made to be seconded before put to the vote, and, when demanded, to be reduced to writing. Mr. RANDOLPH said he would only remark that this right of prefacing a motion by remarks was almost the last vestige of the freedom of debate; if it were destroyed, there would be none left but under permission of the majority. Messrs. PITKIN, GOLDSBOROUGH, and KEY, spoke to the question of order, and against the Speaker's decision. The following observations of one of these gentlemen (Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH) embrace the substance of the argument against the Speaker's decision: Mr GOLDSBOROUGH said, that, on all occasions of appeal from the decision of the Speaker on a question of order, the first impulse of his mind was to support the Chair, and it was his practice to do so in all doubtful cases. In the present instance, however, the conviction of his judgment as to the incorrectness of the decision of the honorable Speaker was so clear and concluclusive to himself, that he should be compelled to declare so by his vote. The substantial question submitted to the House by this appeal was, "whether a member rising in his place, and declaring his intention to submit a motion for consideration, had, or had not, a right to precede his motion with such explantory remarks, such prefatory speech, keeping himself within the bounds of general decorum, as he might deem necessary on the occasion and pertinent to the proposition 'intended to be offered." The Chair had, in effect, determined against this right, and on that ground had prohibited the gentleman from Virginia from proceeding in his speech. In this opinion, Mr. G. said he could not concur, and he should take the liberty to go into a short examination of its correctness. In support of it the Chair had read the following rule of the House, from the printed rules and orders: "when a motion is made and seconded, it shall be stated by the Speaker, or, being in writing, it shall be handed to the Chair, and read aloud by the Clerk, before debated." MAY, 1812. an opportunity for the speech, as they were never afterwards called up by the mover. He had never before known this privilege disturbed. The House had always acquiesced in the right, and the member been indulged with the occupancy of the floor for as long a speech as he chose to make. This privilege, sanctioned, as it certainly is, by usage-by what is frequently termed the common law of the House, Mr. G. considered as founded in principles of great propriety, in reference to other rules and practices of this House. It was an established rule of practice, of the propriety of which he would now say nothing, that no question could be brought before the House by a member, however important he might suppose it, without the vote of a majority to consider it. What chance was there, he would ask, of obtaining such a vote in favor of a naked proposition, unsupported by any elucidation from the mover, to explain its object, to interest the House in its favor, or even to attract their attention to it? It is. indeed, a point of respect to the understanding of the House, to adopt this course; and hence it is invariably done. Admitting, then, the general propriety of this course-admitting the existence of the right at all, as sanctioned by the usage of the House, the only limit to its exercise must be the nature of the subject of the motion, and the judgment or inclination of the mover. If he has a right to offer explanatory remarks, to make a prefatory speech at all, he must equally have a right to regulate the length of such speech by his own sense of duty and propriety. There cannot be any other rational rule, any other proper guide, as to the extent of the remarks or the length of the speech. Admit the right to exist at all, (and he would venture to say not a motion had been made even in this session, on any important subject, without the exercise of it,) to what other rule than the discretion of the mover can we resort to regulate its exercise? Shall any individual member interrupt the enjoyment of this important and invaluable privilege? and shall the feelings, the whim, or the policy of the majority restrain or It was perfectly evident, Mr. G. said, that this defeat its exercise? Shall their caprice or their rule did not apply to the case. This rule directs irritation stop the speaker at the moment when the course of proceeding when a motion is made his remarks begin to bear hard upon some favorand seconded. But, in the case under considera-ite point of their doctrine or their policy? Reation, no motion had been made or seconded. The gentleman from Virginia had only expressed his intention to make a motion, and was offering to the House such explanatory observations as he judged proper in relation to it. His right to adopt this course was not to be sought for in the book of written rules of the House. It was, Mr. G. said, a prescriptive right, supported by the uniform usage and practice of the House, from the beginning, he believed, of its political existence. He had, certainly, never known it called in question before; for he well recollected instances where gentlemen had made long speeches, probably