Volume 1 — LIFE OF HENRY CLAY.

BIOGRAPHIC usage might require us to give the pedigree of the distinguished individual who forms the subject of the following memoir. Many considerations, however, combine to induce a departure from this usage. In the first place, we are strongly disposed to question the practical utility of it; and in the second, to doubt our ability, even after the most diligent search, to exhibit what is ordinarily the object of such a search—an illustrious pedigree. Indeed, we regard it as very problematical, whether we should be able to get beyond the pale of republican simplicity. But the most cogent consideration is the belief that our efforts would not be more highly appreciated than were those of the emperor of Austria by Napoleon Bonaparte. The Austrian monarch, desirous of proving his future son-in-law royally descended, was busily engaged in making the searches requisite to establish the fact. Napoleon, becoming acquainted with his intention, immediately visited him, and exclaimed, ‘Stop, stop, sire! I alone am the author of my fortune, and desire it to be so understood: neither royal descent nor royalty has contributed any thing to its achievement, and though I might legitimately claim both, would not mention either.’ We do not know that a similar indifference was felt by Mr. Clay, relative to his lineage, but his plain, unostentatious habits, and firm adherence to republican principles, warrant us in presuming that such was the case. Certain it is, however, that for the elevated position he occupied, he was as little indebted to any adventitious advantages of birth or fortune, as was the mighty conqueror; and with equal propriety might he have said, in view of the means by which he had attained that position, I alone am the architect of my fortune. Without attempting, therefore, to invest his origin with the splendors of a titled ancestry, it may suffice to observe, that family reminiscences render it certain that his immediate progenitors were distinguished for sterling worth, virtue and integrity. His father, a Baptist clergyman, labored in his official capacity with great acceptance, in a district of country in Hanover county, Virginia, familiarly denominated ‘The Slashes,’ where, on the 12th of April, 1777, his fifth child, Henry, was born. He was not destined to enjoy those instructions and counsels which a father only knows how to impart,—for when he had attained his fifth year, his father died. This event consigned him entirely to the care of his mother—a woman of an uncommonly vigorous mind, richly adorned with feminine graces, and every way competent to superintend his incipient education.

Unfortunately, the embarrassed condition of her husband’s estate at his death, besides greatly augmenting her cares, prevented her from giving Henry that thorough course of study which she designed him to pursue. So far, therefore, from receiving a liberal, he did not receive a good elementary education. The lowly district school of that region, to which his instructions were limited, was deficient in almost every essential respect. But even under these inauspicious circumstances, in early boyhood he manifested a strong desire for knowledge, which in consequence of the pecuniary difficulties before mentioned, could not be gratified. All that the fondest maternal tenderness could do, was to lead him to the rills of learning, whose sweet waters, instead of allaying, rendered that desire more intense, and induced the resolution to seek its gratification at their unadulterated source. This, in after life, by his indomitable energy, he was enabled to execute.

The means of education afforded him, though meagre in the extreme, he did not uninterruptedly enjoy. The straitened circumstances of the family made it necessary for him, in common with his brothers, to devote large portions of time to manual employments. He was no stranger to the use of the plough, the spade, and the hoe, over which literally by the sweat of his brow he earned his daily bread. He gained for himself the title of ‘Mill Boy of the Slashes,’ by his frequent visits to a neighboring grist-mill on the Pamunkey river. These he usually made, seated on a bag of grain thrown across a horse, which he thus rode with a rope bridle, without a saddle.

He appears not to have shrunk from any employment, however humble, when directed to it by his beloved mother. To her his attachment was most ardent, and often has he expressed his deep regret that he was permitted to enjoy her society during so brief a period. In 1792 she was married to Mr. Henry Watkins, and removed to Woodford county, Kentucky, accompanied by all her children, except Henry and his eldest brother. At the age of fourteen we find him in a small drug store, in Richmond, Virginia, kept by Mr. Richard Denny. His stay here was short, and at the commencement of 1792 he entered the office of Mr. Peter Tinsley, clerk of the High Court of Chancery. Here he found employment more congenial to his taste than any to which he had hitherto devoted himself, as well as more ample means for mental culture.

The venerable chancellor Wythe, a gentleman of great personal worth and profound erudition, attracted by his industrious habits and amiable appearance, took him into his especial favor, gave him the benefit of his instructions, and finally made him his amanuensis. By the opportunities for familiar intercourse with this great man, which were now afforded him, the most salutary impressions were received and rapid advances made in the acquisition of knowledge. He sought to become better acquainted with his vernacular language, and in this was aided by his friend, who recommended several works for his perusal, calculated to assist him. Much of his time was employed in copying the lengthy official documents of the chancellor, who, being passionately fond of Greek, interlarded them liberally with passages from his most admired authors. This rendered his task peculiarly onerous, for he was compelled to copy them in the original, and by imitation, as he was ignorant of the language. He acquitted himself, however, to the entire satisfaction of his employer, won his esteem, obtained much valuable, legal, and general information, and laid the foundation of those habits of regularity and methodical application which were subsequently of such great practical advantage to him.

During the year of 1796 he left the office of Mr. Tinsley and went to reside with the attorney general of Virginia, Robert Brooke, Esq. Here his advantages for studying law were better than they had previously been, of which he eagerly availed himself, and with much success. The year 1797 appears to be the only one in which he pursued the study of law uninterrupted, yet it must be certain that during his residence of several years in the capital of Virginia, daily cognizant of legal proceedings, and associating with the most eminent legal gentlemen of the period, he acquired an amount of legal information neither inconsiderable nor unimportant. Near the close of the year he was licensed to practice law, by the judges of the Virginia Court of Appeals. He entered on the duties of his profession at Lexington, Kentucky, under auspices not the most favorable, as appears from his speech of June, 1842, at the same place. In this he says he ‘was without patrons, without friends, and destitute of the means of paying his weekly board. I remember how comfortable I thought I should be, if I could make £100, Virginia money, per annum, and with what delight I received the first fifteen shilling fee. My hopes were more than realized; I immediately rushed into a lucrative practice.’

Though success most unexpected, crowned his first efforts, he did by no means relax his exertions to qualify himself more thoroughly for the profession he had chosen. While other young men of his own age, and not more eligibly situated, with regard to means and employment, were spending their evenings in recreations suited to their juvenile dispositions, he was eagerly conning over his own self-directed and unaided lessons of learning. Most assiduously did he devote his every leisure hour in enriching his mind, and in polishing his mental armor. Modest, unassuming, apparently feeble in constitution, languid and listless in his movements, he exhibited little in his deportment indicative of those lofty powers of eloquence and commanding talents, which in latent energy were reposing in his mind. An incident, however, occurred a short time after, at a meeting of a debating society, by which they were brought to light. He had been a member of the society some time, but refrained from taking an active part in its exercises. This was attributed to those traits of character before mentioned. At the meeting referred to, a question had been discussed at considerable length and apparently with much ability, on which the customary vote was about to be taken, when he observed in an under tone to a person seated by him, ‘the subject does not seem to be exhausted.’ The individual addressed, exclaimed, ‘do not put the question yet, Mr. Clay will speak.’ The chairman by a smile and nod of the head signified his willingness to allow the discussion to be continued by him, who thereupon arose under every appearance of trepidation and embarrassment. The first words that fell from his lips were, ‘Gentlemen of the jury.’ His embarrassment now was extreme; blushing, hesitating, and stammering, he repeated the words, ‘Gentlemen of the jury.’ The audience evinced genuine politeness and good breeding, by seeming not to notice his peculiarly unpleasant and trying condition. Suddenly regaining his self-possession, he made a speech of such force and eloquence, as to carry conviction and astonishment at once to the hearts of his hearers. Subsequently he took a prominent part in the debates of the society, and became one of its most efficient members.

Shortly after, he was admitted to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Fayette county, a court of general jurisdiction. Perhaps at no previous period was the Lexington bar more highly distinguished for the talents and learning of its members than at that time. Among them were George Nicholas, John Breckenridge, William Murray, and others, whose long established reputation and professional skill seemed to set competition at defiance. They found in Mr. Clay, however, a most formidable competitor: one who, though bland, courteous, and affable, in the ordinary intercourse of life, yet on the field of civic strife was as unyielding and invulnerable as the ‘gnarled oak.’ His talents secured respect, and soon placed him on a level with the highest. He possessed the unbounded confidence of the community where he resided, and the ease with which he secured this was truly surprising. So perfectly insinuating and winning were his ways, and so captivating his appearance, that it was usually yielded at the first interview. Such attributes of mind and person could not and did not fail to surround him with influential and devoted friends, and secure for him a more than respectable patronage. A few short months previous he stood alone, a stranger, unaided, unfriended and destitute, amid the wilds of the then far-off west. Now, the obstacles which then seemed gigantic, had dwindled into insignificance. The rough and forbidding aspect of the road which he had marked out for himself to pursue, had entirely disappeared, and friends and favors poured in upon him from all quarters, and he found himself borne along by the breeze of popular approbation, unconscious that it had yet been awakened.

