(Delivered on the Judiciary Bill, in the House of Representatives, on the Nineteenth of February, 1802)

Mr. Chairman:—­

I must be allowed to express my surprise at the course pursued by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Giles, in the remarks which be has made on the subject before us.  I had expected that he would have adopted a different line of conduct.  I had expected it as well from that sentiment of magnanimity which ought to have been inspired by a sense of the high ground he holds on the floor of this House, as from the professions of a desire to conciliate, which he has so repeatedly made during the session.  We have been invited to bury the hatchet, and brighten the chain of peace.  We were disposed to meet on middle-ground.  We had assurances from the gentleman that he would abstain from reflections on the past, and that his only wish was that we might unite in future in promoting the welfare of our common country.  We confided in the gentleman’s sincerity, and cherished the hope, that if the divisions of party were not banished from the House, its spirit would be rendered less intemperate.  Such were our impressions, when the mask was suddenly thrown aside, and we saw the torch of discord lighted and blazing before our eyes.  Every effort has been made to revive the animosities of the House and inflame the passions of the nation.  I am at no loss to perceive why this course has been pursued.  The gentleman has been unwilling to rely upon the strength of his subject, and has, therefore, determined to make the measure a party question.  He has probably secured success, but would it not have been more honorable and more commendable to have left the decision of a great constitutional question to the understanding, and not to the prejudices of the House?  It was my ardent wish to discuss the subject with calmness and deliberation, and I did intend to avoid every topic which could awaken the sensibility of party.  This was my temper and design when I took my seat yesterday.  It is a course at present we are no longer at liberty to pursue.  The gentleman has wandered far, very far, from the points of the debate, and has extended his animadversions to all the prominent measures of the former administrations.  In following him through his preliminary observations, I necessarily lose sight of the bill upon your table.

The gentleman commenced his strictures with the philosophic observation, that it was the fate of mankind to hold different opinions as to the form of government which was preferable; that some were attached to the monarchical, while others thought the republican more eligible.  This, as an abstract remark, is certainly true, and could have furnished no ground of offense, if it had not evidently appeared that an allusion was designed to be made to the parties in this country.  Does the gentleman suppose that we have a less lively recollection than himself, of the oath which we have taken to support