of one, two, or three hours, as prefatory to motions which they stated it to be their inten- Mr. WRIGHT said that the gentleman from tion to make, and which motions it was evident | Virginia having been called to order, and it havwere intended for no other purpose than to affording been decided by the Speaker that he was out son and justice certainly forbid this resort, as the necessary, or at least the probable, result of it would be an instability and favoritism wholly inconsistent with that equality of rights which attaches to every member of this House. For these reasons, Mr. G. said, he could not give his sanction to the decision of the honorable Speaker in this question of order; but should, by his vote, support the affirmative of this position, that a member, who is about to submit a proposition to the consideration of the House, has a right to preface his motion with such decorous remarks, and with such length and detail of explanation, as he may think proper. MAY, 1812. Foreign Relations. H. OF R. ish licensed spies within this Hall to hear this understood debate Mr. RANDOLPH said the gentleman was again out of order. of order, from which decision he having appealed the question now to be decided by the Speaker is, was Mr. RANDOLPH out of order? In order, sir, to a correct understanding of the subject by the House, it will be proper to revise his remarks, as The SPEAKER.-The gentleman from Marywell as the circumstances under which they land will please to take his seat. If the Chair were ushered into the House. Sir, every gentle-understood him correctly, he is certainly out of man has a right to be heard on a subject fairly order. If he meant to say that there was an unbefore the House, after the House has determined derstanding between a member of this House and to consider it. But, by a positive rule of the a foreign agent out of it, in relation to proceedHouse, declared by the Speaker, no question canings to take place in the House, he was undoubtbe received until it is made and seconded, and, if edly out of order. required, reduced to writing-nor, after it is received, can any question be debated until the House agree to consider it. Therefore, the requiring the question to be made and seconded, and committed to writing, is perfectly a matter of right, and the attempt to argue the question thus made and seconded and committed to writing. before the House had agreed to consider it, was in direct violation of the rule, and, therefore, out of order. But, sir, had it have been fairly before noticed, had the House agreed to consider this case, I, sir, should contend that this gentleman's remarks were themselves out of orderhave we not been denounced as legislating under French influence? Yes, sir, we have. Mr. RANDOLPH called the gentleman to order. He said he had spoken hypothetically; he said, if war did take place, it would be confirmation strong as proof from holy writ of an undue French bias. The SPEAKER said that the question of order submitted, involved a matter of fact, that is, whether the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. R.) did not use the words ascribed to him by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. W.) conveying an imputation of French influence, which (not having been in the Chair) he could not decide. He could only say that if the gentleman did use such words they were highly improper; if he did not, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. W.) was out of order in attributing them to him. Mr. WRIGHT quoted the words used by Mr. RANDOLPH, to which he contended his observation was applicable. Sir, said he, could these remarks of the gentleman be in order? I protest against them; they are unfounded as to myself, and, I have no doubt, as to every member of this House, The black catalogue of wrongs sustained by the outrages of Great Britain are such, that no man, not devoted to that nation, can in my judgment be at a loss for just cause of war, and such as no independent nation ought to submit to Mr. RANDOLPH again called the gentleman to order, because discussing a question which the Speaker had declared should not be debated. The SPEAKER said he did not perceive the direct application of the gentleman's remarks. but he appeared to be speaking in explanation of the expressions for using which he had before been called to order Mr. WRIGHT Continued.-Sir, said he, I do not admire the doctrine of recrimination, nor will I charge that honorable gentleman with being under British influence; although we see the Brit Mr. WRIGHT disclaimed having so meant to state; he meant to say, that from the attendance of these persons on the gentleman's arguments it might be fairly inferred that they were apprized of his intention to bring this subject before the House. But he hoped the privilege of these spies would in a few days be arrested. However, he should always be prepared to submit his conduct to the good sense and patriotism of the American people withot a fear of its being ascribed to French or any other improper influence. The question was then taken, to wit: "Is the Stevenson Archer, David Bard, Josiah Bartlett, Bur- bert, Samuel Shaw, George Smith, John Smith, Wil- Bleecker, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Epa- and Thomas Wilson. Mr. RANDOLPH.