His two other important speeches in this convention have been preserved in his works, and are purely and wholly conservative in tone and spirit.  The first related to the basis of representation in the Senate, whose members were then apportioned according to the amount of taxable property in the districts.  This system, Mr. Webster thought, should be retained, and his speech was a most masterly discussion of the whole system of government by two Houses.  He urged the necessity of a basis of representation for the upper House different from that of the lower, in order to make the former fully serve its purpose of a check and balance to the popular branch.  This important point he handled in the most skilful manner, and there is no escape from his conclusion that a difference of origin in the two legislative branches of the government is essential to the full and perfect operation of the system.  This difference of origin, he argued, could be obtained only by the introduction of property as a factor in the basis of representation.  The weight of his speech was directed to defending the principle of a suitable representation of property, which was a subject requiring very adroit treatment.  The doctrine is one which probably would not be tolerated now in any part of this country, and even in 1820, in Massachusetts, it was a delicate matter to advocate it, for it was hostile to the general sentiment of the people.  Having established his position that it was all important to make the upper branch a strong and effective check, he said that the point in issue was not whether property offered the best method of distinguishing between the two Houses, but whether it was not better than no distinction at all.  This being answered affirmatively, the next question to be considered was whether property, not in the sense of personal possessions and personal power, but in a general sense, ought not to have its due influence in matters of government.  He maintained the justice of this proposition by showing that our constitutions rest largely on the general equality of property, which, in turn, is due to our laws of distribution.  This led him into a discussion of the principles of the distribution of property.  He pointed out the dangers arising in England from the growth of a few large estates, while on the other hand he predicted that the rapid and minute subdivision of property in France would change the character of the government, and, far from strengthening the crown, as was then generally prophesied, would have a directly opposite effect, by creating a large and united body of small proprietors, who would sooner or later control the country.  He illustrated, in this way, the value and importance of a general equality of property, and of steadiness in legislation affecting it.  These were the reasons, he contended, for making property the basis of the check and balance furnished to our system of government by an upper House.  Moreover, all property being subject to taxation for the purpose