continued from day to day, and soon became the most exciting the State had ever witnessed. As a political speaker Mr. Marshall had no equal in Kentucky, save Henry Clay, while his opponent was equally unrivaled in the pulpit. Dr. Waller, having become a candidate merely to obtain the privilege of answering some of the points urged by Marshall, intended to have withdrawn before the election. This, however, his friends would not allow. He was, consequently, voted for, and defeated his opponent by a majority of two hundred and nineteen votes.

His speech in the convention on the subject was a consummate refutation of all the reasons urged in support of the political disability of the clergy. He argued that the creation of this constitutional disability was nothing less than proscription; that it violated the great republican adage of “equal rights to all and exclusive privileges to none." He argued, that if seeking political office was a breach of the minister's duty to the church, the State could not punish it without usurping the functions of the church. Said he:

"The exclusion applies, you perceive, to any preacher, teacher, or priest of religion. A man may preach anything else-deism or atheism-and the restriction does not apply. He may teach the grossest immorality—he may inculcate robbery under the specious name of gambling-or murder, baptized as dueling, ** * he may teach the doctrines of devils, and still be eminently qualified for office. It is only the man that teaches that life and immortality are brought to light by the Gospel-who seeks to diffuse the divine influences of Christianity, that is to be proscribed from all direct participation in the affairs of legislation."

Garrett Davis, member from Bourbon county, presented to the convention a written memorial signed by two clergymen whose names have long been familiar in Kentucky-Stuart Robinson and George W. Brush the first of the Presbyterian, the latter of the Methodist church. In this memorial, the arguments against the disabling provision were succinctly and forcibly set forth. Assuming that one of the reasons for disability was the real or supposed spiritual power and control exercised by the clergy over the laity, it was urged that this objection did not apply to Protestant ministers, who disavowed any such power or control-and it was insisted that the Protestant preacher should not suffer for the alleged objectionable principles and practices of the Roman Catholic priest.

Several delegates spoke in favor of continuing the disabilities of the clergy, but they signally failed to refute the trenchant arguments of

Waller. The efforts of the latter were seconded only by the speeches of Seleucius Garfield and Mr. Hardin.

The latter spoke as follows:

"I expect I will have to give a vote against a majority of the convention, and I shall make only a few remarks before doing so. I have, for the last forty years, from time to time, noted the exclusion from the legislative halls of Kentucky, of the ministers of the Gospel, and I could never see any good reason for it. I recollect when there were efforts made to force the president of the United States into a recognition of the independence of Spanish America. In some remarks I made in Congress on that subject, I said I did not believe they could establish a republic there. They were all of one religious denomination. And it turned out to be true. Our government is very happily balanced. All our foreign relations, all our matters and things belonging to the nation, and the army and navy, are managed by the government of the United States; and that government is divided into three departments-the legislative, executive, and judicial. They check and balance each other. But it would soon become a consolidated government and a despotism, were it not that the municipal regulations of the country belong to the State government, and they are divided into three departments -the legislative, executive, and judicial. They check and balance each other. The State governments balance the general government, and the general government balances the State governments. And the State governments check and balance each other. But the great check is this: We have in the United States, and in all the States and Territories, no established religion, and so a great many religious denominations have sprung up. They are all worshiping God and their Saviour in the manner their conscience points out to them. And it is fortunate for the United States that no one sect has, perhaps, one-twentieth part of the people.

"I have some statistics of the different religious denominations in Kentucky, which I think correct, which were taken about three years ago. Of Methodists, there are about one hundred and fifty ministers, thirty thousand white members; United Baptists, about fifty thousand; Reformers, from forty to fifty thousand, white and black; Old-School Presbyterians, ninety ministers, and ten thousand members; New-School Presbyterians, twentyone ministers and twelve hundred members; Episcopals, twenty-seven ministers and about twelve hundred members; and of Roman Catholics, fifty to sixty ministers and a white membership of forty thousand. The whole together of the religious denominations will not amount to more than thirty thousand voters. We have now about one hundred and fifty thousand voters in the State. What danger then is there of a unity of church and State. There is a gentleman over the way, I do not know whether he is a minister of the Gospel or not. Well, if he says he belongs to the church, and he

has two hundred and fifty voters; here is my worthy friend before us (Mr. Waller) who has eight thousand two hundred and fifty voters. Will there be any combination of the Methodists and Baptists? No; you might as well expect oil and water to mix. There can be no collusion, and will be no conspiracy, especially when out of one hundred and fifty-two thousand there are only thirty thousand members of the church. I do not vouch for my information being correct, but a gentleman connected with the church has furnished me with the statistics I have read. What class of men are the clergy? They are moral, virtuous, and intelligent men, and, as a body, are the most learned men in Kentucky, and I say this without fear of contradiction. Some, to be sure, start out on the ground that they have a calling that way. They say Christ made preachers out of fishermen, and that learning is calculated to spoil the preachers. The Catholic clergy are learned men, we know. The father of the gentleman who prayed this morning, sent him four years to Rome that he might be educated. All denominations are trying to give their clergy an education.

