and one by the City of Boston at the Revere House. The
notable event at the Revere House was the speech of Harrison Gray Otis.
Mr. Otis was then about eighty years of age. He was a well preserved
gentleman, and in his deportment, dress and speech he gave evidence of
culture and refinement. He had been a Federalist and of course he had
been a bitter opponent of Mr. Adams. He seized the occasion to make a
defence of Federalism, and of the Hartford Convention. While Mr. Adams
was President, he had written a pamphlet in vindication of a charge he
had made, in conversation with Mr. Jefferson, that, during the War of
1812 the Federalists of New England, had contemplated a dissolution of
the Union, and the establishment of a northern confederacy. This
charge Mr. Otis denied and he then proceeded at length to vindicate
the character of the old Federal Party. He was a gentleman of
refinement of manners, but as I sat near him at the Revere House
dinner, I overheard enough of his private conversation with Holmes of
South Carolina, to satisfy me that he had a relish for coarse remarks,
if they had in them a flavor of wit or humor.

The old controversy between John Quincy Adams, and the Federalists of
Boston, once saved me, and helped me to escape from a position in
which I found myself by an indiscretion in debate. In 1843 the office
of Attorney-General was abolished, by the active efforts of the
Democrats aided by the passiveness of the Whigs. The Democrats thought
the office unnecessary, the Whigs were content to have it abolished,
that the party might get rid of the incumbent, James T. Austin. At a
subsequent session of the Judiciary Committee, of which George Lunt was
a member, he reported a bill for the establishment of the office. Mr.
Lunt was a poet, a lawyer, and a politician, and without excellence in
either walk. In public life he was destitute of the ability to adapt
himself to his surroundings. In those days the farmers constituted a
majority of the House. They were generally men of intelligence, and
they held about the same relation to the business of the House, that
juries hold to the business of the Courts. They listened to the
arguments, reasoned upon the case, and not infrequently the decision
was made by them. Occasionally they gave a verdict upon a party
question, adverse to the arguments of the leaders of the party in
power. In his opening argument, Mr. Lunt was unwise, to a degree
unusual even