One to him important result of that confidence which a discerning and generous public reposed in him, was continual professional employment. His acute and refined sensibilities, his philanthropic heart, and sympathizing disposition, joined to his profound knowledge of human nature and commanding powers of eloquence, pointed him out as one eminently well qualified to conduct criminal cases. With these, therefore, we find him much and successfully engaged, and it is a remarkable fact, taking into consideration the large number of these cases committed to his care, that never in a single instance was he defeated. One of the most important early criminal suits in which he was retained, was that of the wife of a very reputable farmer by the name of Phelps, a woman who stood high in the estimation of those who knew her, and deservedly, for she had led hitherto an irreproachable life. In a fit of passion, caused by some personal reflection of her husband’s sister, she seized a gun and shot her through the heart. The poor girl had only time to exclaim, ‘Sister, you have killed me,’ and expired. The great respectability of the parties caused the most intense excitement, and an immense crowd assembled to witness the trial. Of the fact of killing the proof was most abundant, and the only point to be considered was that which respected the nature of the crime. It was argued with great ability on the part of the prosecuting attorney, who labored hard to make it out a case of deliberate wilful murder; but in this he was foiled by the superior skill and adroitness of Mr. Clay, who not only succeeded in saving the life of his client, but obtained as light a verdict for imprisonment as the law would allow.

In another similar suit, which occurred shortly after, he evinced, if possible, greater ability. Two men, Germans, father and son, were indicted for murder, and were tried in Harrison county. The act of killing, in this instance also, was proven by evidence so clear and strong, that it was considered not only a case of murder, but an exceedingly aggravated one. The trial lasted five days, at the close of which he addressed the jury in the most impassioned and eloquent manner, who were so moved by his pathetic appeals that they rendered a verdict of manslaughter only. After another hard day’s struggle he succeeded in obtaining an arrest of judgment, by which his clients were set at liberty. They expressed their gratitude in the warmest terms to their deliverer, in which they were joined by an old ill-favored female, the wife of one and the mother of the other, who adopted a different mode, however, of tendering her thanks, which was by throwing her arms around Mr. Clay’s neck and repeatedly kissing him, in the presence of the court and spectators. Respecting her feelings, he did not attempt to repulse her, but submitted with such grace and dignity to her caresses as to elicit outbursts of applause.

Mr. Clay manifested great sagacity in discerning and turning to his advantage a technical law-point, involving doubt. The following case illustrates this. A man by the name of Willis, indicted for murder, escaped conviction by the disagreement of the jury, and was put upon his trial the second time for the crime alleged. After hearing the arguments of the prosecuting attorney, he brought forward the well known rule of law, that the life of no one shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence, and insisted on its applicability to the case under consideration, contending that the trial, according to that rule, was manifestly illegal, and that therefore conviction would be impossible. At first the court was disposed to rule out his objections, which was met on the part of Mr. Clay with a prompt refusal to proceed with the case, unless allowed to view it in this aspect, and actually left the room for that purpose. He was soon recalled and permitted to proceed, and, without the remotest reference to the testimony previously given, he obtained an acquittal solely on the ground assumed. In only one instance do we find him engaged as public prosecutor, in which he procured the conviction of a slave for the murder of his overseer. With great reluctance he discharged the duties of his office in this case, and has often been heard to regret that he had any agency in procuring the execution of the friendless black.

In civil suits he also won great celebrity. In the settlement of important land claims, he rendered himself very conspicuous. It is related of him that being engaged in one that involved immense interests, he associated with him a prominent lawyer to whom he intrusted its management, as urgent business demanded his absence from court. Two days were occupied in discussing the legal points that were to govern the instructions of the court to the jury, on all of which his colleague was frustrated. Mr. Clay returned before a decision was rendered, and without acquainting himself with the nature of the testimony, or ascertaining the manner in which the discussion was conducted, after conferring a few minutes with his associate, he prepared and presented in a few words the form in which he wished the instructions to be given, accompanying it with his reasons, which were so convincing that the suit was terminated in his favor, in less than an hour after he reëntered the court room.

His genius and talents now seen and acknowledged by all had gained for him high professional honors, and fitted him to act a prominent part on another and more extended field—that of the patriot politician. The date of his entrance on this field may be placed as far back as 1797, and it is worthy of particular remark, that the first subject he was led to investigate, on approaching it, was one peculiarly calculated to call into exercise those prominent features of his character, philanthropy and patriotism. Slavery, although existing in Kentucky in its mildest form, could not and did not appear to him otherwise than unsightly and revolting—an evil, and one of great magnitude; nor did he hesitate to pronounce it such. To him, its practical tendencies, in public and civil no less than in private and social life, were obviously bad. He saw it diffusing its baneful influences through the halls of legislation, and twining its sable folds around the very pillars of government, contaminating and withering. His was not the position of an unmoved or speculating observer; the mightiest energies, the holiest impulses of his nature were kindled within him, to arrest its progress, to break up the unnatural, the unhallowed alliance. But in yielding, as he did, prompt obedience to those emotions, he did not rush madman-like, impelled by a blind zeal, into the work, regardless of results. The sanguinary consequences of such a course rose up and stared him full in the face, with most appalling power, nor could he shut his eyes to the palpable fact, that it would inevitably eventuate in the utter annihilation of those very interests he sought to protect. It appeared necessary, therefore, to advance cautiously, to sit down, and, divested of all prejudice, wisely count the cost. He found it requisite to act the part of a skilful and experienced operator, not that of a conceited empiric; to have the bandage and the liniment ready before resorting to the scalpel and caultering iron. After taking the most enlightened view of the subject, regarding it in all its aspects and bearings, he came to the conclusion, that the only feasible method which would both ensure the safety of the body politic, and preserve inviolate their domestic institutions, was a gradual disengagement. Hence he sought by every available means, through the press by his touching and eloquent descriptions, by night and by day, to secure the introduction of a provision to that effect, in a new constitution, then under consideration for adoption. Happy would it have been for Kentucky had she listened to the entreaties of her son in this behalf, for slavery would have long since ceased to blacken her borders. His humane efforts were not, however, successful; a majority of the members of the convention being opposed to the provision. It cannot be doubted that Mr. Clay very clearly foresaw that the contest would thus terminate, possessing as he did accurate knowledge of the state of the public mind, in relation to the subject of slavery; hence our surprise and admiration. It is not more certain that his efforts were earnest and vigorous in defence of the measure, than that they were prompted by disinterested motives. The nature of his circumstances at this period is such as to render it certain that he did not stop to estimate the consequences of defeat, either to his popularity or his purse; in short, that so far as personality was concerned, ‘cui bono’ was neither in his mind nor on his lips. How ridiculously absurd then, in the light of such abundant evidence to the contrary, the assertions of his enemies, that he was actuated by selfish motives, by an inordinate desire to attract attention. There was no ground for such a desire. In Kentucky, at least, his popularity would hardly admit of augmentation, and daily, and almost hourly the testimonials of approbation lavished upon him, and the high appreciation of his character, his services, and his talents, cannot be enumerated. Though defeated, he was not discouraged nor disheartened. Conscious that his action had been in accordance with his conviction of duty, he derived great consolation from the fact, and girded himself to do battle again for the same principle in a different connection.

Mr. Clay was a lover of Liberty, not exclusively on account of any particular advantages her possession might confer, but on account of her own intrinsic loveliness and inalienability. In looking at his political career, we find that his most gigantic efforts were put forth whenever he discovered a disposition to abridge her lawful exercise. It seems to have been even at its commencement a settled principle with him, to resist oppression under whatever form presented. This he discovered in the odious Alien and Sedition laws, enacted in 1798–9. These were anathematised by the democracy of the country, as hostile to our institutions, involving an unwarrantable assumption of power, manifestly unconstitutional, savoring strongly of tyrannical usurpation, and not to be tolerated. The Alien law empowered the president to command any alien whom he should judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the country, to depart out of the territory within such time as he should specify, under penalty of being imprisoned for a time not exceeding three years. The Sedition law was intended to guard against the abuse of speech and of the press. Besides subjecting to imprisonment, it imposed a heavy pecuniary fine, on such as combined, conspired, or united, to oppose any governmental measure,—who should utter, write, print, publish, &c., any false, and scandalous, and malicious writing, against the government of the United States or the president, &c. The appearance of these laws was greeted with one general outburst of indignation, from one end of the land to the other, but in no section was the expression of disapprobation more strongly marked or prompt than in Kentucky. In the front rank of those who opposed them stood young Clay, dealing blows so thick and heavy with the ponderous battle-axe of his eloquence, as to drive his foes in disorder and dismay from the field of political strife.

