But, though defeated by the despotic will of one man, Mr. Clay was not, and could not be, silenced by it. While he had strength to stand up in the councils of his country, he resolved to stand firmly by the side of her rights, and paralyze, if possible, the hand uplifted to infringe them. Though not a participator in those scenes of blood and carnage, in which her broad and beautiful fields were won, yet his sympathizing heart too vividly portrayed the floods of tears, and treasure, and anguish, which the eastern states poured out in perfecting their title papers, to sit tamely down and see them defrauded of their interest in these. The tombs of their heroes who fell in these struggles, would cry aloud for vengeance, if he sealed his mouth, and hid himself, when he saw the robber approaching. No! Henry Clay was not the man to act thus; his country’s rights were _his_ rights, her wishes _his_ wishes, and he would maintain the former, and consult the latter, at any cost. The ‘big foot,’ therefore, of general Jackson, though it ruthlessly ‘trampled’ on his _work_, dared not ‘trample’ on HIM, and he vigorously set about exposing the fallacy, and puerility, even, of the president’s reasons for his veto. This he did in a report which he submitted to the senate, from the committee on public lands, May second, 1834, with special reference to the return of the land bill. Subsequently, from time to time, during several years, efforts were made to wrest the public domain from its rightful owners, which Mr. Clay successfully resisted, and finally succeeded in placing it beyond the reach of those who were bent upon its plunder, giving to each section of the country its equitable share in it. His exertions in accomplishing this have established a foundation for his fame to rest upon, as immovable as the hills which they protected, and which shall endure as long as the verdure which clothes them shall be an object of grateful contemplation.
In 1831–32, Mr. Van Buren’s nomination as minister to England came before the senate for confirmation. Mr. Clay opposed it, on the ground of that gentleman’s anti-republican conduct in giving, while secretary of state, instructions to Mr. McLane. In these he not only manifested a desire to attach unnecessary blame to the United States, in their intercourse with Great Britain, but unjustly disparaged, in the eyes of that power, the preceding administration. He stated, that its acts had induced England to withhold from them certain privileges, which it otherwise would have extended to them. On the objectionable portions of these instructions, Mr. Clay animadverted with merited severity. ‘According to Mr. Van Buren,’ said he, ‘on our side _all was wrong_――on the British side _all was right_. We brought forward nothing but claims and pretensions; the British government asserted, on the other hand, a clear and incontestible right. We erred, in too tenaciously and too long insisting upon our pretensions, and not yielding at once to the force of just demands. And Mr. McLane was commanded, to avail himself of all the circumstances in his power to mitigate our offence, and to dissuade the British government from allowing their feelings, justly incurred by the past conduct of the party driven from power, to have an adverse influence towards the American party now in power. Sir, was that becoming language, from one independent nation to another? Was it proper in the mouth of an American minister? Was it in conformity with the high, unsullied, and dignified character of our previous diplomacy? Was it not, on the contrary, the language of an humble vassal to a proud and haughty lord? Was it not prostrating and degrading the American eagle before the British lion?’