Visit https://ebookultra.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks or textbooks

Clever Algorithms Nature Inspired Programming

Recipes 1ST Edition Jason Brownlee

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookultra.com/download/clever-algorithms-nature-
inspired-programming-recipes-1st-edition-jason-brownlee/

Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks at ebookultra.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization 1st Edition

Jason Brownlee

https://ebookultra.com/download/authoritarianism-in-an-age-of-
democratization-1st-edition-jason-brownlee/

SQL Server T SQL Recipes 4th Edition Jason Brimhall

https://ebookultra.com/download/sql-server-t-sql-recipes-4th-edition-
jason-brimhall/

Awesome Game Creation No Programming Required 3rd Edition

Jason Darby

https://ebookultra.com/download/awesome-game-creation-no-programming-
required-3rd-edition-jason-darby/

Data Algorithms Recipes for Scaling Up with Hadoop and

Spark 1st Edition Mahmoud Parsian

https://ebookultra.com/download/data-algorithms-recipes-for-scaling-
up-with-hadoop-and-spark-1st-edition-mahmoud-parsian/
Handbook of Intelligent and Sustainable Smart Dentistry
Nature and Bio Inspired Approaches Processes Materials 1st
Edition Ajay Kumar
https://ebookultra.com/download/handbook-of-intelligent-and-
sustainable-smart-dentistry-nature-and-bio-inspired-approaches-
processes-materials-1st-edition-ajay-kumar/

New England Open House Cookbook 300 Recipes Inspired by

the Bounty of New England 1st Edition Sarah Leah Chase

https://ebookultra.com/download/new-england-open-house-
cookbook-300-recipes-inspired-by-the-bounty-of-new-england-1st-
edition-sarah-leah-chase/

Scala Cookbook Recipes for Object Oriented and Functional

Programming 1st Edition Alvin Alexander

https://ebookultra.com/download/scala-cookbook-recipes-for-object-
oriented-and-functional-programming-1st-edition-alvin-alexander/

Nature insprired Methods in Chemometrics Genetic

Algorithms and Artificial Neural Networks 1st Edition R.
Leardi (Eds.)
https://ebookultra.com/download/nature-insprired-methods-in-
chemometrics-genetic-algorithms-and-artificial-neural-networks-1st-
edition-r-leardi-eds/

Nature inspired informatics for intelligent applications

and knowledge discovery implications in business science
and engineering 1st Edition Raymond Chiong
https://ebookultra.com/download/nature-inspired-informatics-for-
intelligent-applications-and-knowledge-discovery-implications-in-
business-science-and-engineering-1st-edition-raymond-chiong/
Clever Algorithms Nature Inspired Programming Recipes
1ST Edition Jason Brownlee Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Jason Brownlee
ISBN(s): 9781446785065, 1446785068
Edition: 1ST
File Details: PDF, 2.99 MB
Year: 2011
Language: english
Jason Brownlee

Clever Algorithms
Nature-Inspired Programming Recipes
ii

Jason Brownlee, PhD

Jason Brownlee studied Applied Science at Swinburne University in Melbourne,
Australia, going on to complete a Masters in Information Technology focusing on
Niching Genetic Algorithms, and a PhD in the field of Artificial Immune Systems.
Jason has worked for a number of years as a Consultant and Software Engineer
for a range of Corporate and Government organizations. When not writing books,
Jason likes to compete in Machine Learning competitions.

Cover Image
© Copyright 2011 Jason Brownlee. All Reserved.
Clever Algorithms: Nature-Inspired Programming Recipes
© Copyright 2011 Jason Brownlee. Some Rights Reserved.
First Edition. LuLu. January 2011
ISBN: 978-1-4467-8506-5

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.
The full terms of the license are located online at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/au/legalcode

Webpage
Source code and additional resources can be downloaded from the books
companion website online at http://www.CleverAlgorithms.com
Contents

Foreword vii

Preface ix

I Background 1
1 Introduction 3
1.1 What is AI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Problem Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 Unconventional Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4 Book Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.5 How to Read this Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.6 Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.7 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

II Algorithms 27
2 Stochastic Algorithms 29
2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.2 Random Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3 Adaptive Random Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.4 Stochastic Hill Climbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.5 Iterated Local Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.6 Guided Local Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.7 Variable Neighborhood Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.8 Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.9 Scatter Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.10 Tabu Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.11 Reactive Tabu Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

iii
iv Contents

3 Evolutionary Algorithms 87
3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.2 Genetic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.3 Genetic Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3.4 Evolution Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
3.5 Differential Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.6 Evolutionary Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3.7 Grammatical Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.8 Gene Expression Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.9 Learning Classifier System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
3.10 Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . 152
3.11 Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . 160

4 Physical Algorithms 167

4.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.2 Simulated Annealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.3 Extremal Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
4.4 Harmony Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
4.5 Cultural Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.6 Memetic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

5 Probabilistic Algorithms 199

5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
5.2 Population-Based Incremental Learning . . . . . . . . . . . 203
5.3 Univariate Marginal Distribution Algorithm . . . . . . . . . 208
5.4 Compact Genetic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
5.5 Bayesian Optimization Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
5.6 Cross-Entropy Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

6 Swarm Algorithms 229

6.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
6.2 Particle Swarm Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
6.3 Ant System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
6.4 Ant Colony System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
6.5 Bees Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
6.6 Bacterial Foraging Optimization Algorithm . . . . . . . . . 257

7 Immune Algorithms 265

7.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
7.2 Clonal Selection Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
7.3 Negative Selection Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
7.4 Artificial Immune Recognition System . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
7.5 Immune Network Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
7.6 Dendritic Cell Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
 v

8 Neural Algorithms 307

8.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
8.2 Perceptron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
8.3 Back-propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
8.4 Hopfield Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
8.5 Learning Vector Quantization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
8.6 Self-Organizing Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

III Extensions 343

9 Advanced Topics 345
9.1 Programming Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
9.2 Devising New Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
9.3 Testing Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
9.4 Visualizing Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
9.5 Problem Solving Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
9.6 Benchmarking Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400

IV Appendix 411
A Ruby: Quick-Start Guide 413
A.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
A.2 Language Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
A.3 Ruby Idioms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
A.4 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

Index 421
vi Contents
Foreword

I am delighted to write this foreword. This book, a reference where one

can look up the details of most any algorithm to find a clear unambiguous
description, has long been needed and here it finally is. A concise reference
that has taken many hours to write but which has the capacity to save vast
amounts of time previously spent digging out original papers.
I have known the author for several years and have had experience of his
amazing capacity for work and the sheer quality of his output, so this book
comes as no surprise to me. But I hope it will be a surprise and delight to
you, the reader for whom it has been written.
But useful as this book is, it is only a beginning. There are so many
algorithms that no one author could hope to cover them all. So if you know
of an algorithm that is not yet here, how about contributing it using the
same clear and lucid style?

Professor Tim Hendtlass

Complex Intelligent Systems Laboratory
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
Swinburne University of Technology

Melbourne, Australia
2010

vii
viii Foreword
Preface

About the book

The need for this project was born of frustration while working towards my
PhD. I was investigating optimization algorithms and was implementing
a large number of them for a software platform called the Optimization
Algorithm Toolkit (OAT)1 . Each algorithm required considerable effort
to locate the relevant source material (from books, papers, articles, and
existing implementations), decipher and interpret the technique, and finally
attempt to piece together a working implementation.
Taking a broader perspective, I realized that the communication of
algorithmic techniques in the field of Artificial Intelligence was clearly a
difficult and outstanding open problem. Generally, algorithm descriptions
are:

ˆ Incomplete: many techniques are ambiguously described, partially

described, or not described at all.

ˆ Inconsistent: a given technique may be described using a variety of

formal and semi-formal methods that vary across different techniques,
limiting the transferability of background skills an audience requires
to read a technique (such as mathematics, pseudocode, program code,
and narratives). An inconsistent representation for techniques means
that the skills used to understand and internalize one technique may
not be transferable to realizing different techniques or even extensions
of the same technique.

