both its expediency and wisdom. His remarks were plain and practical, chiefly confined to statements of facts, with brief comments, yet so philosophically and skilfully arranged as to produce their intended effect. In the course of his observations, he alluded to that preference generally given in our country to articles of foreign production, by saying, that ‘a gentleman’s head could not withstand the influence of the solar heat unless covered with a London hat; his feet could not bear the pebbles or the frost unless protected by London shoes; and the comfort and ornament of his person was consulted only where his coat was cut out by the shears of a tailor _just from London_. At length, however, the wonderful discovery has been made that it is not absolutely beyond the reach of American skill and ingenuity to produce these articles, combining with equal elegance greater durability. And I entertain no doubt that in a short time the no less important fact will be developed, that the domestic manufactures of the United States, fostered by government, and aided by household exertions, are fully competent to supply us with at least every necessary article of clothing. I, therefore, _for one_, (to use the fashionable cant of the day,) am in favor of _encouraging them_; not to the extent to which they are carried in England, but to such an extent as will redeem us entirely from all dependence on foreign countries.’ Mr. Clay exposed the fallacy of the specious reasoning of Mr.Lloyd and other members hostile to the measure, who based their opposition on the ground of the bad practical tendency of a system of domestic manufactures fostered by government; and in illustration of which they cited the wretched and most famished condition of the operatives of Manchester, Birmingham, and other manufacturing cities of Great Britain. They maintained that the introduction of such a system into America would be attended with the same sad consequences――that these were the natural results of such a system, surrounded by such governmental encouragement, and inseparably connected with it. Mr. Clay in reply declared that this was a _non sequiter_――that although such consequences might be, and doubtless were _incidental_ to such a system, it by no means followed that they were unavoidably and inevitably consequent upon it under all circumstances. The case instanced, he said, furnished no proof to that effect,――that the deplorable condition of the manufacturing districts of Great Britain had not been, neither could be satisfactorily accounted for in the manner attempted. It was not attributable to the fact of their being manufacturing districts――to the existence of that system which they were then considering, but _to the abuse of that system_. That it would be just as philosophical and logical, in view of the excruciating sufferings of the gormandizer, to conclude that the invariable tendency of food when introduced into