risen with patriotism to make this effort, and it was now warned
that in doing so it was simply doing its national duty. And then
came the subject of slavery. I had been told that Mr. Emerson was
an abolitionist, and knew that I must disagree with him on that
head, if on no other. To me it has always seemed that to mix up
the question of general abolition with this war must be the work of
a man too ignorant to understand the real subject of the war, or
too false to his country to regard it. Throughout the whole
lecture I was waiting for Mr. Emerson's abolition doctrine, but no
abolition doctrine came. The words abolition and compensation were
mentioned, and then there was an end of the subject. If Mr.
Emerson be an abolitionist, he expressed his views very mildly on
that occasion. On the whole, the lecture was excellent, and that
little advice about the peacock was in itself worth an hour's
attention.

That practice of lecturing is "quite an institution" in the States.
So it is in England, my readers will say. But in England it is
done in a different way, with a different object, and with much
less of result. With us, if I am not mistaken, lectures are mostly
given gratuitously by the lecturer. They are got up here and there
with some philanthropical object, and in the hope that an hour at
the disposal of young men and women may be rescued from idleness.
The subjects chosen are social, literary, philanthropic, romantic,
geographical, scientific, religious--anything rather than
political. The lecture-rooms are not usually filled to
overflowing, and there is often a question whether the real good
achieved is worth the trouble taken. The most popular lectures are
given by big people, whose presence is likely to be attractive; and
the whole thing, I fear we must confess, is not pre-eminently