ˆ Distributed : the description of data structures, operations, and pa-

rameterization of a given technique may span a collection of papers,
articles, books, and source code published over a number of years, the
access to which may be restricted and difficult to obtain.

For the practitioner, a badly described algorithm may be simply frus-

trating, where the gaps in available information are filled with intuition and
1 OAT located at http://optalgtoolkit.sourceforge.net

ix
x Preface

‘best guess’. At the other end of the spectrum, a badly described algorithm
may be an example of bad science and the failure of the scientific method,
where the inability to understand and implement a technique may prevent
the replication of results, the application, or the investigation and extension
of a technique.
The software I produced provided a first step solution to this problem: a
set of working algorithms implemented in a (somewhat) consistent way and
downloaded from a single location (features likely provided by any library of
artificial intelligence techniques). The next logical step needed to address this
problem is to develop a methodology that anybody can follow. The strategy
to address the open problem of poor algorithm communication is to present
complete algorithm descriptions (rather than just implementations) in a
consistent manner, and in a centralized location. This book is the outcome
of developing such a strategy that not only provides a methodology for
standardized algorithm descriptions, but provides a large corpus of complete
and consistent algorithm descriptions in a single centralized location.
The algorithms described in this work are practical, interesting, and
fun, and the goal of this project was to promote these features by making
algorithms from the field more accessible, usable, and understandable.
This project was developed over a number years through a lot of writing,
discussion, and revision. This book has been released under a permissive
license that encourages the reader to explore new and creative ways of
further communicating its message and content.
I hope that this project has succeeded in some small way and that you
too can enjoy applying, learning, and playing with Clever Algorithms.

Jason Brownlee

Melbourne, Australia
2011
Acknowledgments

This book could not have been completed without the commitment, passion,
and hard work from a large group of editors and supporters.
A special thanks to Steve Dower for his incredible attention to detail
in providing technical and copy edits for large portions of this book, and
for his enthusiasm for the subject area. Also, a special thanks to Daniel
Angus for the discussions around the genesis of the project, his continued
support with the idea of an ‘algorithms atlas’ and for his attention to detail
in providing technical and copy edits for key chapters.
In no particular order, thanks to: Juan Ojeda, Martin Goddard, David
Howden, Sean Luke, David Zappia, Jeremy Wazny, and Andrew Murray.
Thanks to the hundreds of machine learning enthusiasts who voted on
potential covers and helped shape what this book became. You know who
you are!
Finally, I would like to thank my beautiful wife Ying Liu for her unre-
lenting support and patience throughout the project.

xi
xii Acknowledgments
 Part I

Background

1
Chapter 1

Introduction

Welcome to Clever Algorithms! This is a handbook of recipes for com-

putational problem solving techniques from the fields of Computational
Intelligence, Biologically Inspired Computation, and Metaheuristics. Clever
Algorithms are interesting, practical, and fun to learn about and implement.
Research scientists may be interested in browsing algorithm inspirations in
search of an interesting system or process analogs to investigate. Developers
and software engineers may compare various problem solving algorithms
and technique-specific guidelines. Practitioners, students, and interested
amateurs may implement state-of-the-art algorithms to address business or
scientific needs, or simply play with the fascinating systems they represent.
This introductory chapter provides relevant background information on
Artificial Intelligence and Algorithms. The core of the book provides a large
corpus of algorithms presented in a complete and consistent manner. The
final chapter covers some advanced topics to consider once a number of
algorithms have been mastered. This book has been designed as a reference
text, where specific techniques are looked up, or where the algorithms across
whole fields of study can be browsed, rather than being read cover-to-cover.
This book is an algorithm handbook and a technique guidebook, and I hope
you find something useful.

1.1 What is AI
1.1.1 Artificial Intelligence
The field of classical Artificial Intelligence (AI) coalesced in the 1950s
drawing on an understanding of the brain from neuroscience, the new
mathematics of information theory, control theory referred to as cybernetics,
and the dawn of the digital computer. AI is a cross-disciplinary field
of research that is generally concerned with developing and investigating

3
4 Chapter 1. Introduction

systems that operate or act intelligently. It is considered a discipline in the

field of computer science given the strong focus on computation.
Russell and Norvig provide a perspective that defines Artificial Intel-
ligence in four categories: 1) systems that think like humans, 2) systems
that act like humans, 3) systems that think rationally, 4) systems that
act rationally [43]. In their definition, acting like a human suggests that
a system can do some specific things humans can do, this includes fields
such as the Turing test, natural language processing, automated reasoning,
knowledge representation, machine learning, computer vision, and robotics.
Thinking like a human suggests systems that model the cognitive informa-
tion processing properties of humans, for example a general problem solver
and systems that build internal models of their world. Thinking rationally
suggests laws of rationalism and structured thought, such as syllogisms and
formal logic. Finally, acting rationally suggests systems that do rational
things such as expected utility maximization and rational agents.
Luger and Stubblefield suggest that AI is a sub-field of computer science
concerned with the automation of intelligence, and like other sub-fields
of computer science has both theoretical concerns (how and why do the
systems work? ) and application concerns (where and when can the systems
be used? ) [34]. They suggest a strong empirical focus to research, because
although there may be a strong desire for mathematical analysis, the systems
themselves defy analysis given their complexity. The machines and software
investigated in AI are not black boxes, rather analysis proceeds by observing
the systems interactions with their environments, followed by an internal
assessment of the system to relate its structure back to its behavior.
Artificial Intelligence is therefore concerned with investigating mecha-
nisms that underlie intelligence and intelligence behavior. The traditional
approach toward designing and investigating AI (the so-called ‘good old
fashioned’ AI) has been to employ a symbolic basis for these mechanisms.
A newer approach historically referred to as scruffy artificial intelligence or
soft computing does not necessarily use a symbolic basis, instead patterning
these mechanisms after biological or natural processes. This represents a
modern paradigm shift in interest from symbolic knowledge representations,
to inference strategies for adaptation and learning, and has been referred to
as neat versus scruffy approaches to AI. The neat philosophy is concerned
with formal symbolic models of intelligence that can explain why they work,
whereas the scruffy philosophy is concerned with intelligent strategies that
explain how they work [44].

Neat AI
The traditional stream of AI concerns a top down perspective of problem
solving, generally involving symbolic representations and logic processes
that most importantly can explain why the systems work. The successes of
this prescriptive stream include a multitude of specialist approaches such
1.1. What is AI 5

as rule-based expert systems, automatic theorem provers, and operations

research techniques that underly modern planning and scheduling software.
Although traditional approaches have resulted in significant success they
have their limits, most notably scalability. Increases in problem size result in
an unmanageable increase in the complexity of such problems meaning that
although traditional techniques can guarantee an optimal, precise, or true
solution, the computational execution time or computing memory required
can be intractable.

Scruffy AI

There have been a number of thrusts in the field of AI toward less crisp
techniques that are able to locate approximate, imprecise, or partially-true
solutions to problems with a reasonable cost of resources. Such approaches
are typically descriptive rather than prescriptive, describing a process for
achieving a solution (how), but not explaining why they work (like the
neater approaches).
Scruffy AI approaches are defined as relatively simple procedures that
result in complex emergent and self-organizing behavior that can defy
traditional reductionist analyses, the effects of which can be exploited for
quickly locating approximate solutions to intractable problems. A common
characteristic of such techniques is the incorporation of randomness in
their processes resulting in robust probabilistic and stochastic decision
making contrasted to the sometimes more fragile determinism of the crisp
approaches. Another important common attribute is the adoption of an
inductive rather than deductive approach to problem solving, generalizing
solutions or decisions from sets of specific observations made by the system.

