solation. The continuance of this
condition of affairs had no small influence on the subsequent
division of parties. It naturally led to a change in the financial
system, and in 1824 a tariff Act was passed, materially enlarging
the scope of the Act of 1816.

THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF OF 1824.

The Act of 1824 was avowedly protective in its character and was
adopted through the influence of Mr. Clay, then Speaker of the
House of Representatives. His most efficient ally on the floor
was Mr. Buchanan of Pennsylvania who exerted himself vigorously in
aid of the measure. Mr. Webster again appeared in the debate,
arguing against the "obsolete and exploded notion of protection,"
and carrying with him nearly the whole vote of Massachusetts in
opposition. Mr. Clay was enabled to carry the entire Kentucky
delegation for the high protective tariff, and Mr. Calhoun's views
having meanwhile undergone a radical change, South Carolina was
found to be unanimous in opposition, and cordially co-operating
with Massachusetts in support of free-trade. The effect of that
tariff was undoubtedly favorable to the general prosperity, and
during the administration of John Quincy Adams every material
interest of the country improved. The result was that the supporters
of the protective system, congratulating themselves upon the effect
of the work of 1824, proceeded in 1828 to levy still higher duties.
They applied the doctrine of protection to the raw materials of
the country, the wool, the hemp, and all unmanufactured articles
which by any possibility could meet with damaging competition from
abroad.

It was indeed an era of high duties, of which, strange as it may
seem to the modern reader, Silas Wright of New York and James
Buchanan of Pennsylvania appeared as the most strenuous defenders,
and were personally opposed in debate by John Davis of Massachusetts
and Peleg Sprague of Maine. To add to the entanglement of public
opinion, Mr. Webster passed over to the side of ultra-protection
and voted for the bill, finding himself in company with Martin Van
Buren of New York, and Thomas H. Benton of Missouri. It was an
extraordinary commingling of political elements, in which it is
difficult to find a line of partition logically consistent either
with geographical or political divisions. Mr. Webster carried with
him not more than two or three votes of the Massachusetts delegation.
His colleague