33D CONG....2D SESS.

ceed to reply to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I propose to establish the historical fact, that for six or seven hundred years, the Bishops of Rome (the Popes,) have claimed and exercised the right -as a divine right—to depose monarchs, and to absolve their subjects.

In 663, when the Emperor Constans went to Rome, the Pope went out six miles, with all his clergy, to meet him, and attended him, during his stay in Rome, as his lord and master. But in 1161, Henry II., and Louis of France, "met the Pope, and they gave him such marks of respect that they both dismounted to receive him, and holding, each of them, one of the reins of his bridle, walked on foot by his side, and conducted him in that submissive manner into the castle-a spectacle to God, angels, and men, and such as had never before been exhibited to the world."

About this period, began the serious disturbances between the Kings of England and the Pope. Hume says:

"The usurpations of the clergy, which had at first been gradual, were now become so rapid, and had mounted to such a height that the contest between the regal and pontifical was really arrived at a crisis in England, and it become necessary to determine whether the King or the Priests, particularly the Archbishop of Canterbury, should be sovereign of the kingdom."

TRE WAR BETWEEN THOMAS A BECKET AND HENRY II.

The memorable history of this struggle cannot fail to be interesting, as well as profitable, in this investigation. Henry had appointed Becket Archbishop of Canterbury. Becket had made himself a favorite with the King as well as with the people: "The pomp of his retinue, the sumptuousness of his furniture, the luxury of his table, the munificence of his presents, exceeded anything that England had ever before seen in any subject.

"But no sooner was Becket installed in this high dignity which rendered him, for life, the second person in the kingdom, with some pretensions of aspiring to be the first, than he totally altered his demeanor and conduct, and endeavored to acquire the character of sanctity. He wore sackcloth next his skin; which, by his affected care to conceal it, was necessarily the more remarked by all the world. He changed it so seldom that it was filled with dirt and vermin. His usual diet was bread, his drink water. He tore his back with the frequent discipline which he inflicted on it; he daily, on his knees, washed, in imitation of Christ, the feet of thirteen beggars, whom he afterwards dismissed, with presents; he gained the affections of the monks by his frequent charities to the convents and hospitals; and all men of penetration plainly saw that he was meditating some great design, and that the ambition and ostentation of his character had turned itself towards a new and more dangerous object.

"Becket waited not till Henry should commence those projects against the ecclesiastical power which, he knew, had been formed by that Prince. He was himself the aggressor, and endeavored to overawe the King by the intrepidity and boldness of his enterprises.

"The ecclesiastics in that age, had renounced all immediate subordination to the magistrate; they openly pretended to an exemption in criminal accusations, from a trial before courts of justice; and were gradually introducing a like exemption in civil causes; spiritual penalties, alone could be inflicted on their offences; and, as the clergy had extremely multiplied in England, and many of them were, consequently, of very low characters, crimes of the deepest dye, murders, robberies, adulteries, rapes, were daily committed with impunity, by ecclesiastics. It had been found, for instance, on inquiry, that no less than a hundred murders had, since the King's accession, been perpetrated by men of that profession, who had never been called to account for these offences; and holy orders were become a full protection for all enormities."-Hume.

Such was the condition of things at that time: "A clerk in Frorcestershire having debauched a gentleman's daughter, had, at this time, proceeded to murder the father; and the general indignation against this crime, moved the King to attempt the remedy of an abuse whichi was become so palpable, and to require that the clerk should be delivered up, and receive condign punishment from the magistrate. Becket insisted on the privileges of the church; confined the criminal in the bishop's prison, lest he should be seized by the King's officers; maintained that no greater punishment could be inflicted on him than degradation; and when the King demanded that, immediately after he was degraded, he should be tried by the civil power, the primate asserted that it was iniquitous to try a man twice upon the same accusation, and for the same offense." "Henry, laying hold of so plausible a pretense, resolved to push the clergy, with regard to all their privileges, which they had raised to an enormous height, and to determine, at once, those controversies, which daily multiplied, between the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. He summoned an assembly of all the prelates of England, and he put to them this concise and decisive question: whether or not they were willing to submit to the ancient laws and customs of the kingdom? The bishops unanimously replied that they were willing, saving their own order."

Henry, however, persevered, until he procured the enactment of the constitutions of Clarendon, in which he gained a signal victory over all the

English ecclesiastics, except the invincible Becket, who refused obedience to the constitutions of Clarendon, until, abandoned by all the world, he was obliged to submit, and to promise "legally, with good faith, and without fraud or reserve. But Henry was still baffled. He sent his constitutions of Clarendon to Pope Alexander, " and required that Pontiff's ratification of them; but Alexander condemned them in the strongest terms-abrogated, annulled, and rejected them."

Becket then repented of his consent; "and endeavored to engage all the other Bishops in a Confederacy to adhere to their ecclesiastical privileges. Henry, informed of Becket's present dispositions, applied to the Pope that he should grant the commission of legate in his dominions; but Alexander, as politic as he, though he granted the commission, annexed a clause that it should not empower the legate to execute any act in prejudice to the || Archbishop of Canterbury." The King, however, persevered until he triumphed over Becket, for the primate was "condemned of a contempt of the King's court, and as wanting in the fealty which he had sworn to his sovereign; all his goods and chattels were confiscated."

But this war still raged between the King and Becket. The Primate defied the King. "He put himself and his See under the protection of the supreme Pontiff." About this time Becket fled from the kingdom, and was received by the Pope with the greatest marks of distinction. He was not idle in his banishment.

"In order to forward this event, he filled all places with exclamations against the violence which he had suffered. He compared himself with Christ, who had been condemned by a lay tribunal, and was crucified anew in the present oppression, under which the church labored. He took it for granted, as a point incontestable, that his cause was the cause of God; he assumed the character of champion for the patrimony of the Divinity; he pretended to be the spiritual father of the King, and all the people of England. He even told Henry that Kings reigned solely by the authority of the church. That prelate, instigated by revenge, and animated by the present glory attending his situation, pushed matters to a decision, and issued a censure excommunicating the King's chief ministers by name, and comprehending, in general, all those who favored or obeyed the constitutions of Clarendon. These constitutions he abrogated and annulled; he absolved all men from the oaths they had taken to observe them; and he suspended the spiritual thunder over Henry only that the Prince might avoid the blow by a timely repentance."

