If he had not so great a stock as some have had, who flourished
formerly, of knowledge long treasured up, he knew, better by far than
any man I ever was acquainted with, how to bring together within a short
time all that was necessary to establish, to illustrate, and to decorate
that side of the question he supported. He stated his matter skilfully
and powerfully. He particularly excelled in a most luminous explanation
and display of his subject. His style of argument was neither trite and
vulgar, nor subtle and abstruse. He hit the House just between wind and
water. And not being troubled with too anxious a zeal for any matter in
question, he was never more tedious or more earnest than the
preconceived opinions and present temper of his hearers required, to
whom he was always in perfect unison. He conformed exactly to the temper
of the House; and he seemed to guide, because he was always sure to
follow it.

I beg pardon, Sir, if, when I speak of this and of other great men, I
appear to digress in saying something of their characters. In this
eventful history of the revolutions of America, the characters of such
men are of much importance. Great men are the guideposts and landmarks
in the state. The credit of such men at court or in the nation is the
sole cause of all the public measures. It would be an invidious thing
(most foreign, I trust, to what you think my disposition) to remark the
errors into which the authority of great names has brought the nation,
without doing justice at the same time to the great qualities whence
that authority arose. The subject is instructive to those who wish to
form themselves on whatever of excellence has gone before them. There
are many young members in the House (such of late has been the rapid
succession of public men) who never saw that prodigy, Charles Townshend,
nor of course know what a ferment he was able to excite in everything by
the violent ebullition of his mixed virtues and failings. For failings