“Protection, when carried to the point which is now recommended, that is, to entire prohibition, seems to me destructive of all commercial intercourse between nations.  We are urged to adopt the system on general principles; ...  I do not admit the general principle; on the contrary, I think freedom of trade the general principle, and restriction the exception.”

He pointed out that the proposed protective policy involved a decline of commerce, and that steadiness and uniformity, the most essential requisites in any policy, were endangered.  He then with great power dealt with the various points summarized by Mr. Atkinson, and concluded with a detailed and learned examination of the various clauses of the bill, which finally passed by a small majority and became law.

In 1828 came another tariff bill, so bad and so extreme in many respects that it was called the “bill of abominations.”  It originated in the agitation of the woollen manufacturers which had started the year before, and for this bill Mr. Webster spoke and voted.  He changed his ground on this important question absolutely and entirely, and made no pretence of doing anything else.  The speech which he made on this occasion is a celebrated one, but it is so solely on account of the startling change of position which it announced.  Mr. Webster has been attacked and defended for his action at this time with great zeal, and all the constitutional and economic arguments for and against protection are continually brought forward in this connection.  From the tone of the discussion, it is to be feared that many of those who are interested in the question have not taken the trouble to read what he said.  The speech of 1828 is by no means equal in any way to its predecessors in the same field.  It is brief and simple to the last degree.  It has not a shred of constitutional argument, nor does it enter at all into a discussion of general principles.  It makes but one point, and treats that point with great force as the only one to be made under the circumstances, and thereby presents the single and sufficient reason for its author’s vote.  A few lines from the speech give the marrow of the whole matter.  Mr. Webster said:—­

“New England, sir, has not been a leader in this policy.  On the contrary, she held back herself and tried to hold others back from it, from the adoption of the Constitution to 1824.  Up to 1824 she was accused of sinister and selfish designs, because she discountenanced the progress of this policy....  Under this angry denunciation against her the act of 1824 passed.  Now the imputation is of a precisely opposite character....  Both charges, sir, are equally without the slightest foundation.  The opinion of New England up to 1824 was founded in the conviction that, on the whole, it was wisest and best, both for herself and others, that manufactures should make haste slowly....  When, at the commencement of the late war, duties