abridged. These were published in a small book, with a title nearly iden tical with that which heads this article. A friend at our elbow, recollects when a boy-more than thirty years since-seeing a little, crooked, longbearded old man, leaning on a cane, accompanied by a young lad, traveling about the country, peddling this "Life and Remarkable Adventures." Of his subsequent history, we are uninformed; but he must long ere this have been gathered to his fathers—and a neglected spot, in some isolated country church-yard, is, probably the resting-place of the mortal remains of ISRAEL R. POTTER, "a native of Cranston, Rhode Island, who was a scldier in the American Revolution."

JAMES OTIS, OF MASSACHUSETTS, AND PATRICK HENRY, OF VIRGINIA

ORATORY is an art more practiced by the American, than by any other people; and because by none is it so much required. The nature of their institutions demands it, the business of government being with all, and open to all for public discussion. Their facility in extemporaneous oratory is the surprise of other people. That American embassador and historian who astonished English gentlemen at a public dinner in their country, by the force and polished beauty of an unexpected, unprepared speech, only supplied an example of what others of his countrymen could have equaled.

We give in these pages sketches of two of the most eminent orators of the era of our revolution-JAMES OTIS and PATRICK HENRY. The history of the latter has been made widely known by the genius of Wirt, but of the former few memorials remain: many whose eyes trace these lines, herein, for the first time, learn his name. Yet before the year 1770, no American, excepting Dr. Franklin, was so well known, and so often named in the colonies and in England. His papers have all perished, none of his speeches were recorded, and he himself was cut off just on the eve of the revolution, so that his name is not associated with familiar public documents. It is owing to this that the most learned, eloquent, and influential man of the time is now so little known, that the following language of President Adams seemed exaggerated, although Chief Justice Dana, and other eminent characters, used commendation equally strong. Says President Adams: "I have been young, and now am old, and I solemnly say, I have never known a man whose love of his country was more ardent or sincere; never, one who suffered so much; never, one whose services for any ten years of his life were so important and essential to the cause of his country, as those of Mr. Otis, from 1760 to 1770."

JAMES OTIS was the son of Colonel James Otis, and was born at West Barnstable, Massachusetts, February 5, 1724. He was educated at Harvard, studied law, and settled in Boston, where he soon attained to the highest rank in his profession.

He came upon the stage at a time when the mother country had determined to enforce her "Acts of Trade,"-laws of parliament which bore with crushing force upon the industry and enterprise of the colonies, especially

those of New England. These people were descended from that virtuous, but stern and inflexible part of the English nation, who, determined not to bear the chains of religious and kingly tyranny, had sought and found a home in the wilds of a new continent at a vast expense of blood and suffer ing. They owed nothing to the royal government but their charter, yet the moment they began to overcome the first great trials of their new settlement, they were doomed to submit to a system of restrictive laws, calculated to crush them to poverty. Having no great staple of agriculture, the only resource for accumulating the comforts and luxuries of life were commerce and manufactures; but here their exertions were impeded by these laws. These forbade them to manufacture, because the manufactures of England would be injured; they were restricted in their commerce, because the English shipping-interest would suffer. Even the fish they caught off their own coast, they were not allowed to sell for French and Spanish molasses, because the English sugar colonies in the West Indies would be thus deprived of the monopoly of supplying them with the finny tribe. They could not import teas from Holland, because it interfered with the East India Company; in fine, they could not trade with Spain and Portugal, nor with any other nation. Everything brought to the colonies must be in English-built ships, owned in England, and manned by English sailors. The boasted protection of the mother country was, to use the language of Sir Edmund Burke, "perfect uncompensated slavery."

Immediately after the conquest of Canada, in 1760, the custom-hɔuse officers, in compliance with instructions from England, began to take measures to strictly enforce all these obnoxious laws, some of which had remained a dead letter. As a preliminary measure, an order in council was received to carry into effect these laws of trade, and to apply to the Supreme Court of the province for writs of assistance, a species of search warrant to be granted to the officers of customs, to search for goods on which duties had not been paid.

Hutchinson, the Lieutenant Governor of the province, was at this juncture appointed by the crown Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; thus, for the time, having united in his one person the highest judicial and executive offices in the province. This extraordinary power conferred upon one man, evinced the unfriendly designs of government, and was a cause of just alarm to all reflecting minds. Otis was at this time Advocate General: believing these laws were illegal and tyrannical, he refused to give his official assistance, and at once resigned his office, which was not only very lucrative, but, if filled by an incumbent of a compliant spirit, led to the highest favors from the crown.

