Oswald nor by any of the ministers was any complaint made of the inaccuracy of the maps.

66

One of these maps was that contained in "Bew's Political Magazine," a respectable journal, for which it was prepared, to illustrate the debate on the provisional articles of 1782. It happened that Lord Ashburton was calling upon me, about the time of the debate in the House of Commons on the merits of the Treaty, on the 21st March, 1843. On my expressing to him the opinion, with the freedom warranted by our intimate friendly relations, that his government ought to be much obliged to him for obtaining so much of a territory, of which I conscientiously believed the whole belonged to us, What," asked he, "have you to oppose to the redline map?" I replied that, in addition to the other objections already mentioned, I considered it to be outweighed by the numerous other maps which were published at London at the time, some of them to illustrate the treaty; and, among them, I added, "the map in the volume which happens to lie on my table at this moment," which was the volume of "Bew's Political Magazine," to which I called his attention. He told me that he was unacquainted with that map, and desired that I would lend him the volume to show to Sir Robert Peel. This I did, and in his reply to Lord Palmerston, in the House of Commons, Sir Robert Peel, holding this volume of mine in his hand, referred to the map contained in it, and "which follows," said he, "exactly the American line," as an off-set to the red-line map, of which great use had been made by the opposition in England, for the purpose of showing that Lord Ashburton had been overreached by Mr. Webster. In the course of his speech he defended Mr. Webster in the handsomest manner from the charges brought against him in reference to this map by the opposition press, and said that in his judgment "the reflections cast upon that most worthy and honorable man are unjust."

Nor was this all. The more effectually to remove the impression attempted to be raised, in consequence of the red-line map, that Lord Ashburton had been overreached, Sir Robert Peel statedand the disclosure was now for the first time made-that there was in the library of King George the Third (which had been given to the British Museum by George the Fourth) a copy of Mitchell's map, in which the boundary as delineated "follows exactly the line claimed by the United States." On four places upon this line are written the words, in a strong, bold hand, "The boundary as described by Mr. Oswald." There is documentary proof that Mr. Oswald sent the map used by him, in negotiating the treaty, to King George the Third, for his information; and Lord Brougham stated in his place, in the House of Peers, that the words, four times repeated, in different parts of the line, were, in his opinion, written by the King himself! Having listened, and of course with the deepest interest to the debate in the House of Commons, I sought the earli

est opportunity of inspecting the map, which was readily granted to me by Lord Aberdeen. The boundary is marked, in the most distinct and skillful manner, from the St. Croix all round to the St. Mary's, and is precisely that which has been always claimed by us. There is every reason to believe that this is the identical copy of Mitchell's map officially used by the negotiators and sent by Mr. Oswald, as we learn from Dr. Franklin, to England. Sir Robert Peel informed me that it was unknown to him till after the treaty, and Lord Aberdeen and Lord Ashburton gave me the same assurIt was well known, however, to the agent employed under Lord Melbourne's administration in maintaining the British claim, and who was foremost in vilifying Mr. Webster for concealing the red-line map!*

ance.

AS A PUBLIC SPEAKER.

I had intended to say a few words on Mr. Webster's transcendent ability as a public speaker on the great national anniversaries, and the patriotic celebrations of the country. But it would be impossible, within the limits of a few paragraphs, to do any kind of justice to such efforts as the discourse on the twenty-second December, at Plymouth; the speeches on laying the corner-stone and the completion of the Bunker Hill Monument; the eulogy on Adams and Jefferson; the character of Washington; the discourse on laying the foundation of the extension of the Capitol. What gravity and significance in the topics, what richness of illustration, what soundness of principle, what elevation of sentiment, what fervor in the patriotic appeals, what purity, vigor, and clearness in the style!