It is related that on one occasion the people had assembled in a large crowd in a grove near Lexington, to listen to a discussion to come off between the advocates and opposers of these laws. The greatest interest had been awakened, extensive preparation made by the combatants, and with the most inflammatory zeal they entered the lists. The assemblage was first addressed by Mr. George Nicholas, a gentleman of distinguished ability and commanding eloquence. His effort is represented as having been one of great vigor, and characterized by that logical and philosophical acumen, for which he was so celebrated. When he ceased, the populace, wrought up to the highest degree of enthusiasm, poured out their rapturous applause. ‘Clay,’ ‘Clay,’ was now loudly called from all directions, and as he ascended the stand, it was clearly perceptible by his eagle eye and compressed lips that no ordinary emotions were struggling in his bosom. As the spirit of the tempest finds the ocean when he descends in his mightiest energy, so he found the boisterous mass swelling to and fro like the surges of the deep. But he was at home doing his legitimate work, pouring the oil of eloquence over a turbulent sea of passion, until its tumultuous heavings subsided and left one quiet, calm, and unruffled surface. The subject in his hands appeared in a new light, and he soon succeeded in securing for it that attention which is accompanied with feelings too deep for utterance: like those experienced by one standing on the edge of a crater, gazing down into its fiery abyss. His predecessor had poured a flood of sunshine over the multitude, which caused those heartfelt, spontaneous out-gushings of joyful emotion, which are its usual comcomitants. But his office was that of the lightning’s flash and thunder peal, hushing, awing, and subduing. When he closed there were no clamorous expressions, no deafening shouts of applause, but something far more significant he read in the quivering lips, indignant looks, and frowning brows around him; and heard, in the deep low growl that came up, a much more flattering tribute to his talents. He was followed by Mr. William Murray, an orator of great popularity, and well qualified to exhibit acceptably the merits of those laws, if indeed they possessed any. His efforts, however, were futile. The conviction of their pernicious tendency had been planted too deep in the minds of the people by Mr. Clay, to permit them to listen to their merits, or to allow them to believe that they had any. He would not have been suffered to proceed had not the previous speakers urgently solicited permission. Another attempt was made to reply, but the people could be restrained no longer, and made a furious rush towards the place occupied by the speaker, who was compelled to make a precipitate retreat to escape personal violence. They now seized Nicholas and Clay, bore them on their shoulders to a carriage, and amid the most enthusiastic cheering, drew them through the streets of Lexington. A proud day was this for Mr. Clay; a day in which he earned a far more glorious title than any that royal hands could confer upon him, that of the ‘great commoner.’ It was the first of the bright days of the years of his fame—the sure precursor of that unfading chaplet which time was destined to bind about his brow.

In 1803, Mr. Clay, in company with several of his personal friends, was spending several weeks at the Olympian Springs, in Bath county, for the benefit of his health, and during that time there was an election of members to the legislature. His friends, without his knowledge, and as appears contrary to his wishes, brought him forward as a candidate. The prospect of his election was not very flattering; indeed, it seemed to be impossible. Several candidates who were veterans in the business, had occupied the field sometime in advance of him, and besides electioneering warmly for themselves, employed the influence of powerful friends. Though he ran very well at the commencement, it was thought that he was somewhat behind. His opponents, besides using every legitimate, resorted to unfair means to accomplish his defeat, reporting that he was incapacitated for the office by ill health; that he did not desire, neither would accept it. Such measures in all probability would have been successful, had not his opportune return before the canvass had progressed very far, furnished occular proof of the falsehood of these assertions, and enabled him to counteract the influence of the slanderous reports put in circulation. It was repugnant to his feelings, contrary to his exalted ideas of honor, and did not comport with the dignity of the office to set forth personally his claims and qualifications. But yielding to the entreaties of his friends, and urged also by the base subterfuges and low intrigues every where practiced to defeat his election, he consented to enter the arena, and right well did he acquit himself, as the sequel will show. His remarks were few, exceedingly pertinent, conveying to the electors his views of state policy, refuting such of the reports as were false, and admitting such as were true: to wit, that he was young and inexperienced, that he had not proclaimed himself a candidate, nor sought their suffrage; but since his friends had seen proper to place his name before the people, it would be gratifying to them if he could be elected. While thus engaged in stump speaking, as it is termed in Kentucky, an incident occurred which it may not be amiss to relate. It illustrates his tact and ingenuity in seizing and turning to good account trivial circumstances, for which he is so celebrated, and to which he is indebted for the enviable title of being great in little things. He had been engaged in speaking some time, when a company of riflemen, who had been performing military exercise, attracted by his attitude, concluded to go and hear what that fellow had to say, as they termed it, and accordingly drew near. They listened with respectful attention and evidently with deep interest, until he closed, when one of their number, a man about fifty years of age, who had evidently seen much backwoods service, stood leaning on his rifle, regarding the young speaker with a fixed and most sagacious look. He was apparently the Nimrod of the company, for he exhibited every characteristic of a mighty hunter,—buckskin breeches and hunting-shirt, coon-skin cap, black bushy beard, and a visage which, had it been in juxtaposition with his leathern bullet pouch, might have been taken for part and parcel of the same. At his belt hung the knife and hatchet, and the huge indispensable powder-horn across a breast bare and brown as the bleak hills he often traversed, yet which concealed as brave and noble a heart as ever beat beneath a fairer covering. He beckoned with his hand to Mr. Clay to approach him, who immediately complied. ‘Young man,’ said he, ‘you want to go to the legislature, I see?’ ‘Why, yes,’ replied Mr. Clay, ‘yes, I should like to go, since my friends have seen proper to put me up as a candidate before the people; I do not wish to be defeated.’ ‘Are you a good shot?’ ‘The best in the country.’ ‘Then you shall go; but you must give us a specimen of your skill; we must see you shoot.’ ‘I never shoot any rifle but my own, and that is at home.’ ‘No matter, here is old Bess, she never fails in the hands of a marksman; she has often sent death through a squirrel’s head one hundred yards, and daylight through many a red skin twice that distance; if you can shoot any gun you can shoot old Bess.’ ‘Well, put up your mark, put up your mark,’ replied Mr. Clay. The target was placed at the distance of about eighty yards, when, with all the coolness and steadiness of an old experienced marksman, he drew old Bess to his shoulder and fired. The bullet pierced the target near the centre. ‘Oh, a chance shot! a chance shot!’ exclaimed several of his political opponents. ‘A chance shot! He might shoot all day and not hit the mark again; let him try it over, let him try it over.’ ‘No; beat that, beat that, and then I will,’ retorted Mr. Clay. But as no one seemed disposed to make the attempt, it was considered that he had given satisfactory proof of being the best shot in the county; and this unimportant incident gained him the vote of every hunter and marksman in the assembly, which was composed principally of that class of persons, as well as the support of the same throughout the county. The most remarkable feature respecting the whole transaction is yet to be told. Said Mr. Clay, ‘I had never before fired a rifle, and have not since.’ The result of the election proved Mr. Clay much more popular than it had been supposed he was; he was elected almost by acclamation. Our astonishment may well be excited, when we consider that this was the first time that he was a candidate for an office, and the circumstances under which it took place. It must be certain that he was esteemed a young man of great promise and ability. That confidence he seems so early to have inspired he has ever retained, and it is a no less just than flattering tribute to his worth, that where he is known best, there he is esteemed the most. This appears from the fact that the citizens of Fayette county have never refused him an office when brought forward by his friends as a candidate.

At the time of his election to this, his first office, the public mind was much agitated in reference to the Lexington Insurance Company. Felix Grundy, a political partizan of great eminence, had proclaimed himself hostile to its existence, and expressed his intention to move the repeal of its charter. This question was brought to bear directly on the election, and as the views of Mr. Clay were known to be opposed to his, he was selected to advocate the claims of the institution. The attempt made during the ensuing session to procure the repeal of the incorporating law was easily defeated by him, but in the succeeding one Mr. Grundy himself was a member, and a majority of the House came pledged to support the measures advocated by him. Argument in such a state of things it was thought would avail little; for the representative, feeling bound to obey the will of his constituents, would be compelled to vote for the repeal, although convinced of its injustice. The debate that ensued was one of great ability, conducted by Mr. Clay and Mr. Grundy, and attracted crowds of spectators. They were both young, aspiring after forensic honors, and both eloquent. Mr. Grundy, though wily, shrewd, and a good political manager; in strength of argument, force, and felicity of illustration, and the faculty of setting his subject in a strong light before his hearers, was evidently inferior to his antagonist. Mr. Grundy at first waged an aggressive war, and with great boldness and vigor demolishing his enemy’s outposts, pushed his way far into his country. Elated with success, and the ease with which he overcame all opposition, he imagined victory already achieved. But he was destined to be checked midway in his brilliant career, to encounter his enemy’s strong corps de reserve. The contest is represented as having exhibited a scene of eloquent sublimity, seldom witnessed or surpassed. Mr. Grundy had marshalled his forces with the skill of a veteran, and flanked by powerful auxiliaries, was proceeding in the utmost regularity, and as he thought with absolute certainty, to strike the last decisive blow. A phalanx thus appointed, led on by such a general, seemed invincible, and indeed was, if any could be in such a conflict. Up to the time of the grand onslaught, Mr. Clay seemed to be regardless of the operations of his adversary. He was, however, silently engaged in collecting and arranging his resources, and treasuring his energies for the final hour; and when it came he arose and hurled them at the heads of his mighty foe and emissaries as the avalanche hurls his ice-mount, or the volcano his scathing flood of flame. Mr. Grundy’s struggle to maintain his ground was desperate, but short, for no force could do it under such circumstances; and, finding himself borne backwards by the impetuosity of his assailant, he attempted to effect an honorable retreat. In this he failed, and was finally compelled to surrender.

Although the measure passed the house, the senate, whose members had listened to the discussion, without any efforts, pro or con, refused most unanimously to sustain it; and thus the company, through the efforts of its vindicator, was suffered to retain its charter.

