been compelled so often to traverse since the commencement of the war. He took up the question of impressment--declared our war a defensive one--bore hard upon those who voted against supplies--showed that the war had liberated us from that slavish fear of England which had rested like a nightmare on the nation--and started into vigorous growth home manufactures, destined in the end to render us independent of foreign products, and furnishing us with ampler means to carry on any war that might occur in the future. This debate might have lasted much longer but for a violent harangue of Grosvenor, full of gross personalities, discreditable to himself and insulting to the House. It was resolved to put an end to such disgraceful scenes, and the previous question was moved and carried by a majority of forty. A similar fierce conflict, however, took place soon after on the bill for the support of military establishments, in the ensuing year, and on the motion to repeal the Embargo Act. In a speech against the former, Artemus Ward opposed not only the invasion of Canada, and reiterated the old charge of subserviency to France, but openly and boldly defended England in the course she had taken; declared that impressment was in accordance with the law of nations, and that the doctrine "the flag protects all that sails under it" was untenable and false. He then went gravely into the reasons of the war, and laid down the following propositions, which he proceeded soberly to defend:-- "1st. Napoleon had an ascendancy in our councils through the fear or hopes he inspired. "2d. The administration wished to destroy commerce, and make an agricultural and manufacturing people. "3d. It wished to change the form of our government."