men is perhaps rather dearer than our?, on the other hand, the rate of iUteri:it is lower in England and fo-are feamtn's wa ges. It would be improper, therefore, to coufidcr the amount of Briiilh tonnage in our ti-adc, as a proof of a bad Hale of things, ariiing either from the reductions of that government, or the negligence or timidity.of this. We are to charge it to causes which are more coune£ted with the natural competition of capital and industry, causes which in fr.ft retarded the growth of our (hipping more when we were colonies and our (hips were free than since the adoption of the present government. It has been said, with emphasis, "that the conttitution grew out of the com plaints of the nation respecting commerce efpeciaUy that with the British dominions. What was then lamented by our patriots ? Feebleness of the public counsels, the (ha dow of union, and scarce the flradow of puVnc credit, every where despondence, the pre (lure of evils, not only great, but portentous of civil diltrattions. These were the grievances and what more was then delired than their remedies! Is it pofiible to Purvey this profperons country, and to aflert that they have been delayed? Trade fioui idles on our wharves, although it droops in ipeeches ; manufoftures have riie:i under the lhaic of protecting duties from ahnoll nothing, to such a Hate, that we are even told it is fafe to dep end on the domed ie ftipply, if the foreign (hotild ceafc. The-lifheries, which we ibuifd in decline, are in the molt vigorous growth ; the whale fiihery, which our allies would have transferred to Dunkirk, r.ow traver ses the whole orean. To that hardy race of men, the fe'a is but a park for hunting its monlters ; such is their activity, the deeped abyfTes scarcely afford to their prey an hiding place. Look round, and fee how the frontier circle widens, how the interior improves, and let it be repeated, tint the hopes of the people, when they formed this conditution, have been fruf- t rated. But if it should happen' that our pre judices prove stronger than our senses, Jf k should be believed that our farmers and merchants fee their products and {hips and wharves going to decay together,and they are ignorant or silent on their own ruin—itill the public documents would not disclose k> alarming a state of our af fairs. Our imports are obtained so plen tifully and cheaply that one of the avow ed objects of the refutations is, to make them scarcer and dearer. Our exports, fj far fom languishing, have increased two millions of dollars in a year. Our navigation is found to be augmented be yond the molt sanguine expectation.— We hear of the vast advantage the Eng lish derive from the navigation ad, and we are asked in a tone of accusation, (hall we fit still, and do nothing Who is bold enough to fay, Congress has done no thing for the encouragement of Ameri can navigation ? To counteract the navi gation aCI, we have laid on Britilh a high er tonnage than our Own veflels pay in their ports —and what is much more ef fectual we have imposed ten per cent, on the duties, when the dutied articles are borne in foreign bottoms. We have also made the coailing-trade a monopoly to our own velfels. Let those who have as serted that this is nothing, comparc faCts with the regulations which produced them. Tons. Excess of Tonnage. American 1789 297,468 American Foreign 265,116 tonnage. American 1790 - — 347,663 Foreign 258,916 563,810 2 Vp,799 ~£ 123,011 +ij>33' 244,263 American 1791 Foreign American 1792 Foreign Is not this increase of American ship ping rapid enough ? Many perfor.s fay it ia too rapid, and attrafti too much capi tal for the circumftanrte-of the .country. 1 cannot readily myfelf \o think so valuable n branch of employment thrives too fai- But z it&dy and sure encou ragement ii more to be relied on than vio lent methods of forcing its growth. It it not clear that the quantity of our navi gation, including our coasting and fifHing vefTels is lei's, In proportion to those of that nation. In tint computation, we fhaO probably find, that we are already more a navigating people than the Eng li(h. As this is a growingcounfry,we have the moftfteble fround 0 d pendente on the corresponding growth or our navigation : and that the inueaGng/ienund tor (hipping wilt rather fall to the iliare of Americans than loielgners is ant to bi denied We this from die nature ot our own I w.—we have been conhr cried in rt oy experience—ai.u we know that an American bottom is actually preferred © a toreigA one. Id cases where one partner is an American and (mother a foreigner, the ihip is made an Ameri can bottom A fatt ot this kind overthrows a whole theory ot reafonirie on the neceditv of further It lhj\y j thai the work, of rcttriction &6ns. 