With reference to the first-named of these admirable discourses, the elder President Adams declared that "Burke is no longer entitled to the praise the most consummate orator of modern times;" and it will, I think, be admitted by any one who shall attentively study them, that if Mr. Webster, with all his powers and all his attainments, had done nothing else but enrich the literature of the country with these performances, he would be allowed to have lived not unworthily, nor in vain. When we consider that they were produced under the severe pressure of professional and official engagements, numerous and arduous enough to task even his intellect, we are lost in admiration of the affluence of his mental

resources.

*Sir Robert Peel, with reference to the line on Oswald's map, observes, "I do not say that that was the boundary, ultimately settled by the negotiators." Such, however, is certainly the case. Mr. Jay's copy of Mitchell's map (which was also discovered after the negotiation of the treaty) exhibits a line running down the St. John's to its mouth, and called Mr. Oswald's line." This is the line which Mr. Oswald offered to the American negotiators on the 8th of October. It was, however, not approved by the British government, and the line indicated in the map of King George the Third, as the "Boundary as described by Mr. Oswald," was finally agreed to.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STYLE AND MANNER.

In all the speeches, arguments, discourses, and compositions of every kind proceeding from Mr. Webster's lips or pen, there were certain general characteristics which I am unwilling to dismiss without a passing allusion. Each, of course, had its peculiar merits, according to the nature and importance of the subject, and the degree of pains bestowed, by Mr. Webster on the discussion; but I find some general qualities pervading them all. One of them is the extreme sobriety of the tone, the pervading common sense, the entire absence of that extravagance and overstatement which are so apt to creep into political harangues and the discourses on patriotic anniversaries. His positions were taken strongly, clearly, and boldly, but without wordy amplification or onesided vehemence. You feel that your understanding is addressed, on behalf of a reasonable proposition, which rests neither on sentimental refinement or rhetorical exaggeration. This is the case even in speeches like that on the Greek Revolution, where, in enlisting the aid of classical memories and Christian sympathies, it was so difficult to rest within the bounds of moderation.

This moderation not only characterizes Mr. Webster's parliamentary efforts, but is equally conspicuous in his discourses on popular and patriotic occasions, which, amid all the inducements to barren declamation, are equally and always marked by the treatment of really important topics in a manly and instructive strain of argument and reflection.

Let it not be thought, however, that I would represent Mr. Webster's speeches in Congress or elsewhere as destitute on proper occasions of the most glowing appeals to the moral sentiments, or wanting, when the topic invites it, in any of the adornments of a magnificent rhetoric. Who that heard it, or has read it, will ever forget the desolating energy of his denunciation of the African Slave Trade, in the discourse at Plymouth; or the splendor of the apostrophe to Warren, in the first discourse on Bunker Hill; or that to the monumental shaft and the survivors of the Revolution in the second; or the trumpet-tones of the speech placed in the lips of John Adams, in the eulogy on Adams and Jefferson; or the sublime peroration of the speech on Foot's resolution; or the lyric fire of the imagery by which he illustrates the extent of the British empire; or the almost supernatural terror of his description of the force of conscience in the argument in Knapp's trial. Then, how bright and fresh the description of Niagara! how beautiful the picture of the Morning in his private correspondence, which, as well as his familiar conversation, was enlivened by the perpetual play of a joyous and fertile imagination! In a word, what tone in all the grand and melting music of our language is there which is not heard in some portion of his speeches or writings; while reason, sense, and truth compose the basis of the strain?

Like the sky above us, it is sometimes serene and cloudless, and peace and love shine out from its starry depths. At other times the gallant streamers, in wild, fantastic play-emerald, and rose, and orange, and fleecy white-shoot upward from the horizon, mingle in a fiery canopy at the zenith, and throw out their flickering curtains over the heavens and the earth; while at other times the mustering tempest piles his lowering battlements on the sides of the north; a furious storm-wind rushes forth from their blazing loop-holes, and volleyed thunders give the signal of the elemental war!

