It is not to be denied, however, that many of Mr. Clay's friends regretted his acceptance of the highest office in Mr. Adams' administration,-because such acceptance involved the awkward necessity of an explanation. A suspicion, they thought, would attach to his motives, and always attend his position; and suspicion, they knew, often produced results as fatal to character as proven criminality. Like a reckless spendthrift, some held-he had secured a temporary gratification by the sacrifice of a certain, brilliant, and not distant, Future.

The question that most agitated the politics of the country during Mr. Adams' administration, was the PANAMA MISSION; a succinct historical account of which may not be impertinent here.

In the month of December, 1823, a formal invitation was addressed by Spain to the Courts of St. Petersburgh, Vienna, Berlin, and Paris, proposing to hold a conference at Paris, in order that the plenipotentiaries there convened, might assist Spain in adjusting the affairs of her revolted colonies in South America.

The proposed meeting, however, did not take place-perhaps in consequence of the decided course adopted by Mr. Canning on the part of England-who, in a conference with the French minister in London, declared distinctly and emphatically, that England would consider any foreign interference, whether by arms or intimidation, in the contest be

tween Spain and her revolted colonies, as a conclusive reason for immediately recognising the independence of the latter.

It was under these circumstances, and at this crisis, that Mr. Monroe's justly celebrated declaration was made; that our government would consider any combination of European Powers to effect objects, whether of colonization or otherwise, in America, as affecting ourselves; that we should regard such combination as dangerous to ourselves, and should be prepared to meet it accordingly. This declaration had been agreed upon unanimously in Mr. Monroe's Cabinet after great deliberation, Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Crawford concurring in it with Mr. Adams. It met, too, with the entire concurrence of the country, as wise, seasonable, and patriotic. In England, also, it was received with no little enthusiasm. In the House of Commons, the leading minister expressed his full concurrence in the sentiments and opinions of the President, while his distinguished competitor in that body, of an opposite political party, declared that " no event had ever created greater joy, exultation, and gratitude, among the free men of Europe; that he felt a pride in being connected, by blood and language, with the people of the United States; that the policy disclosed by the message, became a great, a free, and an independent nation; and that he hoped his own country would be prevented by no mean pride or paltry jealousy, from following so noble and glorious an example."

"I look on the message of December, 1823," said Mr. Webster, in the House of Representatives, "as forming a

bright page in our history. I will neither help to erase it, or tear it out; nor shall it be, by any act of mine, blurred or blotted. It does honor to the sagacity of the government, and I will not diminish that honor. It elevated the hopes, and gratified the patriotism of the people. Over those hopes I will not bring a mildew; nor will I put that gratified patriotism to shame."

The allies were deterred from taking any measures in concert with Spain for the subjugation of her colonies; but their menacing attitude for a time had alarmed the colonies themselves, and awakened the suspicions of our Government.

The Panama Mission seemed to be a corollary of President Monroe's message, to follow as a proper inference from the postulate, that American governments should have sole control of American interests. It proposed no belligerent measures; no departure from the neutral policy of the United States. It contemplated only a negotiation with the ministers of other American Republics, assembled in Congress at Panama, upon commercial and international relations. Whatever should be agreed upon in the Congress, was to be of no obligatory force whatever, or anywhere, unless afterwards duly ratified by their respective governments.

Mr. Webster, who had warmly approved the message of President Monroe, thought himself called upon to support a mission which seemed the legitimate result of its reasoning; and, in April, 1826, made an able speech upon the character and purposes of the mission.

It was unpopular, however, in the country; less, doubtless, from the nature of the objects it proposed to accomplish, than from the construction of the Administration which recommended it.

At the present day there is, probably, not a sentiment of the speech Mr. Webster made on the subject which would not meet the entire and hearty concurrence of four-fifths of the nation. The policy of Mr. Adams' Administration, in this respect, has outlived its general unpopularity.

It was in the summer of this year that Mr. Webster delivered his discourse in commemoration of the lives and services of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. It would be in vain to look elsewhere for eulogies, expressed in more glowing and elevated language, or more appropriate to their subjects. The funeral orations of Bossuet, deservedly so celebrated, have not the repose, the dignity, nor sublimity of this. It sounds like a solemn anthem throughout. "Although no sculptured marble should rise to their memory, nor engraved stone bear record of their deeds, yet will their remembrance be as lasting as the land they honored. Marble columns may, indeed, moulder into dust, time may erase all impress from the crumbling stone, but their fame remains; for with AMERICAN LIBERTY ONLY can it perish. It was the last swelling peal of yonder choir, 'THEIR BODIES ARE BURIED IN PEACE, BUT THEIR NAME LIVETH EVERMORE.' I catch that solemn song, I echo that lofty strain of funeral triumph, "THEIR NAME LIVETH EVERMORE,'”

The speech Mr. Webster has put into the mouth of John Adams in this funeral oration, as having been delivered by him in the Philadelphia Convention, in 1776, commencing, "Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my hand and my heart to this vote," has been often mistaken for the production of Mr. Adams himself: it follows so inimitably Mr. Adams' style and forcible expression, Mr. Webster has been applied to, on several occasions, and by persons of literary pretensions, to know where and when Mr. Adams delivered the speech.

The address on laying the corner-stone of Bunker-Hill monument was made a year before, in 1825. It is too familiar to every one, to require even allusion to it.

In November, 1826, Mr. Webster was again re-elected to Congress, and by a vote of almost entire unanimity; but before he took his seat, under this canvass, he was chosen Senator of the United States, in place of the ever-lamented Elijah H. Mills, retired from ill health.*

The lives of literary characters or statesmen seem to be but, after all, an account of their productions and speeches. They appear to have no domestic life; or none, which is not absorbed in the engrossing nature of their pursuits. Mr. Webster's political life, however, has been varied by his professional

* According to the records, the vote of the Legislature stood thus: in the Senate, Daniel Webster had 26 votes; John Mills, 11; Edward Everett, 1; Levi Lincoln, 1. In the House, Daniel Webster had 202; John Mills, 82; scattering, 44.