'n ilv>ue. If we uke the aggregate view of our commercial intereiis, we fliall had much more occalion tor fa t:staCtio;i,& eve., exultation, t!un co«.pUint,& none lor defpondeiice. it woo id be too bold to lay iliac our condition is so eligible there is nothing to be wilhed. Ncitliej the order of nature nor the allot ments of Providence alibid perleCt content* and it would be absurd to expect in our politics what is de nied in the laws of our being. The nations with whom we stave intercourse have, without exception, more or lets reitrifted their commerce. They have tramed their regulations to suit their real or Uncied intcrelts. The code of France is as full of reltric tions as that of England We have regulations of our own, and they are unlike those of any other country —inasmuch as the intereiis and circum ftuuees ol nations vary so essentially, the project of an exa£t reciptocity on our part is a viiion. What we defne is to have not on exa£l reciprocity, but an imercourfe of mutual benefit and convenience—lt has scarcely been so much as inftnuated that the change contemplated wiil be a profitable one —that it will enable us to fell dearer and to buy cheaper— on the contrary, we are invited to submit to the ha zards and losses of a conflict with our customers— to engage in a contest of felf-denial. For what —to obtain better markets ? no such tiling—But to (hut up, forever, if pollible, the best market we have for our exports, and to confine ourlelvea to the dearest and scarcest markets for our imports. And this to be done forthe benelit of trade, or as it is sometimes more corredtly said for the benefit of Franoe. This language is not a little incontinent and ltrange from those who recommend a non-importation agreement and who think we thould even renounce die sea and devote ourselves to agriculture. Thus to make our trade more free it is be embzrraffed and violently (hifted from one country to another, not according to the interest of the merchants, but the visionary theories and capricious ralhnefs of the legislators.— To make trade bettei it is to be made nothing. So far as commerce and navigation are regarded, the pretences for this contest are confined to two. We are not allowed to carry manufactured articles to Great-Britain, nor any produ&s, except of our own growth ; and we are r.ot permitted to go, with our own veflTels, to the Wett-lndies. The former, which is a provision of the navigation adt, is of lit tle importance to our intereth, as our trade is chief ly a direitone, our (hipping not being equal to the carrying for other nations, and our manufactured ar ticles arc not permitted in quantities for exportation, and, if they were, Greaf-Britain would not be a cus tomer. So far therefore the reftri&ion is rather nominal than real. The exclusion of our veflels from the Weft-Indies is of more importance. When we propose tp make an effort to force a privilege from Great-Britain, which (he is loth to yield to us,it is necessary tocom pofe the value of the object with the effort, and, above all, to calculate very warily the probability of success. A trivial thing deserves not a great exer tion ; much less ougfit we to (lake a very" great good in poftelfion for a (light chance of a less good. The carriage of one half the exports and imports to and from the Briti(h Weft-Indies is the object to be contended for Our whole exports to Great-Britain are to be hazarded. We fell on terms of privilege and positive favor, as it has been abundantly (hewn, near seven millions to the dominions of Great-Bri- tain. We are to rifle the privilege in this greata mouat —For what. For the freight only of one half the B. Well-India trade with the U. States. It belongs to commercial men to calculate the entire value of the freight alluded to. But it cannot bear much proportion to the amount of seven millions. Beiides, if we are denied the privilege of carrying our articles is our vetrels to the illands, we are on a footing of privilege in the lale of them. We have one privilege if not two. It 35 2 88,747 If these confederations (hould fail of their effect, it will be neceflary to go into an examination of the tendency of the system of discrimination to redress and avenge all our wrongs, and to realize all our hopes. it has been avowed, that we are to look to France, not to England, for advantages in trade; we are to (hew our spirit, aud to manifelt towards those who are called enemies, the spirit of enmity, and towards those we call friends something more than paflive good will—We are to take adtive measures to force trade out of it's accustomed channels, and to Ihift it by such means from England to France. The care of the concerns of the French manufacturers may be left perhaps as well in the hands of the Conven tion as to be usurped into our own. However our zeal