ment on so momentous a question as that which now agitates the United States.

Amid the noisy clamours of the press some calm voices may still be heard in England. The Daily News has steadily stood by the United States in their struggle for constitutional liberty, and its utterances have been uniformly characterised by candour, kind feeling, knowledge, and ability. The Star and Spectator have also spoken well and wisely; and there are speeches from public men, among which that of the Duke of Argyll may be mentioned, showing an understanding of the question at issue, and a generous feeling towards the people of the United States. But such journals as the Times, the Herald, and the Chronicle, are doing an incalculable injury, by arousing the bitterest feelings of animosity between two countries, which should be. united in bonds of amity. The articles in the Times are as bad in their spirit as they are incorrect in their statements of fact. They show not only ignorance, but wilful ignorance, and one can scarcely wonder at the feeling of England, if popular opinion is shaped by the writers of these articles. Believing, as I do, that the English only need to know the real facts of the case to give us their earnest co-operation of feeling, I shall proceed to state some of the causes of this war, the motives which animate the North and South, and to endeavour to correct some of the misapprehensions which so widely exist.

In a late speech made by Earl Russell at Newcastle, he says: "The two parties are contending together not upon the subject of slavery, but contending as so many States in the Old World have contended, on the one side for empire, on the other for power. Sir John Pakington, at Worcester, says, that he regrets that Earl Russell did not " express more firmly and decisively the views of England in regard to the iniquity and folly of continuing the war;" and in a recent article in the Edinburgh Review, on "Disunion in America," the writer says,

* One cannot help imagining that Earl Russell's after-dinner speech was a sort of dim reminiscence of the fact that New York being called the "Empire State" and Virginia the "Old Dominion," the contes between them was necessarily between empire and dominion.

"The North does not appear to us to have a better claim to enforce its policy and dominion over the South, than the South had to infect the North with the taint of slavery." He asserts that the contest on both sides is for "territorial dominion ;" and he explains territorial dominion to be the power to enforce the will of the North over the South by superior force-to compel the minority, which is a local minority, to submitin a word, to command the country, and to subdue the people. He then goes on to argue, that the Republican party now having obtained power, will proceed to assert "their dearly-bought ascendancy," and carry out their principles against free trade and slavery, and impose them on a minority, who regard his party with "terror and abhorrence." He also says, that this contest "has not elicited any positive expression (with one exception, in the case of Mr. Bright) of sympathy with either side." "The reason is simple—we regard it as an ill-advised, unnatural, and inhuman contest."

Now, if Earl Russell and the writer in the Edinburgh merely mean to say that it is the intention of the Republicans to carry out the principles of their party, after being constitutionally elected under all the forms of law, their opponents voting against them for their own Presidential candidate, these gentlemen are undoubtedly right. But if they mean to intimate that this is not a justifiable and most proper thing, then adieu to constitutional government. If the majority are to be disallowed from carrying out their principles-principles in their opinion vital to the present and future well-being of their country, because there is a minority opposed to them-then the whole theory of the English and American constitutions is nonsense. For as the minority could not, of course, impose their views on the majority, no principles could be carried out except those whereon existed a perfect unanimity of sentiment; and as two parties must always exist on every question of importance, they would always be at a dead-lock, and nothing could go on. When the Reform Bill passed in England, suppose the strong minority opposed to it had broken out into rebellion, refused assent to it, and taken up arms against the Government, would an attempt

to put down that minority have been considered as "ill-advised, unnatural, and inhuman?" I take it to be the fundamental principle of constitutional government that minorities must submit to majorities, and seek by constitutional and peaceable means solely the reversal of any decision by the people against them. But the principle that the minority would be justified in any outbreak of treason or rebellion, simply because they could not rule, would be accepted by no constitutional government on earth.

How stand the facts, then, between the Republicans and Democrats in America? Is there any peculiar reason why the minority should govern the action of the majority? Is that majority oppressive? Are the doctrines it professes unconstitutional? Has the minority failed in obtaining its fair share of the Government? Has it been long out of office? Has it been prevented from carrying out noble principles of government by a tyrannous majority? None of these objections can be made. Was, then, the election of Mr. Lincoln fair in every way, and carried on constitutionally and legally, and with due regard to the rights of all? There is no pretence that it was

not.

