this was the greatest service he ever performed in relation to our national currency or national finance. He was himself proud of it in his later years.* The protective tariff was supported by Messrs Calhoun, Clay, and Lowndes. Mr Webster opposed it; for the capitalists of the North, then deeply engaged in commerce, looked on it as hostile to their shipping, and talked of the "dangers of manufactories." Was it for this reason that the South, always jealous of the Northern thrifty toil, proposed it? So it was alleged.† Mr Webster declared that Congress has no constitutional right to levy duties for protection; only for revenue; revenue is the constitutional substance; protection, only the accidental shadow.‡ In 1816, Mr Webster removed to Boston. In 1819, while he was a private citizen, a most important question came before the nation,-Shall slavery be extended into the Missouri territory? Here, too, Mr Webster was on the side of freedom.§ He was one of a committee appointed by a meeting of the citizens of Boston to call a general meeting of the citizens to oppose the extension of slavery. The United States Marshal was chairman of the meeting. Mr Webster was one of the committee to report resolutions at a subsequent meeting. The preamble said : "The extirpation of slavery has never ceased to be a measure deeply concerning the honour and safety of the United States." "In whatever tends to diminish the evil of slavery, or to check its growth, all parts of the confederacy are alike interested." "If slavery is established in Missouri, then it will be burdened with all the mischiefs which are too well known to be the sure results of slavery; an evil, which has long been deplored, would be incalculably augmented; the whole confederacy would be weakened, and our free institutions disgraced, by the voluntary extension of a practice repugnant to all the principles of a free government, the continuance of which in any part of our country necessity alone has justified." It was resolved, that Congress 66 possesses the constitutional power, upon the admission of any new State created beyond the *It passed April 26, 1816. Yeas, 79; Nays, 35. But see Mr Calhoun's defence of his course. York, 1843, p. 329. Speech in House of Representatives. Life and Speeches. New In Mr Everett's Memoir prefixed to the Works of Mr Webster, no mention is made of this opposition to the Missouri Compromise! limits of the original territory of the United States, to make the prohibition of the further extension of slavery or involuntary servitude in such new State, a condition of its admission." "It is just and expedient that this power should be exercised by Congress, upon the admission of all new States created beyond the limits of the original territory of the United States." In a speech, Mr Webster "showed incontrovertibly that Congress had this power; that they were called upon by all the principles of sound policy, humanity, and morality, to enact it, and, by prohibiting slavery in the new State of Missouri, oppose a barrier to the future progress of slavery, which else and this was the last time the opportunity would happen to fix its limits—would roll on desolating the vast expanse of continent to the Pacific Ocean.”* Mr Webster was appointed chairman of a committee to prepare a memorial to Congress on this matter.† He said: "We have a strong feeling of the injustice of any toleration of slavery." But, "to permit it in a new country, what is it but to encourage that rapacity and fraud and violence, against which we have so long pointed the denunciations of our penal code? What is it but to tarnish the proud fame of our country? What is it but to throw suspicion on its good faith, and to render questionable all its professions of regard for the rights of humanity, and the liberties of mankind?"—p. 21. At that time, such was the general opinion of the Northern men.‡ A writer in the leading journal of Boston said: "Other calamities are trifles compared to this (slavery). War has alleviations; if it does much evil, it does some good: at least, it has an end. But negro Account of a Meeting at the State House in Boston, Dec. 3, 1819, to consider the Extension of Slavery by the United States (in "Boston Daily Advertiser" for Dec. 4, 1819). "A Memorial to the Congress of the United States, on the Subject of Restraining the Increase of Slavery in the New States to be admitted into the Union," &c. &c. Boston, 1819, pp. 22. See a valuable series of papers in the "Boston Daily Advertiser," No. I. to VI., on this subject, from Nov. 20 to Dec. 28, 1819. Charge of Judge Story to the Grand Juries, &c.; ibid. Dec. 7 and 8, 1819. Article on the Missouri Compromise, in " North American Review," Jan. 1820. Mr King's speech in Senate of United States, in "Columbian Centinel " for Jan. 19 and 22, 1820. See also the comments of the " 'Daily Advertiser on the treachery of Mr Mason, the Boston representative, March 28 and 29, 1820. slavery is misery without mixture; it is Pandora's box, but no Hope at the bottom; it is evil, and only evil, and that continually."* A meeting of the most respectable citizens of Worcester resolved against "any further extension of slavery," as "rendering our boasted Land of Liberty pre-eminent only as a mart for Human Flesh." 