An event occurred during the session of 1805, highly illustrative of the versatility of Mr. Clay’s genius. An attempt was made to obtain the removal of the capitol from Frankfort. Mr. Clay, in a speech delivered at the time, reverted to the peculiar physical appearance of the place, as furnishing an argument in favor of the proposed removal. Frankfort is walled in on all sides by towering rocky precipices, and not unlike a vast pit. It presents, said Mr. Clay, the model of an inverted hat. Frankfort is the body of the hat, and the lands adjacent are the brim. To change the figure, it is nature’s great penitentiary; and if the members would know the bodily condition of the prisoners, let them look at those poor creatures in the gallery. As he said this he directed their attention to some half a dozen emaciated, spectre-like specimens of humanity, who happened to be moping about there, looking as though they had just stolen a march from the grave-yard. On observing the eyes of the house thus turned towards them, and aware of their ghostly aspect, they screened themselves with such ridiculous precipitancy behind the pillars and railing as to cause the most violent laughter. This well-directed effort at wit and humor was completefully successful, and the house gave their votes in favor of the measure. The resolution, however, was never carried into effect, as it was found impossible to agree upon a new location. It would be difficult, and perhaps not particularly desirable, to follow Mr. Clay through all the various and numerous services rendered by him in the legislature of Kentucky. We shall give an outline only of them, presenting such specimens as shall illustrate the leading characteristics of his mind, and dwell longer on that portion of his history which regards him as connected with the management of the affairs of the nation. While acting in the capacity of a state legislator, he was distinguished for zeal in prosecuting his professional labors, which soon conducted him to the summit of that lofty legal eminence, far above the murky regions of pettifoggery and low intrigue. Here, surrounded by an atmosphere redolent of judicial purity, and seated fast by the throne of Justice, he exerted himself to preserve inviolate the sanctity of her temple, and to see that her decisions were rigidly and impartially enforced. He particularly delighted, on the one hand, to procure her favors for the poor and obscure, in facilitating the approach to her courts of those who by poverty or oppression were debarred access; and on the other, to oppose the unjust prosecutor. No bribe could induce him to countenance, directly or indirectly, his designs. While acting under the influence of these most noble principles, he became engaged in an unpleasant affair of honor. It appears that Col. Joseph Hamilton Daviess, district attorney of the United States, had struck an inn-keeper in Frankfort, who had made some remark offensive to him; the inn-keeper endeavored to obtain legal reparation for the wound his honor had sustained, and for that purpose applied for a writ. This was readily obtained, but owing to the high standing and influence of the accused, no lawyer could be found who was willing to conduct the prosecution. In this state of things, after consulting with his friends he wrote a letter to Mr. Clay, detailing the facts in the case, and soliciting his aid. He promptly sent a reply, in which he consented to act as his attorney. The suit was brought at Lexington, and Mr. Clay, whose sympathetic feelings were warmly interested in behalf of his client, vindicated him from the rude and unreasonably harsh treatment which he received at the hands of Mr. Daviess, who was his own attorney. Mr. Clay’s strictures were keen and cutting to such an extent, that Col. Daviess, at a pause in the trial, sent Mr. Clay a note, couched in not very civil, and somewhat threatening terms, warning him to desist from such bitter remarks. Mr. Clay replied that he should conduct his client’s case as his judgment prompted, uninfluenced and unawed from any source—least of all from his client’s antagonist. At the close of the trial Col. Daviess sent him a challenge to single combat, which he accepted. Subsequently the affair was settled, through the mutual interference of the friends of both parties, and the most cordial friendship existed between them till the death of Col. Daviess, who was killed at the battle of Tippecanoe.

Near the close of 1806 Mr. Clay received an application from Aaron Burr to appear in his behalf. Burr had been arrested on a charge of being engaged in illegal military operations. The popular mind was much agitated by the belief of his treasonable designs, founded on various rumors of his projected invasion of the Mexican provinces, in which the whole western territory was implicated. While these rumors were occasioning much public anxiety, two men, named John Wood and J. M. Street, arrived from Virginia and located at Frankfort. Their object seemed to be to publish a weekly paper, which they styled the ‘Western World,’ in which they revived an old political controversy which had slumbered nearly twenty years. The subject of the rumors was also introduced into its columns, and several statements made in reference thereto, which seemed, if true, to make out the evidence of treason and conspiracy as more than probable. They were however, for the most part assumptive, and not substantiated by any well authenticated testimony, besides appearing under a very questionable character, being contained in communications over the signature of ‘an observer.’ It was subsequently ascertained that these were written by one of the most violent federalists of the day—notorious for his antipathy toward the democratic party, of which at that time Mr. Burr was a distinguished member. His name was Humphrey Marshall. He and his emissaries, to accomplish their purposes, resorted to the most base and dishonorable means. In an address prepared by Mr. Marshall, he reiterated the statements of ‘an observer,’ of which he himself was the author, and also charged the leading members of the Jefferson party in Kentucky, among whom were Mr. Clay’s most intimate friends, with the treasonable design of annexing that state to the Spanish dominions in North America. The address was laid before the legislature, who investigated the matter; but not succeeding in eliciting any thing to corroborate the charges made, it was dropped. The public mind was wrought up to a high degree of indignation at these attempts to ruin some of the most worthy and talented men in the community. While the public was still under the influence of the sympathetic feelings excited in behalf of those against whom such gross accusations had been made, Mr. Burr was charged with a conspiracy of more recent date, and in course was regarded with the same sympathy extended to those previously criminated. He was esteemed a persecuted patriot, and his innocence was matter of popular belief. It was thought pretty generally, that his arrest originated in deep-rooted prejudice existing in the mind of colonel Daviess, the district attorney, a warm admirer of colonel Alexander Hamilton, who was killed in a duel by Mr. Burr. There was good ground for believing that the attorney was prompted more by revengeful feelings than a desire of promoting the administration of justice. During the same year, soon after Mr. Burr had returned from New Orleans, the public mind was again inflamed by the ‘observer,’ which contained statements of such a nature as to direct the attention of the district attorney to Mr. Burr, whose arrest he attempted to procure, but without success. Mr. Burr witnessed the proceedings, and in a speech which he made at the time, alluded to them, which he characterized as harsh and oppressive in the extreme, expressing himself perfectly willing, and indeed soliciting to be tried by an unprejudiced court. His dignified deportment, and fair, open proposition, caused the popular feeling to be deeply enlisted in his favor. His request was granted, a jury chosen, and a day appointed for trial. When it arrived, universal surprise was created by the novel and very unusual course pursued by Col. Daviess. He moved the discharge of the jury in consequence of an important witness being absent. He succeeded, to the great regret of Mr. Burr, who was desirous of placing the whole business before a competent and impartial judicial tribunal.

The attorney, some months subsequent, imagined himself warranted in resuming the prosecution. The second day of December was appointed for the trial. On the day previous Mr. Burr addressed a note to Mr. Clay, soliciting his aid, of which the following is an extract. ‘I have no design nor have I taken any measure to promote a dissolution of the Union, or a separation of any one or more states from the residue. I have neither published a line on this subject, nor has any one, through my agency or with my knowledge. I have no design to intermeddle with the government or to disturb the tranquillity of the United States, or of its territories, or any part of them. I have neither given, nor signed, nor promised a commission to any person for any purpose. I do not own a musket, nor bayonet, nor any single article of military stores; nor does any person for me, by my authority, or with my knowledge. My views have been fully explained to, and approved by, several of the principal officers of government, and I believe are well understood by the administration, and seen by it with complacency. They are such as every man of honor, and every good citizen must approve. Considering the high station you now fill in our national councils, I have thought these explanations proper as well to counteract the chimerical tales which malevolent persons have so industriously circulated, as to satisfy you that you have not espoused the cause of a man in any way unfriendly to the laws, the government, or the interests of his country.’