1.1.2 Natural Computation

An important perspective on scruffy Artificial Intelligence is the motivation

and inspiration for the core information processing strategy of a given
technique. Computers can only do what they are instructed, therefore a
consideration is to distill information processing from other fields of study,
such as the physical world and biology. The study of biologically motivated
computation is called Biologically Inspired Computing [16], and is one of
three related fields of Natural Computing [22, 23, 39]. Natural Computing
is an interdisciplinary field concerned with the relationship of computation
and biology, which in addition to Biologically Inspired Computing is also
comprised of Computationally Motivated Biology and Computing with
Biology [36, 40].
6 Chapter 1. Introduction

Biologically Inspired Computation

Biologically Inspired Computation is computation inspired by biological

metaphor, also referred to as Biomimicry, and Biomemetics in other engi-
neering disciplines [6, 17]. The intent of this field is to devise mathematical
and engineering tools to generate solutions to computation problems. The
field involves using procedures for finding solutions abstracted from the
natural world for addressing computationally phrased problems.

Computationally Motivated Biology

Computationally Motivated Biology involves investigating biology using

computers. The intent of this area is to use information sciences and
simulation to model biological systems in digital computers with the aim
to replicate and better understand behaviors in biological systems. The
field facilitates the ability to better understand life-as-it-is and investigate
life-as-it-could-be. Typically, work in this sub-field is not concerned with
the construction of mathematical and engineering tools, rather it is focused
on simulating natural phenomena. Common examples include Artificial
Life, Fractal Geometry (L-systems, Iterative Function Systems, Particle
Systems, Brownian motion), and Cellular Automata. A related field is that
of Computational Biology generally concerned with modeling biological
systems and the application of statistical methods such as in the sub-field
of Bioinformatics.

Computation with Biology

Computation with Biology is the investigation of substrates other than

silicon in which to implement computation [1]. Common examples include
molecular or DNA Computing and Quantum Computing.

1.1.3 Computational Intelligence

Computational Intelligence is a modern name for the sub-field of AI con-
cerned with sub-symbolic (also called messy, scruffy, and soft) techniques.
Computational Intelligence describes techniques that focus on strategy and
outcome. The field broadly covers sub-disciplines that focus on adaptive
and intelligence systems, not limited to: Evolutionary Computation, Swarm
Intelligence (Particle Swarm and Ant Colony Optimization), Fuzzy Systems,
Artificial Immune Systems, and Artificial Neural Networks [20, 41]. This
section provides a brief summary of the each of the five primary areas of
study.
1.1. What is AI 7

Evolutionary Computation
A paradigm that is concerned with the investigation of systems inspired by
the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by means of natural selection (natural
selection theory and an understanding of genetics). Popular evolutionary
algorithms include the Genetic Algorithm, Evolution Strategy, Genetic
and Evolutionary Programming, and Differential Evolution [4, 5]. The
evolutionary process is considered an adaptive strategy and is typically
applied to search and optimization domains [26, 28].

Swarm Intelligence
A paradigm that considers collective intelligence as a behavior that emerges
through the interaction and cooperation of large numbers of lesser intelligent
agents. The paradigm consists of two dominant sub-fields 1) Ant Colony
Optimization that investigates probabilistic algorithms inspired by the
foraging behavior of ants [10, 18], and 2) Particle Swarm Optimization that
investigates probabilistic algorithms inspired by the flocking and foraging
behavior of birds and fish [30]. Like evolutionary computation, swarm
intelligence-based techniques are considered adaptive strategies and are
typically applied to search and optimization domains.

Artificial Neural Networks

Neural Networks are a paradigm that is concerned with the investigation of
architectures and learning strategies inspired by the modeling of neurons
in the brain [8]. Learning strategies are typically divided into supervised
and unsupervised which manage environmental feedback in different ways.
Neural network learning processes are considered adaptive learning and
are typically applied to function approximation and pattern recognition
domains.

Fuzzy Intelligence
Fuzzy Intelligence is a paradigm that is concerned with the investigation of
fuzzy logic, which is a form of logic that is not constrained to true and false
determinations like propositional logic, but rather functions which define
approximate truth, or degrees of truth [52]. Fuzzy logic and fuzzy systems
are a logic system used as a reasoning strategy and are typically applied to
expert system and control system domains.

Artificial Immune Systems

A collection of approaches inspired by the structure and function of the
acquired immune system of vertebrates. Popular approaches include clonal
8 Chapter 1. Introduction

selection, negative selection, the dendritic cell algorithm, and immune net-
work algorithms. The immune-inspired adaptive processes vary in strategy
and show similarities to the fields of Evolutionary Computation and Artifi-
cial Neural Networks, and are typically used for optimization and pattern
recognition domains [15].

1.1.4 Metaheuristics
Another popular name for the strategy-outcome perspective of scruffy AI is
metaheuristics. In this context, heuristic is an algorithm that locates ‘good
enough’ solutions to a problem without concern for whether the solution
can be proven to be correct or optimal [37]. Heuristic methods trade-off
concerns such as precision, quality, and accuracy in favor of computational
effort (space and time efficiency). The greedy search procedure that only
takes cost-improving steps is an example of heuristic method.
Like heuristics, metaheuristics may be considered a general algorithmic
framework that can be applied to different optimization problems with
relative few modifications to adapt them to a specific problem [25, 46]. The
difference is that metaheuristics are intended to extend the capabilities
of heuristics by combining one or more heuristic methods (referred to as
procedures) using a higher-level strategy (hence ‘meta’). A procedure in a
metaheuristic is considered black-box in that little (if any) prior knowledge
is known about it by the metaheuristic, and as such it may be replaced with
a different procedure. Procedures may be as simple as the manipulation of
a representation, or as complex as another complete metaheuristic. Some
examples of metaheuristics include iterated local search, tabu search, the
genetic algorithm, ant colony optimization, and simulated annealing.
Blum and Roli outline nine properties of metaheuristics [9], as follows:

ˆ Metaheuristics are strategies that “guide” the search process.

ˆ The goal is to efficiently explore the search space in order to find

(near-)optimal solutions.

ˆ Techniques which constitute metaheuristic algorithms range from

simple local search procedures to complex learning processes.

ˆ Metaheuristic algorithms are approximate and usually non-deterministic.

ˆ They may incorporate mechanisms to avoid getting trapped in confined

areas of the search space.

ˆ The basic concepts of metaheuristics permit an abstract level descrip-

tion.

ˆ Metaheuristics are not problem-specific.