might engage us to interpofc, our duty to our own immediate conltituents demands all our atten tion. To volunteer it, in order to excite competi tion in one foreign nation to supplant another, is a verv ft range business; and to do it, as it has been irrefutably proved it will happen, at the charge and cod of our own citizens, is a thing equally beyond all juftification and all example. What is it btit to tax our own people for a time, perhaps for a long time, in order that the French may at latt fell as cheap as the Englifli—cheaper they cannot, nor is it so much as pretended. The tax will be « loss to us, 171,067 and the f«nci.J tendency of il not to thss country in event, but to France —We ftull pay more tor a time, and iu the end pay no lef>; tor no objeit but thai of one nation may receive our money initcad of tht other: If this is generous towards francejit is-uot just to America. It is facriftciugwhat we owe to our constituents to what we pretend to feel towards strangers. We have indeed heard a ve ry ardent protcifion of gratitude to that nation, and infinite reliance seems to be placed on her readiness to lacrifice her intcreft to ours. The ltoryot this gejfcrous ftrife Ihoul.l be left to ornament hot ion. I hit is not the form nor the occasion to discharge our obligations of any fort to,any foieign nation —it concerns not our feelings but our interests yet the de b.ue has often soared high above the smoke of busi ness into the epic region. The market for tobacco, tar, turpentine and pitch has become matter of sen timent, and given occasion alternately to rouse our courage and our gratitude. Ifinllead if hexameters, we prefer discussing our relation to foreign actions in the common language, we (hall not find that we are bound by treaty to esta blish a preference in favor of the French. The treaty is founded on a profelTed reciprocity—favor for fa vor —why is the principle of treaty or no treaty made so eflcntial, when the favor we are g*ing to give is an ad of supererogation. It is notexpe&ed by one of the nations in treaty : for Holland has declared in her treaty with us, thatfuch preferences are the fruitful source of animosity, embarraflment and war. The French have set no such example. They discrimi nate, in their late navigation a&, not as we are ex horted to do between nations in treaty and not in treaty, but between nations at war and not at war with them so that when peace takes place, England will (land by that adl on the fame ground with our selves. Mr. Ames proceeded to (hew that if we expedt by giving favor to get favor in return, it is impro per to make a law. The business belongs to the ex ecutive in whose hands the constitution has placed the power of dealing with foreign nations. He no ticed it's Angularity to negotiate legislatively—to make by a law half a bargain, expecting a French law would make the other. He remarked that the footing, of treaty or no treaty, was different from the ground taken by the mover himfelf in supporting his system. He had said favor for favor was principle; Nations not in treaty grant savors—those in treaty reftridl our trade. Yet the principle of discrimi nating in favor of nations in treaty was not only in consistent with the declared dodtrine of the mover and with fails, but it is inconsistent with itfelf. Na tions not in treaty are so very unequally operated upon bjtthe resolutions it is absurd to refer them to one principle. Spain and Portugal have no treaties with us, and are not disposed to have Spain would not accede to the treaty of commerce between us and France, though (he was invited—Portugal would not ftgn a treaty after it had been difcufled and signed on our part. They have few (hips or manu factures and do not feed their colonies from us ; of course there is little for the discrimination to operate upon. The operation on nations in treaty is equal ly a satire on the principle of diicrimination. Swe den, with whom we have a treaty, duties rice higher if borne in our bottoms, than in her own. France does the like, in refpedt to tobacco two and half li vres the quintal, which in effedt prohibits our vessels to freight tobacco, as the duty is more than the freight. He then remarked on the French naviga tion adt, the information of which had been given to the house since the debate began. He said the mo ver had, somewhat unluckily, proposed to except from this fyllem nations having no navigation adts, in wUich cafe France would become the fubjedt of unfriendly discrimination as well as Great-Britain. He remarked on the disposition of England to fet tle a commercial treaty, and adverted to the known desire of the Marquis of Lannfdowne (then prime minister) in 1783, to form such an one on the mod liberal principles. The history of that business and the causes