But it is fruitless, and a waste of time, to give all the details of this quarrel; yet it created more intense interest and excitement in Europe than had ever, or has ever, been felt in any of those great wars, in which armies annihilated each other! Finally, plenipotentiaries on both sides were appointed, to negotiate a treaty of peace! And the King had to surrender his pretensions, in order to relieve his Ministers from the sentence of excommunication, which Becket, even in his exile, had thundered against them! Here is a history of the terms of the treaty:

"Becket was not required to give up any rights of the church, or resign any of those pretensions, which had been the original ground of the controversy. Becket and his adherents were to be restored to all their livings, and even the possessors of such benefices, and had been filled during the primate's absence, should be expelled, and Becket have liberty to supply the vacancies. In return for concessions which entrenched so deeply on the honor and dignity of the Crown, Henry reaped only the advantage of seeing his Ministers absolved from the sentence of excommunication, and of preventing the INTERDICT which, if these hard conditions, had not been complied with, was ready to be laid on all his dominions. So anxious was Henry to accommodate all differences, and to reconcile himself fully with Becket, that he took the most extraordinary steps to flatter his vanity, and even, on one occasion, humiliated himself so far as to hold the stirrup of that haughty prelate

while he mounted."

Here you see, sir, in the twelfth century, a shining instance of the complete triumph of the power of the Pope over the haughtiest and most powerful monarch in Europe. And the supreme autocracy of the Archbishops is strikingly illustrated in the fact, that, no sooner had Becket returned to his diocese, than he began thundering his excommunications against his enemies, so lately "the King's friends and coadjutors."

What is an excommunication? The excommunication of a King, the interdict of a kingdom, is illustrated in the history of King John, the son of Henry II. The power and authority which the Archbishop of Canterbury had acquired, by Becket's triumph over Henry, shows itself in the next reign; and the King and kingdom of England are placed under interdict, the effect of which

Ho. OF REPS.

may be seen by the following historical account of it:

"The nation was, of a sudden, deprived of all exterior exercise of its religion; the altars were despoiled of their ornaments; the crosses, the reliques, the images, the statnes of the saints, were laid on the ground, and, as if the air itself were profaned, and might pollute them by its contact, the Priests carefully covered them up, even from their own approach and veneration. The use of bells entirely ceased in all the churches; the bells themselves were removed from the steeples and laid on the ground, with the other sacred utensils; mass was celebrated with shut doors, and none but the priests were admitted to that holy institution. The laity partook of no religious rite, except baptism to newly born infants, and the communion to the dying. The dead were not interred in consecrated ground; they were thrown into ditches, or buried in common fields; and their obsequies were not attended with prayers, or any hallowed ceremony. Marriages were celebrated in the churchyard; and, that every action of life might bear the marks of this dreadful situation, the people were prohibited the use of meat, as in lent, or times of the highest penance were debarred from all pleasures and entertainments, and even to salute each other, or so much as to shave their beards and give any decent attention to their person and appare]. Every circumstance carried symptoms of the deepest dis

tress, and of the most immediate apprehension of divine

vengeance and indignation."

Such is the force and power of an interdict; it can be better imagined than described.

Let us here add, for the information of our friends, the form of a personal excommunication:

"In name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of our blessed and most holy Lady Mary; also, by the power of the angels, archangels, &c., we separate M. and N. from the bosom of the Holy Mother Church, and condemn them with the anathema of a perpetual malediction. And may they be cursed in the city, cursed in the field, cursed be their barn, and cursed be their store--CURSED BE THE FRUIT OF THEIR WOMB, and the fruit of their landcursed be their coming in and their going out. Let them be cursed in the house, and fugitives in the field; and let all the curses come upon them which the Lord, by Moses, threatened to bring on the people who forsook the divine law; and let them be anathema maranatha-that is, let them perish at the second coming of the Lord. Let no Christian say an Ave to them. Let no priest presume to celebrate mass with them, or give them the holy communion. Let them be buried with the burial of an ass, and be dung upon the face of the earth."

This is the simple excommunication of an indi vidual. But much more terrible, indeed, is the excommunication of a King or Queen, as we may readily see from the opening of an excommunication of Queen Elizabeth, by Pius. It opens thus:

"The damnation and excommunication of Elizabeth, the

pretended Queen of England, and her adherents."

In the excommunication of a King, all his adherents are included. John was excommunicated; and from their oaths of fidelity and allegiance, and to the sentence proceeded to absolve all John's subjects declare every one excommunicated who had any commerce with him, either in public or in private ! In vain did King John attempt to hold out against the Pope, and he was finally driven to subscribe to all the conditions which the Pope was pleased to impose upon him:

"That he would submit himself entirely to the judgment of the Pope; that he would restore all the exiled clergy and laity who had been banished; that he would make them full restitution of their goods, and compensation for al damages; and that every one outlawed or imprisoned for his adherence to the Pope, should immediately be received into grace and favor. Four barons swore, along with the King, to the observance of this ignominious treaty." "But the ignominy of the King was not yet carried to its full height. Pandolf, the legate, required him, as the first trial of obedience, to resign his kingdom to the Church." "John, lying under the agonies of present terror, made no scruple of submitting to this condition; he passed a charter, in which he said, that not constrained by fear, but of his own free will, he had, for the remission of his own sins, and those of his family, resigned England and Ireland to God, St. Peter, and St. Paul, and to Pope Innocent, and his successors in the Apostolic Chair; he agreed to hold these dominions as feudatory of the Church of Rome; and he stipulated that if he or his successors should ever presume to revoke or infringe this charter, they should instantly forfeit all right to their dominions." "In consequence of this agreement, John did homage to Pardolf, as the Pope's legate, with all the submissive rites which the feudal law required of vassals before their liege lord. He came disarmed into the legate's presence, who was seated on a throne; he flung himself on his knees before him; he lifted up his joined hands, and put them within those of Pandolf; he swore fealty to the Pope."

Here, sir, in this picture, you see a King of England on his knees before the legate of the Pope! Here you see the legate of the Pope, elated by the triumph of sacerdotal power, exulting over a crushed King! Here see the successors of you St. Peter acknowledged to be supreme in temporal as well as spiritual affairs!—and that, too, in a country the most enlightened of the age-and by a King in whose veins was the blood of William

33D CONG....2D SESS.

the Conqueror. In fact, sir, from the period of the death of Thomas â Becket in England, to the triumph of the Reformers, the Archbishop of Canterbury was greater in power in England than the King himself!

Not only did the papal power presume to hurl its thunders of excommunication against individuals and Kings—but against assemblages of people, for whatsoever purposes met together. It is interesting to note, in the same reign of John, that after the disgrace of the King, the Barons met and adopted "MAGNA CHARTA." But the Pope (Innocent) "considering himself as feudal lord of the kingdom," issued a bull, in which, from the plenitude of his Apostolic power, and " from the authority which God had committed to him, to build and destroy kingdoms, to plant and overthrow," he annulled and abrogated the whole charter, and pronounced a general excommunication against every one who should persevere in maintaining such treasonable and iniquitous pretensions!

