mountains of Mexico, in the natural fact to which my honorable friend from Massachusetts adverted, as I myself did when I hinted that the law of nature was adverse to the introduction of slavery there. Now, as you find that just desire is to be obtained, there is something further, there are other difficulties in the way of the adjustment of these unhappy subjects of dif ference, and of obtaining that which is most to be desired, the cementing of the bonds of this Union.

Mr. President, I do not despair, I will not despair, that the measure will be carried. And I would almost stake my existence, if I dared, that if these measures which have been reported by the Committee of Thirteen were submitted to the people of the United States to-morrow, and their votes were taken upon them, there would be nine-tenths of them in favor of the pacification which is embodied in that report.

Mr. President, what have we been looking at?—What are we looking at? The "proviso ;" an abstraction always; thrust upon the South by the North against all necessities of the case, against all the warnings which the North ought to have listened to coming from the South; pressed unnecessarily for any Northern object; opposed, I admit, by the South, with a degree of earnestness uncalled for, I think, by the nature of the provision, but with a degree of earnestness natural to the South, and which the North itself perhaps would have displayed, if a reversal of the conditions of the two sections of the Union could have taken place. Why do you of the North press it? You say, because it is in obedience to certain sentiments in behalf of human freedom and human rights which you entertain. You are likely to accomplish those objects at once by the progress of events, without pressing this obnoxious measure.— You may retort, why is it opposed at the South ?-It is opposed at the South because the South feels that, when once legislation on the subject of slavery begins, there is no seeing where it is to end. Begin it in the District of Columbia; begin it in the Territories of Utah and New Mexico and California; assert your power there to-day, and in spite of all the protestations, and you are not wanting in making protestations,—that

you have no purpose of extending it to the Southern States, what security can you give them that a new sect will not arise with a new version of the Constitution, or with something above or below the Constitution, which shall authorize them to carry their notions into the bosoms of the slaveholding States, and endeavor to emancipate from bondage all the slaves there? Sir, the South has felt that her security lies in denying at the threshold your right to touch the subject of slavery. She said, "Begin, and who can tell where you will end? Let one generation begin and assert the doctrine for the moment, forbearing as they may be in order to secure their present objects, their successors may arise with new notions, and new principles, and new expositions of the constitution and laws of nature, and carry those notions and new principles into the bosom of the slaveholding States." The cases, then, gentlemen of the North and gentlemen of the South, do not stand upon an equal footing. When you, on the one hand, unnecessarily press an offensive and unnecessary measure on the South, the South repels it from the highest of all human motives of action, the security of property and life, and every thing else interesting and valuable in life.

Mr. President, after we have got rid, as I had hoped, of all these troubles,-after this Wilmot proviso has disappeared, as I trust it may both in this and the other end of the Capitol,after we have been disputing two or three years more, on the one hand, about a mere abstraction, and on the other, if it were fraught with evil, not so much present as distant and future, when we are arriving at a conclusion, what are the new difficulties that spring up around us? Matters of form. The purest question of form, that was ever presented to the mind of man,-whether we shall combine in one united bill three measures, all of which are necessary, or separate them into three distinct bills, passing each in its turn, if it can be done.

Mr. President, I trust that the feelings of attachment to the Union, of love for its past glory, of anticipation of its future benefits and happiness; a fraternal feeling which, I trust, will

be common throughout all parts of the country; the desire to live together in peace and harmony, to prosper as we have prospered heretofore, to hold up to the civilized world the example of one great and glorious Republic, fulfilling the high destiny that belongs to it, demonstrating beyond all doubt man's capacity for self-government; these motives and these considerations will, I trust, animate us all, bringing us together to dismiss alike questions of abstraction and form, and consummating the act in such a manner as to heal not one only, but all the wounds of the country.

ADDRESS TO KOSSUTH.

DECEMBER 1851.

The last public service rendered to his country by HENRY CLAY, is found in his brief address to Louis Kossuth, the exiled leader of the Hungarian movement for independence. Mr. CLAY warmly sympathized with the misfortunes of the people of Hungary and their brave leaders, yet he deprecated the course recommended by Kossuth to the American Government, and in a few words explained to him how unwise and inexpedient it would be for our Government to depart from the foreign policy laid down by the founders of our institutions.

The address is full of significance, revealing, as it does, the pure patriotism of Mr. CLAY, and his solicitude for the welfare of his country,-a sentiment that animated him to the last hours of his existence.

KOSSUTH was received by Mr. CLAY in his sick chamber, at the city of Washington. Several distinguished individuals were After the usual forms of introduction,

present at the interview.

Mr. CLAY addressed him as follows:

"I owe you, sir, an apology for not having acceded before to the desire you were kind enough to intimate more than once to see me; but really, my health has been so feeble that I did not dare to hazard the excitement of so interesting an interview. Beside, sir (he added, with some pleasantry), your wonderful and fascinating eloquence has mesmerized so large a portion of our people wherever you have gone, and even some of our members of Congress (waving his hand toward the two or three gentlemen who were present), that I feared to come under its influence, lest you might shake my faith in some principles in regard to the foreign policy of this Government, which I have long and constantly cherished.

"And in regard to this matter you will allow me, I hope, to speak with that sincerity and candor which becomes the interest the subject has for you and for myself, and which is due to us both, as the votaries of freedom.

"I trust you will believe me, too, when I tell you that I entertain the liveliest sympathies in every struggle for liberty in Hungary, and in every country; and in this I believe I express the universal sentiment of my countrymen. But, sir, for the sake of my country, you must allow me to protest against the policy -you propose to her. Waiving the grave and momentous question of the right of one nation to assume the executive power among nations for the enforcement of international law, or of the right of the United States to dictate to Russia the character of her relations with the nations around her, let us come at once to the practical consideration of the matter.

"You tell us yourself, with great truth and propriety, that mere sympathy, or the expression of sympathy, can not advance your purposes. You require material aid.' And indeed it is manifest that the mere declarations of sympathy of Congress, or of the President, or of the public, would be of little avail, unless we were prepared to enforce those declarations by a resort to arms, and unless other nations could see that preparation and determination upon our part.

"Well, sir, suppose that war should be the issue of the course you propose to us. Could we then effect any thing for you, ourselves, or the cause of liberty? To transport men and arms across the ocean in sufficient numbers and quantities to be effective against Russia and Austria would be impossible. It is a fact which perhaps may not be generally known, that the most imperative reason with Great Britain for the close of her last war with us, was the immense cost of the transportation and maintenance of forces and munitions of war in such a distant theater, and yet she had not perhaps more than thirty thousand men upon this continent at any time. Upon land, Russia is invulnerable to us, as we are to her. Upon the ocean, a war between Russia and this country would result in mutual annoyance to commerce, but probably in little else. I learn recently that her war marine