elegance of diction. Mr. B. was not an extempore speaker, if the term is only applicable to one who has made no previous preparation. Nor are we believers in the doctrine. Such men may talk; they cannot address themselves with power to the subject. A man may be called upon very unexpectedly, and acquit himself with distinguished ability, when he has a familiarity with his topic. In this case he draws upon the stores of knowledge which he has laid by for future use. It is not true, that he has made no preparation; it is only true that he has not wholly prepared himself for the special occasion. All that he has to do is to call up his knowledge, and so order it as to make it tell with the best effect. This is an intellectual process, but in some minds it is accomplished in a wonderfully short time. If the person be endowed with a fine memory and good judgement, and have the additional advantage of being trained in the school of experience, it would seem that time is not necessary; that it can be accomplished almost in an instant. This is the only extempore speaking which we acknowledge; there is a great deal of extempore talk; but it will be found that this is worth nothing when a great question is for consideration. Such persons, as Locke says, use words without ideas; and their ever ready volubility reminds us of Dean Swift's comparison of them to a thin church which empties faster than a crowded one. He spoke seldom, but always commanded the most marked attention. He knew that one good speech was worth more than a hundred bad ones. When Apelles was reproached for the paucity of his productions, and the labour which he bestowed upon them, he replied that he painted for posterity. Dr. Johnson remarks, that he who thinks to accomplish anything without toil, is as foolish as the man who omits the cares of husbandry and expects from his ground the blossoms of Arabia. Mr. Brooks was exempt from this folly, and whatever he took upon himself to do, he strove to execute to the best of his ability. This was true in the whole business of his life, and was alike to be seen in the peaceful occupations of his plantation, and in the more stirring and agitating scenes at Washington.

But we now proceed to consider the character of Mr. Brooks in an aspect which we have not yet contemplated. We have reserved it as a special topic, and the truth of history and justice to him, forbid that we pass it by in silence. We allude to his connection with the Duel. In the course of the debate in the House on the assault upon Mr. Sumner, Mr. Burlingame, a member from Massachusetts, used language highly offensive to Mr. Brooks. For this he was challenged, and though an appointment was made, the parties never met. It was well understood that the weapon would have been the rifle. We are no apologists of the Duel. We hold it up, as not only anti-Christian, but foolish and absurd. It is commended by no principle of right reason, or justice. Its awards are as often against the innocent as the guilty. It opens a way to

every bad man who has perpetrated wrong and ruthlessly violated the most sacred rights of another, to escape the punishment of a sound and virtuous public opinion. Nor does it prove courage; for "courage is valor fighting on the side of justice.' We have then, to express our sincere regret that Mr. Brooks ever participated in the duel. We will not attempt to justify, but to palliate. Would that we could exhibit him in all the plenitude of his commanding talents and noble virtues, as an illustrious example of one who never listened to the silly mandates of the Court of Honour, but treated with contempt its unreasonable exactions! He was not a duellist in the highest, and most offensive sense of the term. He has often expressed to us his matured convictions on the subject. He did condemn it, and would have superseded it altogether, but in the present state of public opinion, he felt that he could not plead exemption from its authority. He may have been guilty of weakness, of inconsistency. Well, be it so. Others among the great have acted similarly. Alexander Hamilton with like convictions, met Burr in mortal combat. Mr. Brooks was but a man, and had his share of infirmities. We have often heard his earnest advice on this subject, to the younger members of his family and kindred. It is worthy of note, that his first affair of Honour was in defence of his father; the last to protect the fair name of a loved and cherished relative. He could forgive an offence to himself, which, when directed to another, would fire his indignation; thus exemplifying that noble generosity which would peril life for kindred, or for friendship. He was not a man of violence, and of blood. He would resent an insult, and go out into the field from a principle of duty. His nature was kindly; the idea of taking life never entered his mind. It was for his honour, according to his conception, that he contended. He has often told us that he would not for the wealth and glory of the world, have the blood of a human being upon his hands.

