of defence, and draw away to the less power appropriations which are want- ing for the greater, that the system which upholds them becomes an object of contempt or of dread. Nowadays, sir, put what you will into the crucible, whether it be seventy-fours, or frigates, or land batteries, the result is the same : after due swelterinc: in the lee- O o islative furnace, there comes out nothing but gun-boats. I ask if our cities are attacked by any maritime nation, will it not be by line-of-battle ships ; and who ever heard that a line-of-battle ship was defeated by gun- boats ? I do not pretend to be learned in these matters ; but, as far as I have been able to gain information, it is, that when there is any thing of a heavy sea, even such as is often in the harbor of New York, gun-boats are of very little efficacy. It is true, in case of a calm, if they can get their object at rest they have a great advantage ; THE PORTS AND HARBORS. 15 that is, if you can get the bird to stand still until you can put salt upon its tail, you can catch the bird. But the worst of it is, that it is too cunning for that. The ship of the line chooses its own time for the attack, and will always select that which is least favorable to its adversary. But to return to the report of the secretary at war. The next fact it states is the battle of Copenhagen. Now if this be adduced merely as an evidence of a par- ticular instance of the inefficacy of land batteries, I do not think it important enough to take the time to examine. The true question is not whether New York can be defended in a particular way, but whether it is capable of defence at all, by combining land with float- ing batteries. In this point of view, the instance adduced by the secretary is perhaps the most memora- ble on record, and the one, of all others, in which those who advocate a defence of our commercial cities ought to exult as in an incontrovertible evidence of the truth of their system. What was the fact ? One of the best appointed naval armaments of the most powerful mar- itime nation in the world, under her most favored and fortunate commander, was sent to attack Copenhagen. The Danes were taken by surprise. Every thing, apparently, was in favor of the assailant and against those who acted on the defensive. To fifteen line-of- battle ships, the Danes had nothing to oppose but their land and harbor batteries, fortifications, and block ships. And what was the result? Why that, after a most bloody and well-contested battle, the British first asked a truce. To this day the Danes claim the victory. Olfort Fischer, the Danish commander, in his official 16 SPEECH ON FOKTIFTING statement of the battle, declares that, before the flag of truce was offered, two of the British ships of the line had struck their colors, and that for some time their whole line was so weakened that it fired only single guns. Intelligent Europeans assert, and even candid Englishmen will allow, that, if ever Nelson was beaten, it was on that occasion. But suppose all this to be erroneous. Suppose that Nelson obtained a real victory, does it thence result that the fortifications and the block ships with which Copenhagen was defended were useless ? By no means. Still that battle is an illustri- ous and irrefragable instance of their utility. It is a fact on record, worth a million theories, in favor of the efficacy of a harbor defence against a maritime force. Sir, the end for which those batteries were erected is attained. Copenhagen is defended. The storm which would have desolated the city has spent its force on the artificial shield. Let gentlemen calculate the probable cost of those batteries, and suppose by expending a similar sum in the harbor of New York, that city mi