These historical facts show, not only the grasping and aspiring inclinations of the Pope, but prove the absolute supremacy of his temporal powers as it existed in the thirteenth century. Similar scenes and similar struggles to those already described in England, were of continual occurrence in all the countries in which, at that day, the Romish Church had foothold! It needed but little-a slight offence was sufficient to cause this arrogant Pontiff to turn loose his anathematic bull! and the furious animal, blinded with a thousand curses, rushed madly amid the indiscriminate masses of mankind!

It seems strange to us of this age-nay, sir, we are astounded-when we look through the telescope of centuries, and behold afar off, in a dim chamber, a feeble old man, alone as it were, holding his court amid the deserted ruins of an ancient city, without an army, without a fleet, without a sword, weighing in the hollow of his band the mighty empires of the world: Conquering mankind with no weapon but arrogance, with no power but the all-invincible superstitions which surrounded his throne!

And, to uphold this arrogance, he had his faces of brass, and his arms of iron, in every nation; and to spread this superstition, he had his cowled emissaries prowling all over the face of the earth.

And these cowled emissaries! who were they? History, with its burning scroll, declares them to have been the most degraded and degrading of mankind, given to all the sins and iniquities that human flesh, in its weakness, is given to.

But, it is said, there is no more danger of the encroachment of Popery. The Reformation redeemed men and kingdoms. The nations of the earth are freed from the chains of superstition; and the Pope is now but a sort of innocent father confessor to the priests. Sir, be not deceived. When the lion sleeps, who so foolish as to approach him in his slumbers? A mouse has too much sagacity to approach a snoring cat, as if in its small cranium could be crowded the grand idea "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. The Reformers prevailed. The Pope surrendered nothing. He retired, in sullen silence, to the gloomy recesses of the Vatican, to brood over his fallen fortunes; to frame new forms of curses; to learn how to damn with intense gusto, and to mingle the wine of the Sacraments in the ink with which he wrote his anathemas, in imitation of one of his infallible predecessors. No, sir, the Pope was not dead; "the snake was scotched, not killed."

His anathematical bull was only turned out to grass.

"I who was once as great as Cæsar,
Am now reduced to Nebuchadnezzar;

And from as famed a conqueror,

As ever took degree in war,
Or did his exercise in battle,

Have been turned out to graze with cattle."

True it is, sir, that the "thunders of the Vatican" no longer shook the corners of the earth. The Pope sat in his quiet court, seemingly feeble in every respect, as if waiting for a gentle and immortalizing martyrdom. He who yesterday had been the builder of kingdoms, the maker of monarchs, and the destroyer of constitutions, was now the weakest of mankind. But we find him shaking his puny arm over Henry the Eighth, and grinding his teeth at Queen Elizabeth.

Impotent old man! He could find but one per

son in England who had the temerity to circulate his excommunication of Elizabeth.

At the risk of being tedious, I have collected these historical facts; and I will add an illustrious Roman Catholic authority, from whom I shall quote a few observations upon the claims and power of the Pope to interfere with and depose monarchs, and to absolve their subjects. The illustrious De Maistre, (as he is called by the Roman Catholics) in his truly elaborate and able performance, in a legal treatise upon the various powers of the Pope, thus argues in reference to the above question:

"As they had at their command, moreover, all the science of those times, the very force of things gave them an un

disputed title to that superiority which at the time was

indispensable. The true principle, that sovereignty comes from God, strengthened besides those ancient ideas, and there came to be formed an opinion, almost universal, which attributed to the Popes à certain jurisdiction over questions in which sovereigns were concerned. This opin. ion was quite sound, and certainly far better than all our sophistry. The Popes did not at all interfere so as to embarrass wise Princes in the exercise of their functions; still less did they disturb the order of the succession of Sovereigns,

so long as things were conducted according to the ordinary and known rules; it was only when there was great abuse, great criminality, or much doubt, that the Sovereign Pontiff interposed."

"And it matters little here whether the Pope held this primacy by Divine or human right, provided it be clear that during several ages he exercised throughout the West, with universal consent and approbation, a power assuredly most extensive."

"This observation may be generalized. Princes, struck by the anathema of the Pope, disputed only its justice, so that they were constantly ready to make use of it against their enemies, which they could not do without obviously acknowledging the legitimacy of the power.

"Voltaire, after having related, in his own fashion, the excommunication of Robert of France, remarks, that the Emperor Otho III. was himself present at the council in which the sentence of excommunication was pronounced.' The Emperor, therefore, acknowledged the authority of the Pope; and it is a very singular thing that modern critics will not see the manifest contradiction into which they fall, in observing, as they all do, with admirable unanimity, that what was most deplorable in those great judgments, was the blindness of the Princes who disputed not their legitimacy, and who themselves often begged to have recourse to them.

"But if the Princes were agreed, the rest of mankind were so likewise, and there is no longer question but as to abuses, which exist everywhere."

This great writer concludes: "Thus the authority of the Pope was contested only by those There was never, against whom it was leveled. therefore, a more legitimate power, as there never was a power so little contested."-(De Maistre's Pope, 188.)

But the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania disclaims for himself, and for certain colleges and councils, that the Pope claims any power to depose or interfere with monarchs, or to absolve their subjects. His personal disclaimer can amount to nothing except so far as the gentleman himself is concerned. The disclaiming of the colleges and councils amount to nothing except so far as the individuals are concerned who compose the colleges and councils. Besides being in the face of the historical acts of the Romish Church for six or eight centuries, they are positively contradicted by the legal Catholic book of De Maistre, which I have above quoted.

The English editor of De Maistre's profound work claims "The temporal throne as the patri mony of the galilean fisherman." (St. Peter.) The bull which excommunicated Henry IV., claims the power expressly "ex parte omnipotentis dei."

The bull of excommunication against King John, the interdict laid upon England and Magna Charta, expressly claim, by words, the power as given by God to St. Peter, "to build and pull down kingdoms." (Hume, 299.)