Other documents randomly have
different content
they observed they could not approve of this mode of defence. It
would thus appear that their votes were vastly more reasonable than
their arguments. He trusted that on this bill the House would give a
unanimous vote. What was the proposition? To put our ports and
harbors in some state of defence. Was the measure embraced by
this bill all the defence proposed? No; but it was all proposed to be
decided on at present, because it could be almost immediately
accomplished. And who knew when this force might be wanted? He
did not say it would be wanted to-day, to-morrow, or the next day;
but possibly the return of Spring might bring an occasion for its
service to repel an invader; and, where the risk was deemed even
probable, procrastination in preparing for the worst would be the
height of imprudence.
In regard to the utility of gunboats, gentlemen differed; and well
and honestly they might, because their use had not in this country
been sufficiently confirmed by experience. Mr. C. would, however,
quote an instance or two in which they had been eminently useful,
even in our own country. He had learnt, from a very correct source,
that in the war between Great Britain and France, in 1760, when the
American colonies took a part, there was an instance on record
which proved that these gunboats were employed with success in
the river St. Lawrence—that four gunboats, carrying one 18 pound
cannon and 20 men each, did attack and capture a brig of 16 guns
and 180 men, killing 60 or 70 men in the brig, while the gunboats
lost but a single man, and received little or no other injury. If any
gentleman doubted, Mr. C. would give the respectable authority of
the Vice President of the United States for the fact. Mr. C. had
understood he was an officer actually employed by the Colonial
Government in that service. Another instance had been given to him
by a naval gentleman of eminence, who was not now in the service
of the United States, but who, he believed, if called upon, would do
himself great honor. Mr. C. then read the statement made by that
gentleman, to this effect: “In 1776, the Roebuck and Liverpool, two
British frigates—one of them mounting 44 guns on two decks—lay in
the river Delaware, below Philadelphia. A flotilla of American
gunboats attacked them with spirit. The engagement was severe,
and victory terminated in favor of the gunboats. One of the frigates
(the Roebuck) was crippled and driven on shore, and would have
been taken possession of, if the ammunition in the boats had held
out. As it was, after the Roebuck floated off into deeper water, both
frigates abandoned their station, and left the gunboats masters of
the river.” It was probable that there might be some gentleman of
the Revolution near him who might have known of the fact; if so,
would it have no impression on the House? He presumed it would
have a favorable impression, as it deservedly ought. He could cite
other instances—he could say, that in the neighborhood of Gibraltar,
at Algeziras, the Spanish gunboats had in many cases attacked
British frigates, and sometimes 74-gun ships, and very much
annoyed them. He knew of no instance of their capture, because it
often happened, that a new wind springing up, carried the vessels
out of the reach of their fire. It was also believed to be a fact, that
the British naval commanders in the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar
had always been alarmed in moderate and calm weather when they
saw the gunboats of Algeziras coming out to attack their ships of
war. Engagements with them were not uncommon, and the boats
frequently had the advantage, and captured merchant vessels under
their convoy, and carried them off, in spite of all the efforts to save
them which could be made by the men of war.
Mr. Southard was in hopes this bill would have met with very little
opposition, especially when it was considered that it was but a part
of a system of defence, of which the other parts would be decided in
progression. Various objections had been made to the bill. Some
gentlemen supposed that gunboats were altogether insufficient for
defence, and that the scheme was merely ideal and visionary; and
some had attempted to prove that gunboats had never been used. A
gentleman from Massachusetts had just disproved this by
circumstantial accounts of two engagements; one on the river St.
Lawrence, and one in the river Delaware. In the last instance, about
twelve gunboats engaged two British ships of war. Mr. S. would
state, from good authority, that the reason why these vessels were
not made a prize, was, that the gunboats were not supplied with a
sufficient quantity of powder and ammunition. This statement and
fact would go far to do away the impressions of those gentlemen
who suppose that gunboats are of no efficiency as a defence, or that
their utility was ideal. In the progress towards the passage of this
bill, every day new difficulties had been discovered, and new
objections raised to its passage. Some gentlemen told them if they
passed this bill, and appropriated a sum of money sufficient for the
object proposed by it, that they would not leave money in the
Treasury adequate to the expense of building land batteries, &c.
Another objection was, that if they appropriated money for building
gunboats, fortifications, and batteries for the seaports, there would
be no money left wherewith to provide arms for the militia. If these
remarks were even correct, they possessed no weight, because
gunboats, fortifications, and land batteries, and arming the militia,
were but three several parts of one great system.
After these remarks, he would only state his own idea of what
ought to be done. He thought they should first provide gunboats;
secondly, erect fortifications and land batteries; thirdly, pass a law
providing for arming the militia—for, unless men were armed, they
could not prevent an enemy from landing, destroying, and laying
waste the country. Mr. S. hoped everything would be done which
was requisite for protection. Gentlemen had said that our resources
were not sufficient to meet these objects. Mr. S. would observe that
there was, in the Treasury, money sufficient to answer all these
purposes; if not, the country had resources within itself, fully
adequate to every measure of protection and defence. He would not
go, as some gentlemen had, into calculations of dollars and cents. If
the nation was embroiled in war, its expense would be incalculable.
It was impossible to form even an idea of the enormous expense
that would accrue from war. But, Mr. S. would withdraw all the
money out of the Treasury; he would not leave a cent; he would
even drain the blood from his own veins, if it were necessary, for the
defence of his country. If the nation was involved in war, life, liberty,
and property, every thing, was at stake; and all their energies should
be exerted to repel the invader.
Mr. Key said he conceived he possessed the right to give his
sentiments on this subject; and he felt it a duty to assign those
reasons which would induce him to vote for the bill under
consideration.
Mr. K. had no doubt but, in forming a general system of defence,
some few frigates would be found necessary; but he strongly feared
they could neither construct line of battle ships or frigates before it
would be necessary to use them. Some gentlemen had asserted that
the nation was at war; he would not combat this position, though it
was not tenable. Some gentlemen said we were on the eve of war,
with whom he thought. If they were engaged in war, it would not be
upon any other part of the frontier than that accessible by water. Of
course the most vulnerable points of the country were upon the
seashore. He therefore thought that every species of defence
competent to the protection of these points should be adopted, and
of this description were fortifications and batteries, aided by
gunboats; not that they composed the best possible means of
defence, but the best that could be constructed within a given time.
There were, as far as Mr. K. knew, in modern times, but two
instances, and but one that was remarkable, of the efficacy of
gunboats as a part of a system. One case was the defence of Cadiz,
when Nelson, with his whole fleet, anchored in the bay of Cadiz, and
was repulsed, principally, he believed, by the instrumentality, but
certainly by the assistance of gunboats. In case of attack, made on
our ports, gunboats being locomotive, would, in such circumstances,
be advantageous. Another case of the success of gunboats occurs in
the bay of Gibraltar; they are there secured from attack, until, like
spiders darting upon flies, they spring out in calm weather, and
always capture their prey.
These gunboats took their origin in an early part of this century,
when Gibraltar was surprised by the enemy. Gunboats were then
introduced into the Gut of Gibraltar, and from the time that Britain
captured Gibraltar, to the present day, such has been the effect of
these boats, that the British were always obliged to send supplies
and provisions to Gibraltar under convoy. He had mentioned this
circumstance, to show that gunboats had acted offensively as well
as defensively. If gentlemen, however, considered them as alone a
sufficient defence for this country, they were most miserably
mistaken; they were merely eligible as a means of defence in aid of
fortifications. Mr. K. agreed with the gentleman who had yesterday
said that these boats would be no protection against ships of war,
with wind and tide in their favor, in Chesapeake Bay; but, as
offensive weapons, they might be placed at points where they might
lie in readiness till a proper time should arrive in which they could
act with advantage. A number of frigates had been, for some time,
lying in the Chesapeake. Mr. K. did religiously believe, if the nation
had been in a state of war, (and a contrary situation alone had
prevented the experiment being made,) that twelve gunboats,
stationed at Norfolk, could have driven them away from their
anchorage. And why did he believe so? Because they could have
chosen their time, when the weather was calm, and large ships
could not be worked. It was in this way that gunboats could greatly
injure ships of war, and, if not destroy them, could injure them so
much as to render them unmanageable. He did not conceive that
gunboats should be considered as incapable of rendering essential
services, because they had not hitherto driven the British squadron
out of the Chesapeake, for the measures taken by the Executive had
not warranted such a step. We are not at war, said he; when, by the
shameless impressment of our seamen and other injuries, and when
consummating her folly and wickedness by the attack on the
Chesapeake, the English nation gave cause for war, we did not go to
war. In his judgment, and he was reluctant to withhold praise where
it was due, a much wiser course was taken; he meant the call upon
that Government for reparation before a resort was had to war. Had
they gone to war, on the spur of the occasion, they would have
committed to the mercy of the British navy twenty millions of
American property, afloat on the ocean; it would have fallen a
sacrifice to the superior naval force of our opponents. If honorable
reparation be made, the course which had been pursued would have
been wise; at all events, whether reparation be made or not, time
had been given to our citizens to save a great portion of their
property. A measure of immediate war would have brought
bankruptcy on our cities, and ruin on our citizens. It was well, for
this reason, to put the event off as long as possible—the longer it
was put off, the better we should be prepared for it when it did
arrive.

Friday, December 11.

The Gunboat Bill.