But to answer these questions fully demands a short review of the political history of the country. The subjects of difference, as stated by the English, are two-the Tariff and Slavery. There is no pretence that there are other questions of difference. We Americans on both sides say there is only one subject of contest-slavery.

Let us examine these questions. First, the Tariff. It is constantly assumed in England that the slave-holding States of the South, being agricultural, are opposed to the tariff, and in favour of free trade; that the tariff has been forced on them by the Northern manufacturing States, and is very injurious to their interests. A little examination will show this to be an illusion.

In the very first session of the House of Representatives, after the adoption of the constitution, the very first measure there proposed and debated was the laying of imposts; and in the very first committee of the whole House the duty of laying

B

imposts, so as to encourage and protect manufactures, was asserted by nearly every speaker, and doubted or denied by none. The three first speakers, proclaiming this as the duty of Congress, were Mr. Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania; Mr. White, of Virginia; and Mr. Tucker, of South Carolina; and Mr. Madison, the leader of the House, declared himself strongly in favour of protection. In the same debate, Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, supported a duty on hemp, for the express purpose of encouraging its growth in his State; and Mr. Smith, from the same State, declared "that the manufacturing States wished the encouragement of manufactures, the maritime States the encouragement of ship-building, and the agricultural States the encouragement of agriculture." Thus, then, the members from South Carolina declared themselves strongly in favour of protection, and proposed duties to protect their own products. That debate ended by the passing of a law-the second of the United States statutes—imposing duties "for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufac

tures."

This principle, then, was admitted and practised upon from the beginning of the American Government. In 1816, when it became necessary to readjust the revenue, it was again acted on, and the tariff of 1816 was introduced, defended, and established under the lead of South Carolina. Mr. Calhoun, afterwards the bitterest opponent of protection, proposed this measure, and gave all his strength to its support, and in so doing was ably seconded by his colleagues, Mr. Lowndes, Mr. Mayrant, and Mr. Woodward. Nor was this tariff merely one for revenueit laid duties for protection, and in the case of coarse cottons the duty was from 60 to 80 per cent. Mr. Jefferson, too, at this time was in favour of a protective tariff, as any one may see who will take the trouble to read his writings, and especially his famous letter to Benjamin Austin, of January 9,

1816.

But let us continue a little further the history of the tariff. In 1824 the question, as to a tariff on the basis of protection, was debated again with great vehemence in Congress. Up to

this time the principle had been conceded by almost every man of distinction; but now a strong party had grown up in opposition. Let us, then, see if it was the manufacturing, or even the Northern States which forced it on the South. The interests of New England were then purely commercial, their property being mainly invested in shipping. There were but two States devoted at all to manufacturing, and these were the small ones of Rhode Island and Connecticut, which sent only eight members to the House of Representatives. The interests and principles of New England were, therefore, for free trade. The father of the protective tariff of 1824 was Henry Clay, of Kentucky, a slave-holding State. It was introduced by him, and supported by all the force of his great powers; while Mr. Webster, of Massachusetts, the leader of the New England States in the House of Representatives, opposed it with equal vigour and ability. The great leaders, then, of the debate were Mr. Clay, representing a slave state, and advocating a tariff; and Mr. Webster, from a free state, contending against it. In the final vote, by which this measure was carried, and a protective tariff adopted as the policy of the country, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire cast 23 votes against it, and only 3 for it, thus throwing the weight of its influence into the scale with Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas; while the whole delegation from Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri voted entirely in its favour. New York threw 26 votes for it to 8 against it; Tennessee, 2 to 7 against; and Maryland, 3 to 6 against. These figures clearly show that it was no contest between the North and South, or the slave-holding and free States, or the manufacturing and agricultural States. The fact is, that it was carried mainly by the grain - growing States against the cotton and tobacco - planting States, the latter making common cause with the States devoted to fishing and navigation. The last - mentioned States opposed the bill through apprehension that it would ruin their commerce, then just reviving after its prostration by the embargo and non intercourse system of Mr. Jefferson and the Virginia. School.

The grain growing States advocated it on the