If the power is given by God, what right has the Pope to surrender it? He would be faithless to surrender it. "He is infallible,” says the Church. Therefore he cannot err. Therefore he cannot surrender a divine right. Therefore he has not surrendered it. Therefore the proposition of the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS,]" that the Roman Pontiff has never, in any authoritative form, disclaimed the right,'

||

HO. OF REPS.

remains still to be answered, notwithstanding the complacency of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The colleges may be allowed to publish what they please, so long as they stick to the interest of the Church, for the time being, and so long as they promote the interest of the Church in the particular place where questions may be discussed. The Pope will not call them to account, until the interest of the Church should make it necessary to denounce their heresies. When that becomes necessary, the Pope will act and denounce their colleges, and excommunicate and damn all who presume to utler such doctrines. This would be in accordance with the history of the Romish Church. The councils of the Romish Church are in the habit of condemning the doctrines and decrees of the preceding councils. What can be considered as stable in that Church, sir, which does not scruple to condemn its own Pope as a heretic long after he is dead! A general council, which Bishop England, in a letter read by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, declares to be infallible in doctrinal decrees," condemned POPE Honorious as a HERETIC! and some of his doctrines as heretical! If they can condemn a dead Pope as a heretic, what may they not do with persons, colleges, and bishops? Honorious as a Pope, being infallible, must have gone to heaven upon his death. The Romish Church inculcates the idea that the Pope is bound to go to heaven. But, sir, in the case of Honorious, the council pronounced him a heretic, (while he was in heaven,) and as a heretic cannot go to heaven, the council, of course, put him in purgatory, by their decree of condemnation!! and this Church, by their decree, virtually denies the powers of Jesus Christ to keep this heretical Pope in heaven. Sir, how long will it be before St. Peter shall be condemned for his old sin of denying his Master? How long is St. Peter safe in the bosom of his LORD? He will never be safe, sir, so long as the Romish Church shall presume. I have no doubt he is alive to serious apprehensions. I have no doubt that since the condemnation of Honorious, his immortal soul has been jarred everytime the cock crows.

There are many notable contradictions in the speech of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CHANDLER.] In one part of his speech he says, in the most positive and emphatic terms:

"The Roman Catholic Church neither holds nor inculcates a doctrine of power in its head to interfere in the affairs of temporal Governments, to disturb the monarch, or release the subject. It never has held any such doctrine." In another sentence he says, in an earlier part of his speech:

"Nowhere is the right to such power claimed, as of divine right, by the Catholic Church.""

This admits that the right to such power is claimed, but not as a divine right, and presents a palpable contradiction to the above positive denial. In another part he says:

"The most distinguished instance of the exercise of the Papal power of deposing a monarch, is that by Gregory VII., (Ganganeli,) who excommunicated and deposed the Emperor Henry IV."

How could the right be exercised without being claimed? How could the power grow into a right without having been inculcated by the Church?

But, sir, it would be impossible to review the gentleman's speech in an hour. This is no place for controversial investigations. How could any man be expected to establish any controverted point with a Church which has been nearly nineteen hundred years in finding out the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary ?

THE TERROR OF EXCOMMUNICATIONS.

But giving to the Church the benefit of all the gentleman's disclaimers, there still exists the divine right to excommunicate, and it is the moral power and terror of personal excommunication, the exercise of which this country has to dread. In reference, to deposing monarchs, the Church might even safely surrender the power to depose, and let it all rest upon the divine right to excommunicate. According to the showing of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, " excommunication, unless removed within a year, was to assist in working out depositions."

The gentleman admits that he believes in all the religious dogmas of the Romish Church. He says: "I acknowledge all my obligations to the Church of

33D CONG....2D SESS.

which I am an humble member, and I recognize all the rights of the venerable head of that Church to the spiritual deference of its children; and I desire that no part of what I may say, or what I may concede, in my remarks, may be considered as yielding a single dogma of the Catholic Church. 1 believe all that that Church believes and teaches as religious dogmas."

The gentleman declares "that he would oppose the invading army and navy of the Pope, were such a thing to occur!" But the Pope does not war with "armies and navies." He comes not with "all the pride, and pomp, and circumstance of glorious war." His excommunication is the only sword he needs-his armies are the innumerous hosts of superstition, whose name is legion, which come thronging the atmosphere of the imagination. The very "daggers" of the air, which appall the firmest heart, unnerve the stoutest body, and paralyze the strongest intellect. Will the gentleman say that against an excommunication he would dare to raise his head, his hand, or his voice? No, sir He yields not one of the religious dogmas of the Church. Would he not be liable, now, while a member of Congress, were he to commit evil, to be excommunicated, as a person, by the Bishop of his Church? Certainly. If excommunicated, would not all Roman Catholics be obliged to refuse him meat or bread, or countenance, or shelter? and would it not be their duty to the Church to persecute him? Yes. What then would be his condition? As a Catholic, his spirit would be prostrated, his mind would be unhinged; his soul would be crushed; an American Congressman would be denied entrance into the lowest Catholic hovel in the purlieus of Washington.

Suppose the gentleman was President of the United States-and his name, I believe, has been honorably mentioned in that connection-as a man he would still be liable to excommunication by an American Bishop! And in his person the habitation of the President would be liable to become a whited sepulcher! and the Chief Magistracy of this Union would be groveling in the dust at the foot of the Roman Catholic power. So it is of no moment whether the Pope claims the right to depose or not, if, under the terrors of excommunication, the mysterious and prostrating powers of the Church can be as well and effectually put to work.

I have already spoken to the desolating effect of an excommunication. We cannot well imagine its extent. And I cannot forbear, in this connection, to refer to an instance of the powers of a priest, in this country, over a member of his congregation. I give it as I find it in a newspaper, and do not, of course, vouch for its accuracy:

"SINGULAR PROCEEDINGS IN A ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN JERSEY CITY.-We have already mentioned the differences between Father Kelley, the Priest of St. Peter's Church, in Jersey City, and the officers of the Montgomery Guards, the former having, on several occasions, denounced the latter from the altar for alleged violations of the church relations.

"We learn that on Sunday, at last prayers,' Captain Farrell, of the Guards, entered his pew in St. Peter's, from which he had been previously forbidden by the priest, Father J. Kelley. This act was the cause of much excitement. The priest appearing before the altar, and addressing the congregation, stated that he would not proceed with the services until pew No. 31 (Captain Farrell's) was vacated. The captain hesitated to remove, but, at the urgent solicitation of some of the congregation, he finally walked out of his pew, at which most of the members of the congregation, and members of the Guard, of which he is commander, became highly excited, and insisted on his returning and taking possession of his pew. The captain was prevailed upon to reenter the pew, but the priest still persisting in his determination not to proceed with the services until said pew was vacated, the captain finally yielded his post and retired. The service then proceeded."

I do not know that Captain F. was a member of the Church. It is sufficient to know that the priest, surrounded by the gorgeous and imposing gewgaws of his altar, possessed the moral power to drive a freeman from his pew! This is excommunication in miniature !

