manufacturing establishments. If she were compelled to procure it through the shipping of neutral nations, its cost would be increased materially, and at the same time the marine of these other parties would be built up hereafter to rival her own perhaps. In the third place, a war of a few years' duration would make us a great manufacturing people, so that on the return of peace we should be in a condition to do without her goods, and, in fact, might have become a formidable competitor to her in the markets of the world.

There is, however, still a consideration of greater weight than all these put together. We have hostages on this continent to hold her to terms of peace. She could not, at this time, hope to defend Canada against a well-directed attack by us. If she had no territory on this continent, she would be vastly stronger as against us, and much more likely to go to war than she now is. It may be said, however, that if this be so, why should she not make up her mind to lose Canada and her other possessions? But she could not afford to lose them in war without loss of great prestige, and the probable loss of Australia, India, and other colonies. She would then be reduced to the condition of Carthage after the second Punic war. She might still be wealthy, polished, and capable of making a formidable resistance at home; but she would no longer be dreaded abroad. The power of Great Britain consists mainly in her commerce, her naval supremacy, her wealth, her prestige, and her diplomacy. The loss of her colonies. would materially impair all these sources of her great power. Look to her recent history, and it will be obvious that her strength is not mainly owing to the military force she can bring into the field. For the last century she has not been able to fight with her own means any of the great Powers on the continent of Europe. In fact, I do not remember that during this time she has ever landed her troops on a hostile territory, but only on the dominion of her allies. She plumes herself on beating Napoleon at Waterloo; but it was after his strength had been exhausted in the campaigns of Italy, Egypt,, and Spain, and on the Rhine and the Danube. It was after he had lost half a million of his best men under the snows of Russia, and the remnant of his armies had been trampled under foot by the forces of all Europe in the campaigns of 1813 and 1814; it was then that his exhausted energies yielded to Wellington, assailed as he was at the same time by a fresh Prussian army in his flank and rear.

So well does England know her own strength that she used formerly to fight France with the help of Russia, and latterly Russia with the with the aid of France. When, therefore, in her continental difficulties, she cannot obtain a powerful ally, she waives the occasion, and consults her interest. I use the word interest in its largest sense, for she knows that the preservation of her honor is of the highest interest to her. She is as sagacious in avoiding a collision with a powerful enemy, as she is haughty and domineering towards a weak one. She knows, too, how much may be accomplished by constant pressure upon us, and by constant complaint of us. She strenuously opposed the annexation of Texas, though with no more justification or excuse on her

part than we should have had to complain of the union between England and Scotland.

Notwithstanding the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, she in violation of its whole spirit, as the records of our State department show, attempted in 1852 to force Guatemala to allow a Belgian colony to settle in her territory.

When there was a proposition made for the acquisition of the Sandwich Islands, she, with no claim over them, strenuously resisted it. When we were attempting to procure a site for a coal depot in St. Domingo, she even made active and successful opposition.

Even at the time we were negotiating a treaty in relation to the guano trade with Ecuador, she succeeded in getting up such opposition as defeated the project. Why, when Commodore Perry was looking at some little uninhabited islands in the Pacific, he was called to account to know what his intentions were. In fact, in all matters she

seems to keep up a sort of surveillance over us. As a general propo sition, I think it may be asserted that Great Britain makes it a point to assert dominion over all territory on the globe which is not in possession of somebody capable of defending it. She in an especial manner takes it upon herself to oversee us, and prevent our growing too fast. But while she has been acting thus, our conduct to her has, except when she has directly thrown herself in contact with our interests, been forbearing in the extreme. Our government makes no objection to her constant acquisitions in various quarters of the world. Without any complaint here, she may go and take possession of all Asia, if Russia does not prevent her. She may extend her dominions from the Cape of Good Hope over all Africa, if France permits. She already holds Australia, the fifth great section of the world. Nor are we disposed to interfere with her immense possessions in the northern parts of this continent. But as to that remaining parcel of territory which lies between us and the Isthmus of Panama, she ought to see that the United States has claims to its control. If she persists in her present course, then let the collision come, with all its consequences. Every one must see that our former subserviency has neither won her respect, nor obtained her forbearance.

In the expression of these opinions, sir, I am actuated by no feeling of hostility to Great Britain. My course here, as a member, might be referred to, to show this. I have advocated the greatest freedom of trade between the two countries, believing that both would be benefitted thereby. The Canadian reciprocity act was much more beneficial to her than to us, it in fact giving to her possessions most of the advantages of being in our Union, without the burdens it imposes. This measure was grossly partial and unjust to other sections in its principles; and yet, after opposing it through one Congress, because it was beneficial to certain portions of our people, and because it was a step in the direction of free trade, I gave it my support when it became a law. I might point to the matter of the late ship Resolute, and some other things, to prove that I entertain no prejudice against her.

