public good can only be so obtained. But it is quite another question whether a set of gentlemen, however respectable they may be as individuals, shall have the power to bind me on matters which I have not agreed to submit to their decision at all.

“A full and final separation' is declared between the Whig party of Massachusetts and the President. That is the text it requires a commentary. What does it mean? The President of the United States has three years of his term of office yet unexpired. Does this declaration mean, then, that during those three years all the measures of his administration are to be opposed by the great body of the Whig party of Massachusetts, whether they are right or wrong? There are great public interests which require his attention. If the President of the United States should attempt, by negotiation, or by earnest and serious application to Congress, to make some change in the present arrangements, such as should be of service to those interests of navigation which are concerned in the colonial trade, are the Whigs of Massachusetts to give him neither aid nor succor? If the President of the United States shall direct the proper department to review the whole commercial policy of the United States, in respect of reciprocity in the indirect trade, to which so much of our tonnage is now sacrificed, if the amendment of this policy shall be undertaken by him, is there such a separation between him and the Whigs of Massachusetts as shall lead them and their representatives to oppose it? Do you know (there are gentleman now here who do know) that a large proportion—I rather think more than one-half-of the carrying trade between the Empire of Brazil and the United States is enjoyed by tonnage from the North of Europe, in consequence of this ill-considered principle with regard to reciprocity? You might

just as well admit them into the coasting-trade. By this arrangement we take the bread out of our children's mouths and give it to strangers. I appeal to you, sir, [turning to Captain Benjamin Rich, who sat by him,] is not this true? [Mr. Rich at once replied, "True!"] Is every measure of this sort, for the relief of such abuses, to be rejected? Are we to suffer ourselves to remain inactive under every grievance of this kind until these three years shall expire, and through as many more as shall pass until Providence shall bless us with more power of doing good than we have now?

"Again: there are now in this State persons employed under Government, allowed to be pretty good Whigs, still holding their offices,-collectors, district-attorneys, postmasters, marshals. What is to become of them in this separation? Which side are they to fall? Are they to resign? or is this resolution to be held up to Government as an invitation or a provocation to turn them out? Our distinguished fellow-citizen who, with so much credit to himself and to his country, represents our Government in England, is he expected to come home, on this separation, and yield his place to his predecessor, or to somebody else? And in regard to the individual who addresses. you, what do his brother Whigs mean to do with him? Where do they mean to place me? Generally, when a divorce takes place, the parties divide their children. I am anxious to know where, in the case of this divorce, I shall fall. This declaration announces 'a full and final separation between the Whigs of Massachusetts and the President.' If I choose to remain in the President's councils, do these gentlemen mean to say that I cease to be a Massachusetts Whig? I am quite ready to put that question to the people of Massachusetts."

The treaty of Washington, by which the points of dis

pute which existed between England and the United States had been judiciously settled by Mr. Webster, continued to furnish his opponents with a fertile subject of censure and abuse; and in the canvass of 1844 it was made an electioneering element. It was not until 1846, when Mr. Webster returned to the Senate, that a favorable opportunity was offered to vindicate himself and his treaty before the whole country. During the session of 1846 this treaty was again made the theme of discussion in Congress; and among those representatives who most bitterly condemned and censured it was Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll, from Pennsylvania. This gentleman seemed to feel a special malignity against Mr. Webster, and rendered himself prominent in his reprobation of that statesman's proceedings and negotiations with the British plenipotentiary. His speech delivered on the occasion clearly evinced this sentiment; and proved that he had industriously collected together all the calumnies and slanders which had been uttered in reference to the subject, and combined them together in one insane utterance of mingled bitterness, falsehood, and imbecility. During the progress of the debate Mr. Dickinson, of New York, made a fierce attack on Mr. Webster, in a powerful and elaborate speech, in which, however, he reproduced and repeated some of the inventions of Mr. Ingersoll. The latter. having thus received the apparent impress of importance and authority by being adopted and uttered by Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Webster felt called upon to give the subject a formal and thorough discussion in the Senate. On the sixth and seventh days of April, he delivered one of his ablest efforts. He proved most unanswerably that the northeastern boundary had been fairly and satisfactorily settled; that proper satisfaction and apology had been obtained for an aggression on the territory of the United States; that

safe and suitable stipulations had been entered into to se cure the fulfilment of the duty of Government in regard to the slave-trade; that crimes disturbing the peace of nations had been suppressed; that the Southern coastingtrade had been secured; that impressment had been abolished; and that the honor of the American name had been amply vindicated. In addition to all this, he proceeded to castigate Mr. Ingersoll with the lash of a Titan, as the chief slanderer, who had been most active and indefatigable in raking together the manifold and multiform filth in reference to him and the treaty, which he had afterward uttered in offensive streams in Congress; and he applied to him such a discipline of ridicule, sarcasm, and contempt as had never before been witnessed in the halls of the Capitol. He completely extinguished his enemy; and so total was his political annihilation that, from that hour and beneath that gigantic blow, his victim vanished entirely from public view and sank into oblivion.

CHAPTER X.

Temporary Retirement of Mr. Webster from Political Life-His Legal Arguments-The Girard Will Case-Suit against the City of Boston— Mr. Webster returns to the Senate-Annexation of Texas-Dispute respecting Oregon Territory-The Mexican War-Admission of California-The Compromise Measures of Mr. Clay-Mr. Webster's Able Speech on the Subject.

MR. WEBSTER spent the two succeeding years in absence from the national councils, and in the pursuit of his professional engagements at the bar. During this interval he was employed in the conduct of several important lawsuits, which attracted the attention of the whole community in consequence of the magnitude of the interests. involved in them. Several of these assumed the form of arguments before the United States Supreme Court at Washington. Among the number was the case of Vidal and others against the Executors of the Will of Stephen Girard, in which property to the value of millions was concerned. In this memorable case he was opposed by Horace Binney of Philadelphia, a jurist who, possessing none of the abilities of Mr. Webster as a statesman, was fully his equal, and probably his superior, in legal learning. The position assumed by Mr. Webster on this occasion was, that Girard College, the chief devisee under the will, was not a charity, because established on atheistical principles; and therefore not entitled to the protection of the laws. This position, doubtless the only one upon which an argument could possibly be based against the validity of the