would have flourished on the immortal page of the American history.

It is a trite remark, that the talents for speaking and for writing eminently are very rarely found united in the same individual; and the rarity of the occurrence has led to an opinion, that those talents depend on constitutions of mind so widely different, as to render their union almost wholly unattainable. This was not the opinion, however, it is believed, at Athens and at Rome: it cannot, I apprehend, be the opinion either in the united kingdom of Great Britain. There have been, indeed, in these countries distinguished orators, who have not left behind them any proofs of their eminence in composition; but neither have they left behind them any proofs of their failure in this respect: so that the conclusion of their incompetency is rather assumed than established. On the other hand, there have been, in all those countries, too many illustrious examples of the union of those talents, to justify the belief of their incongruity by any general law of nature.

That there have been many eminent writers who, from physical defects, could never have become orators, is very certain: but is the converse of the proposition equally true? Was there ever an eminent orator who might not, by proper discipline, have become, also, a very eminent writer? What are the essential qualities of the orator? Are they not judgment, invention, imagination, sensibility, taste, and expression, or the command of strong and appropriate language? If these be the qualities of the orator, it is very easy to understand how they may be improved by the discipline of the closet; but not so easy to comprehend how they can pos

* Nulla enim res tantum ad dicendum proficit, quantum scriptio.CIC. BRUT. Xxiv. 92.

sibly be injured by it. Is there any danger that this discipline will tame too much the fiery spirit, the enchanting wildness, and magnificent irregularity of the orator's genius? The example of Demosthenes alone is a sufficient answer to this question; and the reader will, at once, recall numerous other examples, corroborative of the same truth, both in ancient and modern times. The truth seems to be, that this rare union of talents results not from any incongruity in their nature, but from defective education, taking this word in its larger, Roman sense. If the genius of the orator has been properly trained in his youth to both pursuits, instead of being injured, it will, I apprehend, be found to derive additional grace, beauty, and even sublimity, from the discipline. His flights will be at least as bold-they will be better sustained —and whether he chooses to descend in majestic circles, or to stoop on headlong wing, his performance will not be the worse for having been taught to fly.

For Mr. Henry and for the world, it happened unfortunately, that instead of the advantage of this Roman education, of which we have spoken, the years of his youth had been wasted in idleness. He had become celebrated as an orator before he had learned to compose; and it is not therefore wonderful, that when withdrawn from the kindling presence of the crowd, he was called upon for the first time to take the pen, all the spirit and flame of his genius were extinguished.*

* On this subject, of the rare union of the talents of speaking and writing in the same man, Cicero has a parallel between Galba and Lælius, which is not less just than it is beautiful. After having spoken of Galba as one of those men of great but less cultivated natural powers, who were afraid of lowering the fame of their eloquence by submitting their writings to the world, he proceeds thus :-" Quem (Gal

R

But while, with reference to his own fame and the lasting benefits which he might have conferred on the world, we

bam) fortasse vis non ingenii solum, sed etiam animi, et naturalis quidam dolor dicentem incendebat, effeciebatque, ut et incitata, et gravis, et vehemens esset oratio: dein, cum otiosus stilum prehenderat, motusque omnis animi, tanquam ventus, hominem defecerat, flacessebat oratio: quod iis, qui limatius dicendi consectantur genus, accidere non solet, propterea quod prudentia nunquam deficit oratorem, qua ille utens, eodem modo possit et dicere et scribere; ardor animi non semper adest, isque cum consedit, omnis illa vis et quasi flamma oratoris extinguitur. Hanc igitur ob causam, videtur Lælii mens spirare etiam in scriptis, Galbæ autem, vis occidisse.” BRUTUS, XXIV. 93. There seems to have been a strong resemblance between the structure of Galba's eloquence and character, and those of Mr. Henry. In their habits, however, there was this striking difference, that Galba's preparation for speaking was always most elaborate; Mr. Henry's, generally, none at all. On this head, of Galba's anxious preparation, Cicero gives us a very interesting anecdote. Lælius, it seems, was engaged in a great cause, in which he spoke with the peculiar elegance which always distinguished him; but not having succeeded in convincing his judges, the case was adjourned to another day, and a new argument was called for. Lælius again appeared and surpassed his former exertions, but with the same result, of another adjournment and a call for re-argument. His clients attended him to his house on the rising of the court, expressed their gratitude in the strongest terms, and begged that he would not permit himself to be wearied into a desertion of them. To this Lælius answered, that what he had done for the support of the cause, had, indeed, been diligently and accurately performed; but he was satisfied that that cause could be better defended by the more bold and vehement eloquence of Galba. Galba was accordingly applied to; but was, at first, startled at the idea of succeeding such an orator as Lælius, in any cause: more especially, on the short time for preparation that was then allowed him. He yielded, however, to their importunities; and employed the whole of the intermediate day and the morning of that in which the court was to sit, in studying and annotating, with the help of his amanuenses. When the hour of court arrived, his clients called for him, and Galba came out, "with that complexion and those eyes," says Cicero, "which would have led you to suppose that he had been engaged in