Then what virtue is there in the protestation of patriotism which the honorable gentleman so emphatically makes? It did not extend to the moral power of the Pope; and even, in another sense, the gentleman, in effect, takes it back.

His protestation of patriotism is made-as he admits-in the face of what he says is "really an impossibility." What good is there in making pledges against an impossibility? Here are his words:

"In the early part of my remarks I took occasion to say what would be my course, if, by any remarkable-but really impossible-concurrence of circumstances, the army and navy of the Pope should invade the country."

If the invasion of the United States, by the Pope, with an army and navy, is an impossibility, what virtue is there in this ostentatious display of patriotism? The gentleman fortifies himself by referring to the remarks of Bishop England. That learned and eloquent prelate said:

"But if the Pope were to declare war against America, and any Roman Catholic, under the pretext of spiritual obedience, was to refuse to oppose this temporal aggressor, he would deserve to be punished for his refusal."

In the understanding of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, this means: "If the Pope should declare war against the United States-which is 'really an impossibility'—any Roman Catholic who should refuse to oppose the Pope-though it would deserve to be punished!" There is certainly very be impossible for the Pope to do such a thing-would little danger of any man being punished for disobeying his Government in an order which could only be given to him upon the happening of an impossibility.

Sir, I do not doubt the patriotism of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CHANDLER.] I only regret that he has involved it in so much mystery, and expressed it in such dubious phrases.

A WORD ABOUT MENTAL RESERVATIONS.

The church gives to her Bishops and Archbishops, the right of mental reservations in oaths. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the invincible Thomas â Becket, swore to the constitutions of Clarendon, under Henry II., to observe them "legally, with good faith, and without fraud or reserve." (1. Hume, 211.) He afterwards refused to keep his oath, and when upbraided by the other bishops of England he said" he had, indeed, subscribed the constitutions legally, with good faith, and without fraud or reserve; but in these words was virtually implied a SALVO for the rights of their ORDER, which, being connected with the cause of God and His Church, could never be relinquished by their oaths and engagements." (1. Hume, 214.)

The gentleman from Pennsylvania shows us that the late Bishop England held a contrary doctrine in the United States. Be it so. But when the opinions of that learned and eloquent prelate shall have perished; when his name shall occupy but a bare inch in the compressed volume of renown, when the last paragraph of his remembrance shall have been, by the moths of ages, entirely eaten out of the encyclopedias of posterity, the name and fame of Thomas à Becket will stand immortal in the archives of the Vatican, and in the history of the world, as a great intellectual cliff, from which the vain waters of oblivion, age after age, recede in their fruitless efforts at submersion. This great Archbishop may be called the practical father of the Jesuits. He has never been condemned; his doctrines never disavowed; his practice authorizes theirs. Then, sir, when this arm of the Roman Catholic Church is uplifted in America, tell me not there is no danger! This is the song of the Siren. I warn my countrymen to be armed. Let every Protestant make himself a sentinel on the watch towers of liberty.

Yet, in the face of all this, we are told that there is no necessity for this secret order of Americans! The eloquent and distinguished statesman of Virginia, Mr. Wise, tells us, speaking of the Protestant clergy: "They are as a whole church militant, with their armor bright." They are zealous, jealous, watchful, and organized, banded together against Papacy. They are learned, active, and politic, too, as any brotherhood of Monks.'

66

They need no such political organization to defend their faith." "In the name of their religion," he exclaims, "I ask, why not rely on God." Sir, they have no right to rely on God alone. They are God-appointed sentinels.

Not to the slothful, not to the indolent, not to the idle and lazy of his followers does God give his rewards. The servant who hid his talent and returned it unimproved to his master, was driven away. He who had improved it, was made master over many things, and admitted to enter into the service of the lord.

"Watch and pray," is the Divine injunction; which, if it needs any interpretation, means, HOPE

and WORK.

Ho. OF REPS.

Shall the lion rely on his strength and not use his muscles? Then the lamb could devour him. Sir, there is a practicability in all these Divine injunctions, which is well illustrated by the lives of the reformers, in the sleepless vigilance and active energy of their labors. This practicability is more humorously carried out by Cromwell in his great battles. That renowned commander always went into battle with a prayer to God-but not a prayer merely-his words were: "Bless God and PICK YOUR FLINTS." It was by this practical working of his faith, with his ceaseless vigilance and activity, that he was enabled to effect a revolution which made his name immortal, and aided in grafting many branches of freedom on the great tree of English liberty. And to this practical working of the Divine injunctions, I trust that all Protestants will bend their energies, and not be deluded by any dream of fancied security. The Protestant clergy are God-appointed sentinels. I warn them not to be luiled to sleep; I warn them by the fate of Alectryon; I warn them by the fate of Argos; I warn them by the fate of the unprofitable servant."

NO LAW PROPOSED AGAINST CATHOLICS. But we are told that the Constitution declares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Also in the first article of the amendments to the Constitution, it is declared "that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What is the meaning of this? It means that Congress shall pass no law making a religious test a qualification for office. And it leaves every individual free to say that he will or will not vote for a man for office who professes certain religious principles or holds a certain religious creed.

Does the American party propose to enact any law to exclude from office Roman Catholics? No, sir. It says for its members, we will not vote for Roman Catholics; and when we get the power, we will, as a party, turn out Roman Catholics, and put in Protestant natives, as a party rule-a rule which has been exercised time out of mind by the Democratic and Whig parties in this country. You may call it proscription, if you choose; but party proscription has been made respectable, as a rule of action, by both the great defunct parties.

I have sworn, upon more occasions than one, to support the Constitution of the United States, and there is no clause in it for which I have more reverence than that which secures to all men the freedom of religious opinion. The American party will never infringe that sacred clause of the Constitution. The war it wages is a war for the freedom of religious opinion! It wars against the tyranny of priestcraft; and aspires to the privilege of laying a pure Bible before the laity of the Roman Catholic Church; and demands that they be permitted to read and interpret. It aspires to a reformation of the schools.

We do not wish American children to be taught Scriptures, and to "believe in apostolic and ecclefrom their infancy to reject portions of the sacred siastical traditions," as their faith requires, as will be seen from this extract from the Roman Catholic prayer book:

"I most fully admit and embrace Apostolic and ecclesiastical TRADITIONS: I also admit the sacred Scriptures, ACCORDING TO THE SENSE IN WHICH OUR HOLY MOTHER, THE CHURCH HAS HELD, AND DOES HOLD THEM, TO WHOM IT BELONGS TO JUDGE OF THE TRUE SENSE AND INTERPRETATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. NOR WILL I EVER TAKE AND INTERPRET THEM OTHERWISE THAN ACCORD

ING TO THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE FATHERS."

