existing engagements and all existing duties, to uphold and defend the Constitution as it is established, with whatever regrets about some provisions which it does actually contain.  But to coerce it into silence, to endeavor to restrain its free expression, to seek to compress and confine it, warm as it is and more heated as such endeavors would inevitably render it,—­should this be attempted, I know nothing, even in the Constitution or in the Union itself, which would not be endangered by the explosion which might follow.”

Thus Mr. Webster spoke on slavery and upon the agitation against it, in 1837.  The tone was the same as in 1820, and there was the same ring of dignified courage and unyielding opposition to the extension and perpetuation of a crying evil.

In the session of Congress preceding the speech at Niblo’s Garden, numerous petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District had been offered.  Mr. Webster reiterated his views as to the proper disposition to be made of them; but announced that he had no intention of expressing an opinion as to the merits of the question.  Objections were made to the reception of the petitions, the question was stated on the reception, and the whole matter was laid on the table.  The Senate, under the lead of Calhoun, was trying to shut the door against the petitioners, and stifle the right of petition; and there was no John Quincy Adams among them to do desperate battle against this infamous scheme.

In the following year came more petitions, and Mr. Calhoun now attempted to stop the agitation in another fashion.  He introduced a resolution to the effect that these petitions were a direct and dangerous attack on the “institution” of the slave-holding States.  This Mr. Clay improved in a substitute, which stated that any act or measure of Congress looking to the abolition of slavery in the District would be a violation of the faith implied in the cession by Virginia and Maryland,—­a just cause of alarm to the South, and having a direct tendency to disturb and endanger the Union.  Mr. Webster wrote to a friend that this was an attempt to make a new Constitution, and that the proceedings of the Senate, when they passed the resolutions, drew a line which could never be obliterated.  Mr. Webster also spoke briefly against the resolutions, confining himself strictly to demonstrating the absurdity of Mr. Clay’s doctrine of “plighted faith.”  He disclaimed carefully, and even anxiously, any intention of expressing an opinion on the merits of the question; although he mentioned one or two reasonable arguments against abolition.  The resolutions were adopted by a large majority, Mr. Webster voting against them on the grounds set forth in his speech.  Whether the approaching presidential election had any connection with his careful avoidance of everything except the constitutional point, which contrasted so strongly with his recent utterances at Niblo’s Garden, it is, of course, impossible to determine.  John Quincy Adams, who had no love for Mr. Webster, and who was then in the midst of his desperate struggle for the right of petition, says, in his diary, in March, 1838, speaking of the delegation from Massachusetts:—­