retiiement. It is this very point — the maintenance of principles discovered 

 and defended by men prepared for that service by severe discipHne and la- 

 borious study — that so strikingly distinguishes the English rebellion of 1649 

 and our own Revolution from most other insurrectionary movements, and 

 particularly from the French revolution. The English and American 

 statesmen of those two periods were contending for trvths, the French 

 atheists and philosophers for interests; the former sought to learn their du- 

 tics, the latter concerned themselves only about their rights; the Anglo- 

 Saxon was inspired hy principle , the Gaul was instigated by passion. 



The principles of American hberty, which education and habit have ren- 

 dered so familiar to us, that we fancy tliem intuitive or even instinctive, are 

 in truth no more obvious than the physical theory of the universe; and the 

 • study of the philosophical and political history of the last three centuries 

 will convince every enquirer, that their development from their germs, as in- 

 volved in the fundamental doctrines of the Reformation, has been the work 

 not of unconscious time only, but has required the labor of successive gene- 

 rations of philosophers and statesmen. 



I look upon a great and well t elected library, composed of the monu- 

 ments of all knowledge, in all tongues, as the most effective means of re- 

 leasing us from the slavish deference, which, in spite of our loud and va- 

 poring protestations of independence, w^e habitually pay to English pre- 

 cedents and authorities, in all matters of opinion. Our history and our po- 

 litical experience are so brief, that, in the multitude of new cases w^hich are 

 perpetually arising, we are often at a loss for domestic parallels, and find it. 

 cheaper to cite an English dictum than to investigate a question upon more 

 independent grounds. Not only are our parliamentary law , our legislative 

 action, our judicial proceedings, to a great extent fashioned after those of 

 the mother country, but the fundamental principles of our government, 

 our theory of the political rights of man, are often distorted, in order 

 that they may be accommodated to rules and definitions drawn from Eng- 

 lish constitutional law. Even the most sacred of political rights, the right, 

 of petition, 1 have heard both attacked and defended upon this floor, by very 

 sufficient democrats, entirely upon precedents drawn from the practice of 

 the British Parliament. Our community of origin, language, and law, ex- 

 poses the younger nation to the constant danger of being overshadowed by 

 the authority of the elder. It is a great evil to a young and growing peo- 

 ple, as well as to a youthful and aspiring spirit, to have its energies cramped, 

 audits originahty smothered, by a servile spirit of conformity to any one 

 model however excellent; and it is quite time for us to learn, that there are 

 other sources of instruction than the counsels and example of our ancient 

 mother. 



Sir, I make these remarks in no narrow feeling of jealous hostility to^ 

 England; still less at this crisis, when some are seeking to raise a whirlwind 

 of popular indignation against that country, upon which they may them- 

 selves float to power, would I join in any vulgar denunciations of a people 

 from whom w^e have borrowed so much. We owe to England much of 

 our political piinciples, many of the foundations of our civil and religious 

 liberties, many of the most valuable features of 'our jurisprudence. Some- 

 thing, indeed, we have repaid. England, in common with all Europe, has 

 profited by our experience. The grasp of feudal oppression has been re- 

 laxed, the atrocious severity ol the criminal law has been mitigated, judicial 

 proceedings have been, simplified, the subject has been admitted to a larger 