Mr. Burr was doubtless aware of the scruples felt by Mr. Clay respecting the propriety of acting as his counsel, which scruples were occasioned principally by the new and interesting relation just assumed by him—that of United States senator. Mr. Clay’s doubts were satisfied, and he consented to appear at his trial as his attorney, in connection with Col. John Allen. To them Mr. Burr in the expectation of securing their services, had previously sent a large sum of money, which they declined receiving, and returned to him. The day appointed for trial at length arrived, and again the attorney sought to delay the proceedings of the court, on the ground of the absence of an important witness. Mr. Clay strenuously contended that such tardy procedure, where such interests were involved, and where the most speedy action was requisite, was unsanctioned by correct judicial usage; that the accused was sustaining material injury in consequence of the obstacles thus thrown in the way of his establishing his innocence, which he was impatiently and anxiously waiting to do. Mr. Clay’s representations succeeded. The attorney was required by the court to proceed immediately. Accordingly all the evidence he could produce was spread before the grand jury, who, after a patient and careful investigation, returned the indictment accompanied with their refusal to consider it a true bill, and reasons for the same,—alleging that the testimony contained nothing to criminate the accused, ‘nor can we from all the inquiry and investigation of the subject discern that any thing improper or injurious to the government of the United States, or contrary to the laws thereof, is designed or contemplated.’ Their decision was received with the strongest demonstrations of approbation from all quarters, which were exceedingly gratifying to Mr. Clay, and served to strengthen his conviction of Mr. Burr’s innocence when he consented to act as his counsel. It is unnecessary to say, that had he been aware of Mr. Burr’s real designs, no inducement could have been held out by that person strong enough to have determined him to appear in his defence. Subsequent events show this to be true—events which removed all doubts as to Mr. Burr’s guilt. A mass of unequivocal testimony had been obtained, in relation to his operations upon which he had already entered, and of his future projects, by the exertions of Mr. Jefferson, which testimony was exhibited to Mr. Clay, at Washington, where he repaired soon after the trial to take his seat in the senate. One of the most remarkable and indubitable portions of the evidence alluded to, was a letter in cipher which Mr. Burr had sent by captain Samuel Swartwout to the commander of the United States army, general Wilkinson, which contained a somewhat circumstantial account of his proceedings and intended proceedings. In this he expressly stated his design of seizing on Baton Rouge, preliminary to extending his conquests into the Spanish provinces. Such disclosures opened the eyes of the public to the true character of Mr. Burr, and called forth expressions of their just indignation, in which Mr. Clay also united,—who, after an interval of several years, for the first time subsequent to the trial, met Mr. Burr in the city of New York. Mr. Clay was sitting in the court room of the City Hall, when a gentleman approached and tendered him his hand with the customary salutation. But Mr. Clay recognizing, treated him with marked coldness and refused to receive or return the proffered civility. Mr. Burr, however, endeavored to engage him in conversation, congratulating him on his successful efforts at Ghent, in relation to the treaty, and an arrangement which he and his associates had effected with Great Britain, whereby valuable commercial advantages were secured to America. To all his efforts at conversation Mr. Clay turned a deaf ear, replying very briefly to his inquiries and giving him no encouragement to proceed. On leaving, Mr. Burr requested the privilege of a brief interview with him, who in answer, informed him where he had taken lodgings. The colonel, however, did not call, and thus terminated all the intercourse ever had by Mr. Clay with him. We have thus endeavored faithfully and impartially to record all the facts in relation to that intercourse, that the world may see and decide upon the truth or falsehood of the charges made against Mr. Clay, in consequence of it. How can they be tortured so as to yield any evidence calculated to impeach his integrity? How to make it appear manifestly wrong to act as his counsel, and to conduct that trial, the right to which was guarantied by the constitution? But above all, how can they be made to furnish a foundation for those cruel charges of acting in concert with the accused, of being privy to his plans, as aiding and abetting him, and of disrobing him of his hard, well earned, unspotted robes of legal and political purity, and clothing him in the black habiliments of a traitor, engaged in bartering away the liberties of his country? But in the language of another, ‘the shaft, though aimed with a will sufficiently deadly, fell upon a breast of steel.’ The charge of treason preferred against a man who has done more for his own country than any other living statesman, and whose voice has echoed beyond her confines, and with a tone of creative power called other republics into being, is like the other infamous calumnies that have been propagated against the same illustrious individual, and like them, must soon be lost amid the lumber of forgotten things. Such conspiracies to ruin a patriot can only end in the prostration of the conspirators.

‘He who of old would rend the oak,

Dreamed not of the rebound.’

Mr. Clay’s election to the senate of the United States was for one session only—the unexpired portion of general Adair’s term, who had resigned his seat. Immediately after his initiation into his new office, he engaged actively in the senatorial business. He found the senate discussing the merits of a bill providing for the erection of a bridge over the Potomac. Its erection was strongly desired by the inhabitants of Washington and Alexandria, and as strongly deprecated by those of Georgetown. Many efforts were made by both parties to secure his services in aid of their particular predilections, but nothing definite could be ascertained respecting his views in relation to the bill, and he refused to commit himself by pledging his support or opposition to it. He was not, though, indifferent to the proposed measure, but diligently employed himself in settling in his own mind the question of its constitutionality, and in deciding on its expediency. The result of his investigations was the conviction that it was sanctioned by the constitution, and a judicious measure of internal policy. He so regarded it in a speech which he made in its favor, by which he succeeded in producing a similar conviction in the minds of all the members who had not pledged themselves to oppose it, and thus secured its passage. This speech, although never reported, is represented as one of his happiest efforts, distinguished for satire and humor, as well as gravity and sound logical argument, indeed, as embodying all the characteristics of a perfect specimen of eloquence. From the ground there taken, and the first time publicly, as to what he deemed true governmental policy, in relation to internal improvement, he has never in a single instance receded. With proud satisfaction may the friends of that system of which he has been justly styled ‘the Father,’ point to this unparalleled example of unwavering adherence and fidelity to principles since demonstrated to be the only permanent source of our national prosperity. In what an interesting attitude do we behold their originator and vindicator—a youth from Kentuckian wilds, rising up in the midst of grave senators and hoary-headed sages, and stretching out a timid, yet patriot-nerved arm, towards the shrine of Liberty. He plucks from her altar a burning brand and applies it to those inflammable materials which his genius and talents had collected around him. The flame that followed, though bright, he did not suppose would be seen and felt far beyond the precincts of her home. The utmost stretch of his fancy could not present to him the cheering vision, of the deepest recesses of the woody wilds he had left, illumined by its benign beams—that they were destined to play around the summits of the Alleghanies, glance across the broad prairie, blaze over the lake, and flash along the river, penetrating every department of industrial life, with their developing, moulding, and preserving power, until the broad breast of our vast republic should beam bright and beautiful as the ‘brow of night.’

An anecdote is related of Mr. Clay, aptly illustrating his ability to encounter opposition, in whatever manner presented. A senator from Connecticut had endeavored to inspire the younger members of the senate with a respect for him, nearly allied to awe, and to this end was accustomed to use towards them harsh and exceedingly haughty language, but especially to make an ostentatious display of his attainments and his supposed superior knowledge of the subject under discussion. Mr. Clay could ill brook his insolent looks and language, and haughty, overbearing manner, and took occasion in his speech to hit them off, which he did by quoting the laughable simile of Peter Pindar’s Magpie:

‘Thus have I seen a magpie in the street,

A chattering bird we often meet,

A bird for curiosity well known,

With head awry,

And cunning eye,

Peep knowingly into a marrow bone.’

It would be difficult to say which was the greater, the merriment which this sally caused, or the chagrin of the senator mentioned.

During the session an attempt was made to clothe the executive with power to arrest and confine colonel Burr, if deemed necessary by him, without experiencing the delays often consequent on the uncertain operations of law. Mr. Clay did not take an active part in the discussion that ensued, but barely recorded his vote against it. He regarded the suspension of the act of habeas corpus, by which alone this power could be conferred, as highly dangerous, and which could be justified in the greatest emergency only. He thought it, however, unadvisable to mingle in the discussion in consequence of having acted as Mr. Burr’s counsel. The measure passed the senate, but was defeated in the lower house.

In the month of February of the same year, Mr. Clay exerted himself to procure an appropriation for the purpose of constructing a canal in Kentucky, having presented a resolution to that effect. The subject was referred to a committee, to whom as chairman he submitted a lengthy and able report. He also brought forward a resolution to improve the navigation of the Ohio river, which was favorably received by the senate, and adopted with unanimity. The secretary of the treasury also was called upon to obtain all the information he could impart and report the same, relative to constructing canals and making such other internal improvements as might come legitimately within the sphere of congressional action. With what deep interest Mr. Clay regarded the prosecution of these and kindred works, may be learned from the phraseology of the resolutions which he introduced recommending them. In the report before mentioned there is the following passage. ‘How far is it the policy of the government to aid in works of this kind when it has no distinct interest? Whether indeed in such a case it has the constitutional power of patronage and encouragement, it is not necessary to be decided in the present instance. The resolution directing the secretary to procure information, is as follows. ‘Resolved, that the secretary of the treasury be directed to prepare and report to the senate at their next session a plan for the application of such means as are within the power of congress, to the purposes of opening roads and making canals, together with a statement of undertakings of that nature, which as objects of public improvement may require and deserve the aid of government, and also a statement of works of the nature mentioned, which have been commenced, the progress which has been made in them, and the means and prospect of their being completed, and all such information as in the opinion of the secretary shall be material, in relation to the objects of this resolution.’ This resolution passed almost unanimously.

