a gun at him at such a distance to which the gun will carry, or pointing a pitchfork at him, or by any other such like act done in angry, threatening manner, etc.; but no words can amount to an assault.'

Here is the definition of an assault, which is a sufficient provocation to soften killing down to manslaughter:

1 Hawkins, ch. 31, § 36: "Neither can he be thought guilty of a greater crime than manslaughter, who, finding a man in bed with his wife, or being actually struck by him, or pulled by the nose or filliped upon the forehead, immediately kills him, or in the defence of his person from an unlawful arrest, or in the defence of his house from those who, claiming a title to it, attempt forcibly to enter it, and to that purpose shoot at it," etc.

Every snowball, oyster shell, cake of ice, or bit of cinder, that was thrown that night at the sentinel, was an assault upon him; every one that was thrown at the party of soldiers was an assault upon them, whether it hit any of them or not. I am guilty of an assault if I present a gun at any person; and if I insult him in that manner and he shoots me, it is but manslaughter.

Foster, 295, 296: "To what I have offered with regard to sudden rencounters let me add, that the blood already too much heated, kindleth afresh at every pass or blow. And in the tumult of the passions, in which the mere instinct of self-preservation has no inconsiderable share, the voice of reason is not heard; and therefore the law, in condescension to the infirmities of flesh and blood, doth extenuate the offence."

Insolent, scurrilous, or slanderous language, when it precedes an assault, aggravates it.

Foster, 316: "We all know that words of reproach, how grating and offensive soever, are in the eye of the law no

provocation in the case of voluntary homicide; and yet every man who hath considered the human frame, or but attended to the workings of his own heart, knoweth that affronts of that kind pierce deeper and stimulate in the veins more effectually than a slight injury done to a third person, though under the color of justice, possibly can.”

I produce this to show the assault in this case was aggravated by the scurrilous language which preceded it. Such words of reproach stimulate in the veins and exasperate the mind, and no doubt if an assault and battery succeeds them, killing under such provocation is softened to manslaughter, but killing without such provocation makes it murder.

End of the first day's speech.

PATRICK HENRY

ATRICK HENRY was born in Hanover County, Virginia, in 1736.

PATR

His

father, an immigrant from Aberdeen, Scotland, was a nephew of Robertson, the historian. Patrick Henry received most of his education at a grammar school opened by his father; he showed, as a youth, no marked proficiency in his studies, except perhaps in mathematics. At fifteen he became a clerk in a country store, and subsequently made two attempts at keeping store himself, but these ended in failure. Meanwhile his early indifference to learning was replaced by a love of history, especially that of Greece and Rome. At twentyfour he was admitted to the bar, and three years later won his first triumph as counsel for the people in what became known as the "Parsons' Cause." In 1765 he was elected to the House of Burgesses, where he distinguished himself as the author of certain resolutions against the Stamp Act which may be said to have struck the keynote of the struggle for independence in Virginia. In the Virginia Convention of 1775 he delivered a remarkable speech in favor of motion that the "colony be immediately put in a state of defence." He was appointed by the Convention colonel of the first regiment, and commander of all the forces to be raised in Virginia, but a misunderstanding with the "Committee of Safety" led to his resignation. He was a member of the second Continental Congress of 1775 and of the Virginia Convention of 1776, which framed a new Constitution, and elected Henry the first Republican gov. ernor. He was re-elected in 1777 and 1778. In 1780 he became a member of the Legislature, where he continued to serve until he was again elected Governor in 1784. In 1787 he was chosen a delegate to the Federal Constitutional Convention which met at Philadelphia, but he did not attend. In the following year he was a delegate to the Virginia Convention called to ratify the Federal Constitution, but he vehemently opposed that instrument as dangerous to the liberties of the country. In 1795 he declined the position of Secretary of State in Washington's Cabinet; in 1796 the nomination for Governor of Virginia; and in 1797 the mission to France offered by President Adams. Two years later, however, he suffered himself to be elected to the State Legislature because he wished to oppose what he deemed the dangerous doctrine of the Virginia resolutions of 1798. He did not take his seat, however, his death occurring in June His eloquence, although almost entirely a gift of nature, was vivid and startling, equal to every occasion and of marvellous power in bringing his hearers to a quick decision.

of that year.

"GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH"

DELIVERED IN THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION, ON A RESOLUTION TO PUT THE COMMONWEALTH INTO A STATE OF DEFENCE, MARCH 23, 1775

Mr. President:

N°

O MAN thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we

disposed to be of the number of those, who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British Ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, What means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have