He charges me with inconsistency.  That may depend on deciding what inconsistency is, in respect to such subjects, and how it is to be proved.  I will state the facts, for I have them in my mind somewhat more fully than the honorable member has himself presented them.  Let us begin at the beginning.  In 1816 I voted against the tariff law which then passed.  In 1824 I again voted against the tariff law which was then proposed, and which passed.  A majority of New England votes, in 1824, were against the tariff system.  The bill received but one vote from Massachusetts; but it passed.  The policy was established.  New England acquiesced in it; conformed her business and pursuits to it; embarked her capital, and employed her labor, in manufactures; and I certainly admit that, from that time, I have felt bound to support interests thus called into being, and into importance, by the settled policy of the government.  I have stated this often here, and often elsewhere.  The ground is defensible, and I maintain it.

As to the resolutions adopted in Boston in 1820, and which resolutions he has caused to be read, and which he says he presumes I prepared, I have no recollection of having drawn the resolutions, and do not believe I did.  But I was at the meeting, and addressed the meeting, and what I said on that occasion was produced here, and read in the Senate, years ago.

The resolutions, Sir, were opposed to the commencing of a high tariff policy.  I was opposed to it, and spoke against it; the city of Boston was opposed to it; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was opposed to it.  Remember, Sir, that this was in 1820.  This opposition continued till 1824.  The votes all show this.  But in 1824 the question was decided; the government entered upon the policy; it invited men to embark their property and their means of living in it.  Individuals thus encouraged have done this to a great extent; and therefore I say, so long as the manufactures shall need reasonable and just protection from government, I shall be disposed to give it to them.  What is there, Sir, in all this, for the gentleman to complain of?  Would he have us always oppose the policy adopted by the country on a great question?  Would he have minorities never submit to the will of majorities?

I remember to have said, Sir, at the meeting in Faneuil Hall, that protection appeared to be regarded as incidental to revenue, and that the incident could not be carried fairly above the principal; in other words, that duties ought not to be laid for the mere object of protection.  I believe that proposition to be substantially correct.  I believe that, if the power of protection be inferred only from the revenue power, the protection could only be incidental.