-Then, sir, I am compelled to submit my motion in writing, and under that compulsion I offer it. The SPEAKER.-There is no compulsion in the Γ case; because the gentleman may or may not offer it at his option. The motion was then read from the Chair in the following words: "Resolved, That, under existing circumstances, it is inexpedient to resort to war against Great Britain." Mr. RANDOLPH resumed, having asked and obtained the assent of the Chair to his proceeding in the debate on the question When Mr. NELSON inquired if it were in order, after a resolution was presented to the House, to debate it before the House had agreed to consider it. The SPEAKER said he had not before adverted to the imperative terms of the rule which required a previous question of consideration, and which rule, on further reflection, he was of opinion applied to this case. Mr. RANDOLPH appealed from this decision of the Chair. He called the attention of the House to the fact that the operation of the decision for reducing the motion to writing and requiring a second, was to deprive the person speaking of his ancient, prescriptive (he had almost said Constitutional) right of delivering his sentiments in some manner or other to the House. This privilege was the last vestige of the liberty of speech enjoyed in this House except at the absolute will of the majority. The question of consideration itself was always of the nature of a previous question, and went to take from a member of this House that privilege, provided the House chose to exercise its power, viz: the privilege of offering his sentiments, and, if you will, his grievances to the consideration of the House and the people. The meanest beggar has a right to come here and state his grievances, and to be heard; and yet a member of the House has no such right, except at the absolute will of the majority. If the decision be confirmed, we shall have entirely departed from every principle heretofore respected in this Assembly and among those people from whom we sprung. It appears to me we have forgotten the old-fashioned liberty. When I compare the liberty of speech in the English Parliament with late usages here, I am struck with consternation, grief, and dismay. I once had the honor of being under the Federal regime, in what was called the Reign of Terror. I then enjoyed the liberty of speech. I had a right to protest against the acts of the men in power. These new discoveries in the construction of the rules of the House were, happily for the then minority, unknown and unheard of. The present Secretary of the Treasury was attempted to be stopped in debate on the rule which required that no member should speak more than once to any question. That great man-and great let me call himlaughed in derision at the attempt. But not even in the year '98, was an attempt made to prevent a man from speaking at all. The doctrine is new; it has come in under a new reign, and a new race. Has it come to this, that members of this House shall grow gray in the service, and in proportion to their experience become ignorant of the rules of proceeding, and receive the construc MAY, 1812. tion of them from those who have never been familiar with them? After having been fourteen years on this floor, is a man to be told he knows nothing of the rules of the House? The SPEAKER requested the gentleman to confine his remarks to the question whether or not the decision of the Chair was correct. Priority of seat on this floor, said the SPEAKER, gives to the senior members of the House no right to which the junior are not equally entitled. Mr. R. said he only desired that the senior members should have equal rights with the junior. The decision of the Chair, said he, I contend is incorrect in so far as this: that there has heretofore existed what was called the freedom of debate, which late rules and late restrictions have taken away. We are in danger of losing the liberty of speech entirely. If the decision of the Chair be supported, it will indeed be the last dying speech of the liberty of speech. This was the only mode left to a member in which he could, without asking permission to do it, present himself to the House and to the nation. If this be taken away, a seat in this House is not worth the having at least to those who do not find favor in its sight. Mr. JOHNSON spoke in reply to Mr. RANDOLPH and in defence of the majority and of the House, which never ought to be subjected to the caprice of any individual, as it would be if the gentleman's appeal was sanctioned by the House. Mr. MACON rose to speak to the question of order. He said he had no doubt the present decision of the Speaker was correct; but it was equally clear to him that his first decision was a wrong one. Mr. RANDOLPH said, out of respect to his friend's opinion, he would withdraw his appeal from the Speaker's decision. The SPEAKER said, that he would take the occasion to remark that, at the commencement of the session, he had doubted the propriety of the rule requiring a previous determination of the House to consider a