which prevented it's conclusion ought to be made known to tho public. The powers given to our ministers were revoked, and yet we hear that no such disposition on the part of Great-Britain has ex isted. The declaration of Mr. Pitt in parliament, in June, 1792, a:i well as the correspondence with Mr. Hammond, (hew a desire to enter upon a ne gociation. The statement of the report on the pri vileges and reftri&ions of our commerce, that Great-Btitain has {hewn no inclination to meddle with the fubjedl seems to be incorredt. After tracing the operation of the resolutions on different nations, he examined the supposed tenden cy to dispose Great-Britain to fettle an equitable treaty with this country. He alked whether those who held such language towards that nation as he heard could be supposed to desire a treaty and friend ly conne&ioa. It seemed to be thought a merit to express hatred— it is common and natural to desire to annoy and to crulh those whom we hate, but it is somewhat lingular to pretend that the deiign of our anger is to embrace them. The tendency of angry measures to friendly difpo lit ions and arrangements is not obvious. We affect to believe that we (hall quarrel ourlelves into their goodwill. We lhall beat a nfcw path to pcace and friendlhip wiih Great-Britain, one that is grown up with thorns and lined with men-traps and fpring guns It (hould be called the war path. To do justice to the fobjeft its promised advantages Ihou'd be examined. Exciting the com petition of the Frenck is to prove an advantage to 1 his country, by opening a new market with that nation. This is scarcely intelligible. If it means any thing, it is an admilfion that their market is not a good one, or that they have not takin measures to favor our traffic with them. In either cafe our system is absurd. The balance of trade is against us and in favor of England. But the resolutions can only aggravate that evil, for, by compelling us to-buy dearer and fell cheaper, the balance will be turned still more against our country. Neither is the sup ply from France less the aliment of luxury than that from England. The excess of ciedit is an evil which we pretend to cure by checking the natural growth of our own capital, which is the undoubted tendency of retraining trade, the progress of the remedy is de layed. If we will trade, there mult be capital. It i 9 bed to have it of our own, if we have it not we must depend on credit. Wealth springs from the profits of employment, & the best writers on the fub jedl eltablifh it, that employment U in proportion to the capital that is to excite and reward it. Toftrike off credit, which is thr substitute for capital, if it were poflible to do it would so far Hop employment. Fortunatelv it is not pofiible ; the activity of indivi dual industry eludes the mif-judgine power of go vernments. The refolwtions would in effedt in crease the demand for credit, as our produ&s felling for less in a new market, and our import* being Im%1: wou'.J > U'. rx> ?v i. A r.-orr licej ui :t. vs.;u:J prouutc c.'edir. W:.- .t I'.ic laws arc itrkt it *ni K»ou hud > ts />'opor 1 c .the uses of credit will remain and the ev.i Will d appear. Eut th» whole theory of balances of trade, of help ing it by relfraint, and protecting it by lyrtems or prohibition and reflriCtion aguinlt foreign nations, as well as the remedy torcredrt, are among the exp oi !jmf Va.u.\ tl.<*re ciie jeltrictions o;'. one liJc. thcieu.il fume I.Seriy Icti, courucr ,c.IJ .itiojis, uiuiu.iii.nig tii.il ii T> - ments. ty are in their nature aggravations awe not icincdiei. We complain of the Bntifn reitndiioes asot a in il ftone —our own fvlteni *ill be another, lo that our trade may hope to be situated between the uygfcfand the neiher tniliftone. On the whole, theTefolutions contain two greet principles. To control trads by ia*', inltead of leaving it to the bettermanagement of the merchants, and the principle of a sumptuary law. 'o play the tyrant in the compting house, and in diretting the private expences of our citizens, are employments e qually unworthy ot difcuflion. Besides the advantages ot the fjftera, we have been called to another view ol it, and-which seems to have less connection with the merits of the difcuf lion. The adts of states and the votes ol public bo dies before the constitution was adopted, and the vot.