The courage, manliness, and other high qualities of the English people, are eminently worthy of admiration. While taking exception

to the course of their government in some respects, I must commend one of its traits to our own for imitation. It protects its subjects in all parts of the world. Our government does often the reverse with regard to its citizens. Hence, when in foreign countries, I understand that Americans, where it is practicable to do so, represent themselves as being Englishmen, and thus secure respect and protection. Many instances might be referred to, to show this. I read, as a sample, an extract from a letter written by an American lady in Nicaragua:

"The American Minister was called home at the worst time, for this war is not against General Walker alone, but on all Americans. Poor Mr. Callaghan was whipped to death when he fell into the hands of the enemy, although he was no officer; and every American they can catch is destined to the same fate. English people are not treated so, for England will not put up with it; but our Government is the meanest in the world in that way."

This probably does some injustice to our government. Our Secretary of State has, perhaps, done all in his power with our limited navy. You told me, Mr. Chairman, that when you represented our country as Commissioner to China, American interests suffered seriously for the want of a few ships. The conduct of Captain Ingraham in a noted instance is the exception, and it shines like a bright light on a dark ground. As to how the British carry it, their late attack on Canton shows. There they assailed and captured a city of more than a million of inhabitants, with far less provocation than we had in the matter of Greytown. As to the Greytown business, the chief, if not the only objection I see, arises from the feebleness of those assailed. It did look a little like shooting rats, instead of letting terriers attend to them. Probably it was unavoidable, however. So many greater wrongs, if this was a wrong, occur in British history, that one is amused by seeing their affected horrors at the sight of our barbarity.

I should not be surprised if she were to hold on to Canton, and ultimately take possession of China. She will then civilize it as she formerly did Ireland, and is just now civilizing India. She will manage to get some wealth for her officials, and some products for her commerce, out of the four or five hundred millions of people there. As the population is crowded now to the extent of producing frequent famines, if half of them die under the pressure of her foot, why, those left will have more room, and humanity will be promoted thereby, and civilization and Christianity propagated.

I hold, then, Mr Chairman, that while a decided, firm policy on our part to maintain what we have a right to claim, will not endanger our peaceful relations, yet it is our duty to make the stand in any event. Let Great Britain acccord to us what we concede to her-let her recognize our equality with her, and there will be a permanent, stable friendship between the two countries that must prove highly advantageous to both. The acquisition, by the United States, at some future day, of the countries of which I have been speaking, by increasing vastly the supply of tropical productions for the use of the world, must

prove highly advantageous to all civilized nations. In a pecuniary and commercial point of view, Great Britain would receive benefits little, if any, short of ours. The two countries possess more than twothirds of the shipping of the world, and this preponderance is likely to be increased rather than diminished. The sixty millions who now speak the Anglo-Saxon tongue, if united, by reason of their intelligence, energy, wealth, maritime ascendancy, and territorial possessions, may guide the destinies of civilization. The fault will be England's if we have a collision. This is more likely to be prevented by firmness and frankness on our part, than by an opposite policy.

If I have not spoken, sir, of the interference with our domestic affairs by a portion of her subjects and press, it is not because I regard that as affording less grounds of complaint than the points already referred to. This branch of the discussion would involve us to some extent in the consideration of those sectional issues with which I think the country is already wearied. I have rather sought, therefore, to present these considerations in such a manner as to invite the examination of all who have true American minds, and are willing to look at them as national questions should be examined.

[After Mr. Buchanan's accession to the Presidency, instead of a vigorous American policy, with reference to questions about which we had had controversies with Great Britain, his course was just the reverse. In fact, he seemed to have been completely won over to England by the courtesy of the Ousely Mission. His admiration for the British government became boundless, and he not only declined himself to do or say anything that might be disagreeable to it, but he acted as though he thought it might be offended with him, if he did not suppress all demonstrations in Congress against its wishes.

After many rather disagreeable conversations with him on that subject, I decided, as Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs in the House, that I would entirely disregard his wishes. In spite of his efforts, which were unceasing, with those members of the committee that he could control, a majority authorized a report in favor of the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. A majority of the House, too, sustained the resolution, on a vote of the ayes and nayes, notwithstanding the persistent opposition of the President's especial friends. On the day following this vote I ceased to be a member of the House, and final action was not had on the resolution. In support of the general line of policy which I thought the government ought to adopt the following speech was made:]

SPEECH

AGAINST THE CLAYTON – BULWER TREATY, AND IN FAVOR OF AMERICAN ASCENDENCY IN THE GULF OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 5, 1858.

MR. CLINGMAN said:

MR. SPEAKER: With the indulgence of the House I will make some explanation of the report made from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the arrest of General Walker by Commodore Paulding. It will be remembered, at an early day of this session I offered some resolutions, in the following words:

Resolved, That the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, designated as the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, being, under the interpretation placed on it by Great Britain, an entire surrender of the rights of this country, and upon the American construction, an entangling alliance without mutuality either in its benefits or restrictions, and having hitherto been productive only of misunderstandings and contro. versies between the two governments, ought therefore to be abrogated.

Resolved, That since the acquisition and settlement of our territory on the Pacific, certain portions of Central America stand to us in a relation similar to that which Louisiana, prior to its acquisition, bore to our territory in the Mississippi valley, and therefore ought not to be subject to the control of any foreign Power that might interfere materially with our interests.

Resolved, That inasmuch as the government of the United States has heretofore taken steps to suppress the African slave trade, and is at present subjecting itself to