proposition, before it could be debated and decided. But he was then informed that it had been the practice of the House, and to that usage he had conformed. Whatever doubts he had entertained originally of its utility, had been removed by subsequent experience. In regard to the decision, requiring a second to a motion before it was received, of which there was some complaint, he understood it to be the established practice of the British Parliament. As to the alleged violation of the freedom of debate, he remarked, that he should be extremely sorry if any decision which it became his duty to make should produce unnecessarily its abridgement. He was a great friend to a legitimate and decorous freedom of debate. And whether, by the House, or any determination of his, its liberty had been infringed, in the instance of any member, and particularly in reference to the gentleman from Virginia, the discussions and proceedings of the House during the present session would illustrate and attest. The right to regulate its proceedings, he ob served was a right inherent in every public deliberative body. It was a right necessarily attaching to every body, composed of human beings, independent of positive prescription. It was a right, without the existence and exercise of which it would be impossible to proceed in business at all, or to arrive at any conclusion. But, strong as was the natural basis upon which this right stands, it did not depend upon that alone. The Constitution had expressly secured to each branch of the National Legislature the power to regulate its own proceedings. Whilst in the place with which he was honored, it was his pleasure no less than his duty to enforce, as far as depended upon him, the rules which the House of Representatives, in the exercise of this Constitutional power, had thought power to prescribe. He could have no interest but to perform, with the utmost impartiality, this trust, and in doing it he should always consult every source of information which was accessible to him.* NOTE From the National Intelligencer, of June 18, 1812. Some printed sheets, consisting of an address of the honorable John Randolph of Roanoke, to the freeholders of certain counties in Virginia, and of what purports to be the "fragment" of a speech of that gentleman delivered in the House of Representatives, have fallen into my hands. The author appears to think that particular decisions of that body, of which he undertakes to present an account, have unwarrantably restricted the freedom of debate. However reluctant I may be to offer myself, in this way, to your notice, when a member of the House of Representatives lends the high authority of his name to an incorrect statement of a transaction, and which, by the omission of material circumstances, exhibits only a partial view of the case, I think it due to the public, whose judgment and interposition have been invoked, to have the matter set fully and accurately before them. It is my intention to aim at the accomplishment of this object. It is not my purpose to notice particularly the manner or the substance of the residue of those compositions. How far the political speculations and sentiments of the author are just, the world may judge. In the commencement of the observations of Mr. R., after announcing his purpose to make a motion, it is true that Mr. Wright having called him to order, because there was no motion before the House, it was stated by me that, as he had signified his intention, it was usual to admit prefatory remarks. Mr. R. proceeded, and having gone very much at large into the question of the repeal of the French decrees, the subject of blockades, and other topics, I left the Chair for a few minutes, placing there my friend, Mr. Bibb, as my substitute. I will not say what was the case upon which that gentleman, whilst he was so kind as to represent me, was called upon to decide, my attention not having been particularly directed to the point. It is said by the "fragment," and I will suppose it to have been, on a call to order by Mr. Calhoun, because "the question of war was not before the House." I shortly after resumed the Chair, and Mr. Calhoun again called Mr. R. to order, and submitted, whether he was not bound to specify his proposition and secure a second before he proceeded further. It was decided that he was bound to state it, that it must be seconded, reduced to H. OF R. The question was taken on the consideration of the resolution, and lost-yeas 37, nays 72, as follows: YEAS-John Baker, Burwell Bassett, Harmanus Bleecker, Adam Boyd, James Breckenridge, Elijah writing, according to a particular rule of the House, if required, and announced from the Chair. At the time this decision was made, Mr. R., had been speaking, I think, at least one hour. An appeal was taken to the House, who confirmed the decision. He was then requested to reduce his motion to writing, which he did, and presented it to the Chair, remarking that he did it under the compulsion of the House, to which it was replied that it depended upon his own pleasure to withhold or offer his motion. After it was stated from the Chair, Mr. R. was proceeding in his argument when he