of resemblance where there was no real similitude.  I think so still.  The first settlers of North America were enterprising spirits, engaged in private adventure, or fleeing from tyranny at home.  When arrived here, they were forgotten by the mother country, or remembered only to be oppressed.  Carried away again by the appearance of analogy, or struck with the eloquence of the passage, the honorable member yesterday observed, that the conduct of government towards the Western emigrants, or my representation of it, brought to his mind a celebrated speech in the British Parliament.  It was, Sir, the speech of Colonel Barre.  On the question of the stamp act, or tea tax, I forget which, Colonel Barre had heard a member on the treasury bench argue, that the people of the United States, being British colonists, planted by the maternal care, nourished by the indulgence, and protected by the arms of England, would not grudge their mite to relieve the mother country from the heavy burden under which she groaned.  The language of Colonel Barre, in reply to this, was:  “They planted by your care?  Your oppression planted them in America.  They fled from your tyranny, and grew by your neglect of them.  So soon as you began to care for them, you showed your care by sending persons to spy out their liberties, misrepresent their character, prey upon them, and eat out their substance.”

And how does the honorable gentleman mean to maintain, that language like this is applicable to the conduct of the government of the United States towards the Western emigrants, or to any representation given by me of that conduct?  Were the settlers in the West driven thither by our oppression?  Have they flourished only by our neglect of them?  Has the government done nothing but prey upon them, and eat out their substance?  Sir, this fervid eloquence of the British speaker, just when and where it was uttered, and fit to remain an exercise for the schools, is not a little out of place, when it is brought thence to be applied here to the conduct of our own country towards her own citizens.  From America to England, it may be true; from Americans to their own government, it would be strange language.  Let us leave it, to be recited and declaimed by our boys against a foreign nation; not introduce it here, to recite and declaim ourselves against our own.

But I come to the point of the alleged contradiction.  In my remarks on Wednesday, I contended that we could not give away gratuitously all the public lands; that we held them in trust; that the government had solemnly pledged itself to dispose of them as a common fund for the common benefit, and to sell and settle them as its discretion should dictate.  Now, Sir, what contradiction does the gentleman find to this sentiment in the speech of 1825?  He quotes me as having then said, that we ought not to hug these lands as a very great treasure.  Very well, Sir, supposing me to be accurately reported in that expression, what