had been urged on the ground that Congress had no authority to impose any duty except for revenue.  On rising to speak, Mr. Calhoun at once, and most unequivocally, committed himself to the protective principle.  He began by saying, that, if the right to protect had not been called in question, he would not have spoken at all.  It was solely to assist in establishing that right that he had been induced, without previous preparation, to take part in the debate.  He then proceeded to deliver an ordinary protectionist speech; without, however, entering upon the questioner constitutional right.  He merely dwelt upon the great benefits to be derived from affording to our infant manufactures “immediate and ample protection.”  That the Constitution interposed no obstacle, was assumed by him throughout.  He concluded by observing, that a flourishing manufacturing interest would “bind together more closely our widely-spread republic,” since

“it will greatly increase our mutual dependence and intercourse, and excite an increased attention to internal improvements,—­a subject every way so intimately connected with the ultimate attainment of national strength and the perfection of our political institutions.”

He further observed, that “the liberty and union of this country are inseparable,” and that the destruction of either would involve the destruction of the other.  He concluded his speech with these words:  “Disunion,—­this single word comprehends almost the sum of our political dangers, and against it we ought to be perpetually guarded.”

The time has passed for any public man to claim credit for “consistency.”  A person who, after forty years of public life, can truly say that he has never changed an opinion, must be either a demigod or a fool.  We do not blame Mr. Calhoun for ceasing to be a protectionist and becoming a free-trader; for half the thinking world has changed sides on that question during the last thirty years.  A growing mind must necessarily change its opinions.  But there is a consistency from which no man, public or private, can ever be absolved,—­the consistency of his statements with fact.  In the year 1833, in his speech on the Force Bill, Mr. Calhoun referred to his tariff speech of 1816 in a manner which excludes him from the ranks of men of honor.  He had the astonishing audacity to say: 

“I am constrained in candor to acknowledge, for I wish to disguise nothing, that the protective principle was recognized by the Act of 1816.  How this was overlooked at the time, it is not in my power to say. It escaped my observation, which I can account for only on the ground that the principle was new, and that my attention was engaged by another important subject.”

The charitable reader may interpose here, and say that Mr. Calhoun may have forgotten his speech of 1816.  Alas! no.  He had that speech before him at the time.  Vigilant opponents had unearthed