Let us remind the reader of what we have previously said, that he went into the Senate chamber with no other weapon than his cane. We have now to add that throughout the protracted period of his difficulty with Mr. Burlingame, when day by day a contest with rifles was expected, he never shot a gun; and it was notorious that his antagonist was one of the best rifle-shots in the whole country. We submit to the judgement of the reader that such conduct is wholly inconsistent with the character of the professed duellist of the man of blood. If further facts be wanted, we point the reader to the recent duel between Mr. Pryor of the Richmond Enquirer, and Mr. Ridgway, of the Richmond Whig. Mr. Brooks arrived at the ground after the parties had exchanged shots, and in the midst of preparations for a second fire. The duel would have ended fatally in all probability to one or both of the spirited gentlemen. Mr. Brooks immediately approached Mr.

Ridgway, and said, "remember, Mr. Ridgway, that your antagonist is the husband of a youthful and lovely wife, and the father of several young children. Will you make that wife a widow, and those children orphans?" The responsive chord vibrated in the heart of the gallant Ridgway; he caught the feeling of the generous speaker, and replied, "Mr. Brooks, I cannot stand that; have it your own way." The affair was adjusted and finally settled. And for a distinct expression of his sentiments on the subject, we point to the following extract from a Northern paper. The Albany Evening Transcript, in speaking of his death, says: "Well, we remember the last time we saw him at his own home; it was our province to be the bearer of a note from an associate-the gallant officer, (since dead,) who first planted the American flag on the heights of Churubusco-in relation to a hostile meeting between the latter and another editor, and requesting the loan of a duelling case. Mr. Brooks returned the following reply: "When honour is a support to virtuous principles, and runs parallel with the laws of God and our country, it cannot be too much cherished and encouraged; but when the dictates of honour are contrary to those of religion and equity, they are the greatest depravation of human nature, by giving wrong, ambitious and false ideas of what is good and laudable, and should therefore be exploded by all governments, and driven out as the bane and plague of human society.' It is worthy of remark that Mr. Brooks takes this sentiment from No. 99, in "The Spectator;" a paper contributed by Addison. The purpose of the writer is to show that the point of honour is placed in a false kind of courage, and that the occasion is thus given to the very refuse of mankind, who have neither virtue nor common sense, to set up for men of honour. The fact proves that he sympathised largely in the views of this celebrated moral teacher, and that he could hear, at least without offence from his lips, "that if every one who fought a duel were to stand on the pillory, it would quickly lessen the number of these imaginary men of honour, and put an end to so absurd a practice." Mr. Brooks was impulsive; had fine sensibilities; but his nature led him to review his conduct. He was an illustrious example of this class of men. A,man of sensibility may sometimes feel great uneasiness, lest he should have yielded too much, even to what may be called an honourable passion; to his just indignation, perhaps, at the injury which may have been done either to himself or his friend. He is anxiously afraid, lest, meaning only to act with spirit, and to do justice, he may, from the two great vehemence of his emotion, have done a real injury to some other person, who, though not innocent, may not have been altogether so guilty as he at first apprehended.* He was always ready to forgive, to pardon.

* Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Never in human bosom, did this virtue have higher ascendancy than in his. He felt the full force of the truth, that "the nobleness of pardoning is, on many occasions, superior even to the most perfect propriety of resenting." But, while he could forgive his enemies, and do them even a generous service, he never forgot his friends. His attachments had unusual strength. The friends, "whose adoption had been tried, he grappled to his soul with hooks of steel.”

