When Mr. Webster first entered Congress he was a thorough-going Federalist.  But the Federalists of New England differed from their great chief, Alexander Hamilton, on the question of a protective policy.  Hamilton, in his report on manufactures, advocated with consummate ability the adoption of the principle of protection for nascent industries as an integral and essential part of a true national policy, and urged it on its own merits, without any reference to its being incident to revenue.  The New England Federalists, on the other hand, coming from exclusively commercial communities, were in principle free-traders.  They regarded with disfavor the doctrine that protection was a good thing in itself, and desired it, if at all, only in the most limited form and purely as an incident to raising revenue.  With these opinions Mr. Webster was in full sympathy, and he took occasion when Mr. Calhoun, in 1814, spoke in favor of the existing double duties as a protective measure, and also in favor of manufactures, during the debate on the repeal of the embargo, to define his position on this important question.  A few brief extracts will show his views, which were expressed very clearly and with his wonted ability and force.

“I consider,” he said, “the imposition of double duties as a mere financial measure.  Its great object was to raise revenue, not to foster manufactures....  I do not say the double duties ought to be continued.  I think they ought not.  But what I particularly object to is the holding out of delusive expectations to those concerned in manufactures....  In respect to manufactures it is necessary to speak with some precision.  I am not, generally speaking, their enemy.  I am their friend; but I am not for rearing them or any other interest in hot-beds.  I would not legislate precipitately, even in favor of them; above all, I would not profess intentions in relation to them which I did not purpose to execute.  I feel no desire to push capital into extensive manufactures faster than the general progress of our wealth and population propels it.

“I am not in haste to see Sheffields and Birminghams in America.  Until the population of the country shall be greater in proportion to its extent, such establishments would be impracticable if attempted, and if practicable they would be unwise.”

He then pointed out the inferiority and the perils of manufactures as an occupation in comparison with agriculture, and concluded as follows:—­

“I am not anxious to accelerate the approach of the period when the great mass of American labor shall not find its employment in the field; when the young men of the country shall be obliged to shut their eyes upon external nature, upon the heavens and the earth, and immerse themselves in close and unwholesome workshops; when they shall be obliged to shut their ears to the bleatings of their own flocks upon their own hills, and to the voice of the lark that cheers