Mr. BANKS. There have been several meetings of the committee on this subject. perhaps the gentleman’s attention was not called to it, because it was for a considerable time in the hands of a sub committee. But at the last meeting of the committee when the bill was agreed to, the principles of it were distinctly stated as well as the points of agreement and disagreement between it and the other acts of this Government upon this subject as well as of GreatBritain, and if the gentleman had desired the reading of the bill proosed it would have been read. It is suggests that we ought not to depart from the early policy of the government on this subject. Let me say that the 1st object of this bill is to return to the early policy of the Government. Its provisions are substantially those of the act of 1794, enacted under the administration of Washington. Of the ten sections of this act, all are retained in this bill with one exception. Its passage will bring our legislation back to the policy of Washington‘s administration. The actsof1797, 1817, and 1818 were departures from the policy of the Government, the principles of international law, and the legisation of every other government. This bill strikes from the statutes enacted since 1794 the unnecessary, unusual, and onerous restrictions and prohibitions upon the commerce of the country and the power of its people. I do not like to say much about the history of this legislation because it is not an agreeable l subject; but it appears distinctly in the history l of the periods to which I have referred that: the changes in the neutrality law of 1794 were I mode to correspond, not with the wishes of, the people or Government, or with a view to its interest or prosperity, but.at the solicitation, and I might say at the demand. almost, of foreign Governments, and especially of Portugal and Spain, upported by Great. Britain. We made our laws to correspond with their interests and wishes rather than our own, because we were in a condition not to resist that which they pressed upon us. But it was distinctly stated by John Adams, as President, by John Quincy Adams, as SecyState, and more recently by Mr. Adams, representing our government at the Court of StJames, that the legislation and policy of that day were adopted with a full comprehension that the time would come when the people of this country weiild be able to assert their own right, upon the judgment of the people alone rather than at the dictation or upon the representations of representatives of foreign Governments. The question for this House to determine is whether that time has come. Sir, I think it has come. If we want anything to prove our power, let us look at the history of this country for the last live years. If anything is required to exhibit our sense of justice, let the world look at the manner in which we have enforced our own laws against our own citizens, suffering under irreparable wrongs, at the demands of a Government that has been most unjust and ungenerous toward us. If anything is required to satisfy the world of our sense of justice, we offer it assuredly in the history of this country for the cars just closed. But the GentfromNewHampshire [Mr. Ps'r'rsnsos] suggests that upon this subject we should call in the aid of t ie best legal talent that can be obtained. Sir, we have had enough of the best legal talent for the surrender of our rights. What we want now is talent for maintaining them. I would rather go to the hearts of the people and take counsel of their courage and love of country than to professional men, of whatever class or character, for instruction as to what should be our action upon this question. Let me ask my friendfrom NewHampshire, should he 0 to the people of the State he represents and asks them whether it is time to defend the rights of this country against GreatBritain, what he supposes their answer would be.