it as difficult to stem the torrent of public opinion on this occasion, as he had on the preceding one; but the point was never brought to a practical issue. A disease, under which he had been suffering for two years, came to a crisis about the time of his election to the Assembly, and terminated fatally on the 6th of June, 1799.

At the new session of the Assembly, a member of the federal party moved the following resolution;

"The General Assembly of Virginia, as a testimonial of their veneration for the character of their late illustrious fellow-citizen, Patrick Henry, whose unrivalled eloquence and superior talents were, in times of peculiar peril and distress, so uniformly, so powerfully and successfully devoted to the cause of freedom and of his country; and, in order to incite the present and future generations to an imitation of his virtues, and an emulation of his fame;

"Resolve, That the Executive be authorized and requested to procure a marble bust of the said Patrick Henry, at the public expense, and to cause the same to be placed in one of the niches of the hall of the House of Delegates."

The reception, which this motion met with in the Assembly, affords a striking proof how completely, at periods of high party excitement, a difference of opinion on the current questions

of the day is permitted to outweigh every consideration of a more general character. The mover of the resolution, as well as the illustrious subject of it, was regarded by the majority, not merely as an opponent, but as an apostate; and, although every member would have doubtless concurred in the view taken of Henry's general character, and in the propriety of the measure recommended, the action on the resolutions was determined by a strictly party vote. A member of the majority moved to lay it on the table. The member who offered it replied, with warmth, that, if it were so disposed of, he would never call it up again. The motion to lay on the table prevailed, and the resolution was, in consequence, never acted on.

The charge of apostasy is habitually made, in this and other countries, against all who take a course, in political or religious affairs, different from that pursued by a party with which they have habitually acted, and is generally intended to intimate a suspicion of corrupt or interested motives. In reality, a difference of this kind does not, in all cases, suppose even inconsistency in principle. The questions upon which parties are divided are continually changing; and, with the few who form opinions for themselves, it must be a matter of mere accident whether, in reasoning upon a new state of things, they come

to the same conclusions, which are drawn by others, with whom they had agreed before upon a different subject.

In the present case, it might, perhaps, have appeared more natural that Henry, who had opposed the federal constitution, as tending too strongly to concentrate power in the government, should have afterwards favored the strictest construction of that instrument; while, on the other hand, it may be thought singular that Madison, the great champion of a vigorous general government in the Federal and Virginia Conventions, should have insisted on the construction more favorable to state rights and individual liberty. But, after all, the questions of the Alien and Sedition Laws, and of our relations with France, which formed the principal topics of party controversy at this period, were essentially different from that of the adoption or rejection of the federal constitution; and it is quite unnecessary, and of course uncharitable and unjust, to suppose that either of the two great Virginia statesmen was governed, in the course he pursued, by any other than the purest and most patriotic motives.

This is now universally acknowledged in the case of Mr. Madison, whose name and memory are equally respected by all parties; and it is presumed, that the verdict of public opinion is

not less favorable in regard to Henry. In neither case could there be the slightest pretence for the imputation of interested views; and both, in taking a course which necessarily exposed them to a good deal of temporary obloquy, evinced a moral courage in a high degree honorable to their general characters. In a letter to his daughter, Mrs. Aylett, written in 1796, Henry repels the idea of any change in his opinions, upon the leading principles of political philosophy, and gives his reasons, founded on the merits of the particular cases, for differing from his former associates upon the points then at isIt is unnecessary, for the present purpose, to pursue the subject in any further detail.

sue.

After his retirement from political life, Henry continued for several years the practice of his laborious profession with undiminished reputation and success. In the class of cases which require or admit the dignity of eloquence, he stood, by general acknowledgment, at the head of the bar, and though less familiar with the technical learning of the law than some others, yet, whenever the questions involved were of sufficient interest to engage his attention, he qualified himself for the occasion, and maintained his usual undisputed preeminence. The celebrated case of the British debts, which he argued twice for two or three days in succession, was, perhaps, the most im

portant in which he was engaged. A report of his second argument is given, at great length, by Mr. Wirt, from the notes of Robertson, the reporter of the debates in the Virginia Convention ; and although, doubtless, (as every such report must necessarily be,) a very imperfect copy of the orator's language, conveys the impression of the highest order of forensic ability. In 1794, he finally retired from professional life, and, with the exception of the brief periods of political action already alluded to, passed his remaining years in the bosom of his family.

The steady pursuit of his profession, to which he had of late devoted himself, had supplied him with a competent fortune. By his two marriages he was the father of fifteen children, eleven of whom, with his second wife, were living at his death. He thus enjoyed the highest satisfaction that can belong to the declining period of life, in the society and affection of a numerous offspring. He retained, to the last, the cheerful and sportive temperament which formed, in youth, his most remarkable characteristic. He was frequently found by his visiters joining in the games of his little grandchildren, and entrancing them with the music of the same violin, which had so often in his early days seduced him from the graver occupations of the counting-room. His love of conversation and society had always been intense;