that bill yesterday had been communicated to the Senate by the clerk, and that, the bill not being in possession of the House, the motion to reconsider could not be entertained.” The bill had been hurried up to the Senate while Speaker Clay was ruling Randolph's motions out of order. It is certain that a mere hint by the Speaker to the clerk would have kept the bill in the House. It is also probable, if not certain, that the first motion by Randolph, being heard by the clerk, would have had the same effect, had not that official received a hint from the Speaker, that he desired the bill to be hurried off, out of Randolph's reach. The history of the House probably records no sharper trick.
Thus it is clear that Clay, who at the beginning of his public life had risked all his political prospects by advocating emancipation in Kentucky, now not only favored a compromise admitting a new slave state — some of the sincerest anti-slavery men did that — but in doing so used some of the very arguments characteristic of those who had worked themselves up to a belief in slavery as a blessing and endeavored to strengthen and perpetuate its rule.
Were these his real sentiments? Clay's conduct with regard to the slavery question appears singularly inconsistent. It is impossible to believe that his condemnations of the system of slavery, and his professions of hope that it would be extinguished, were insincere. His feelings in this re-