We have now reviewed the principal facts in the life of Mr. Brooks, and our task is approaching its conclusion. All that remains for us is to speak of his death, and of the proceedings of Congress on that melancholy occasion. On the 29th of January, 1857, Mr. Keitt announced to the House that the Hon. Preston S. Brooks died at his residence in Washington on Tuesday evening, the 27th instant, at 7 o'clock. He was taken sick the Thursday previous, but no one apprehended any danger. He died of an affection of the throat; of what is technically called Laryngitis; the disease which terminated the existence of General Washington. The proceedings of the House and of the Senate were of no ordinary character. The sensation was profound; the sorrow was deep and acute. A man of mark had fallen in the pride of his youth, in the full blaze of his honour and his glory. Never was there greater sympathy, more heartfelt sorrow, and sincere affliction. Even his political enemies mourned over blasted hope and disappointed expectations, and heaved a sigh of deep affection. All felt that he was a man of talent and noble nature, and one common tear bedewed his grave. The speeches on the occasion were a fitting tribute to his virtues and his character. They represented him as "generous and brave," as "manly," as "distinguished for sincerity and truth," as free from "the arts of deception and hypocrisy," as "prompt to make amends for any unintentional wrong to another," as "patriotic and unselfish; who, if he had been permitted to choose his own death, would have preferred to have fallen in some great battle for the public weal." But we point specially to the testimony of Mr. Campbell of Ohio, the friend of Mr. Burlingame, and the leader of the Black Republicans in the Lower House. He says, that "he merited the confidence of his constituents, because he was the faithful advocate of their political sentiments, and the jealous guardian of their rights, their interests, and their honour" that "he was a man of kind heart, and the most tender sensibilities," and that he "was both generous and brave." The House passed the usual resolutions. On the same day, Judge Evans informed the Senate of the death of Mr. Brooks, and communicated the proceedings and resolutions of the House. The highest eulogy was pronounced upon his many virtues by distinguished Senators of several States. He was declared "modest and unobtrusive in the discharge of his duties; yet, when the occa

sion required, he spoke his sentiments with eloquence, openness, candour, and a sincerity which won him the respect of all." The Senate bore full testimony to "the manliness of his character; the urbanity of his manners; the true politeness which is the offspring of benevolence." "Truth, sincerity, kindness, courage, and courtesy," says the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Toombs, "were stamped upon his moral nature."* "And though quick," says the same gentleman, "to resent an insult, he was generous, kind, and even gentle in his nature; and it gave him more pleasure to repair a wrong done by himself than to right one inflicted on him by another." Nor was the Senate insensible to the claims of his intellect. "It was distinguished by vigour and sprightliness, and and was cultivated, strengthened and adorned by large educational attainments." The resolutions of Judge Evans were adopted, and the Senate then proceeded to the House of Representatives to attend the funeral services. An immense assembly was present, including the President,† the President elect, the Heads of Departments, Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and other dignitaries of the nation. The corpse was placed in the area, immediately in front of the clerk's desk. Appropriate services were then conducted by the Chaplains of the two Houses, and a brief discourse was delivered by the Reverend Daniel Waldo, Chaplain of the House, from the text: "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise ;" St. Luke, chap. xxiii. v. 43. At the conclusion, the funeral procession moved from the hall to the Congressional Cemetery, where the body was temporarily deposited.

We would fail of doing full justice to the character of Mr. Brooks, if we omitted to mention, that from his youth to the last day of his life, he was the object of highest admiration, and respect with the gentler sex. Surely none will cast so severe a censure as to say that the cause of this is to be found in his fine person and manly beauty. Whatever may be the force of such attractions as these, they are competent to awaken regard, only when associated with certain virtues and endowments. His wellknown popularity can be explained on no other principle than that which would assign to him the loftiest and most honourable quali ties. They admired him for the virtues which were so conspicuous in his character; for his frankness; his candour; his gentleness; his courage; his genial nature; his fine sensibilities; his high

* The utterance of this noble Southron was choked in his attempt to give vent to his feelings, and he sunk into his chair, bathed in tears.

Robert Hall says, that he was present in Westminster Abbey at Handel's Commemoration, and saw George III stand up at one part of the performance of the Messiah, shedding tears. This, he remarks, seemed like a great act of national assent to the fundamental truths of religion. May we not say of the tears so freely shed by our excellent Executive on the occasion of the death of Mr. Brooks, that they seemed like a great act of national grief at his loss !