lament his want of literary discipline, it is not impossible that, for the times in which he lived, and for the more immediate purpose of the American revolution, the popular opinion may be correct. The people seem to have admired him the more for his want of discipline. "His genius," they say, "was unbroken, and too full of fire to bear the curb of composition. He delighted to swim the flood, to breast the torrent, and to scale the mountain and supported as he was, in all public bodies, by masters of the pen, they insist, that it was even fortunate for the revolution, that his genius was left at large, to revel in all the wildness and boldness of nature; that it enabled him to infuse, more successfully, his own intrepid spirit into the measures of the revolution; that it rendered his courage more contagious, and enabled him to achieve, by a kind of happy rashness, what perhaps had been lost by a better regulated mind."

But to resume our narrative: congress arose in October, and Mr. Henry returned to his native county. Here, as was natural, he was surrounded by his neighbours, who were eager to hear not only what had been done, but what kind of men had composed that illustrious body. He answered their inquiries with all his wonted kindness and candour;

pleading a cause, and not in studying it." Whence it appears that Galba was not less vehement and inflamed in meditating, than in the act of delivering a speech. His success was proportioned to his preparation. "In the midst of the greatest expectation, surrounded by a vast concourse of hearers, before Lælius himself, he plead the cause with so much force and so much power, that no part of his speech` passed without applause, and his clients were discharged, with the approbation of every one." What an impression does this give us of the magnanimity of Lælius, as well as the abilities of Galba Mr. Henry would not have taken the trouble of Galba's preparation; but he would have gained the cause, if human abilities could have gained it.

and having been asked by one of them, "whom he thought the greatest man in congress," he replied" If you speak of eloquence, Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina is by far the greatest orator; but if you speak of solid information and sound judgment, colonel Washington is, unquestionably, the greatest man on that floor." Such was the penetration which, at that early period of Mr. Washington's life, could pierce through his retiring modesty and habitual reserve; and estimate so correctly the unrivalled worth of his character.

On Monday the 20th of March, 1775, the convention of delegates from the several counties and corporations of Virginia, met for the second time. This assembly was held in the old church in the town of Richmond. Mr. Henry was a member of that body also. The reader will bear in mind the tone of the instructions given by the convention of the preceding year to their deputies in congress. He will remember that, while they recite with great feeling the series of grievances under which the colonies had laboured, and insist with firmness on their constitutional rights, they give, nevertheless, the most explicit and solemn pledge of their faith and true allegiance to his majesty king George the III. and avow their determination to support him with their lives and fortunes, in the legal exercise of all his just rights and prerogatives. He will remember, that these instructions contain, also, an expression of their sincere approbation of a connexion with Great Britain, and their ardent wishes for a return of that friendly intercourse from which this country had derived so much prosperity and happiness. These sentiments still influenced many of the leading members of the convention of 1775. They could not part with the fond hope that those peaceful days would again return which had shed so much light and warmth over the land; and the report of the