Mr. Johnson said, although he should not pretend to propose

measures of great national defence, he considered it a prudent
exercise of his right as a member, to express his sentiments upon
subjects proposed by others, upon which it became his duty to vote.
He was in favor of the passage of the bill. He believed that they had
arrived at a crisis; a crisis which had marked the maritime annals of
Great Britain with the blood of American citizens; the period had
arrived when this nation must receive a satisfaction for injuries
inflicted, and a security from future wrong; or the sword must again
be drawn to defend that liberty which was the boast of all, and
which had cost so much. They had before them evidence sufficient
to demonstrate the probability of war, an event which could not be
long protracted but by an honorable accommodation. While America
mourned the loss of her sons, she had wisely forborne to strike a
blow which her wrongs had justified. New instructions had been
despatched to our Minister at the Court of St. James since the
outrage upon the Chesapeake, and a last appeal made to the reason
and justice of that Government by whom they had been so much
injured. The negotiation had terminated in England, and even now a
special Minister was expected from Great Britain to attempt a
settlement here. The door to reconciliation had not been closed, and
he hoped it would not be barred so long as a real desire could be
traced in Great Britain to make an honorable settlement of all
important differences. But every thing they could hear or see proved
the propriety of making preparations for the worst event. Our
Government had been the injured party, and must have redress.
The conduct of the Administration had been arraigned. Mr. J. did
not hesitate to approve the conduct of the Executive, and
particularly in this late and important transaction, it had acted with
prudence, wisdom, and firmness. If feeling had not been governed
by prudence, the nation might have been in a state of actual war.
Perhaps our wrongs might have justified it; but while there remained
a hope for honorable peace, negotiation was the proper course. We
fear no nation, but let the time for shedding human blood be
protracted, when consistent with our safety. If our claims upon the
justice of England should be disregarded, there would be time
enough for human butchery. He looked around him, and saw many
who had witnessed the calamities and miseries of the American
Revolution. But if war could not be avoided, accumulated horrors
would not induce the American people to endanger their
independence. They would say, like the immortal Washington, the
former victorious leader of their armies, “I will conquer or die with
my countrymen.” Unanimity, in times of public exigency, was all-
important; any other course than that which had been pursued by
the Administration, might and would have created division; but if
they should now be driven into war by the injustice of Great Britain,
where was the man who would not be with them, who would not
approve the conduct of the Administration, pronounce our cause
just, and appeal to Heaven for victory.
As to the system of gunboats, which had involved such a wide
range of discussion, and almost every national topic, he had no
practical knowledge of their utility; but he could state the evidence
he had of their utility to the full extent contended for. First, it was a
system which had been recommended by the President, supported
by the opinions of General Gates, Commodore Barron and Captain
Tingey. He perceived that a very large majority of the
Representatives of the seacoast, from Georgia to Maine, was in their
favor. They are used by most of the powers of Europe, and
particularly in the Mediterranean, for defence, and often for offence.
They were considered particularly useful in the North of Europe and
the Baltic, on account of moderate tides, shallow water, and narrow
seas. He had also many examples of their practical utility. In the war
between France and England and her colonies, a case had been
cited of an attack and conflict in the river St. Lawrence, in the year
1763, between four American gunboats and a French vessel of war,
carrying 16 guns and 180 men. The battle was obstinate; the French
lost 60 or 70 men, the hull and rigging of the vessel were cut to
pieces, while only one man was killed on board the gunboats. A
battle had been mentioned by the same member, which happened in
the Delaware during the Revolution, where two English frigates were
attacked by gunboats, one of the frigates driven from our waters,
and the other stranded, and would have been captured but for the
want of powder. Again: the celebrated battle between the English
navy and the French flotilla of gunboats off the port of Boulogne, in
the British Channel. Lord Nelson was charged with the destruction of
these gunboats, and made the attack for that express purpose. The
first attack was made with thirty vessels of war of all sizes; he failed
in the enterprise, and was obliged to retire. This great naval
commander, not having satisfied himself or his nation by this
attempt, ten days after returned to the assault, with more ships of
the line, a larger number of frigates and brigs, and renewed the
fight; after a very bloody battle and great loss, he was again
repulsed. In fact, nothing did the English so much fear as these
gunboats, properly managed. A few years ago, it would be
recollected, Napoleon collected above one hundred thousand
soldiers for the purpose of invading England. This created alarm and
agitation in Great Britain, and this project the British Cabinet knew
could not be effected without the aid of the French flotilla of
gunboats at the port of Boulogne. The late Minister, Mr. Pitt, to divert
the attention of Napoleon from this design, by British gold and
British influence, created a new coalition upon the continent of
Europe against France. For the moment, this coalition had its desired
effect, and it is known to all how it had terminated. It had resulted
in the conquest of the North, cost the lives of thousands, and
inundated Europe with human blood.
Mr. Macon said it appeared to him that the only question at present
discussed was, whether the number of boats authorized by this bill
was the proper number. Some cases had been stated in which
gunboats had been efficacious, and some in which they had not. Mr.
M. did not mean to dispute their efficacy, but as gentlemen on the
seacoast were divided on the subject, until gentlemen could better
agree as to number and utility, so large a number ought not to be
built.
There was another thing he should have been glad to have seen
before he voted on this bill; he should have wished to have seen
how these boats were to be manned. They might be told that people
would volunteer their services on board of these boats. There must
be some way in which they must be manned; unmanned, they
would be perfectly useless. He did not like legislating in this
detached way; it had been tried in former days; first passing one
law, they must pass another to render it effectual. He wished to see
some efficient method in which these boats should be manned; he
could have wished that the whole system should go hand in hand.
The President was authorized to man these boats. Was any authority
given to draught sailors for the purpose, or how were they to be
supplied? It was essential that this should be known. He should
wish, and if he thought he could succeed he would make a motion
to recommit the bill to a select committee for the purpose of making
this provision. Suppose twenty boats were stationed at Norfolk, did
they know that these boats could be manned? In his opinion, the bill
should contain a regulation for manning them; every law should
stand upon its own merits, and he should always protest against
passing one law which would oblige them to pass another to carry it
into effect. Let us, said he, see the whole system, and then let us
vote upon it.
Mr. G. W. Campbell said it had not been his intention to speak on
this subject. There was sufficient cause to induce him still to decline
entering into the debate. His indisposition would certainly prevent
him from examining the subject in that manner which its importance
required; and he would therefore have persevered in his original
intention of remaining silent, had not an attempt been made to
make an impression on the public mind, that the friends of this
measure were about to drain the Treasury of the United States for a
system of defence that would prove inefficient—for a mere useless
experiment. This might therefore require some explanation, that the
motives of gentlemen who were about to vote for this system of
defence should be known, as well as their objects. In the discussion
of this subject, gentlemen had also gone into an examination of the
utility of our Naval Establishment, and the expediency of increasing
it at this time, which was in his opinion a distinct subject, that had
little or no connection with the proposed measure. It would be time
sufficient to examine that question when it came properly before the
House. There had also been a very novel mode of argument
introduced on this occasion, and it was the second time it had been
used during the present session—that of gentlemen arguing against
the expediency of a measure, while they declared their intention to
vote for it. This was indeed a new method of legislating, and may be
intended to answer a double purpose: it may perhaps enable
gentlemen to say to those of their constituents opposed to this
measure, (if such there are,) We were inimical to it; we exposed its
weakness in the House, and showed its inefficiency—you cannot
therefore blame us for its adoption. While, on the other hand, they
might say to the friends of the measure, We have supported it by
our votes, and are therefore entitled to your confidence on that
ground. Mr. C. did not say that this was the object of gentlemen; but
if it was not, it appeared to him difficult to ascertain what it could
be. It would have appeared much more consistent for those
gentlemen who seriously believed the system to be useless, to vote
as well as speak against it; and it were to be wished that those who
intended to vote for the bill before the House, had permitted it to
pass without opposing it; but, as this course of argument had been
pursued, he deemed it a duty he owed to his country, to those he
had the honor to represent, and to himself, to express to the House
(though in a very brief manner) some of the reasons which would
induce him to vote for the bill. He did not pretend to possess much
information on the subject of gunboats—he had therefore hitherto
declined entering into the discussion, and waited to hear what might
be advanced on the subject by those who had greater opportunities
than himself of knowing their efficiency or inefficiency—but he had
found those who had spoken on this subject were obliged, like
himself, to depend on the information of others, and did not pretend
