Mr. Webster took no further action of importance at this session, not even participating in the great debate on the loan bill; but, by the manner in which these two speeches were referred to and quoted in Congress for many days after they were delivered, we can perceive the depth of their first impression.  I have dwelt upon them at length because they are not in the collected edition of his speeches, where they well deserve a place, and, still more, because they are the first examples of his parliamentary eloquence which show his characteristic qualities and the action of his mind.  Mr. Webster was a man of slow growth, not reaching his highest point until he was nearly fifty years of age, but these two speeches mark an advanced stage in his progress.  The only fresh point that he made was when he declared that the embargo was colonial in spirit; and this thought proceeded from the vital principle of Mr. Webster’s public life, his intense love for nationality and union, which grew with his growth and strengthened with his strength.  In other respects, these speeches presented simply the arguments and opinions of his party.  They fell upon the ear of Congress and the country with a new and ringing sound because they were stated so finely and with such simplicity.  Certainly one of them, and probably both, were delivered without any immediate preparation, but they really had the preparation of years, and were the utterance of thoughts which had been garnered up by long meditation.  He wisely confined himself at this time to a subject which had been long before his mind, and upon which he had gathered all the essential points by observation and by a study of the multitude of speeches and essays with which the country had been deluged.  These early speeches, like some of the best of his prime, although nominally unprepared, were poured forth from the overflowing resources which had been the fruit of months of reflection, and which had been stored up by an unyielding memory.  They had really been in preparation ever since the embargo pamphlet of 1808, and that was one reason for their ripeness and terseness, for their easy flow and condensed force.  I have examined with care the debates in that Congress.  There were many able and experienced speakers on the floor.  Mr. Clay, it is true, took no part, and early in the session went to Europe.  But Mr. Calhoun led in debate, and there were many others second only to him.  Among all the speeches, however, Mr. Webster’s stand out in sharp relief.  His utterances were as clear and direct as those of Mr. Calhoun, but they had none of the South Carolinian’s dryness.  We can best judge of their merit and their effect by comparing them with those of his associates.  They were not only forcible, but they were vivid also and full of life, and his words when he was roused fell like the blows of a hammer on an anvil.  They lacked the polish and richness of his later efforts, but the force and power of statement and the purity of diction were all there, and men began to realize that one destined to great achievements had entered the field of American politics.