ultimately triumph or make the victory of his opponents hardly worth the wearing. 139

139 It was often remarked by the contemporaries of Henry that his best school of preparation on any great question was listening to the speeches of those who engaged in the debate. A friend informs me that he "spent several days with the late James Marshall, of Fauquier, a brother of the Chief Justice, a gentleman of almost as high intellect as the Judge, and of more various accomplishments, who told him that Henry's opponents in debate, to contrast their knowledge with his want of it, would often display ostentatiously all they knew respecting the subject under discussion, and that, consequently, when they were done speaking Mr. Henry knew as much of the subject in hand as they did. Then the superiority of his intellect would show itself in the perfect mastery which he would evince over the whole subject. 'And if,' said Mr. Marshall, he spoke three times on the same subject, which he sometimes did, his last view of it would be the clearest and most striking that could be conceived.'" C. C. Lee, Esq., letter dated December 6, 1856.

CHAPTER IV.

On Monday, the ninth of June, the combatants, refreshed by the rest of the Sabbath, returned with new vigor to the field. The House had now gone through with the election details which had heretofore consumed the first half hour of the morning, and immediately went into committee. The first and second sections of the first article of the Constitution were still the nominal order of the day; but the debate from the first had comprehended the entire scope of that instrument. The rumors of great debates had spread over the neighboring counties, and the crowd that pressed the hall and the galleries seemed rather to increase than diminish. Henry and Mason, who had, according to their usual habit, walked arm in arm from the Swan, were seen to pause a few moments at the steps of the Academy, evidently engaged in consultation, and with difficulty made their way to their seats in the house.140

Wythe had just taken the chair, when Henry rose to conclude his unfinished speech of Saturday. His first sentences were short and broken, as if uttered to assure himself of his voice and position. He then introduced a topic which had long been dreaded by his opponents, but which startled them like a clap of thunder in a clear sky. "There is one thing," he said, "that I must mention. There is a dispute between us and the Spaniards about the right of navigating the Mississippi. This dispute has sprung from the Federal Government. I wish a great deal may be said upon the subject. In my opinion, the preservation of that river calls for our most serious consideration. It has been agitated in Congress. Seven States have

140 On the authority of the Rev. Mr. Clay, of Bedford, who was a member of the Convention.

voted so, as that it is known to the Spaniards, that under our existing system the Mississippi shall be taken from them. Seven States wished to relinquish this river to them. The six Southern States opposed it. Seven States not being sufficient to convey it away, it remains ours. If I am wrong, there is a member on this floor who can contradict the facts; I will readily retract. This new government, I conceive, will enable those States who have already discovered their inclination that way to give away this river. Will the honorable gentleman (Randolph) advise us to relinquish this inestimable navigation, and to place formidable enemies on our backs? I hope this will be explained. I was not in Congress at the time these transactions took place. I may not have stated every fact. Let us hear how the great and important right of navigating that river has been attended to, and whether I am mistaken that Federal measures will lose it to us forever. If a bare majority of Congress can make laws, the situation of our Western citizens is dreadful."

Of the connection of the Mississippi with the interests of Virginia we will treat at length when the memorable discussion of the subject took place a few days later; at present it is only necessary to say that Kentucky, whose western boundary impinged on that river, was then a part of Virginia, and was represented in the Convention by twelve members, whose votes might decide the fate of the new plan.

Henry then proceeded to reply to the arguments of Randolph, Madison, and Corbin in detail, with a force of logic and with a fullness of illustration which he had not before evinced in his speeches. He reviewed the dangers likely to flow from the nonpayment of the debt due to France, bestowing an elegant, compliment on Mr. Jefferson, whom he called "an illustrious citizen, who, at a great distance from us, remembers and studies our happiness; who was well acquainted with the policy of European nations, and who, amid the splendor and dissipation of courts, yet thinks of bills of rights and those despised little things called maxims ;" and speaking of Louis the Sixteenth as "that great friend of America." He reviewed our relations with Spain and with Holland, and showed with great plausibility that we had nothing to fear from them. He then examined the arguments of Randolph, drawn from our position in respect of the neighboring States, and gave his reasons for concluding that neither Mary

land nor Pennsylvania would give us serious trouble. He reviewed our Indian relations, and showed that there was no cause for alarm in that quarter, closing this branch of this subject in these words: "You will sip sorrow, to use a vulgar phrase, if you want any other security than the laws of Virginia."

