bottom nothing but a Machiavellian combination of interests? Doubtless,
those who have taken the trouble to look over the debates of the times
know what we are to think of this fine explanation; they know what
resistance was opposed by _interests_ to the emancipation, both in the
colonies and in the heart of the metropolis; they know with how much
obstinacy the Tories, representing the traditions of English politics,
combated the proposed plans; they know in what terms the certain ruin of
the planters, the manufactures, and the seaports, was described; they
know by how many petitions the churches, the religious societies, the
women, and even the children, succeeded in wresting from Parliament a
measure refused by so many statesmen. But the mass of the people do not
go back to the beginning; they take for granted the summary judgment
that English emancipation was a master-piece of perfidy.

We hear very nearly the same thing said of that glorious movement which
has just taken place in America. We would gladly detect all motives in
it except one that is generous and Christian. As if a vulgar calculation
of interest would not have dictated a contrary course! And it is
precisely this that makes the greatness of the resolution adopted by the
North. It knew all the consequences; they had been announced by the
South, recapitulated by prudent men, stated in detail by the newspapers
of great commercial cities; it chose to be just. Despite the inevitable
mingling of base and selfish impulses, which always become complicated
in such manifestations, the ruling motive in this was a protest of
conscience, and of the spirit of liberty.

The accounts that have come to us from America demonstrate the lofty
character of the joy which was manifested after the election. Men shook
hands with each other in the streets; they congratulated each other on
having at last escaped from the yoke of an ignoble policy; they felt as