It is time to dissipate these blind teachings. It is time the young mind should be allowed to see the beauty of thought, the value of logic, the power of reason, the necessity of investigation.

What kind of freedom of religious opinion is it, when the child is taught from infancy to think alone through the priest? When Protestant books. primmers, and catechisms are torn from the hand of the child, and burned as heretical? When every fibre of the young intellect is strung with the scorpions of superstition overpoweringly imposed by the gorgeous displays at the Catholic altar of paintings, and music, and symbols.

I propose no law to invade the sanctity of the Roman Catholic altar-or to touch, with rude hands, the sacerdotal robe. I invoke public opinion.

I would expose its absurdities, rebuke its idolatries, ridicule its mockeries. Sir, to see the unlettered PERUVIAN bowing and kneeling to the SUN, and worshiping it as the Great God of light-an admitted omnipotence-is not surprising; nay, sir, there is something awfully solemn, grand, and ennobling in the superstition. It exhibits the open and humble admission of an over-ruling Divinity. But to see the best educated men of the country bowing down to images and baptising bells, to scare away, with their sounds, the evil spirits of the air, is, indeed, humiliating!

Sir, we do not wish our children taught that a bell can scare away the devil. We wish to teach American wives that their husbands are their only confessors; American children that their fathers and mothers are their only confessors. To correct these evils we invoke public opinion, and proclaim that we intend to practice party proscription. We ask no law; but give us a pure ballot box.

And let no native suppose that he has before him an easy task. The Roman Catholic Church has already acquired immense power in America. Their system is, never to relinquish an inch of soil. They do not build log cabins to preach in; they make no perishable plank houses to preach in. They are not humble enough for that. They leave that to the heretical Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, and others. In their swaggering pride, they forget that the fathers of the Church were "fishermen" and "tent-makers." they build an edifice, its foundation is laid deep in American soil, and its spires rise high into the American heavens. They are already millions! This enemy is formidable. Then let every man go to work-let every Protestant be a sentinel on the watch-towers of liberty.

GEORGIA AND OHIO AGAIN.

When

MR. STEPHENS, IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 15, 1855.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the Pacific railroad bill

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I do not propose to discuss the Pacific railroad bill. Some weeks ago, sir, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. MACE] gave notice of his intention to introduce in this House a bill to prohibit slavery in Kansas and Nebraska, and accompanied that notice with a speech, to which 1 replied. To the remarks then submitted by me, the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] made a reply. That speech of the gentleman from Ohio has been, according to the notice which he gave, considerably amplified and elaborated, as it appears in the Globe. It is to that amplified and elaborated speech that I intend to devote what I have to say on this occasion.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is very true, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] remarks, that I did, pursuant to notice, amplify and enlarge my remarks, as is usual, under similar circumstances. Still, it is certainly but just to me that the gentleman should couple with his notice of the fact, the further truth that I permitted him to elaborate, just as much as he desired, the various remarks made by him during the hour allotted to me. I submitted to him all the notes of that speech, and gave him the opportunity of making, in his remarks, all the alterations that he desired to make. And even after the proof-sheets were prepared, I again extended the same courtesy to the gentleman, or rather, I made the proposition to him, that he might amplify just as much as he desired. I wish this statement to go with the suggestion of the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. STEPHENS. If the gentleman has no other more pertinent interruption to make during my remarks, I trust he will permit me to proceed without thus encroaching upon my time.

It is true, Mr. Chairman, that I revised and corrected that portion of the remarks made by myself. It is true that the gentleman submitted the proof-sheet of his speech, as printed, to me,

but I did not choose to reply in that way to any matter, except such points as were drawn out in the debate between us on this floor, in that speech. I chose to reply here, and in the way I now propose to do. This is what I was just going to state if I had not been interrupted. As to the amplification of his speech, I do not object. I did not state the fact in the spirit of objection. It is not to that point I was speaking. But this was my object in stating the fact: Inasmuch as, in the speech published, do appear to have appeared and taken part in a discussion with the gentleman on some points; and, inasmuch as there are many matters elaborated in the published speech, which are inserted before my answers to the gentleman's interrogatories, it may, to some not aware of the reason, seem strange that I made no reply to the gentleman upon these points. It is for this reason I made the statement, and it is for the purpose of replying to the gentleman's statistics, I now desire to occupy some of the time of the committee. I do not object to the gentleman's amplification. Not at all, sir. But, sir, I have something to say in reply to these statistics, which were not exhibited by the gentleman on the floor. I have, sir, a great deal to say in reply to them; and I therefore avail myself of this opportunity-the earliest that I have had to reply to them. I have more to say in reply to them, much more than I can speak in one hour, the limited time that I have.

But, sir, before going into the statistics given in the forepart of the gentleman's speech, in which he attempted to reply to some of the positions assumed by me in answer to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. MACE,] I wish to state a few things in passing; and I will here say that, so far as my consistency is concerned, (the main object of the gentleman's attack,) I have nothing now to add to what I have heretofore said. My record may stand as it is made up. I have no desire to change or modify it in the least; not even to cross a tor dot an i. By it, as it stands, I am willing to abide while living, and by it to abide when dead. It was not made for a day, or for an election, but for all time to come. But to proceed.

The gentleman from Ohio, in the tenor of his argument, makes me use language which I did not utter on this floor-or, at least, he seems to put words into my mouth that I did not use. Now, when an argument is not stated fairly, it argues either a want of comprehension, or a consciousness of the want of capacity or ability to answer it on the part of one who thus fails fairly to present it. Either alternative does not bespeak much for the formidable qualities of an opponent. I have, Mr. Chairman, too high a regard for the intelligence of the gentleman, to think that he did not understand my argument. I believe that his object was rather to size the argument to his capacity to reply to it, as he supposed.

For instance, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman says, in his speech, we are told that the South gets nothing, that the South asks nothing." Now, sir, in my reply to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. MACE, I spoke of the great fact, well known, living, and "fixed fact," that the industrial pursuits of the South do not, in the main, look for the protection or fostering care of the Government, and that the general industrial pursuits of the North do. I did not say that the South gets nothing, or that the South asks nothing. I said that the South asks but few favors; and I repeat it, sir. Nor am I to be answered by being told that General Jackson and Mr. Claysouthern men-were in favor of fostering, as far as they could by proper legislation, the interests of the North. That does not disprove the fact which I uttered, that the South does not generally look to the Government for protection, and that the North does. Sir, it rather proves the opposite, and confirms my statement. Because I stated that the industrial pursuits of the North look to the Government for protection, is that statement disproved by the fact that southern men, or even myself, have voted to favor those interests, as far as was consistent with public duty? So far from disproving, it tends rather to establish it. What I stated on this point was in reply to the gentleman from Indiana, whose tone of argument was, that the South carried measures promotive of their interest by bluster.

