people have proved false to their employers, and betrayed their trust. Amongst all political men who have been weighed in the balance, and found wanting, with whom shall I compare him? Not with John Quincy Adams, who, in 1807, voted for the embargo. It may have been the mistake of an honest intention, though I confess I cannot think so yet. At any rate, laying an embargo, which he probably thought would last but a few months, was a small thing compared with the refusal to restrict slavery, willingness to enact laws to the disadvantage of mankind, and the voluntary support of Mason's iniquitous bill. Besides, Mr. Adams lived a long life ; if he erred, or if he sinned in this matter, he afterwards fought most valiantly for the rights of man.
Shall I compare Mr. Webster with Thomas Wentworth, the great Earl of Strafford, a man " whose doubtful character and memorable end have made him the most conspicuous character of a reign so fertile in recollections?" He, like Webster, was a man of large powers, and once devoted them to noble uses. Did Wentworth defend the "Petition of Right? " So did Webster many times defend the great cause of liberty. But it was written of Strafford, that " in his self-interested and ambitious mind," patriotism "was the seed sown among thorns!" "If we reflect upon this nifin's cold-blooded apostacy on the first lure to his ambition, and on his splendid abilities, which enhanced the guilt of that desertion, we must feel some indignation at those who have palliated all his iniquities, and embalmed his memory with the attributes of patriot heroism. Great he surely was, since that epithet can never be denied without paradox to so much comprehension of mind, such ardour and energy, such courage and eloquence, those commanding qualities of soul, which, impressed upon his dark and stern countenance, struck his contemporaries with mingled awe and hate…. But it may be reckoned a sufficient ground for distrusting any one's attachment to the English 'Constitution, that he reveres the name of Strafford," His measures for stifling liberty in England, which he and his contemporaries significantly called "Thorough," in the reign of Charles I., were not more atrocious, than the measures which Daniel Webster proposes himself, or proposes to support "to the fullest