"We know that the Presbyterians are doing everything to instruct their clergy. So are the Methodists, so are the Baptists, and so is every religious denomination. And it must be confessed that they are a learned body of men-much more learned and intelligent, generally, than the doctors and lawyers. I will not say that there is more virtue, but I say there is as much. I will not say they possess more natural gifts. Well, what harm have they done? Here is my friend near me (Mr. Waller), one of the best informed men in the house; he has been here nine weeks, and he has troubled the house but once, and that was to-day. There is the gentleman from Mason, who has not spoken much, but when he does speak, speaks well. We all expect to die in a few days, he goes off so much like

"Hark! from the tombs, a doleful sound,

Mine ears attend the cry:

Ye living men come view the ground,
Where you must shortly lie."

"I am in favor of the admission of the clergy. There is no exclusion in Congress. I have never seen less than from ten to twenty there, and they are as praiseworthy a body of men, and as good members as you can find anywhere. I see nothing in any of these men to exclude them, whether they are Presbyterians, or Baptists; and there is not a man whom I would more willingly meet than my worthy Catholic friend, the priest, who prays for us every few days. These men have a right to go to the Legislature. They pay their taxes as we do-they submit to the laws, and they help to sustain the government. And if there is a war, do you not see them at the head of your regiments, volunteering to pray to the Almighty for the success of our arms? I know the idea of the danger of mixing up church and State has

come to us from the British government. But there we see the church having a representation in the House of Lords. I did not intend to make an argument, but I rose merely to give the information I hold in my hand. But, I repeat, there is no reason why we should exclude them. They have the same rights as we have; they are of an age required by law; they are native Americans, or, if not, naturalized citizens; they submit cheerfully to the law; they are a virtuous body, and they contribute to the support of the government, and, what is more, to the educational part of the country they have contributed more than any other class. Why is it we call gentlemen to pray for us every day? It is to address the throne of grace. 'But,' says the gentleman from Mason, there is danger to the country, and, therefore, we must have the preamble which has been offered, and the exclusion of the clergy.' I am utterly against the preamble and against the exclusion."

The vote was taken and the result showed that "Ephraim was joined to his idols." It stood seventeen against, to seventy-four for, the clerical disability clause. "The Redeemer of mankind," said Waller, was crucified between two thieves, and the memory of that event can be well perpetuated by classifying his ministers with thieves and robbers."

CHAPTER XXXIII.

A KENTUCKY MASTER AND HIS RELATION TO DOMESTIC

M

SLAVERY.

R. HARDIN spent his life in slave-holding communities, and was himself a slaveholder. For this reason, some notice of that institution and his relation to it seems necessary to a justification of some of his views and sentiments, and a proper estimate of his character. More than a score of years has elapsed since domestic slavery ceased to exist among Americans. Many of its incidents and characteristics are growing dim in the memory of a new generation. Its history and peculiarities have been discolored and exaggerated in literature to such an extent that it will be difficult for posterity to justly estimate its lights and shadows-its virtues and infirmities. In saying there was virtue in it, it is very far from the present purpose to make any defense or apology for it. The former slave States are happily rid of it, and few and far between are those who do not rejoice thereat. It is, however, due the subject of this work to say that there was nothing connected with the institution as it existed in Kentucky repugnant to justice or morality, or incompatible with refinement or humanity. Comparing the social, moral, and religious condition of slave-holding communities of Kentucky with the average communities in non-slaveholding States, their respective balance sheets of virtue and vice would, doubtless, not materially differ in the estimation of impartial judges. If on one hand slavery had its evils, on the other it had its compensations.

African slaves dwelt on George's creek in Pennsylvania, when and where Mr. Hardin was born. The earliest American Hardins were slaveholders. After American independence was achieved, Pennsylvania had by law provided for the prospective emancipation of her slaves. The denizens on George's creek were unconscious that they were affected by the proposed emancipation. They supposed they dwelt in the territory of slave-holding Virginia. Only when, about that period, the dividing line between the two States was surveyed, did they learn their error. It has been supposed (with some show of