At the expiration of his senatorial term the citizens of Fayette county gave him their suffrages again for the state legislature, to which he was elected by a majority much larger than his most sanguine friends expected. In consequence of the part Mr. Clay had performed in the affair of colonel Burr, his popularity sustained some diminution, which, however, was only temporary. His enemies attempted to excite similar feelings of odium towards him with which Mr. Burr was visited, and partially succeeded, but which were dissipated by an address made by Mr. Clay, in relation to his connection with him, and succeeded to such an overwhelming extent in turning the tide of calumny directed towards him, against his enemies, that it would have been exceedingly hazardous for any one, in the presence of his friends, to repeat the slanderous charges. He was elected speaker of the assembly at the next session, although opposed by a very popular member as a candidate for the same office. In this station he was distinguished for zeal, energy, and decision, exhibited in discharging its duties. He would sometimes engage in the debates of the house when a subject of unusual interest was before it. An attempt was made during this term worthy of the dark ages—an attempt to prohibit the reading of any British elementary work on law, and reference to any precedent of a British court. Contrary to what might have been expected, this monstrous proposition, this antinomian attempt found favor in the eyes of more than four-fifths of the members of the house, and had not Mr. Clay rushed to the rescue, the whole system of common law, so far as Kentucky was concerned, would have been destroyed. His timely interference averted the catastrophe. The prohibition was advocated on the ground that it was inexpedient for an independent nation to derive any assistance in the administration of justice, from the legal decisions of a foreign court; especially from those of the one in question. It cannot be doubted that the friends of the prohibition were stimulated by ardent though somewhat bigoted patriotism. Those deep seated feelings of repugnance towards the nation at whose hands we had received such oppressive treatment but a few years previous, had not yet subsided, and very naturally extended to every thing pertaining to that nation. This fact partially apologizes for that intemperate and inconsiderate zeal with which more than four-fifths of the house set about demolishing what it was vitally important should be incorporated with the fabric of our liberties, and become a constituent part of the same. They desired to be removed as far as possible from Great Britain, in legal as well as in other respects, without carefully considering the effect of that removal. This law, viewed through the distorted medium of prejudice and hatred, seemed a huge excrescence on the body of our institutions, whose incumbency exerted a crushing instead of a sustaining influence, draining their energies, instead of imparting to them no inconsiderable portion of their vitality, and instantly the axe of judicial reform was seized by these sapient legislators for its amputation. Against this fratricidal attempt, Mr. Clay raised his powerful arm. He had witnessed with feelings of unfeigned regret, this rash attempt to lay violent hands on that system with which was associated every thing valuable and venerable in jurisprudence. That system which might justly be styled the legal Thesaurus of the world, founded by the hand of social exigency amid fearful convulsions, and reared by the united efforts of the most eminent jurisconsulats the world ever saw, he endeavored to shield against the ruthless assaults of this legislative vandalism. He was aware that the popular opinion considered this system as unnecessarily voluminous—an immense mixture of superfluities, prolixities, and absurdities, unadapted to, and unneeded by, our institutions. These erroneous apprehensions and long existing prejudices, he combated and corrected. He demonstrated its utility by a lucid exposition of the beauty, symmetry, and simplicity of its fundamental principles, and its necessity, by depicting in most glowing colors the disastrous consequences which would inevitably follow its destruction. Fearing, however, that the resolution would pass, he met its supporters in the spirit of compromise, and moved so to amend it, that the prohibition should extend to those decisions only, that had been given since the fourth day of July, 1776. His reasons for permitting those to remain, which were given previous to that period, were as convincing as they were sensible. He argued that up to the time of the declaration of independence, the laws of the one nation were those of the other, and that therefore the adoption of the primary resolution would be in effect abolishing our own laws. He is said to have given on this occasion, one of the most splendid specimens of elocution ever witnessed. A gentleman who was present describes it as a perfect model. ‘Every muscle of the orator’s face was at work; his whole body seemed agitated, as if each part was instinct with a separate life; and his small white hand, with its blue veins apparently distended almost to bursting, moved gracefully, but with all the energy of rapid and vehement gesture. The appearance of the speaker seemed that of a pure intellect, wrought up to its mightiest energies, and brightly glowing through the thin and transparent veil of flesh that enrobed it.’ His control over his auditory was most absolute and astonishing—now bathing them in tears, and now convulsing them with laughter, causing them to alternate between hope and fear, love and hate, at his bidding. When he concluded, scarcely a vestige of opposition remained, and the amended resolution was adopted almost by acclamation. While the prominence, which this and similar efforts gave Mr. Clay, was a source of satisfaction to him, and gratification to his friends, it was attended with the unpleasant effect of exposing him to the keenest shafts of his political enemies. In the year 1808 he was most violently assailed by Humphrey Marshall, an ultra federalist, a man of talents and eloquence. He let no opportunity pass unimproved to give vent to his rancorous feelings toward Mr. Clay, and indeed towards all the prominent supporters of Mr. Jefferson’s administration. He had repeatedly attacked Mr. Clay through the press, but now, being a member of the legislature, was enabled to make them in person. Mr. Clay’s friends, desirous of bringing them together, made arrangements to this effect, by not re-electing him speaker. Mr. Marshall seemed anxious to measure weapons with Mr. Clay; following him in all his movements, and opposing him at every turn. In the early part of the session, Mr. Clay placed several resolutions before the house, relating to the embargo and British orders in council, remonstrating against the arbitrary demands of that nation, and pledging Kentucky to action, conformable to the decisions of the general government in relation thereto. They recognized Mr. Jefferson’s policy as sound, approved his measures, and pronounced him entitled to the thanks of his country, for the ability, uprightness, and intelligence which he displayed in the management, both of our foreign relations and domestic concerns. Mr. Marshall endeavored to procure their amendment, so as to condemn the embargo, and reprobate, without stint or measure, Mr. Jefferson’s administration. Their rejection was most emphatic, by a vote of sixty-four to one—he voting in their favor,—and Mr. Clay’s were adopted by the same vote. But the vials of Mr. Marshall’s fiercest and most vituperative wrath were reserved for the occasion when Mr. Clay stood up in defence of his favorite policy, of affording protection to domestic industry, by introducing a resolution, declaring that it was expedient for each member of the house, for the purpose of giving unequivocal evidence of his attachment to this principle, to clothe himself in fabrics of domestic manufacture. This patriotic attempt was not only denounced by his foe as demagogic, and prompted by motives of the most inordinate and grasping ambition; but leaving the resolution, he attacked its author in genuine billingsgate style. Utterly regardless of every rule of gentlemanly courtesy, parliamentary propriety, or common decency even, he exhausted the vocabulary in search of opprobious and insulting epithets, which he applied in the spirit of the most liberal abuse. Such foul and unmerited treatment could not be quietly borne by a person of Mr. Clay’s ardent and sensitive temperament, and he rebuked him in language deservedly harsh, and calculated to sting him to the quick. The quarrel progressed until it reached that stage where Mr. Clay considered himself bound, according to Kentuckian interpretation of the law of honor, to challenge Mr. Marshall to meet him and settle it in single combat. It was accepted, and the parties, pursuant to appointment, met and exchanged two or three shots, resulting in a slight wound to each. The duel was terminated by the interference of the seconds, who protested against its further procedure.

In 1809, a case of contested election came before the legislature, in the settlement of which, Mr. Clay acted a conspicuous part. The electors of Hardin county had given four hundred and thirty-six votes for Charles Helm, three hundred and fifty for Samuel Haycroft, and two hundred and seventy-one for John Thomas, two of whom were entitled to seats. It appeared that Mr. Haycroft, at the time of the election, held an office, which, according to the constitution of Kentucky, rendered him ineligible to a seat in the general assembly. Mr. Clay submitted his views of the case, in a report prepared by him, as chairman of a committee appointed in accordance with a motion made by him to inquire whether Mr. Haycroft was entitled to a seat, and if not, to decide on the claims of Mr. Thomas to one. This report was adopted unanimously, and has since constituted the rule in similar cases in Kentucky. Its doctrines are so sound, and at the same time so simple, that we cannot forbear inserting an extract. ‘The fact being ascertained that Mr. Haycroft held an office of profit under the commonwealth at the time of the election, the constitutional disqualification attaches and excludes him; he was ineligible and therefore cannot be entitled to his seat. It remains to inquire into the pretensions of Mr. Thomas. His claim can only be supported by a total rejection of the votes given to Mr. Haycroft, as void to all intents whatever. It is not pretended that they were given by persons not qualified according to the constitution, and consequently, if rejected it must be not for any inherent objection in themselves, but because they have been bestowed in a manner forbidden by the constitution or laws. By an act passed 18th of December, 1800, it is required that persons holding offices incompatible with a seat in the legislature, shall resign them before they are voted for; and it is provided that all votes given to any such person prior to such resignation shall be utterly void. This act, when applied to the case in question, perhaps admits of the construction that the votes given to Mr. Haycroft, though void and ineffectual in creating any right in him to a seat in the house, cannot affect in any manner the situation of his competitor. Any other exposition of it is, in the opinion of your committee, wholly inconsistent with the constitution, and would be extremely dangerous in practice. It would be subversive of the great principle of free government that the majority shall prevail. It would operate as a deception of the people, for it cannot be doubted that the votes given to Mr. Haycroft were bestowed upon a full persuasion that he had a right to receive them. And it would infringe the rights of this house, guarantied by the constitution, to judge of the qualifications of its members. It would, in fact, be a declaration that disqualification produces qualification—that the incapacity of one man capacitates another to hold a seat in this house. Your committee are therefore unanimously and decidedly of opinion that neither of the gentlemen is entitled to a seat.’ This act closed his career in the legislature of Kentucky, to which he tendered his resignation soon after. He was elected to the senate of the United States for two years—the unexpired portion of Mr. Buckner Thurston’s term, who had resigned his seat in that body. During Mr. Clay’s continuance in the legislature, he had produced the deepest impression of his ability and talents, and won the favor of his associates, to what extent may be determined from the fact of their selecting him for the office before named, by a vote of two thirds. He retired, accompanied with their expressions of sincere regret for his loss, and high estimate of his services. The annals of Kentucky present no brighter spot than that which in imperishable characters records his name. It is the oasis of her history, verdant and beautiful, begirt with the wreath of his noble deeds, brilliant with the gems of benevolence, philanthropy and patriotism.

The manner in which he discharged his duties while connected with her legislature, is forcibly described by one intimately acquainted with him. ‘He appears to have been the pervading spirit of the whole body. He never came to the debates without the knowledge necessary to the perfect elucidation of his subject, and he always had the power of making his knowledge so practical, and lighting it so brightly up with the fire of eloquence, and the living soul of intellect, that without resorting to the arts of insidiousness, he could generally control the movements of the legislature at will. His was not an undue influence; it was the simple ascendency of mind over mind. The bills which originated with him, instead of being characterized by the eccentricities and ambitious innovations which are too often visible in the course of young men of genius suddenly elevated to power and influence, were remarkable only for their plain common sense, and their tendency to advance the substantial interests of the state. Though he carried his plans into effect by the aid of the magical incantations of the orator, he always conceived them with the coolness and discretion of a philosopher. No subject was so great as to baffle his powers, none so minute as to elude them. He could handle the telescope and the microscope with equal skill. In him the haughty demagogues of the legislature found an antagonist who never failed to foil them in their bold projects, and the intriguers of lower degree were baffled with equal certainty whenever they attempted to get any petty measure through the house for their own personal gratification or that of their friends. The people, therefore, justly regarded him as emphatically their own.’

