y to which Mr. Clay
belonged. They gradually harmonized towards the close of Monroe's
second term, and became firmly united under the administration of
John Quincy Adams. Modern political designations had their origin
in the Presidential election of 1824. The candidates all belonged
to the party of Jefferson, which had been called Democratic-
Republican. In the new divisions, the followers of Jackson took
the name of Democrats: the supporters of Adams called themselves
National Republicans. They had thus divided the old name, each
claiming the inheritance. The unpopularity of Mr. Adams's
administration had destroyed the prospects of the National-Republican
party, and the name was soon displaced by the new and more acceptable
title of Whig. To the joint efforts of Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster
more than to all others the formation of the Whig party was due.
It was not, however, in Mr. Webster's nature to become a partisan
chief. Mr. Clay on the other hand was naturally and inevitably a
leader. In all the discussions of the Senate in which constitutional
questions were involved, Mr. Clay instinctively deferred to Mr.
Webster. In the parliamentary debates which concerned the position
of parties and the fate of measures, which enchained the Senate
and led captive the people, Mr. Clay was _facile princeps_. Mr.
Webster argued the principle. Mr. Clay embodied it in a statute.
Mr. Webster's speeches are still read with interest and studied
with profit. Mr. Clay's speeches swayed listening senates and
moved multitudes, but reading them is a disappointment. Between
the two the difference is much the same as that between Burke and
Charles James Fox. Fox was the parliamentary debater of England,
the consummate leader of his party. His speeches, always listened
to and cheered by a crowded House of Commons, perished with their
delivery. Burke could never command a body of followers, but his
parliamentary orations form brilliant and permanent chapters in
the political literature of two continents.

While Mr. Webster's name is so honorably perpetuated by his elaborate
and masterly discussion of great principles in the Senate, he did
not connect himself with a single historic measure. While Mr.
Clay's speeches remain unread, his memory is lastingly identified
with issues that are still vital and powerful. He advanced the
doctrine of protection to the stately dignity of the American
system. Discarding theories and overt