decisive character is there appreciated and set forth. The lecture closes with some reflections on the "Act of Pardon and Oblivion," passed by the Legislature, after the proclamation of peace, at its first session in 1783. "An act," says Mr. Graham, "of grace and magnanimity, worthy of the heroic, but Christian and forbearing spirit which had triumphed in the struggle just ended." The words have a peculiar and melancholy significance to us, who recollect how long after the war, he stood among us as an alien and a stranger, deprived of the commonest right of citizenship; and how by mistaken party spirit he was debarred the enjoyment of those senatorial honors, with which a grateful people would have cheered and crowned the evening of his life. This lecture will, I think, be regarded as the maturest of his literary efforts. It presents the events of the time of which it treats in new combinations, and sheds upon them new lights from original investigations. The style is always clear, forcible and harmonious. Classic ornament is introduced to an extent rare for him; for though he retained his classical learning to the end of his life, his sense of fitness led him to employ very sparingly what any one might be disposed to attribute to ostentation. Altogether it is the most valuable contribution yet made to the history of North Carolina at that era. It sets the State in a juster light than anything on record. It particularly commends itself to all who cherish in their hearts the sacred flame of State love and State pride; to all who hold in honor the renown of their ancestry; to all who would catch "Ennobling impulse from the past." Mr. Graham was again a member of the Legislature in 1854-'55. The great question of that session was what was popularly known as "Free Suffrage." Its object was to abolish the property qualification for the Senate, and extend to every voter the same right of suffrage, whether for the Senate or the House. To this extension of suffrage _per se_ he made no objection. He contended, however, that the constitution was based upon carefully adjusted compromises of conflicting interests, and that an amendment of the constitution confined to this single point--as it must necessarily be if carried out by the Legislative method--would disturb those compromises and thus destroy or greatly impair the harmony of that instrument. He, therefore, advocated the calling of a convention, that all the questions embraced in these compromises might be duly considered, and other parts re-adjusted to suit those which might be changed. These views were presented in a speech, memorable for its ability. In the former part he discusses the question at issue, and here will be found some of the finest examples of his skill as a dialectician; in the latter part he gave an exposition of the subject in all its constitutional bearings--an exposition learned, lucid and conclusive.