In the winter of 1809–10, soon after he took his seat the second time in the senate, his attention was turned towards a subject kindred to that to which it had been directed when he first became a member of that body—that of domestic manufactures. It is a remarkable fact, that the first two subjects which demanded and secured his aid on entering congress, were those of primary importance to the welfare of the republic—subjects subsequently shown, in the unillusive light of experience, to be not only as intimately connected with private as with public prosperity, but as constituting the very lungs of Liberty herself, generating and diffusing copious alimental streams to every organ and member of her body, thus producing that health and vigor whereby she was enabled to extend proper encouragement and protection to all her children. Up to this period but little thought, and less action had been bestowed by government upon the subject of domestic manufactures, and the light duties imposed on articles of foreign growth and manufacture, were for the purpose of raising a revenue, and not intended to afford any protection or encouragement to any branch of domestic industry. Our country, instead of putting her young, muscular hands vigorously forth, and from her own inexhaustible resources constructing such articles as she needed, sat still in the same supine attitude of abject dependence on Great Britain which she was in when the war of the revolution commenced, stretching them out to foreign artificers, and receiving those articles at their hands. How long she might have remained in this inglorious position, it is difficult to determine, had not her relations with that nation assumed an aspect so threatening and belligerent, as to alarm and induce her to withdraw and employ them in her own protection. Now the increasing prospect of war served in some degree to arouse the nation from that lethargic state of indifference in which it had so long slumbered. At least it was deemed advisable to anticipate such an event, by making provision for the materials usually needed in such an emergency. Accordingly a bill was introduced to appropriate a sum of money to purchase cordage, sail cloths, and the ordinary munitions of war, and so amended as to give preference to articles of domestic growth and manufacture, provided the interests of the nation should not suffer thereby. Mr. Lloyd, a senator from Massachusetts, moved to strike out the amendment granting the preference, and supported his motion by a long and powerful speech. A general and interesting discussion ensued, in which the policy of extending direct protection by the government to domestic manufactures was considered. Mr. Clay was among the first to avow himself decidedly in favor of the policy, and by his speech made at the time proved both its expediency and wisdom. His remarks were plain and practical, chiefly confined to statements of facts, with brief comments, yet so philosophically and skilfully arranged as to produce their intended effect. In the course of his observations, he alluded to that preference generally given in our country to articles of foreign production, by saying, that ‘a gentleman’s head could not withstand the influence of the solar heat unless covered with a London hat; his feet could not bear the pebbles or the frost unless protected by London shoes; and the comfort and ornament of his person was consulted only where his coat was cut out by the shears of a tailor just from London. At length, however, the wonderful discovery has been made that it is not absolutely beyond the reach of American skill and ingenuity to produce these articles, combining with equal elegance greater durability. And I entertain no doubt that in a short time the no less important fact will be developed, that the domestic manufactures of the United States, fostered by government, and aided by household exertions, are fully competent to supply us with at least every necessary article of clothing. I, therefore, for one, (to use the fashionable cant of the day,) am in favor of encouraging them; not to the extent to which they are carried in England, but to such an extent as will redeem us entirely from all dependence on foreign countries.’

Mr. Clay exposed the fallacy of the specious reasoning of Mr. Lloyd and other members hostile to the measure, who based their opposition on the ground of the bad practical tendency of a system of domestic manufactures fostered by government; and in illustration of which they cited the wretched and most famished condition of the operatives of Manchester, Birmingham, and other manufacturing cities of Great Britain. They maintained that the introduction of such a system into America would be attended with the same sad consequences—that these were the natural results of such a system, surrounded by such governmental encouragement, and inseparably connected with it. Mr. Clay in reply declared that this was a non sequiter—that although such consequences might be, and doubtless were incidental to such a system, it by no means followed that they were unavoidably and inevitably consequent upon it under all circumstances. The case instanced, he said, furnished no proof to that effect,—that the deplorable condition of the manufacturing districts of Great Britain had not been, neither could be satisfactorily accounted for in the manner attempted. It was not attributable to the fact of their being manufacturing districts—to the existence of that system which they were then considering, but to the abuse of that system. That it would be just as philosophical and logical, in view of the excruciating sufferings of the gormandizer, to conclude that the invariable tendency of food when introduced into the stomach is deleterious, as to adduce the squalor and wretchedness of England’s manufacturing population as proof positive of the pernicious tendency of the system under which they operated. This was not sufficiently restricted. It was too grasping—intended to make her the manufacturing monopolist of the world, and so shaped as to shut out effectually all rivalry. To this grand, distinctive feature of that system the evil in question could be directly traced—an evil that would be seen attendant on any vast, artificial establishment similarly conducted, whether encouraged by public or private patronage. That the objections, therefore, of opposing members lost all their validity when directed towards the system itself, which they possibly might possess when directed towards the feature mentioned, if it were not known that this was merely conventional, and not inherent, which might be retained or rejected at pleasure. It had not been, indeed it could not be denied, that to this system, badly as it was organized, England was materially indebted for that extensive developement of her natural resources which she had made, and especially for her maratime importance. That her literary and scientific institutions owed their permanence and eminence mainly to it, which had diffused also streams of beneficial influence through every part of her vast dominions. In the case of England, throwing the broad shield of her protection around this system, two results were witnessed, the satisfaction of her own and the world’s wants in relation to manufactures. But it was not intended nor desired to imitate her in this respect by carrying the principle of protection so far. The public aid solicited for the American manufacturer was moderate, just sufficient to enable him to supply the domestic demand for his fabrics. The measure, even then, was most obviously one of expedience and wisdom, and doubtless always would be; but there were indications to render it certain that it would soon become one of necessity. There was a strong prospect of our being deprived of our accustomed commercial intercourse, in consequence of the arbitrary and illegal proceedings of the belligerent nations of Europe, and that we should be obstructed by military power from an exercise of our right to carry the productions of our own soil to the proper market for them. The circumstances that then surrounded the country rendered it imperiously incumbent upon her to look to herself, and in herself, and from her inestimably valuable raw materials make for herself such articles as were requisite for her prosperity in peace, and protection in war. In short, to take such measures as to forever obviate the necessity of resorting to the workshops of the old world for them. Mr. Clay referred to our immense natural resources, scattered in rich and varied profusion over the land, as furnishing an argument in favor of the policy he was advocating. In contending for our manufacturing interests, it by no means followed, as had been intimated, that he deemed them of paramount importance to the nation. He did not hesitate to admit that on the culture of the soil her happiness and wealth chiefly depended;—that here lay the mine from which her treasury must be replenished by the hand of agriculture, if she would have an overflowing one, and expressed his decided belief that commerce was, and ought to be more indebted to it than to manufactures. He did not desire the department of the plough and sickle to be encroached upon by that of the spindle and shuttle; yet he contended that it was proper that we should supply ourselves ‘with clothing made by our own industry, and no longer be dependent for our very coats upon a country that was then an envious rival, and might soon be an enemy. A judicious American farmer in the household way,’ said he, ‘manufactures whatever is requisite for his family. He squanders but little in the gewgaws of Europe. He presents in epitome what the nation ought to be in extenso. Their manufactures should bear the same proportion, and effect the same object in relation to the whole community, which the part of the household employed in domestic manufacturing bears to the whole family.’ The view taken by Mr. Clay was so enlightened, sound and practical, as to commend the bill to their most favorable consideration, and induce them to adopt it as amended. The salutary effects that flowed from it soon became apparent. The public purveyors immediately succeeded in making arrangements for the specified articles with American capitalists, on most advantageous terms, so that when the storm burst upon us, as it did soon after, though not perfectly prepared for its encounter, we were not as defenceless as we should have been, had our dependence been placed exclusively on foreign nations. The impetus given to domestic manufactures was astonishing, resulting in their increase during the following year over those of the year previous, to the amount of more than fifty millions of dollars. Of this increase, Mr. Madison, in his message to congress the following session, makes most favorable mention, by declaring that he felt particular satisfaction in remarking that an interior view of the country presented many grateful proofs of the extension of useful manufactures; the combined product of professional occupation and household industry. He expressed his conviction that the change which had introduced these substitutes for supplies heretofore obtained by foreign commerce, might, in a national view, be justly regarded as of itself more than a recompense for those privations and losses resulting from foreign injustice, which first suggested the propriety of fostering them. Here then, from that system, while yet in the germ, was gathered an antepast of that immense fruition, which it was destined to yield, when its stately trunk had towered in symmetry and majesty toward heaven, imparting prosperity and security to millions of freemen, dwelling beneath its branches. But let it not be forgotten that it is to the persevering and unremitting exertions of Henry Clay that we are indebted for the planting and the growth of that goodly tree.