But, sir, to come down to the argument as the

HO. OF REPS.

gentleman states it! If he cannot or does not wish to meet me on the ground that the South asks but few favors, as I stated it, and that the North does look more to the Government for its fostering care to protect its various interests than the South does, very well, I will meet him on his own ground. If he cannot answer my position, but must size my argument so as to make it stand as he has it, that will come down even to his ground, so far as his "the South asks nothing, and gets nothing," I

answer is concerned.

"The South asks nothing! In 1803, we paid fifteen millions to get Louisiana.

"The South asks nothing! In 1819, we paid five millions to get Florida.

"The South asks nothing! In 1845, her policy brought Texas into the Union, with a promise that she might carve herself up into five States.

"The South asks nothing!" Her Texas annexation brought the war with Mexico, and more territory was de manded as the fruits of that war.'"

I think he does great injustice to the North when he says that the acquisition of Louisiana was for the exclusive benefit of the South.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is true that, at the time I made a reply to the gentleman from Georgia, I caught the idea which he presented, that the South asked nothing, from his manner of expression, and those were the words which I used at the time as they were reported.

Mr. STEPHENS. I cannot yield to the gentleman unless he be very brief.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I call the attention of the gentleman to what he did say. He did say, as reported, "all that we ask of you is to keep your hands out of our pockets. That is all the South asks, and we do not even get that."

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir. The gentleman will find not only those words, but others in my speech" as reported," all going to establish the leading point in that part of the argument, that the South asked but "few favors" compared with the wants of the North. That was my position, and not that we asked "nothing" or got "nothing." Some of these favors I specified; but, in the main, I asserted, or meant, in substance, to assert, as every one well understood, that the greatest desire of the South was, that the General Government would keep its hands out of her pockets. And this is true; and the gentleman did not attempt to reply to it, except as I have stated. I come now, then, to the gentleman's reply to the position that the South" asks nothing." To this he says, "that we paid $15,000,000 for Louisiana." To this I say, it was not the South alone that secured the acquisition of Louisiana. Nor was it alone for the benefit of the South. There were but twentythree votes in this House against that acquisition. It was a national acquisition. Sustained by national men from all sections, there was hardly a show of opposition to it from any quarter. I should suppose that Ohio would be the last State in this Union to raise her voice against that measure, or hold that it was exclusively for the benefit of the South. What would have become of her trade and commerce if Louisiana and the mouth of the Mississippi were still in the hands of Spain or France? If the fifteen millions of money, which we paid, be the grounds of the gentleman's objection, all that has been more than refunded by the sale of public lands embraced within the limits of that acquisition. These sales, up to this time, have amounted to $25,928,732 23, besides what is yet to be realized from the hundreds of thousands of square miles yet to be sold. So the fifteen millions was no bonus to the South, even if the South had carried the measure for their own benefit.

Again, was the acquisition of that territory made to extend the southern area of the country? Let us examine this view of the subject. What extent of territory was comprised within the limits of Louisiana? It extended not only far up the Mississippi river, to Iowa and Minnesota, but westward to the Rocky mountains even, without now mooting the question, whether Oregon was

33D CONG....2D SESS.

not then acquired. Grant, for the sake of this argument, that Oregon was not then acquired. The Territory of Louisiana stretched from the extreme south on the Gulf to the extreme north on parallel 490 of north latitude. All that immense domain, including Kansas and Nebraska, was part of it. Was all this southern territory? The object of the gentleman from Ohio in alluding to this subject seemed to be to intimate that all this acquisition was for the South. But how is the fact? Let us look at it. By this acquisition, taking all the Indian territory into account, the South acquired only 231,960 square miles, while the North got by it 667,599 square miles! Is this the way that the South is to be taunted? When the very acquisition, held up as the taunt brought more than double the extent of territory to the North than it did to the South!

Again, in the acquisition of Florida, the gentleman from Ohio says that the South carried that measure at a cost of $5,000,000. This is the tenor of his argument. Sir, this measure was not carried by the South, nor for the South exclusively. There was not even a division in this House on the question. As to the extent of the acquisition, if we did not get Oregon when we acquired Louisiana, we certainly acquired it when we purchased Florida. It was by the treaty then made that we got Spain's relinquishment to Oregon. The North, by this measure, got 308,052 square miles of territory, including the Territories of Oregon and Washington, while the South got only the State of Florida, 59,268 square miles. If the South carried this question by her votes, I ask were those who gave the votes sectional in their policy? Did not the South, if that be the gentleman's argument, gain quite as much, nay, more, nay, double, nay, more than five times as much territory for the North in that acquisition, as she obtained for herself? Again, in the acquisition of Texas, considering the Mexican war as part of that proceeding, as the gentleman does, the South only secured 237,504 square miles, while the North secured 632,157 square miles, including California, New Mexico, and Utah.

The gentleman says, that the North is opposed to acquisitions; that she never looks outward, she looks inward; and that while the South is always looking to the extension of territory, the North is looking to the improvement of what we have. This, so far as looking to acquisition is concerned, I think, is not true of the North entirely. It may be true of some men there. But it is not true of all her statesmen. In the early history of this country, there were men at the North, and one in particular, who had no such circumscribed views as those attributed to the North generally. The man to whom I allude stands first, in my opinion, of all the northern statesmen of his day. Indeed, he stands, in my judgment, amongst the men of his day-next to him who has no equal in any age or country. That man hailed from New York, and for strength of judgment, for profound thought, for far-seeing statesmanship he has never been equaled by any of the illustrious men since brought upon the public arena by that honored State. That man, sir, was Alexander Hamilton; and at the formation of our Constitution, after that provision in the original draft, that new States to be formed out of territory then belonging to the United States might be admitted into the Union, was so modified as to leave out the restriction, so that other States (not confining it to the then territory of the Union) might come in, Mr. Hamilton is said to have expressed the opinion, with approbation, that, in time, we should get Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mexico, and even ultimately squint towards South America. That was the man, sir, who, in his day, was, every inch of him, a "Sampson in the field, and a Solomon in council." Nay, more; he was one of those gifted geniuses who caught from the sunrise of life" that "mystical lore" which enabled him to see those coming events which were casting their "shadows before."