was called to order, upon the ground that the House must, previous to the discussion, determine whether it would at that time consider the proposition. I observed that that rule did not apply to the case, but immediately correcting this impression, it was declared that the House must come to such a resolution, or he would not be at liberty to proceed. Mr. R. again appealed from the decision, but subsequently withdrew his appeal, and thereby manifested his acquiescence in it. The House then refused to consider the motion by ayes and noes. Other questions of order, having no material bearing on this subject, were decided. Such were the circumstances of the case. It results that, between the decisions of Mr. Bibb and mine, certainly between my own, there existed no discrepancy; unless it is to be found in the momentary error, rectified almost as soon as it was committed, relative to the necessity of the House determining to consider the motion. Not between the former, because the points on which we decided were different. Not between the latter, because the first decision, at the instance of Mr. Wright, recognised only the admissibility of prefatory remarks, a quality which those of Mr. R. had, when the last determination took place, long ceased to possess. Two principles are settled by these decisions; the first is, that the House has a right to know, through its organ, the specific motion which a member intends making, before he intends to argue it at large; and, in the second place, that it reserves to itself the exercise of the power of determining whether it will consider it at the particular time when offered, prior to his thus proceeding to argue it. a It would seem to be altogether reasonable that, when member intends addressing a copious argument to a public body, for the purpose of enforcing a motion, he should disclose the motion intended to be supported. It is the practice of the British Parliament, and of several if not all of the State Assemblies, to require not only that this should be done, but that it should be seconded; thus affording a protection against the obtrusion upon the body of the whimsical or eccentric propositions of a disordered or irregular mind, by the coincidence in opinion of at least two individuals. At what particular period the proposition ought to be submitted is, perhaps, not exactly defined or definable. Certainly in the courtesy of all bodies will be found a sufficient safeguard against the exclusion of matter properly introductive, explanatory, or prefatory, to the motion. The line separating matter of this character from arguments in chief is not susceptible of accurate description. It does not, however, present more prac tical difficulty than to discriminate between observations which are relevant or otherwise, decorous or rep H. OF R. Foreign Relations. MAY, 1812. Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chitten- Le Roy Livingston, Nathaniel Macon, James Milnor, den, John Davenport, jr., William Ely, James Emott, Jonathan O. Moseley, Hugh Nelson, Joseph Pearson, Asa Fitch, Charles Goldsborough, Richard Jackson, jr., Timothy Pitkin, jun., John Randolph, William Reed, Philip B. Key, Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., Robert William Rodman, Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, rehensible. When a member rises to make a motion, journ-to lie on the table-to consider. These in some it is indeed not often that the rule is applied of requir- instances are differently used by different bodies. In ing its specification, because the necessity of such ap- England a motion to proceed to the orders of the day plication rarely occurs. But its non-existence is no puts by whatever subject is under consideration, and more to be inferred from its non-application than the the rule is not used there to consider. In the House non-existence of other rules, the actual enforcement of of Representatives we practise the rule to consider, and which does not take place in every special case to do not the motion to proceed to the orders of the day. which, in terms, they apply. The best demonstration The object of all bodies, on this subject, is the sameof the utility of the rule is afforded in the very case so to arrange the subjects of deliberation as best to complained of. Mr. R. had addressed the House not promote the public interest. Their experience will, less than an hour. The general tenor of his argu- from time to time, suggest the defects in pre-existing ments would have conducted equally as well to almost rules and the necessity of adapting new ones to new any other conclusion than that to which he was carried, exigencies as they arise. This rule to consider was a or at least to several others to war, for example, or novel one to me when I came into the House of Repsome other measure of a hostile character against resentatives. I found most of the old members clingFrance-that the law of non-importation ought to be ing to it with great tenacity, and subsequent observarepealed as to England-or put on against her enemy. tion has satisfied me of its wisdom, and removed whatAny man who will now read seven-eighths, if not the ever doubts I entertained