'Sad prospects," said the "Boston Daily Advertiser," "indeed for emancipators and colonizers, that, faster than the wit or the means of men can devise a method even for keeping stationary the frightful propagation of slavery, other men, members of the same community, sometimes colleagues of the same deliberative assembly, will be compassing, with all their force, the widest possible extension. of slavery." + The South uttered its threat of "dissolving the Union," if slavery were not extended west of the Mississippi. "The threat," said a writer, "when we consider from whence it comes, raises at once wonder and pity, but has never been thought worth a serious answer here. Even the academicians of Laputa never imagined such a nation as these seceding States would form." "We have lost much; our national honour has received a stain in the eyes of the world; we have enlarged the sphere of human misery and crime." Only four New-Englanders voted for the Missouri Compromise,-Hill and Holmes of Maine, Mason and Shaw of Massachusetts. Mr Webster held no public office in this State, until he was chosen a member of the Convention for amending the Constitution of the Commonwealth. It appears that he had a large influence in the Massachusetts Convention. His speeches, however, do not show any remarkable depth of philosophy, or width of historic view; but they display the strength of a great mind not fully master of his theme. They are not always fair; they sometimes show the specious arguments of the advocate, and do not always indicate the soundness of the judge. He developed no new ideas; looked back more than forward. He stated his opinions with clearness and "L. M." in "Columbian Centinel" for Dec. 8, 1819. energy. His leaning was then, as it always was, towards the concentration of power; not to its diffusion. It was the Federal leaning of New-England at the time. He had no philosophical objection to a technical religious test as the qualification for office, but did not think it expedient to found a measure on that principle. He wanted property, and not population, as the basis of representation in the Senate. It was "the true basis and measure of power." "Political power," said he, "naturally and necessarily goes into the hands which hold the property." The House might rest on men, the Senate on money. He said, "It would seem to be the part of political wisdom to found government on property;" yet he wished to have the property diffused as widely as possible. He was not singular in this preference of money to men. Others thought, that, to put the Senate on the basis of population, and not property, was a change of "an alarming character." 4 He had small confidence in the people; apparently little sympathy with the multitude of men. He was jealous of the Legislature; afraid of its encroachment on the Judiciary,-New Hampshire had, perhaps, shown him examples of legislative injustice, but contended ably for the independence of Judges. He had great veneration for the existing Constitution, and thought there would "never be any occasion for great changes" in it, and that "no revision of its general principles would be necessary." Others of the same party thought also that the Constitution was "the most perfect system that human wisdom had ever devised." To judge from the record, Mr. Webster found abler heads than his own in that Convention. Indeed it would have been surprising if a young man, only eight and thirty years of age, should surpass the "assembled wisdom of the State."* On the 2nd of December, 1823, Mr Webster took his seat in the House of Representatives, as member for Boston. He defended the cause of the Greeks "with the power of a Some valuable passages of Mr Webster's speeeches are omitted from the edition of his Works. (Compare vol. iii. pp. 15 and 17, with the "Journal of Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of Delegates," &c. Boston, 1821, pp. 143, 144, and 145, 146.) A reason for the omission will be obvious to any one who reads the original, and remembers the position and expectations of the author in 1851. great mind applied to a great subject," denounced the Holy Alliance," and recommended interference to prevent oppression. Public opinion set strongly in that direction.* "The policy of our Government," said he, "is on the side of liberal and enlightened sentiments; "The civilized world has done with 'The enormous faith of many made for one.'”† 99 66 In 1816 he had opposed a tariff which levied a heavy duty on imports; in 1824 he opposed it again, with vigorous arguments. His speech at that time is a work of large labour, of some nice research, and still of value. "Like a mighty giant," says Mr Hayne, "he bore away upon his shoulders the pillars of the temple of error and delusion, escaping himself unhurt, and leaving his adversaries overwhelmed in its ruins." He thought, "the authority of Congress to exercise the revenue-power with direct reference to the protection of manufactures is a questionable authority." He represented the opinion of New-England, which "discountenanced the progress of this policy" of high duties. The Federalist of the North inclined to free trade; in 1807 Mr Dexter thought it "an unalienable right," || and in 1820 Judge Story asked why should "the labouring classes be taxed for the necessaries of life? "¶ The tariff of 1824 got but one vote from Massachusetts. As the public judgment of Northern capitalists changed, it brought over the opinion of Mr Webster, who seems to have had no serious and sober convictions on this subject. At one time, he declares the protective system is ruinous to the labouring man; but again, "it is aimed point-blank at the protection of labour;" and the duty on coal must not * Meetings had been held in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and other important towns, and considerable sums of money raised on behalf of the Greeks. Even the educated men were filled with enthusiasm for the descendants of Anacreon and Pericles. The leading journals of England were on the same side. See the letters of John Q. Adams to Mr Rich and Mr Luriottis, Dec. 18, 1823; and of John Adams, Dec. 29, 1823. Mr Clay was on the same side with Mr Webster. But Mr Randolph, in his speech in House of Representatives, Jan. 20, 1824, tartly asked, "Why have we never sent an envoy to our sister republic Hayti? † See the just and beautiful remarks of Mr Webster in this speech. Works, vol. iii. pp. 77, 78, 92 and 93. Oh si sic semper ! Vol. iii. p. 94, et seq. See Speech in Fanueil Hall, Oct. 2, 1820. Argument in District Court of Massachusetts against the Embargo. |