He had scarcely ceased from his efficient labors in procuring the adoption of the bill before mentioned, when another opportunity presented itself for the exercise of that expansive patriotism for which his every public act is distinguished, and one which he embraced with his characteristic eagerness and promptitude. There was strong prospect that the United States would be dismembered of a portion of her territory—the large and fertile district included between the Mississippi and Perdido Rivers, being the present states of Mississippi and Alabama, and the territory of West Florida, or the greater part of it. To prevent this, Mr. Clay came boldly forth, triumphing over all opposition, and clearly vindicated her right to it. The United States became possessed of it in 1803, when it was ceded to her by France, with every thing appertaining just as she had received it from Spain, who formally acquiesced in the cession in 1804. The United States, from conciliatory motives partly, and partly in consequence of events which they could not control, suffered it to remain in the possession of Spain, who temporarily exercised authority over it. But her authority was now being subverted, a large portion of the inhabitants of the province refusing to submit to it. Reports also were rife that agents despatched by the king of England, were actively engaged in endeavoring to induce the people to come under British government. In this emergency, president Madison, thinking that longer delay in taking possession of it would expose the country to ulterior events which might affect the rights and welfare of the Union, contravening, perhaps, the views of both parties, endangering the tranquillity and security of the adjoining territories, and afford fresh facilities to violations of our revenue and commercial laws, issued his proclamation, directing that immediate possession should be taken of the said territory. Mr. Claiborne, governor of Orleans territory, was instructed to take immediately the requisite steps for annexing it to that over which he presided, and to see that the laws of the United States were rigidly enforced, to which he yielded prompt obedience. At this conjuncture the cry that came up from the party opposing his administration was loud and long. They attempted to prove that this measure was not only impolitic and uncalled for, but extremely unjust toward Spain, intended to involve us in a war with England, who, as her ally, would take umbrage on account of it, and that it was also unconstitutional. The federalists, through the press, and in legislative assemblies, represented the country as already surrounded in circumstances of great peril in consequence of this procedure. A warm debate ensued in congress on a bill reported by a committee to whom the proclamation was referred, which declared that the laws then in force in the territory of Orleans, extended and had full force to the river Perdido. Mr. Pope, one of the committee, in a speech made at the time, explained the grounds which induced them to make the report, and was followed by Mr. Horsey, a senator from Delaware, in opposition. He pronounced the title of the United States invalid, thought it inexpedient to take possession of the territory by force, and questioned the right of the president to issue his proclamation to that effect. He declared that document both war and legislation, inasmuch as it authorized occupancy by military force, and invested a governor with all the authorities and functions in regard to the province in question, that he legitimately possessed in presiding over his own. His sympathies seemed to be strongly enlisted in behalf of the king of Spain, whose prospective loss he deplored in language of deep commiseration. His speech was in many respects able, but it had been much more appropriately delivered in Madrid at the foot of the Spanish monarch’s throne, and in the presence of his court, than at Washington, beneath the ægis of liberty, and surrounded by patriotic and intelligent freemen. Mr. Clay regarded with feelings of deep regret as well as surprise, this anti-republican effort, this unnatural attempt by a son of Freedom to support the unfounded pretensions of a foreign prince to a portion of her own blood-bought soil,—that soil from which he drew his sustenance, and on which were reared those institutions that constitute it an appropriate asylum for the down-trodden of every other nation beneath the canopy of heaven. Although laboring under a severe indisposition, he could not, while he possessed the power of utterance, sit tamely still and listen to such sentiments promulgated in the very temple of liberty. He rose to reply in that graceful, dignified manner, so peculiar to himself. As he drew up his tall form into that commanding attitude which he was accustomed to assume as preliminary to a mighty parliamentary effort, it could be easily discovered in his countenance, what was the nature of his feelings, and how deep the fountain of eloquence had been stirred within him, whose effusions, directed with unerring precision, were soon to bear his auditory away on their resistless tide, to the goal on which his keen eye was fixed. This speech of Mr. Clay may justly be regarded as one of the most finished specimens of argumentative eloquence, profound investigation, purity of diction, and logical reasoning, that the records of any legislative body can furnish. It evinced by its demonstrative and inferential character, the most thorough and patient examination of the subject, in all its minute details, and indicated most clearly his main design to be, not a brilliant and striking display, calculated to please and captivate the fancy, but to array before the senate a formidable front of facts, to hem in the whole house with a wall of adamantine argument, which could be neither scaled nor sapped; and he was completely successful. He commenced by a brief exordium of the most caustic irony, which fell like molten lead upon the heads of his opponents. He expressed his admiration at the more than Aristidean justice which prompted certain gentlemen, in a question of territorial title between the United States and a foreign nation, to espouse the cause of the foreign, presuming that Spain in any future negotiations, would be magnanimous enough not to avail herself of these voluntary concessions in her favor in the senate of the United States. He said he would leave the honorable gentleman from Delaware to bewail the fallen fortunes of the king of Spain, without stopping to inquire whether their loss was occasioned by treachery or not, or whether it could be traced to any agency of the American government. He confessed that he had little sympathy for princes, but that it was reserved for the people, the great mass of mankind, and did not hesitate to declare that the people of Spain had it most unreservedly and most sincerely. He went into a minute and circumstantial history of the territory in dispute, and proved by a chain of reasoning the most clear and satisfactory, that its title was in the United States. In doing this he adopted that mode which the nature of the subject suggested, by a critical examination of all the title papers, transfers, and all other documents in any way relating or appertaining to it. He examined the patent granted by Louis the XIV to Crozat in 1712, which patent covered the province in question, and declared that it was at that time designated by the name of the Province of Louisiana, and was bounded on the west by old and new Mexico, and on the east by Carolina. This document he regarded as settling the question beyond all doubt, that the country under consideration was embraced within the limits of Louisiana. He proved that it originally belonged to France, who claimed it by virtue of certain discoveries made by La Solle and others during the seventeenth century; that she ceded it to Spain in 1762, who retroceded it to France in 1800, by the treaty of St. Ildefonso, and that it belonged to the United States by purchase from her as a portion of Louisiana in 1803. After the most thorough investigation, considering all the ambiguous expressions unintentionally incorporated with the treaties relating to the territory, and applying to them the most impartial and rigid rules of construction, he presented the title of the United States to it as most indefeasible, and as standing on a basis which all the sophistry, and ingenuity, and ill-directed sympathy of the opposition could not shake. He then proceeded to inquire if the proclamation directing the occupation of property thus acquired by solemn treaty was an unauthorized measure of war and legislation. In this, his vindication of the course pursued by Mr. Madison was most triumphant. He proved by citing acts of congress passed in 1803–4, that the president was fully empowered to authorize the occupation of the territory. He maintained that these laws furnished ‘a legislative construction of the treaty correspondent with that given by the executive, and they vest in this branch of the government indisputably a power to take possession of the country whenever it might be proper in his discretion; so far, therefore, from having violated the constitution in the action he had taken and caused to be taken, he had hardly carried out its provisions, one of which expressly enjoined it upon him to see that the laws of the United States were faithfully and impartially executed, in every district of country over which she could rightfully exercise jurisdiction. After settling the questions of title and constitutional action of the president, he proceeded to notice some of the arguments of the opposition against taking forcible possession, which attempted to show that war would result. ‘We are told,’ said he, ‘of the vengeance of resuscitated Spain. If Spain, under any modification of her government, choose to make war upon us for the act under consideration, the nation, I have no doubt, will be willing to meet war. But the gentleman’ (Mr. Horsey) ‘reminds us that Great Britain, the ally of Spain, may be obliged by her connection with Spain to take part with her against us, and to consider this measure of the president as justifying an appeal to arms. Sir, is the time never to arrive when we may manage our own affairs without the fear of insulting his Britannic majesty? Is the rod of British power to be for ever suspended over our heads? Does congress put on an embargo to shelter our rightful commerce against the piratical depredations committed upon it on the ocean? we are immediately warned of the indignation of offended England. Is a law of non-intercourse proposed? the whole navy of the haughty mistress of the seas is made to thunder in our ears. Does the president refuse to continue a correspondence with a minister who violates the decorum belonging to his diplomatic character, by giving and deliberately repeating an affront to the whole nation? we are instantly menaced with the chastisement which English pride will not fail to inflict. Whether we assert our rights by sea or attempt their maintenance by land—whithersoever we turn ourselves, this phantom incessantly pursues us. Already has it had too much influence on the councils of the nation. It contributed to the repeal of the embargo—that dishonorable repeal which has so much tarnished the character of our government. Mr. president, I have before said on this floor, and now take occasion again to remark, that I most sincerely desire peace and amity with England; that I even prefer an adjustment of all differences with her, before one with any other nation. But if she persist in a denial of justice to us, or if she avails herself of the occupation of West Florida to commence war upon us, I trust and hope that all hearts will unite in a bold and vigorous vindication of our rights.’ The effect produced by Mr. Clay’s speech was most obvious, inducing many of the most strenuous opposers of the course pursued by the president, who were firmly resolved on recording their votes in disapproval of it, to come frankly forward and candidly to acknowledge their error, and express their determination to sustain him in this measure. They were true to their declaration, and thus the approval of the proclamation was secured. But ‘had there been at that time in the senate no democratic champion like Mr. Clay—one who could stand up among the tall and fierce spirits of faction to vindicate the rights of our country, and utter a solemn warning in the ears of those who would wantonly throw the key of her strength into the hands of an enemy—it is difficult to say how imminently dangerous might have been the present condition of the republic.’