originally of its propriety. whole of his speech, keeping out of mind the motion It has been indiscriminately applied by the House to with which it terminated, will, I apprehend, find it ex-members of all parties. The right of one or two memtremely difficult to conjecture that such was or what bers to compel a body to consider a proposition which, was to be the concluding motion. Now it is made the on account of the time, its manner, or its matter, they duty of the presiding officer (by the usages of all de- do not think proper to deliberate upon, can only be liberative bodies,) and moreover by express rules of the maintained by a reversal of the rule that the plurality House of Representatives) to keep the member, ad- of the members is to govern, and would, as to that pardressing the Chair, to the point. How, that officer ticular subject, make the mover and his second supebeing ignorant of the motion intended to be offered, rior to the whole body. It may indeed be alleged that, was that duty to be performed? How was the House unless such a privilege be recognised, great abuse may itself to apply the arguments? In point of fact, I was be practised-that the body may refuse to consider the entirely uncertain (others have assured me they were) most imperious and momentous subject of national inas to what motion would be submitted, and even after terest. The obvious reply is, that an indulgence of it was reduced to writing, it was believed not to be the such a privilege exposes the body to great abuse by one originally contemplated by the mover. I think, any member who can obtain a second; and, in the then, I am justified in saying that there is nothing un- danger of opposite abuses, it is believed there is greater reasonable in the requisition, on the part of a body ad- safety on the side of greater numbers. The respondressed, to illustrate, enforce, and establish, a given sibility of a Representative body for what is not done proposition, that the mover of it shall specify it, that it exists no less than for what is done. It is not, thereshall be seconded, and, to prevent misconception of its fore, probable that it will refuse to consider, and conprecise import, that it shall be reduced to writing, and sequently to adopt, a measure presented for its delibedistinctly announced from the Chair, before he advan- ration under circumstances unexceptionable as to time, ces into a boundless field of argument. Indeed, I un- form, and nature of the proposition. The abuse, howderstand, from the address, as well as from what trans-ever, of a rule, in its practical operation, is best tested pired on the occasion, that the real source of com- by an examination of the cases to which it has been plaint is not in such a requisition, but that Mr. R. applied. I will content myself with that furnished by would have been satisfied had he not, after a compli- Mr. RANDOLPH's own record. An extraordinary sesance with it, by a subsequent refusal of the House to sion of Congress is convoked: various laws are passed consider his motion, been prevented from continuing with the avowed purpose of war. During their penhis argument. dency, both in their incipient and matured forms, the subject is discussed at great length. Every topic calculated to excite the passions, alarm the fears, or enlighten the judgment, is exhausted. More than any other member of the House (often, I own, with admiration on my own part of his talents, however much I disapprove his sentiments) is Mr. R. patiently and repeatedly heard to develope his views on that solemn the Speaker, or, being in writing, it shall be handed to the Chair, question. The period at length arrives when, by every and read aloud to the Clerk, before debated." "When any mem previous indication, a declaration of war would seem ber is about to speak in debate, or deliver any matter to the House, to be absolutely necessary. Of that very committee he shall rise from his seat, and respectfully address himself to Mr. from which it was expected such a declaration is to Speaker; and shall confine himself to the question under debate, and avoid personality."-Rules of the House. In England still emanate, Mr. R. is a member. It is admitted by himgreater restraints have been imposed. "If any man speak imper-self on the 30th May, that on the succeeding Monday tinently, or beside the question in hand, it stands with the Orders of the House for the Speaker to interrupt him; and to know the pleasure of the House whether they will further hear him." "If any superfluous motion or tedious speech be offered in the House, the party is to be directed and ordered by Mr. Speaker."-Halsell's Precedents. Various are the expedients resorted to by deliberative bodies to conduct the business on which they are called upon to act. Among the instruments provided for regulating the time of transacting it are the motions for the previous question-to postpone-to ad "When a motion is made and seconded, it shall be stated by it was believed it would be presented to the House. It is admitted by himself that it was intended to be discussed with closed doors. Yet on that day (the 30th May) what does he attempt? Forestalling the |