to that passion for conflict which the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania seems to regard as so grand and glorious an ele ment of the American character.

But Great Britain is so grasping, so aggressive, so insidious and insolent, so overreaching and overbearing! Does not her banner flout us at every turn? Does not her drum-beat disturb our dreams by night, and almost drown our voices by day? Is she not hemming us in on every side; compassing us about in a daily diminishing circle; and are not our outer walls already tottering at the sound of her trumpets? Nay, have not her blandishments succeeded even where, as yet, her arms have failed? Has she not scaled our very ramparts and penetrated to our very. citadel in a shower of corrupting gold? What but British gold carried the last Presidential election against the people? What but British gold is about to carry the next? What were the twelve hundred and seventy-five thousand voters who deposed Mr. Van Buren from the chief magistracy in 1840, and who are rallying again, with renewed energy, to the old watchwords, against his restoration, but so many British Whigs? Is there a Whig, in all the land, who dares deny, that when he voted for General Harrison, he had a British heart in his bosom, and a British sovereign in his pocket?- Mr. Chairman, let me call to the remembrance of the committee a story which was introduced by the celebrated George Canning into one of his speeches in the House of Commons, and which has thus the highest sanction as being not beneath the dignity of parliamentary debate. It is the story of a painter, who had made himself somewhat eminent in the professional sphere in which he moved, but who had directed his art altogether to one favorite subject. This subject was a red lion, which he had learned to depict in great perfection. One of his earliest patrons was the keeper of a public house, who wished something appropriate painted on his sign-board. The painter, of course, executed his red lion. A gentleman in the vicinity, who had a new mansion-house which he wished to have ornamented, was the next employer of the artist, and, in order to afford him full scope for his genius, gave him his own choice of a subject for the principal panel in his dining-room. The artist took time to deliberate, and then said, with the utmost

gravity, "don't you think that a handsome red lion would have a fine effect in this situation?" The gentleman, as you may imagine, did not feel quite satisfied with the selection, but resolved to let the painter follow his own fancy in this instance, trusting to have a design of more elegance and distinction in his drawing. room or library, to which he next conducted him. "Here," said he, "I must have something striking; the space is small, and the device must be proportionably delicate." The painter paused; appeared to dive down to the very bottom of his invention and thence to ascend again to its highest heaven for an idea, and then said, "what do you think of a small red lion?"

Well now, Sir, the course of a certain class of politicians in this country seems to me to have a most marvellous analogy to that of the painter in this story. This cry of British Whigs, this clamor about British gold, this never-ending alarum about British aggression and British encroachment, this introduction of the red lion on every occasion, seems to be the one great reli. ance of the political artists of a certain school. There is always a lion in the path of the self-styled Democratic party of the United States; a British lion, red with the blood of cruelty and oppression, which it is their peculiar mission to slay, but which the Whigs are leagued together to defend. Whatever principle, whatever project, may be under discussion in this House, or before the people, the red lion is sure to be on the ground. Red lion here, red lion there, red lion everywhere! Why, Sir, ever on the question of refunding to General Jackson the fine which was imposed on him for setting at defiance the civil authorities of the land, and imprisoning the judge who dared to confront him with a writ of habeas corpus, it was thought "that a small red lion might have a fine effect in that situation." And a very small one it certainly was. It was suggested that the judge was an Englishman by birth. He was known to have come over to America in early youth. His residence here could be traced back to the fifteenth or sixteenth year of his age; but there was reason to apprehend, though even that was not altogether certain, that he was born in England; and, therefore, all those who were unwilling to annul his judicial decree, and to admit that he was rightfully insulted and imprisoned, were little better than so many

British Whigs. Was not that, Sir, a very little red lion indeed? This Oregon question, however, presents a larger panel, and here, of course, a flaming lion is shown up in its full dimensions. The Texas question affords a larger field still, with far more room for the fancy to expatiate in; and although the canvas is but just unrolled, the teeming invention of these unrivalled artists has already done its work, with something of that celerity which Milton has so glowingly attributed to Creative Power:

"Now half appeared

The tawny lion, pawing to get free

His hinder parts, then springs, as broke from bonds,
And rampant shakes his brinded mane!"

Mr. Chairman, is it possible that the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania and his political friends can be mad enough to believe that the people of this country can be wrought upon by such conceits? Let me assure them that they do injustice to the intelligence of the people. "'Tis the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil." The manly sense of this nation will scorn such appeals to fear and folly. Conscious of their own integrity, and resolved on the vindication of their own rights, the people will neither be frightened from their propriety, nor diverted from their purpose, by such devices. They proved this in 1810; they will make assurance doubly sure in 1844.

A word or two about Texas, and I have done. The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, among other most inconclusive reasons for the adoption of the resolution which has been condemned as inexpedient by the committee over which he presides, has told us, that "he holds it to be incompetent for the mere treaty. making power to part with any portion of the territory of the United States, or to settle a boundary question, without the consent and coöperation of the House of Representatives.” And he has appealed to the Massachusetts delegation, and called upon myself in particular, " as one who has loudly expressed an apprehension of the stealthy annexation of Texas to this Union by a clandestine treaty," to unite with him on this analogous question of Oregon, and insist on the right of Representative action on the subject. Sir, I shall enter into no argument as

to the extent of the treaty-making power of this Government in regard to the particular measures which the gentleman has specified in his proposition. Even if I assented to the full import of that proposition, which I certainly do not, it would form no ground for that union with him on the pending question, to which he invites me. Even if it were the admitted prerogative of this House to give advice or prescribe action to the Executive on the subjects he has named, it would be no reason for our giving bad advice, or prescribing injudicious or unwarrantable action. But "the analogous questions" of Oregon and Texas! Sir, I deny that there is any analogy whatever between those questions. The Texas question is not in any sense a question of parting with territory or settling a boundary line. It is not even a question of annexing territory. It is a question of amalgamat ing a foreign sovereignty with our own sovereignty; of annexing a foreign State to our own State. It is such a question as would be presented by a proposition to reannex the United States to Great Britain, or to amalgamate Great Britain with the United States. This, the gentleman must remember, was the distinc tion taken by Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Forsyth in 1837. They maintained, that "the question of the annexation of a foreign independent State to the United States had never before been presented to this Government." They maintained, that the cir cumstance of Louisiana and Florida being colonial possessions of France and Spain, rendered the purchase of those Territories materially different from the proposed annexation of Texas. "Whether the Constitution of the United States," they added, ❝contemplated the annexation of such a State, and, if so, in what manner that object is to be effected, are questions, in the opinion of the President, which it would be inexpedient, under present circumstances, to agitate."

And now, Mr. Chairman, I go much farther than the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, on this subject. I not only deny the competency of the treaty-making power of this Government to negotiate any such amalgamation as this, without the coöpe ration of the House of Representatives; but I deny that our cooperation can confer or supply that competency. Certainly, certainly, the Constitution did not contemplate the annexation

of such a State. Provoco ad populum! The people, in their own right, are alone competent to pronounce the doom, which is to bind up the fortunes of this Republic in the same bundle of life or death with those of any foreign power; and I hope and believe that they will disown and renounce any Executive or any Legislative act, which shall infringe upon this—their own su preme prerogative. I trust that they will not be deluded by any false alarm, by any red lion representation, that Texas is about to be made a colonial possession of Great Britain. The British Government have no such purpose. Our own Government know this. And if Texas be foisted into the Union upon any such pretence, it will be an act as fraudulent in its inception, as it will, under any circumstances, be pernicious in its result.

37.