of Boston, eight years. Our first official connection occurred in 1819, when we were elected members of a committee, appointed by the inhabitants of Boston, to prepare a memorial to Congress on the subject of the prohibition of slavery in the new States, caused by the proposed admission of Missouri. The memorial prepared was either wholly, or chiefly drafted by Mr. Webster. But whether so, or not, his name was subscribed to it, and it had his unqualified assent. In it the following principles were asserted and maintained by able arguments.

1. That Congress had the constitutional power to prohibit slavery in the new States, and that to make such prohibition was both just and politic.

2. That the inconvenience and danger of a slave population had become apparent, and that it became the justice and wisdom of the national councils to prevent the further progress of this great and

serious evil.

3. That by opening extensive and fertile fields as a new market for slaves, government would become parties to a traffic which, by many acts, passed successively, for many years, it had denounced as impolitic, unchristian and inhuman.

4. That a strong feeling existed in Massachusetts of the injustice of any toleration of slavery, which circumstances had entailed on a portion of the community, but which to permit, in a new country, would be to encourage fraud, rapacity and violence.

In my conversations with Mr. Webster on the construction of that memorial and on other occasions, our concurrence in opinion on the subject of slavery was manifested; and I was highly gratified by his repeated expressions of direct approbation of my language and course in Congress, in 1811, on the passage of the bill for the admission of Louisiana into the Union. Our coincidence in opinion on this subject, was confirmed by the tenor of all his public discourses, for more than thirty years. During that period, I witnessed with pleasure and admiration the evidence of his talent, and the triumphs of his genius. I regarded him as a luminary of the first magnitude, destined, in due time, to become the ruling star of our Union. Had I been asked, on the morning of the 7th of March, 1850, how my opinions, on the subject of

slavery, coincided with his, I should have deemed myself justified in replying with mingled pleasure and pride that "they were iden tical." And on that day had I seen Orion or Arcturus fall from heaven and turn to dust and ashes at my feet, I could scarcely have been more astonished than at the sudden descent of Mr. Webster from the lofty station he had always before occupied, as the champion of the free States. The discrepancy of that speech with his previous political course and opinions, combined with the approximation, at no distant period, of an election of President of the United States, and also with the well known strong desire of Boston whigs to see him in possession of that station, led many to entertain the idea that this change of course and policy was nothing else than a headlong dash at that office. The presses and language of the slaveholders manifested the same opinion; but I thought too highly of the intellectual greatness of Mr. Webster, and of his own consciousness of it, to coincide in these sentiments. I attributed the change in his political course to his obligations to the party which supported him. Like too many of our public men, he combined professional relations and interests, with those of the statesman,—an union which, when known, never fails to weaken the public confidence in the independence of his course; leaving it doubtful, in the public mind, whether the interest of clients or of the clique which rewards him, predominates over his political path, and rendering it difficult even for the individual himself to determine, whether public interest or private obligations most influence his course. Self-reliant as Mr. Webster was, he never would have ventured on such a change in his language and views, as a public man, unless he had been previously assured of support from those, to whom he wished to make his course accceptable. Accordingly, immediately after the speech of the 7th of March, 1850, it was publicly asserted, in this vicinity, generally believed, and has never, as I have heard, been contradicted, that previous to its delivery Mr. Webster addressed by letter to one or more leading whigs, or through the telegraph, the following direct question: "How far may I go on the subject of slavery, and be supported by the whigs?" and that the reply returned was, "Go as far as you please, and you may be assured of our support." Whether these were the exact terms of the question or the answer, I am not able to state; but this report reached me through such channels that I

have never doubted it was in some degree true. Its entire accuracy is unimportant to my present purpose.

That speech did receive the unqualified approbation and support not only of most of the leaders, but apparently of a great proportion of the whigs. A paper expressing that approbation and support, was circulated and signed not only by the elite of the whigs, but by nearly a thousand others, who, dazzled by the splendor of the speaker's talents, were unwilling to refuse to join the multitude in approving a speech the bearings and consequences of which, events have proved, they could not have sufficiently considered and did not understand. A justly esteemed gentleman of the bar, was found willing to congratulate Mr. Webster, in the presence of an enthusiastic multitude, assembled in Bowdoin Square, on the wisdom and patriotism of that speech. To which he responded amid the applauses of the crowd assembled on the occasion, with appropriate expressions of thankfulness, which were unquestionably heartfelt. He well knew the nature and probable consequences of that speech and was glad enough to go down to future times with so many responsible endorsers; many of whom had, by their signatures, nailed themselves down to the counter for many things it contained, which though current at the time, would not be received as true coin by posterity. Notwithstanding these demonstrations of approval and of fellowship of opinion by such multitudes, that speech, in my judgment, was at that time, and is at this day, regarded by a majority of the people of Massachusetts as neiter that of a statesman or a patriot; and that such will be the decision of future times, when the passions and influences of the present day shall have passed away, I cannot doubt. I leave the truth of this opinion to the test of time. My present object only is, to adduce the unqualified support by the whigs of this speech of Mr. Webster, as one prominent cause of that loss of popularity and power, which they acknowledge. To more recent demonstrations of the whigs, tending to the same result, I shall only briefly allude.