Another quality, which appears to me to be very conspicuous in all Mr. Webster's speeches, is the fairness and candor with which he treats the argument of his opponent, and the total absence of offensive personality. He was accustomed, in preparing to argue a question at the bar, or to debate it in the Senate, first to state his opponent's case, or argument, in his own mind, with as much force and skill as if it were his own view of the subject, not deeming it worthy of a statesman discussing the great issues of the public weal, to assail and prostrate a man of straw, and call it a victory over his antagonist. True to his party associations, there was the least possible mingling of the partizan in his parliamentary efforts. No one, I think, ever truly said of him that he had either misrepresented or failed to grapple fairly with the argument which he undertook to confute. That he possessed the power of invective in the highest degree is well known, from the display of it on a few occasions, when great provocation justified and required it; but he habitually abstained from offensive personality, regarding it as an indication always of a bad temper, and generally of a weak

cause.

I notice, lastly, a sort of judicial dignity in Mr. Webster's mode of treating public questions, which may be ascribed to the high degree in which he united, in the range of his studies and the habits of his life, the jurist with the statesman. There were occasions, and these not a few, when but for the locality from which he spoke, you might have been at a loss whether you were listening to the accomplished senator unfolding the principles of the Constitution as a system of Government, or the consummate jurist applying its legislative provisions to the practical interests of life. În the Dartmouth College case, and that of Gibbons and Ogden, the dryness of a professional argument is forgotten in the breadth and elevation of the constitutional principles shown to be involved in the issue; while in the great speeches on the interpretation of the Constitution, a severe judicial logic darts its sunbeams into the deepest recesses of a written compact of Government, intended to work out a harmonious adjustment of the antagonistic principles of Federal and State sovereignty. None, I think, but a great statesman could have performed Mr. Webster's part before the highest tribunals of the land; none but a great lawyer could have

sustained himself as he did on the floor of the Senate. In fact, he rose to that elevation at which the law, in its highest conception, and in its versatile functions and agencies, as the great mediator between the State and the individual; the shield by which the weakness of the single man is protected from the violence and craft of his fellows, and clothed for the defense of his rights with the mighty power of the mass; which watches-faithful guardian-over the life and property of the orphan in the cradle; spreads the aegis of the public peace alike over the crowded streets of great cities and the solitary pathways of the wilderness; which convoys the merchant and his cargo in safety to and from the ends of the earth; prescribes the gentle humanities of civilization to contending armies; sits serene umpire of the clashing interests of confederated States, and molds them all into one grand union;-I say, Mr. Webster rose to an elevation at which all these attributes and functions of universal law-in action alternately executive, legislative, and judicial; in form, successively constitution, statute, and decree-are mingled into one harmonious, protecting, strengthening, vitalizing, sublime system; brightest image on earth of that ineffable sovereign energy, which, with mingled power, wisdom, and love, upholds and governs the universe.

THE CENTRAL IDEA OF HIS POLITICAL SYSTEM.

Led equally by his professional occupations and his political duties to make the Constitution the object of his profoundest study and meditation, he regarded it with peculiar reverence, as a Covenant of Union between the members of this great and increasing family of States; and in that respect he considered it as the most important document ever penned by the hand of uninspired man. I need not tell you that this reverence for the Constitution as the covenant of union between the States was the central idea of his political system, which, however, in this, as in all other respects, aimed at a wise and safe balance of extreme opinions. He valued, as much as any man can possibly value it, the principle of State sovereignty. He looked upon the organization of these separate independent republics-of different sizes, different ages and histories, different geographical positions and local interests—as furnishing a security of inappreciable value for a wise and beneficent administration of local affairs, and the protection of individual and local rights. But he regarded as an approach to the perfection of political wisdom, the molding of these separate and independent Sovereignties, with all their pride of individual right, and all their jealousy of individual consequence, into a harmonious whole. never weighed the two principles against each other; he held them complemental to each other, equally and supremely vital and essential.

He

I happened, one bright starry night, to be walking home with him, at a late hour, from the Capitol at Washington, after a skir