There is no need to suppose from this that Mr. Webster had lost in the least the liberality or breadth of view which always characterized him.  He was no narrower then than when he entered Congress, or than when he left it.  He went with his party because he believed it to be right,—­as at that moment it undoubtedly was.  The party, however, was still extreme and bitter, as it had been for ten years, but Mr. Webster was neither.  He went all lengths with his friends in Congress, but he did not share their intensity of feeling or their fierce hostility to individuals.  The Federalists, for instance, as a rule had ceased to call upon Mr. Madison, but in such intolerance Mr. Webster declined to indulge.  He was always on good terms with the President and with all the hostile leaders.  His opposition was extreme in principle, but not in manner; it was vigorous and uncompromising, but also stately and dignified.  It was part of his large and indolent nature to accept much and question little; to take the ideas most easy and natural to him, those of his friends and associates, and of his native New England, without needless inquiry and investigation.  It was part of the same nature, also, to hold liberal views after he had fairly taken sides, and never, by confounding individuals with principles and purposes, to import into politics the fiery, biting element of personal hatred and malice.

His position in the House once assured, we find Mr. Webster taking a much more active part in the daily debates than before.  On these occasions we hear of his “deliberate, conversational” manner, another of the lessons learned from Mr. Mason when that gentleman, standing so close to the jury-box that he could have “laid his finger on the foreman’s nose,” as Mr. Webster said, chatted easily with each juryman, and won a succession of verdicts.  But besides the daily debate, Mr. Webster spoke at length on several important occasions.  This was the case with the Enlistment Bill, which involved a forced draft, including minors, and was deemed unconstitutional by the Federalists.  Mr. Webster had “a hand,” as he puts it,—­a strong one, we may be sure,—­in killing “Mr. Monroe’s conscription.”

The most important measure, however, with which Mr. Webster was called to deal, and to which he gave his best efforts, was the attempt to establish a national bank.  There were three parties in the House on this question.  The first represented the “old Republican” doctrines, and was opposed to any bank.  The second represented the theories of Hamilton and the Federalists, and favored a bank with a reasonable capital, specie-paying, and free to decide about making loans to the government.  The third body was composed of members of the national war-party, who were eager for a bank merely to help the government out of its appalling difficulties.  They, therefore, favored an institution of large capital, non-specie-paying, and obliged to make heavy loans to the government,