The first of these is their course in respect to the Nebraska and Kansas act, and the repeal of the Missouri compromise, both of which, according to the allegations of slaveholders, were included in the compromise of 1850; of which Mr. Webster's 7th of March speech of that year was the ground-work. On the avowal of this policy, the whigs, as on former like occasions, broke forth

in remonstrances, resolutions, indignant denials that any authority for those acts were derived from the fugitive slave law of 1850, or from the proceedings under it.

To these verbal demonstrations, acquiescence soon succeeded, and the whigs are apparently now preparing to stretch their elastic patriotism so as to take in Kansas as a slave State, if Buchanan gets possession of the Presidential chair. Their nomination of Fillmore withdraws votes from Fremont as effectually as if they voted for Buchanan, and enables them to escape from the odium of being subject to the influence of slaveholders, and to unite with them in the cry of sectionalism. Their speeches and caucus resolutions manifest a comparative indifference to the outrages on Mr. Sumner and the free citizens of Kansas. All these facts are symptomatic, and have compelled, it is believed, a majority of the citizens of Massachusetts to the conclusion, that the present remnants of the whig party are no longer true supporters of constitutional liberty, but, in truth, representatives of the united interests of cotton-growers and cotton-spinners, and being nothing else, in this Union, but the northern wing of the slave power. The nature and origin of this interest resulting from cotton, is graphically set forth in Mr. Webster's speech of 7th of March, 1850, as it respects the South, and it also happily shadows forth the nature and growth of the twin cotton interest in the North. "At the time of the adoption of the Constitution," Mr. Webster states, in that speech," there was entire coincidence and concurrence of sentiment on the subject of slavery, between the North and the South". "in both it was regarded as a moral and social evil;" but "slavery is not regarded in the South now, as it was then."—" It has now become an institution, a cherished institution, in that quarter ;no evil,-no scourge,-but a great religious, social and moral blessing." This statement of Mr. Webster is true,-perfectly so. The cause of this change of opinion, on the subject of slavery, he attributes, and justly, "to the rapid growth and sudden extension of the cotton plantations of the South, which gave a new desire to promote slavery,-to spread it, and use its labor." Of consequence, says Mr. Webster, "there grew up an eagerness for other territory,—a new area, or new areas for the cultivation of the cotton crop, and measures leading to this result, were brought about rapidly, one after another, under the lead of Southern men at the

head of the government, they having the majority in both branches of Congress to accomplish their ends." After such a statement of the origin and progress of slavery, it might have been expected that a Senator from Massachusetts would have said something of the iniquity and injustice of this policy; something concerning the counterbalancing of the profits of cotton by the moral effects of slavery on the character of the master, on the social improvement and civilization of the human race, and on the resulting duties and dangers of the free States.

But instead of such views or sentiments, he thus proceeds: "There is no generation of mankind whose opinions are not subject to be influenced by what appears to them their present emergent and exigent interests. I impute to the South no particular selfish view in the change which has come over her. I impute to her no dishonest view. All that has happened has been natural. It has followed those causes, which always influence the human mind and act upon it." I make no comment on this apologetic extenuation of the extension of slavery. I refer to it only because, in this graphic statement of the progress of slavery in the South, he gives an equally graphic delineation of its growth in the affections of the inhabitants of particular localities in the free States. With the multiplication of cotton plantations in the slave States, spinning jennies multiplied in the free States, particularly in the North. According to Mr. Webster, self-interest "always influences the human mind and acts upon it. This is natural; of course there is in it nothing selfish, nothing dishonest," in keeping a whole race of men slaves, because it is for the interest of the South. For the same reason, there is nothing disgraceful or anti-patriotic in the North, in giving aid to the slave States; seeing that the cottongrowing and cotton-spinning interests are identical. That a change of feeling and opinion in certain localities in the North, concerning the institution of slavery, did take place, about the same time that the extensive culture of cotton raised the value of slave labor in the South, was apparent to any one who looked independently upon the course of events and opinions; and that this change did create a strong disapprobation among that part of the people of Massachusetts, among whom the cotton influence did not operate, is undeniable. The party called the whigs, confident in their talents, their wealth, and their private virtue, were active in meas