to furnish the House with any practical knowledge on this subject.
They must, therefore, form their opinions from the reasoning on the
case, and such evidence as they were possessed of.
The first important inquiry would seem to be, whether the present
state of our relations with foreign powers was such as required the
adoption of effective measures for national defence. It appeared to
be agreed by all that it was. No one denied the importance of the
present crisis. It could not be denied by any gentleman who would
reflect a moment on the repeated aggressions that have been
committed on our commerce, the violated rights of our seamen, the
insult offered to our national flag, and the murder of our fellow-
citizens. These all go to prove, incontestable, the necessity of our
putting the nation in a state of defence. The next inquiry was, of
what nature ought our defensive preparations to be? It is clear, they
ought to be calculated to meet and repel the attacks that we have a
right to expect from those who are likely to become our enemies.
Those attacks are to be expected on our coasts and seaport towns
which are most exposed, and most vulnerable to a marauding
enemy. The species of defence, therefore, that we ought to adopt,
should certainly be such as was calculated to protect, as far as in our
power, our coast, our harbors, and our seaport towns, from insult
and ruin; unless, indeed, these are to be abandoned to the enemy
on his first approach. We are then to determine whether we shall
defend these or not.
Will the nation consent to expose to an enemy, without an effort
to repel him until he has landed, the whole extent of your seacoast,
all your seaport towns on the margin of the ocean? This would be a
dangerous experiment, and he had supposed too wild a scheme to
be advocated by any reflecting politician: though it seemed to be the
favorite doctrine of some gentlemen in this House, who were
opposed to every species of defence, except placing arms in the
hands of the militia. It is true the foe might be repelled by your
militia, and no doubt would be; but, what would the citizens of those
towns and on your seacoast say? Would they not justly complain
that you had neglected their interest, had deserted them in the day
of danger, and left them to be pillaged and destroyed by an enemy,
without one effort to protect them? They certainly would, and their
complaints would be well founded. There were, however, he
presumed, but very few willing to subscribe to this doctrine—though
it had been advocated by some gentlemen in this House, who
appeared opposed not only to ships of war and gunboats, but also to
fortifications.
Taking it then as admitted, that the coast and seaport towns are
to be defended against naval attacks, what were the means in their
power best calculated to effect that object? On this point there was,
as might be expected, some difference of opinion. Mr. C. believed it
would not be contended by any gentleman that our coast and
seaport towns could be effectually defended by fortifications alone.
No man was so wild in his plans as to say so. The whole coast, from
Maine to the Gulf of Mexico, cannot be fortified—some other mode
of defence must therefore be resorted to. He apprehended also, it
would not be contended that the naval force now in our possession,
in addition to fortifications, was sufficient to afford effectual
protection to our seaports. This had not been pretended; its
inefficiency was too well known for a single individual to rely upon it.
There was then no question on the point that they must acquire an
additional floating force in aid of fortifications. What kind of addition
was it in their power to make? There was but one alternative left
them—either to build an additional number of ships of war sufficient
for that object, or to resort to the system of gunboats. They had
been very earnestly called upon by some gentlemen to make an
addition to the navy and unite this with gunboats. This would
probably be found impracticable at the present crisis. Mr. C. had
expected that those gentlemen who wished to have reduced the
number of gunboats proposed, and substitute a few frigates in their
place, would have shown the practicability of building their frigates
in sufficient time to answer the present exigency. If this could not be
effected, the proposition was useless. Mr. C. said the building of a
large navy was not consistent with the policy or interest of this
country. If it were in their power to do so, it would be at war with
the genius of their Government, the interests of the people, and the
security of their liberties.
Mr. Quincy said he would not have risen now, but for an
observation of the gentleman from Tennessee, as to speculative
opinions. Mr. Q. had before not expressed his own opinion merely,
but the opinion of men deeply interested and much experienced in
this question. He could not boast of personal experience on the
subject, but he had conversed with merchants and persons in naval
employ, and he had found but one sentiment existed, that they
might be useful, but not so much as to supersede the necessity of
other modes. He recollected an observation made by a merchant
deeply interested in the defence of our ports. When his opinion was
asked of the efficiency of gunboats, he said, “you may have
gunboats; but attempt to use them on our coasts, and you would
soon not have a gun left on your boats.” Much better would it be
that these guns should be rested on carriages, and those distributed
along the sea coasts. He had no objection to gunboats when
contemplated to be used in shoal and narrow waters; but he must
express an opinion against their efficiency in deep and rough waters,
not from his own experience, but because it appeared to be the
opinion of men skilled in naval affairs; and because the great mass
of men interested in the defence of the ports were averse to this
mode of defence. He should not vote for the bill, because he should,
by so doing, abandon the best interests of the country; and
because, when so large a sum was appropriated, it would seem that
land batteries were to be proportionably neglected.
 Mr. Randolph said that so long as the details of the bill were under
consideration, he had forborne to trouble the House with his
sentiments, but now, on its final passage, he conceived himself
entitled to express freely and fully his objections to it. His object was
not to make proselytes, but to present to the House and to his
country the grounds of his refusal to sanction the measure. When
perhaps seventy or eighty speakers had repeatedly risen in its favor,
it was surely reasonable that the few individuals opposed to it should
be heard in their own behalf. He complained of the manner in which
business had been conducted. Instead of a comprehensive system,
the whole extent of which might be embraced by the House,
measures had been laid before them piecemeal, and discussions of
the most vague and unprofitable nature had grown out of them. So
far from that general diffusion of information which was so desirable,
they were totally destitute of any concerning the disjointed members
which had been laid upon their table, and which he despaired ever
seeing connected in one perfect whole. The deliberations which had
arisen upon them defied analysis. It was a sort of Parthian warfare,
in which the difficulty lay not in vanquishing the enemy, but in
coming up with him. He had not proceeded (as was alleged) upon
his own speculative opinion. Experiment had proved the inadequacy
of this species of armament. When the President of the United
States issued his proclamation, commanding the British ships of war
to retire from our waters, the want of adequate force alone could
justify a failure to carry that proclamation into effect. A
consciousness of his incapacity to enforce obedience to it, was
notoriously one of the causes why Congress had been convened.
Whosoever denied this must have the hardihood to charge the
President with being deficient in his duty, which he presumed
gentlemen were not prepared to do; and surely it was his bounden
duty to enforce respect for the authority of the nation on those by
whom it had been treated with derision and contempt. The British
force remaining within our jurisdiction, in defiance of the laws, were
as much an invading foe as if they had taken possession of the
Capitol. The miseries of war had been feelingly depicted.
 Mr. R. was as strong an advocate for peace as any gentleman on
that floor; provided it were a safe and honorable peace. To his
apprehension the arguments which had been urged would justify
submission to any extent. He would ask if it was the duty of the
Chesapeake to submit for the sake of peace, or to have resisted to
the utmost of her strength? She was no more called upon by her
duty to resist that attack, than the nation was now called upon to
repel the attack which had been made upon her sovereignty. The
obligation to resist was in both cases the same. Was any person
disposed to applaud as a preserver of peace the unfortunate man of
whom he should say no more than that he was not more bound to
return the broadside of the enemy than Government were to expel
their ships from our harbors after commanding them to depart.
Much as he cherished peace, Mr. R. would be sorry to see it
preserved by such forbearance; and it was only the inability to
execute that could reconcile it for a moment to the feelings of the
nation. The proclamation ought not to have been issued, or it should
have been enforced. Let it not be supposed that he was an advocate
for defence by forty-four gun frigates. Since the existence of their
navy the United States had lost two of their stoutest ships to an
enemy, and in both instances without even a show of resistance. It
was true that in one of these instances, the victor, as if in contempt,
had thrown the worthless thing back upon our hands, instead of
sending it where he wished it had gone—to Halifax, or to the
bottom. An attempt to build a navy at this time would bring not
relief but suffering. Mr. R. put little confidence in the regular navy, as
it was called, which just sufficed to bait the war-trap, or in the
gunboats. Like the contemptible insects to which they had been
compared by their advocates, it was hoped that they would find
shelter in their insignificance, but if they should prove instruments of
annoyance, eventually they would be turned against ourselves. He
wished to see the public treasure employed in putting arms into the
hands of all who were capable of bearing them, and in providing
heavy artillery, not in the erection of a naval force, which, whether
great or small, unless it too could retreat beyond the mountains,
must fall into the hands of the enemy. If they wanted a force that
should combine strength with simplicity, ready at all times for the
public protection, they had such a force amply in their power.
The question was put on the passage of the bill, and decided in
the affirmative—yeas 111, nays 19.