I take this occasion thus to speak of Mr. Hamilton, because he is a most striking exception to the gentleman's remark, and, also, because in his day it suited the purposes of many of his cotemporaries to detract from his merits, his name, and his character; men who barked at his heels, just as the wolves and the hyenas do, upon the track

of the noble king of the forest; men who never met him in open conflict but to be vanquished, and many of whom even quailed from his pres

ence.

But, sir, let us look, for a moment, to all our acquisitions. So far as Louisiana is concerned, if the gentleman begrudges the money paid for it, even if it had not been reimbursed by the sale of lands, the State of Georgia, alone, has long since more than paid that debt by her munificent grant. She ceded to the United States that large territory out of which the two flourishing States-Alabama and Mississippi-have since been made; out of which, and from which, you have realized, by sale of lands, much more than the whole cost of Louisiana. I have now before me a table of the proceeds of the sale of the public lands in the States of Alabama and Mississippi. It amounts to $32,205,612 18; the consideration paid to Georgia was $1,250,000; with the extinguishment of the Indian title within her own limits; all this amounted to about $11,000,000; so that if it be the amount of money that lays heavily upon his breast, it may be some consolation to the gentleman to know that from this grant by Georgia, a southern State, you have a clear gain of over $20,000,000.

But, let us look at all our acquisitions. There are now, according to the census report, belonging to the United States 2,936,166 square miles of territory, including States old and new, as well as Territories. There have been acquired, outside of the old thirteen States, 2,599,105 square miles. Of all these 2,599,105 square miles thus acquired, there lies north of the line of 360 30', 1,845,701 square miles, and there lies south of it but 753,404 square miles. Here, sir, take Louisiana, take Florida, take Texas, take all our acquisitions, the Georgia and other State grants or cessions, leaving out the Mesilla Valley, acquired at the last session of Congress, which is a small item, and you see this astounding fact, in answer to the remarks of the gentleman on this point, that 1,845,701 square miles of these acquisitions lie north of 360 30', and only 753,404 lie south of it! If all north of 36° 30′ is to be considered northern territory, then the North has got by acquisition more than double what the South has!

Ho. OF REPS.

show whether I was right or not. But, sir, as I have been drawn into saying thus much on this subject, it may be proper that I should say more. I am not for this acquisition upon any plan or principles inconsistent with the strictest national honor and national faith. But I am in favor of a repeal of those laws on our own statute book which make it penal and punishable as a crime of high grade for an American citizen to take part in any revolution that may take place in Cuba-any effort of the people there to throw off Spanish domination and oppression?

If the people of Cuba were permitted to exercise their own free will and volition, unawed by the superior power of Spain, as I am informed and believe, they would not remain a day, much less a month or year, longer, under the heavy taxes, burdens, and exactions of that country which now claims their allegiance only to oppress and to plunder them. And if they do thus desire to throw off the yoke of their oppressors, why should we punish American citizens for no reason but aiding them in their patriotic attempt? Why should we keep the peace for Spain? When did she, by her conduct towards us, put us under such obligations? Was it when she held the mouth of the Mississippi, or Florida? Was it when she armed the savages of the frontiers against our undefended people? Was it when she nurtured in her bosom such enemies to our peace

such wretches as Ambrister and Arbuthnotwhom General Jackson had to hang without judge or jury? When, I say, did Spain, by her comity and good neighborhood, put us under an obligation to punish our citizens for aiding the native Cubans not only to rid themselves of present heavy and onerous burdens and unjust impositions, but to prevent that ultimate destiny which French and English policy has concocted for them? In this matter I may have a little more sympathy for my own race than the gentleman has. Why should we hold while Spain skins? I feel no disposition to stand by and see one of the fairest islands of the world-the Queen of the Antilles-despoiled, rifled, and plundered, and then made a St. Domingo or a Jamaica of, any more than I would to see a stately ship, well freighted, pillaged by pirates, scuttled, and then sent adrift to sink, without one hand to save. This, sir, is pretty much the present condition of Cuba. She is now undergoing the pillaging process; how soon she will be scuttled and sent adrift to sink I know not. Sir, Mr. Webster, as early as the delivery of his Panama speech, intimated very strongly that the policy of this country never would or could allow Cuba to pass into other hands than those of Spain. Mr. Everett in his celebrated and most masterly letter on the proposed tri-party treaty, very clearly follows up the same views. And Mr. Clay is generally understood to have

But again, he asks, who was it, at the last session of Congress, that desired to place in the hands of the President $10,000,000 for the acquisition of Cuba? I can say to him that I did not, and if there is any gentleman upon this floor from the South that did, I did not know it. I know of no such movement in this House, either at midnight or open day, or any other period of the twenty-four hours. But I tell the gentleman, in passing, as he has alluded to Cuba, that I am for the acquisition of that island. I believe its acquisition would promote the best interest of the island and of this country; and that it would promote the interest of Ohio more than of Georgia. I am not governed by sectional feelings or interests on this question. Its acquisition would advance the interests of both countries; and it would advance the interest of the North quite as much, if not more, than the South, so far as its trade and its commerce is concerned. But I was not, and am not, for putting $10,000,000, or any other sum, in the hands of this Administration to buy it. I do not believe that they desire it. I have never believed that it was either their wish or policy to obtain it, as several of the most ardent friends of Cuba on this floor very well know. I gave them this opinion long ago, when some of them questioned its correctness. The sequel will

country ought to go to war rather than permit Cuba to fall into the hands of England. But who, sir, would not infinitely prefer to see England hold it, than to see her policy carried out of extirpating the white race there and filling the island with Guinea negroes and African savages? If the first would justify a national war, the latter may, in my opinion, much more justify us in barely permitting such of our citizens, as see fit, to prevent it, if they can. If such a course should bring acqui sition by the free choice of the people of Cuba, without consulting Spain, I say let it bring it. It is a matter in which I should be governed much more by the wishes of the people of Cuba than the interests of Spain.

Our trade with Cuba is now large; but this would be greatly augmented if it were part of this country, and under our laws. We should not only be relieved of the heavy duties paid on our exports there, but the productions of the island consumed in this country would be largely increased, and her capacity to consume our products, agricultural and manufactured, be increased in the same ratio. I have a document before me that gives the amount of duty levied and paid now on our exports there upon being introduced into the island. On beef is $3 14 per barrel; pork, $4 89 per barrel; hams, $3 14; lard, $4 19; lumber, $5 60; hoops, $8 39; coaches, $261. But 1 cannot read all. The same document gives the price of a cargo, shipped from New Orleans to