He adduced the authority of several eminent citizens to prove the consolidating tenderness of the new plan, and asked "if any one who heard him could restrain his indignation at a system which takes from the State legislatures the care and the preservation of the interests of the people. One hundred and eighty representatives, the choice of the people of Virginia, not to be trusted with their interests! They are a mobbish, suspected herd. So degrading an indignity, so flagrant an outrage on the States, so vile a suspicion, is humiliating to my mind, and to the minds of many others." He ridiculed the notion that a change of government could pay the debts of the people. "At present," he said, "you buy too much, and make too little to pay. The evils that attend us lie in extravagance and want of industry, and can only be removed by assiduity and economy. Perhaps we shall be told by gentlemen that these things will happen, because the administration is to be taken from us and placed in the hands of the luminous few, who will pay different attention, and be more studiously careful than we can be supposed to be."

With respect to the economical operation of the new government, he urged that the national expenses would be increased by it tenfold. "I might tell you," he said, "of a standing army, of a great powerful navy, of a long and rapacious train of officers. and dependents, independent of the president, senators, and representatives, whose compensations are without limitation. How are our debts to be discharged when the expenses of government are so greatly augmented? The defects of this system are so numerous and palpable, and so many States object to it, no union can be expected unless it be amended. Let us take a review of the facts." He then examined the condition of the different States at length, ending his remarks on this topic with these words: "Without a radical alteration of this plan, sir, the States will never be embraced in one federal pale. If you attempt to force it down men's throats and call it union dreadful consequences must follow."

He now urged upon Randolph the inconsistency of his course

in relation to the adoption of the Constitution. "The gentleman has said a great deal of disunion and the dangers that are to arise from it. When we are on the subject of union and dangers, let me ask him how will his present doctrine hold with what has happened? Is it consistent with that noble and disinterested conduct which he displayed on a former occasion? Did he not tell us that he withheld his signature? Where then were the dangers which now appear to him so formidable? He saw all America eagerly confiding that the result of their deliberations would remove our distresses. He saw all America acting under the impulses of hope, expectation, and anxiety arising from our situation, and our partiality for the members of that Convention; yet, his enlightened mind, knowing that system to be defective, magnanimously and nobly refused to approve it. He was not led by the illumined, the illustrious few. He was actuated by the dictates of his own judgment, and a better judgment than I can form. He did not stand out of the way of information. He must have been possessed of every intelligence. What alterations have a few months brought about? The internal difference between right and wrong does not fluctuate. It is immutable. I ask this question as a public man, and out of no particular view. I wish, as such, to consult every source of information, to form my judgment on so awful a question. I had the highest respect for the honorable gentleman's abilities. I considered his opinion as a great authority. He taught me, sir, in despite of the approbation of that great Federal Convention, to doubt of the propriety of that system. When I found my honorable friend in the number of those who doubted, I began to doubt also. I coincided with him in opinion. I shall be a staunch and faithful disciple of his. I applaud that magnanimity which led him to withhold his signature. If he thinks now dif ferently, he is as free as I am. Such is my situation, that, as a poor individual, I look for information everywhere." He continued: "This Government is so new it wants a name. I wish its other novelties were as harmless as this. The gentleman told us that we had an American dictator in the year 1781-we never had an American President. In making a dictator, we followed the example of the most glorious, magnanimous, and skillful nations. In great dangers this power has been given. Rome had furnished us with an illustrious example. America