Monday, December 14.

Daniel Clark, the Delegate from the Territory of Orleans, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the
House.

Friday, December 18.

Embargo.

The following is the Message from the President of the United

States:

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

The communications now made, showing the great and increasing
dangers with which our vessels, our seamen, and merchandise, are
threatened, on the high seas and elsewhere, from the belligerent
powers of Europe, and it being of the greatest importance to keep in
safety these essential resources, I deem it my duty to recommend
the subject to the consideration of Congress, who will doubtless
perceive all the advantage which may be expected from an inhibition
of the departure of our vessels from the ports of the United States.
Their wisdom will also see the necessity of making every
preparation for whatever events may grow out of the present crisis.
I ask a return of the letters of Messrs. Armstrong and Champagny,
which it would be improper to make public.
TH. JEFFERSON.
Extract of a Letter from the Grand Judge, Minister of Justice, to the
Imperial Attorney-General for the Council of Prizes.
Paris, September 18, 1807.
Sir: I have submitted to his Majesty, the Emperor and King, the
doubts raised by his Excellency, the Minister of Marine and Colonies,
on the extent of certain dispositions of the imperial decree of the
21st of November, 1806, which has declared the British Isles in a
state of blockade.
The following are his Majesty’s intentions on the points in
question:
1. May vessels of war, by virtue of the imperial decree of the 21st
of November last, seize on board neutral vessels, either English
property, or even all merchandise proceeding from the English
manufactures or territory?
Answer.—His Majesty has intimated that, as he did not think
proper to express any exception in his decree, there is no ground for
making any in its execution in relation to any whomsoever, (à l’égard
de qui que ce peut être.) His Majesty has postponed a decision on
the question, whether armed French vessels ought to capture
neutral vessels bound to or from England, even when they have no
English merchandise on board.
REGNIER.

The Message, and documents accompanying it, were severally

read.
Ordered, That the letters referred to in said Message be returned
to the President of the United States, agreeably to his request.
On motion of Mr. Randolph, that the House do come to the
following resolution:

Resolved, That an embargo be laid on all shipping, the property of

citizens of the United States, now in port, or which shall hereafter
arrive:

And the question being put, that the House do agree to the said
resolution, and, upon the question thereupon, the yeas and nays
being demanded by one-fifth of the members present, and debate
arising, a motion was made by Mr. Macon, that the resolution do lie
on the table; and it was resolved in the affirmative.
A message from the Senate, by Mr. Otis, their Secretary:
Mr. Speaker: The Senate have, in confidence, directed me to
inform this honorable House that they have passed a bill, entitled
“An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and
harbors of the United States,” in which bill they desire the
concurrence of this House.
The said bill was received, read the third time, and committed to a
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on this day.
On motion of Mr. Crowninshield,
Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the said bill.
The House accordingly resolved itself into the said committee;
and, after some time spent therein, the Speaker resumed the chair,
and Mr. Masters reported that the committee had had the said bill
under consideration, but not having time to go through the same,
had directed him to ask for leave to sit again.
Resolved, That this House will, to-morrow, again resolve itself into
a Committee of the Whole on the bill, entitled “An act laying an
embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the
United States.”
And then the House adjourned.

Monday, December 21.

 The House met but transacted no legislative business.

The Embargo Act.

In secret session, the House again resolved itself into a Committee

of the Whole on the bill from the Senate, entitled “An act laying an
embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the
United States;” and, after some time spent therein, rose, and
reported the bill, with several amendments; which were twice read,
and, on the question severally put thereupon, agreed to by the
House.
A motion being made, by Mr. Crowninshield, to amend the
amendment reported by the Committee of the Whole, by striking out
the words “letters of marque excepted,” and the word “retained,” in
the tenth line of the amendment, and insert the word “relanded;”
and the word “retained,” in the twelfth line, and insert the word
“relanded:” Whereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative.
Ordered, That the said bill, with the amendments, be read a third
time this day: Whereupon, the question was stated, that the bill sent
from the Senate, “An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels
in the ports and harbors of the United States,” together with the
amendments agreed to, do pass.
Whereupon, the question was stated that the said bill, with the
amendments, do pass: it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 82,
nays 44, as follows:

Yeas.—Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jr., Ezekiel Bacon, David

Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount,
John Boyle, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, Joseph
Calhoun, George W. Campbell, Peter Carlton, John Chandler,
Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Orchard Cook, Jacob Crowninshield,
Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Josiah Deane, Joseph Desha, Daniel M.
Durell, William Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Francis
Gardner, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, John Heister, William
Helms, David Holmes, Benjamin Howard, Daniel Ilsley, Richard M.
Johnson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight, John
Lambert, John Love, Robert Marion, William McCreery, John
Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore. Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow,
John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newbold,
Thomas Newton, Wilson C. Nicholas, John Porter, John Pugh, John
Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards,
Matthias Richards, Samuel Riker, Lemuel Sawyer, Ebenezer Seaver,
James Sloan, John Smilie, Jedediah K. Smith, Henry Southard,
Clement Storer, Peter Swart, John Taylor, David Thomas, Abram
Trigg, George M. Troup, James I. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt,
Jesse Wharton, Robert Whitehill, Isaac Wilbour, Marmaduke
Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and James Witherell.
Nays.—Evan Alexander, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, John
Campbell, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Howell Cobb,
John Culpepper, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., James Elliot,
William Ely, Barent Gardenier, James M. Garnett, Charles
Goldsborough, Edwin Gray, John Harris, William Hoge, James
Holland, Robert Jenkins, James Kelly, Philip B. Key, William
Kirkpatrick, Joseph Lewis, jr., Edward St. Loe Livermore, Matthew
Lyon, Josiah Masters, William Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy
Pitkin, jr., Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, John Rowan, John Russell,
Dennis Smelt, Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, William Stedman,
Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Jabez
Upham, Archibald Van Horn, and Killian K. Van Rensselaer.

Ordered, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said bill, as
amended, to the Senate, and desire their concurrence.
The bill is as follows:

An Act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and
harbors of the United States.
Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America, in Congress assembled, That an embargo
be and hereby is laid on all ships and vessels in the ports and places
within the limits or jurisdiction of the United States, cleared or not
cleared, bound to any foreign port or place; and that no clearance
be furnished to any ship or vessel bound to such foreign port or
place, except vessels under the immediate direction of the President
of the United States; and that the President be authorized to give
such instructions to the officers of the revenue, and of the navy and
revenue cutters of the United States, as shall appear best adapted
for carrying the same into full effect: Provided, That nothing herein
contained shall be construed to prevent the departure of any foreign
ship or vessel, either in ballast, or with the goods, wares, and
merchandise, on board of such foreign ship or vessel, when notified
of this act.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That during the continuance of
this act, no registered or sea-letter vessel, having on board goods,
wares, and merchandise, shall be allowed to depart from one port of
the United States to another within the same, unless the master,
owner, consignee, or factor of such vessel, shall first give bond with
one or more sureties to the collector of the district from which she is
bound to depart, in a sum of double the value of the vessel and
cargo; that the said goods, wares, and merchandise shall be
relanded in some port of the United States, dangers of the seas
excepted; which bond, and also a certificate from the collector
where the same may be relanded, shall, by the collectors
respectively, be transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. All
armed vessels possessing public commissions from any foreign
power are not to be considered as liable to the embargo laid by this
act.

