to the Hartford Convention, Sir, allow me to say, that the proceedings of that body seem now to be less read and studied in New England than farther South.  They appear to be looked to, not in New England, but elsewhere, for the purpose of seeing how far they may serve as a precedent.  But they will not answer the purpose, they are quite too tame.  The latitude in which they originated was too cold.  Other conventions, of more recent existence, have gone a whole bar’s length beyond it.  The learned doctors of Colleton and Abbeville have pushed their commentaries on the Hartford collect so far, that the original text-writers are thrown entirely into the shade.  I have nothing to do, Sir, with the Hartford Convention.  Its journal, which the gentleman has quoted, I never read.  So far as the honorable member may discover in its proceedings a spirit in any degree resembling that which was avowed and justified in those other conventions to which I have alluded, or so far as those proceedings can be shown to be disloyal to the Constitution, or tending to disunion, so far I shall be as ready as any one to bestow on them reprehension and censure.

Having dwelt long on this convention, and other occurrences of that day, in the hope, probably, (which will not be gratified,) that I should leave the course of this debate to follow him at length in those excursions, the honorable member returned, and attempted another object.  He referred to a speech of mine in the other house, the same which I had occasion to allude to myself, the other day; and has quoted a passage or two from it, with a bold, though uneasy and laboring, air of confidence, as if he had detected in me an inconsistency.  Judging from the gentleman’s manner, a stranger to the course of the debate and to the point in discussion would have imagined, from so triumphant a tone, that the honorable member was about to overwhelm me with a manifest contradiction.  Any one who heard him, and who had not heard what I had, in fact, previously said, must have thought me routed and discomfited, as the gentleman had promised.  Sir, a breath blows all this triumph away.  There is not the slightest difference in the purport of my remarks on the two occasions.  What I said here on Wednesday is in exact accordance with the opinion expressed by me in the other house in 1825.  Though the gentleman had the metaphysics of Hudibras, though he were able

                     “to sever and divide
    A hair ’twixt north and northwest side,”

he yet could not insert his metaphysical scissors between the fair reading of my remarks in 1825, and what I said here last week.  There is not only no contradiction, no difference, but, in truth, too exact a similarity, both in thought and language, to be entirely in just taste.  I had myself quoted the same speech; had recurred to it, and spoke with it open before me; and much of what I said was little more than a repetition from it.  In order to make finishing work with this alleged contradiction, permit me to recur to the origin of this debate, and review its course.  This seems expedient, and may be done as well now as at any time.