-s of the house since, have been ft. ted as frounds for our assent to this measure at this time. To help our own trade, to repel any real or supposed attack upon it, cannot fail to prepoflefs themind, according ly the firft feelings of every man y icfcf to this propo rtion. But the foberjudgment on the tendency and reasonableness of the intermeddling ot government often does, and probably ought (till oftenei ia change our impreflions. On a second view of the question, the man who voted formarly for reftridtions may fay—much kas been done under the new constitution and the good effedts are yet making progress. The necessity of mealures of counter rettridticn will ap pear to him muuh less urgent, and their cfficacy in the present turbulent state of Europe infinitely less to be relied on. Far from being inconsistent in his condudt, consistency vvill forbid his prefling the ex periment of his principle under circumstances which baffle the hopes of its success. But if to muchftrefs is laid on former opinions in favor of this meal u re, how happens it that there is so little on that which now appears againll it. Notone mechant has ("poke in favor ot it in this body ; not one navigating or commercial state haspatronifed it. Mr. Ames then entered pretty fully into the con federation of'the absolute dependence of the British Weft-India islands on our supplies. He admitted that they cannot draw them fowell, and so cheap from any other quarter ; but this is not the point. Are they physically dependent. Can we starve them, and may we realonably cxpe£t thus to dic tate to Great-Britain a free ad m illion of our vessels into her islands. Ile went into details to prove the negative. Beef and pork, from the now United States to the Britilh Weft-Indies, 177;, J4«9v3 bar rels. In the war time, 1780, ditto from England, 17,795. At the end of the war, 1783,16,526. — Ireland exported on an average of seven years prior to 1777, 250,000 barrels. Salted till) the Ertglith take in abundance, and prohibit it from us. But ter andcheele from England and Ireland are but lately baniihed even from our markets. Exports from the now United States—l 773, horfej 2768 — cattle 1203 —theep and hogs 5,320. Twenty-two years prior to 1791, were exported from England to all ports, 29,13 1 horses. Ireland on an averaee of seven years to 1777, exported 41"4*. live-dock exclu sive of hogs. The coaftof Earbary, the Cape de Verds, &c. supply (heep and cattle Ihe islands fincethe war, have increased their domestic supplies to a great degree. The now United States exported about 13,000 barrels of flour in 1773 to the Weft-Indies, lie land by grazing less could fufply wheat—England itfelfufually exports it, lhe alio import? from Arch angel, Sicily and the Karbary states furniih wheat in abundance. We are deceived when we farlcy we can starve foreign countries. France is reckoned to consume grain at the rate of seven buihels to each foul. Twenty-fix millions of fouls the quantity 182 millions buftiels—We expert to speak in round numbers five or fix millions bufnels to jII the differ ent countries which we fopplyi a trifle this to their wants. Fiugality is a greater recourse. Instead of seven bufliels perhaps two could be laved by liinting the consumption of the food of cattle or by the ufc of other food. Two bufliels saved to e<.ch foul is fifu two millions of bushels, a quantity which the whole trading world perhaps could not furnifh. Rice is said to be prohibited by Spain and Portugal to favor their own. Brafil could supply their rice instead of ours. Lumber—he stated the danger of despising Canada and Nova-Scotia too much as rivals in the Weft-India supply, especially the former. The de pendence the Englilh had placed on them some yea;s ago had failed, partly because we entered into com petition with them on very superior terms; and partly because they were then in an infant state. They are now supposed to have coi.fiderably mere than doubled their numbers since the peace, and if instead of having us for competitors for the supply a» before, we (hould (hut ourselves out by relulihg our supplies or being refufed entry for them, those two colonies would rife from the ground, at least we lhoulddo more to bring it about than the English »>i niftry had been able to do. In 177?, 679 veli'eis, the adhial tonnage of which was 128,00 c, weie em ployed in the Weft-India trade. They were suppo sed on good ground to be but half freighted to the iftands | they might carry lumber, and the fieicht supposed to be deficient would be at 4cf. fleriii.e »! e ton, 128,c00 iterling. Thisfum would dimi nish the extra charge of carrvii:? lumber to the in lands. But is lumber to be had ? Yes, in Gerrr*- ny, and from the Baltic. It is even cheaper in Europe than our own. Btfides which, the lm>l woods used in mills are abundant in the islands. We are told they can (>ll their rum onlv to the United States. This concerns not tfoeir fubfntence but their profit. Examine it however. In x 773- the now United States took, neci three million callors rum. The remaining Briiifh colonies, Newfoundland and the African coast have a corjfidcrable demand for thi; article. The demand of Ireland is very much on the increase. It was in 1763.