Tuesday, December 22.

Importation of Slaves.
 Mr. Marion presented the petition of sundry merchants and others,
in Charleston, South Carolina, stating that many vessels had cleared
out from thence for the purpose of importing slaves, before the law
was passed by Congress prohibiting the importation of slaves, and
some had cleared out immediately after the passing of the law, and
had been detained by accidents beyond the time limited by law; and
praying that a law may be passed affording them relief.
The question being put on a motion made by Mr. Marion for a
reference of this petition to the Committee of Commerce and
Manufactures—
Mr. Masters said if there was any subject in favor of which a
petition should not be referred, it was the slave trade. These
petitioners knew when the prohibitory law would go into operation,
and they were not entitled to relief by the laws of God or man.
The motion for reference was negatived—yeas 37, nays 39.

Thursday, December 31.

General Wilkinson.

Mr. Randolph then rose for the purpose of making a motion, and
giving information to the House which he had just received. This was
a duty which he owed, not only to himself, but to the enlightened
and independent freeholders who gave him a seat on this floor, and
to the country at large. Within a few days, information had been put
into his possession, of a nature and on a subject which he deemed it
proper for the constituted authority to inquire into. Had this
information come earlier into his possession, he should not till now
have delayed giving it publicity. He would first state certain facts,
and those facts would be the ground of his motion, on which he
should offer no argument. Mr. R. then read the following documents:
 [TRANSLATION.]
New Orleans, January 20, 1796.
In the galley the Victoria, Bernardo Molina, Patron, there have
been sent to Don Vincent Folch nine thousand six hundred and forty
dollars; which sum, without making the least use of it, you will hold
at my disposal, to deliver it at the moment that an order may be
presented to you by the American General, Don James Wilkinson.
God preserve you many years.
The BARON DE CARONDELET.
To Señor Don Tomas Portell.

I certify that the foregoing is a copy of its original to which I refer.

TOMAS PORTELL.
New Madrid, June 27, 1796.

Fort Washington, Sept. 22, 1796.

Ill health and many pressing engagements must be my apology
for a short letter. I must refer you to my letter to the Baron for
several particulars, and for a detail of my perils and abuses. I must
beg leave to refer you to our friend Power, whom I find of youthful
enterprise and fidelity. He certainly deserves well of the Court, and I
don’t doubt but he will be rewarded.
What political crisis is the present! and how deeply interesting in
its probable results, in all its tendencies! … and thereby must hope it
may not be carried into execution. If it is, an entire reform in the
police and military establishments of Louisiana will be found
immediately indispensable to the security of the Mexican provinces. I
beg you to write me fully on this question in cipher by Power, whose
presence in Philadelphia is necessary, as well to clear his own
character, attacked by Wayne, as to support the fact of the outrage
recently offered to the Spanish Crown in his person, and to bring me
either the person or the deposition of a man now under your
command, who had been suborned by Wayne to bear false witness
against me, and afterwards, for fear he should recant, bribed him to
leave Kentucky. Power will give you the perfect of this infamous
transaction, and I conjure you by all the ties of friendship and of
policy to assist him on this occasion. If Spain does not resent the
outrage offered to Power in the face of all Kentucky … My letter to
the Baron will explain the motives which carry me to Philadelphia:
from thence I will write again to you. Power will explain to you
circumstances which justify the belief of the great treachery that has
been practised with respect to the money lately sent me. For the
love of God and friendship, enjoin great secrecy and caution in all
our concerns. Never suffer my name to be written or spoken. The
suspicion of Washington is wide awake. Beware of Bradford, the Fort Pitt
refugee—he seeks to make peace—there are spies every where. We
have a report here that you are appointed Governor of Louisiana.
God grant it, as I presume the Baron will be promoted. I am your
affectionate friend.
W.
Copy of a letter in cipher received from General Wilkinson.
Natchez, February 6, 1797.
MANUEL GAYOSO DE LEMOS.

In a separate paper, he says what follows:

This will be delivered to you by Noland, who, you know, is a child

of my own raising—true to his profession and firm in his attachments
to Spain. I consider him a powerful instrument in your hands, should
occasion offer—I will answer for his conduct. I am deeply interested
in whatsoever concerns him, and I confidently recommend him to
your warmest protection. I am, evidently, your affectionate
WILKINSON.
 A copy.
MAN. GAYOSO DE LEMOS.
N. B.—Don Gayoso was then Governor of Natchez, and the same
year was made Governor of Louisiana.

Mr. Randolph stated the following to be an extract of a letter signed

“T. Power,” whose handwriting, he said, could be identified:

“On the 27th of the same month [October last] appeared in the
Richmond Enquirer a certificate given by myself to General Wilkinson
in New Orleans on the 16th of May preceding. Immediately on my
getting sight of this piece, which was the same or the next day, I
addressed a note to his Excellency General Wilkinson, [No. 3.] Of
this I did not keep a copy, and therefore dare not vouch that it is an
exact literal transcript of the original; but I will be bold to say that it
is nearly (or, to make use of the General’s own language,
substantially) the same.
“Between my repeated declarations to many of my friends and
acquaintances (I must say it with a blush) and this certificate, there
is a manifest contradiction. And between this same certificate and
the deductions to be drawn from my declaration before the
Richmond Court, there is an apparent inconsistency, which it is now
my task to clear up and reconcile.
“During General Wilkinson’s residence in New Orleans, last winter,
I used occasionally to visit him. A few days before he left New
Orleans, I waited upon him one morning, and after some
conversation on certain transactions that had taken place at a former
period in the Western country, and on the delicate situation in which
his conduct during the winter was likely to place him, he asked me if
I had any objection to give him a certificate that might help him to
silence that foul-mouthed Bradford, and refute the assertions of the
editor of the Western World. I replied without hesitation that I had
none, and would give him one with pleasure, provided he promised
me it should not be published. On this he assured me that the only
use he proposed to make of it was to lay it before the President,
with the view to prove the falsehood of the charges circulated
against him, vindicate his character, and secure the confidence of
the Executive. This, if not exactly, is substantially what the General
said. He then desired me to sit down and write the certificate. I
observed that I might not make it out entirely to his satisfaction; and
that, as he best knew the points he wished should be embraced in it,
he had better make it out himself, and I would copy it. To this he
agreed. Next morning, I waited on his Excellency, and he presented
me the certificate, which I copied, as it has been published, with a
few alterations. One—a very material one—is that, after these
words: ‘Do most solemnly declare that I have at no time carried or
delivered to Gen. James Wilkinson’—I erased the words, ‘either
directly or indirectly,’ and declared to the General I could not insert
those words. He did not insist, and contented himself with saying
that he wished me to insert them if my conscience would allow it,
but not otherwise. This is ingenuously exactly what passed between
the General and myself at that time.
“Now let me with the same frankness and ingenuousness, without
referring to any preceding or subsequent event, narrate the
transaction of 1796, alluded to in my certificate, and concerning
which I offered to give testimony in the federal circuit court in
Richmond. It is the same that is the subject of the affidavits of
Messrs. Derbigny and Mercier. That of the former gentleman is
correct as to substance, for I actually did receive from Captain Don
Thomas Portell, commandant of New Madrid, the sum of $9,640 for
General Wilkinson, towards the latter end of June or beginning of
July, 1796, which was packed up in the manner described by Mr.
Derbigny, and when I was stopped and my boat searched on the
Ohio by Lieutenant Steele, under the orders of General Anthony
Wayne, I had other sums on board, but this was the only one I had
received for General Wilkinson. On my arrival at Louisville,
determined not to expose myself a second time to military insult,
and fearful of being overtaken by Steele on his return, and of being
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com