In the Senate, he opposed the annexation of Texas, a revenue tariff, and a war with England on the question of the Oregon boundary line, saying in regard to Oregon, "while our title to the whole of that vast region extending westward from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, and the 42nd degree of north latitude to 54° 40' was certainly as good as that of any other nation, and probably better, we had ourselves, on repeated occasions virtually admitted that it was not so complete and unqualified as to preclude all other claims to any portion of it; and therefore a war for Oregon, unless an attempt was made to wrest it forcibly from our possessions would be not only a blunder but a crime." The annexation of Texas he opposed on many grounds. He declared first that America was already too vast to be national, and too rich to be democratic, and any extension of her borders would increase the evils. Secondly, he objected to a clause in the constitution of Texas which refused to the legislature power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves. Thirdly, he was opposed to the United States Government assuming the debt of Texas and he thought annexation might lead to useless wars about boundary, etc. On the question of the tariff, he held that direct protection was a legitimate object of legislation and he opposed any tariff which gave merely incidental protection. He derived his doctrine on the question both from the necessity and justice of the case, and the explicit avowal of those who framed the constitution and of those who sat in the first Congress under it, that it was designed and desired to lay duties for the encouragement and protection of domestic manufactures and he would allow no arguments of expediency to induce him to abandon his ground and to fall in with the friends of a revenue tariff giving incidental protection. This phraseology he denounced as a device of demagogues who were willing to conceal or abandon their principles in order to secure success. He also supported the "Monroe Doctrine," opposed nullification and secession, and favored a United States bank and popular education by means of State aid. He also spoke on behalf of a generous system of internal improvement and against the great liberty of divorce. In a word, he gave a general support to the principles of the old Whig party and occupied a position of commanding influence. His speeches in the Senate, like those at the bar, were distinguished for their clear, nervous brevity. And the great men of the day, B. W. Leigh, John J. Allen, R. E. Scott, William C. Rives, Vincent Witcher, Wm. Daniel, R. C. Conrad, and others, declared were equal to anything ever heard in a deliberative assembly. He was consulted and deferred to for the wisdom, sagacity and moderation of his counsels and was usually styled the "Nestor of the Senate." His influence was paramount and always exerted for the public good, and the prosperity of Virginia, for