vernment.—And for what?-I expected to have heard some substantial grounds laid down, to be furnished with some plausible reasons at least, for an innovation so important, so unexpected, and in my mind, and in the opinions of many other persons, so very extraordinary. Is our civil polity in danger? Has public justice been attempted to be sapped? Has the existence of the republic been menaced, or has this measure been preceded by a mournful train of calamitous events? Make the best of this new government-prove that it is the offspring of the greatest human wisdom, the work of any thing short of inspiration, still I say you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your Liberty, since instead of securing your rights, it is more than probable you will if you adopt it, lose them for ever-Make but a wrong step, on this occasion, and your Republic is gone.

Sir, before this convention ventures to assent to, or ratify this new constitution, it ought to have before it an historical detail of the facts which preceded the session of the federal convention, and of the reasons which actuated its members in proposing such an entire alteration of our government: the dangers that await us from the present confederation, if any there be, ought to be plainly and unequivocally demonstrated to us. If they be really of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I affirm that this convention has a right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to that important concern.

Sir, I am firmly convinced in my mind, that those worthy characters, who composed a part of the late federal convention, were impressed with a sincere persuasion of the necessity of forming A GREAT CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT, INSTEAD OF A CONFEDERATION. That this before us is a consolidated government, must be clear to every man of common sense, and the danger of

such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration possible for these gentlemen, but I must nevertheless take the freedom to ask, what right had they to say, WE THE PEOPLE? My political curiosity, sir, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the publie welfare, induces me to put the question with more than ordinary earnestness, who authorized them to speak such language as "WE THE PEOPLE," instead of "WE THE STATES?"-States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the states.

With respect to the gentlemen who formed the convention, I must repeat, sir, that I entertain the highest respect for them, and were not some of them now present, I would express some stronger testimonial of my esteem for them. America on a former occasion placed the highest confidence in them, and that confidence was not misplaced. I declare, sir, that, for my own part, I would give up any thing to them; I would confide in them as my representatives: But, sir, on this occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man, who saved us by his valour, I would desire a reason for his conduct. That very liberty, which he has given us by his valour, tells me to ask that reason; and certain I am, that if he were here, he would give it: but there are other gentlemen here, who have it in their power to give us this information. The people gave them no power to use their name. In making use of it, therefore, and in saying " We the people," they have greatly exceeded their power. I am not actuated by mere curiosity, but wish to hear the real, actual existing danger, which can authorize us in having recourse to a measure so extremely dangerous. Here, sir, amongst us no danger, no insurrection, no tumult has occurred. Every,

B

thing has been calm and tranquil. But notwithstanding that, we are pushing forward, and wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has, in several parts of the country, gone to a length of inflammatory resentment unprecedented before, and all occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal convention ought to have amended the old system: it was for that sole purpose they were delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must therefore forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member, to be informed what danger can have arisen under the present confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to change our government?

Some of the principal advocates of the new constitution having given the explanation desired, Mr. Henry, on the day after his delivering the above, rose, and continued his arguments against the measure in the following terms.

MR. CHAIRMAN,

I AM much obliged to the very worthy gentleman for his encomium,* and wish that I was possessed of talents, or indeed of any thing that would enable me to elucidate this great subject. I must confess, sir, that I am not free from suspicions. It is my disposition to entertain doubts on those subjects, and I rose yesterday to ask a question, which, naturally enough, as I think, suggested itself to mind my the occasion. When I asked that quesupon tion, it appeared to me that the tendency of it was sufficiently obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this; Have they who formed this new constitution said, "WE THE STATES?" If they had said so, this would be a confederation; but as they have not,

* Mr. Lee, of Westmoreland.

it is clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing, the expression " WE THE PEOPLE," instead of "WE THE STATES" of America.

As to the system itself, sir, I need not take much pains to show that its principles are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is it a monarchy, like the government of England, a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is it a confederacy like Holland, an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? Assuredly it is not a democracy wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition from a confederacy to a consolidated government. Here is an attempt to effect a revolution as radical as that which has separated us from Great Britain. It is as radical, if, in this transition, our rights and privileges are endangered, and the rights of the states be relinquished. All of which it is plain to see, is in reality the case. The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and human privileges are rendered insecure, if they are not entirely lost, by this innovation, which we have heard so highly extolled, talked of so loudly by some, and so inconsiderately boasted of by others. Is this tame relinquishment of our rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of the manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said that eight states have adopted this plan: I declare that if twelve and a half states had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. Your business at this time is to inquire, not how your trade may be increased, not how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your

liberties are to be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct, the primary end of your government. Having premised these truths, I shall, with all the aid that I can borrow from my judgment and information, neither of which I own are very extensive, enter into a discussion of this system more minutely. Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this new and untried system? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary to your independence? Will the abandonment of the most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty, that greatest of all earthly blessings? But I am fearful that I have lived to become a very old fashioned fellow. Perhaps an unconquerable attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned. If so, I am contented to be old fashioned; I say, the time has been when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty, and when the enthusiasm I felt had a counterpart in the bosom of every true American. But suspicions have gone abroad, suspicions of my integrity. It has been publicly reported that my professions are not sincere. Three and twenty years ago, was I supposed to be a traitor to my country? Then, I was said to be a brand of sedition, because I supported the rights of America. I shall perhaps be impeached of unjust suspicion now, when I say that I consider our rights and privileges in great danger; but, sir, there are vast numbers of the people of this country, who are weak enough to think that these things are too true. It gives me pleasure, however, to be told by the gentlemen on the other side, that these suspicions are groundless. Let me tell those gentlemen, nevertheless, that suspicion is a virtue as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it is confined within proper bounds. Let your suspicions, sir, look at