Excuse me, gentlemen, if I abuse your kindness. I am anxious to make known my ideas upon the future organization of my country. The organization which alone we could propose, is one founded upon the sovereignty of the people, not only in a _legislative_ capacity --for it is not enough that we know that sovereignty by casting a vote once in three or four years: we must feel it every day, everywhere. The sovereignty of the people asserts, that men have certain rights, not depending on any power, but natural rights. I mean such as religious liberty--free thought--a free press, and the right of every family to regulate its own affairs: but not only every family; also every town, city, and county. Our sovereignty shall be such, that the higher government will have no power to interfere in the domestic concerns of any town, city, or county. These are the principles upon which our government will be founded--not only sovereignty in Legislation, but a particular share in the executive Government.--Judge whether such a people is worthy to meet the sympathy of Republicans like you, who have shown to the world that a nation may be powerful without centralization. Believe me, there is harmony in our _ancient_ principles and your _recent_ ones. Judge whether my people is capable of self-government. The venerable gentleman (Josiah Quincy) spoke a word about England. I believe the Anglo-Saxon race must have a high destiny in the history of mankind. It is the only race, the younger brother of which is free while the elder brother has also some freedom. You, gentlemen, acknowledge that from the mother country you obtained certain of your principles of liberty--free thought and speech, a free press, &c.--and I am sure, gentlemen, the English people are proud of liberty. Called to pronounce against the league of despots, if the Republican United States and constitutional England were in concord, what would be the consequence?