The merchants of Boston and Salem engaged Otis and Thatcher to make their defense. The trial took place in February, 1761, in the council chamber of the old Town House in Boston, before Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson, as Chief Justice, with four Associate Judges. The court was crowded with the most eminent citizens, deeply solicitous in the cause

The case was opened for government by Mr. Gridley, the old law tutor of Otis, and very ably argued in all his points he made his reasoning depend upon this consideration-"if the parliament of Great Britain is the sovereign legislator of the British Empire, then, etc." He was replied to by Mr

Thatcher, in an ingenious, sensible speech, delivered with great mildress. "But," in the language of President Adams, "Otis was a flame of fire; with a promptitude of classical allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a prophetic glance of his eyes into futurity, and a rapid torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away all before him. American Independence was then and there born. The seeds of patriots and heroes were then and there sown. Every man of an immense, crowded audience, appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take up arms against writs of assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition, to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child INDEPENDENCE was born. In fifteen years, i. e. in 1776, he grew up to manhood, and declared himself free."

In opening this case, Otis said, "I will to my dying day oppose with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand, and villainy on the other, as is this writ of assistance. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberties and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book." He then went on to speak of his resigning his office of Advocate General, that he might argue this cause, of the enemies he thereby had made, and how from his very soul he despised them. "Let," added he, “the consequences be what they will, I am determined to proceed. The only principles of public conduct that are worthy of a gentleman or a man, are to sacrifice estate, ease, health, and applause, and even life, to the sacred calls of his country. These manly sentiments, in private life, make the good citizen; in public life, the patriot and the hero. I do not say that, when brought to the test, I shall be invincible. I pray God that I may never be brought to the melancholy trial, but if ever I should, it will then be known how far I can reduce to practice, principles which I know to be founded in truth." He then proceeded with the subject of the writ, which the officers of the revenue were afraid to use without the sanction of the Superior Court. That it was impossible to devise a more outrageous instrument of tyranny, one which naturally led to such enormous abuses.

"This writ," said he, "being general, is illegal. I admit that special writs of assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath; but I deny that the writ now prayed for can be granted. In the first place the writ is universal, being directed to all and singular justices, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers, and subjects; so that it is in short directed to every subject in the king's dominions. Everyone with this writ may be a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder any one within the realm. In the next place, it is perpetual-there is no return. A man is accountable to no person for his doings. Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of the archangel shall excite different emotions in his soul. By this writ not only deputies, but their menial servants, in the daytime, may enter our houses, shops, etc., at will, and command all to assist them; and thus lord it over us. What is this but to have the curse of Canaan with a witness on us; to be the servant of servants, the most despicable of God's creation? Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty, is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle; and

while he is quiet, he is as well guarded in it, as a prince is in his. This writ, if declared legal, would totally annihilate privilege. Custom-house officers, with their menials, may enter our houses when they please, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient." He cited some facts in proof of this, and then went on to show, by an old statute, that any person, as well as the customhouse officers, had this power. "What a scene," said he, “does this open? Every man, prompted by revenge, ill humor, or wantonness, to inspect the inside of his neighbor's house, may get a writ of assistance. Others will ask it from self-defense. One arbitrary act will provoke another, until society be involved in tumult and in blood."

His argument lasted about five hours, and the summary of it can now only be given in the words of President Adams, scraps of which only have we room to insert. He divided it into five parts: "1. He began with an exordium, mainly personal. 2. A dissertation on the rights of man in a state of nature. He asserted that every man, merely natural, was an independent sovereign, subject to no law, but the law written on his heart, and revealed to him by his Maker, in the constitution of his nature, and the inspiration of his understanding and his conscience. His right to his life, his liberty, no created being could rightfully contest. Nor was his right to his property less incontestible. The club that he had snapped from a tree, for a staff, or for defense, was his own. His bow and arrow were his own; if with a pebble he had killed a partridge or a squirrel, it was his own. No creature, man or beast, had a right to take it from him. If he had taken an eel, or a smelt, or a sculpion, it was his property. In short, he sported upon this topic with so much wit and humor, and, at the same time, with so much indisputable truth and reason, that he was not less entertaining than instructive. He asserted that these rights were inherent and inalienable. That they never could be surrendered or alienated, but by idiots or madmen, and all such acts were void, and not obligatory by the laws of God and man. Nor were the poor negroes forgotten. Not a Quaker in Philadelphia, or Mr. Jefferson of Virginia, ever asserted the rights of negroes in stronger terms. Young as I was, and ignorant as I was, I shuddered at the doctrine he taught; and I have all my life shuddered, and still shudder at the consequences that may be drawn from such premises. Shall we say that the rights of masters and servants clash, and can be decided only by force? I adore the idea of gradual abolitions! but who shall decide how fast or how slowly these abolitions shall be made?

3. From individual independence he proceeded to association. If it was inconsistent with the dignity of human nature, to say that men were gregarious animals, like wild geese, it would surely offend no delicacy to say, they were social animals by nature; that there were natural sympathies, and, above all, the sweet attraction of the sexes, which must soon draw them together in little groups, and by degrees, in larger congregations, for mutual assistance and defense. And this must have happened before any formal covenant, by express words or signs, was concluded. When general councils and deliberations were commenced, the objects could be no other than the mutual defense and security of every individual for his life, his liborty,