Mr. Calhoun laid himself open to most unmerciful retorts, which was his misfortune, not his fault, for the embargo had been utterly and hopelessly wrong from the beginning.  Mr. Webster, however, took full advantage of the opportunity thus presented.  His opening congratulations are in his best vein of stately sarcasm, and are admirably put.  He followed this up by a new argument of great force, showing the colonial spirit of the restrictive policy.  He also dwelt with fresh vigor on the identification with France necessitated by the restrictive laws, a reproach which stung Mr. Calhoun and his followers more than anything else.  He then took up the embargo policy and tore it to pieces,—­no very difficult undertaking, but well performed.  The shifty and shifting policy of the government was especially distasteful to Mr. Webster, with his lofty conception of consistent and steady statesmanship, a point which is well brought out in the following passage:—­

“In a commercial country, nothing can be more objectionable than frequent and violent changes.  The concerns of private business do not endure such rude shocks but with extreme inconvenience and great loss.  It would seem, however, that there is a class of politicians to whose taste all change is suited, to whom whatever is unnatural seems wise, and all that is violent appears great....  The Embargo Act, the Non-Importation Act, and all the crowd of additions and supplements, together with all their garniture of messages, reports, and resolutions, are tumbling undistinguished into one common grave.  But yesterday this policy had a thousand friends and supporters; to-day it is fallen and prostrate, and few ‘so poor as to do it reverence.’  Sir, a government which cannot administer the affairs of a nation without so frequent and such violent alterations in the ordinary occupations and pursuits of private life, has, in my opinion, little claim to the regard of the community.”

All this is very characteristic of Mr. Webster’s temperament in dealing with public affairs, and is a very good example of his power of dignified reproach and condemnation.

Mr. Calhoun had said at the close of his speech, that the repeal of the restrictive measures should not be allowed to affect the double duties which protected manufactures.  Mr. Webster discussed this point at length, defining his own position, which was that of the New England Federalists, who believed in free trade as an abstract principle, and considered protection only as an expedient of which they wanted as little as possible.  Mr. Webster set forth these views in his usual effective and lucid manner, but they can be considered more fitly at the period when he dealt with the tariff as a leading issue of the day and of his own public life.